Testing the generalizability of ancestry-specific polygenic risk scores to predict prostate cancer in sub-Saharan Africa.

BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies do not always replicate well across populations, limiting the generalizability of polygenic risk scores (PRS). Despite higher incidence and mortality rates of prostate cancer in men of African descent, much of what is known about cancer genetics comes from populations of European descent. To understand how well genetic predictions perform in different populations, we evaluated test characteristics of PRS from three previous studies using data from the UK Biobank and a novel dataset of 1298 prostate cancer cases and 1333 controls from Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, and South Africa. RESULTS: Allele frequency differences cause predicted risks of prostate cancer to vary across populations. However, natural selection is not the primary driver of these differences. Comparing continental datasets, we find that polygenic predictions of case vs. control status are more effective for European individuals (AUC 0.608-0.707, OR 2.37-5.71) than for African individuals (AUC 0.502-0.585, OR 0.95-2.01). Furthermore, PRS that leverage information from African Americans yield modest AUC and odds ratio improvements for sub-Saharan African individuals. These improvements were larger for West Africans than for South Africans. Finally, we find that existing PRS are largely unable to predict whether African individuals develop aggressive forms of prostate cancer, as specified by higher tumor stages or Gleason scores. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic predictions of prostate cancer perform poorly if the study sample does not match the ancestry of the original GWAS. PRS built from European GWAS may be inadequate for application in non-European populations and perpetuate existing health disparities.

Validation of a multi-ancestry polygenic risk score and age-specific risks of prostate cancer: A meta-analysis within diverse populations.

Background: We recently developed a multi-ancestry polygenic risk score (PRS) that effectively stratifies prostate cancer risk across populations. In this study, we validated the performance of the PRS in the multi-ancestry Million Veteran Program and additional independent studies. Methods: Within each ancestry population, the association of PRS with prostate cancer risk was evaluated separately in each case-control study and then combined in a fixed-effects inverse-variance-weighted meta-analysis. We further assessed the effect modification by age and estimated the age-specific absolute risk of prostate cancer for each ancestry population. Results: The PRS was evaluated in 31,925 cases and 490,507 controls, including men from European (22,049 cases, 414,249 controls), African (8794 cases, 55,657 controls), and Hispanic (1082 cases, 20,601 controls) populations. Comparing men in the top decile (90-100% of the PRS) to the average 40-60% PRS category, the prostate cancer odds ratio (OR) was 3.8-fold in European ancestry men (95% CI = 3.62-3.96), 2.8-fold in African ancestry men (95% CI = 2.59-3.03), and 3.2-fold in Hispanic men (95% CI = 2.64-3.92). The PRS did not discriminate risk of aggressive versus nonaggressive prostate cancer. However, the OR diminished with advancing age (European ancestry men in the top decile: ≤55 years, OR = 7.11; 55-60 years, OR = 4.26; >70 years, OR = 2.79). Men in the top PRS decile reached 5% absolute prostate cancer risk ~10 years younger than men in the 40-60% PRS category. Conclusions: Our findings validate the multi-ancestry PRS as an effective prostate cancer risk stratification tool across populations. A clinical study of PRS is warranted to determine whether the PRS could be used for risk-stratified screening and early detection. Funding: This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (grant numbers U19 CA214253 to C.A.H., U01 CA257328 to C.A.H., U19 CA148537 to C.A.H., R01 CA165862 to C.A.H., K99 CA246063 to B.F.D, and T32CA229110 to F.C), the Prostate Cancer Foundation (grants 21YOUN11 to B.F.D. and 20CHAS03 to C.A.H.), the Achievement Rewards for College Scientists Foundation Los Angeles Founder Chapter to B.F.D, and the Million Veteran Program-MVP017. This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource under application number 42195. This research is based on data from the Million Veteran Program, Office of Research and Development, and the Veterans Health Administration. This publication does not represent the views of the Department of Veteran Affairs or the United States Government.

Exposure of Undergraduate Students to Cigarette Adverts: A Case Study of University of Abuja; Nigeria

Context: Cigarette smoking has became prevalent particularly in developing countries where youths get initiated at an earlier age than in the past two decades and there is only rudimentary support for smoking cessation. Although the relationship between cigarette smoking and health hazards is well documented; the incidence of cigarette smoking continues to increase despite global and local tobacco control efforts. Aims: The study objective was to determine the level of exposure of respondents to cigarette smoking and the factors associated with it. Materials and Methods: A pre-tested; self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data on socio-demographic features; knowledge about smoking and exposure to media for health information including exposure to tobacco adverts. Subjects were selected by multistage sampling technique. Results: One-third of the students were current smokers and most of them had poor knowledge of the consequences of smoking. All of the students were exposed to some level smoking adverts through electronic/print media. Over 90 of the students had no exposure to smoking prevention and none of the smokers were exposed to cessation interventions. One-fifth believed they were not at health risk as a result of smoking. The school had no smoking control policy. Conclusions: There was a strong; constant exposure of the youths to cigarette adverts in the media; on the streets; the school and homes. There is need to protect the youths from such excessive exposures to factors that encourage smoking and establish intervention strategies to prevent continued exposure to cigarette adverts