Mavaddat, Nasim

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.

Abstract Background Most breast biopsies are diagnosed as benign breast disease, with 1.5- to 4-fold increased breast cancer risk. Apart from pathologic diagnoses of atypical hyperplasia, few factors aid in breast cancer risk assessment of these patients. We assessed whether a 313–single nucleotide variation (formerly single-nucleotide polymorphism) polygenic risk score stratifies risk of benign breast disease patients. Methods We pooled data from 5 Breast Cancer Association Consortium case-control studies (mean age = 59.9 years), including 6706 participants with breast cancer and 8488 participants without breast cancer. Using logistic regression, we estimated breast cancer risk associations by self-reported benign breast disease history and strata of polygenic risk score, with median polygenic risk score category among women without benign breast disease as the referent. We assessed interactions and mediation of benign breast disease and polygenic risk score with breast cancer risk. Results Benign breast disease history was associated with increased breast cancer risk (odds ratio [OR] = 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.37 to 1.60; P < .001). Polygenic risk score increased breast cancer risk, irrespective of benign breast disease history (Pinteraction = .48), with minimal evidence of mediation of either factor by the other. Women with benign breast disease and polygenic risk score in the highest tertile had more than twofold increased odds of breast cancer (OR = 2.73, 95% CI = 2.41 to 3.09), and those with benign breast disease and polygenic risk score in the lowest tertile experienced reduced breast cancer risk (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.91) compared with the referent group. Women with benign breast disease and polygenic risk score in the highest decile had a 3.7-fold increase (95% CI = 3.00 to 4.61) compared with those with median polygenic risk score without benign breast disease. Conclusion Breast cancer risks are elevated among women with benign breast disease and increase progressively with polygenic risk score, suggesting that optimal combinations of these factors may improve risk stratification.

Abstract We evaluated the joint associations between a new 313-variant PRS (PRS313) and questionnaire-based breast cancer risk factors for women of European ancestry, using 72 284 cases and 80 354 controls from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Interactions were evaluated using standard logistic regression and a newly developed case-only method for breast cancer risk overall and by estrogen receptor status. After accounting for multiple testing, we did not find evidence that per-standard deviation PRS313 odds ratio differed across strata defined by individual risk factors. Goodness-of-fit tests did not reject the assumption of a multiplicative model between PRS313 and each risk factor. Variation in projected absolute lifetime risk of breast cancer associated with classical risk factors was greater for women with higher genetic risk (PRS313 and family history) and, on average, 17.5% higher in the highest vs lowest deciles of genetic risk. These findings have implications for risk prevention for women at increased risk of breast cancer.