Dennis, Joe

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 Background Most breast biopsies are diagnosed as benign breast disease, with 1.5- to 4-fold increased breast cancer risk. Apart from pathologic diagnoses of atypical hyperplasia, few factors aid in breast cancer risk assessment of these patients. We assessed whether a 313–single nucleotide variation (formerly single-nucleotide polymorphism) polygenic risk score stratifies risk of benign breast disease patients. Methods We pooled data from 5 Breast Cancer Association Consortium case-control studies (mean age = 59.9 years), including 6706 participants with breast cancer and 8488 participants without breast cancer. Using logistic regression, we estimated breast cancer risk associations by self-reported benign breast disease history and strata of polygenic risk score, with median polygenic risk score category among women without benign breast disease as the referent. We assessed interactions and mediation of benign breast disease and polygenic risk score with breast cancer risk. Results Benign breast disease history was associated with increased breast cancer risk (odds ratio [OR] = 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.37 to 1.60; P < .001). Polygenic risk score increased breast cancer risk, irrespective of benign breast disease history (Pinteraction = .48), with minimal evidence of mediation of either factor by the other. Women with benign breast disease and polygenic risk score in the highest tertile had more than twofold increased odds of breast cancer (OR = 2.73, 95% CI = 2.41 to 3.09), and those with benign breast disease and polygenic risk score in the lowest tertile experienced reduced breast cancer risk (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.91) compared with the referent group. Women with benign breast disease and polygenic risk score in the highest decile had a 3.7-fold increase (95% CI = 3.00 to 4.61) compared with those with median polygenic risk score without benign breast disease. Conclusion Breast cancer risks are elevated among women with benign breast disease and increase progressively with polygenic risk score, suggesting that optimal combinations of these factors may improve risk stratification.

Abstract Background: Use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is associated with increased risk for breast cancer. However, the relevant mechanisms and its interaction with genetic variants are not fully understood. Methods: We conducted a genome-wide interaction analysis between MHT use and genetic variants for breast cancer risk in 27,585 cases and 34,785 controls from 26 observational studies. All women were post-menopausal and of European ancestry. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to test for multiplicative interactions between genetic variants and current MHT use. We considered interaction p-values<5x10-8 as genome-wide significant, and p-values<1x10-5 as suggestive. Linkage disequilibrium (LD)-based clumping was performed to identify independent candidate variants.Results: None of the 9.7 million genetic variants tested for interactions with MHT use reached genome-wide significance. Only 213 variants, representing 18 independent loci, had p-values<1x105. The strongest evidence was found for rs4674019 (p-value=2.27x10-7), which showed genome-wide significant interaction (p-value=3.8x10-8) with current MHT use when analysis was restricted to population-based studies only. Limiting the analyses to combined estrogen-progesterone MHT use only or to estrogen receptor (ER) positive cases did not identify any genome-wide significant evidence of interactions. Conclusions: In this large genome-wide SNP-MHT interaction study of breast cancer, we found no strong support for common genetic variants modifying the effect of MHT on breast cancer risk. These results suggest that common genetic variation has limited impact on the observed MHT–breast cancer risk association.