The impact of coding germline variants on contralateral breast cancer risk and survival.

Evidence linking coding germline variants in breast cancer (BC)-susceptibility genes other than BRCA1, BRCA2, and CHEK2 with contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess the association of protein-truncating variants (PTVs) and rare missense variants (MSVs) in nine known (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) and 25 suspected BC-susceptibility genes with CBC risk and BCSS. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated with Cox regression models. Analyses included 34,401 women of European ancestry diagnosed with BC, including 676 CBCs and 3,449 BC deaths; the median follow-up was 10.9 years. Subtype analyses were based on estrogen receptor (ER) status of the first BC. Combined PTVs and pathogenic/likely pathogenic MSVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 and PTVs in CHEK2 and PALB2 were associated with increased CBC risk [HRs (95% CIs): 2.88 (1.70-4.87), 2.31 (1.39-3.85), 8.29 (2.53-27.21), 2.25 (1.55-3.27), and 2.67 (1.33-5.35), respectively]. The strongest evidence of association with BCSS was for PTVs and pathogenic/likely pathogenic MSVs in BRCA2 (ER-positive BC) and TP53 and PTVs in CHEK2 [HRs (95% CIs): 1.53 (1.13-2.07), 2.08 (0.95-4.57), and 1.39 (1.13-1.72), respectively, after adjusting for tumor characteristics and treatment]. HRs were essentially unchanged when censoring for CBC, suggesting that these associations are not completely explained by increased CBC risk, tumor characteristics, or treatment. There was limited evidence of associations of PTVs and/or rare MSVs with CBC risk or BCSS for the 25 suspected BC genes. The CBC findings are relevant to treatment decisions, follow-up, and screening after BC diagnosis.

Breast Cancer Risk Genes - Association Analysis in More than 113,000 Women.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility is widely used, but for many genes, evidence of an association with breast cancer is weak, underlying risk estimates are imprecise, and reliable subtype-specific risk estimates are lacking. METHODS: We used a panel of 34 putative susceptibility genes to perform sequencing on samples from 60,466 women with breast cancer and 53,461 controls. In separate analyses for protein-truncating variants and rare missense variants in these genes, we estimated odds ratios for breast cancer overall and tumor subtypes. We evaluated missense-variant associations according to domain and classification of pathogenicity. RESULTS: Protein-truncating variants in 5 genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2) were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.0001. Protein-truncating variants in 4 other genes (BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.05 and a Bayesian false-discovery probability of less than 0.05. For protein-truncating variants in 19 of the remaining 25 genes, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio for breast cancer overall was less than 2.0. For protein-truncating variants in ATM and CHEK2, odds ratios were higher for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease than for ER-negative disease; for protein-truncating variants in BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D, odds ratios were higher for ER-negative disease than for ER-positive disease. Rare missense variants (in aggregate) in ATM, CHEK2, and TP53 were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.001. For BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53, missense variants (in aggregate) that would be classified as pathogenic according to standard criteria were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall, with the risk being similar to that of protein-truncating variants. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study define the genes that are most clinically useful for inclusion on panels for the prediction of breast cancer risk, as well as provide estimates of the risks associated with protein-truncating variants, to guide genetic counseling. (Funded by European Union Horizon 2020 programs and others.).

Breast Cancer Polygenic Risk Score and Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk.

Previous research has shown that polygenic risk scores (PRSs) can be used to stratify women according to their risk of developing primary invasive breast cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the association between a recently validated PRS of 313 germline variants (PRS313) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk. We included 56,068 women of European ancestry diagnosed with first invasive breast cancer from 1990 onward with follow-up from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Metachronous CBC risk (N = 1,027) according to the distribution of PRS313 was quantified using Cox regression analyses. We assessed PRS313 interaction with age at first diagnosis, family history, morphology, ER status, PR status, and HER2 status, and (neo)adjuvant therapy. In studies of Asian women, with limited follow-up, CBC risk associated with PRS313 was assessed using logistic regression for 340 women with CBC compared with 12,133 women with unilateral breast cancer. Higher PRS313 was associated with increased CBC risk: hazard ratio per standard deviation (SD) = 1.25 (95%CI = 1.18-1.33) for Europeans, and an OR per SD = 1.15 (95%CI = 1.02-1.29) for Asians. The absolute lifetime risks of CBC, accounting for death as competing risk, were 12.4% for European women at the 10th percentile and 20.5% at the 90th percentile of PRS313. We found no evidence of confounding by or interaction with individual characteristics, characteristics of the primary tumor, or treatment. The C-index for the PRS313 alone was 0.563 (95%CI = 0.547-0.586). In conclusion, PRS313 is an independent factor associated with CBC risk and can be incorporated into CBC risk prediction models to help improve stratification and optimize surveillance and treatment strategies.

Prospective validation of the BOADICEA multifactorial breast cancer risk prediction model in a large prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The multifactorial Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) breast cancer risk prediction model has been recently extended to consider all established breast cancer risk factors. We assessed the clinical validity of the model in a large independent prospective cohort. METHODS: We validated BOADICEA (V.6) in the Swedish KARolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer (KARMA) cohort including 66 415 women of European ancestry (median age 54 years, IQR 45-63; 816 incident breast cancers) without previous cancer diagnosis. We calculated 5-year risks on the basis of questionnaire-based risk factors, pedigree-structured first-degree family history, mammographic density (BI-RADS), a validated breast cancer polygenic risk score (PRS) based on 313-SNPs, and pathogenic variant status in 8 breast cancer susceptibility genes: BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2, ATM, RAD51C, RAD51D and BARD1. Calibration was assessed by comparing observed and expected risks in deciles of predicted risk and the calibration slope. The discriminatory ability was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Among the individual model components, the PRS contributed most to breast cancer risk stratification. BOADICEA was well calibrated in predicting the risks for low-risk and high-risk women when all, or subsets of risk factors are included in the risk prediction. Discrimination was maximised when all risk factors are considered (AUC=0.70, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.73; expected-to-observed ratio=0.88, 95% CI: 0.75 to 1.04; calibration slope=0.97, 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.99). The full multifactorial model classified 3.6% women as high risk (5-year risk ≥3%) and 11.1% as very low risk (5-year risk <0.33%). CONCLUSION: The multifactorial BOADICEA model provides valid breast cancer risk predictions and a basis for personalised decision-making on disease prevention and screening.

Comprehensive epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and epidemiological risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer (EOC) has high mortality partly due to late diagnosis. Prevention is available but may be associated with adverse effects. A multifactorial risk model based on known genetic and epidemiological risk factors (RFs) for EOC can help identify women at higher risk who could benefit from targeted screening and prevention. METHODS: We developed a multifactorial EOC risk model for women of European ancestry incorporating the effects of pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, RAD51D and BRIP1, a Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) of arbitrary size, the effects of RFs and explicit family history (FH) using a synthetic model approach. The PRS, PV and RFs were assumed to act multiplicatively. RESULTS: Based on a currently available PRS for EOC that explains 5% of the EOC polygenic variance, the estimated lifetime risks under the multifactorial model in the general population vary from 0.5% to 4.6% for the first to 99th percentiles of the EOC risk distribution. The corresponding range for women with an affected first-degree relative is 1.9%-10.3%. Based on the combined risk distribution, 33% of RAD51D PV carriers are expected to have a lifetime EOC risk of less than 10%. RFs provided the widest distribution, followed by the PRS. In an independent partial model validation, absolute and relative 5-year risks were well calibrated in quintiles of predicted risk. CONCLUSION: This multifactorial risk model can facilitate stratification, in particular among women with FH of cancer and/or moderate-risk and high-risk PVs. The model is available via the CanRisk Tool (www.canrisk.org).

Enhancing the BOADICEA cancer risk prediction model to incorporate new data on RAD51C, RAD51D, BARD1 updates to tumour pathology and cancer incidence.

BACKGROUND: BOADICEA (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm) for breast cancer and the epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer (EOC) models included in the CanRisk tool (www.canrisk.org) provide future cancer risks based on pathogenic variants in cancer-susceptibility genes, polygenic risk scores, breast density, questionnaire-based risk factors and family history. Here, we extend the models to include the effects of pathogenic variants in recently established breast cancer and EOC susceptibility genes, up-to-date age-specific pathology distributions and continuous risk factors. METHODS: BOADICEA was extended to further incorporate the associations of pathogenic variants in BARD1, RAD51C and RAD51D with breast cancer risk. The EOC model was extended to include the association of PALB2 pathogenic variants with EOC risk. Age-specific distributions of oestrogen-receptor-negative and triple-negative breast cancer status for pathogenic variant carriers in these genes and CHEK2 and ATM were also incorporated. A novel method to include continuous risk factors was developed, exemplified by including adult height as continuous. RESULTS: BARD1, RAD51C and RAD51D explain 0.31% of the breast cancer polygenic variance. When incorporated into the multifactorial model, 34%-44% of these carriers would be reclassified to the near-population and 15%-22% to the high-risk categories based on the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Under the EOC multifactorial model, 62%, 35% and 3% of PALB2 carriers have lifetime EOC risks of <5%, 5%-10% and >10%, respectively. Including height as continuous, increased the breast cancer relative risk variance from 0.002 to 0.010. CONCLUSIONS: These extensions will allow for better personalised risks for BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D and PALB2 pathogenic variant carriers and more informed choices on screening, prevention, risk factor modification or other risk-reducing options.

Polygenic Risk Scores for Prediction of Breast Cancer and Breast Cancer Subtypes.

Stratification of women according to their risk of breast cancer based on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) could improve screening and prevention strategies. Our aim was to develop PRSs, optimized for prediction of estrogen receptor (ER)-specific disease, from the largest available genome-wide association dataset and to empirically validate the PRSs in prospective studies. The development dataset comprised 94,075 case subjects and 75,017 control subjects of European ancestry from 69 studies, divided into training and validation sets. Samples were genotyped using genome-wide arrays, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected by stepwise regression or lasso penalized regression. The best performing PRSs were validated in an independent test set comprising 11,428 case subjects and 18,323 control subjects from 10 prospective studies and 190,040 women from UK Biobank (3,215 incident breast cancers). For the best PRSs (313 SNPs), the odds ratio for overall disease per 1 standard deviation in ten prospective studies was 1.61 (95%CI: 1.57-1.65) with area under receiver-operator curve (AUC) = 0.630 (95%CI: 0.628-0.651). The lifetime risk of overall breast cancer in the top centile of the PRSs was 32.6%. Compared with women in the middle quintile, those in the highest 1% of risk had 4.37- and 2.78-fold risks, and those in the lowest 1% of risk had 0.16- and 0.27-fold risks, of developing ER-positive and ER-negative disease, respectively. Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that this PRS was well calibrated and predicts disease risk accurately in the tails of the distribution. This PRS is a powerful and reliable predictor of breast cancer risk that may improve breast cancer prevention programs.

Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer risk in Asian populations.

PURPOSE: Non-European populations are under-represented in genetics studies, hindering clinical implementation of breast cancer polygenic risk scores (PRSs). We aimed to develop PRSs using the largest available studies of Asian ancestry and to assess the transferability of PRS across ethnic subgroups. METHODS: The development data set comprised 138,309 women from 17 case-control studies. PRSs were generated using a clumping and thresholding method, lasso penalized regression, an Empirical Bayes approach, a Bayesian polygenic prediction approach, or linear combinations of multiple PRSs. These PRSs were evaluated in 89,898 women from 3 prospective studies (1592 incident cases). RESULTS: The best performing PRS (genome-wide set of single-nucleotide variations [formerly single-nucleotide polymorphism]) had a hazard ratio per unit SD of 1.62 (95% CI = 1.46-1.80) and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.635 (95% CI = 0.622-0.649). Combined Asian and European PRSs (333 single-nucleotide variations) had a hazard ratio per SD of 1.53 (95% CI = 1.37-1.71) and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.621 (95% CI = 0.608-0.635). The distribution of the latter PRS was different across ethnic subgroups, confirming the importance of population-specific calibration for valid estimation of breast cancer risk. CONCLUSION: PRSs developed in this study, from association data from multiple ancestries, can enhance risk stratification for women of Asian ancestry.

Correction to: Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, natural menopause, and breast cancer risk: an international prospective cohort of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

After publication of the original article [1], we were notified that columns in Table 2 were erroneously displayed.

Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, natural menopause, and breast cancer risk: an international prospective cohort of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: The effect of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) on breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers is uncertain. Retrospective analyses have suggested a protective effect but may be substantially biased. Prospective studies have had limited power, particularly for BRCA2 mutation carriers. Further, previous studies have not considered the effect of RRSO in the context of natural menopause. METHODS: A multi-centre prospective cohort of 2272 BRCA1 and 1605 BRCA2 mutation carriers was followed for a mean of 5.4 and 4.9 years, respectively; 426 women developed incident breast cancer. RRSO was modelled as a time-dependent covariate in Cox regression, and its effect assessed in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. RESULTS: There was no association between RRSO and breast cancer for BRCA1 (HR = 1.23; 95% CI 0.94-1.61) or BRCA2 (HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.62-1.24) mutation carriers. For BRCA2 mutation carriers, HRs were 0.68 (95% CI 0.40-1.15) and 1.07 (95% CI 0.69-1.64) for RRSO carried out before or after age 45 years, respectively. The HR for BRCA2 mutation carriers decreased with increasing time since RRSO (HR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.26-0.99 for 5 years or longer after RRSO). Estimates for premenopausal women were similar. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that RRSO reduces breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers. A potentially beneficial effect for BRCA2 mutation carriers was observed, particularly after 5 years following RRSO. These results may inform counselling and management of carriers with respect to RRSO.

Identification of Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer Who Need Supplemental Screening.

Background Mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality, but a proportion of breast cancers are missed and are detected at later stages or develop during between-screening intervals. Purpose To develop a risk model based on negative mammograms that identifies women likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer before or at the next screening examination. Materials and Methods This study was based on the prospective screening cohort Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer (KARMA), 2011-2017. An image-based risk model was developed by using the Stratus method and computer-aided detection mammographic features (density, masses, microcalcifications), differences in the left and right breasts, and age. The lifestyle extended model included menopausal status, family history of breast cancer, body mass index, hormone replacement therapy, and use of tobacco and alcohol. The genetic extended model included a polygenic risk score with 313 single nucleotide polymorphisms. Age-adjusted relative risks and tumor subtype specific risks were estimated by using logistic regression, and absolute risks were calculated. Results Of 70 877 participants in the KARMA cohort, 974 incident cancers were sampled from 9376 healthy women (mean age, 54 years ± 10 [standard deviation]). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the image-based model was 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71, 0.74). The AUCs for the lifestyle and genetic extended models were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.75) and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.79), respectively. There was a relative eightfold difference in risk between women at high risk and those at general risk. High-risk women were more likely to be diagnosed with stage II cancers and with tumors 20 mm or larger and were less likely to have stage I and estrogen receptor-positive tumors. The image-based model was validated in three external cohorts. Conclusion By combining three mammographic features, differences in the left and right breasts, and optionally lifestyle factors and family history and a polygenic risk score, the model identified women at high likelihood of being diagnosed with breast cancer within 2 years of a negative screening examination and in possible need of supplemental screening. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Polygenic risk scores and breast and epithelial ovarian cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

PURPOSE: We assessed the associations between population-based polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. METHODS: Retrospective cohort data on 18,935 BRCA1 and 12,339 BRCA2 female pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestry were available. Three versions of a 313 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) BC PRS were evaluated based on whether they predict overall, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, or ER-positive BC, and two PRS for overall or high-grade serous EOC. Associations were validated in a prospective cohort. RESULTS: The ER-negative PRS showed the strongest association with BC risk for BRCA1 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] per standard deviation = 1.29 [95% CI 1.25-1.33], P = 3×10-72). For BRCA2, the strongest association was with overall BC PRS (HR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.27-1.36], P = 7×10-50). HR estimates decreased significantly with age and there was evidence for differences in associations by predicted variant effects on protein expression. The HR estimates were smaller than general population estimates. The high-grade serous PRS yielded the strongest associations with EOC risk for BRCA1 (HR = 1.32 [95% CI 1.25-1.40], P = 3×10-22) and BRCA2 (HR = 1.44 [95% CI 1.30-1.60], P = 4×10-12) carriers. The associations in the prospective cohort were similar. CONCLUSION: Population-based PRS are strongly associated with BC and EOC risks for BRCA1/2 carriers and predict substantial absolute risk differences for women at PRS distribution extremes.

Correction: BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors.

This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article. The authors regret this error.

BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer (BC) risk prediction allows systematic identification of individuals at highest and lowest risk. We extend the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) risk model to incorporate the effects of polygenic risk scores (PRS) and other risk factors (RFs). METHODS: BOADICEA incorporates the effects of truncating variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM; a PRS based on 313 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) explaining 20% of BC polygenic variance; a residual polygenic component accounting for other genetic/familial effects; known lifestyle/hormonal/reproductive RFs; and mammographic density, while allowing for missing information. RESULTS: Among all factors considered, the predicted UK BC risk distribution is widest for the PRS, followed by mammographic density. The highest BC risk stratification is achieved when all genetic and lifestyle/hormonal/reproductive/anthropomorphic factors are considered jointly. With all factors, the predicted lifetime risks for women in the UK population vary from 2.8% for the 1st percentile to 30.6% for the 99th percentile, with 14.7% of women predicted to have a lifetime risk of ≥17-<30% (moderate risk according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] guidelines) and 1.1% a lifetime risk of ≥30% (high risk). CONCLUSION: This comprehensive model should enable high levels of BC risk stratification in the general population and women with family history, and facilitate individualized, informed decision-making on prevention therapies and screening.

Polygenic risk score is associated with increased disease risk in 52 Finnish breast cancer families.

The risk of developing breast cancer is increased in women with family history of breast cancer and particularly in families with multiple cases of breast or ovarian cancer. Nevertheless, many women with a positive family history never develop the disease. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) based on the risk effects of multiple common genetic variants have been proposed for individual risk assessment on a population level. We investigate the applicability of the PRS for risk prediction within breast cancer families. We studied the association between breast cancer risk and a PRS based on 75 common genetic variants in 52 Finnish breast cancer families including 427 genotyped women and pedigree information on ~4000 additional individuals by comparing the affected to healthy family members, as well as in a case-control dataset comprising 1272 healthy population controls and 1681 breast cancer cases with information on family history. Family structure was summarized using the BOADICEA risk prediction model. The PRS was associated with increased disease risk in women with family history of breast cancer as well as in women within the breast cancer families. The odds ratio (OR) for breast cancer within the family dataset was 1.55 [95 % CI 1.26-1.91] per unit increase in the PRS, similar to OR in unselected breast cancer cases of the case-control dataset (1.49 [1.38-1.62]). High PRS-values were informative for risk prediction in breast cancer families, whereas for the low PRS-categories the results were inconclusive. The PRS is informative in women with family history of breast cancer and should be incorporated within pedigree-based clinical risk assessment.

Evaluating the performance of the breast cancer genetic risk models BOADICEA, IBIS, BRCAPRO and Claus for predicting BRCA1/2 mutation carrier probabilities: a study based on 7352 families from the German Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Risk prediction models are widely used in clinical genetic counselling. Despite their frequent use, the genetic risk models BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, IBIS and extended Claus model (eCLAUS), used to estimate BRCA1/2 mutation carrier probabilities, have never been comparatively evaluated in a large sample from central Europe. Additionally, a novel version of BOADICEA that incorporates tumour pathology information has not yet been validated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using data from 7352 German families we estimated BRCA1/2 carrier probabilities under each model and compared their discrimination and calibration. The incremental value of using pathology information in BOADICEA was assessed in a subsample of 4928 pedigrees with available data on breast tumour molecular markers oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor 2. RESULTS: BRCAPRO (area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)=0.80 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.81)) and BOADICEA (AUC=0.79 (0.78-0.80)), had significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than IBIS and eCLAUS (p<0.001). The AUC increased when pathology information was used in BOADICEA: AUC=0.81 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.83, p<0.001). At carrier thresholds of 10% and 15%, the net reclassification index was +3.9% and +5.4%, respectively, when pathology was included in the model. Overall, calibration was best for BOADICEA and worst for eCLAUS. With eCLAUS, twice as many mutation carriers were predicted than observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the use of BRCAPRO and BOADICEA for decision making regarding genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations. However, model calibration has to be improved for this population. eCLAUS should not be used for estimating mutation carrier probabilities in clinical settings. Whenever possible, breast tumour molecular marker information should be taken into account.

Differences in polygenic score distributions in European ancestry populations: implications for breast cancer risk prediction.

The 313-variant polygenic risk score (PRS313) provides a promising tool for breast cancer risk prediction. However, evaluation of the PRS313 across different European populations which could influence risk estimation has not been performed. Here, we explored the distribution of PRS313 across European populations using genotype data from 94,072 females without breast cancer, of European-ancestry from 21 countries participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) and 225,105 female participants from the UK Biobank. The mean PRS313 differed markedly across European countries, being highest in south-eastern Europe and lowest in north-western Europe. Using the overall European PRS313 distribution to categorise individuals leads to overestimation and underestimation of risk in some individuals from south-eastern and north-western countries, respectively. Adjustment for principal components explained most of the observed heterogeneity in mean PRS. Country-specific PRS distributions may be used to calibrate risk categories in individuals from different countries.

Incorporating Alternative Polygenic Risk Scores into the BOADICEA Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model.

BACKGROUND: The multifactorial risk prediction model BOADICEA enables identification of women at higher or lower risk of developing breast cancer. BOADICEA models genetic susceptibility in terms of the effects of rare variants in breast cancer susceptibility genes and a polygenic component, decomposed into an unmeasured and a measured component - the polygenic risk score (PRS). The current version was developed using a 313 SNP PRS. Here, we evaluated approaches to incorporating this PRS and alternative PRS in BOADICEA. METHODS: The mean, SD, and proportion of the overall polygenic component explained by the PRS (α2) need to be estimated. $\alpha $ was estimated using logistic regression, where the age-specific log-OR is constrained to be a function of the age-dependent polygenic relative risk in BOADICEA; and using a retrospective likelihood (RL) approach that models, in addition, the unmeasured polygenic component. RESULTS: Parameters were computed for 11 PRS, including 6 variations of the 313 SNP PRS used in clinical trials and implementation studies. The logistic regression approach underestimates $\alpha $, as compared with the RL estimates. The RL $\alpha $ estimates were very close to those obtained by assuming proportionality to the OR per 1 SD, with the constant of proportionality estimated using the 313 SNP PRS. Small variations in the SNPs included in the PRS can lead to large differences in the mean. CONCLUSIONS: BOADICEA can be readily adapted to different PRS in a manner that maintains consistency of the model. IMPACT: : The methods described facilitate comprehensive breast cancer risk assessment.