Fine-mapping of the HNF1B multicancer locus identifies candidate variants that mediate endometrial cancer risk.

Common variants in the hepatocyte nuclear factor 1 homeobox B (HNF1B) gene are associated with the risk of Type II diabetes and multiple cancers. Evidence to date indicates that cancer risk may be mediated via genetic or epigenetic effects on HNF1B gene expression. We previously found single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at the HNF1B locus to be associated with endometrial cancer, and now report extensive fine-mapping and in silico and laboratory analyses of this locus. Analysis of 1184 genotyped and imputed SNPs in 6608 Caucasian cases and 37 925 controls, and 895 Asian cases and 1968 controls, revealed the best signal of association for SNP rs11263763 (P = 8.4 × 10(-14), odds ratio = 0.86, 95% confidence interval = 0.82-0.89), located within HNF1B intron 1. Haplotype analysis and conditional analyses provide no evidence of further independent endometrial cancer risk variants at this locus. SNP rs11263763 genotype was associated with HNF1B mRNA expression but not with HNF1B methylation in endometrial tumor samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Genetic analyses prioritized rs11263763 and four other SNPs in high-to-moderate linkage disequilibrium as the most likely causal SNPs. Three of these SNPs map to the extended HNF1B promoter based on chromatin marks extending from the minimal promoter region. Reporter assays demonstrated that this extended region reduces activity in combination with the minimal HNF1B promoter, and that the minor alleles of rs11263763 or rs8064454 are associated with decreased HNF1B promoter activity. Our findings provide evidence for a single signal associated with endometrial cancer risk at the HNF1B locus, and that risk is likely mediated via altered HNF1B gene expression

Genetic modifiers of CHEK2*1100delC-associated breast cancer risk

Purpose: CHEK2*1100delC is a founder variant in European populations that confers a two-to threefold increased risk of breast cancer (BC). Epidemiologic and family studies have suggested that the risk associated with CHEK2*1100delC is modified by other genetic factors in a multiplicative fashion. We have investigated this empirically using data from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). Methods: Using genotype data from 39,139 (624 1100delC carriers) BC patients and 40,063 (224) healthy controls from 32 BCAC studies, we analyzed the combined risk effects of CHEK2*1100delC and 77 common variants in terms of a polygenic risk score (PRS) and pairwise interaction. Results: The PRS conferred odds ratios (OR) of 1.59 (95% CI: 1.212.09) per standard deviation for BC for CHEK2*1100delC carriers and 1.58 (1.55-1.62) for noncarriers. No evidence of deviation from the multiplicative model was found. The OR for the highest quintile of the PRS was 2.03 (0.86-4.78) for CHEK2*1100delC carriers, placing them in the high risk category according to UK NICE guidelines. The OR for the lowest quintile was 0.52 (0.16-1.74), indicating a lifetime risk close to the population average. Conclusion: Our results confirm the multiplicative nature of risk effects conferred by CHEK2*1100delC and the common susceptibility variants. Furthermore, the PRS could identify carriers at a high lifetime risk for clinical actions.Peer reviewe

E-cadherin breast tumor expression, risk factors and survival : Pooled analysis of 5,933 cases from 12 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium

E-cadherin (CDH1) is a putative tumor suppressor gene implicated in breast carcinogenesis. Yet, whether risk factors or survival differ by E-cadherin tumor expression is unclear. We evaluated E-cadherin tumor immunohistochemistry expression using tissue microarrays of 5,933 female invasive breast cancers from 12 studies from the Breast Cancer Consortium. H-scores were calculated and case-case odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using logistic regression. Survival analyses were performed using Cox regression models. All analyses were stratified by estrogen receptor (ER) status and histologic subtype. E-cadherin low cases (N = 1191, 20%) were more frequently of lobular histology, low grade, > 2 cm, and HER2-negative. Loss of E-cadherin expression (score <100) was associated with menopausal hormone use among ER-positive tumors (ever compared to never users, OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.97-1.59), which was stronger when we evaluated complete loss of E-cadherin (i.e. H-score = 0), OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.06-2.33. Breast cancer specific mortality was unrelated to E-cadherin expression in multivariable models. E-cadherin low expression is associated with lobular histology, tumor characteristics and menopausal hormone use, with no evidence of an association with breast cancer specific survival. These data support loss of E-cadherin expression as an important marker of tumor subtypes.Peer reviewe

Evidence that the 5p12 Variant rs10941679 Confers Susceptibility to Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer through FGF10 and MRPS30 Regulation

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have revealed increased breast cancer risk associated with multiple genetic variants at 5p12. Here, we report the fine mapping of this locus using data from 104,660 subjects from 50 case-control studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). With data for 3,365 genotyped and imputed SNPs across a 1 Mb region (positions 44,394,495–45,364,167; NCBI build 37), we found evidence for at least three independent signals: the strongest signal, consisting of a single SNP rs10941679, was associated with risk of estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer (per-g allele OR ER+ = 1.15; 95% CI 1.13–1.18; p = 8.35 × 10−30). After adjustment for rs10941679, we detected signal 2, consisting of 38 SNPs more strongly associated with ER-negative (ER−) breast cancer (lead SNP rs6864776: per-a allele OR ER− = 1.10; 95% CI 1.05–1.14; p conditional = 1.44 × 10−12), and a single signal 3 SNP (rs200229088: per-t allele OR ER+ = 1.12; 95% CI 1.09–1.15; p conditional = 1.12 × 10−05). Expression quantitative trait locus analysis in normal breast tissues and breast tumors showed that the g (risk) allele of rs10941679 was associated with increased expression of FGF10 and MRPS30. Functional assays demonstrated that SNP rs10941679 maps to an enhancer element that physically interacts with the FGF10 and MRPS30 promoter regions in breast cancer cell lines. FGF10 is an oncogene that binds to FGFR2 and is overexpressed in ∼10% of human breast cancers, whereas MRPS30 plays a key role in apoptosis. These data suggest that the strongest signal of association at 5p12 is mediated through coordinated activation of FGF10 and MRPS30, two candidate genes for breast cancer pathogenesis

Genomic analyses identify hundreds of variants associated with age at menarche and support a role for puberty timing in cancer risk

The timing of puberty is a highly polygenic childhood trait that is epidemiologically associated with various adult diseases. Using 1000 Genomes Project-imputed genotype data in up to similar to 370,000 women, we identify 389 independent signals (P <5 x 10(-8)) for age at menarche, a milestone in female pubertal development. In Icelandic data, these signals explain similar to 7.4% of the population variance in age at menarche, corresponding to similar to 25% of the estimated heritability. We implicate similar to 250 genes via coding variation or associated expression, demonstrating significant enrichment in neural tissues. Rare variants near the imprinted genes MKRN3 and DLK1 were identified, exhibiting large effects when paternally inherited. Mendelian randomization analyses suggest causal inverse associations, independent of body mass index (BMI), between puberty timing and risks for breast and endometrial cancers in women and prostate cancer in men. In aggregate, our findings highlight the complexity of the genetic regulation of puberty timing and support causal links with cancer susceptibility

Common non-synonymous SNPs associated with breast cancer susceptibility: findings from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium.

Candidate variant association studies have been largely unsuccessful in identifying common breast cancer susceptibility variants, although most studies have been underpowered to detect associations of a realistic magnitude. We assessed 41 common non-synonymous single-nucleotide polymorphisms (nsSNPs) for which evidence of association with breast cancer risk had been previously reported. Case-control data were combined from 38 studies of white European women (46 450 cases and 42 600 controls) and analyzed using unconditional logistic regression. Strong evidence of association was observed for three nsSNPs: ATXN7-K264R at 3p21 [rs1053338, per allele OR = 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04-1.10, P = 2.9 × 10(-6)], AKAP9-M463I at 7q21 (rs6964587, OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.03-1.07, P = 1.7 × 10(-6)) and NEK10-L513S at 3p24 (rs10510592, OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.07-1.12, P = 5.1 × 10(-17)). The first two associations reached genome-wide statistical significance in a combined analysis of available data, including independent data from nine genome-wide association studies (GWASs): for ATXN7-K264R, OR = 1.07 (95% CI = 1.05-1.10, P = 1.0 × 10(-8)); for AKAP9-M463I, OR = 1.05 (95% CI = 1.04-1.07, P = 2.0 × 10(-10)). Further analysis of other common variants in these two regions suggested that intronic SNPs nearby are more strongly associated with disease risk. We have thus identified a novel susceptibility locus at 3p21, and confirmed previous suggestive evidence that rs6964587 at 7q21 is associated with risk. The third locus, rs10510592, is located in an established breast cancer susceptibility region; the association was substantially attenuated after adjustment for the known GWAS hit. Thus, each of the associated nsSNPs is likely to be a marker for another, non-coding, variant causally related to breast cancer risk. Further fine-mapping and functional studies are required to identify the underlying risk-modifying variants and the genes through which they act.BCAC is funded by Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A12014) and by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n8 223175 (HEALTH-F2–2009-223175) (COGS). Meetings of the BCAC have been funded by the European Union COST programme (BM0606). Genotyping of the iCOGS array was funded by the European Union (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10710), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the ‘CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer’ program and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade of Quebec (PSR-SIIRI-701). Additional support for the iCOGS infrastructure was provided by the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112—the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. The ABCFS and OFBCR work was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (USA). The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products or organizations imply endorsement t by the US Government or the BCFR. The ABCFS was also supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the New South Wales Cancer Council, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (Australia) and the Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium. J.L.H. is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Principal Research Fellow and M.C.S. is a NHMRC Senior Research Fellow. The OFBCR work was also supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research ‘CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer’ program. The ABCS was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society Grant no. NKI2007-3839 and NKI2009-4363. The ACP study is funded by the Breast Cancer Research Trust, UK. The work of the BBCC was partly funded by ELAN-Programme of the University Hospital of Erlangen. The BBCS is funded by Cancer Research UK and Breakthrough Breast Cancer and acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN). E.S. is supported by NIHR Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Guy’s & St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King’s College London, UK. Core funding to the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics was provided by the Wellcome Trust (090532/Z/09/Z). I.T. is supported by the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. The BSUCH study was supported by the Dietmar-Hopp Foundation, the Helmholtz Society and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). The CECILE study was funded by the Fondation de France, the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa), The National League against Cancer, the National Agency for Environmental l and Occupational Health and Food Safety (ANSES), the National Agency for Research (ANR), and the Association for Research against Cancer (ARC). The CGPS was supported by the Chief Physician Johan Boserup and Lise Boserup Fund, the Danish Medical Research Council and Herlev Hospital.The CNIO-BCS was supported by the Genome Spain Foundation the Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Cáncer and grants from the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer and the Fondo de Investigación Sanitario PI11/00923 and PI081120). The Human Genotyping-CEGEN Unit, CNIO is supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III. D.A. was supported by a Fellowship from the Michael Manzella Foundation (MMF) and was a participant in the CNIO Summer Training Program. The CTS was initially supported by the California Breast Cancer Act of 1993 and the California Breast Cancer Research Fund (contract 97-10500) and is currently funded through the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA77398). Collection of cancer incidence e data was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885. HAC receives support from the Lon V Smith Foundation (LVS39420). The ESTHER study was supported by a grant from the Baden Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts. Additional cases were recruited in the context of the VERDI study, which was supported by a grant from the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe). The GENICA was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany grants 01KW9975/5, 01KW9976/8, 01KW9977/0 and 01KW0114, the Robert Bosch Foundation, Stuttgart, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum (IPA), as well as the Department of Internal Medicine , Evangelische Kliniken Bonn gGmbH, Johanniter Krankenhaus Bonn, Germany. The HEBCS was supported by the Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (132473), the Finnish Cancer Society, The Nordic Cancer Union and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. The HERPACC was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, Culture and Technology of Japan, by a Grant-in-Aid for the Third Term Comprehensive 10-Year strategy for Cancer Control from Ministry Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, by a research grant from Takeda Science Foundation , by Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants for Research on Applying Health Technology from Ministry Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan and by National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund. The HMBCS was supported by short-term fellowships from the German Academic Exchange Program (to N.B), and the Friends of Hannover Medical School (to N.B.). Financial support for KARBAC was provided through the regional agreement on medical training and clinical research (ALF) between Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet, the Stockholm Cancer Foundation and the Swedish Cancer Society. The KBCP was financially supported by the special Government Funding (EVO) of Kuopio University Hospital grants, Cancer Fund of North Savo, the Finnish Cancer Organizations, the Academy of Finland and by the strategic funding of the University of Eastern Finland. kConFab is supported by grants from the National Breast Cancer Foundation , the NHMRC, the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. The kConFab Clinical Follow Up Study was funded by the NHMRC (145684, 288704, 454508). Financial support for the AOCS was provided by the United States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (DAMD17-01-1-0729), the Cancer Council of Tasmania and Cancer Foundation of Western Australia and the NHMRC (199600). G.C.T. and P.W. are supported by the NHMRC. LAABC is supported by grants (1RB-0287, 3PB-0102, 5PB-0018 and 10PB-0098) from the California Breast Cancer Research Program. Incident breast cancer cases were collected by the USC Cancer Surveillance Program (CSP) which is supported under subcontract by the California Department of Health. The CSP is also part of the National Cancer Institute’s Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, under contract number N01CN25403. LMBC is supported by the ‘Stichting tegen Kanker’ (232-2008 and 196-2010). The MARIE study was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V. (70-2892-BR I), the Federal Ministry of Education Research (BMBF) Germany (01KH0402), the Hamburg Cancer Society and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). MBCSG is supported by grants from the Italian Association ciation for Cancer Research (AIRC) and by funds from the Italian citizens who allocated a 5/1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects ‘5 × 1000’). The MCBCS was supported by the NIH grants (CA122340, CA128978) and a Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation and the Ting Tsung and Wei Fong Chao Foundation. MCCS cohort recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria. The MCCS was further supported by Australian NHMRC grants 209057, 251553 and 504711 and by infrastructure provided by Cancer Council Victoria. The MEC was supported by NIH grants CA63464, CA54281, CA098758 and CA132839. The work of MTLGEBCS was supported by the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CRN-87521) and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade (grant PSR-SIIRI-701). MYBRCA is funded by research grants from the Malaysian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI), Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation (CARIF). Additional controls were recruited by the Singapore Eye Research Institute, which was supported by a grant from the Biomedical Research Council (BMRC08/1/35/19,tel:08/1/35/19./550), Singapore and the National medical Research Council, Singapore (NMRC/CG/SERI/2010). The NBCS was supported by grants from the Norwegian Research council (155218/V40, 175240/S10 to A.L.B.D., FUGE-NFR 181600/ V11 to V.N.K. and a Swizz Bridge Award to A.L.B.D.). The NBHS was supported by NIH grant R01CA100374. Biological sample preparation was conducted the Survey and Biospecimen Shared Resource, which is supported by P30 CA68485. The OBCS was supported by research grants from the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, the Academy of Finland, the University of Oulu, and the Oulu University Hospital. The ORIGO study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society (RUL 1997-1505) and the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI-NLCP16). The PBCS was funded by Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. pKARMA is a combination of the KARMA and LIBRO-1 studies. KARMA was supported by Ma¨rit and Hans Rausings Initiative Against Breast Cancer. KARMA and LIBRO-1 were supported the Cancer Risk Prediction Center (CRisP; www.crispcenter.org), a Linnaeus Centre (Contract ID 70867902) financed by the Swedish Research Council. The RBCS was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society (DDHK 2004-3124, DDHK 2009-4318). SASBAC was supported by funding from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research of Singapore (A∗STAR), the US National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation KC was financed by the Swedish Cancer Society (5128-B07-01PAF). The SBCGS was supported primarily by NIH grants R01CA64277, R01CA148667, and R37CA70867. Biological sample preparation was conducted the Survey and Biospecimen Shared Resource, which is supported by P30 CA68485. The SBCS was supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research S305PA, S299 and S295. Funding for the SCCS was provided by NIH grant R01 CA092447. The Arkansas Central Cancer Registry is fully funded by a grant from National Program of Cancer Registries, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Data on SCCS cancer cases from Mississippi were collected by the Mississippi Cancer Registry which participates in the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC or the Mississippi Cancer Registry. SEARCH is funded by a programme grant from Cancer Research UK (C490/A10124) and supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. The SEBCS was supported by the BRL (Basic Research Laboratory) program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2012-0000347). SGBCC is funded by the National Medical Research Council Start-up Grant and Centre Grant (NMRC/CG/NCIS /2010). The recruitment of controls by the Singapore Consortium of Cohort Studies-Multi-ethnic cohort (SCCS-MEC) was funded by the Biomedical Research Council (grant number: 05/1/21/19/425). SKKDKFZS is supported by the DKFZ. The SZBCS was supported by Grant PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. K. J. is a fellow of International PhD program, Postgraduate School of Molecular Medicine, Warsaw Medical University, supported by the Polish Foundation of Science. The TNBCC was supported by the NIH grant (CA128978), the Breast Cancer Research Foundation , Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, the Stefanie Spielman Fund for Breast Cancer Research and a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation and the Ting Tsung and Wei Fong Chao Foundation. Part of the TNBCC (DEMOKRITOS) has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund – ESF) and Greek National Funds through the Operational Program ‘Education and Life-long Learning’ of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)—Research Funding Program of the General Secretariat for Research & Technology: ARISTEIA. The TWBCS is supported by the Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Academia Sinica and the National Science Council, Taiwan. The UKBGS is funded by Breakthrough Breast Cancer and the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR). ICR acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by the Wellcome Trust.This is the advanced access published version distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0, which can also be viewed on the publisher's webstie at: http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/07/04/hmg.ddu311.full.pdf+htm

Polygenic Risk Scores for Prediction of Breast Cancer and Breast Cancer Subtypes

Stratification of women according to their risk of breast cancer based on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) could improve screening and prevention strategies. Our aim was to develop PRSs, optimized for prediction of estrogen receptor (ER)-specific disease, from the largest available genome-wide association dataset and to empirically validate the PRSs in prospective studies. The development dataset comprised 94,075 case subjects and 75,017 control subjects of European ancestry from 69 studies, divided into training and validation sets. Samples were genotyped using genome-wide arrays, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected by stepwise regression or lasso penalized regression. The best performing PRSs were validated in an independent test set comprising 11,428 case subjects and 18,323 control subjects from 10 prospective studies and 190,040 women from UK Biobank (3,215 incident breast cancers). For the best PRSs (313 SNPs), the odds ratio for overall disease per 1 standard deviation in ten prospective studies was 1.61 (95%CI: 1.57-1.65) with area under receiver-operator curve (AUC) = 0.630 (95%CI: 0.628-0.651). The lifetime risk of overall breast cancer in the top centile of the PRSs was 32.6%. Compared with women in the middle quintile, those in the highest 1% of risk had 4.37- and 2.78-fold risks, and those in the lowest 1% of risk had 0.16- and 0.27-fold risks, of developing ER-positive and ER-negative disease, respectively. Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that this PRS was well calibrated and predicts disease risk accurately in the tails of the distribution. This PRS is a powerful and reliable predictor of breast cancer risk that may improve breast cancer prevention programs.NovartisEli Lilly and CompanyAstraZenecaAbbViePfizer UKCelgeneEisaiGenentechMerck Sharp and DohmeRocheCancer Research UKGovernment of CanadaArray BioPharmaGenome CanadaNational Institutes of HealthEuropean CommissionMinistère de l'Économie, de l’Innovation et des Exportations du QuébecSeventh Framework ProgrammeCanadian Institutes of Health Researc

Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer risk in women of African ancestry: A cross-ancestry approach

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are useful for predicting breast cancer risk, but the prediction accuracy of existing PRSs in women of African ancestry (AA) remains relatively low. We aim to develop optimal PRSs for the prediction of overall and estrogen receptor (ER) subtype-specific breast cancer risk in AA women. The AA dataset comprised 9235 cases and 10 184 controls from four genome-wide association study (GWAS) consortia and a GWAS study in Ghana. We randomly divided samples into training and validation sets. We built PRSs using individual-level AA data by a forward stepwise logistic regression and then developed joint PRSs that combined (1) the PRSs built in the AA training dataset and (2) a 313-variant PRS previously developed in women of European ancestry. PRSs were evaluated in the AA validation set. For overall breast cancer, the odds ratio per standard deviation of the joint PRS in the validation set was 1.34 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.27-1.42] with the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.581. Compared with women with average risk (40th-60th PRS percentile), women in the top decile of the PRS had a 1.98-fold increased risk (95% CI: 1.63-2.39). For PRSs of ER-positive and ER-negative breast cancer, the AUCs were 0.608 and 0.576, respectively. Compared with existing methods, the proposed joint PRSs can improve prediction of breast cancer risk in AA women

Evaluating Polygenic Risk Scores for Breast Cancer in Women of African Ancestry

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