Kraft, Peter

Abstract Background The associations between different types of diabetes, characterized by distinct pathophysiology and genetic architecture, and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) risk are not understood. Methods We investigated associations of genetic susceptibility to type 2 diabetes (T2D), 8 T2D mechanistic clusters, type 1 diabetes (T1D), and maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) with PDAC risk. We used genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary-level statistics for T2D (242 283 cases, 1 569 734 controls), T1D (18 942 cases, 501 638 controls), and PDAC (10 244 cases and 360 535 controls) in individuals of European ancestry. Results Two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) using the Robust Adjusted Profile Score (MR-RAPS) method indicated that genetically predicted T2D was associated with PDAC risk (OR = 1.10; 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.15), particularly the T2D obesity (OR = 1.28; 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.42) and lipodystrophy (OR = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.51) clusters. No association was observed for T1D with PDAC risk (OR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.02). Pathway/gene-set analysis using the summary-based Adaptive Rank Truncated Product (sARTP) method revealed a significant association between the MODY gene-sets and PDAC risk (P = 1.5 × 10−8), which remained after excluding 20 known PDAC GWAS loci (P = 7.6 × 10−4). HNF1A, FOXA3, and HNF4A were the top contributing genes after excluding the previously identified GWAS loci regions. Conclusions Our results from this genetic association study support that T2D, particularly the obesity and lipodystrophy mechanistic clusters, and MODY genomic susceptibility regions play a role in the etiology of PDAC.

Background: Breast cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) and traditional risk models (e.g., the Gail model [Gail]) are known to contribute largely independent information, but it is unclear how the overlap varies by ancestry, age, disease type (invasive breast cancer, DCIS), and risk threshold. Methods: In a retrospective case–control study, we evaluated risk prediction performance in 180,398 women (161,849 of European ancestry; 18,549 of Asian ancestry). Odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regression models and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were estimated. Results: PRS for invasive disease showed a stronger association in younger (<50 years) women (OR = 2.51, AUC = 0.622) than in women ≥ 50 years (OR = 2.06, AUC = 0.653) of European ancestry. PRS performance in Asians was lower (OR range = 1.62–1.64, AUC = 0.551–0.600). Gail performance was modest across groups and poor in younger Asian women (OR = 0.94–0.99, AUC = 0.523–0.533). Age interactions were observed for both PRS (p < 0.001) and Gail (p < 0.001) in Europeans, whereas in Asians, age interaction was observed only for Gail (invasive: p < 0.001; DCIS: p = 0.002). PRS identified more high-risk individuals than Gail in Asian populations, especially ≥50 years, while Gail identified more in Europeans. Overlap between PRS, Gail, and family history was limited at higher thresholds. Calibration analysis, comparing empirical and model-based ROC curves, showed divergence for both PRS and Gail (p < 0.001), which indicates miscalibration. In Europeans, family history and prior biopsies drove Gail discrimination. In younger Asians, age at first live birth was influential. Conclusions: PRS adds value to risk stratification beyond traditional tools, especially in younger women and Asian ancestry populations.

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.

ImportanceEtiologic heterogeneity in breast carcinogenesis needs to be well characterized for targeted prevention. Associations between menopausal hormonal therapy (MHT) and oral contraceptive (OC) use and breast cancer intrinsic-like subtypes are not well understood.ObjectiveTo examine whether exogenous hormone use is differentially associated with breast cancer subtypes and to evaluate heterogeneity by intrinsic-like subtypes.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis study pooled data from 31 nested and population-based case-control studies involved in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. The study population included individuals with breast cancer and control participants from 13 case-control studies nested in prospective cohorts (recruited between 1982 and 2011) and 18 population-based case-control studies (recruited between 1990 and 2013). Data analysis was performed in June 2024.ExposureMHT use (estrogen-progestin therapy [EPT] or estrogen-only therapy [ET]) in postmenopausal women and OC use in premenopausal women (never, past use, or current use).Main Outcomes and MeasuresBreast cancer intrinsic-like subtypes (luminal A–like, luminal B–like, luminal B–ERBB2 [formerly HER2 or HER2/neu]-like, ERBB2 enriched–like, or triple-negative) were determined by immunohistochemistry of tumor sections. Polytomous logistic regression was performed to estimate the association between exogenous hormones and risk of breast cancer by intrinsic-like subtypes. Analyses by subtypes were stratified by body mass index (BMI [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared]; healthy weight, 18.5-&amp;lt;25; overweight, 25-&amp;lt;30; or obesity, ≥30).ResultsThis study included 42 269 individuals with breast cancer (11 901 [28.2%] premenopausal and 30 368 [71.8%] postmenopausal; 23 353 [55.2%] had a known intrinsic-like subtype) and 71 072 control participants. The mean (SD) age of all participants was 57.9 (10.9) years. In postmenopausal women, associations between current MHT use (EPT or ET) and breast cancer differed by subtype. Current EPT users with healthy weight were more likely to be diagnosed with luminal A–like (odds ratio [OR], 2.51 [95% CI, 2.26-2.80]) or luminal B–ERBB2-like (OR, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.61-2.37]) subtypes. These associations were attenuated but remained for individuals with overweight (OR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.02-1.92]) or obesity (OR, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.01-2.78]). EPT use increased the odds of being diagnosed with luminal B–like tumors solely in women with healthy weight (OR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.17-1.86]). Current ET use was positively associated with luminal A–like disease in women with healthy weight only (OR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.01-1.32]), showing inverse associations with higher BMI (obesity: OR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.50-0.85]). In premenopausal women, recent OC use was associated with luminal B–ERBB2-like (OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.09-2.08]), ERBB2 enriched–like (OR, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.55-3.51]), and triple-negative (OR, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.33-2.29]; P &amp;lt; .04 for heterogeneity) tumors.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, clear differences were observed in associations between current EPT use and luminal-like breast cancer subtypes and other subtypes. EPT users with healthy weight were more likely to be diagnosed with luminal-like breast cancer compared with nonusers. Subtype heterogeneity was less apparent in associations of OC and ET use. Future studies on contemporary formulations, patterns of use, and routes of administration of exogenous hormone usage are warranted.

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 &lt; 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.