Terry, Mary Beth

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 Menopausal users of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) are at increased breast cancer risk and decreased colorectal cancer (CRC) risk compared with individuals who have never used HRT, but these opposing associations may differ by familial risk of breast cancer and CRC. We harmonized data from 3 cohorts and generated separate breast cancer and CRC familial risk scores based on cancer family history. We defined moderate or strong family history as a risk score of 0.4 or higher, where 0.4 was equivalent to a 50-year-old woman with 1 parent diagnosed with either breast cancer or CRC at 55 years of age. Of 24 486 women assessed, 1243 and 405 were diagnosed with incident breast cancer and CRC, respectively. For breast cancer, menopausal HRT ever use versus never use hazard ratios were 1.27 (95% CI = 1.11 to 1.45) for a breast cancer familial risk score below 0.4 and 1.01 (95% CI = 0.82 to 1.25) for a breast cancer familial risk score of 0.4 or higher (Pdifference = .08). For CRC, menopausal HRT hazard ratios were 0.63 (95% CI = 0.50 to 0.78) for a CRC familial risk score below 0.4 and 1.21 (95% CI = 0.73 to 2.00) for a CRC familial risk score of 0.4 or higher (Pdifference = .03). Associations with menopausal HRT use that apply to the general population may not hold for women at moderate or strong familial risk of these cancers.

A large number of variants identified through clinical genetic testing in disease susceptibility genes are of uncertain significance (VUS). Following the recommendations of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP), the frequency in case-control datasets (PS4 criterion) can inform their interpretation. We present a novel case-control likelihood ratio-based method that incorporates gene-specific age-related penetrance. We demonstrate the utility of this method in the analysis of simulated and real datasets. In the analysis of simulated data, the likelihood ratio method was more powerful compared to other methods. Likelihood ratios were calculated for a case-control dataset of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) and compared with logistic regression results. A larger number of variants reached evidence in favor of pathogenicity, and a substantial number of variants had evidence against pathogenicity—findings that would not have been reached using other case-control analysis methods. Our novel method provides greater power to classify rare variants compared with classical case-control methods. As an initiative from the ENIGMA Analytical Working Group, we provide user-friendly scripts and preformatted Excel calculators for implementation of the method for rare variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, and other high-risk genes with known penetrance.

Abstract BackgroundCopy number variants (CNVs) are pervasive in the human genome but potential disease associations with rare CNVs have not been comprehensively assessed in large datasets. We analysed rare CNVs in genes and non-coding regions for 86,788 breast cancer cases and 76,122 controls of European ancestry with genome-wide array data.ResultsGene burden tests detected the strongest association for deletions in BRCA1 (P= 3.7E-18). Nine other genes were associated with a p-value < 0.01 including known susceptibility genes CHEK2 (P= 0.0008), ATM (P= 0.002) and BRCA2 (P= 0.008). Outside the known genes we detected associations with p-values < 0.001 for either overall or subtype-specific breast cancer at nine deletion regions and four duplication regions. Three of the deletion regions were in established common susceptibility loci.ConclusionsThis is the first genome-wide analysis of rare CNVs in a large breast cancer case-control dataset. We detected associations with exonic deletions in established breast cancer susceptibility genes. We also detected suggestive associations with non-coding CNVs in known and novel loci with large effects sizes. Larger sample sizes will be required to reach robust levels of statistical significance.

AbstractPrevious transcriptome‐wide association studies (TWAS) have identified breast cancer risk genes by integrating data from expression quantitative loci and genome‐wide association studies (GWAS), but analyses of breast cancer subtype‐specific associations have been limited. In this study, we conducted a TWAS using gene expression data from GTEx and summary statistics from the hitherto largest GWAS meta‐analysis conducted for breast cancer overall, and by estrogen receptor subtypes (ER+ and ER−). We further compared associations with ER+ and ER− subtypes, using a case‐only TWAS approach. We also conducted multigene conditional analyses in regions with multiple TWAS associations. Two genes, STXBP4 and HIST2H2BA, were specifically associated with ER+ but not with ER– breast cancer. We further identified 30 TWAS‐significant genes associated with overall breast cancer risk, including four that were not identified in previous studies. Conditional analyses identified single independent breast‐cancer gene in three of six regions harboring multiple TWAS‐significant genes. Our study provides new information on breast cancer genetics and biology, particularly about genomic differences between ER+ and ER− breast cancer.