Dataset Information

Evaluating the prognostic performance of a polygenic risk score for breast cancer risk stratification.

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.

SUBMITTER: Olsen M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8691010 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPublished genetic risk scores for breast cancer (BC) so far have been based on a relatively small number of markers and are not necessarily using the full potential of large-scale Genome-Wide Association Studies. This study aimed to identify an efficient polygenic predictor for BC based on best available evidence and to assess its potential for personalized risk prediction and screening strategies.MethodsFour different genetic risk scores (two already published and two newly developed) and their combinations (metaGRS) were compared in the subsets of two population-based biobank cohorts: the UK Biobank (UKBB, 3157?BC cases, 43,827 controls) and Estonian Biobank (EstBB, 317 prevalent and 308 incident BC cases in 32,557 women). In addition, correlations between different genetic risk scores and their associations with BC risk factors were studied in both cohorts.ResultsThe metaGRS that combines two genetic risk scores (metaGRS2 - based on 75 and 898 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, respectively) had the strongest association with prevalent BC status in both cohorts. One standard deviation difference in the metaGRS2 corresponded to an Odds Ratio?=?1.6 (95% CI 1.54 to 1.66, p?=?9.7*10-?135) in the UK Biobank and accounting for family history marginally attenuated the effect (Odds Ratio?=?1.58, 95% CI 1.53 to 1.64, p?=?7.8*10-?129). In the EstBB cohort, the hazard ratio of incident BC for the women in the top 5% of the metaGRS2 compared to women in the lowest 50% was 4.2 (95% CI 2.8 to 6.2, p?=?8.1*10-?13). The different GRSs were only moderately correlated with each other and were associated with different known predictors of BC. The classification of genetic risk for the same individual varied considerably depending on the chosen GRS.ConclusionsWe have shown that metaGRS2, that combined on the effects of more than 900 SNPs, provided best predictive ability for breast cancer in two different population-based cohorts. The strength of the effect of metaGRS2 indicates that the GRS could potentially be used to develop more efficient strategies for breast cancer screening for genotyped women.

Project description:Background:Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast cancer can be used to stratify the population into groups at substantially different levels of risk. Combining PRS and environmental risk factors will improve risk prediction; however, integrating PRS into risk prediction models requires evaluation of their joint association with known environmental risk factors. Methods:Analyses were based on data from 20 studies; datasets analysed ranged from 3453 to 23 104 invasive breast cancer cases and similar numbers of controls, depending on the analysed environmental risk factor. We evaluated joint associations of a 77-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) PRS with reproductive history, alcohol consumption, menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), height and body mass index (BMI). We tested the null hypothesis of multiplicative joint associations for PRS and each of the environmental factors, and performed global and tail-based goodness-of-fit tests in logistic regression models. The outcomes were breast cancer overall and by estrogen receptor (ER) status. Results:The strongest evidence for a non-multiplicative joint associations with the 77-SNP PRS was for alcohol consumption (P-interaction?=?0.009), adult height (P-interaction?=?0.025) and current use of combined MHT (P-interaction?=?0.038) in ER-positive disease. Risk associations for these factors by percentiles of PRS did not follow a clear dose-response. In addition, global and tail-based goodness of fit tests showed little evidence for departures from a multiplicative risk model, with alcohol consumption showing the strongest evidence for ER-positive disease (P?=?0.013 for global and 0.18 for tail-based tests). Conclusions:The combined effects of the 77-SNP PRS and environmental risk factors for breast cancer are generally well described by a multiplicative model. Larger studies are required to confirm possible departures from the multiplicative model for individual risk factors, and assess models specific for ER-negative disease.