Ho, Peh Joo

Abstract Background Breast cancer is etiologically heterogeneous, but which risk factors differ in their associations across tumor subtypes remains unclear. We conducted a large, pooled analysis to evaluate independent, dose-response associations between breast cancer risk factors and quantitative tumor features. Methods Analyses of 15,731 invasive breast cancers from 24 studies evaluated associations (p-trend) between reproductive and hormonal factors, body mass index (BMI), alcohol, smoking, and family history in relation to quantitative immunohistochemistry measures on tissue microarrays (ER, PR, HER2, KI67, TP53) and tumor grade. Analyses in a subset of 10 population-based studies estimated subtype-specific odds ratios (ORs) comparing cases to controls. A Bayesian False Discovery Probability (BFDP) <0.2 was used to identify associations with strong statistical evidence. Results Nulliparity and later age at menopause were associated with higher ER-positivity (p-trend=0.021 and 0.001, respectively), with corresponding OR[ER+] (95% CI) = 1.49 (1.16-1.90) for nulliparous vs. parous and 1.07 (1.03-1.11) per 5 years. Current combined menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) use was associated with lower grade (p-trend<0.001), with OR [grade1] = 3.37 (2.69-4.21) for current vs. never users. Higher BMI was associated with lower ER-positivity and higher grade in premenopausal women (p-trend<0.001 and <0.001), with OR[ER+] = 0.80 (0.74-0.87) and OR[grade1] = 0.75 (0.63-0.88) per 5 units, and with higher PR-positivity and higher grade in postmenopausal women (p-trend<0.001 and <0.001), with OR[PR+] = 1.08 (1.03-1.14) and OR[grade 3] = 1.10 (1.04-1.17) per 5 units. Conclusion This pooled analysis of 15,731 cases showed that nulliparity, age at menopause, MHT, and BMI have independent, dose-response associations with ER, PR, and grade, clarifying patterns of etiologic heterogeneity. Associations with HER2, KI67 and TP53, or other risk factors did not meet our threshold for strong evidence.

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.