Teras, Lauren R.

Background: Several breast cancer (BC) risk prediction models have been developed to provide personal risk assessments. Though individually validated, their performance has not been systematically evaluated across a wide range of populations or ages. Methods: We harmonized individual-level baseline questionnaire data and incident BC diagnoses from 21 cohorts from North America, Europe, and Australia participating in the Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Project. Five-year absolute risk of invasive BC was estimated for five established risk prediction models using classical risk factors only. Discrimination was evaluated by area under the curve (AUC). Calibration was assessed using average and risk-decile specific expected to observed (E/O) ratios. Performance metrics were meta-analyzed across cohorts and models. Metaregression tested associations between cohort characteristics and performance metrics. Results: This analysis included 1,595,977 women aged 20-75 years, enrolled in studies between 1976-2015, with 19,062 (1.2%) invasive BC cases ascertained within 5 years from exposure assessment. Age-adjusted AUCs were similar across models and cohorts (pooled AUCs by model: 0.57-0.58), while E/O ratios varied substantially (pooled E/O ratios by model: 0.83-1.25). Overestimation was common among predicted high-risk individuals (>3%). No appreciable differences in model performance by cohort age, birth year, race, and variable missingness emerged. Calibration improved after assigning race-specific incidence rates. Conclusion: Existing BC risk prediction models provided similar risk discrimination across multiple cohorts, although there was overestimation of risk for high-risk individuals. Performance variation across cohorts was not driven by specific characteristics, which supports development of a unified risk model for diverse populations that leverages appropriate incidence rates.

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.

Summary Evidence for an association between insulin‐like growth factors (IGF) and multiple myeloma (MM) is inconsistent. We examined total IGF‐I concentrations and risk of MM by combining baseline serological data among UK Biobank participants ( n = 444 187; 732 incident MM) with a two‐sample Mendelian randomisation (MR) analysis using identified genetic variants associated with circulating total IGF‐I and IGF‐binding protein 3 (IGFBP‐3) in the InterLymph consortium (2434 MM and their 2567 controls). Finally, additional lymphoid neoplasm (LN) subtypes were included for comparison with the main hypothesis. Circulating IGF‐I level was positively associated with MM risk Hazard ratio‐HR‐per one standard deviation‐SD‐increase (HR 1‐SD = 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01–1.22; p ‐value = 0.03), especially closer to diagnosis. Genetically inferred IGF‐I levels were associated with increased MM risk (odds ratio [OR] = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.05–1.54) but not with any other LNs. Genetically inferred IGFBP‐3 levels showed no associations with any LN evaluated. Corroborating previous findings, in a secondary analysis, IGF‐I levels were associated with the risk of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) in males with higher body mass index (HR 1‐SD in obese male = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.14–1.61). Our serological and MR analyses suggest a contributing role of IGF‐I in the susceptibility of MM; the CLL/SLL findings warrant further investigation considering sex‐specific adiposity.

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.

Importance Inherited pathogenic variants (PVs) in known predisposition genes can greatly increase breast cancer risk, but the combined impact of PV status, family history, and other factors on breast cancer risk in the general US population has not been well described. Objective To evaluate population-based breast cancer risk estimates for those with established PVs overall and stratified by first-degree family history of breast cancer and other factors. Design, Setting, and Participants This study used pooled data from 13 US-based breast cancer case-control studies participating in the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) consortium. Enrollment for individual studies occurred between 1976 and 2013, and results are based on data released March 2023, with analyses conducted from June 2022 to July 2025. Exposures PVs, breast cancer family history, self-reported race and ethnicity, and established risk factors. Main Outcomes and Measures Breast cancer rate ratios for PVs in 7 genes were estimated from the CARRIERS consortium. PV status and incidence and mortality statistics were combined using the Individualized Coherent Absolute Risk Estimation (iCARE) model to estimate conditional cumulative breast cancer risks and 95% CIs, stratified by family history and standardized to the US population. Models that incorporated population-based data and published estimates for established epidemiologic risk factors were also evaluated. Results A total of 67 692 women were studied, including 33 841 who were diagnosed with breast cancer. PVs in ATM , BRCA1 , BRCA2 , CHEK2 , and PALB2 were strongly associated with breast cancer risk, with BRCA1 and PALB2 PVs showing evidence of heterogeneity by family history. In models considering PVs, family history, and established risk factors, the estimated cumulative risks of breast cancer by age 50 years ranged from 2.4% (95% CI, 2.4-2.4) in women with no PVs and no family history to 35.5% (95% CI, 21.6-55.1) in PALB2 PV carriers with a family history. Among women who have not been diagnosed with breast cancer by age 50 years, the cumulative risk of breast cancer by age 80 years ranged from 11.1% (95% CI, 11.0-11.2) in noncarriers with no family history to 70.5% (95% CI, 52.8-83.5) for PALB2 carriers with a family history. PV-specific cumulative risk estimates varied across subgroups defined by race and ethnicity and potentially modifiable epidemiologic risk factors. Conclusions and Relevance In this study, population-based estimates of cumulative breast cancer risk for established PVs, as informed by the CARRIERS case-control sample, varied by family history and potentially modifiable risk factors. These estimates provide guidance for identifying individuals who will most benefit from enhanced screening and prevention strategies.

Abstract Obesity has been associated with non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), but the evidence is inconclusive. We examined the association between genetically determined adiposity and four common NHL subtypes: diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and marginal zone lymphoma, using eight genome‐wide association studies of European ancestry ( N = 10,629 cases, 9505 controls) and constructing polygenic scores for body mass index (BMI), waist‐to‐hip ratio (WHR), and waist‐to‐hip ratio adjusted for BMI (WHRadjBMI). Higher genetically determined BMI was associated with an increased risk of DLBCL [odds ratio (OR) per standard deviation (SD) = 1.18, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.05–1.33, p = .005]. This finding was consistent with Mendelian randomization analyses, which demonstrated a similar increased risk of DLBCL with higher genetically determined BMI (OR per SD = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.02–1.23, p = .03). No significant associations were observed with other NHL subtypes. Our study demonstrates a positive link between a genetically determined BMI and an increased risk of DLBCL, providing additional support for increased adiposity as a risk factor for DLBCL.

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.

10510 Background: The impact of germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PVs) in cancer predisposition genes on overall survival (OS) after breast cancer diagnosis is not well defined. In particular, unbiased OS estimates from population-based studies accounting for clinical subtypes of breast cancer (based on ER, PR, and HER2 status) and for genes other than BRCA1/2 are lacking. Methods: The study included 25,168 prospectively followed women with locoregional invasive breast cancer within the population-based CARRIERS study. Germline sequencing using a custom multigene amplicon-based panel was performed to identify PVs. OS was compared between germline PV carriers in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2 and PALB2 and non-carriers (negative for germline PVs in 13 known breast cancer predisposition genes) for each clinical subtype of breast cancer from the time of breast cancer diagnosis to death or last follow up in a multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis adjusting for age at diagnosis, race/ethnicity, histology, TNM stage, type of surgery, use of adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy and endocrine agents. Results: Among 25,168 women with breast cancer, germline PVs in one of the five breast cancer predisposition genes were detected in 5.8% of the women [ ATM : 0.8%, BRCA1 : 1.3%, BRCA2: 1.6%, CHEK2 : 1.5%, and PALB2 : 0.6%]. Among women with ER+ breast cancer, compared to non-carriers, a significantly worse OS was noted for BRCA1 (Hazard Ratio (HR): 1.8, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.1 – 3.0, p=0.02) and BRCA2 (HR: 1.8, 95%CI: 1.4 – 2.4, p<0.001), but not for ATM (HR: 1.2, 95%CI: 0.8 – 1.7, p=0.40) or CHEK2 (HR:1.0, 95%CI: 0.8 – 1.3, p=1.0) PV carriers. Worse OS was noted in PALB2 PV carriers with ER+ breast cancer (HR:1.5, 95%CI: 0.9 – 2.2, p=0.09), although it did not reach statistical significance. Similar HR estimates for OS as with ER+ breast cancer were observed in women with ER+/HER2- breast cancer for BRCA1 , BRCA2 and PALB2 PV carriers, but only BRCA2 results were statistically significant. Among women with ER-negative breast cancer, compared to non-carriers, a significant difference in OS was not observed for PV carriers in ATM (HR:0.8, 95%CI: 0.4 – 1.8, p=0.63), BRCA1 (HR:1.2, 95%CI: 0.8 – 1.7, p=0.35), BRCA2 (HR: 0.8, 95%CI: 0.5 – 1.2, p=0.29), CHEK2 (HR: 0.7, 95%CI: 0.3 – 1.4), or PALB2 (HR: 0.9, 95%CI: 0.5 -1.7, p=0.78). Conclusions: The suggestive differences in OS by ER status of the tumor in BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV carriers warrant further investigation of underlying tumor biology and assessment of endocrine sensitivity of breast cancer in germline PV carriers.

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.