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
What problem does this paper attempt to address?