Chatterjee, Nilanjan

Background: Several breast cancer (BC) risk prediction models have been developed to provide personal risk assessments. Though individually validated, their performance has not been systematically evaluated across a wide range of populations or ages. Methods: We harmonized individual-level baseline questionnaire data and incident BC diagnoses from 21 cohorts from North America, Europe, and Australia participating in the Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Project. Five-year absolute risk of invasive BC was estimated for five established risk prediction models using classical risk factors only. Discrimination was evaluated by area under the curve (AUC). Calibration was assessed using average and risk-decile specific expected to observed (E/O) ratios. Performance metrics were meta-analyzed across cohorts and models. Metaregression tested associations between cohort characteristics and performance metrics. Results: This analysis included 1,595,977 women aged 20-75 years, enrolled in studies between 1976-2015, with 19,062 (1.2%) invasive BC cases ascertained within 5 years from exposure assessment. Age-adjusted AUCs were similar across models and cohorts (pooled AUCs by model: 0.57-0.58), while E/O ratios varied substantially (pooled E/O ratios by model: 0.83-1.25). Overestimation was common among predicted high-risk individuals (>3%). No appreciable differences in model performance by cohort age, birth year, race, and variable missingness emerged. Calibration improved after assigning race-specific incidence rates. Conclusion: Existing BC risk prediction models provided similar risk discrimination across multiple cohorts, although there was overestimation of risk for high-risk individuals. Performance variation across cohorts was not driven by specific characteristics, which supports development of a unified risk model for diverse populations that leverages appropriate incidence rates.

Abstract Background Lung adenocarcinoma in never-smokers is a major public health burden, especially among East Asian women. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are promising for risk stratification but are primarily developed in European-ancestry populations. We aimed to develop and validate single- and multi-ancestry PRSs for East Asian never-smokers to improve lung adenocarcinoma risk prediction. Methods PRSs were developed using genome-wide association study summary statistics from East Asian (8002 cases; 20 782 controls) and European (2058 cases; 5575 controls) populations. Single-ancestry models included a PRS with 25 single nucleotide variants (PRS-25), PRS clumping and thresholding (CT), and LDpred2; multi-ancestry models included LDpred2 plus European PRS-128, PRS-CSx, and clumping and thresholding, super learning, empirical Bayes (CT-SLEB). Performance was evaluated in independent East Asian data from the Female Lung Cancer Consortium and externally validated in the Nanjing Lung Cancer Cohort. We assessed predictive accuracy via area under the curve operating procedure (AUC), with 10-year and (ages 30-80 years) absolute risks estimates. Results The best multi-ancestry PRS, using East Asian and European data via CT-SLEB, outperformed the best East Asian-only (LDpred2; AUC = 0.629, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.618 to 0.641), achieving an AUC of 0.640 (95% CI = 0.629 to 0.653) and odds ratio of 1.71 (95% CI = 1.61 to 1.82) per standard deviation increase. Nanjing Lung Cancer Cohort validation confirmed robust performance (AUC = 0.649, 95% CI = 0.623 to 0.676). The top 20% PRS group had a 3.92-fold higher lung adenocarcinoma risk than the bottom 20%. Further, the top 5% PRS group reached a 6.69% lifetime absolute risk. Notably, this group reached the average population 10-year lung adenocarcinoma risk at age 50 years (0.42%) by age 41 years, 9 years earlier. Conclusions Multi-ancestry PRS approaches enhance lung adenocarcinoma risk stratification in East Asian never-smokers, with consistent external validation, suggesting future clinical utility.

Abstract Background Breast cancer genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 200 susceptibility loci, but most studies are dominated by European and East Asian populations. Methods We analyzed breast cancer GWAS summary statistics from African (AFR), East Asian (EAS), European (EUR), and Hispanic/Latina (H/L) samples (159,297 cases and 212,102 controls). We estimated logit-scale SNP-based heritability, polygenicity, and cross-ancestry genetic correlation, partitioned heritability across functional annotations, and integrated GWAS results with the Tabula Sapiens single-cell atlas using scDRS+. Results The logit-scale heritability of breast cancer ranged from ℎ 2 =0.47 (SE = 0.07) in EAS to AFR ℎ 2 =0.61 (SE = 0.10), with no significant differences across ancestries (p=0.63). The estimated number of susceptibility markers in a sparse normal-mixture effects model also varied from 4,446 (SE = 3,100) in EAS to 8,308 (SE = 2,751) in AFR, but differences were not significant across ancestries (p=0.55). Cross-sample genetic correlations varied, with the strongest correlation between EUR and EAS (𝜌 = 0.79, SE = 0.08) and weakest between AFR and H/L (𝜌 = 0.26, SE = 0.24). Regulatory annotations were enriched for breast cancer heritability across samples. Integration with single-cell expression profiles implicated ancestry-shared associations with innate immune, secretory epithelial, and stromal cell types. Conclusion These results indicate substantial cross-ancestry sharing of breast cancer polygenic architecture, highlight a consistent contribution of regulatory variation, and identify convergent cellular contexts that motivate functional follow-up and inform expectations for the transferability and attainable performance of common-variant risk prediction across populations.

Abstract Introduction: Breast cancer genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified over 200 susceptibility loci, many replicated in diverse populations. However, cross-ancestry evaluation of breast cancer genetic architecture remains limited. We examined breast cancer genetic architecture using GWAS summary results from European (EUR; cases (ca) = 188,474, controls (co) = 96,201), East Asian (EAS; ca = 20,393, co = 86,329), African American (AA; ca = 9,235, co = 10,184), and US Hispanic/Latina and Latin American (H/L; ca = 2,396, co =7,468) studies. Methods: GWAS results were derived from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium, the African Ancestry Breast Cancer Genetics Consortium (AABCG), Biobank Japan, and a meta-analysis of five studies of H/L women with breast cancer. Linkage disequilibrium (LD) scores were generated for EUR, EAS, and AMR using the 1000 Genomes Project, while AA LD scores were derived from a subset of AABCG controls. Heritability was estimated for each ancestry group using LD score regression. Genetic correlations between populations were assessed via Popcorn. Polygenicity was analyzed using GENESIS; however, due to the limited sample size in the H/L studies, these estimates were restricted to AA, EAS, and EUR. Enrichment of heritability across regulatory elements was evaluated using stratified LD score regression across all populations. Results: The logit-scale heritability and corresponding standard error (SE) were 0.466 (0.066) for EAS, 0.501 (0.050) for EUR, 0.588 (0.360) for H/L, and 0.614 (0.095) for AA. The estimated number of independent susceptibility loci was 4,446 for EAS, 5,235 for EUR, and 8,308 for AA. Using a clumping and thresholding approach, an optimal set of common variants were projected to explain 38.6% (EUR), 39.4% (EAS), and 26.2% (AA) of genetic variance for samples of 100,000 cases and 100,000 controls with AUCs from corresponding estimated polygenic risk scores (PRSs) of 0.621 (EUR), 0.634 (EAS), and 0.611 (AA). Genetic correlations were strongest between EUR and EAS (ρ = 0.79, SE = 0.08) and EUR and H/L (ρ = 0.68, SE = 0.21), and weakest between AA and EAS (ρ = 0.42, SE = 0.14) and AA and H/L (ρ = 0.26, SE = 0.24). Among 73 genomic features, we found significant (P < 0.05/73) enrichment in heritability in EUR for ‘ancient promoter’ regions, transcription factor binding sites, H3K4me3, ‘super-enhancers’, H3K4me1, H3K27ac; in EAS for ‘super-enhancers’; and in AA for H3K27ac. No genomic features were significantly enriched in H/L, likely due to limited power. Conclusion: These findings suggest a shared breast cancer genetic architecture across diverse populations, as well as the potential for a similar level of breast cancer risk stratification by PRS in these populations. Expanding GWAS in underrepresented populations is essential to improve genetic risk predictions and foster equitable cancer prevention. Citation Format: James L. Li, Maria Zanti, Jacob Williams, Om Jahagirdar, Guochong Jia, Qiang Hu, Jean-Tristan Brandenburg, Li Yan, Weang-Kee Ho, Jingmei Li, José P. Miranda, Devika Godbole, Julie-Alexia Dias, Leila Dorling, Wenlong C. Chen, Nicholas Boddicker, Ying Wang, Alicia Martin, Martin J. Zhang, Yan Zhang, Joe Dennis, Esther M. John, Gabriela Torres-Mejia, Larry Kushi, Jeffrey Weitzel, Susan L. Neuhausen, Luis Carvajal-Carmona, Christopher Haiman, Elad Ziv, Laura Fejerman, Wei Zheng, Dezheng Huo, Douglas Easton, Nilanjan Chatterjee, Peter Kraft, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Wendy Wong, Kyriaki Michailidou, Qianqian Zhu, Diptavo Dutta, Thomas U. Ahearn, Haoyu Zhang. Genetic architecture of breast cancer across diverse populations: Assessing heritability, genetic correlation, and polygenicity [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 2282.

Abstract Breast cancer risk assessment tools are widely used in clinical practice to guide decisions regarding screening timing and modality, lifestyle interventions, genetic testing, preventive therapy, and risk-reducing surgery. Although a number of tools designed for the general population are used in practice, they face a series of challenges including: (i) modest discriminatory ability due to lack of a unified model that flexibly incorporates a comprehensive set of risk factors; (ii) inability to produce subtype-specific risk estimates, relevant for tailoring screening and/or preventive strategies (e.g. prophylactic endocrine therapy that is effective only for hormone receptor positive tumors); (iii) lack of data from diverse populations to build models that work well for all women; and, (iv) scarcity of opportunities for comparative validation of different models. The Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Project (BCRPP), a collaboration currently including 20 prospective cohorts from the National Cancer Institute’s Cohort Consortium, is addressing these challenges by harmonizing, sharing, and analyzing data on over 1.8 million women, over 115, 000 of whom have developed breast cancer. The BCRPP is developing a comprehensive tool that will predict breast cancer risk, overall and by subtypes, across major racial and ethnic groups in the United States. This tool incorporates known and emerging risk factors (e.g. reproductive history, anthropometry, smoking, alcohol intake, medication use, mammography, family history, and measured genotypes). In parallel to model building and validation efforts, BCRPP investigators are developing privacy-preserving web and mobile interfaces to deliver the risk tools to patients and clinicians. Here we present descriptive data on participating cohorts (e.g. dates of enrollment, ages at enrollment, length of follow up, numbers of cases by subtype), summarize missing data patterns and our approach to model development and validation that accounts for heterogeneity in missingness patterns across cohorts, and describe data governance procedures and data sharing infrastructure (including pooled and federated analyses, to account for policy limitations on sharing individual data). Descriptive information and procedures for requesting and accessing data are available via the BCRPP data platform (https://epidataplatforms.cancer.gov/bcrpp/). Although originally assembled for risk model development, these data on a large and diverse sample of women with extensive harmonized risk factors and covariates can be a resource to address other outstanding questions in breast cancer epidemiology across time, the lifecourse, and diverse populations. Citation Format: Peter Kraft, Laura Beane-Freeman, Julie Palmer, Ellen O'Meara, Jeanine Genkinger, James Lacey, Thomas Rohan, Lauren Teras, Marian L. Neuhouser, Kala Visvanathan, Celine Vachon, Roger Milne, Christopher Haiman, Yu Chen, Heather Eliassen, Cari Kitahara, Katie O'Brien, Emily White, Garnet Anderson, I-Min Lee, Archie Campbell, Renee Fortner, Ylva Lagerros, Sven Sandin, Mia Gaudet, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Nilanjan Chatterjee. The Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Project: a resource of 1.8 million women with diverse backgrounds from 20 prospective cohorts to improve breast cancer risk prediction and advance breast cancer epidemiology [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 3583.

AbstractBackgroundReproductive factors have been shown to be differentially associated with risk of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and ER-negative breast cancer. However, their associations with intrinsic-like subtypes are less clear.MethodsAnalyses included up to 23 353 cases and 71 072 controls pooled from 31 population-based case-control or cohort studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium across 16 countries on 4 continents. Polytomous logistic regression was used to estimate the association between reproductive factors and risk of breast cancer by intrinsic-like subtypes (luminal A-like, luminal B-like, luminal B-HER2–like, HER2-enriched–like, and triple-negative breast cancer) and by invasiveness. All statistical tests were 2-sided.ResultsCompared with nulliparous women, parous women had a lower risk of luminal A-like, luminal B-like, luminal B-HER2–like, and HER2-enriched–like disease. This association was apparent only after approximately 10 years since last birth and became stronger with increasing time (odds ratio [OR] = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 0.71; and OR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.28 to 0.46 for multiparous women with luminal A-like tumors 20 to less than 25 years after last birth and 45 to less than 50 years after last birth, respectively). In contrast, parous women had a higher risk of triple-negative breast cancer right after their last birth (for multiparous women: OR = 3.12, 95% CI = 2.02 to 4.83) that was attenuated with time but persisted for decades (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.79 to 1.34, for multiparous women 25 to less than 30 years after last birth). Older age at first birth (Pheterogeneity < .001 for triple-negative compared with luminal A-like breast cancer) and breastfeeding (Pheterogeneity < .001 for triple-negative compared with luminal A-like breast cancer) were associated with lower risk of triple-negative breast cancer but not with other disease subtypes. Younger age at menarche was associated with higher risk of all subtypes; older age at menopause was associated with higher risk of luminal A-like but not triple-negative breast cancer. Associations for in situ tumors were similar to luminal A-like.ConclusionsThis large and comprehensive study demonstrates a distinct reproductive risk factor profile for triple-negative breast cancer compared with other subtypes, with implications for the understanding of disease etiology and risk prediction.

Abstract Background: An elevated risk of developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) has been associated with a family history of NHL and several other malignancies, but the magnitude of risks and mechanisms are uncertain. Methods: We used self-reported family history data from a recent multicenter U.S.-based case-control studies of NHL to evaluate familial aggregation of NHL with various hematolymphoproliferative and other cancers. Estimates of familial aggregation were obtained as hazard ratios (HR) that compare incidence of different cancers in first-degree relatives of NHL cases with that in the first-degree relatives of NHL controls. Limitations of the study included low participation rates (76% for cases and 52% for controls) and potential differential accuracy of recall. Results: Risk of NHL was elevated in relatives of NHL cases [HR, 2.9; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.95–8.53]; the aggregation seems to be stronger for siblings (HR, 7.6; 95% CI, 0.98–58.8) and for male relatives (HR, 6.2; 95% CI, 0.77–50.0). Risk of Hodgkin's lymphoma seems to be also elevated among relatives of early-onset (<50 years) NHL cases (HR, 3.2; 95% CI, 0.88–11.6). Evaluation of family history of other cancers provided modest evidence for an increased risk of melanoma of the skin (HR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.08–7.75), pancreatic cancer (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 0.96–4.43), stomach cancer (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.91–3.63), and prostate cancer (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.87–1.99). Conclusions: These results are consistent with previous findings of familial aggregation of NHL, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and a few other cancers. The pattern of male-specific and sibling-specific familial aggregation of NHL we observed, if confirmed, may shed new light on the possible mechanisms that underlie familial aggregation of the disease.

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.

Abstract Introduction: Pancreatic cancer is the seventh leading cause of cancer death worldwide with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) being the most common subtype (>90%). Inherited genetic changes and cigarette smoking are established independent risk factors of PDAC. Methods: We conducted a genome-wide gene by smoking interaction analysis of PDAC risk among 7,937 PDAC cases and 12,389 controls of European ancestry from the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort (PanScan) and Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortia (PanC4) with complete genotyping and smoking data. Over 6,769,447 SNPs met our inclusion criteria of imputation score >0.5 and MAF >0.05 after imputation to phase 3 1000G and were included in our analysis. We evaluated the gene-environment interactions using the empirical Bayes method which allows data-adaptive relaxation of the gene-environment independence assumption. The logistic regression model was adjusted for age, sex, top principal components for each phase, study and study region (PanScan only). The analysis was conducted separately for the PanScan and PanC4 GWAS studies, using a score test to efficiently incorporate expected SNP dosages. The estimates were then combined using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. We examined expression quantitative trait locus using data from the NIH Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) database. We considered a P-value < 5.0 × 10−8 statistically significant. Results: We found a genome-wide significant qualitative interaction with the SNP rs1818613 by smoking status (P-value <5 × 10−9) where, compared to the G allele, the T allele was associated with a reduced risk PDAC in never smokers (per T allele OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82-0.93), had no association in former smokers (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91-1.07) and was associated with an increased risk in current smokers (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.40). This SNP is located on chromosome 2q21.3 in intron 5 of the transmembrane protein 163 (TMEM163) gene and upstream of the cyclin T2 (CCNT2) gene. More than 40 additional SNPs within 100Kbp and in high LD (r2 > 0.8) with rs1818613 provided significant evidence of interaction by smoking status for PDAC risk. rs1818613 was associated with differential expression of TMEM163 in several tissues: for T allele compared with the G allele there was increased expression in the heart, pituitary, whole blood, and esophagus-muscularis and decreased expression in the testis tissues (P-value < 3 × 10−11). It was also associated with decreased CCNT2 expression in the tibial nerve tissue (P-value = 1.9 × 10−9). Conclusions: Our work supports that the genetic variation in the region, in conjunction with cigarette smoking, influences PDAC risk. Future studies are needed to explore this association in other smoking-related cancers and to understand the biological mechanism of such association. Citation Format: Prosenjit Kundu, Evelina Mocci, William Wheeler, Laufey T. Amundadottir, Donghui Li, Eric J. Jacobs, Gloria M. Petersen, Brian M. Wolpin, Harvey A. Risch, Peter Kraft, Nilanjan Chatterjee, Alison P. Klein, Rachael Z. Stolzenberg-Solomon, The PanScan and Panc4 consortia. Genome-wide interaction scan identifies gene by smoking interaction at 2q21.3 for pancreatic cancer risk [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 1213.

Abstract Background: Obesity and diabetes are major modifiable risk factors for pancreatic cancer. Interactions between genetic variants and diabetes/obesity have not previously been comprehensively investigated in pancreatic cancer at the genome-wide level. Methods: We conducted a gene–environment interaction (GxE) analysis including 8,255 cases and 11,900 controls from four pancreatic cancer genome-wide association study (GWAS) datasets (Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium I–III and Pancreatic Cancer Case Control Consortium). Obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2) and diabetes (duration ≥3 years) were the environmental variables of interest. Approximately 870,000 SNPs (minor allele frequency ≥0.005, genotyped in at least one dataset) were analyzed. Case–control (CC), case-only (CO), and joint-effect test methods were used for SNP-level GxE analysis. As a complementary approach, gene-based GxE analysis was also performed. Age, sex, study site, and principal components accounting for population substructure were included as covariates. Meta-analysis was applied to combine individual GWAS summary statistics. Results: No genome-wide significant interactions (departures from a log-additive odds model) with diabetes or obesity were detected at the SNP level by the CC or CO approaches. The joint-effect test detected numerous genome-wide significant GxE signals in the GWAS main effects top hit regions, but the significance diminished after adjusting for the GWAS top hits. In the gene-based analysis, a significant interaction of diabetes with variants in the FAM63A (family with sequence similarity 63 member A) gene (significance threshold P < 1.25 × 10−6) was observed in the meta-analysis (PGxE = 1.2 ×10−6, PJoint = 4.2 ×10−7). Conclusions: This analysis did not find significant GxE interactions at the SNP level but found one significant interaction with diabetes at the gene level. A larger sample size might unveil additional genetic factors via GxE scans. Impact: This study may contribute to discovering the mechanism of diabetes-associated pancreatic cancer.