Iris recognition by fusing different representations of multi-scale Taylor expansion

A. Bastys,J. Kranauskas,V. Krüger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cviu.2011.02.004

IF: 4.886

2011-06-01

Computer Vision and Image Understanding

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Risk of Breast Cancer among Carriers of Pathogenic Variants in Breast Cancer Predisposition Genes Varies by Polygenic Risk Score.

Chi Gao,Eric C. Polley,Steven N. Hart,Hongyan Huang,Chunling Hu,Rohan Gnanaolivu,Jenna Lilyquist,Nicholas J. Boddicker,Jie Na,Christine B. Ambrosone,Paul L. Auer,Leslie Bernstein,Elizabeth S. Burnside,A. Heather Eliassen,Mia M. Gaudet,Christopher Haiman,David J. Hunter,Eric J. Jacobs,Esther M. John,Sara Lindstrom,Huiyan Ma,Susan L. Neuhausen,Polly A. Newcomb,Katie M. O'Brien,Janet E. Olson,Irene M. Ong,Alpa Patel,Julie R. Palmer,Dale P. Sandler,Rulla Tamimi,Jack A. Taylor,Lauren R. Teras,Amy Trentham-Dietz,Celine M. Vachon,Clarice R. Weinberg,Song Yao,Jeffrey N. Weitzel,David E. Goldgar,Susan M. Domchek,Katherine L. Nathanson,Fergus J. Couch,Peter Kraft

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.20.01992

IF: 45.3

2021-01-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:PURPOSE:This study assessed the joint association of pathogenic variants (PVs) in breast cancer (BC) predisposition genes and polygenic risk scores (PRS) with BC in the general population.METHODS:A total of 26,798 non-Hispanic white BC cases and 26,127 controls from predominately population-based studies in the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility consortium were evaluated for PVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, BARD1, BRIP1, CDH1, and NF1. PRS based on 105 common variants were created using effect estimates from BC genome-wide association studies; the performance of an overall BC PRS and estrogen receptor-specific PRS were evaluated. The odds of BC based on the PVs and PRS were estimated using penalized logistic regression. The results were combined with age-specific incidence rates to estimate 5-year and lifetime absolute risks of BC across percentiles of PRS by PV status and first-degree family history of BC.RESULTS:The estimated lifetime risks of BC among general-population noncarriers, based on 10th and 90th percentiles of PRS, were 9.1%-23.9% and 6.7%-18.2% for women with or without first-degree relatives with BC, respectively. Taking PRS into account, more than 95% of BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 carriers had > 20% lifetime risks of BC, whereas, respectively, 52.5% and 69.7% of ATM and CHEK2 carriers without first-degree relatives with BC, and 78.8% and 89.9% of those with a first-degree relative with BC had > 20% risk.CONCLUSION:PRS facilitates personalization of BC risk among carriers of PVs in predisposition genes. Incorporating PRS into BC risk estimation may help identify > 30% of CHEK2 and nearly half of ATM carriers below the 20% lifetime risk threshold, suggesting the addition of PRS may prevent overscreening and enable more personalized risk management approaches.
Abstract P5-09-02: Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Using a Polygenic Risk Score in Women of African Ancestry: Findings from GWAS in Breast Cancer in the African Diaspora

S. Wang,F. Qian,Y. Zheng,T. Ogundiran,O. Ojengbede,W. Zheng,W. Blot,K. L. Nathanson,A. Hennis,B. Nemesure,S. Ambs,O. I. Olopade,D. Huo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs16-p5-09-02

IF: 11.2

2017-01-01

Cancer Research

Abstract:Abstract Background: Multiple common susceptibility loci for breast cancer (BC) have been identified/confirmed in Caucasian women. Combination of these SNPs into a polygenic risk score (PRS) could improve risk stratification and provide guidance for preventive and screening strategies. However, due to differences in allele frequencies of genetic variants, tumor characteristics between women of African and European ancestries, we sought to evaluate the association of PRS with BC in a large consortium of African women. Methods: The GWAS in BC in the African Diaspora (ROOT consortium) included 3686 participants of African ancestry from Nigeria, USA, and Barbados (1657 cases, 2029 controls). PRS was constructed from the published odds ratios (ORs) from 90 susceptibility loci for BC. Logistic regression was used to examine its association with overall BC risk as well as associations by hormone receptor status, family history and other clinical features. Results: One unit change in the PRS was associated with an OR of 1.13 (95% CI: 1.01-1.28, P=0.042) for overall BC risk, 1.15 (95%CI: 0.95-1.41, P=0.160) for ER+ BC risk, and 1.17 (95%CI: 0.95-1.44, P=0.133) for ER- BC risk. The ORs for developing BC by percentiles of the PRS, relative to women in the middle quintile, showed weak linear trend. The discriminative accuracy of the PRS, as measured by the C-statistic, was 0.524 (95% CI: 0.505-0.542) for overall BC, 0.511(95% CI: 0.479-0.543) for ER+ BC, and 0.513 (95% CI: 0.481-0.545) for ER- BC. There was a statistically significant interaction between PRS and age, the association between PRS and overall BC risk were stronger in two age groups (aged <40 years and ≥60 years). The PRS was also more strongly associated with PR+ (OR=1.26, 95%CI: 1.01-1.58) compared to PR- (OR=1.08, 95%CI: 0.95-1.44) BC. Association between PRS and BC were similarly non-significant across different strata of family history of BC, BMI, alcohol consumption, oral contraceptive use, menopausal, ER and HER2 status. Table 1. Performance of the 90-SNP polygenic risk score (PRS) in the GWAS in Breast Cancer in the African DiasporaPercentile of PRS (%) OR (95%CI) Overall BC (n=1657) vs Ctrl (n=2029)ER+ BC (n=403) vs Ctrl (n=2029)ER- BC (n=374) vs Ctrl (n=2029)<51.01 (0.73-1.41)1.32 (0.28-2.13)0.89 (0.51-1.55)5-100.83 (0.59-1.15)0.71 (0.40-1.26)0.63 (0.34-1.17)10-200.74 (0.57-0.95)0.69 (0.44-1.07)0.72 (0.46-1.12)20-400.97 (0.79-1.19)0.80 (0.56-1.14)0.98 (0.69-1.39)40-601.00 (ref)1.00(ref)1.00(ref)60-800.89 (0.73-1.10)0.94 (0.66-1.33)0.90 (0.63-1.28)80-901.14 (0.89-1.47)0.87 (0.56-1.34)0.90 (0.63-1.28)90-951.14 (0.82-1.58)1.54 (0.92-2.58)0.88 (0.48-1.61)>951.10 (0.79-1.52)1.15 (0.67-1.99)1.34 (0.79-2.25)Note: Odds ratios are for different percentiles of the PRS relative to the middle quintile (40% to 60%). Odds ratios were adjusted for study site and the first ten eigenvectors from principal components analysis. Conclusion: BC PRS obtained from prior GWASs conducted in Caucasian women didn't provide a comparable degree of risk stratification for African Americans. Additional studies are needed to identify SNPs specific to women of African ancestry that could provide improved risk prediction. Further studies can also combine the PRS with lifestyle/environmental factors. Citation Format: Wang S, Qian F, Zheng Y, Ogundiran T, Ojengbede O, Zheng W, Blot W, Nathanson KL, Hennis A, Nemesure B, Ambs S, Olopade OI, Huo D. Breast cancer risk prediction using a polygenic risk score in women of African ancestry: Findings from GWAS in breast cancer in the African diaspora [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-09-02.
Association of a Polygenic Risk Score With Breast Cancer Among Women Carriers of High- and Moderate-Risk Breast Cancer Genes

Shannon Gallagher,Elisha Hughes,Susanne Wagner,Placede Tshiaba,Eric Rosenthal,Benjamin B. Roa,Allison W. Kurian,Susan M. Domchek,Judy Garber,Johnathan Lancaster,Jeffrey N. Weitzel,Alexander Gutin,Jerry S. Lanchbury,Mark Robson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8501

2020-07-01

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Importance: To date, few studies have examined the extent to which polygenic single-nucleotide variation (SNV) (formerly single-nucleotide polymorphism) scores modify risk for carriers of pathogenic variants (PVs) in breast cancer susceptibility genes. In previous reports, polygenic risk modification was reduced for BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV carriers compared with noncarriers, but limited information is available for carriers of CHEK2, ATM, or PALB2 PVs.Objective: To examine an 86-SNV polygenic risk score (PRS) for BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2 PV carriers.Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective case-control study using data on 150 962 women tested with a multigene hereditary cancer panel between July 19, 2016, and January 11, 2019, was conducted in a commercial testing laboratory. Participants included women of European ancestry between the ages of 18 and 84 years.Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association of the 86-SNV score with invasive breast cancer after adjusting for age, ancestry, and personal and/or family cancer history. Effect sizes, expressed as standardized odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs, were assessed for carriers of PVs in each gene as well as for noncarriers.Results: The median age at hereditary cancer testing of the population was 48 years (range, 18-84 years); there were 141 160 noncarriers in addition to carriers of BRCA1 (n = 2249), BRCA2 (n = 2638), CHEK2 (n = 2564), ATM (n = 1445), and PALB2 (n = 906) PVs included in the analysis. The 86-SNV score was associated with breast cancer risk in each of the carrier populations (P < 1 × 10-4). Stratification was more pronounced for noncarriers (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.45-1.49) and CHEK2 PV carriers (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.36-1.64) than for carriers of BRCA1 (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.32) or BRCA2 (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34) PVs. Odds ratios for ATM (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.21-1.55) and PALB2 (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.16-1.55) PV carrier populations were intermediate between those for BRCA1/2 and CHEK2 noncarriers.Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the 86-SNV score was associated with modified risk for carriers of BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2 PVs. This finding supports previous reports of reduced PRS stratification for BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV carriers compared with noncarriers. Modification of risk in CHEK2 carriers associated with the 86-SNV score appeared to be similar to that observed in women without a PV. Larger studies are needed to provide more refined estimates of polygenic modification of risk for women with PVs in other moderate-penetrance genes.

medicine, general & internal
Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) Combined with NGS Panel Testing Increases Accuracy in Hereditary Breast Cancer Risk Estimation

Nikolaos Tsoulos,Eirini Papadopoulou,Konstantinos Agiannitopoulos,Dimitrios Grigoriadis,Georgios N. Tsaousis,Dimitra Bouzarelou,Helen Gogas,Theodore Troupis,Vassileios Venizelos,Elena Fountzilas,Maria Theochari,Dimitrios C. Ziogas,Stylianos Giassas,Anna Koumarianou,Athina Christopoulou,George Busby,George Nasioulas,Christos Markopoulos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14161826

IF: 3.6

2024-08-22

Diagnostics

Abstract:Breast cancer (BC) is the most prominent tumor type among women, accounting for 32% of newly diagnosed cancer cases. BC risk factors include inherited germline pathogenic gene variants and family history of disease. However, the etiology of the disease remains occult in most cases. Therefore, in the absence of high-risk factors, a polygenic basis has been suggested to contribute to susceptibility. This information is utilized to calculate the Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) which is indicative of BC risk. This study aimed to evaluate retrospectively the clinical usefulness of PRS integration in BC risk calculation, utilizing a group of patients who have already been diagnosed with BC. The study comprised 105 breast cancer patients with hereditary genetic analysis results obtained by NGS. The selection included all testing results: high-risk gene-positive, intermediate/low-risk gene-positive, and negative. PRS results were obtained from an external laboratory (Allelica). PRS-based BC risk was computed both with and without considering additional risk factors, including gene status and family history. A significantly different PRS percentile distribution consistent with higher BC risk was observed in our cohort compared to the general population. Higher PRS-based BC risks were detected in younger patients and in those with FH of cancers. Among patients with a pathogenic germline variant detected, reduced PRS values were observed, while the BC risk was mainly determined by a monogenic etiology. Upon comprehensive analysis encompassing FH, gene status, and PRS, it was determined that 41.90% (44/105) of the patients demonstrated an elevated susceptibility for BC. Moreover, 63.63% of the patients with FH of BC and without an inherited pathogenic genetic variant detected showed increased BC risk by incorporating the PRS result. Our results indicate a major utility of PRS calculation in women with FH in the absence of a monogenic etiology detected by NGS. By combining high-risk strategies, such as inherited disease analysis, with low-risk screening strategies, such as FH and PRS, breast cancer risk stratification can be improved. This would facilitate the development of more effective preventive measures and optimize the allocation of healthcare resources.

medicine, general & internal
Breast Cancer Polygenic Risk Score Validation and Effects of Variable Imputation

Jeffrey J. Beck,John L. Slunecka,Brandon N. Johnson,Austin J. Van Asselt,Casey T. Finnicum,Cheryl Ageton,Amy Krie,Heidi Nickles,Kenneth Cowan,Jessica Maxwell,Dorret I. Boomsma,Eco de Geus,Erik A. Ehli,Jouke-Jan Hottenga

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16081578

2024-04-21

Cancers

Abstract:Breast cancer (BC) is a complex disease affecting one in eight women in the USA. Advances in population genomics have led to the development of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) with the potential to augment current risk models, but replication is often limited. We evaluated 2 robust PRSs with 313 and 3820 SNPs and the effects of multiple genotype imputation replications in BC cases and control populations. Biological samples from BC cases and cancer-free controls were drawn from three European ancestry cohorts. Genotyping on the Illumina Global Screening Array was followed by stringent quality control measures and 20 genotype imputation replications. A total of 468 unrelated cases and 4337 controls were scored, revealing significant differences in mean PRS percentiles between cases and controls (p < 0.001) for both SNP sets (313-SNP PRS: 52.81 and 48.07; 3820-SNP PRS: 55.45 and 49.81), with receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showing area under the curve values of 0.596 and 0.603 for the 313-SNP and 3820-SNP PRS, respectively. PRS fluctuations (from ~2–3% up to 9%) emerged across imputation iterations. Our study robustly reaffirms the predictive capacity of PRSs for BC by replicating their performance in an independent BC population and showcases the need to average imputed scores for reliable outcomes.

oncology
Abstract PD3-02: Polygenic Risk Scores Provide Clinically Meaningful Risk Stratification among Women Carrying Moderate Penetrance Pathogenic Variants in Breast Cancer Predisposition Genes: Results from the CARRIERS Study

Chi Gao,Eric C. Polley,Chunling Hu,Steven N. Hart,Rohan Gnanaolivu,Kun Y. Lee,Jie Na,Nicholas J. Boddicker,Raed Samara,Paul Auer,Leslie Bernstein,Mia Gaudet,Amy Trentham-Dietz,Song Yao,Christopher Haiman,Janet E. Olson,Susan Neuhausen,Jeffrey N. Weitzel,David E. Goldgar,Susan Domchek,Katherine L. Nathanson,Fergus J. Couch,Peter Kraft

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs19-pd3-02

IF: 11.2

2020-01-01

Cancer Research

Abstract:Background: Pathogenic variants detected in multi-gene cancer predisposition panels are increasingly used to counsel women regarding their risk for breast cancer. However, the clinical implications of moderate penetrance genes (e.g. CHEK2, ATM) remain unclear. Breast MRI is indicated for women with a lifetime risk of breast cancer of >20%, and polygenic risk scores (PRS) based on common variants discovered in recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) may identify women with pathogenic variants in CHEK2 and ATM who are above or below this level of risk. PRS may also stratify carriers with substantially elevated lifetime risks of breast cancer. Previous work found that PRS modified breast cancer risk in carriers of pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, but the joint effects of pathogenic variants and PRS have not been studied in samples drawn from the general population. There is also no published study evaluating the effect of PRS among women with pathogenic variants in genes other than BRCA1/2 and CHEK2. Here, we evaluated the joint effects of PRS and pathogenic variants in ten established breast cancer predisposition genes in a population-based case-control sample. Method: We analyzed 43,144 non-Hispanic European-ancestry individuals (20,988 controls and 22,120 cases) drawn from 7 cohorts and 2 population-based case-control studies in the CAnceR RIsk Estimates Related to Susceptibility” (CARRIERS) consortium. Targeted sequencing was performed using a dual bar-coded QIAseq panel of breast cancer predisposition genes. Variant calling was conducted with Haplotype Caller and Vardict. The PRS was calculated based on 106 common variants using effect estimates from the largest published breast cancer GWAS. Genetic status was evaluated for 10 breast cancer predisposition genes: ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, NF1, PALB2 and TP53. Lasso Penalized regression was performed to assess the combined effect on overall breast cancer of pathogenic variants and common variants (including main and interaction effects between age, family history, carrier status and PRS). The fraction of women at >2-fold increased risk (which is associated with approximately 20% lifetime risk of breast cancer) was calculated for pathogenic variant carriers and non-carriers of different family history and age groups ( 70yrs old). Results: Among non-carriers, one standard deviation change in the PRS was associated with a 1.63x change in odds of breast cancer. The best-fitting risk model did not include any PRS-by-carrier interaction terms, implying the relative risk gradient associated with PRS among women with pathogenic variants is similar to that among non-carriers. For carriers of pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance genes with no family history of breast cancer, the PRS can identify 60.6% of ATM pathogenic variant carriers and 30% of CHEK2 pathogenic variant carriers that have less than 2-fold risk of breast cancer; when carriers have a family history of breast cancer, the PRS can identify 30% of ATM pathogenic variant carriers and 11.8% of CHEK2 pathogenic variant carriers with less than 2-fold risk of breast cancer. Conclusion: In our large, population-based case-control study, the effect of the PRS among pathogenic variant carriers was not significantly different than among non-carriers. However, the PRS may be particularly important for estimating breast cancer risk among carriers of pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance genes such as CHEK2 and ATM, enabling a more precise approach for MRI screening strategy and breast cancer risk management. Citation Format: Chi Gao, Eric C. Polley, Chunling Hu, Steven N. Hart, Rohan Gnanaolivu, Kun Y. Lee, Jie Na, Nicholas J. Boddicker, Raed Samara, Paul Auer, Leslie Bernstein, Mia Gaudet, Amy Trentham-Dietz, Song Yao, Christopher Haiman, Janet E. Olson, Susan Neuhausen, Jeffrey N. Weitzel, David E. Goldgar, Susan Domchek, Katherine L. Nathanson, Fergus J. Couch, Peter Kraft, on behalf of the CARRIERS consortium. Polygenic risk scores provide clinically meaningful risk stratification among women carrying moderate penetrance pathogenic variants in breast cancer predisposition genes: Results from the CARRIERS study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD3-02.
Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer risk in Asian populations

Weang-Kee Ho,Mei-Chee Tai,Joe Dennis,Xiang Shu,Jingmei Li,Peh Joo Ho,Iona Y. Millwood,Kuang Lin,Yon-Ho Jee,Su-Hyun Lee,Nasim Mavaddat,Manjeet K. Bolla,Qin Wang,Kyriaki Michailidou,Jirong Long,Eldarina Azfar Wijaya,Tiara Hassan,Kartini Rahmat,Veronique Kiak Mien Tan,Benita Kiat Tee Tan,Su Ming Tan,Ern Yu Tan,Swee Ho Lim,Yu-Tang Gao,Ying Zheng,Daehee Kang,Ji-Yeob Choi,Wonshik Han,Han-Byoel Lee,Michiki Kubo,Yukinori Okada,Shinichi Namba,The BioBank Japan Project,Sue K. Park,Sung-Won Kim,Chen-Yang Shen,Pei-Ei Wu,Boyoung Park,Kenneth R. Muir,Artitaya Lophatananon,Anna H. Wu,Chiu-Chen Tseng,Keitaro Matsuo,Hidemi Ito,Ava Kwong,Tsun L. Chan,Esther M. John,Allison W. Kurian,Motoki Iwasaki,Taiki Yamaji,Sun-Seog Kweon,Kristan J. Aronson,Rachel A. Murphy,Woon-Puay Koh,Chiea-Chuen Khor,Jian-Min Yuan,Rajkumar Dorajoo,Robin G. Walters,Zhengming Chen,Liming Li,Jun Lv,Keum-Ji Jung,Peter Kraft,Paul D.B. Pharoah,Alison M. Dunning,Jacques Simard,Xiao-Ou Shu,Cheng-Har Yip,Nur Aishah Mohd Taib,Antonis C. Antoniou,Wei Zheng,Mikael Hartman,Douglas F. Easton,Soo-Hwang Teo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2021.11.008

IF: 8.864

2022-03-01

Genetics in Medicine

Abstract:PURPOSE: Non-European populations are under-represented in genetics studies, hindering clinical implementation of breast cancer polygenic risk scores (PRSs). We aimed to develop PRSs using the largest available studies of Asian ancestry and to assess the transferability of PRS across ethnic subgroups.METHODS: The development data set comprised 138,309 women from 17 case-control studies. PRSs were generated using a clumping and thresholding method, lasso penalized regression, an Empirical Bayes approach, a Bayesian polygenic prediction approach, or linear combinations of multiple PRSs. These PRSs were evaluated in 89,898 women from 3 prospective studies (1592 incident cases).RESULTS: The best performing PRS (genome-wide set of single-nucleotide variations [formerly single-nucleotide polymorphism]) had a hazard ratio per unit SD of 1.62 (95% CI = 1.46-1.80) and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.635 (95% CI = 0.622-0.649). Combined Asian and European PRSs (333 single-nucleotide variations) had a hazard ratio per SD of 1.53 (95% CI = 1.37-1.71) and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.621 (95% CI = 0.608-0.635). The distribution of the latter PRS was different across ethnic subgroups, confirming the importance of population-specific calibration for valid estimation of breast cancer risk.CONCLUSION: PRSs developed in this study, from association data from multiple ancestries, can enhance risk stratification for women of Asian ancestry.

genetics & heredity
Differences in polygenic score distributions in European ancestry populations: implications for breast cancer risk prediction

Kristia Yiangou,Nasim Mavaddat,Joe Dennis,Maria Zanti,Qin Wang,Manjeet K. Bolla,Mustapha Abubakar,Thomas U. Ahearn,Irene L. Andrulis,Hoda Anton-Culver,Natalia N. Antonenkova,Volker Arndt,Kristan J. Aronson,Annelie Augustinsson,Adinda Baten,Sabine Behrens,Marina Bermisheva,Amy Berrington de Gonzalez,Katarzyna Białkowska,Nicholas Boddicker,Clara Bodelon,Natalia V. Bogdanova,Stig E. Bojesen,Kristen D. Brantley,Hiltrud Brauch,Hermann Brenner,Nicola J. Camp,Federico Canzian,Jose E. Castelao,Melissa H. Cessna,Jenny Chang-Claude,Georgia Chenevix-Trench,Wendy K. Chung,NBCS Collaborators,Sarah V. Colonna,Fergus J. Couch,Angela Cox,Simon S. Cross,Kamila Czene,Mary B. Daly,Peter Devilee,Thilo Dörk,Alison M. Dunning,Diana M. Eccles,A. Heather Eliassen,Christoph Engel,Mikael Eriksson,D. Gareth Evans,Peter A. Fasching,Olivia Fletcher,Henrik Flyger,Lin Fritschi,Manuela Gago-Dominguez,Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj,Anna González-Neira,Pascal Guénel,Eric Hahnen,Christopher A. Haiman,Ute Hamann,Jaana M. Hartikainen,Vikki Ho,James Hodge,Antoinette Hollestelle,Ellen Honisch,Maartje J. Hooning,Reiner Hoppe,John L. Hopper,Sacha Howell,Anthony Howell,ABCTB Investigators,kConFab Investigators,Simona Jakovchevska,Anna Jakubowska,Helena Jernström,Nichola Johnson,Rudolf Kaaks,Elza K. Khusnutdinova,Cari M. Kitahara,Stella Koutros,Vessela N. Kristensen,James V. Lacey,Diether Lambrechts,Flavio Lejbkowicz,Annika Lindblom,Michael Lush,Arto Mannermaa,Dimitrios Mavroudis,Usha Menon,Rachel A. Murphy,Heli Nevanlinna,Nadia Obi,Kenneth Offit,Tjoung-Won Park-Simon,Alpa V. Patel,Cheng Peng,Paolo Peterlongo,Guillermo Pita,Dijana Plaseska-Karanfilska,Katri Pylkäs,Paolo Radice,Muhammad U. Rashid,Gad Rennert,Eleanor Roberts,Juan Rodriguez,Atocha Romero,Efraim H. Rosenberg,Emmanouil Saloustros,Dale P. Sandler,Elinor J. Sawyer,Rita K. Schmutzler,Christopher G. Scott,Xiao-Ou Shu,Melissa C. Southey,Jennifer Stone,Jack A. Taylor,Lauren R. Teras,Irma van de Beek,Walter Willett,Robert Winqvist,Wei Zheng,Celine M. Vachon,Marjanka K. Schmidt,Per Hall,Robert J. MacInnis,Roger L. Milne,Paul D.P. Pharoah,Jacques Simard,Antonis C. Antoniou,Douglas F. Easton,Kyriaki Michailidou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.12.24302043

2024-02-13

Abstract:The 313-variant polygenic risk score (PRS ) provides a promising tool for breast cancer risk prediction. However, evaluation of the PRS across different European populations which could influence risk estimation has not been performed. Here, we explored the distribution of PRS across European populations using genotype data from 94,072 females without breast cancer, of European-ancestry from 21 countries participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) and 225,105 female participants from the UK Biobank. The mean PRS differed markedly across European countries, being highest in south-eastern Europe and lowest in north-western Europe. Using the overall European PRS distribution to categorise individuals leads to overestimation and underestimation of risk in some individuals from south-eastern and north-western countries, respectively. Adjustment for principal components explained most of the observed heterogeneity in mean PRS. Country-specific PRS distributions may be used to calibrate risk categories in individuals from different countries.

Genetic and Genomic Medicine
Abstract PS10-07: A second-generation polygenic risk score (PRS) based on genetic ancestry improves breast cancer (BC) risk prediction for all ancestries

Timothy Simmons,Elisha Hughes,Dmitry Pruss,Matthew Kucera,Benjamin Roa,Thaddeus Judkins,Thomas Slavin,Victor Abkevich,Ryan Hoff,Srikanth Jammulapati,Susanne Wagner,Dale Muzzey,Jerry Lanchbury,Alexander Gutin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs23-ps10-07

IF: 11.2

2024-05-03

Cancer Research

Abstract:Background: Common genetic variants, mainly single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) explain substantial genetic susceptibility to BC. PRS have been developed to quantify the combined effects of BC-associated SNPs, providing important information about BC risk. Historically, genome-wide association studies have been conducted in predominantly European populations, resulting in miscalibrated and inaccurate PRS for non-Europeans. We previously described a multiple-ancestry PRS (MA-PRS-149) based on 56 ancestry-informative and 93 BC-associated SNPs. The MA-PRS-149 achieved accuracy for all women by characterizing the genetic ancestry of each BC-associated SNP in terms of three reference ancestries (African, East Asian, and European), applying ancestry-specific SNP risks and frequencies, and combining the results as a weighted sum of three ancestry-specific PRS. Here, we aimed to improve the predictive accuracy of MA-PRS-149, particularly for non-Europeans, through the inclusion of additional BC-associated SNPs. Methods: Women referred for hereditary cancer testing and negative for pathogenic variants in BC-associated genes were divided into consecutive study cohorts to (1) quantify ancestry-specific SNP risks, (2) combine the three ancestry-specific PRS, and (3) pre-specified clinical validation. To select an optimal set of BC-associated SNPs, we developed a novel synthetic stepwise regression methodology that accounts for linkage disequilibrium. Ancestry-specific SNP risks were determined from meta-analyses of literature with clinical cohorts of 57,827 Black/African and 26,992 East Asian women. Ancestry-specific PRS were combined based on a diverse cohort of 157,740 women. Clinical validation was conducted in an independent cohort of 77,774 women. We used multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, ancestry, and cancer history to test for improved BC risk prediction over clinical factors. We tested for improvement over the MA-PRS-149, and a European PRS, by including additional PRS as covariates. Calibration was assessed through goodness-of-fit tests. All analyses were conducted within the full cohort and ancestral subpopulations. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported per standard deviation within the corresponding population. Results: An optimal set of 383 SNPs (56 ancestry-informative and 327 BC-associated) was included in the final PRS (MA-PRS-383). MA-PRS-383 added significant predictive information to clinical factors in the full cohort and within each ancestry (Table 1). MA-PRS-383 had greater predictive accuracy than MA-PRS-149 or a 383-SNP PRS with European weights. Goodness-of-fit tests showed that MA-PRS-383 was well-calibrated and predicted risk accurately in the tails of the distribution for both European and non-European women. Conclusion: MA-PRS-383 was well-calibrated and substantially improved upon existing PRS in all tested ancestral populations. Incorporation of MA-PRS-383 into BC risk assessment may lead to more accurate identification of women who are most likely to benefit from screening and preventive medications. Citation Format: Timothy Simmons, Elisha Hughes, Dmitry Pruss, Matthew Kucera, Benjamin Roa, Thaddeus Judkins, Thomas Slavin, Victor Abkevich, Ryan Hoff, Srikanth Jammulapati, Susanne Wagner, Dale Muzzey, Jerry Lanchbury, Alexander Gutin. A second-generation polygenic risk score (PRS) based on genetic ancestry improves breast cancer (BC) risk prediction for all ancestries [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl) nr PS10-07.

oncology
Development of a Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model Integrating Monogenic, Polygenic, and Epidemiologic Risk

Sarah S Kalia,Nicholas J Boddicker,Siddhartha Yadav,Hongyan Huang,Jie Na,Chunling Hu,Christine B Ambrosone,Song Yao,Christopher A Haiman,Fei Chen,Esther M John,Allison W Kurian,Boya Guo,Sara Lindstrӧm,Paul Auer,James V Lacey Jr,Susan L Neuhausen,Maria Elena Martinez,Dale P Sandler,Katie M O'Brien,Jack A Taylor,Lauren R Teras,James M Hodge,Adriana Lori,Clara Bodelon,Amy Trentham-Dietz,Elizabeth S Burnside,Celine M Vachon,Stacey J Winham,David E Goldgar,Susan M Domchek,Katherine L Nathanson,Jeffrey N Weitzel,Fergus J Couch,Peter Kraft

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-24-0594

2024-11-01

Abstract:Background: Breast cancer has been associated with monogenic, polygenic, and epidemiologic (clinical, reproductive, and lifestyle) risk factors, but studies evaluating the combined effects of these factors have been limited. Methods: We extended previous work in breast cancer risk modeling, incorporating pathogenic variants (PV) in six breast cancer predisposition genes and a 105-SNP polygenic risk score (PRS), to include an epidemiologic risk score (ERS) in a sample of non-Hispanic White women drawn from prospective cohorts and population-based case-control studies, with 23,518 cases and 22,832 controls, from the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) Consortium. Results: The model predicts 4.4-fold higher risk of breast cancer for postmenopausal women with no predisposition PV and median PRS, but with the highest versus lowest ERS. Overall, women with CHEK2 PVs had >20% lifetime risk of breast cancer. However, 15.6% of women with CHEK2 PVs and a family history of breast cancer, and 45.1% of women with CHEK2 PVs but without a family history of breast cancer, had low (<20%) predicted lifetime risk and thus were below the threshold for MRI screening. CHEK2 PV carriers at the 10th percentile of the joint distribution of ERS and PRS, without a family history of breast cancer, had a predicted lifetime risk similar to the general population. Conclusions: These results illustrate that an ERS, alone and combined with the PRS, can contribute to clinically relevant risk stratification. Impact: Integrating monogenic, polygenic, and epidemiologic risk factors in breast cancer risk prediction models may inform personalized screening and prevention efforts.
Association between polygenic risk and survival in breast cancer patients

Danielle Kurant,Stefan Groha,Yi Ding,Chris German,Wei Wang,Julie M. Granka,Michael V. Holmes,23andMe Research Team,Suyash S. Shringarpure,Alexander Sasha Gusev

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.31.24315531

2024-11-02

Abstract:Polygenic risk scores (PRS) estimate an individual's germline genetic predisposition to a quantitative trait and/or risk of disease. Several PRS have been developed for cancer risk with the goal of improved risk screening. However, little is known about the association with subsequent outcomes for individuals who develop cancer. Here, we sought to establish whether PRS for cancer risk and other common traits may influence survival for patients with cancer. We conducted a PRS survival analysis using 23,770 European cancer patients from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Profile cohort. We identified an association between PRS for breast cancer risk and longer patient survival (HR = 0.89, p = 1.50x10-4, <5% FDR), implying that individuals at high genetic risk had better outcomes. High PRS individuals were also significantly less likely to harbor somatic TP53 mutations, consistent with having less aggressive tumors. This association persisted when including tumor grade and became more protective when restricting to ER-negative tumors (HR = 0.78, p = 1.69x10-4). Potential confounders such as hormone receptor status, age, grade, stage, and ER-targeted therapy did not fully explain this association, nor was there statistical evidence of index event bias at individual variants. We did not observe significant associations between cancer risk and survival for other cancers, suggesting that this mechanism may be largely unique to breast cancer. However, we did observe associations between shorter survival and type 2 diabetes, bipolar, and pancreatitis PRS (1% FDR). These findings suggest that higher germline risk may predispose individuals to less aggressive breast cancer tumors and provide novel insights into breast cancer development and prognosis.
Breast and Prostate Cancer Risks for Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers Using Polygenic Risk Scores

Daniel R Barnes,Valentina Silvestri,Goska Leslie,Lesley McGuffog,Joe Dennis,Xin Yang,Julian Adlard,Bjarni A Agnarsson,Munaza Ahmed,Kristiina Aittomäki,Irene L Andrulis,Adalgeir Arason,Norbert Arnold,Bernd Auber,Jacopo Azzollini,Judith Balmaña,Rosa B Barkardottir,Daniel Barrowdale,Julian Barwell,Muriel Belotti,Javier Benitez,Pascaline Berthet,Susanne E Boonen,Åke Borg,Aniko Bozsik,Angela F Brady,Paul Brennan,Carole Brewer,Joan Brunet,Agostino Bucalo,Saundra S Buys,Trinidad Caldés,Maria A Caligo,Ian Campbell,Hayley Cassingham,Lise Lotte Christensen,Giulia Cini,Kathleen B M Claes,GEMO Study Collaborators,EMBRACE Collaborators,Jackie Cook,Anna Coppa,Laura Cortesi,Giuseppe Damante,Esther Darder,Rosemarie Davidson,Miguel de la Hoya,Kim De Leeneer,Robin de Putter,Jesús Del Valle,Orland Diez,Yuan Chun Ding,Susan M Domchek,Alan Donaldson,Jacqueline Eason,Ros Eeles,Christoph Engel,D Gareth Evans,Lidia Feliubadaló,Florentia Fostira,Megan Frone,Debra Frost,David Gallagher,Andrea Gehrig,Sophie Giraud,Gord Glendon,Andrew K Godwin,David E Goldgar,Mark H Greene,Helen Gregory,Eva Gross,Eric Hahnen,Ute Hamann,Thomas V O Hansen,Helen Hanson,Julia Hentschel,Judit Horvath,KConFab Investigators,HEBON Investigators,Louise Izatt,Angel Izquierdo,Paul A James,Ramunas Janavicius,Uffe Birk Jensen,Oskar Th Johannsson,Esther M John,Gero Kramer,Lone Kroeldrup,Torben A Kruse,Charlotte Lautrup,Conxi Lazaro,Fabienne Lesueur,Adria Lopez-Fernández,Phuong L Mai,Siranoush Manoukian,Zoltan Matrai,Laura Matricardi,Kara N Maxwell,Noura Mebirouk,Alfons Meindl,Marco Montagna,Alvaro N Monteiro,Patrick J Morrison,Taru A Muranen,Alex Murray,Katherine L Nathanson,Susan L Neuhausen,Heli Nevanlinna,Tu Nguyen-Dumont,Dieter Niederacher,Edith Olah,Olufunmilayo I Olopade,Domenico Palli,Michael T Parsons,Inge Sokilde Pedersen,Bernard Peissel,Pedro Perez-Segura,Paolo Peterlongo,Annabeth H Petersen,Pedro Pinto,Mary E Porteous,Caroline Pottinger,Miquel Angel Pujana,Paolo Radice,Juliane Ramser,Johanna Rantala,Mark Robson,Mark T Rogers,Karina Rønlund,Andreas Rump,Ana María Sánchez de Abajo,Payal D Shah,Saba Sharif,Lucy E Side,Christian F Singer,Zsofia Stadler,Linda Steele,Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet,Christian Sutter,Yen Yen Tan,Manuel R Teixeira,Alex Teulé,Darcy L Thull,Marc Tischkowitz,Amanda E Toland,Stefania Tommasi,Angela Toss,Alison H Trainer,Vishakha Tripathi,Virginia Valentini,Christi J van Asperen,Marta Venturelli,Alessandra Viel,Joseph Vijai,Lisa Walker,Shan Wang-Gohrke,Barbara Wappenschmidt,Anna Whaite,Ines Zanna,Kenneth Offit,Mads Thomassen,Fergus J Couch,Rita K Schmutzler,Jacques Simard,Douglas F Easton,Georgia Chenevix-Trench,Antonis C Antoniou,Laura Ottini,Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djab147

2022-01-11

Abstract:Background: Recent population-based female breast cancer and prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed. We assessed the associations of these PRS with breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Methods: 483 BRCA1 and 1318 BRCA2 European ancestry male carriers were available from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). A 147-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) prostate cancer PRS (PRSPC) and a 313-SNP breast cancer PRS were evaluated. There were 3 versions of the breast cancer PRS, optimized to predict overall (PRSBC), estrogen receptor (ER)-negative (PRSER-), or ER-positive (PRSER+) breast cancer risk. Results: PRSER+ yielded the strongest association with breast cancer risk. The odds ratios (ORs) per PRSER+ standard deviation estimates were 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.07 to 1.83) for BRCA1 and 1.33 (95% CI = 1.16 to 1.52) for BRCA2 carriers. PRSPC was associated with prostate cancer risk for BRCA1 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.33) and BRCA2 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.91) carriers. The estimated breast cancer odds ratios were larger after adjusting for female relative breast cancer family history. By age 85 years, for BRCA2 carriers, the breast cancer risk varied from 7.7% to 18.4% and prostate cancer risk from 34.1% to 87.6% between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS distributions. Conclusions: Population-based prostate and female breast cancer PRS are associated with a wide range of absolute breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These findings warrant further investigation aimed at providing personalized cancer risks for male carriers and informing clinical management.
Limitations in next-generation sequencing-based genotyping of breast cancer polygenic risk score loci

Alexandra Baumann,Christian Ruckert,Christoph Meier,Tim Hutschenreiter,Robert Remy,Benedikt Schnur,Marvin Döbel,Rudel Christian Nkouamedjo Fankep,Dariush Skowronek,Oliver Kutz,Norbert Arnold,Anna-Lena Katzke,Michael Forster,Anna-Lena Kobiela,Katharina Thiedig,Andreas Zimmer,Julia Ritter,Bernhard H. F. Weber,Ellen Honisch,Karl Hackmann,Stephan Drukewitz,Christoph Engel,Peter Frommolt,Eva Groß,Johannes Helmuth,Zarah Kowalzyk,Maximilian Radtke,Juliane Ramser,Steffen Uebe,Shan Wang-Gohrke,Gunnar Schmidt,Marc Sturm,Corinna Ernst,Bioinformatics Working Group of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast & Ovarian Cancer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01647-2

2024-06-22

European Journal of Human Genetics

Abstract:Considering polygenic risk scores (PRSs) in individual risk prediction is increasingly implemented in genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer (BC) based on next-generation sequencing (NGS). To calculate individual BC risks, the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) with the inclusion of the BCAC 313 or the BRIDGES 306 BC PRS is commonly used. The PRS calculation depends on accurately reproducing the variant allele frequencies (AFs) and, consequently, the distribution of PRS values anticipated by the algorithm. Here, the 324 loci of the BCAC 313 and the BRIDGES 306 BC PRS were examined in population-specific database gnomAD and in real-world data sets of five centers of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC), to determine whether these expected AFs can be reproduced by NGS-based genotyping. Four PRS loci were non-existent in gnomAD v3.1.2 non-Finnish Europeans, further 24 loci showed noticeably deviating AFs. In real-world data, between 11 and 23 loci were reported with noticeably deviating AFs, and were shown to have effects on final risk prediction. Deviations depended on the sequencing approach, variant caller and calling mode (forced versus unforced) employed. Therefore, this study demonstrates the necessity to apply quality assurance not only in terms of sequencing coverage but also observed AFs in a sufficiently large cohort, when implementing PRSs in a routine diagnostic setting. Furthermore, future PRS design should be guided by the technical reproducibility of expected AFs across commonly used genotyping methods, especially NGS, in addition to the observed effect sizes.

genetics & heredity,biochemistry & molecular biology
Assessing the value of incorporating a polygenic risk score with non-genetic factors for predicting breast cancer diagnosis in the UK Biobank

Jennifer A Collister,Xiaonan Liu,Thomas J Littlejohns,Jack Cuzick,Lei Clifton,David J Hunter,Jennifer A. Collister,Thomas J. Littlejohns,David J. Hunter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-23-1432

2024-04-19

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Background: Previous studies have demonstrated that incorporating a polygenic risk score (PRS) to existing risk prediction models for breast cancer improves model fit, but to determine its clinical utility the impact on risk categorisation needs to be established. We add a PRS to two well-established models and quantify the difference in classification using the net reclassification improvement (NRI). Methods: We analysed data from 126,490 post-menopausal women of "White British" ancestry, aged 40-69 years at baseline from the UK Biobank prospective cohort. The breast cancer outcome was derived from linked registry data and hospital records. We combined a PRS for breast cancer with 10-year risk scores from the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail models, and compared these to the risk scores from the models using phenotypic variables alone. We report metrics of discrimination and classification, and consider the importance of the risk threshold selected. Results: The Harrell's C statistic of the 10-year risk from the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail models was 0.57 and 0.54, respectively, increasing to 0.67 when the PRS was included. Inclusion of the PRS gave a positive NRI for cases in both models (0.080 (95% confidence interval: 0.053, 0.104) and 0.051 (95% CI: 0.030, 0.073), respectively), with negligible impact on controls. Conclusions: The addition of a PRS for breast cancer to the well-established Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail models provides a substantial improvement in the prediction accuracy and risk stratification. Impact: These findings could have important implications for the ongoing discussion about the value of PRS in risk prediction models and screening.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
[Comparison of the anti-tumor activity of extracts of the epiphysis and hypothalamus, melatonin and sigetin in mice with transplanted mammary gland cancer].

V. Anisimov,V. Morozov,V. Khavinson,V. M. Dil'man

Abstract:
Abstract A021: Development of cross-ancestry polygenic risk. scores for breast cancer in women of African ancestry

James L. Li,Haoyu Zhang,Julian C McClellan,Guimin Gao,Kevin Wang,Julie R. Palmer,Olufunmilayo I. Olopade,Christopher A. Haiman,Dezheng Huo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-a021

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Introduction: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) predict breast cancer (BC) risk and have shown utility for screening in European ancestry women (EUR). However, PRSs developed for non-European ancestry, particularly African American (AA) women, have limited predictive accuracy. Methods: We analyzed data from 17,454 BC cases and 19,093 controls in the African American Breast Cancer Genetics (AABCG) consortium, split into training (70%), tuning (10%), and testing (20%) sets. Genome-wide association analyses for overall BC, ER-positive BC, ER- negative BC and triple-negative BC (TNBC) were performed in the training dataset, controlling for age, genotyping platform, and the top 10 principal components. We built single-ancestry PRS models using forward stepwise selection (FSS), PRSice-2, PLINK C+T, Lassosum2, and LDpred2-auto. These were combined with published EUR 313-SNP models (330-SNP for TNBC) in the tuning set to obtain cross-ancestry models. Genome-wide cross-ancestry PRS methods, including CT-SLEB and PRScsx, were also used. We created an ensemble model by combining different PRS models across subtypes using ensemble-based approaches. All developed PRS models were then evaluated in the independent testing set. Additional validation was performed using the All of Us (AoU) study with 834 BC cases and 29,122 controls from the AA population. Results: The observed-scale SNP-based heritability was estimated at 0.29 (SE: 0.12) for overall BC risk, 0.43 (SE: 0.18) for ER-positive BC, 0.44 (SE: 0.24) for ER-negative BC, and 1.13 (SE: 0.40) for TNBC. The best models showed good discriminating capacity: ensemble-based models for overall (AUC=0.626) and ER-positive BC (AUC=0.626), and combined cross-subtype and cross-ancestry FSS models for ER-negative (AUC=0.647) and TNBC (AUC=0.654). The odds ratio per standard deviation was 1.63 (95% CI: 1.55, 1.71) for the ensemble-based PRS of overall BC risk, with an estimated life risk of 28% for the top 1%. The cross-ancestry model using CT-SLEB combined with the EUR 313-SNP model was validated (AUC=0.61) among AA women in the AoU study. Conclusion: We developed PRSs with improved discriminating ability for BC risk in women with African ancestry. Cross- ancestry and subtype learning enhanced model performance. These findings indicate common variation has a larger role in BC in AA women than previously reported, warranting further validation in external AA populations and clinical evaluation. Citation Format: James L. Li, Haoyu Zhang, Julian C McClellan, Guimin Gao, Kevin Wang, Julie R. Palmer, Olufunmilayo I. Olopade, Christopher A. Haiman, Dezheng Huo. Development of cross-ancestry polygenic risk. scores for breast cancer in women of African ancestry [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl) nr A021.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors

Andrew Lee,Nasim Mavaddat,Amber N. Wilcox,Alex P. Cunningham,Tim Carver,Simon Hartley,Chantal Babb de Villiers,Angel Izquierdo,Jacques Simard,Marjanka K. Schmidt,Fiona M. Walter,Nilanjan Chatterjee,Montserrat Garcia-Closas,Marc Tischkowitz,Paul Pharoah,Douglas F. Easton,Antonis C. Antoniou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0406-9

IF: 8.864

2019-08-01

Genetics in Medicine

Abstract:PurposeBreast cancer (BC) risk prediction allows systematic identification of individuals at highest and lowest risk. We extend the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) risk model to incorporate the effects of polygenic risk scores (PRS) and other risk factors (RFs).MethodsBOADICEA incorporates the effects of truncating variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM; a PRS based on 313 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) explaining 20% of BC polygenic variance; a residual polygenic component accounting for other genetic/familial effects; known lifestyle/hormonal/reproductive RFs; and mammographic density, while allowing for missing information.ResultsAmong all factors considered, the predicted UK BC risk distribution is widest for the PRS, followed by mammographic density. The highest BC risk stratification is achieved when all genetic and lifestyle/hormonal/reproductive/anthropomorphic factors are considered jointly. With all factors, the predicted lifetime risks for women in the UK population vary from 2.8% for the 1st percentile to 30.6% for the 99th percentile, with 14.7% of women predicted to have a lifetime risk of ≥17–<30% (moderate risk according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] guidelines) and 1.1% a lifetime risk of ≥30% (high risk).ConclusionThis comprehensive model should enable high levels of BC risk stratification in the general population and women with family history, and facilitate individualized, informed decision-making on prevention therapies and screening.

genetics & heredity
Characterizing the Relationship between Expression Quantitative Trait Loci (eQTLs), DNA Methylation Quantitative Trait Loci (mQTLs), and Breast Cancer Risk Variants

Peh Joo Ho,Alexis Khng,Benita Kiat-Tee Tan,Chiea Chuen Khor,Ern Yu Tan,Geok Hoon Lim,Jian-Min Yuan,Su-Ming Tan,Xuling Chang,Veronique Kiak Mien Tan,Xueling Sim,Rajkumar Dorajoo,Woon-Puay Koh,Mikael Hartman,Jingmei Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16112072

2024-05-31

Cancers

Abstract:Purpose: To assess the association of a polygenic risk score (PRS) for functional genetic variants with the risk of developing breast cancer. Methods: Summary data-based Mendelian randomization (SMR) and heterogeneity in dependent instruments (HEIDI) were used to identify breast cancer risk variants associated with gene expression and DNA methylation levels. A new SMR-based PRS was computed from the identified variants (functional PRS) and compared to an established 313-variant breast cancer PRS (GWAS PRS). The two scores were evaluated in 3560 breast cancer cases and 3383 non-cancer controls and also in a prospective study (n = 10,213) comprising 418 cases. Results: We identified 149 variants showing pleiotropic association with breast cancer risk (eQTLHEIDI > 0.05 = 9, mQTLHEIDI > 0.05 = 165). The discriminatory ability of the functional PRS (AUCcontinuous [95% CI]: 0.540 [0.526 to 0.553]) was found to be lower than that of the GWAS PRS (AUCcontinuous [95% CI]: 0.609 [0.596 to 0.622]). Even when utilizing 457 distinct variants from both the functional and GWAS PRS, the combined discriminatory performance remained below that of the GWAS PRS (AUCcontinuous, combined [95% CI]: 0.561 [0.548 to 0.575]). A binary high/low-risk classification based on the 80th centile PRS in controls revealed a 6% increase in cases using the GWAS PRS compared to the functional PRS. The functional PRS identified an additional 12% of high-risk cases but also led to a 13% increase in high-risk classification among controls. Similar findings were observed in the SCHS prospective cohort, where the GWAS PRS outperformed the functional PRS, and the highest-performing PRS, a combined model, did not significantly improve over the GWAS PRS. Conclusions: While this study identified potentially functional variants associated with breast cancer risk, their inclusion did not substantially enhance the predictive accuracy of the GWAS PRS.

oncology
Polygenic risk scores and breast and epithelial ovarian cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants

Daniel R Barnes,Matti A Rookus,Lesley McGuffog,Goska Leslie,Thea M Mooij,Joe Dennis,Nasim Mavaddat,Julian Adlard,Munaza Ahmed,Kristiina Aittomäki,Nadine Andrieu,Irene L Andrulis,Norbert Arnold,Banu K Arun,Jacopo Azzollini,Judith Balmaña,Rosa B Barkardottir,Daniel Barrowdale,Javier Benitez,Pascaline Berthet,Katarzyna Białkowska,Amie M Blanco,Marinus J Blok,Bernardo Bonanni,Susanne E Boonen,Åke Borg,Aniko Bozsik,Angela R Bradbury,Paul Brennan,Carole Brewer,Joan Brunet,Saundra S Buys,Trinidad Caldés,Maria A Caligo,Ian Campbell,Lise Lotte Christensen,Wendy K Chung,Kathleen B M Claes,Chrystelle Colas,GEMO Study Collaborators,EMBRACE Collaborators,Marie-Agnès Collonge-Rame,Jackie Cook,Mary B Daly,Rosemarie Davidson,Miguel de la Hoya,Robin de Putter,Capucine Delnatte,Peter Devilee,Orland Diez,Yuan Chun Ding,Susan M Domchek,Cecilia M Dorfling,Martine Dumont,Ros Eeles,Bent Ejlertsen,Christoph Engel,D Gareth Evans,Laurence Faivre,Lenka Foretova,Florentia Fostira,Michael Friedlander,Eitan Friedman,Debra Frost,Patricia A Ganz,Judy Garber,Andrea Gehrig,Anne-Marie Gerdes,Paul Gesta,Sophie Giraud,Gord Glendon,Andrew K Godwin,David E Goldgar,Anna González-Neira,Mark H Greene,Daphne Gschwantler-Kaulich,Eric Hahnen,Ute Hamann,Helen Hanson,Julia Hentschel,Frans B L Hogervorst,Maartje J Hooning,Judit Horvath,Chunling Hu,Peter J Hulick,Evgeny N Imyanitov,kConFab Investigators,HEBON Investigators,GENEPSO Investigators,Claudine Isaacs,Louise Izatt,Angel Izquierdo,Anna Jakubowska,Paul A James,Ramunas Janavicius,Esther M John,Vijai Joseph,Beth Y Karlan,Karin Kast,Marco Koudijs,Torben A Kruse,Ava Kwong,Yael Laitman,Christine Lasset,Conxi Lazaro,Jenny Lester,Fabienne Lesueur,Annelie Liljegren,Jennifer T Loud,Jan Lubiński,Phuong L Mai,Siranoush Manoukian,Véronique Mari,Noura Mebirouk,Hanne E J Meijers-Heijboer,Alfons Meindl,Arjen R Mensenkamp,Austin Miller,Marco Montagna,Emmanuelle Mouret-Fourme,Semanti Mukherjee,Anna Marie Mulligan,Katherine L Nathanson,Susan L Neuhausen,Heli Nevanlinna,Dieter Niederacher,Finn Cilius Nielsen,Liene Nikitina-Zake,Catherine Noguès,Edith Olah,Olufunmilayo I Olopade,Kai-Ren Ong,Aoife O'Shaughnessy-Kirwan,Ana Osorio,Claus-Eric Ott,Laura Papi,Sue K Park,Michael T Parsons,Inge Sokilde Pedersen,Bernard Peissel,Ana Peixoto,Paolo Peterlongo,Georg Pfeiler,Kelly-Anne Phillips,Karolina Prajzendanc,Miquel Angel Pujana,Paolo Radice,Juliane Ramser,Susan J Ramus,Johanna Rantala,Gad Rennert,Harvey A Risch,Mark Robson,Karina Rønlund,Ritu Salani,Hélène Schuster,Leigha Senter,Payal D Shah,Priyanka Sharma,Lucy E Side,Christian F Singer,Thomas P Slavin,Penny Soucy,Melissa C Southey,Amanda B Spurdle,Doris Steinemann,Zoe Steinsnyder,Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet,Christian Sutter,Yen Yen Tan,Manuel R Teixeira,Soo Hwang Teo,Darcy L Thull,Marc Tischkowitz,Silvia Tognazzo,Amanda E Toland,Alison H Trainer,Nadine Tung,Klaartje van Engelen,Elizabeth J van Rensburg,Ana Vega,Jeroen Vierstraete,Gabriel Wagner,Lisa Walker,Shan Wang-Gohrke,Barbara Wappenschmidt,Jeffrey N Weitzel,Siddhartha Yadav,Xin Yang,Drakoulis Yannoukakos,Dario Zimbalatti,Kenneth Offit,Mads Thomassen,Fergus J Couch,Rita K Schmutzler,Jacques Simard,Douglas F Easton,Georgia Chenevix-Trench,Antonis C Antoniou,Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA and BRCA2,Antonis Antoniou,Douglas Easton,Lucy Side,Amanda Spurdle,Marinus Blok,Frans Hogervorst,Maartje Hooning,Arjen Mensenkamp,Hanne Meijers-Heijboer,Matti Rookus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-020-0862-x

Abstract:Purpose: We assessed the associations between population-based polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Methods: Retrospective cohort data on 18,935 BRCA1 and 12,339 BRCA2 female pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestry were available. Three versions of a 313 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) BC PRS were evaluated based on whether they predict overall, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, or ER-positive BC, and two PRS for overall or high-grade serous EOC. Associations were validated in a prospective cohort. Results: The ER-negative PRS showed the strongest association with BC risk for BRCA1 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] per standard deviation = 1.29 [95% CI 1.25-1.33], P = 3×10-72). For BRCA2, the strongest association was with overall BC PRS (HR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.27-1.36], P = 7×10-50). HR estimates decreased significantly with age and there was evidence for differences in associations by predicted variant effects on protein expression. The HR estimates were smaller than general population estimates. The high-grade serous PRS yielded the strongest associations with EOC risk for BRCA1 (HR = 1.32 [95% CI 1.25-1.40], P = 3×10-22) and BRCA2 (HR = 1.44 [95% CI 1.30-1.60], P = 4×10-12) carriers. The associations in the prospective cohort were similar. Conclusion: Population-based PRS are strongly associated with BC and EOC risks for BRCA1/2 carriers and predict substantial absolute risk differences for women at PRS distribution extremes.
Cross-cancer evaluation of polygenic risk scores for 16 cancer types in two large cohorts

Rebecca E. Graff,Taylor B. Cavazos,Khanh K. Thai,Linda Kachuri,Sara R. Rashkin,Joshua D. Hoffman,Stacey E. Alexeeff,Maruta Blatchins,Travis J. Meyers,Lancelote Leong,Caroline G. Tai,Nima C. Emami,Douglas A. Corley,Lawrence H. Kushi,Elad Ziv,Stephen K. Van Den Eeden,Eric Jorgenson,Thomas J. Hoffmann,Laurel A. Habel,John S. Witte,Lori C. Sakoda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21288-z

IF: 16.6

2021-02-12

Nature Communications

Abstract:Abstract Even distinct cancer types share biological hallmarks. Here, we investigate polygenic risk score (PRS)-specific pleiotropy across 16 cancers in European ancestry individuals from the Genetic Epidemiology Research on Adult Health and Aging cohort (16,012 cases, 50,552 controls) and UK Biobank (48,969 cases, 359,802 controls). Within cohorts, each PRS is evaluated in multivariable logistic regression models against all other cancer types. Results are then meta-analyzed across cohorts. Ten positive and one inverse cross-cancer associations are found after multiple testing correction. Two pairs show bidirectional associations; the melanoma PRS is positively associated with oral cavity/pharyngeal cancer and vice versa, whereas the lung cancer PRS is positively associated with oral cavity/pharyngeal cancer, and the oral cavity/pharyngeal cancer PRS is inversely associated with lung cancer. Overall, we validate known, and uncover previously unreported, patterns of pleiotropy that have the potential to inform investigations of risk prediction, shared etiology, and precision cancer prevention strategies.

multidisciplinary sciences

Iris recognition by fusing different representations of multi-scale Taylor expansion

Risk of Breast Cancer among Carriers of Pathogenic Variants in Breast Cancer Predisposition Genes Varies by Polygenic Risk Score.

Abstract P5-09-02: Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Using a Polygenic Risk Score in Women of African Ancestry: Findings from GWAS in Breast Cancer in the African Diaspora

Association of a Polygenic Risk Score With Breast Cancer Among Women Carriers of High- and Moderate-Risk Breast Cancer Genes

Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) Combined with NGS Panel Testing Increases Accuracy in Hereditary Breast Cancer Risk Estimation

Breast Cancer Polygenic Risk Score Validation and Effects of Variable Imputation

Abstract PD3-02: Polygenic Risk Scores Provide Clinically Meaningful Risk Stratification among Women Carrying Moderate Penetrance Pathogenic Variants in Breast Cancer Predisposition Genes: Results from the CARRIERS Study

Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer risk in Asian populations

Differences in polygenic score distributions in European ancestry populations: implications for breast cancer risk prediction

Abstract PS10-07: A second-generation polygenic risk score (PRS) based on genetic ancestry improves breast cancer (BC) risk prediction for all ancestries

Development of a Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model Integrating Monogenic, Polygenic, and Epidemiologic Risk

Association between polygenic risk and survival in breast cancer patients

Breast and Prostate Cancer Risks for Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers Using Polygenic Risk Scores

Limitations in next-generation sequencing-based genotyping of breast cancer polygenic risk score loci

Assessing the value of incorporating a polygenic risk score with non-genetic factors for predicting breast cancer diagnosis in the UK Biobank

[Comparison of the anti-tumor activity of extracts of the epiphysis and hypothalamus, melatonin and sigetin in mice with transplanted mammary gland cancer].

Abstract A021: Development of cross-ancestry polygenic risk. scores for breast cancer in women of African ancestry

BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors

Characterizing the Relationship between Expression Quantitative Trait Loci (eQTLs), DNA Methylation Quantitative Trait Loci (mQTLs), and Breast Cancer Risk Variants

Polygenic risk scores and breast and epithelial ovarian cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants

Cross-cancer evaluation of polygenic risk scores for 16 cancer types in two large cohorts