Yamaji, Taiki

Abstract Polygenic risk scores (PRSs), which quantify inherited susceptibility to complex traits and diseases, have emerged as valuable tools for risk stratification and precision medicine. Despite their promise, PRS developed on European cohorts often demonstrate substantially reduced predictive accuracy in non-European populations, due to differences in genetic architecture. The disproportionate representation of European ancestry cohorts in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) leads to inequitable deployment of PRS technologies across diverse populations. Here, we introduce PRANA (Polygenic Risk Adaptation via Neural-network Architecture), a deep learning framework that adapts an existing PRS developed on one population to other ancestries. Unlike methods that require large-scale GWAS in the target population, PRANA leverages pre-trained PRS models derived from European cohorts and adapts them using modestly sized cohorts from the target population. We evaluated PRANA on seven complex traits in South Asian, East Asian and Ashkenazi Jewish populations, as well as in selected smaller East Asian subpopulations where the scarcity of training data poses a particular challenge. PRANA mostly improved predictive performance of the baseline PRS models by 5%-20% in terms of effect size (β) and Nagelkerke’s R², and, in most cases, outperformed existing cross-ancestry multi-PRS approaches. These results highlight PRANA as a scalable and practical strategy to reduce disparities in genomic risk prediction and advance the equitable application of PRS in diverse populations.

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 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.