1
|
Hovhannisyan M, Zemankova P, Nehasil P, Matejkova K, Borecka M, Cerna M, Dolezalova T, Dvorakova L, Foretova L, Horackova K, Jelinkova S, Just P, Kalousova M, Kral J, Machackova E, Nemcova B, Safarikova M, Springer D, Stastna B, Tavandzis S, Vocka M, Zima T, Soukupova J, Kleiblova P, Ernst C, Kleibl Z, Janatova M. Population-specific validation and comparison of the performance of 77- and 313-variant polygenic risk scores for breast cancer risk prediction. Cancer 2024; 130:2978-2987. [PMID: 38718029 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.35337] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2024] [Revised: 03/22/2024] [Accepted: 04/03/2024] [Indexed: 08/10/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The polygenic risk score (PRS) allows the quantification of the polygenic effect of many low-penetrance alleles on the risk of breast cancer (BC). This study aimed to evaluate the performance of two sets comprising 77 or 313 low-penetrance loci (PRS77 and PRS313) in patients with BC in the Czech population. METHODS In a retrospective case-control study, variants were genotyped from both the PRS77 and PRS313 sets in 1329 patients with BC and 1324 noncancer controls, all women without germline pathogenic variants in BC predisposition genes. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated according to the categorical PRS in individual deciles. Weighted Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) per standard deviation (SD) increase in PRS. RESULTS The distributions of standardized PRSs in patients and controls were significantly different (p < 2.2 × 10-16) with both sets. PRS313 outperformed PRS77 in categorical and continuous PRS analyses. For patients in the highest 2.5% of PRS313, the risk reached an OR of 3.05 (95% CI, 1.66-5.89; p = 1.76 × 10-4). The continuous risk was estimated as an HRper SD of 1.64 (95% CI, 1.49-1.81; p < 2.0 × 10-16), which resulted in an absolute risk of 21.03% at age 80 years for individuals in the 95th percentile of PRS313. Discordant categorization into PRS deciles was observed in 248 individuals (9.3%). CONCLUSIONS Both PRS77 and PRS313 are able to stratify individuals according to their BC risk in the Czech population. PRS313 shows better discriminatory ability. The results support the potential clinical utility of using PRS313 in individualized BC risk prediction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Milena Hovhannisyan
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Petra Zemankova
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
- Institute of Pathological Physiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Petr Nehasil
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
- Institute of Pathological Physiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
- Department of Paediatrics and Inherited Metabolic Disorders, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Katerina Matejkova
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
- Department of Genetics and Microbiology, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Marianna Borecka
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Marta Cerna
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Tatana Dolezalova
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Lenka Dvorakova
- Department of Paediatrics and Inherited Metabolic Disorders, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Lenka Foretova
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Klara Horackova
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Sandra Jelinkova
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Pavel Just
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Marta Kalousova
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Jan Kral
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
- Centre for Medical Genetics and Reproductive Medicine, GENNET, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Eva Machackova
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Barbora Nemcova
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Marketa Safarikova
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Drahomira Springer
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Barbora Stastna
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
- Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Spiros Tavandzis
- Department of Medical Genetics, AGEL Research and Training Institute, AGEL Laboratories, Novy Jicin, Czech Republic
| | - Michal Vocka
- Department of Oncology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Tomas Zima
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Jana Soukupova
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Petra Kleiblova
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
- Institute of Biology and Medical Genetics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Corinna Ernst
- Centre for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology, Medical Faculty, University of Cologne and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Zdenek Kleibl
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
- Institute of Pathological Physiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Marketa Janatova
- Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Imyanitov EN, Kuligina ES, Sokolenko AP, Suspitsin EN, Yanus GA, Iyevleva AG, Ivantsov AO, Aleksakhina SN. Hereditary cancer syndromes. World J Clin Oncol 2023; 14:40-68. [PMID: 36908677 PMCID: PMC9993141 DOI: 10.5306/wjco.v14.i2.40] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2022] [Revised: 12/09/2022] [Accepted: 02/14/2023] [Indexed: 02/21/2023] Open
Abstract
Hereditary cancer syndromes (HCSs) are arguably the most frequent category of Mendelian genetic diseases, as at least 2% of presumably healthy subjects carry highly-penetrant tumor-predisposing pathogenic variants (PVs). Hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome make the highest contribution to cancer morbidity; in addition, there are several dozen less frequent types of familial tumors. The development of the majority albeit not all hereditary malignancies involves two-hit mechanism, i.e. the somatic inactivation of the remaining copy of the affected gene. Earlier studies on cancer families suggested nearly fatal penetrance for the majority of HCS genes; however, population-based investigations and especially large-scale next-generation sequencing data sets demonstrate that the presence of some highly-penetrant PVs is often compatible with healthy status. Hereditary cancer research initially focused mainly on cancer detection and prevention. Recent studies identified multiple HCS-specific drug vulnerabilities, which translated into the development of highly efficient therapeutic options.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Evgeny N Imyanitov
- Department of Tumor Growth Biology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, St.-Petersburg 197758, Russia
- Department of Clinical Genetics, St.-Petersburg Pediatric Medical University, St.-Petersburg 194100, Russia
| | - Ekaterina S Kuligina
- Department of Tumor Growth Biology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, St.-Petersburg 197758, Russia
- Department of Clinical Genetics, St.-Petersburg Pediatric Medical University, St.-Petersburg 194100, Russia
| | - Anna P Sokolenko
- Department of Tumor Growth Biology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, St.-Petersburg 197758, Russia
- Department of Clinical Genetics, St.-Petersburg Pediatric Medical University, St.-Petersburg 194100, Russia
| | - Evgeny N Suspitsin
- Department of Tumor Growth Biology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, St.-Petersburg 197758, Russia
- Department of Clinical Genetics, St.-Petersburg Pediatric Medical University, St.-Petersburg 194100, Russia
| | - Grigoriy A Yanus
- Department of Tumor Growth Biology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, St.-Petersburg 197758, Russia
- Department of Clinical Genetics, St.-Petersburg Pediatric Medical University, St.-Petersburg 194100, Russia
| | - Aglaya G Iyevleva
- Department of Tumor Growth Biology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, St.-Petersburg 197758, Russia
- Department of Clinical Genetics, St.-Petersburg Pediatric Medical University, St.-Petersburg 194100, Russia
| | - Alexandr O Ivantsov
- Department of Tumor Growth Biology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, St.-Petersburg 197758, Russia
- Department of Clinical Genetics, St.-Petersburg Pediatric Medical University, St.-Petersburg 194100, Russia
| | - Svetlana N Aleksakhina
- Department of Tumor Growth Biology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, St.-Petersburg 197758, Russia
- Department of Clinical Genetics, St.-Petersburg Pediatric Medical University, St.-Petersburg 194100, Russia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hilbers FS, van 't Hof PJ, Meijers CM, Mei H, Michailidou K, Dennis J, Hogervorst FBL, Nederlof PM, van Asperen CJ, Devilee P. Clustering of known low and moderate risk alleles rather than a novel recessive high-risk gene in non-BRCA1/2 sib trios affected with breast cancer. Int J Cancer 2020; 147:2708-2716. [PMID: 32383162 PMCID: PMC7540545 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.33039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2020] [Revised: 03/31/2020] [Accepted: 04/15/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Breast cancer risk is approximately twice as high in first‐degree relatives of female breast cancer cases than in women in the general population. Less than half of this risk can be attributed to the currently known genetic risk factors. Recessive risk alleles represent a relatively underexplored explanation for the remainder of familial risk. To address this, we selected 19 non‐BRCA1/2 breast cancer families in which at least three siblings were affected, while no first‐degree relatives of the previous or following generation had breast cancer. Germline DNA from one of the siblings was subjected to exome sequencing, while all affected siblings were genotyped using SNP arrays to assess haplotype sharing and to calculate a polygenic risk score (PRS) based on 160 low‐risk variants. We found no convincing candidate recessive alleles among exome sequencing variants in genomic regions for which all three siblings shared two haplotypes. However, we found two families in which all affected siblings carried the CHEK2*1100delC. In addition, the average normalized PRS of the “recessive” family probands (0.81) was significantly higher than that in both general population cases (0.35, P = .026) and controls (P = .0004). These findings suggest that the familial aggregation is, at least in part, explained by a polygenic effect of common low‐risk variants and rarer intermediate‐risk variants, while we did not find evidence of a role for novel recessive risk alleles. What's new? To find new breast cancer susceptibility alleles, these authors tested families in which at least three affected siblings had non‐BRCA1/2 breast cancer. No new susceptibility alleles emerged, but the analysis did reveal that on average, women from these families who had cancer had significantly higher polygenic risk scores than either sporadic cases or controls. This result highlights the importance of moderate risk alleles acting together in familial breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Florentine S Hilbers
- Department of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Peter J van 't Hof
- Sequence Analysis Support Core, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Caro M Meijers
- Department of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Hailiang Mei
- Sequence Analysis Support Core, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Kyriaki Michailidou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.,Biostatistics Unit, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia, Cyprus
| | - Joe Dennis
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Frans B L Hogervorst
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Petra M Nederlof
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Christi J van Asperen
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Peter Devilee
- Department of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.,Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|