RESUMO
PURPOSE: We previously described a combined risk score (CRS) that integrates a multiple-ancestry polygenic risk score (MA-PRS) with the Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) model to assess breast cancer (BC) risk. Here, we present a longitudinal validation of CRS in a real-world cohort. METHODS: This study included 130,058 patients referred for hereditary cancer genetic testing and negative for germline pathogenic variants in BC-associated genes. Data were obtained by linking genetic test results to medical claims (median follow-up 12.1 months). CRS calibration was evaluated by the ratio of observed to expected BCs. RESULTS: Three hundred forty BCs were observed over 148,349 patient-years. CRS was well-calibrated and demonstrated superior calibration compared with TC in high-risk deciles. MA-PRS alone had greater discriminatory accuracy than TC, and CRS had approximately 2-fold greater discriminatory accuracy than MA-PRS or TC. Among those classified as high risk by TC, 32.6% were low risk by CRS, and of those classified as low risk by TC, 4.3% were high risk by CRS. In cases where CRS and TC classifications disagreed, CRS was more accurate in predicting incident BC. CONCLUSION: CRS was well-calibrated and significantly improved BC risk stratification. Short-term follow-up suggests that clinical implementation of CRS should improve outcomes for patients of all ancestries through personalized risk-based screening and prevention.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for breast cancer (BC) risk stratification have been developed primarily in women of European ancestry. Their application to women of non-European ancestry has lagged because of the lack of a formal approach to incorporate genetic ancestry and ancestry-dependent variant frequencies and effect sizes. Here, we propose a multiple-ancestry PRS (MA-PRS) that addresses these issues and may be useful in the development of equitable PRSs across other cancers and common diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women referred for hereditary cancer testing were divided into consecutive cohorts for development (n = 189,230) and for independent validation (n = 89,126). Individual genetic composition as fractions of three reference ancestries (African, East Asian, and European) was determined from ancestry-informative single-nucleotide polymorphisms. The MA-PRS is a combination of three ancestry-specific PRSs on the basis of genetic ancestral composition. Stratification of risk was evaluated by multivariable logistic regression models controlling for family cancer history. Goodness-of-fit analysis compared expected with observed relative risks by quantiles of the MA-PRS distribution. RESULTS: In independent validation, the MA-PRS was significantly associated with BC risk in the full cohort (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.40 to 1.46; P = 8.6 × 10-308) and within each major ancestry. The top decile of the MA-PRS consistently identified patients with two-fold increased risk of developing BC. Goodness-of-fit tests showed that the MA-PRS was well calibrated and predicted BC risk accurately in the tails of the distribution for both European and non-European women. CONCLUSION: The MA-PRS uses genetic ancestral composition to expand the utility of polygenic risk prediction to non-European women. Inclusion of genetic ancestry in polygenic risk prediction presents an opportunity for more personalized treatment decisions for women of varying and mixed ancestries.