Zhang, Haoyu

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.

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.