1
|
Zhao Y, Song Y, Li X, Guo A. Association of Life's Essential 8 cardiovascular health with breast cancer incidence and mortality according to genetic susceptibility of breast cancer: a prospective cohort study. Breast Cancer Res 2024; 26:121. [PMID: 39118137 PMCID: PMC11311885 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-024-01877-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2024] [Accepted: 08/02/2024] [Indexed: 08/10/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accumulating evidence suggests that cardiovascular diseases and breast cancer share a number of common risk factors, however, evidence on the association between cardiovascular health (CVH) and breast cancer is limited. The present study aimed to assess the association of CVH, defined by Life's Essential 8 (LE8) and genetic risk with breast cancer incidence and mortality among premenopausal and postmenopausal women. METHODS We used data from the UK Biobank and conducted the multivariate Cox proportional-hazards models to examine associations of LE8 score and genetic risk with breast cancer incidence and mortality. Date on LE8 score was collected between 2006 and 2010 and composed of eight components, including behavioral metrics (diet, tobacco or nicotine exposure, physical activity, and sleep health), and biological metrics (body mass index, blood lipids, blood glucose, and blood pressure). The polygenic risk score (PRS) was calculated as the sum of effect sizes of individual genetic variants multiplied by the allele dosage. RESULTS A total of 150,566 premenopausal and postmenopausal women were included. Compared to postmenopausal women with low LE8 score, those with high LE8 score were associated with 22% lower risk of breast cancer incidence (HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.70-0.87) and 43% lower risk of breast cancer mortality (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36-0.90). By contrast, we did not observe the significant association among premenopausal women. Further analyses stratified by PRS categories showed that high LE8 score was associated with 28% and 71% decreased risk of breast cancer incidence (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.60-0.87) and mortality (HR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.10-0.83) compared to low LE8 score among high genetic risk groups, but no significant associations were found among low genetic risk groups. Furthermore, compared with postmenopausal women with high LE8 score and low genetic risk, those with low LE8 score and high genetic risk were associated with increased risk of breast cancer incidence (HR: 6.26, 95% CI: 4.43-8.84). CONCLUSIONS The present study suggests that better CVH is a protective factor for both breast cancer incidence and mortality among postmenopausal women. Moreover, the risk of developing breast cancer caused by high genetic susceptibility could be largely offset by better CVH.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yan Zhao
- Department of Breast Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University, No.155, Nanjing North Street, Heping District, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110001, China
| | - Yang Song
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No.36, Sanhao Street, Heping District, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110004, China
| | - Xiangmin Li
- Department of Oncology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No.36, Sanhao Street, Heping District, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110004, China.
| | - Ayao Guo
- Department of Breast Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University, No.155, Nanjing North Street, Heping District, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110001, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Collister JA, Liu X, Littlejohns TJ, Cuzick J, Clifton L, Hunter DJ. Assessing the Value of Incorporating a Polygenic Risk Score with Nongenetic Factors for Predicting Breast Cancer Diagnosis in the UK Biobank. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024; 33:812-820. [PMID: 38630597 PMCID: PMC11145162 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-23-1432] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2023] [Revised: 02/13/2024] [Accepted: 03/26/2024] [Indexed: 04/19/2024] Open
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 categorization 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 analyzed data from 126,490 post-menopausal women of "White British" ancestry, aged 40 to 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 (CI), 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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer A. Collister
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Xiaonan Liu
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Thomas J. Littlejohns
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Jack Cuzick
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Lei Clifton
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - David J. Hunter
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Xu L, Gan T, Chen P, Liu Y, Qu S, Shi S, Liu L, Zhou X, Lv J, Zhang H. Clinical Application of Polygenic Risk Score in IgA Nephropathy. PHENOMICS (CHAM, SWITZERLAND) 2024; 4:146-157. [PMID: 38884057 PMCID: PMC11169313 DOI: 10.1007/s43657-023-00138-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2023] [Revised: 10/11/2023] [Accepted: 10/18/2023] [Indexed: 06/18/2024]
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have identified 30 independent genetic variants associated with IgA nephropathy (IgAN). A genetic risk score (GRS) represents the number of risk alleles carried and thus captures an individual's genetic risk. However, whether and which polygenic risk score crucial for the evaluation of any potential personal or clinical utility on risk and prognosis are still obscure. We constructed different GRS models based on different sets of variants, which were top single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) reported in the previous GWASs. The case-control GRS analysis included 3365 IgAN patients and 8842 healthy individuals. The association between GRS and clinical variability, including age at diagnosis, clinical parameters, Oxford pathology classification, and kidney prognosis was further evaluated in a prospective cohort of 1747 patients. Three GRS models (15 SNPs, 21 SNPs, and 55 SNPs) were constructed after quality control. The patients with the top 20% GRS had 2.42-(15 SNPs, p = 8.12 × 10-40), 3.89-(21 SNPs, p = 3.40 × 10-80) and 3.73-(55 SNPs, p = 6.86 × 10-81) fold of risk to develop IgAN compared to the patients with the bottom 20% GRS, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.59, 0.63, and 0.63 in group discriminations, respectively. A positive correlation between GRS and microhematuria, mesangial hypercellularity, segmental glomerulosclerosis and a negative correlation on the age at diagnosis, body mass index (BMI), mean arterial pressure (MAP), serum C3, triglycerides can be observed. Patients with the top 20% GRS also showed a higher risk of worse prognosis for all three models (1.36, 1.42, and 1.36 fold of risk) compared to the remaining 80%, whereas 21 SNPs model seemed to show a slightly better fit in prediction. Collectively, a higher burden of risk variants is associated with earlier disease onset and a higher risk of a worse prognosis. This may be informational in translating knowledge on IgAN genetics into disease risk prediction and patient stratification. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43657-023-00138-6.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linlin Xu
- Renal Division, Peking University First Hospital, No. 8, Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Kidney Genetics Center, Peking University Institute of Nephrology, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Renal Disease, Ministry of Health of China, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Chronic Kidney Disease Prevention and Treatment, Peking University, Ministry of Education, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
| | - Ting Gan
- Renal Division, Peking University First Hospital, No. 8, Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Kidney Genetics Center, Peking University Institute of Nephrology, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Renal Disease, Ministry of Health of China, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Chronic Kidney Disease Prevention and Treatment, Peking University, Ministry of Education, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
| | - Pei Chen
- Renal Division, Peking University First Hospital, No. 8, Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Kidney Genetics Center, Peking University Institute of Nephrology, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Renal Disease, Ministry of Health of China, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Chronic Kidney Disease Prevention and Treatment, Peking University, Ministry of Education, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
| | - Yang Liu
- Renal Division, Peking University First Hospital, No. 8, Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Kidney Genetics Center, Peking University Institute of Nephrology, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Renal Disease, Ministry of Health of China, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Chronic Kidney Disease Prevention and Treatment, Peking University, Ministry of Education, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
| | - Shu Qu
- Renal Division, Peking University First Hospital, No. 8, Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Kidney Genetics Center, Peking University Institute of Nephrology, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Renal Disease, Ministry of Health of China, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Chronic Kidney Disease Prevention and Treatment, Peking University, Ministry of Education, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
| | - Sufang Shi
- Renal Division, Peking University First Hospital, No. 8, Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Kidney Genetics Center, Peking University Institute of Nephrology, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Renal Disease, Ministry of Health of China, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Chronic Kidney Disease Prevention and Treatment, Peking University, Ministry of Education, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
| | - Lijun Liu
- Renal Division, Peking University First Hospital, No. 8, Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Kidney Genetics Center, Peking University Institute of Nephrology, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Renal Disease, Ministry of Health of China, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Chronic Kidney Disease Prevention and Treatment, Peking University, Ministry of Education, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
| | - Xujie Zhou
- Renal Division, Peking University First Hospital, No. 8, Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Kidney Genetics Center, Peking University Institute of Nephrology, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Renal Disease, Ministry of Health of China, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Chronic Kidney Disease Prevention and Treatment, Peking University, Ministry of Education, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
| | - Jicheng Lv
- Renal Division, Peking University First Hospital, No. 8, Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Kidney Genetics Center, Peking University Institute of Nephrology, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Renal Disease, Ministry of Health of China, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Chronic Kidney Disease Prevention and Treatment, Peking University, Ministry of Education, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
| | - Hong Zhang
- Renal Division, Peking University First Hospital, No. 8, Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Kidney Genetics Center, Peking University Institute of Nephrology, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Renal Disease, Ministry of Health of China, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Chronic Kidney Disease Prevention and Treatment, Peking University, Ministry of Education, Beijing, 100034 People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Svendsen SMS, Pedersen DC, Jensen BW, Aarestrup J, Mellemkjær L, Bjerregaard LG, Baker JL. Early life body size and puberty markers as predictors of breast cancer risk later in life: A neural network analysis. PLoS One 2024; 19:e0296835. [PMID: 38335218 PMCID: PMC10857724 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296835] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2022] [Accepted: 12/19/2023] [Indexed: 02/12/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The early life factors of birthweight, child weight, height, body mass index (BMI) and pubertal timing are associated with risks of breast cancer. However, the predictive value of these factors in relation to breast cancer is largely unknown. Therefore, using a machine learning approach, we examined whether birthweight, childhood weights, heights, BMIs, and pubertal timing individually and in combination were predictive of breast cancer. METHODS We used information on birthweight, childhood height and weight, and pubertal timing assessed by the onset of the growth spurt (OGS) from 164,216 girls born 1930-1996 from the Copenhagen School Health Records Register. Of these, 10,002 women were diagnosed with breast cancer during 1977-2019 according to a nationwide breast cancer database. We developed a feed-forward neural network, which was trained and tested on early life body size measures individually and in various combinations. Evaluation metrics were examined to identify the best performing model. RESULTS The highest area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) was achieved in a model that included birthweight, childhood heights, weights and age at OGS (AUC = 0.600). A model based on childhood heights and weights had a comparable AUC value (AUC = 0.598), whereas a model including only childhood heights had the lowest AUC value (AUC = 0.572). The sensitivity of the models ranged from 0.698 to 0.760 while the precision ranged from 0.071 to 0.076. CONCLUSION We found that the best performing network was based on birthweight, childhood weights, heights and age at OGS as the input features. Nonetheless, this performance was only slightly better than the model including childhood heights and weights. Further, although the performance of our networks was relatively low, it was similar to those from previous studies including well-established risk factors. As such, our results suggest that childhood body size may add additional value to breast cancer prediction models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara M. S. Svendsen
- Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Copenhagen University Hospital—Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Dorthe C. Pedersen
- Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Copenhagen University Hospital—Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Britt W. Jensen
- Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Copenhagen University Hospital—Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Julie Aarestrup
- Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Copenhagen University Hospital—Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | | | - Lise G. Bjerregaard
- Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Copenhagen University Hospital—Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Jennifer L. Baker
- Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Copenhagen University Hospital—Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Zirpoli GR, Pfeiffer RM, Bertrand KA, Huo D, Lunetta KL, Palmer JR. Addition of polygenic risk score to a risk calculator for prediction of breast cancer in US Black women. Breast Cancer Res 2024; 26:2. [PMID: 38167144 PMCID: PMC10763003 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-023-01748-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2023] [Accepted: 11/30/2023] [Indexed: 01/05/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Previous work in European ancestry populations has shown that adding a polygenic risk score (PRS) to breast cancer risk prediction models based on epidemiologic factors results in better discriminatory performance as measured by the AUC (area under the curve). Following publication of the first PRS to perform well in women of African ancestry (AA-PRS), we conducted an external validation of the AA-PRS and then evaluated the addition of the AA-PRS to a risk calculator for incident breast cancer in Black women based on epidemiologic factors (BWHS model). METHODS Data from the Black Women's Health Study, an ongoing prospective cohort study of 59,000 US Black women followed by biennial questionnaire since 1995, were used to calculate AUCs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for discriminatory accuracy of the BWHS model, the AA-PRS alone, and a new model that combined them. Analyses were based on data from 922 women with invasive breast cancer and 1844 age-matched controls. RESULTS AUCs were 0.577 (95% CI 0.556-0.598) for the BWHS model and 0.584 (95% CI 0.563-0.605) for the AA-PRS. For a model that combined estimates from the questionnaire-based BWHS model with the PRS, the AUC increased to 0.623 (95% CI 0.603-0.644). CONCLUSIONS This combined model represents a step forward for personalized breast cancer preventive care for US Black women, as its performance metrics are similar to those from models in other populations. Use of this new model may mitigate exacerbation of breast cancer disparities if and when it becomes feasible to include a PRS in routine health care decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gary R Zirpoli
- Slone Epidemiology Center at Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ruth M Pfeiffer
- Biostatistics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Biostatistics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA.
| | - Kimberly A Bertrand
- Slone Epidemiology Center at Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Dezheng Huo
- Department of Public Health Sciences, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
- Center for Clinical Cancer Genetics & Global Health, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Kathryn L Lunetta
- Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Julie R Palmer
- Slone Epidemiology Center at Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
- Department of Medicine, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Doherty T, Yao Z, Khleifat AAL, Tantiangco H, Tamburin S, Albertyn C, Thakur L, Llewellyn DJ, Oxtoby NP, Lourida I, Ranson JM, Duce JA. Artificial intelligence for dementia drug discovery and trials optimization. Alzheimers Dement 2023; 19:5922-5933. [PMID: 37587767 DOI: 10.1002/alz.13428] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2023] [Revised: 05/26/2023] [Accepted: 07/05/2023] [Indexed: 08/18/2023]
Abstract
Drug discovery and clinical trial design for dementia have historically been challenging. In part these challenges have arisen from patient heterogeneity, length of disease course, and the tractability of a target for the brain. Applying big data analytics and machine learning tools for drug discovery and utilizing them to inform successful clinical trial design has the potential to accelerate progress. Opportunities arise at multiple stages in the therapy pipeline and the growing availability of large medical data sets opens possibilities for big data analyses to answer key questions in clinical and therapeutic challenges. However, before this goal is reached, several challenges need to be overcome and only a multi-disciplinary approach can promote data-driven decision-making to its full potential. Herein we review the current state of machine learning applications to clinical trial design and drug discovery, while presenting opportunities and recommendations that can break down the barriers to implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Doherty
- Eisai Europe Ltd, Hatfield, UK
- University of Westminster, London, UK
| | | | - Ahmad A L Khleifat
- Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Department of Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | | | - Stefano Tamburin
- University of Verona, Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine & Movement Sciences, Verona, Italy
| | - Chris Albertyn
- Department of Old Age Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Lokendra Thakur
- Division of Genetics and Genomics, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
- Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - David J Llewellyn
- University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
- Alan Turing Institute, London, UK
| | - Neil P Oxtoby
- UCL Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, UK
| | | | | | - James A Duce
- The ALBORADA Drug Discovery Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Mbuya-Bienge C, Pashayan N, Kazemali CD, Lapointe J, Simard J, Nabi H. A Systematic Review and Critical Assessment of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Tools Incorporating a Polygenic Risk Score for the General Population. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:5380. [PMID: 38001640 PMCID: PMC10670420 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15225380] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2023] [Revised: 10/26/2023] [Accepted: 11/03/2023] [Indexed: 11/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the form of a polygenic risk score (PRS) have emerged as a promising factor that could improve the predictive performance of breast cancer (BC) risk prediction tools. This study aims to appraise and critically assess the current evidence on these tools. Studies were identified using Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library up to November 2022 and were included if they described the development and/ or validation of a BC risk prediction model using a PRS for women of the general population and if they reported a measure of predictive performance. We identified 37 articles, of which 29 combined genetic and non-genetic risk factors using seven different risk prediction tools. Most models (55.0%) were developed on populations from European ancestry and performed better than those developed on populations from other ancestry groups. Regardless of the number of SNPs in each PRS, models combining a PRS with genetic and non-genetic risk factors generally had better discriminatory accuracy (AUC from 0.52 to 0.77) than those using a PRS alone (AUC from 0.48 to 0.68). The overall risk of bias was considered low in most studies. BC risk prediction tools combining a PRS with genetic and non-genetic risk factors provided better discriminative accuracy than either used alone. Further studies are needed to cross-compare their clinical utility and readiness for implementation in public health practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cynthia Mbuya-Bienge
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (C.D.K.)
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada;
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
| | - Cornelia D. Kazemali
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (C.D.K.)
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada;
| | - Julie Lapointe
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada;
| | - Jacques Simard
- Endocrinology and Nephology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada;
- Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Hermann Nabi
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (C.D.K.)
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada;
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Koch S, Schmidtke J, Krawczak M, Caliebe A. Clinical utility of polygenic risk scores: a critical 2023 appraisal. J Community Genet 2023; 14:471-487. [PMID: 37133683 PMCID: PMC10576695 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-023-00645-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2022] [Accepted: 03/31/2023] [Indexed: 05/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Since their first appearance in the context of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in 2009, polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have been described for a large number of common complex diseases. However, the clinical utility of PRSs in disease risk assessment or therapeutic decision making is likely limited because PRSs usually only account for the heritable component of a trait and ignore the etiological role of environment and lifestyle. We surveyed the current state of PRSs for various diseases, including breast cancer, diabetes, prostate cancer, coronary artery disease, and Parkinson disease, with an extra focus upon the potential improvement of clinical scores by their combination with PRSs. We observed that the diagnostic and prognostic performance of PRSs alone is consistently low, as expected. Moreover, combining a PRS with a clinical score at best led to moderate improvement of the power of either risk marker. Despite the large number of PRSs reported in the scientific literature, prospective studies of their clinical utility, particularly of the PRS-associated improvement of standard screening or therapeutic procedures, are still rare. In conclusion, the benefit to individual patients or the health care system in general of PRS-based extensions of existing diagnostic or treatment regimens is still difficult to judge.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastian Koch
- Institut für Medizinische Informatik und Statistik, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - Jörg Schmidtke
- Amedes MVZ Wagnerstibbe, Hannover, Germany
- Institut für Humangenetik, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany
| | - Michael Krawczak
- Institut für Medizinische Informatik und Statistik, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - Amke Caliebe
- Institut für Medizinische Informatik und Statistik, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Ho PJ, Lim EH, Hartman M, Wong FY, Li J. Breast cancer risk stratification using genetic and non-genetic risk assessment tools for 246,142 women in the UK Biobank. Genet Med 2023; 25:100917. [PMID: 37334786 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2023.100917] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2023] [Revised: 06/08/2023] [Accepted: 06/09/2023] [Indexed: 06/20/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The benefit of using individual risk prediction tools to identify high-risk individuals for breast cancer (BC) screening is uncertain, despite the personalized approach of risk-based screening. METHODS We studied the overlap of predicted high-risk individuals among 246,142 women enrolled in the UK Biobank. Risk predictors assessed include the Gail model (Gail), BC family history (FH, binary), BC polygenic risk score (PRS), and presence of loss-of-function (LoF) variants in BC predisposition genes. Youden J-index was used to select optimal thresholds for defining high-risk. RESULTS In total, 147,399 were considered at high risk for developing BC within the next 2 years by at least 1 of the 4 risk prediction tools examined (Gail2-year > 0.5%: 47%, PRS2-yea r > 0.7%: 30%, FH: 6%, and LoF: 1%); 92,851 (38%) were flagged by only 1 risk predictor. The overlap between individuals flagged as high-risk because of genetic (PRS) and Gail model risk factors was 30%. The best-performing combinatorial model comprises a union of high-risk women identified by PRS, FH, and, LoF (AUC2-year [95% CI]: 62.2 [60.8 to 63.6]). Assigning individual weights to each risk prediction tool increased discriminatory ability. CONCLUSION Risk-based BC screening may require a multipronged approach that includes PRS, predisposition genes, FH, and other recognized risk factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peh Joo Ho
- Laboratory of Women's Health and Genetics, Genome Institute of Singapore, A∗STAR Research Entities, Singapore; Department of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Elaine H Lim
- Division of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Mikael Hartman
- Department of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Department of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Fuh Yong Wong
- Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Jingmei Li
- Laboratory of Women's Health and Genetics, Genome Institute of Singapore, A∗STAR Research Entities, Singapore; Department of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Strandberg R, Czene K, Hall P, Humphreys K. Novel predictions of invasive breast cancer risk in mammography screening cohorts. Stat Med 2023; 42:3816-3837. [PMID: 37337390 DOI: 10.1002/sim.9834] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2022] [Revised: 05/23/2023] [Accepted: 06/04/2023] [Indexed: 06/21/2023]
Abstract
Mammography screening programs are aimed at reducing mortality due to breast cancer by detecting tumors at an early stage. There is currently interest in moving away from the age-based screening programs, and toward personalized screening based on individual risk factors. To accomplish this, risk prediction models for breast cancer are needed to determine who should be screened, and when. We develop a novel approach using a (random effects) continuous growth model, which we apply to a large population-based, Swedish screening cohort. Unlike existing breast cancer prediction models, this approach explicitly incorporates each woman's individual screening visits in the prediction. It jointly models invasive breast cancer tumor onset, tumor growth rate, symptomatic detection rate, and screening sensitivity. In addition to predicting the overall risk of invasive breast cancer, this model can make separate predictions regarding specific tumor sizes, and the mode of detection (eg, detected at screening, or through symptoms between screenings). It can also predict how these risks change depending on whether or not a woman will attend her next screening. In our study, we predict, given a future diagnosis, that the probability of having a tumor less than (as opposed to greater than) 10-mm diameter, at detection, will be, on average, 2.6 times higher if a woman in the cohort attends their next screening. This indicates that the model can be used to evaluate the short-term benefit of screening attendance, at an individual level.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rickard Strandberg
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Swedish eScience Research Centre (SeRC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Kamila Czene
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Per Hall
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Keith Humphreys
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Swedish eScience Research Centre (SeRC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Louro J, Román M, Moshina N, Olstad CF, Larsen M, Sagstad S, Castells X, Hofvind S. Personalized Breast Cancer Screening: A Risk Prediction Model Based on Women Attending BreastScreen Norway. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:4517. [PMID: 37760486 PMCID: PMC10526465 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15184517] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2023] [Revised: 09/06/2023] [Accepted: 09/09/2023] [Indexed: 09/29/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND We aimed to develop and validate a model predicting breast cancer risk for women targeted by breast cancer screening. METHOD This retrospective cohort study included 57,411 women screened at least once in BreastScreen Norway during the period from 2007 to 2019. The prediction model included information about age, mammographic density, family history of breast cancer, body mass index, age at menarche, alcohol consumption, exercise, pregnancy, hormone replacement therapy, and benign breast disease. We calculated a 4-year absolute breast cancer risk estimates for women and in risk groups by quartiles. The Bootstrap resampling method was used for internal validation of the model (E/O ratio). The area under the curve (AUC) was estimated with a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS The 4-year predicted risk of breast cancer ranged from 0.22-7.33%, while 95% of the population had a risk of 0.55-2.31%. The thresholds for the quartiles of the risk groups, with 25% of the population in each group, were 0.82%, 1.10%, and 1.47%. Overall, the model slightly overestimated the risk with an E/O ratio of 1.10 (95% CI: 1.09-1.11) and the AUC was 62.6% (95% CI: 60.5-65.0%). CONCLUSIONS This 4-year risk prediction model showed differences in the risk of breast cancer, supporting personalized screening for breast cancer in women aged 50-69 years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Javier Louro
- Department of Epidemiology and Evaluation, Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, 08003 Barcelona, Spain; (J.L.); (M.R.); (X.C.)
- Network for Research on Chronicity, Primary Care, and Health Promotion (RICAPPS), 48902 Barakaldo, Spain
| | - Marta Román
- Department of Epidemiology and Evaluation, Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, 08003 Barcelona, Spain; (J.L.); (M.R.); (X.C.)
- Network for Research on Chronicity, Primary Care, and Health Promotion (RICAPPS), 48902 Barakaldo, Spain
| | - Nataliia Moshina
- Section for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, 0304 Oslo, Norway; (N.M.); (C.F.O.); (M.L.); (S.S.)
| | - Camilla F. Olstad
- Section for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, 0304 Oslo, Norway; (N.M.); (C.F.O.); (M.L.); (S.S.)
| | - Marthe Larsen
- Section for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, 0304 Oslo, Norway; (N.M.); (C.F.O.); (M.L.); (S.S.)
| | - Silje Sagstad
- Section for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, 0304 Oslo, Norway; (N.M.); (C.F.O.); (M.L.); (S.S.)
| | - Xavier Castells
- Department of Epidemiology and Evaluation, Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, 08003 Barcelona, Spain; (J.L.); (M.R.); (X.C.)
- Network for Research on Chronicity, Primary Care, and Health Promotion (RICAPPS), 48902 Barakaldo, Spain
| | - Solveig Hofvind
- Section for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, 0304 Oslo, Norway; (N.M.); (C.F.O.); (M.L.); (S.S.)
- Department of Health and Care Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT, The Arctic University of Norway, 9037 Tromsø, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Choi J, Ha TW, Choi HM, Lee HB, Shin HC, Chung W, Han W. Development of a Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model Incorporating Polygenic Risk Scores and Nongenetic Risk Factors for Korean Women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023; 32:1182-1189. [PMID: 37310812 PMCID: PMC10472098 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-23-0064] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2023] [Revised: 04/19/2023] [Accepted: 06/09/2023] [Indexed: 06/15/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To develop a breast cancer prediction model for Korean women using published polygenic risk scores (PRS) combined with nongenetic risk factors (NGRF). METHODS Thirteen PRS models generated from single or multiple combinations of the Asian and European PRSs were evaluated among 20,434 Korean women. The AUC and increase in OR per SD were compared for each PRS. The PRSs with the highest predictive power were combined with NGRFs; then, an integrated prediction model was established using the Individualized Coherent Absolute Risk Estimation (iCARE) tool. The absolute breast cancer risk was stratified for 18,142 women with available follow-up data. RESULTS PRS38_ASN+PRS190_EB, a combination of Asian and European PRSs, had the highest AUC (0.621) among PRSs, with an OR per SD increase of 1.45 (95% confidence interval: 1.31-1.61). Compared with the average risk group (35%-65%), women in the top 5% had a 2.5-fold higher risk of breast cancer. Incorporating NGRFs yielded a modest increase in the AUC of women ages >50 years. For PRS38_ASN+PRS190_EB+NGRF, the average absolute risk was 5.06%. The lifetime absolute risk at age 80 years for women in the top 5% was 9.93%, whereas that of women in the lowest 5% was 2.22%. Women at higher risks were more sensitive to NGRF incorporation. CONCLUSIONS Combined Asian and European PRSs were predictive of breast cancer in Korean women. Our findings support the use of these models for personalized screening and prevention of breast cancer. IMPACT Our study provides insights into genetic susceptibility and NGRFs for predicting breast cancer in Korean women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jihye Choi
- Department of General Surgery, National Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | | | | | - Han-Byoel Lee
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
- DCGen, Co., Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea
- Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
- Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Hee-Chul Shin
- DCGen, Co., Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea
| | | | - Wonshik Han
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
- DCGen, Co., Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea
- Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
- Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Nguyen AA, McCarthy AM, Kontos D. Combining Molecular and Radiomic Features for Risk Assessment in Breast Cancer. Annu Rev Biomed Data Sci 2023; 6:299-311. [PMID: 37159874 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-020722-092748] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/11/2023]
Abstract
Breast cancer risk is highly variable within the population and current research is leading the shift toward personalized medicine. By accurately assessing an individual woman's risk, we can reduce the risk of over/undertreatment by preventing unnecessary procedures or by elevating screening procedures. Breast density measured from conventional mammography has been established as one of the most dominant risk factors for breast cancer; however, it is currently limited by its ability to characterize more complex breast parenchymal patterns that have been shown to provide additional information to strengthen cancer risk models. Molecular factors ranging from high penetrance, or high likelihood that a mutation will show signs and symptoms of the disease, to combinations of gene mutations with low penetrance have shown promise for augmenting risk assessment. Although imaging biomarkers and molecular biomarkers have both individually demonstrated improved performance in risk assessment, few studies have evaluated them together. This review aims to highlight the current state of the art in breast cancer risk assessment using imaging and genetic biomarkers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alex A Nguyen
- Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Anne Marie McCarthy
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Despina Kontos
- Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA;
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Stiller S, Drukewitz S, Lehmann K, Hentschel J, Strehlow V. Clinical Impact of Polygenic Risk Score for Breast Cancer Risk Prediction in 382 Individuals with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:3938. [PMID: 37568754 PMCID: PMC10417109 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15153938] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2023] [Revised: 07/21/2023] [Accepted: 07/28/2023] [Indexed: 08/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Single nucleotide polymorphisms are currently not considered in breast cancer (BC) risk predictions used in daily practice of genetic counselling and clinical management of familial BC in Germany. This study aimed to assess the clinical value of incorporating a 313-variant-based polygenic risk score (PRS) into BC risk calculations in a cohort of German women with suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC). Data from 382 individuals seeking counselling for HBOC were analysed. Risk calculations were performed using the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm with and without the inclusion of the PRS. Changes in risk predictions and their impact on clinical management were evaluated. The PRS led to changes in risk stratification based on 10-year risk calculations in 13.6% of individuals. Furthermore, the inclusion of the PRS in BC risk predictions resulted in clinically significant changes in 12.0% of cases, impacting the prevention recommendations established by the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. These findings support the implementation of the PRS in genetic counselling for personalized BC risk assessment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Stiller
- Institute of Human Genetics, University of Leipzig Medical Center, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
| | - Stephan Drukewitz
- Institute of Human Genetics, University of Leipzig Medical Center, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
- Core Unit for Molecular Tumor Diagnostics (CMTD), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany
| | - Kathleen Lehmann
- Institute of Human Genetics, University of Leipzig Medical Center, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
| | - Julia Hentschel
- Institute of Human Genetics, University of Leipzig Medical Center, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
| | - Vincent Strehlow
- Institute of Human Genetics, University of Leipzig Medical Center, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Okunola HL, Shuryak I, Repin M, Wu HC, Santella RM, Terry MB, Turner HC, Brenner DJ. Improved prediction of breast cancer risk based on phenotypic DNA damage repair capacity in peripheral blood B cells. RESEARCH SQUARE 2023:rs.3.rs-3093360. [PMID: 37461559 PMCID: PMC10350237 DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3093360/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/25/2023]
Abstract
Background Standard Breast Cancer (BC) risk prediction models based only on epidemiologic factors generally have quite poor performance, and there have been a number of risk scores proposed to improve them, such as AI-based mammographic information, polygenic risk scores and pathogenic variants. Even with these additions BC risk prediction performance is still at best moderate. In that decreased DNA repair capacity (DRC) is a major risk factor for development of cancer, we investigated the potential to improve BC risk prediction models by including a measured phenotypic DRC assay. Methods Using blood samples from the Breast Cancer Family Registry we assessed the performance of phenotypic markers of DRC in 46 matched pairs of individuals, one from each pair with BC (with blood drawn before BC diagnosis) and the other from controls matched by age and time since blood draw. We assessed DRC in thawed cryopreserved peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) by measuring γ-H2AX yields (a marker for DNA double-strand breaks) at multiple times from 1 to 20 hrs after a radiation challenge. The studies were performed using surface markers to discriminate between different PBMC subtypes. Results The parameter F res , the residual damage signal in PBMC B cells at 20 hrs post challenge, was the strongest predictor of breast cancer with an AUC (Area Under receiver-operator Curve) of 0.89 [95% Confidence Interval: 0.84-0.93] and a BC status prediction accuracy of 0.80. To illustrate the combined use of a phenotypic predictor with standard BC predictors, we combined F res in B cells with age at blood draw, and found that the combination resulted in significantly greater BC predictive power (AUC of 0.97 [95% CI: 0.94-0.99]), an increase of 13 percentage points over age alone. Conclusions If replicated in larger studies, these results suggest that inclusion of a fingerstick-based phenotypic DRC blood test has the potential to markedly improve BC risk prediction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Hui-Chen Wu
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Hiatt RA, Worden L, Rehkopf D, Engmann N, Troester M, Witte JS, Balke K, Jackson C, Barlow J, Fenton SE, Gehlert S, Hammond RA, Kaplan G, Kornak J, Nishioka K, McKone T, Smith MT, Trasande L, Porco TC. A complex systems model of breast cancer etiology: The Paradigm II Model. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0282878. [PMID: 37205649 PMCID: PMC10198497 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282878] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2021] [Accepted: 02/24/2023] [Indexed: 05/21/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Complex systems models of breast cancer have previously focused on prediction of prognosis and clinical events for individual women. There is a need for understanding breast cancer at the population level for public health decision-making, for identifying gaps in epidemiologic knowledge and for the education of the public as to the complexity of this most common of cancers. METHODS AND FINDINGS We developed an agent-based model of breast cancer for the women of the state of California using data from the U.S. Census, the California Health Interview Survey, the California Cancer Registry, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and the literature. The model was implemented in the Julia programming language and R computing environment. The Paradigm II model development followed a transdisciplinary process with expertise from multiple relevant disciplinary experts from genetics to epidemiology and sociology with the goal of exploring both upstream determinants at the population level and pathophysiologic etiologic factors at the biologic level. The resulting model reproduces in a reasonable manner the overall age-specific incidence curve for the years 2008-2012 and incidence and relative risks due to specific risk factors such as BRCA1, polygenic risk, alcohol consumption, hormone therapy, breastfeeding, oral contraceptive use and scenarios for environmental toxin exposures. CONCLUSIONS The Paradigm II model illustrates the role of multiple etiologic factors in breast cancer from domains of biology, behavior and the environment. The value of the model is in providing a virtual laboratory to evaluate a wide range of potential interventions into the social, environmental and behavioral determinants of breast cancer at the population level.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert A. Hiatt
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | - Lee Worden
- Francis I. Proctor Foundation for Research in Ophthalmology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | - David Rehkopf
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America
| | - Natalie Engmann
- Genentech, Inc. South San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | - Melissa Troester
- Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America
| | - John S. Witte
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America
| | - Kaya Balke
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | - Christian Jackson
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America
| | - Janice Barlow
- Zero Breast Cancer (retired), San Rafael, California, United States of America
| | - Suzanne E. Fenton
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institute of Health, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, United States of America
| | - Sarah Gehlert
- Suzanne Dworak-Peck School, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States of America
| | - Ross A. Hammond
- Brown School, Washington University, St Louis, Missouri, United States of America
| | - George Kaplan
- University of Michigan (retired), Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
| | - John Kornak
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | - Krisida Nishioka
- School of Law, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America
| | - Thomas McKone
- School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, (Emeritus), Berkeley, California, United States of America
| | - Martyn T. Smith
- Division of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America
| | - Leonardo Trasande
- Department of Pediatrics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, New York, United States of America
| | - Travis C. Porco
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America
- Francis I. Proctor Foundation for Research in Ophthalmology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Allman R, Mu Y, Dite GS, Spaeth E, Hopper JL, Rosner BA. Validation of a breast cancer risk prediction model based on the key risk factors: family history, mammographic density and polygenic risk. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2023; 198:335-347. [PMID: 36749458 PMCID: PMC10020257 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-022-06834-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2022] [Accepted: 12/02/2022] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE We compared a simple breast cancer risk prediction model, BRISK (which includes mammographic density, polygenic risk and clinical factors), against a similar model with more risk factors (simplified Rosner) and against two commonly used clinical models (Gail and IBIS). METHODS Using nested case-control data from the Nurses' Health Study, we compared the models' association, discrimination and calibration. Classification performance was compared between Gail and BRISK for 5-year risks and between IBIS and BRISK for remaining lifetime risk. RESULTS The odds ratio per standard deviation was 1.43 (95% CI 1.32, 1.55) for BRISK 5-year risk, 1.07 (95% CI 0.99, 1.14) for Gail 5-year risk, 1.72 (95% CI 1.59, 1.87) for simplified Rosner 10-year risk, 1.51 (95% CI 1.41, 1.62) for BRISK remaining lifetime risk and 1.26 (95% CI 1.16, 1.36) for IBIS remaining lifetime risk. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was improved for BRISK over Gail for 5-year risk (AUC = 0.636 versus 0.511, P < 0.0001) and for BRISK over IBIS for remaining lifetime risk (AUC = 0.647 versus 0.571, P < 0.0001). BRISK was well calibrated for the estimation of both 5-year risk (expected/observed [E/O] = 1.03; 95% CI 0.73, 1.46) and remaining lifetime risk (E/O = 1.01; 95% CI 0.86, 1.17). The Gail 5-year risk (E/O = 0.85; 95% CI 0.58, 1.24) and IBIS remaining lifetime risk (E/O = 0.73; 95% CI 0.60, 0.87) were not well calibrated, with both under-estimating risk. BRISK improves classification of risk compared to Gail 5-year risk (NRI = 0.31; standard error [SE] = 0.031) and IBIS remaining lifetime risk (NRI = 0.287; SE = 0.035). CONCLUSION BRISK performs better than two commonly used clinical risk models and no worse compared to a similar model with more risk factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard Allman
- Genetic Technologies Limited, 60-66 Hanover St, Fitzroy, VIC, 3065, Australia.
| | - Yi Mu
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Gillian S Dite
- Genetic Technologies Limited, 60-66 Hanover St, Fitzroy, VIC, 3065, Australia
| | | | - John L Hopper
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Bernard A Rosner
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Hathaway CA, Rice MS, Collins LC, Chen D, Frank DA, Walker S, Clevenger CV, Tamimi RM, Tworoger SS, Hankinson SE. Prolactin levels and breast cancer risk by tumor expression of prolactin-related markers. Breast Cancer Res 2023; 25:24. [PMID: 36882838 PMCID: PMC9990334 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-023-01618-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2022] [Accepted: 02/11/2023] [Indexed: 03/09/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Higher circulating prolactin has been associated with increased breast cancer risk. Prolactin binding to the prolactin receptor (PRLR) can activate the transcription factor STAT5, thus, we examined the association between plasma prolactin and breast cancer risk by tumor expression of PRLR, STAT5, and the upstream kinase JAK2. METHODS Using data from 745 cases and 2454 matched controls in the Nurses' Health Study, we conducted polytomous logistic regression to examine the association between prolactin (> 11 ng/mL vs. ≤ 11 ng/mL) measured within 10 years of diagnosis and breast cancer risk by PRLR (nuclear [N], cytoplasmic [C]), phosphorylated STAT5 (pSTAT5; N, C), and phosphorylated JAK2 (pJAK2; C) tumor expression. Analyses were conducted separately in premenopausal (n = 168 cases, 765 controls) and postmenopausal women (n = 577 cases, 1689 controls). RESULTS In premenopausal women, prolactin levels > 11 ng/mL were positively associated with risk of tumors positive for pSTAT5-N (OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.02-5.22) and pSTAT5-C (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.01-2.65), but not tumors that were negative for these markers (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.65-1.46 and OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.43-1.25; p-heterogeneity = 0.06 and 0.02, respectively). This was stronger when tumors were positive for both pSTAT5-N and pSTAT5-C (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.14-7.25). No association was observed for PRLR or pJAK2 (positive or negative) and breast cancer risk among premenopausal women. Among postmenopausal women, plasma prolactin levels were positively associated with breast cancer risk irrespective of PRLR, pSTAT5, or pJAK2 expression (all p-heterogeneity ≥ 0.21). CONCLUSION We did not observe clear differences in the association between plasma prolactin and breast cancer risk by tumor expression of PRLR or pJAK2, although associations for premenopausal women were observed for pSTAT5 positive tumors only. While additional studies are needed, this suggests that prolactin may act on human breast tumor development through alternative pathways.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cassandra A Hathaway
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Moffitt Cancer Center, 13131 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA.
| | - Megan S Rice
- Clinical and Translational Epidemiology Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Laura C Collins
- Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Dilys Chen
- Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Royal Columbian Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - David A Frank
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Sarah Walker
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Charles V Clevenger
- Department of Pathology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Rulla M Tamimi
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Shelley S Tworoger
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Moffitt Cancer Center, 13131 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA.,Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Susan E Hankinson
- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tools for Stratifying Women into Risk Groups: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15041124. [PMID: 36831466 PMCID: PMC9953796 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15041124] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2022] [Revised: 01/31/2023] [Accepted: 02/01/2023] [Indexed: 02/12/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The benefits and harms of breast screening may be better balanced through a risk-stratified approach. We conducted a systematic review assessing the accuracy of questionnaire-based risk assessment tools for this purpose. METHODS Population: asymptomatic women aged ≥40 years; Intervention: questionnaire-based risk assessment tool (incorporating breast density and polygenic risk where available); Comparison: different tool applied to the same population; Primary outcome: breast cancer incidence; Scope: external validation studies identified from databases including Medline and Embase (period 1 January 2008-20 July 2021). We assessed calibration (goodness-of-fit) between expected and observed cancers and compared observed cancer rates by risk group. Risk of bias was assessed with PROBAST. RESULTS Of 5124 records, 13 were included examining 11 tools across 15 cohorts. The Gail tool was most represented (n = 11), followed by Tyrer-Cuzick (n = 5), BRCAPRO and iCARE-Lit (n = 3). No tool was consistently well-calibrated across multiple studies and breast density or polygenic risk scores did not improve calibration. Most tools identified a risk group with higher rates of observed cancers, but few tools identified lower-risk groups across different settings. All tools demonstrated a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION Some risk tools can identify groups of women at higher or lower breast cancer risk, but this is highly dependent on the setting and population.
Collapse
|
20
|
Seitzman RL, Pushkin J, Berg WA. Effect of an Educational Intervention on Women's Health Care Provider Knowledge Gaps About Breast Cancer Risk Model Use and High-risk Screening Recommendations. JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING 2023; 5:30-39. [PMID: 38416962 DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbac072] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2022] [Indexed: 03/01/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess effectiveness of a web-based educational intervention on women's health care provider knowledge of breast cancer risk models and high-risk screening recommendations. METHODS A web-based pre- and post-test study including 177 U.S.-based women's health care providers was conducted in 2019. Knowledge gaps were defined as fewer than 75% of respondents answering correctly. Pre- and post-test knowledge differences (McNemar test) and associations of baseline characteristics with pre-test knowledge gaps (logistic regression) were evaluated. RESULTS Respondents included 131/177 (74.0%) physicians; 127/177 (71.8%) practiced obstetrics/gynecology. Pre-test, 118/177 (66.7%) knew the Gail model predicts lifetime invasive breast cancer risk; this knowledge gap persisted post-test [(121/177, 68.4%); P = 0.77]. Just 39.0% (69/177) knew the Gail model identifies women eligible for risk-reducing medications; this knowledge gap resolved. Only 48.6% (86/177) knew the Gail model should not be used to identify women meeting high-risk MRI screening guidelines; this deficiency decreased to 66.1% (117/177) post-test (P = 0.001). Pre-test, 47.5% (84/177) knew the Tyrer-Cuzick model is used to identify women meeting high-risk screening MRI criteria, 42.9% (76/177) to predict BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutation risk, and 26.0% (46/177) to predict lifetime invasive breast cancer risk. These knowledge gaps persisted but improved. For a high-risk 30-year-old, 67.8% (120/177) and 54.2% (96/177) pre-test knew screening MRI and mammography/tomosynthesis are recommended, respectively; 19.2% (34/177) knew both are recommended; and 53% (94/177) knew US is not recommended. These knowledge gaps resolved or reduced. CONCLUSION Web-based education can reduce important provider knowledge gaps about breast cancer risk models and high-risk screening recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Wendie A Berg
- DenseBreast-info, Inc, Deer Park, NY, USA
- University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, Department of Radiology, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Tshiaba PT, Ratman DK, Sun JM, Tunstall TS, Levy B, Shah PS, Weitzel JN, Rabinowitz M, Kumar A, Im KM. Integration of a Cross-Ancestry Polygenic Model With Clinical Risk Factors Improves Breast Cancer Risk Stratification. JCO Precis Oncol 2023; 7:e2200447. [PMID: 36809055 DOI: 10.1200/po.22.00447] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/23/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To develop and validate a cross-ancestry integrated risk score (caIRS) that combines a cross-ancestry polygenic risk score (caPRS) with a clinical estimator for breast cancer (BC) risk. We hypothesized that the caIRS is a better predictor of BC risk than clinical risk factors across diverse ancestry groups. METHODS We used diverse retrospective cohort data with longitudinal follow-up to develop a caPRS and integrate it with the Tyrer-Cuzick (T-C) clinical model. We tested the association between the caIRS and BC risk in two validation cohorts including > 130,000 women. We compared model discrimination for 5-year and remaining lifetime BC risk between the caIRS and T-C and assessed how the caIRS would affect screening in the clinic. RESULTS The caIRS outperformed T-C alone for all populations tested in both validation cohorts and contributed significantly to risk prediction beyond T-C. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve improved from 0.57 to 0.65, and the odds ratio per standard deviation increased from 1.35 (95% CI, 1.27 to 1.43) to 1.79 (95% CI, 1.70 to 1.88) in validation cohort 1 with similar improvements observed in validation cohort 2. We observed the largest gain in positive predictive value using the caIRS in Black/African American women across both validation cohorts, with an approximately two-fold increase and an equivalent negative predictive value as the T-C. In a multivariate, age-adjusted logistic regression model including both caIRS and T-C, caIRS remained significant, indicating that caIRS provides information over T-C alone. CONCLUSION Adding a caPRS to the T-C model improves BC risk stratification for women of multiple ancestries, which could have implications for screening recommendations and prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Brynn Levy
- MyOme Inc, Menlo Park, CA.,Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Lapointe J, Buron AC, Mbuya-Bienge C, Dorval M, Pashayan N, Brooks JD, Walker MJ, Chiquette J, Eloy L, Blackmore K, Turgeon A, Lambert-Côté L, Leclerc L, Dalpé G, Joly Y, Knoppers BM, Chiarelli AM, Simard J, Nabi H. Polygenic risk scores and risk-stratified breast cancer screening: Familiarity and perspectives of health care professionals. Genet Med 2022; 24:2380-2388. [PMID: 36057905 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2022] [Revised: 08/04/2022] [Accepted: 08/05/2022] [Indexed: 10/14/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Health care professionals are expected to take on an active role in the implementation of risk-based cancer prevention strategies. This study aimed to explore health care professionals' (1) self-reported familiarity with the concept of polygenic risk score (PRS), (2) perceived level of knowledge regarding risk-stratified breast cancer (BC) screening, and (3) preferences for continuing professional development. METHODS A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a bilingual-English/French-online questionnaire disseminated by health care professional associations across Canada between November 2020 and May 2021. RESULTS A total of 593 professionals completed more than 2 items and 453 responded to all questions. A total of 432 (94%) participants were female, 103 (22%) were physicians, and 323 (70%) were nurses. Participants reported to be unfamiliar with (20%), very unfamiliar (32%) with, or did not know (41%) the concept of PRS. Most participants reported not having enough knowledge about risk-stratified BC screening (61%) and that they would require more training (77%). Online courses and webinar conferences were the preferred continuing professional development modalities. CONCLUSION The study indicates that health care professionals are currently not familiar with the concept of PRS or a risk-stratified approach for BC screening. Online information and training seem to be an essential knowledge transfer modality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie Lapointe
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | - Anne-Catherine Buron
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | - Cynthia Mbuya-Bienge
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada; Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | - Michel Dorval
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada; Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada; CISSS de Chaudière-Appalaches Research Center, Lévis, Québec, Canada
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, University College London, United Kingdom
| | - Jennifer D Brooks
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Meghan J Walker
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Cancer Care Ontario, Ontario Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jocelyne Chiquette
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada; CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | - Laurence Eloy
- Programme Québécois de Cancérologie, Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | | | - Annie Turgeon
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | - Laurence Lambert-Côté
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | - Lucas Leclerc
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | - Gratien Dalpé
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Yann Joly
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Human Genetics Department and Bioethics Unit, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | | | - Anna Maria Chiarelli
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Cancer Care Ontario, Ontario Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jacques Simard
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada; Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | - Hermann Nabi
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada; Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Lencz T, Sabatello M, Docherty A, Peterson RE, Soda T, Austin J, Bierut L, Crepaz-Keay D, Curtis D, Degenhardt F, Huckins L, Lazaro-Munoz G, Mattheisen M, Meiser B, Peay H, Rietschel M, Walss-Bass C, Davis LK. Concerns about the use of polygenic embryo screening for psychiatric and cognitive traits. Lancet Psychiatry 2022; 9:838-844. [PMID: 35931093 PMCID: PMC9930635 DOI: 10.1016/s2215-0366(22)00157-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2022] [Revised: 04/01/2022] [Accepted: 04/23/2022] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Private companies have begun offering services to allow parents undergoing in-vitro fertilisation to screen embryos for genetic risk of complex diseases, including psychiatric disorders. This procedure, called polygenic embryo screening, raises several difficult scientific and ethical issues, as discussed in this Personal View. Polygenic embryo screening depends on the statistical properties of polygenic risk scores, which are complex and not well studied in the context of this proposed clinical application. The clinical, social, and ethical implications of polygenic embryo screening have barely been discussed among relevant stakeholders. To our knowledge, the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics is the first professional biomedical organisation to issue a statement regarding polygenic embryo screening. For the reasons discussed in this Personal View, the Society urges caution and calls for additional research and oversight on the use of polygenic embryo screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Todd Lencz
- Divison of Psychiatry Research, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Glen Oaks, NY, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Division of Research, The Zucker Hillside Hospital Division of Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, NY, USA; Institute for Behavioral Science, The Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, NY, USA.
| | - Maya Sabatello
- Division of Ethics, Department of Medical Humanities and Ethics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Anna Docherty
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Roseann E Peterson
- Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Takahiro Soda
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Jehannine Austin
- Departments of Psychiatry and Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Laura Bierut
- Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
| | | | - David Curtis
- UCL Genetics Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Franziska Degenhardt
- Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics, and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Germany
| | - Laura Huckins
- Departments of Psychiatry and Genetics and Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Manuel Mattheisen
- Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie Medical School, Halifax, NS, Canada
| | - Bettina Meiser
- Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia
| | - Holly Peay
- Genomics, Bioinformatics, and Translational Research Center, RTI International, Raleigh, NC, USA
| | - Marcella Rietschel
- Department of Genetic Epidemiology in Psychiatry, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Consuelo Walss-Bass
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lea K Davis
- Vanderbilt Genetics Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Role of Polygenic Risk Score in Cancer Precision Medicine of Non-European Populations: A Systematic Review. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:5517-5530. [PMID: 36005174 PMCID: PMC9406904 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29080436] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/06/2022] [Revised: 07/28/2022] [Accepted: 08/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
The development of new screening methods and diagnostic tests for traits, common diseases, and cancer is linked to the advent of precision genomic medicine, in which health care is individually adjusted based on a person’s lifestyle, environmental influences, and genetic variants. Based on genome-wide association study (GWAS) analysis, rapid and continuing progress in the discovery of relevant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for traits or complex diseases has increased interest in the potential application of genetic risk models for routine health practice. The polygenic risk score (PRS) estimates an individual’s genetic risk of a trait or disease, calculated by employing a weighted sum of allele counts combined with non-genetic variables. However, 98.38% of PRS records held in public databases relate to the European population. Therefore, PRSs for multiethnic populations are urgently needed. We performed a systematic review to discuss the role of polygenic risk scores in advancing precision medicine for different cancer types in multiethnic non-European populations.
Collapse
|
25
|
Hujoel ML, Loh PR, Neale BM, Price AL. Incorporating family history of disease improves polygenic risk scores in diverse populations. CELL GENOMICS 2022; 2:100152. [PMID: 35935918 PMCID: PMC9351615 DOI: 10.1016/j.xgen.2022.100152] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2021] [Revised: 05/22/2022] [Accepted: 06/09/2022] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) derived from genotype data and family history (FH) of disease provide valuable information for predicting disease risk, but PRSs perform poorly when applied to diverse populations. Here, we explore methods for combining both types of information (PRS-FH) in UK Biobank data. PRSs were trained using all British individuals (n = 409,000), and target samples consisted of unrelated non-British Europeans (n = 42,000), South Asians (n = 7,000), or Africans (n = 7,000). We evaluated PRS, FH, and PRS-FH using liability-scale R 2, primarily focusing on 3 well-powered diseases (type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and depression). PRS attained average prediction R 2s of 5.8%, 4.0%, and 0.53% in non-British Europeans, South Asians, and Africans, confirming poor cross-population transferability. In contrast, PRS-FH attained average prediction R 2s of 13%, 12%, and 10%, respectively, representing a large improvement in Europeans and an extremely large improvement in Africans. In conclusion, including family history improves the accuracy of polygenic risk scores, particularly in diverse populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Margaux L.A. Hujoel
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA
- Division of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA
- Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA
| | - Po-Ru Loh
- Division of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA
- Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA
| | - Benjamin M. Neale
- Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA
| | - Alkes L. Price
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA
- Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
He YQ, Wang TM, Ji M, Mai ZM, Tang M, Wang R, Zhou Y, Zheng Y, Xiao R, Yang D, Wu Z, Deng C, Zhang J, Xue W, Dong S, Zhan J, Cai Y, Li F, Wu B, Liao Y, Zhou T, Zheng M, Jia Y, Li D, Cao L, Yuan L, Zhang W, Luo L, Tong X, Wu Y, Li X, Zhang P, Zheng X, Zhang S, Hu Y, Qin W, Deng B, Liang X, Fan P, Feng Y, Song J, Xie SH, Chang ET, Zhang Z, Huang G, Xu M, Feng L, Jin G, Bei J, Cao S, Liu Q, Kozlakidis Z, Mai H, Sun Y, Ma J, Hu Z, Liu J, Lung ML, Adami HO, Shen H, Ye W, Lam TH, Zeng YX, Jia WH. A polygenic risk score for nasopharyngeal carcinoma shows potential for risk stratification and personalized screening. Nat Commun 2022; 13:1966. [PMID: 35414057 PMCID: PMC9005522 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-29570-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2021] [Accepted: 03/23/2022] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have the potential to identify individuals at risk of diseases, optimizing treatment, and predicting survival outcomes. Here, we construct and validate a genome-wide association study (GWAS) derived PRS for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), using a multi-center study of six populations (6 059 NPC cases and 7 582 controls), and evaluate its utility in a nested case-control study. We show that the PRS enables effective identification of NPC high-risk individuals (AUC = 0.65) and improves the risk prediction with the PRS incremental deciles in each population (Ptrend ranging from 2.79 × 10-7 to 4.79 × 10-44). By incorporating the PRS into EBV-serology-based NPC screening, the test's positive predictive value (PPV) is increased from an average of 4.84% to 8.38% and 11.91% in the top 10% and 5% PRS, respectively. In summary, the GWAS-derived PRS, together with the EBV test, significantly improves NPC risk stratification and informs personalized screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yong-Qiao He
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Tong-Min Wang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Mingfang Ji
- Cancer Research Institute of Zhongshan City, Zhongshan Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhongshan, China
| | - Zhi-Ming Mai
- School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R., China
- Center for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Research (CNPCR), The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R., China
- Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Minzhong Tang
- Wuzhou Red Cross Hospital, Wuzhou, Guangxi, P.R. China
- Wuzhou Cancer Center, Wuzhou, Guangxi, P.R. China
| | - Ruozheng Wang
- Key Laboratory of Cancer Immunotherapy and Radiotherapy, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Ürümqi, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, 830011, P.R. China
| | - Yifeng Zhou
- Department of Genetics, Medical College of Soochow University, Suzhou, China
| | - Yuming Zheng
- Wuzhou Red Cross Hospital, Wuzhou, Guangxi, P.R. China
- Wuzhou Cancer Center, Wuzhou, Guangxi, P.R. China
| | - Ruowen Xiao
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Dawei Yang
- School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, P.R. China
| | - Ziyi Wu
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Changmi Deng
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Jiangbo Zhang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Wenqiong Xue
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Siqi Dong
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Jiyun Zhan
- Public Health Service Center of Xiaolan Town, Zhongshan City, Guangdong, China
| | - Yonglin Cai
- Wuzhou Red Cross Hospital, Wuzhou, Guangxi, P.R. China
| | - Fugui Li
- Cancer Research Institute of Zhongshan City, Zhongshan Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhongshan, China
| | - Biaohua Wu
- Cancer Research Institute of Zhongshan City, Zhongshan Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhongshan, China
| | - Ying Liao
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Ting Zhou
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Meiqi Zheng
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Yijing Jia
- School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, P.R. China
| | - Danhua Li
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Lianjing Cao
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Leilei Yuan
- School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, P.R. China
| | - Wenli Zhang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Luting Luo
- School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, P.R. China
| | - Xiating Tong
- School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, P.R. China
| | - Yanxia Wu
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Xizhao Li
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Peifen Zhang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Xiaohui Zheng
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Shaodan Zhang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Yezhu Hu
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Weiling Qin
- Wuzhou Red Cross Hospital, Wuzhou, Guangxi, P.R. China
| | - Bisen Deng
- Public Health Service Center of Xiaolan Town, Zhongshan City, Guangdong, China
| | - Xuejun Liang
- Public Health Service Center of Xiaolan Town, Zhongshan City, Guangdong, China
| | - Peiwen Fan
- State Key Laboratory of Pathogenesis, Prevention and Treatment of High Incidence Diseases in Central Asia, Departments of Institute for Cancer Research, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Ürümqi, 830011, P.R. China
| | - Yaning Feng
- Key Laboratory of Oncology of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, Ürümqi, 830011, China
| | - Jia Song
- Departments of Institute for Cancer Research, The Third Affiliated Teaching Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Affiliated Cancer Hospital, Ürümqi, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, 830010, P.R. China
| | - Shang-Hang Xie
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Ellen T Chang
- Center for Health Sciences, Exponent, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, USA
- Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Zhe Zhang
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China
| | - Guangwu Huang
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China
| | - Miao Xu
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Lin Feng
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Guangfu Jin
- Department of Epidemiology, International Joint Research Center on Environment and Human Health, Center for Global Health, Jiangsu Key Lab of Cancer Biomarkers, Prevention and Treatment, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Jinxin Bei
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Sumei Cao
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Qing Liu
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Zisis Kozlakidis
- Division of Infection and Immunity, Faculty of Medical Sciences - University College London, London, UK
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France
| | - Haiqiang Mai
- Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ying Sun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jun Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhibin Hu
- Department of Epidemiology, International Joint Research Center on Environment and Human Health, Center for Global Health, Jiangsu Key Lab of Cancer Biomarkers, Prevention and Treatment, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Jianjun Liu
- Human Genetics, Genome Institute of Singapore, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore
- Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Maria Li Lung
- Center for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Research (CNPCR), The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R., China
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R., China
| | - Hans-Olov Adami
- Clinical Effectiveness Group, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Hongbing Shen
- Department of Epidemiology, International Joint Research Center on Environment and Human Health, Center for Global Health, Jiangsu Key Lab of Cancer Biomarkers, Prevention and Treatment, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
| | - Weimin Ye
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
- Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics & Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Gastrointestinal Cancer, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
| | - Tai-Hing Lam
- School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R., China.
- Center for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Research (CNPCR), The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R., China.
| | - Yi-Xin Zeng
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Wei-Hua Jia
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
- School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, P.R. China.
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Yang Y, Tao R, Shu X, Cai Q, Wen W, Gu K, Gao YT, Zheng Y, Kweon SS, Shin MH, Choi JY, Lee ES, Kong SY, Park B, Park MH, Jia G, Li B, Kang D, Shu XO, Long J, Zheng W. Incorporating Polygenic Risk Scores and Nongenetic Risk Factors for Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Among Asian Women. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5:e2149030. [PMID: 35311964 PMCID: PMC8938714 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.49030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have shown promise in breast cancer risk prediction; however, limited studies have been conducted among Asian women. OBJECTIVE To develop breast cancer risk prediction models for Asian women incorporating PRSs and nongenetic risk factors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This diagnostic study included women of Asian ancestry from the Asia Breast Cancer Consortium. PRSs were developed using data from genomewide association studies (GWASs) of breast cancer conducted among 123 041 women with Asian ancestry (including 18 650 women with breast cancer) using 3 approaches: (1) reported PRS for women with European ancestry; (2) breast cancer-associated single-nucleotide variations (SNVs) identified by fine-mapping of GWAS-identified risk loci; and (3) genomewide risk prediction algorithms. A nongenetic risk score (NGRS) was built, including 7 well-established nongenetic risk factors, using data of 416 case participants and 1558 control participants from a prospective cohort study. PRSs were initially validated in an independent data set including 1426 case participants and 1323 control participants and further evaluated, along with the NGRS, in the second data set including 368 case participants and 736 control participants nested within a prospective cohort study. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Logistic regression was used to examine associations of risk scores with breast cancer risk to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS A total of 126 894 women of Asian ancestry were included; 20 444 (16.1%) had breast cancer. The mean (SD) age ranged from 49.1 (10.8) to 54.4 (10.4) years for case participants and 50.6 (9.5) to 54.0 (7.4) years for control participants among studies that provided demographic characteristics. In the prospective cohort, a PRS with 111 SNVs developed using the fine-mapping approach (PRS111) showed a prediction performance comparable with a genomewide PRS that included more than 855 000 SNVs. The OR per SD increase of PRS111 score was 1.67 (95% CI, 1.46-1.92), with an AUC of 0.639 (95% CI, 0.604-0.674). The NGRS had a limited predictive ability (AUC, 0.565; 95% CI, 0.529-0.601). Compared with the average risk group (40th-60th percentile), women in the top 5% of PRS111 and NGRS were at a 3.84-fold (95% CI, 2.30-6.46) and 2.10-fold (95% CI, 1.22-3.62) higher risk of breast cancer, respectively. The prediction model including both PRS111 and NGRS achieved the highest prediction accuracy (AUC, 0.648; 95% CI, 0.613-0.682). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this study, PRSs derived using breast cancer risk-associated SNVs had similar predictive performance in Asian and European women. Including nongenetic risk factors in models further improved prediction accuracy. These findings support the utility of these models in developing personalized screening and prevention strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yaohua Yang
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Ran Tao
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Xiang Shu
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Qiuyin Cai
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Wanqing Wen
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Kai Gu
- Shanghai Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai Institutes of Preventive Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Yu-Tang Gao
- State Key Laboratory of Oncogene and Related Genes and Department of Epidemiology, Shanghai Cancer Institute, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Ying Zheng
- Department of Cancer Prevention, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Sun-Seog Kweon
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Hwasun, South Korea
- Jeonnam Regional Cancer Center, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, South Korea
| | - Min-Ho Shin
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Hwasun, South Korea
| | - Ji-Yeob Choi
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
- Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Eun-Sook Lee
- National Cancer Center Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, Goyang, South Korea
- Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, South Korea
- Research Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, South Korea
| | - Sun-Young Kong
- National Cancer Center Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, Goyang, South Korea
- Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, South Korea
- Research Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, South Korea
| | - Boyoung Park
- Research Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, South Korea
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Min Ho Park
- Department of Surgery, Chonnam National University Medical School & Hospital, Hwasun, South Korea
| | - Guochong Jia
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Bingshan Li
- Department of Molecular Physiology & Biophysics, Vanderbilt Genetics Institute, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Daehee Kang
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
- Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Seoul National University Graduate School, Seoul, South Korea
- Institute of Environmental Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Xiao-Ou Shu
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Jirong Long
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Wei Zheng
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Clift AK, Dodwell D, Lord S, Petrou S, Brady SM, Collins GS, Hippisley-Cox J. The current status of risk-stratified breast screening. Br J Cancer 2022; 126:533-550. [PMID: 34703006 PMCID: PMC8854575 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01550-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2021] [Revised: 08/25/2021] [Accepted: 09/14/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Apart from high-risk scenarios such as the presence of highly penetrant genetic mutations, breast screening typically comprises mammography or tomosynthesis strategies defined by age. However, age-based screening ignores the range of breast cancer risks that individual women may possess and is antithetical to the ambitions of personalised early detection. Whilst screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, this is at the risk of potentially significant harms including overdiagnosis with overtreatment, and psychological morbidity associated with false positives. In risk-stratified screening, individualised risk assessment may inform screening intensity/interval, starting age, imaging modality used, or even decisions not to screen. However, clear evidence for its benefits and harms needs to be established. In this scoping review, the authors summarise the established and emerging evidence regarding several critical dependencies for successful risk-stratified breast screening: risk prediction model performance, epidemiological studies, retrospective clinical evaluations, health economic evaluations and qualitative research on feasibility and acceptability. Family history, breast density or reproductive factors are not on their own suitable for precisely estimating risk and risk prediction models increasingly incorporate combinations of demographic, clinical, genetic and imaging-related parameters. Clinical evaluations of risk-stratified screening are currently limited. Epidemiological evidence is sparse, and randomised trials only began in recent years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ash Kieran Clift
- Cancer Research UK Oxford Centre, Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - David Dodwell
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Simon Lord
- Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Julia Hippisley-Cox
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Hipp LE, Hulswit BB, Milliron KJ. Clinical Tools and Counseling Considerations for Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Evaluation for Hereditary Cancer Risk. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2022; 82:12-29. [DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2022.02.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2022] [Revised: 02/01/2022] [Accepted: 02/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
30
|
Hurson AN, Pal Choudhury P, Gao C, Hüsing A, Eriksson M, Shi M, Jones ME, Evans DGR, Milne RL, Gaudet MM, Vachon CM, Chasman DI, Easton DF, Schmidt MK, Kraft P, Garcia-Closas M, Chatterjee N. Prospective evaluation of a breast-cancer risk model integrating classical risk factors and polygenic risk in 15 cohorts from six countries. Int J Epidemiol 2022; 50:1897-1911. [PMID: 34999890 PMCID: PMC8743128 DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyab036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2020] [Accepted: 02/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rigorous evaluation of the calibration and discrimination of breast-cancer risk-prediction models in prospective cohorts is critical for applications under clinical guidelines. We comprehensively evaluated an integrated model incorporating classical risk factors and a 313-variant polygenic risk score (PRS) to predict breast-cancer risk. METHODS Fifteen prospective cohorts from six countries with 239 340 women (7646 incident breast-cancer cases) of European ancestry aged 19-75 years were included. Calibration of 5-year risk was assessed by comparing expected and observed proportions of cases overall and within risk categories. Risk stratification for women of European ancestry aged 50-70 years in those countries was evaluated by the proportion of women and future cases crossing clinically relevant risk thresholds. RESULTS Among women <50 years old, the median (range) expected-to-observed ratio for the integrated model across 15 cohorts was 0.9 (0.7-1.0) overall and 0.9 (0.7-1.4) at the highest-risk decile; among women ≥50 years old, these were 1.0 (0.7-1.3) and 1.2 (0.7-1.6), respectively. The proportion of women identified above a 3% 5-year risk threshold (used for recommending risk-reducing medications in the USA) ranged from 7.0% in Germany (∼841 000 of 12 million) to 17.7% in the USA (∼5.3 of 30 million). At this threshold, 14.7% of US women were reclassified by adding the PRS to classical risk factors, with identification of 12.2% of additional future cases. CONCLUSION Integrating a 313-variant PRS with classical risk factors can improve the identification of European-ancestry women at elevated risk who could benefit from targeted risk-reducing strategies under current clinical guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amber N Hurson
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Parichoy Pal Choudhury
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
- Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Chi Gao
- Program in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Anika Hüsing
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Mikael Eriksson
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska Univ Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Min Shi
- Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Michael E Jones
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - D Gareth R Evans
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary’s Hospital, Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS, Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Roger L Milne
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Mia M Gaudet
- Behavioral and Epidemiology Research Group, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Celine M Vachon
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Division of Epidemiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Daniel I Chasman
- Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute—Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute—Antoni van Leeuwenhoek hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Peter Kraft
- Program in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | - Nilanjan Chatterjee
- Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Olsen M, Fischer K, Bossuyt PM, Goetghebeur E. Evaluating the prognostic performance of a polygenic risk score for breast cancer risk stratification. BMC Cancer 2021; 21:1351. [PMID: 34930164 PMCID: PMC8691010 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08937-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2020] [Accepted: 10/29/2021] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Polygenic risk scores (PRS) could potentially improve breast cancer screening recommendations. Before a PRS can be considered for implementation, it needs rigorous evaluation, using performance measures that can inform about its future clinical value. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the prognostic performance of a regression model with a previously developed, prevalence-based PRS and age as predictors for breast cancer incidence in women from the Estonian biobank (EstBB) cohort; to compare it to the performance of a model including age only. METHODS We analyzed data on 30,312 women from the EstBB cohort. They entered the cohort between 2002 and 2011, were between 20 and 89 years, without a history of breast cancer, and with full 5-year follow-up by 2015. We examined PRS and other potential risk factors as possible predictors in Cox regression models for breast cancer incidence. With 10-fold cross-validation we estimated 3- and 5-year breast cancer incidence predicted by age alone and by PRS plus age, fitting models on 90% of the data. Calibration, discrimination, and reclassification were calculated on the left-out folds to express prognostic performance. RESULTS A total of 101 (3.33‰) and 185 (6.1‰) incident breast cancers were observed within 3 and 5 years, respectively. For women in a defined screening age of 50-62 years, the ratio of observed vs PRS-age modelled 3-year incidence was 0.86 for women in the 75-85% PRS-group, 1.34 for the 85-95% PRS-group, and 1.41 for the top 5% PRS-group. For 5-year incidence, this was respectively 0.94, 1.15, and 1.08. Yet the number of breast cancer events was relatively low in each PRS-subgroup. For all women, the model's AUC was 0.720 (95% CI: 0.675-0.765) for 3-year and 0.704 (95% CI: 0.670-0.737) for 5-year follow-up, respectively, just 0.022 and 0.023 higher than for the model with age alone. Using a 1% risk prediction threshold, the 3-year NRI for the PRS-age model was 0.09, and 0.05 for 5 years. CONCLUSION The model including PRS had modest incremental performance over one based on age only. A larger, independent study is needed to assess whether and how the PRS can meaningfully contribute to age, for developing more efficient screening strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Olsen
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105, AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Krista Fischer
- Institute of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Tartu, Narva mnt 18, 51009, Tartu, Estonia.,Estonian Genome Center, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Patrick M Bossuyt
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105, AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Els Goetghebeur
- Department of Applied Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics, Ghent University, Institute for Continuing Education Center for Statistics, Campus Sterre, S9, Krijgslaan 281, 9000, Ghent, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Wang Y, Zhu M, Ma H, Shen H. Polygenic risk scores: the future of cancer risk prediction, screening, and precision prevention. MEDICAL REVIEW (BERLIN, GERMANY) 2021; 1:129-149. [PMID: 37724297 PMCID: PMC10471106 DOI: 10.1515/mr-2021-0025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/16/2021] [Accepted: 12/13/2021] [Indexed: 09/20/2023]
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have shown that the genetic architecture of cancers are highly polygenic and enabled researchers to identify genetic risk loci for cancers. The genetic variants associated with a cancer can be combined into a polygenic risk score (PRS), which captures part of an individual's genetic susceptibility to cancer. Recently, PRSs have been widely used in cancer risk prediction and are shown to be capable of identifying groups of individuals who could benefit from the knowledge of their probabilistic susceptibility to cancer, which leads to an increased interest in understanding the potential utility of PRSs that might further refine the assessment and management of cancer risk. In this context, we provide an overview of the major discoveries from cancer GWASs. We then review the methodologies used for PRS construction, and describe steps for the development and evaluation of risk prediction models that include PRS and/or conventional risk factors. Potential utility of PRSs in cancer risk prediction, screening, and precision prevention are illustrated. Challenges and practical considerations relevant to the implementation of PRSs in health care settings are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuzhuo Wang
- Department of Epidemiology, Center for Global Health, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
- Department of Medical Informatics, School of Biomedical Engineering and Informatics, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
| | - Meng Zhu
- Department of Epidemiology, Center for Global Health, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
- Jiangsu Key Lab of Cancer Biomarkers, Prevention and Treatment, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Personalized Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
| | - Hongxia Ma
- Department of Epidemiology, Center for Global Health, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
- Jiangsu Key Lab of Cancer Biomarkers, Prevention and Treatment, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Personalized Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
- Research Units of Cohort Study on Cardiovascular Diseases and Cancers, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Hongbing Shen
- Department of Epidemiology, Center for Global Health, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
- Jiangsu Key Lab of Cancer Biomarkers, Prevention and Treatment, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Personalized Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
- Research Units of Cohort Study on Cardiovascular Diseases and Cancers, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Yiangou K, Kyriacou K, Kakouri E, Marcou Y, Panayiotidis MI, Loizidou MA, Hadjisavvas A, Michailidou K. Combination of a 15-SNP Polygenic Risk Score and Classical Risk Factors for the Prediction of Breast Cancer Risk in Cypriot Women. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13184568. [PMID: 34572793 PMCID: PMC8468424 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13184568] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2021] [Revised: 09/03/2021] [Accepted: 09/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed type of cancer in women worldwide. Stratification of women based on their individual breast cancer risk could guide targeted preventative strategies and population screening. Integrated models that combine the effects of a polygenic risk score (PRS) with classical breast cancer risk factors could provide an individualized breast-cancer risk estimation. Although various studies have extensively evaluated the performance of such integrated models in populations of European ancestry, no previous studies have included individuals of Greek-Cypriot origin. To this end, we have assessed the predictive performance of a 15-SNP PRS (PRS15), in combination with classical breast-cancer risk factors, in women of Greek-Cypriot origin. This proof-of-concept study suggests that models combining genetic data with classical risk factors may be used in the future for the prediction of breast-cancer risk and, therefore, supports their potential clinical utility for targeted preventative strategies in Cypriot women. Abstract The PRS combines multiplicatively the effects of common low-risk single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and has the potential to be used for the estimation of an individual’s risk for a trait or disease. PRS has been successfully implemented for the prediction of breast cancer risk. The combination of PRS with classical breast cancer risk factors provides a more comprehensive risk estimation and could, thus, improve risk stratification and personalized preventative strategies. In this study, we assessed the predictive performance of the combined effect of PRS15 with classical breast-cancer risk factors in Cypriot women using 1109 cases and 1177 controls from the MASTOS study. The PRS15 was significantly associated with an increased breast cancer risk in Cypriot women OR (95% CI) 1.66 (1.25–2.19). The integrated risk model obtained an AUC (95% CI) 0.70 (0.67–0.72) and had the ability to stratify women according to their disease status at the extreme deciles. These results provide evidence that the combination of PRS with classical risk factors may be used in the future for the stratification of Cypriot women based on their disease risk, and support its potential clinical utility for targeted preventative actions and population screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristia Yiangou
- Department of Cancer Genetics, Therapeutics and Ultrastructural Pathology, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus; (K.Y.); (K.K.); (M.I.P.); (M.A.L.)
- The Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus
| | - Kyriacos Kyriacou
- Department of Cancer Genetics, Therapeutics and Ultrastructural Pathology, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus; (K.Y.); (K.K.); (M.I.P.); (M.A.L.)
- The Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus
| | - Eleni Kakouri
- Department of Medical Oncology, Bank of Cyprus Oncology Center, Nicosia 2012, Cyprus; (E.K.); (Y.M.)
| | - Yiola Marcou
- Department of Medical Oncology, Bank of Cyprus Oncology Center, Nicosia 2012, Cyprus; (E.K.); (Y.M.)
| | - Mihalis I. Panayiotidis
- Department of Cancer Genetics, Therapeutics and Ultrastructural Pathology, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus; (K.Y.); (K.K.); (M.I.P.); (M.A.L.)
- The Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus
| | - Maria A. Loizidou
- Department of Cancer Genetics, Therapeutics and Ultrastructural Pathology, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus; (K.Y.); (K.K.); (M.I.P.); (M.A.L.)
- The Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus
| | - Andreas Hadjisavvas
- Department of Cancer Genetics, Therapeutics and Ultrastructural Pathology, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus; (K.Y.); (K.K.); (M.I.P.); (M.A.L.)
- The Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus
- Correspondence: (A.H.); (K.M.)
| | - Kyriaki Michailidou
- The Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus
- Biostatistics Unit, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus
- Correspondence: (A.H.); (K.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Du Z, Gao G, Adedokun B, Ahearn T, Lunetta KL, Zirpoli G, Troester MA, Ruiz-Narváez EA, Haddad SA, PalChoudhury P, Figueroa J, John EM, Bernstein L, Zheng W, Hu JJ, Ziegler RG, Nyante S, Bandera EV, Ingles SA, Mancuso N, Press MF, Deming SL, Rodriguez-Gil JL, Yao S, Ogundiran TO, Ojengbe O, Bolla MK, Dennis J, Dunning AM, Easton DF, Michailidou K, Pharoah PDP, Sandler DP, Taylor JA, Wang Q, Weinberg CR, Kitahara CM, Blot W, Nathanson KL, Hennis A, Nemesure B, Ambs S, Sucheston-Campbell LE, Bensen JT, Chanock SJ, Olshan AF, Ambrosone CB, Olopade OI, Yarney J, Awuah B, Wiafe-Addai B, Conti DV, Palmer JR, Garcia-Closas M, Huo D, Haiman CA. Evaluating Polygenic Risk Scores for Breast Cancer in Women of African Ancestry. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 113:1168-1176. [PMID: 33769540 PMCID: PMC8418423 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djab050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2020] [Revised: 02/03/2021] [Accepted: 03/22/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have been demonstrated to identify women of European, Asian, and Latino ancestry at elevated risk of developing breast cancer (BC). We evaluated the performance of existing PRSs trained in European ancestry populations among women of African ancestry. METHODS We assembled genotype data for women of African ancestry, including 9241 case subjects and 10 193 control subjects. We evaluated associations of 179- and 313-variant PRSs with overall and subtype-specific BC risk. PRS discriminatory accuracy was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. We also evaluated a recalibrated PRS, replacing the index variant with variants in each region that better captured risk in women of African ancestry and estimated lifetime absolute risk of BC in African Americans by PRS category. RESULTS For overall BC, the odds ratio per SD of the 313-variant PRS (PRS313) was 1.27 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 1.31), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.571 (95% CI = 0.562 to 0.579). Compared with women with average risk (40th-60th PRS percentile), women in the top decile of PRS313 had a 1.54-fold increased risk (95% CI = 1.38-fold to 1.72-fold). By age 85 years, the absolute risk of overall BC was 19.6% for African American women in the top 1% of PRS313 and 6.7% for those in the lowest 1%. The recalibrated PRS did not improve BC risk prediction. CONCLUSION The PRSs stratify BC risk in women of African ancestry, with attenuated performance compared with that reported in European, Asian, and Latina populations. Future work is needed to improve BC risk stratification for women of African ancestry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhaohui Du
- Center for Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Guimin Gao
- Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Babatunde Adedokun
- Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Thomas Ahearn
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | | - Gary Zirpoli
- Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Melissa A Troester
- Department of Epidemiology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | | | | | - Parichoy PalChoudhury
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Jonine Figueroa
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
- Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh, UK
- Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Esther M John
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Medicine (Oncology), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Leslie Bernstein
- Division of Biomarkers of Early Detection and Prevention Department of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute of the City of Hope, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Wei Zheng
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Jennifer J Hu
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA
| | - Regina G Ziegler
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Sarah Nyante
- Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Elisa V Bandera
- Department of Population Science, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Sue A Ingles
- Center for Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Nicholas Mancuso
- Center for Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Michael F Press
- Department of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine and Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Sandra L Deming
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Jorge L Rodriguez-Gil
- Genomics, Development and Disease Section, Genetic Disease Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
- Medical Scientist Training Program, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Song Yao
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Temidayo O Ogundiran
- Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
| | - Oladosu Ojengbe
- Center for Population and Reproductive Health, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria
| | - Manjeet K Bolla
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Joe Dennis
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Alison M Dunning
- Department of Oncology, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Department of Oncology, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Kyriaki Michailidou
- Biostatistics Unit, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia, Cyprus
| | - Paul D P Pharoah
- Department of Oncology, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Dale P Sandler
- Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Jack A Taylor
- Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Qin Wang
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Clarice R Weinberg
- Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Cari M Kitahara
- Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - William Blot
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA
- International Epidemiology Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
| | - Katherine L Nathanson
- Department of Medicine, Abramson Cancer Center, The Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Anselm Hennis
- Chronic Disease Research Centre and Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of the West Indies, Bridgetown, Barbados
| | - Barbara Nemesure
- Department of Family, Population and Preventive Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
| | - Stefan Ambs
- Laboratory of Human Carcinogenesis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Lara E Sucheston-Campbell
- College of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
- College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Jeannette T Bensen
- Department of Epidemiology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Stephen J Chanock
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Andrew F Olshan
- Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Christine B Ambrosone
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Olufunmilayo I Olopade
- Department of Medicine, Center for Clinical Cancer Genetics and Global Health, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Julie R Palmer
- Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Montserrat Garcia-Closas
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Dezheng Huo
- Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Christopher A Haiman
- Center for Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Huilgol YS, Keane H, Shieh Y, Hiatt RA, Tice JA, Madlensky L, Sabacan L, Fiscalini AS, Ziv E, Acerbi I, Che M, Anton-Culver H, Borowsky AD, Hunt S, Naeim A, Parker BA, van 't Veer LJ, Esserman LJ. Elevated risk thresholds predict endocrine risk-reducing medication use in the Athena screening registry. NPJ Breast Cancer 2021; 7:102. [PMID: 34344894 PMCID: PMC8333106 DOI: 10.1038/s41523-021-00306-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2020] [Accepted: 06/24/2021] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Risk-reducing endocrine therapy use, though the benefit is validated, is extremely low. The FDA has approved tamoxifen and raloxifene for a 5-year Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) risk ≥ 1.67%. We examined the threshold at which high-risk women are likely to be using endocrine risk-reducing therapies among Athena Breast Health Network participants from 2011-2018. We identified high-risk women by a 5-year BCRAT risk ≥ 1.67% and those in the top 10% and 2.5% risk thresholds by age. We estimated the odds ratio (OR) of current medication use based on these thresholds using logistic regression. One thousand two hundred and one (1.2%) of 104,223 total participants used medication. Of the 33,082 participants with 5-year BCRAT risk ≥ 1.67%, 772 (2.3%) used medication. Of 2445 in the top 2.5% threshold, 209 (8.6%) used medication. Participants whose 5-year risk exceeded 1.67% were more likely to use medication than those whose risk was below this threshold, OR 3.94 (95% CI = 3.50-4.43). The top 2.5% was most strongly associated with medication usage, OR 9.50 (8.13-11.09) compared to the bottom 97.5%. Women exceeding a 5-year BCRAT ≥ 1.67% had modest medication use. We demonstrate that women in the top 2.5% have higher odds of medication use than those in the bottom 97.5% and compared to a risk of 1.67%. The top 2.5% threshold would more effectively target medication use and is being tested prospectively in a randomized control clinical trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yash S Huilgol
- University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
| | - Holly Keane
- University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Yiwey Shieh
- University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Robert A Hiatt
- University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Jeffrey A Tice
- University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | | | - Leah Sabacan
- University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | | | - Elad Ziv
- University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Irene Acerbi
- University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Mandy Che
- University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | | | | | | | - Arash Naeim
- University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | | | | | - Laura J Esserman
- University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Knoppers BM, Bernier A, Granados Moreno P, Pashayan N. Of Screening, Stratification, and Scores. J Pers Med 2021; 11:736. [PMID: 34442379 PMCID: PMC8398020 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11080736] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2021] [Accepted: 07/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Technological innovations including risk-stratification algorithms and large databases of longitudinal population health data and genetic data are allowing us to develop a deeper understanding how individual behaviors, characteristics, and genetics are related to health risk. The clinical implementation of risk-stratified screening programmes that utilise risk scores to allocate patients into tiers of health risk is foreseeable in the future. Legal and ethical challenges associated with risk-stratified cancer care must, however, be addressed. Obtaining access to the rich health data that are required to perform risk-stratification, ensuring equitable access to risk-stratified care, ensuring that algorithms that perform risk-scoring are representative of human genetic diversity, and determining the appropriate follow-up to be provided to stratification participants to alert them to changes in their risk score are among the principal ethical and legal challenges. Accounting for the great burden that regulatory requirements could impose on access to risk-scoring technologies is another critical consideration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bartha M. Knoppers
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 740 Avenue Dr. Penfield, Suite 5200, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (A.B.); (P.G.M.)
| | - Alexander Bernier
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 740 Avenue Dr. Penfield, Suite 5200, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (A.B.); (P.G.M.)
| | - Palmira Granados Moreno
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 740 Avenue Dr. Penfield, Suite 5200, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (A.B.); (P.G.M.)
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK;
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Hathaway CA, Rice MS, Townsend MK, Hankinson SE, Arslan AA, Buring JE, Hallmans G, Idahl A, Kubzansky LD, Lee IM, Lundin EA, Sluss PM, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, Tworoger SS. Prolactin and Risk of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2021; 30:1652-1659. [PMID: 34244157 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-21-0139] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2021] [Revised: 04/02/2021] [Accepted: 06/17/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prolactin is synthesized in the ovaries and may play a role in ovarian cancer etiology. One prior prospective study observed a suggestive positive association between prolactin levels and risk of ovarian cancer. METHODS We conducted a pooled case-control study of 703 cases and 864 matched controls nested within five prospective cohorts. We used unconditional logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between prolactin and ovarian cancer risk. We examined heterogeneity by menopausal status at blood collection, body mass index (BMI), age, and histotype. RESULTS Among women with known menopausal status, we observed a positive trend in the association between prolactin and ovarian cancer risk (P trend = 0.045; OR, quartile 4 vs. 1 = 1.34; 95% CI = 0.97-1.85), but no significant association was observed for premenopausal or postmenopausal women individually (corresponding OR = 1.38; 95% CI = 0.74-2.58; P trend = 0.32 and OR = 1.41; 95% CI = 0.93-2.13; P trend = 0.08, respectively; P heterogeneity = 0.91). In stratified analyses, we observed a positive association between prolactin and risk for women with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, but not BMI < 25 kg/m2 (corresponding OR = 2.68; 95% CI = 1.56-4.59; P trend < 0.01 and OR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.58-1.40; P trend = 0.98, respectively; P heterogeneity < 0.01). Associations did not vary by age, postmenopausal hormone therapy use, histotype, or time between blood draw and diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS We found a trend between higher prolactin levels and increased ovarian cancer risk, especially among women with a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2. IMPACT This work supports a previous study linking higher prolactin with ovarian carcinogenesis in a high adiposity setting. Future work is needed to understand the mechanism underlying this association.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Megan S Rice
- Clinical and Translational Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Mary K Townsend
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida
| | - Susan E Hankinson
- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts
| | - Alan A Arslan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University Langone Health, New York, New York.,Department of Population Health, New York University Langone Health, New York, New York.,NYU Perlmutter Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Julie E Buring
- Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.,Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Göran Hallmans
- Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Annika Idahl
- Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Laura D Kubzansky
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - I-Min Lee
- Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.,Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Eva A Lundin
- Department of Medical Biosciences, Pathology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Patrick M Sluss
- Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte
- Department of Population Health, New York University Langone Health, New York, New York.,NYU Perlmutter Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Shelley S Tworoger
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. .,Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Tin Tin S, Reeves GK, Key TJ. Endogenous hormones and risk of invasive breast cancer in pre- and post-menopausal women: findings from the UK Biobank. Br J Cancer 2021; 125:126-134. [PMID: 33864017 PMCID: PMC8257641 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01392-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2020] [Revised: 03/19/2021] [Accepted: 04/01/2021] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Some endogenous hormones have been associated with breast cancer risk, but the nature of these relationships is not fully understood. METHODS UK Biobank was used. Hormone concentrations were measured in serum collected in 2006-2010, and in a repeat subsample (N ~ 5000) in 2012-13. Incident cancers were identified through data linkage. Cox regression models were used, and hazard ratios (HRs) corrected for regression dilution bias. RESULTS Among 30,565 pre-menopausal and 133,294 post-menopausal women, 527 and 2,997, respectively, were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer during a median follow-up of 7.1 years. Cancer risk was positively associated with testosterone in post-menopausal women (HR per 0.5 nmol/L increment: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.23) but not in pre-menopausal women (pheterogeneity = 0.03), and with IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor-1) (HR per 5 nmol/L increment: 1.18; 1.02, 1.35 (pre-menopausal) and 1.07; 1.01, 1.12 (post-menopausal); pheterogeneity = 0.2), and inversely associated with SHBG (sex hormone-binding globulin) (HR per 30 nmol/L increment: 0.96; 0.79, 1.15 (pre-menopausal) and 0.89; 0.84, 0.94 (post-menopausal); pheterogeneity = 0.4). Oestradiol, assessed only in pre-menopausal women, was not associated with risk, but there were study limitations for this hormone. CONCLUSIONS This study confirms associations of testosterone, IGF-1 and SHBG with breast cancer risk, with heterogeneity by menopausal status for testosterone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sandar Tin Tin
- Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - Gillian K Reeves
- Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Timothy J Key
- Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Lu H, Wang T, Zhang J, Zhang S, Huang S, Zeng P. Evaluating marginal genetic correlation of associated loci for complex diseases and traits between European and East Asian populations. Hum Genet 2021; 140:1285-1297. [PMID: 34091770 DOI: 10.1007/s00439-021-02299-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2020] [Accepted: 05/31/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have successfully identified a large amount of single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with many complex phenotypes in diverse populations. However, a comprehensive understanding of the genetic correlation of associated loci of phenotypes across populations remains lacking and the extent to which associations discovered in one population can be generalized to other populations or can be utilized for trans-ethnic genetic prediction is also unclear. By leveraging summary statistics, we proposed MAGIC to evaluate the trans-ethnic marginal genetic correlation (rm) of per-allele effect sizes for associated SNPs (P < 5E-8) under the framework of measurement error models. We confirmed the methodological advantage of MAGIC over general approaches through simulations and demonstrated its utility by analyzing 34 GWAS summary statistics of phenotypes from the East Asian (Nmax = 254,373) and European (Nmax = 1,220,901) populations. Among these phenotypes, rm was estimated to range from 0.584 (se = 0.140) for breast cancer to 0.949 (se = 0.035) for age of menarche, with an average of 0.835 (se = 0.045). We also uncovered that the trans-ethnic genetic prediction accuracy for phenotypes in the target population would substantially become low when using associated SNPs identified in non-target populations, indicating that associations discovered in the one population cannot be simply generalized to another population and that the accuracy of trans-ethnic phenotype prediction is generally dissatisfactory. Overall, our study provides in-depth insight into trans-ethnic genetic correlation and prediction for complex phenotypes across diverse populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Haojie Lu
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, 221004, Jiangsu, China
| | - Ting Wang
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, 221004, Jiangsu, China
| | - Jinhui Zhang
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, 221004, Jiangsu, China
| | - Shuo Zhang
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, 221004, Jiangsu, China
| | - Shuiping Huang
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, 221004, Jiangsu, China.,Center for Medical Statistics and Data Analysis, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, 221004, Jiangsu, China
| | - Ping Zeng
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, 221004, Jiangsu, China. .,Center for Medical Statistics and Data Analysis, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, 221004, Jiangsu, China.
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Salas LA, Lundgren SN, Browne EP, Punska EC, Anderton DL, Karagas MR, Arcaro KF, Christensen BC. Prediagnostic breast milk DNA methylation alterations in women who develop breast cancer. Hum Mol Genet 2021; 29:662-673. [PMID: 31943067 PMCID: PMC7068171 DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddz301] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2019] [Revised: 11/30/2019] [Accepted: 12/06/2019] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Prior candidate gene studies have shown tumor suppressor DNA methylation in breast milk related with history of breast biopsy, an established risk factor for breast cancer. To further establish the utility of breast milk as a tissue-specific biospecimen for investigations of breast carcinogenesis, we measured genome-wide DNA methylation in breast milk from women with and without a diagnosis of breast cancer in two independent cohorts. DNA methylation was assessed using Illumina HumanMethylation450k in 87 breast milk samples. Through an epigenome-wide association study we explored CpG sites associated with a breast cancer diagnosis in the prospectively collected milk samples from the breast that would develop cancer compared with women without a diagnosis of breast cancer using linear mixed effects models adjusted for history of breast biopsy, age, RefFreeCellMix cell estimates, time of delivery, array chip and subject as random effect. We identified 58 differentially methylated CpG sites associated with a subsequent breast cancer diagnosis (q-value <0.05). Nearly all CpG sites associated with a breast cancer diagnosis were hypomethylated in cases compared with controls and were enriched for CpG islands. In addition, inferred repeat element methylation was lower in breast milk DNA from cases compared to controls, and cases exhibited increased estimated epigenetic mitotic tick rate as well as DNA methylation age compared with controls. Breast milk has utility as a biospecimen for prospective assessment of disease risk, for understanding the underlying molecular basis of breast cancer risk factors and improving primary and secondary prevention of breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucas A Salas
- Department of Epidemiology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03766, USA.,The Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Center at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03766, USA
| | - Sara N Lundgren
- Department of Epidemiology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03766, USA.,The Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Center at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03766, USA
| | - Eva P Browne
- Department of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA
| | - Elizabeth C Punska
- Department of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA
| | - Douglas L Anderton
- Department of Sociology, University of South Carolina, Columbus, SC 29208, USA
| | - Margaret R Karagas
- Department of Epidemiology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03766, USA.,The Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Center at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03766, USA
| | - Kathleen F Arcaro
- Department of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA
| | - Brock C Christensen
- Department of Epidemiology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03766, USA.,Department of Molecular and Systems Biology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03766, USA.,Department of Community and Family Medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03766, USA
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Warner ET, Rice MS, Zeleznik OA, Fowler EE, Murthy D, Vachon CM, Bertrand KA, Rosner BA, Heine J, Tamimi RM. Automated percent mammographic density, mammographic texture variation, and risk of breast cancer: a nested case-control study. NPJ Breast Cancer 2021; 7:68. [PMID: 34059687 PMCID: PMC8166859 DOI: 10.1038/s41523-021-00272-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2020] [Accepted: 05/03/2021] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Percent mammographic density (PMD) is a strong breast cancer risk factor, however, other mammographic features, such as V, the standard deviation (SD) of pixel intensity, may be associated with risk. We assessed whether PMD, automated PMD (APD), and V, yielded independent associations with breast cancer risk. We included 1900 breast cancer cases and 3921 matched controls from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and the NHSII. Using digitized film mammograms, we estimated PMD using a computer-assisted thresholding technique. APD and V were determined using an automated computer algorithm. We used logistic regression to generate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Median time from mammogram to diagnosis was 4.1 years (interquartile range: 1.6-6.8 years). PMD (OR per SD:1.52, 95% CI: 1.42, 1.63), APD (OR per SD:1.32, 95% CI: 1.24, 1.41), and V (OR per SD:1.32, 95% CI: 1.24, 1.40) were positively associated with breast cancer risk. Associations for APD were attenuated but remained statistically significant after mutual adjustment for PMD or V. Women in the highest quartile of both APD and V (OR vs Q1/Q1: 2.49, 95% CI: 2.02, 3.06), or PMD and V (OR vs Q1/Q1: 3.57, 95% CI: 2.79, 4.58) had increased breast cancer risk. An automated method of PMD assessment is feasible and yields similar, but somewhat weaker, estimates to a manual measure. PMD, APD and V are each independently, positively associated with breast cancer risk. Women with dense breasts and greater texture variation are at the highest relative risk of breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erica T Warner
- Clinical and Translational Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine, Mongan Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Megan S Rice
- Clinical and Translational Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine, Mongan Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Oana A Zeleznik
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Erin E Fowler
- Division of Population Sciences, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Divya Murthy
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Celine M Vachon
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - Bernard A Rosner
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - John Heine
- Division of Population Sciences, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Rulla M Tamimi
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Houghton SC, Hankinson SE. Cancer Progress and Priorities: Breast Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2021; 30:822-844. [PMID: 33947744 PMCID: PMC8104131 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-20-1193] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/11/2020] [Revised: 10/13/2020] [Accepted: 02/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Serena C Houghton
- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts.
| | - Susan E Hankinson
- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Louro J, Román M, Posso M, Vázquez I, Saladié F, Rodriguez-Arana A, Quintana MJ, Domingo L, Baré M, Marcos-Gragera R, Vernet-Tomas M, Sala M, Castells X. Developing and validating an individualized breast cancer risk prediction model for women attending breast cancer screening. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0248930. [PMID: 33755692 PMCID: PMC7987139 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248930] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2020] [Accepted: 03/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Several studies have proposed personalized strategies based on women's individual breast cancer risk to improve the effectiveness of breast cancer screening. We designed and internally validated an individualized risk prediction model for women eligible for mammography screening. METHODS Retrospective cohort study of 121,969 women aged 50 to 69 years, screened at the long-standing population-based screening program in Spain between 1995 and 2015 and followed up until 2017. We used partly conditional Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and individual risks for age, family history of breast cancer, previous benign breast disease, and previous mammographic features. We internally validated our model with the expected-to-observed ratio and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS During a mean follow-up of 7.5 years, 2,058 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. All three risk factors were strongly associated with breast cancer risk, with the highest risk being found among women with family history of breast cancer (aHR: 1.67), a proliferative benign breast disease (aHR: 3.02) and previous calcifications (aHR: 2.52). The model was well calibrated overall (expected-to-observed ratio ranging from 0.99 at 2 years to 1.02 at 20 years) but slightly overestimated the risk in women with proliferative benign breast disease. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 58.7% to 64.7%, depending of the time horizon selected. CONCLUSIONS We developed a risk prediction model to estimate the short- and long-term risk of breast cancer in women eligible for mammography screening using information routinely reported at screening participation. The model could help to guiding individualized screening strategies aimed at improving the risk-benefit balance of mammography screening programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Javier Louro
- IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain
- Research Network on Health Services in Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC), Barcelona, Spain
- Servei d’Epidemiologia i Avaluació, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
- European Higher Education Area (EHEA) Doctoral Programme in Methodology of Biomedical Research and Public Health in Department of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona (UAB), Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Marta Román
- IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain
- Research Network on Health Services in Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC), Barcelona, Spain
- Servei d’Epidemiologia i Avaluació, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
- * E-mail:
| | - Margarita Posso
- IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain
- Research Network on Health Services in Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC), Barcelona, Spain
- Servei d’Epidemiologia i Avaluació, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Francina Saladié
- Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Service, Hospital Universitari Sant Joan de Reus, Institut d’Investigació Sanitària Pere Virgili, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Reus, Spain
| | | | - M. Jesús Quintana
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Public Health, University Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, IIB Sant Pau, Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
- CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Laia Domingo
- IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain
- Research Network on Health Services in Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC), Barcelona, Spain
- Servei d’Epidemiologia i Avaluació, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Marisa Baré
- Research Network on Health Services in Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC), Barcelona, Spain
- Clinical Epidemiology and Cancer Screening, Parc Taulí University Hospital, Sabadell, Spain
| | - Rafael Marcos-Gragera
- CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
- Department of Health, Epidemiology Unit and Girona Cancer Registry, Oncology Coordination Plan, Autonomous Government of Catalonia, Catalan Institute of Oncology, Girona, Spain
| | | | - Maria Sala
- IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain
- Research Network on Health Services in Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC), Barcelona, Spain
- Servei d’Epidemiologia i Avaluació, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Xavier Castells
- IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain
- Research Network on Health Services in Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC), Barcelona, Spain
- Servei d’Epidemiologia i Avaluació, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
| | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Peng C, Gao C, Lu D, Rosner BA, Zeleznik O, Hankinson SE, Kraft P, Eliassen AH, Tamimi RM. Circulating carotenoids and breast cancer among high-risk individuals. Am J Clin Nutr 2021; 113:525-533. [PMID: 33236056 PMCID: PMC7948839 DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa316] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2020] [Accepted: 10/07/2020] [Indexed: 12/09/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Carotenoids represent 1 of few modifiable factors to reduce breast cancer risk. Elucidation of interactions between circulating carotenoids and genetic predispositions or mammographic density (MD) may help inform more effective primary preventive strategies in high-risk populations. OBJECTIVES We tested whether women at high risk for breast cancer due to genetic predispositions or high MD would experience meaningful and greater risk reduction from higher circulating levels of carotenoids in a nested case-control study in the Nurses' Health Studies (NHS and NHSII). METHODS This study included 1919 cases and 1695 controls in a nested case-control study in the NHS and NHSII. We assessed both multiplicative and additive interactions. RR reductions and 95% CIs were calculated using unconditional logistic regressions, adjusting for matching factors and breast cancer risk factors. Absolute risk reductions (ARR) were calculated based on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results incidence rates. RESULTS We showed that compared with women at low genetic risk or low MD, those with higher genetic risk scores or high MD had greater ARRs for breast cancer as circulating carotenoid levels increase (additive P-interaction = 0.05). Among women with a high polygenic risk score, those in the highest quartile of circulating carotenoids had a significant ARR (28.6%; 95% CI, 14.8-42.1%) compared to those in the lowest quartile of carotenoids. For women with a high percentage MD (≥50%), circulating carotenoids were associated with a 37.1% ARR (95% CI, 21.7-52.1%) when comparing the highest to the lowest quartiles of circulating carotenoids. CONCLUSIONS The inverse associations between circulating carotenoids and breast cancer risk appeared to be more pronounced in high-risk women, as defined by germline genetic makeup or MD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cheng Peng
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Chi Gao
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Donghao Lu
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Bernard A Rosner
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Oana Zeleznik
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Susan E Hankinson
- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA
| | - Peter Kraft
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - A Heather Eliassen
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Rulla M Tamimi
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Wand H, Lambert SA, Tamburro C, Iacocca MA, O'Sullivan JW, Sillari C, Kullo IJ, Rowley R, Dron JS, Brockman D, Venner E, McCarthy MI, Antoniou AC, Easton DF, Hegele RA, Khera AV, Chatterjee N, Kooperberg C, Edwards K, Vlessis K, Kinnear K, Danesh JN, Parkinson H, Ramos EM, Roberts MC, Ormond KE, Khoury MJ, Janssens ACJW, Goddard KAB, Kraft P, MacArthur JAL, Inouye M, Wojcik GL. Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies. Nature 2021; 591:211-219. [PMID: 33692554 DOI: 10.1101/2020.04.23.20077099] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2020] [Accepted: 01/15/2021] [Indexed: 05/25/2023]
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores (PRSs), which often aggregate results from genome-wide association studies, can bridge the gap between initial discovery efforts and clinical applications for the estimation of disease risk using genetics. However, there is notable heterogeneity in the application and reporting of these risk scores, which hinders the translation of PRSs into clinical care. Here, in a collaboration between the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Complex Disease Working Group and the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog, we present the Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Standards (PRS-RS), in which we update the Genetic Risk Prediction Studies (GRIPS) Statement to reflect the present state of the field. Drawing on the input of experts in epidemiology, statistics, disease-specific applications, implementation and policy, this comprehensive reporting framework defines the minimal information that is needed to interpret and evaluate PRSs, especially with respect to downstream clinical applications. Items span detailed descriptions of study populations, statistical methods for the development and validation of PRSs and considerations for the potential limitations of these scores. In addition, we emphasize the need for data availability and transparency, and we encourage researchers to deposit and share PRSs through the PGS Catalog to facilitate reproducibility and comparative benchmarking. By providing these criteria in a structured format that builds on existing standards and ontologies, the use of this framework in publishing PRSs will facilitate translation into clinical care and progress towards defining best practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah Wand
- Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
- Stanford Center for Inherited Cardiovascular Disease, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Samuel A Lambert
- Cambridge Baker Systems Genomic Initiative, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Cambridge Baker Systems Genomic Initiative, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- BHF Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Health Data Research UK Cambridge, Wellcome Genome Campus and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, UK
| | | | | | - Jack W O'Sullivan
- Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
- Stanford Center for Inherited Cardiovascular Disease, Stanford, CA, USA
| | | | - Iftikhar J Kullo
- Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Robb Rowley
- National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Jacqueline S Dron
- Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
- Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Deanna Brockman
- Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Eric Venner
- Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Mark I McCarthy
- Department of Human Genetics, Genentech, South San Francisco, CA, USA
- Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Oxford, UK
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Amit V Khera
- Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Nilanjan Chatterjee
- Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Charles Kooperberg
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Karen Edwards
- Department of Epidemiology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Katherine Vlessis
- Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Kim Kinnear
- Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - John N Danesh
- BHF Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Health Data Research UK Cambridge, Wellcome Genome Campus and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK
| | - Helen Parkinson
- Health Data Research UK Cambridge, Wellcome Genome Campus and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, UK
| | - Erin M Ramos
- National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Megan C Roberts
- Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Kelly E Ormond
- Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
- Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Muin J Khoury
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - A Cecile J W Janssens
- Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Katrina A B Goddard
- Department of Translational and Applied Genomics, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA
- Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Peter Kraft
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jaqueline A L MacArthur
- European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, UK
| | - Michael Inouye
- Cambridge Baker Systems Genomic Initiative, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Cambridge Baker Systems Genomic Initiative, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- BHF Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Health Data Research UK Cambridge, Wellcome Genome Campus and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK
- The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK
| | - Genevieve L Wojcik
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Wand H, Lambert SA, Tamburro C, Iacocca MA, O'Sullivan JW, Sillari C, Kullo IJ, Rowley R, Dron JS, Brockman D, Venner E, McCarthy MI, Antoniou AC, Easton DF, Hegele RA, Khera AV, Chatterjee N, Kooperberg C, Edwards K, Vlessis K, Kinnear K, Danesh JN, Parkinson H, Ramos EM, Roberts MC, Ormond KE, Khoury MJ, Janssens ACJW, Goddard KAB, Kraft P, MacArthur JAL, Inouye M, Wojcik GL. Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies. Nature 2021; 591:211-219. [PMID: 33692554 PMCID: PMC8609771 DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-03243-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 227] [Impact Index Per Article: 75.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2020] [Accepted: 01/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores (PRSs), which often aggregate results from genome-wide association studies, can bridge the gap between initial discovery efforts and clinical applications for the estimation of disease risk using genetics. However, there is notable heterogeneity in the application and reporting of these risk scores, which hinders the translation of PRSs into clinical care. Here, in a collaboration between the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Complex Disease Working Group and the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog, we present the Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Standards (PRS-RS), in which we update the Genetic Risk Prediction Studies (GRIPS) Statement to reflect the present state of the field. Drawing on the input of experts in epidemiology, statistics, disease-specific applications, implementation and policy, this comprehensive reporting framework defines the minimal information that is needed to interpret and evaluate PRSs, especially with respect to downstream clinical applications. Items span detailed descriptions of study populations, statistical methods for the development and validation of PRSs and considerations for the potential limitations of these scores. In addition, we emphasize the need for data availability and transparency, and we encourage researchers to deposit and share PRSs through the PGS Catalog to facilitate reproducibility and comparative benchmarking. By providing these criteria in a structured format that builds on existing standards and ontologies, the use of this framework in publishing PRSs will facilitate translation into clinical care and progress towards defining best practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah Wand
- Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
- Stanford Center for Inherited Cardiovascular Disease, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Samuel A Lambert
- Cambridge Baker Systems Genomic Initiative, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Cambridge Baker Systems Genomic Initiative, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- BHF Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Health Data Research UK Cambridge, Wellcome Genome Campus and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, UK
| | | | | | - Jack W O'Sullivan
- Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
- Stanford Center for Inherited Cardiovascular Disease, Stanford, CA, USA
| | | | - Iftikhar J Kullo
- Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Robb Rowley
- National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Jacqueline S Dron
- Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
- Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Deanna Brockman
- Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Eric Venner
- Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Mark I McCarthy
- Department of Human Genetics, Genentech, South San Francisco, CA, USA
- Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Oxford, UK
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Amit V Khera
- Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Nilanjan Chatterjee
- Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Charles Kooperberg
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Karen Edwards
- Department of Epidemiology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Katherine Vlessis
- Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Kim Kinnear
- Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - John N Danesh
- BHF Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Health Data Research UK Cambridge, Wellcome Genome Campus and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK
| | - Helen Parkinson
- Health Data Research UK Cambridge, Wellcome Genome Campus and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, UK
| | - Erin M Ramos
- National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Megan C Roberts
- Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Kelly E Ormond
- Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
- Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Muin J Khoury
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - A Cecile J W Janssens
- Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Katrina A B Goddard
- Department of Translational and Applied Genomics, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA
- Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Peter Kraft
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jaqueline A L MacArthur
- European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, UK
| | - Michael Inouye
- Cambridge Baker Systems Genomic Initiative, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Cambridge Baker Systems Genomic Initiative, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- BHF Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Health Data Research UK Cambridge, Wellcome Genome Campus and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK
- The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK
| | - Genevieve L Wojcik
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Vellal AD, Sirinukunwattan K, Kensler KH, Baker GM, Stancu AL, Pyle ME, Collins LC, Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Veta M, Eliassen AH, Tamimi RM, Heng YJ. Deep Learning Image Analysis of Benign Breast Disease to Identify Subsequent Risk of Breast Cancer. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2021; 5:pkaa119. [PMID: 33644680 PMCID: PMC7898083 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkaa119] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2020] [Revised: 11/04/2020] [Accepted: 12/18/2020] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background New biomarkers of risk may improve breast cancer (BC) risk prediction. We developed a computational pathology method to segment benign breast disease (BBD) whole slide images into epithelium, fibrous stroma, and fat. We applied our method to the BBD BC nested case-control study within the Nurses' Health Studies to assess whether computer-derived tissue composition or a morphometric signature was associated with subsequent risk of BC. Methods Tissue segmentation and nuclei detection deep-learning networks were established and applied to 3795 whole slide images from 293 cases who developed BC and 1132 controls who did not. Percentages of each tissue region were calculated, and 615 morphometric features were extracted. Elastic net regression was used to create a BC morphometric signature. Associations between BC risk factors and age-adjusted tissue composition among controls were assessed using analysis of covariance. Unconditional logistic regression, adjusting for the matching factors, BBD histological subtypes, parity, menopausal status, and body mass index evaluated the relationship between tissue composition and BC risk. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Among controls, direction of associations between BBD subtypes, parity, and number of births with breast composition varied by tissue region; select regions were associated with childhood body size, body mass index, age of menarche, and menopausal status (all P < .05). A higher proportion of epithelial tissue was associated with increased BC risk (odds ratio = 1.39, 95% confidence interval = 0.91 to 2.14, for highest vs lowest quartiles, P trend = .047). No morphometric signature was associated with BC. Conclusions The amount of epithelial tissue may be incorporated into risk assessment models to improve BC risk prediction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adithya D Vellal
- Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Korsuk Sirinukunwattan
- Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Engineering Science, Institute of Biomedical Engineering (IBME), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Kevin H Kensler
- Division of Population Sciences, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Gabrielle M Baker
- Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Andreea L Stancu
- Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Michael E Pyle
- Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Laura C Collins
- Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Stuart J Schnitt
- Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute-Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - James L Connolly
- Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Mitko Veta
- Medical Image Analysis Group, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - A Heather Eliassen
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Rulla M Tamimi
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Yujing J Heng
- Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Hughes E, Tshiaba P, Wagner S, Judkins T, Rosenthal E, Roa B, Gallagher S, Meek S, Dalton K, Hedegard W, Adami CA, Grear DF, Domchek SM, Garber J, Lancaster JM, Weitzel JN, Kurian AW, Lanchbury JS, Gutin A, Robson ME. Integrating Clinical and Polygenic Factors to Predict Breast Cancer Risk in Women Undergoing Genetic Testing. JCO Precis Oncol 2021; 5:PO.20.00246. [PMID: 34036224 PMCID: PMC8140787 DOI: 10.1200/po.20.00246] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2020] [Revised: 09/30/2020] [Accepted: 12/22/2020] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Screening and prevention decisions for women at increased risk of developing breast cancer depend on genetic and clinical factors to estimate risk and select appropriate interventions. Integration of polygenic risk into clinical breast cancer risk estimators can improve discrimination. However, correlated genetic effects must be incorporated carefully to avoid overestimation of risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS A novel Fixed-Stratified method was developed that accounts for confounding when adding a new factor to an established risk model. A combined risk score (CRS) of an 86-single-nucleotide polymorphism polygenic risk score and the Tyrer-Cuzick v7.02 clinical risk estimator was generated with attenuation for confounding by family history. Calibration and discriminatory accuracy of the CRS were evaluated in two independent validation cohorts of women of European ancestry (N = 1,615 and N = 518). Discrimination for remaining lifetime risk was examined by age-adjusted logistic regression. Risk stratification with a 20% risk threshold was compared between CRS and Tyrer-Cuzick in an independent clinical cohort (N = 32,576). RESULTS Simulation studies confirmed that the Fixed-Stratified method produced accurate risk estimation across patients with different family history. In both validation studies, CRS and Tyrer-Cuzick were significantly associated with breast cancer. In an analysis with both CRS and Tyrer-Cuzick as predictors of breast cancer, CRS added significant discrimination independent of that captured by Tyrer-Cuzick (P < 10-11 in validation 1; P < 10-7 in validation 2). In an independent cohort, 18% of women shifted breast cancer risk categories from their Tyrer-Cuzick-based risk compared with risk estimates by CRS. CONCLUSION Integrating clinical and polygenic factors into a risk model offers more effective risk stratification and supports a personalized genomic approach to breast cancer screening and prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Danna F. Grear
- The Breast Center of NWA-Medical Associates of Northwest Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR
| | - Susan M. Domchek
- Basser Center for BRCA, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Long-Term Evaluation of Women Referred to a Breast Cancer Family History Clinic (Manchester UK 1987-2020). Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:cancers12123697. [PMID: 33317064 PMCID: PMC7763143 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12123697] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2020] [Revised: 12/02/2020] [Accepted: 12/05/2020] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary This study reports the management of women at high risk for breast cancer over a 33 years period. The aim was to summarize the numbers seen and to report the results of our studies on gene testing, the outcomes of screening and the success of preventive methods including lifestyle change, chemoprevention and risk-reducing mastectomy. We also discuss how the clinical Family History Service may be improved in the future. Abstract Clinics for women concerned about their family history of breast cancer are widely established. A Family History Clinic was set-up in Manchester, UK, in 1987 in a Breast Unit serving a population of 1.8 million. In this review, we report the outcome of risk assessment, screening and prevention strategies in the clinic and propose future approaches. Between 1987–2020, 14,311 women were referred, of whom 6.4% were from known gene families, 38.2% were at high risk (≥30% lifetime risk), 37.7% at moderate risk (17–29%), and 17.7% at an average/population risk who were discharged. A total of 4168 (29.1%) women were eligible for genetic testing and 736 carried pathogenic variants, predominantly in BRCA1 and BRCA2 but also other genes (5.1% of direct referrals). All women at high or moderate risk were offered annual mammographic screening between ages 30 and 40 years old: 646 cancers were detected in women at high and moderate risk (5.5%) with a detection rate of 5 per 1000 screens. Incident breast cancers were largely of good prognosis and resulted in a predicted survival advantage. All high/moderate-risk women were offered lifestyle prevention advice and 14–27% entered various lifestyle studies. From 1992–2003, women were offered entry into IBIS-I (tamoxifen) and IBIS-II (anastrozole) trials (12.5% of invitees joined). The NICE guidelines ratified the use of tamoxifen and raloxifene (2013) and subsequently anastrozole (2017) for prevention; 10.8% women took up the offer of such treatment between 2013–2020. Since 1994, 7164 eligible women at ≥25% lifetime risk of breast cancer were offered a discussion of risk-reducing breast surgery and 451 (6.2%) had surgery. New approaches in all aspects of the service are needed to build on these results.
Collapse
|
50
|
Rosner B, Tamimi RM, Kraft P, Gao C, Mu Y, Scott C, Winham SJ, Vachon CM, Colditz GA. Simplified Breast Risk Tool Integrating Questionnaire Risk Factors, Mammographic Density, and Polygenic Risk Score: Development and Validation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020; 30:600-607. [PMID: 33277321 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-20-0900] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2020] [Revised: 09/01/2020] [Accepted: 12/01/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinical use of breast cancer risk prediction requires simplified models. We evaluate a simplified version of the validated Rosner-Colditz model and add percent mammographic density (MD) and polygenic risk score (PRS), to assess performance from ages 45-74. We validate using the Mayo Mammography Health Study (MMHS). METHODS We derived the model in the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) based on: MD, 77 SNP PRS and a questionnaire score (QS; lifestyle and reproductive factors). A total of 2,799 invasive breast cancer cases were diagnosed from 1990-2000. MD (using Cumulus software) and PRS were assessed in a nested case-control study. We assess model performance using this case-control dataset and evaluate 10-year absolute breast cancer risk. The prospective MMHS validation dataset includes 21.8% of women age <50, and 434 incident cases identified over 10 years of follow-up. RESULTS In the NHS, MD has the highest odds ratio (OR) for 10-year risk prediction: ORper SD = 1.48 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.31-1.68], followed by PRS, ORper SD = 1.37 (95% CI: 1.21-1.55) and QS, ORper SD = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.11-1.41). In MMHS, the AUC adjusted for age + MD + QS 0.650; for age + MD + QS + PRS 0.687, and the NRI was 6% in cases and 16% in controls. CONCLUSION A simplified assessment of QS, MD, and PRS performs consistently to discriminate those at high 10-year breast cancer risk. IMPACT This simplified model provides accurate estimation of 10-year risk of invasive breast cancer that can be used in a clinical setting to identify women who may benefit from chemopreventive intervention.See related commentary by Tehranifar et al., p. 587.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bernard Rosner
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Rulla M Tamimi
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Division of Epidemiology, Population Health Sciences Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Peter Kraft
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
- Program in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Chi Gao
- Program in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Yi Mu
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Christopher Scott
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Stacey J Winham
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Celine M Vachon
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Graham A Colditz
- Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center and Department of Surgery, Division of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
| |
Collapse
|