Assessing the value of incorporating a polygenic risk score with non-genetic factors for predicting breast cancer diagnosis in the UK Biobank.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that incorporating a polygenic risk score (PRS) to existing risk prediction models for breast cancer improves model fit, but to determine its clinical utility the impact on risk categorisation needs to be established. We add a PRS to two well-established models and quantify the difference in classification using the net reclassification improvement (NRI). METHODS: We analysed data from 126,490 post-menopausal women of "White British" ancestry, aged 40-69 years at baseline from the UK Biobank prospective cohort. The breast cancer outcome was derived from linked registry data and hospital records. We combined a PRS for breast cancer with 10-year risk scores from the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail models, and compared these to the risk scores from the models using phenotypic variables alone. We report metrics of discrimination and classification, and consider the importance of the risk threshold selected. RESULTS: The Harrell's C statistic of the 10-year risk from the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail models was 0.57 and 0.54, respectively, increasing to 0.67 when the PRS was included. Inclusion of the PRS gave a positive NRI for cases in both models (0.080 (95% confidence interval: 0.053, 0.104) and 0.051 (95% CI: 0.030, 0.073), respectively), with negligible impact on controls. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a PRS for breast cancer to the well-established Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail models provides a substantial improvement in the prediction accuracy and risk stratification. IMPACT: These findings could have important implications for the ongoing discussion about the value of PRS in risk prediction models and screening.

Incorporating polygenic risk into the Leicester Risk Assessment score for 10-year risk prediction of type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: We evaluated whether incorporating information on ethnic background and polygenic risk enhanced the Leicester Risk Assessment (LRA) score for predicting 10-year risk of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: The sample included 202,529 UK Biobank participants aged 40-69 years. We computed the LRA score, and developed two new risk scores using training data (80% sample): LRArev, which incorporated additional information on ethnic background, and LRAprs, which incorporated polygenic risk for type 2 diabetes. We assessed discriminative and reclassification performance in a test set (20% sample). Type 2 diabetes was ascertained using primary care, hospital inpatient and death registry records. RESULTS: Over 10 years, 7,476 participants developed type 2 diabetes. The Harrell's C indexes were 0.796 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.785, 0.806), 0.802 (95% CI 0.792, 0.813), and 0.829 (95% CI 0.820, 0.839) for the LRA, LRArev and LRAprs scores, respectively. The LRAprs score significantly improved the overall reclassification compared to the LRA (net reclassification index [NRI] = 0.033, 95% CI 0.015, 0.049) and LRArev (NRI = 0.040, 95% CI 0.024, 0.055) scores. CONCLUSIONS: Polygenic risk moderately improved the performance of the existing LRA score for 10-year risk prediction of type 2 diabetes.

Assessing the importance of primary care diagnoses in the UK Biobank.

The UK Biobank has made general practitioner (GP) data (censoring date 2016-2017) available for approximately 45% of the cohort, whilst hospital inpatient and death registry (referred to as "HES/Death") data are available cohort-wide through 2018-2022 depending on whether the data comes from England, Wales or Scotland. We assessed the importance of case ascertainment via different data sources in UKB for three diseases that are usually first diagnosed in primary care: Parkinson's disease (PD), type 2 diabetes (T2D), and all-cause dementia. Including GP data at least doubled the number of incident cases in the subset of the cohort with primary care data (e.g. from 619 to 1390 for dementia). Among the 786 dementia cases that were only captured in the GP data before the GP censoring date, only 421 (54%) were subsequently recorded in HES. Therefore, estimates of the absolute incidence or risk-stratified incidence are misleadingly low when based only on the HES/Death data. For incident cases present in both HES/Death and GP data during the full follow-up period (i.e. until the HES censoring date), the median time difference between an incident diagnosis of dementia being recorded in GP and HES/Death was 2.25 years (i.e. recorded 2.25 years earlier in the GP records). Similar lag periods were also observed for PD (median 2.31 years earlier) and T2D (median 2.82 years earlier). For participants with an incident GP diagnosis, only 65.6% of dementia cases, 69.0% of PD cases, and 58.5% of T2D cases had their diagnosis recorded in HES/Death within 7 years since GP diagnosis. The effect estimates (hazard ratios, HR) of established risk factors for the three health outcomes mostly remain in the same direction and with a similar strength of association when cases are ascertained either using HES only or further adding GP data. The confidence intervals of the HR became narrower when adding GP data, due to the increased statistical power from the additional cases. In conclusion, it is desirable to extend both the coverage and follow-up period of GP data to allow researchers to maximise case ascertainment of chronic health conditions in the UK.

Kidney function, albuminuria, and their modification by genetic factors and risk of incident dementia in UK Biobank.

BACKGROUND: Associations between kidney function and dementia risk are inconclusive. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) severity is determined by levels of both estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and the urine albumin to creatinine ratio (ACR). However, whether there is a graded increase in dementia risk for worse eGFR in each ACR category is unclear. Also, whether genetic risk for dementia impacts the associations is unknown. The current study aims to investigate the associations between eGFR and albuminuria with dementia risk both individually and jointly, whether the associations vary by different follow-up periods, and whether genetic factors modified the associations. METHODS: In 202,702 participants aged ≥ 60 years from the UK Biobank, Cox proportional-hazards models were used to examine the associations between eGFR and urine albumin creatinine ratio (ACR) with risk of incident dementia. GFR was estimated based on serum creatinine, cystatin C, or both. The models were restricted to different follow-up periods (< 5 years, 5-10 years, and ≥ 10 years) to investigate potential reverse causation. RESULTS: Over 15 years of follow-up, 6,042 participants developed dementia. Decreased kidney function (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2) was associated with an increased risk of dementia (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 1.42, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.28-1.58), compared to normal kidney function (≥ 90 ml/min/1.73m2). The strength of the association remained consistent when the models were restricted to different periods of follow-up. The HRs for incident dementia were 1.16 (95% CI 1.07-1.26) and 2.24 (95% CI 1.79-2.80) for moderate (3-30 mg/mmol) and severely increased ACR (≥ 30 mg/mmol) compared to normal ACR (< 3 mg/mmol). Dose-response associations were observed when combining eGFR and ACR, with those in the severest eGFR and ACR group having the greatest risk of dementia (HR = 4.70, 95% CI 2.34-9.43). APOE status significantly modified the association (p = 0.04), with stronger associations observed among participants with a lower genetic risk of dementia. There was no evidence of an interaction between kidney function and non-APOE polygenic risk of dementia with dementia risk (p = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Kidney dysfunction and albuminuria were individually and jointly associated with higher dementia risk. The associations were greater amongst participants with a lower genetic risk of dementia based on APOE, but not non-APOE polygenic risk.

Independent external validation of the QRISK3 cardiovascular disease risk prediction model using UK Biobank.

OBJECTIVE: To externally evaluate the performance of QRISK3 for predicting 10 year risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the UK Biobank cohort. METHODS: We used data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale prospective cohort study of 403 370 participants aged 40-69 years recruited between 2006 and 2010 in the UK. We included participants with no previous history of CVD or statin treatment and defined the outcome to be the first occurrence of coronary heart disease, ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, derived from linked hospital inpatient records and death registrations. RESULTS: Our study population included 233 233 women and 170 137 men, with 9295 and 13 028 incident CVD events, respectively. Overall, QRISK3 had moderate discrimination for UK Biobank participants (Harrell's C-statistic 0.722 in women and 0.697 in men) and discrimination declined by age (<0.62 in all participants aged 65 years or older). QRISK3 systematically overpredicted CVD risk in UK Biobank, particularly in older participants, by as much as 20%. CONCLUSIONS: QRISK3 had moderate overall discrimination in UK Biobank, which was best in younger participants. The observed CVD risk for UK Biobank participants was lower than that predicted by QRISK3, particularly for older participants. It may be necessary to recalibrate QRISK3 or use an alternate model in studies that require accurate CVD risk prediction in UK Biobank.

Polygenic Risk of Prediabetes, Undiagnosed Diabetes, and Incident Type 2 Diabetes Stratified by Diabetes Risk Factors.

Context: Early diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is crucial to reduce severe comorbidities and complications. Current screening recommendations for type 2 diabetes include traditional risk factors, primarily body mass index (BMI) and family history, however genetics also plays a key role in type 2 diabetes risk. It is important to understand whether genetic predisposition to type 2 diabetes modifies the effect of these traditional factors on type 2 diabetes risk. Objective: This work aimed to investigate whether genetic risk of type 2 diabetes modifies associations between BMI and first-degree family history of diabetes with 1) prevalent prediabetes or undiagnosed diabetes; and 2) incident confirmed type 2 diabetes. Methods: We included 431 658 individuals aged 40 to 69 years at baseline of multiethnic ancestry from the UK Biobank. We used a multiethnic polygenic risk score for type 2 diabetes (PRST2D) developed by Genomics PLC. Prediabetes or undiagnosed diabetes was defined as baseline glycated hemoglobin greater than or equal to 42 mmol/mol (6.0%), and incident type 2 diabetes was derived from medical records. Results: At baseline, 43 472 participants had prediabetes or undiagnosed diabetes, and 17 259 developed type 2 diabetes over 15 years follow-up. Dose-response associations were observed for PRST2D with each outcome in each category of BMI or first-degree family history of diabetes. Those in the highest quintile of PRST2D with a normal BMI were at a similar risk as those in the middle quintile who were overweight. Participants who were in the highest quintile of PRST2D and did not have a first-degree family history of diabetes were at a similar risk as those with a family history who were in the middle category of PRST2D. Conclusion: Genetic risk of type 2 diabetes remains strongly associated with risk of prediabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, and future type 2 diabetes within categories of nongenetic risk factors. This could have important implications for identifying individuals at risk of type 2 diabetes for prevention and early diagnosis programs.

Hypertension, a dementia polygenic risk score, APOE genotype, and incident dementia.

INTRODUCTION: There is inconsistent evidence on whether genetic risk for dementia modifies the association between hypertension and dementia. METHODS: In 198,965 dementia-free participants aged ≥60 years, Cox proportional-hazards models were used to investigate the association between hypertension and incident dementia. A polygenic risk score (PRS) based on 38 non-apolipoprotein E (APOE) single nucleotide polymorphisms and APOE ε4 status were used to determine genetic risk for dementia. RESULTS: Over 15 years follow-up, 6270 participants developed dementia. Hypertension was associated with a 19% increased risk of dementia (hazard ratio = 1.19, 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.27). The associations remained similar when stratifying by genetic risk, with no evidence for multiplicative interaction by dementia PRS (P = 0.20) or APOE ε4 status (P = 0.16). However, the risk difference between those with and without hypertension was larger among those at higher genetic risk. DISCUSSION: Hypertension was associated with an increased risk of dementia regardless of genetic risk for dementia.

Assessing agreement between different polygenic risk scores in the UK Biobank.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are proposed for use in clinical and research settings for risk stratification. However, there are limited investigations on how different PRS diverge from each other in risk prediction of individuals. We compared two recently published PRS for each of three conditions, breast cancer, hypertension and dementia, to assess the stability of using these algorithms for risk prediction in a single large population. We used imputed genotyping data from the UK Biobank prospective cohort, limited to the White British subset. We found that: (1) 20% or more of SNPs in the first PRS were not represented in the more recent PRS for all three diseases, by the same SNP or a surrogate with R2 > 0.8 by linkage disequilibrium (LD). (2) Although the difference in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) obtained using the two PRS is hardly appreciable for all three diseases, there were large differences in individual risk prediction between the two PRS. For instance, for each disease, of those classified in the top 5% of risk by the first PRS, over 60% were not so classified by the second PRS. We found substantial discordance between different PRS for the same disease, indicating that individuals could receive different medical advice depending on which PRS is used to assess their genetic susceptibility. It is desirable to resolve this uncertainty before using PRS for risk stratification in clinical settings.

Calculating Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) in UK Biobank: A Practical Guide for Epidemiologists.

A polygenic risk score estimates the genetic risk of an individual for some disease or trait, calculated by aggregating the effect of many common variants associated with the condition. With the increasing availability of genetic data in large cohort studies such as the UK Biobank, inclusion of this genetic risk as a covariate in statistical analyses is becoming more widespread. Previously this required specialist knowledge, but as tooling and data availability have improved it has become more feasible for statisticians and epidemiologists to calculate existing scores themselves for use in analyses. While tutorial resources exist for conducting genome-wide association studies and generating of new polygenic risk scores, fewer guides exist for the simple calculation and application of existing genetic scores. This guide outlines the key steps of this process: selection of suitable polygenic risk scores from the literature, extraction of relevant genetic variants and verification of their quality, calculation of the risk score and key considerations of its inclusion in statistical models, using the UK Biobank imputed data as a model data set. Many of the techniques in this guide will generalize to other datasets, however we also focus on some of the specific techniques required for using data in the formats UK Biobank have selected. This includes some of the challenges faced when working with large numbers of variants, where the computation time required by some tools is impractical. While we have focused on only a couple of tools, which may not be the best ones for every given aspect of the process, one barrier to working with genetic data is the sheer volume of tools available, and the difficulty for a novice to assess their viability. By discussing in depth a couple of tools that are adequate for the calculation even at large scale, we hope to make polygenic risk scores more accessible to a wider range of researchers.