Dataset Information

Validation of a multi-ancestry polygenic risk score and age-specific risks of prostate cancer: A meta-analysis within diverse populations.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We recently developed a multi-ancestry polygenic risk score (PRS) that effectively stratifies prostate cancer risk across populations. In this study, we validated the performance of the PRS in the multi-ancestry Million Veteran Program and additional independent studies.

Methods

Within each ancestry population, the association of PRS with prostate cancer risk was evaluated separately in each case-control study and then combined in a fixed-effects inverse-variance-weighted meta-analysis. We further assessed the effect modification by age and estimated the age-specific absolute risk of prostate cancer for each ancestry population.

Results

The PRS was evaluated in 31,925 cases and 490,507 controls, including men from European (22,049 cases, 414,249 controls), African (8794 cases, 55,657 controls), and Hispanic (1082 cases, 20,601 controls) populations. Comparing men in the top decile (90-100% of the PRS) to the average 40-60% PRS category, the prostate cancer odds ratio (OR) was 3.8-fold in European ancestry men (95% CI = 3.62-3.96), 2.8-fold in African ancestry men (95% CI = 2.59-3.03), and 3.2-fold in Hispanic men (95% CI = 2.64-3.92). The PRS did not discriminate risk of aggressive versus nonaggressive prostate cancer. However, the OR diminished with advancing age (European ancestry men in the top decile: ≤55 years, OR = 7.11; 55-60 years, OR = 4.26; >70 years, OR = 2.79). Men in the top PRS decile reached 5% absolute prostate cancer risk ~10 years younger than men in the 40-60% PRS category.

Conclusions

Our findings validate the multi-ancestry PRS as an effective prostate cancer risk stratification tool across populations. A clinical study of PRS is warranted to determine whether the PRS could be used for risk-stratified screening and early detection.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (grant numbers U19 CA214253 to C.A.H., U01 CA257328 to C.A.H., U19 CA148537 to C.A.H., R01 CA165862 to C.A.H., K99 CA246063 to B.F.D, and T32CA229110 to F.C), the Prostate Cancer Foundation (grants 21YOUN11 to B.F.D. and 20CHAS03 to C.A.H.), the Achievement Rewards for College Scientists Foundation Los Angeles Founder Chapter to B.F.D, and the Million Veteran Program-MVP017. This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource under application number 42195. This research is based on data from the Million Veteran Program, Office of Research and Development, and the Veterans Health Administration. This publication does not represent the views of the Department of Veteran Affairs or the United States Government.

SUBMITTER: Chen F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9322982 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundType 2 diabetes (T2D) is a worldwide scourge caused by both genetic and environmental risk factors that disproportionately afflicts communities of color. Leveraging existing large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS), polygenic risk scores (PRS) have shown promise to complement established clinical risk factors and intervention paradigms, and improve early diagnosis and prevention of T2D. However, to date, T2D PRS have been most widely developed and validated in individuals of European descent. Comprehensive assessment of T2D PRS in non-European populations is critical for equitable deployment of PRS to clinical practice that benefits global populations.MethodsWe integrated T2D GWAS in European, African, and East Asian populations to construct a trans-ancestry T2D PRS using a newly developed Bayesian polygenic modeling method, and assessed the prediction accuracy of the PRS in the multi-ethnic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) study (11,945 cases; 57,694 controls), four Black cohorts (5137 cases; 9657 controls), and the Taiwan Biobank (4570 cases; 84,996 controls). We additionally evaluated a post hoc ancestry adjustment method that can express the polygenic risk on the same scale across ancestrally diverse individuals and facilitate the clinical implementation of the PRS in prospective cohorts.ResultsThe trans-ancestry PRS was significantly associated with T2D status across the ancestral groups examined. The top 2% of the PRS distribution can identify individuals with an approximately 2.5-4.5-fold of increase in T2D risk, which corresponds to the increased risk of T2D for first-degree relatives. The post hoc ancestry adjustment method eliminated major distributional differences in the PRS across ancestries without compromising its predictive performance.ConclusionsBy integrating T2D GWAS from multiple populations, we developed and validated a trans-ancestry PRS, and demonstrated its potential as a meaningful index of risk among diverse patients in clinical settings. Our efforts represent the first step towards the implementation of the T2D PRS into routine healthcare.

Project description:BackgroundPolygenic risk scores (PRS) derived from European individuals have reduced portability across global populations, limiting their clinical implementation at worldwide scale. Here, we investigate the performance of a wide range of PRS models across four ancestry groups (Africans, Europeans, East Asians, and South Asians) for 14 conditions of high-medical interest.MethodsTo select the best-performing model per trait, we first compared PRS performances for publicly available scores, and constructed new models using different methods (LDpred2, PRS-CSx and SNPnet). We used 285 K European individuals from the UK Biobank (UKBB) for training and 18 K, including diverse ancestries, for testing. We then evaluated PRS portability for the best models in Europeans and compared their accuracies with respect to the best PRS per ancestry. Finally, we validated the selected PRS models using an independent set of 8,417 individuals from Biobank of the Americas-Genomelink (BbofA-GL); and performed a PRS-Phewas.ResultsWe confirmed a decay in PRS performances relative to Europeans when the evaluation was conducted using the best-PRS model for Europeans (51.3% for South Asians, 46.6% for East Asians and 39.4% for Africans). We observed an improvement in the PRS performances when specifically selecting ancestry specific PRS models (phenotype variance increase: 1.62 for Africans, 1.40 for South Asians and 0.96 for East Asians). Additionally, when we selected the optimal model conditional on ancestry for CAD, HDL-C and LDL-C, hypertension, hypothyroidism and T2D, PRS performance for studied populations was more comparable to what was observed in Europeans. Finally, we were able to independently validate tested models for Europeans, and conducted a PRS-Phewas, identifying cross-trait interplay between cardiometabolic conditions, and between immune-mediated components.ConclusionOur work comprehensively evaluated PRS accuracy across a wide range of phenotypes, reducing the uncertainty with respect to which PRS model to choose and in which ancestry group. This evaluation has let us identify specific conditions where implementing risk-prioritization strategies could have practical utility across diverse ancestral groups, contributing to democratizing the implementation of PRS.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aims to address disparities in risk prediction by evaluating the performance of polygenic risk score (PRS) models using the 90 risk variants across 78 independent loci previously linked to Parkinson's disease (PD) risk across seven diverse ancestry populations.MethodsWe conducted a multi-stage study, testing PRS models in predicting PD status across seven different ancestries applying three approaches: 1) PRS adjusted by gender and age; 2) PRS adjusted by gender, age and principal components (PCs); and 3) PRS adjusted by gender, age and percentage of population admixture. These models were built using the largest four population-specific summary statistics of PD risk to date (base data) and individual level data obtained from the Global Parkinson's Genetics Program (target data). We performed power calculations to estimate the minimum sample size required to conduct these analyses. A total of 91 PRS models were developed to investigate cumulative known genetic variation associated with PD risk and age of onset in a global context.ResultsWe observed marked heterogeneity in risk estimates across non-European ancestries, including East Asians, Central Asians, Latino/Admixed Americans, Africans, African admixed, and Ashkenazi Jewish populations. Risk allele patterns for the 90 risk variants yielded significant differences in directionality, frequency, and magnitude of effect. PRS did not improve in performance when predicting disease status using similar base and target data across multiple ancestries, demonstrating that cumulative PRS models based on current known risk are inherently biased towards European populations. We found that PRS models adjusted by percentage of admixture outperformed models that adjusted for conventional PCs in highly admixed populations. Overall, the clinical utility of our models in individually predicting PD status is limited in concordance with the estimates observed in European populations.InterpretationThis study represents the first comprehensive assessment of how PRS models predict PD risk and age at onset in a multi-ancestry fashion. Given the heterogeneity and distinct genetic architecture of PD across different populations, our assessment emphasizes the need for larger and diverse study cohorts of individual-level target data and well-powered ancestry-specific summary statistics. Our current understanding of PD status unraveled through GWAS in European populations is not generally applicable to other ancestries. Future studies should integrate clinical and *omics level data to enhance the accuracy and predictive power of PRS across diverse populations.

Project description:BackgroundPredictive performance of polygenic risk scores (PRS) varies across populations. To facilitate equitable clinical use, we developed PRS for coronary heart disease (PRSCHD) for 5 genetic ancestry groups.MethodsWe derived ancestry-specific and multi-ancestry PRSCHD based on pruning and thresholding (PRSP+T) and continuous shrinkage priors (PRSCSx) applied on summary statistics from the largest multi-ancestry genome-wide meta-analysis for CHD to date, including 1.1 million participants from 5 continental populations. Following training and optimization of PRSCHD in the Million Veteran Program, we evaluated predictive performance of the best performing PRSCHD in 176,988 individuals across 9 cohorts of diverse genetic ancestry.ResultsMulti-ancestry PRSP+T outperformed ancestry specific PRSP+T across a range of tuning values. In training stage, for all ancestry groups, PRSCSx performed better than PRSP+T and multi-ancestry PRS outperformed ancestry-specific PRS. In independent validation cohorts, the selected multi-ancestry PRSP+T demonstrated the strongest association with CHD in individuals of South Asian (SAS) and European (EUR) ancestry (OR per 1SD[95% CI]; 2.75[2.41-3.14], 1.65[1.59-1.72]), followed by East Asian (EAS) (1.56[1.50-1.61]), Hispanic/Latino (HIS) (1.38[1.24-1.54]), and weakest in African (AFR) ancestry (1.16[1.11-1.21]). The selected multi-ancestry PRSCSx showed stronger associacion with CHD in comparison within each ancestry group where the association was strongest in SAS (2.67[2.38-3.00]) and EUR (1.65[1.59-1.71]), progressively decreasing in EAS (1.59[1.54-1.64]), HIS (1.51[1.35-1.69]), and lowest in AFR (1.20[1.15-1.26]).ConclusionsUtilizing diverse summary statistics from a large multi-ancestry genome-wide meta-analysis led to improved performance of PRSCHD in most ancestry groups compared to single-ancestry methods. Improvement of predictive performance was limited, specifically in AFR and HIS, despite use of one of the largest and most diverse set of training and validation cohorts to date. This highlights the need for larger GWAS datasets of AFR and HIS individuals to enhance performance of PRSCHD.

Project description:PurposePolygenic risk scores (PRSs) for breast cancer (BC) risk stratification have been developed primarily in women of European ancestry. Their application to women of non-European ancestry has lagged because of the lack of a formal approach to incorporate genetic ancestry and ancestry-dependent variant frequencies and effect sizes. Here, we propose a multiple-ancestry PRS (MA-PRS) that addresses these issues and may be useful in the development of equitable PRSs across other cancers and common diseases.Materials and methodsWomen referred for hereditary cancer testing were divided into consecutive cohorts for development (n = 189,230) and for independent validation (n = 89,126). Individual genetic composition as fractions of three reference ancestries (African, East Asian, and European) was determined from ancestry-informative single-nucleotide polymorphisms. The MA-PRS is a combination of three ancestry-specific PRSs on the basis of genetic ancestral composition. Stratification of risk was evaluated by multivariable logistic regression models controlling for family cancer history. Goodness-of-fit analysis compared expected with observed relative risks by quantiles of the MA-PRS distribution.ResultsIn independent validation, the MA-PRS was significantly associated with BC risk in the full cohort (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.40 to 1.46; P = 8.6 × 10-308) and within each major ancestry. The top decile of the MA-PRS consistently identified patients with two-fold increased risk of developing BC. Goodness-of-fit tests showed that the MA-PRS was well calibrated and predicted BC risk accurately in the tails of the distribution for both European and non-European women.ConclusionThe MA-PRS uses genetic ancestral composition to expand the utility of polygenic risk prediction to non-European women. Inclusion of genetic ancestry in polygenic risk prediction presents an opportunity for more personalized treatment decisions for women of varying and mixed ancestries.