1
|
Balasubramanian JB, Choudhury PP, Mukhopadhyay S, Ahearn T, Chatterjee N, García-Closas M, Almeida JS. Wasm-iCARE: a portable and privacy-preserving web module to build, validate, and apply absolute risk models. JAMIA Open 2024; 7:ooae055. [PMID: 38938691 PMCID: PMC11208928 DOI: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooae055] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2023] [Revised: 04/24/2024] [Accepted: 06/14/2024] [Indexed: 06/29/2024] Open
Abstract
Objectives Absolute risk models estimate an individual's future disease risk over a specified time interval. Applications utilizing server-side risk tooling, the R-based iCARE (R-iCARE), to build, validate, and apply absolute risk models, face limitations in portability and privacy due to their need for circulating user data in remote servers for operation. We overcome this by porting iCARE to the web platform. Materials and Methods We refactored R-iCARE into a Python package (Py-iCARE) and then compiled it to WebAssembly (Wasm-iCARE)-a portable web module, which operates within the privacy of the user's device. Results We showcase the portability and privacy of Wasm-iCARE through 2 applications: for researchers to statistically validate risk models and to deliver them to end-users. Both applications run entirely on the client side, requiring no downloads or installations, and keep user data on-device during risk calculation. Conclusions Wasm-iCARE fosters accessible and privacy-preserving risk tools, accelerating their validation and delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeya Balaji Balasubramanian
- Trans-Divisional Research Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 20850, United States
| | - Parichoy Pal Choudhury
- Trans-Divisional Research Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 20850, United States
- Surveillance & Health Equity Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA 30303, United States
| | - Srijon Mukhopadhyay
- Trans-Divisional Research Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 20850, United States
| | - Thomas Ahearn
- Trans-Divisional Research Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 20850, United States
| | - Nilanjan Chatterjee
- Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States
| | - Montserrat García-Closas
- Trans-Divisional Research Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 20850, United States
- The Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5NG, United Kingdom
| | - Jonas S Almeida
- Trans-Divisional Research Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 20850, United States
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Cao Y, Ma W, Zhao G, McCarthy AM, Chen J. A constrained maximum likelihood approach to developing well-calibrated models for predicting binary outcomes. LIFETIME DATA ANALYSIS 2024; 30:624-648. [PMID: 38717617 DOI: 10.1007/s10985-024-09628-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2023] [Accepted: 04/04/2024] [Indexed: 07/09/2024]
Abstract
The added value of candidate predictors for risk modeling is routinely evaluated by comparing the performance of models with or without including candidate predictors. Such comparison is most meaningful when the estimated risk by the two models are both unbiased in the target population. Very often data for candidate predictors are sourced from nonrepresentative convenience samples. Updating the base model using the study data without acknowledging the discrepancy between the underlying distribution of the study data and that in the target population can lead to biased risk estimates and therefore an unfair evaluation of candidate predictors. To address this issue assuming access to a well-calibrated base model, we propose a semiparametric method for model fitting that enforces good calibration. The central idea is to calibrate the fitted model against the base model by enforcing suitable constraints in maximizing the likelihood function. This approach enables unbiased assessment of model improvement offered by candidate predictors without requiring a representative sample from the target population, thus overcoming a significant practical challenge. We study theoretical properties for model parameter estimates, and demonstrate improvement in model calibration via extensive simulation studies. Finally, we apply the proposed method to data extracted from Penn Medicine Biobank to inform the added value of breast density for breast cancer risk assessment in the Caucasian woman population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yaqi Cao
- Department of Statistics, School of Science, Minzu University of China, Beijing, China
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| | - Weidong Ma
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| | - Ge Zhao
- Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Portland State University, Portland, PA, 97201, USA
| | - Anne Marie McCarthy
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| | - Jinbo Chen
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Derkach A, Kantor ED, Sampson JN, Pfeiffer RM. Mediation analysis using incomplete information from publicly available data sources. Stat Med 2024; 43:2695-2712. [PMID: 38606437 DOI: 10.1002/sim.10076] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2023] [Revised: 03/08/2024] [Accepted: 03/25/2024] [Indexed: 04/13/2024]
Abstract
Our work was motivated by the question whether, and to what extent, well-established risk factors mediate the racial disparity observed for colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence in the United States. Mediation analysis examines the relationships between an exposure, a mediator and an outcome. All available methods require access to a single complete data set with these three variables. However, because population-based studies usually include few non-White participants, these approaches have limited utility in answering our motivating question. Recently, we developed novel methods to integrate several data sets with incomplete information for mediation analysis. These methods have two limitations: (i) they only consider a single mediator and (ii) they require a data set containing individual-level data on the mediator and exposure (and possibly confounders) obtained by independent and identically distributed sampling from the target population. Here, we propose a new method for mediation analysis with several different data sets that accommodates complex survey and registry data, and allows for multiple mediators. The proposed approach yields unbiased causal effects estimates and confidence intervals with nominal coverage in simulations. We apply our method to data from U.S. cancer registries, a U.S.-population-representative survey and summary level odds-ratio estimates, to rigorously evaluate what proportion of the difference in CRC risk between non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks is mediated by three potentially modifiable risk factors (CRC screening history, body mass index, and regular aspirin use).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andriy Derkach
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Elizabeth D Kantor
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Joshua N Sampson
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Ruth M Pfeiffer
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Collister JA, Liu X, Littlejohns TJ, Cuzick J, Clifton L, Hunter DJ. Assessing the Value of Incorporating a Polygenic Risk Score with Nongenetic Factors for Predicting Breast Cancer Diagnosis in the UK Biobank. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024; 33:812-820. [PMID: 38630597 PMCID: PMC11145162 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-23-1432] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2023] [Revised: 02/13/2024] [Accepted: 03/26/2024] [Indexed: 04/19/2024] Open
Abstract
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 categorization 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 analyzed data from 126,490 post-menopausal women of "White British" ancestry, aged 40 to 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 (CI), 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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer A. Collister
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Xiaonan Liu
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Thomas J. Littlejohns
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Jack Cuzick
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Lei Clifton
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - David J. Hunter
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Chen K, Wu S. The utility of quantifying the orientation of breast masses in ultrasound imaging. Sci Rep 2024; 14:4578. [PMID: 38403659 PMCID: PMC10894861 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-55298-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2023] [Accepted: 02/22/2024] [Indexed: 02/27/2024] Open
Abstract
The aim of this study was to quantify the orientation of breast masses and determine whether it can enhance the utility of a not parallel orientation in predicting breast mass malignancy. A total of 15,746 subjects who underwent breast ultrasound examinations were initially enrolled in the study. Further evaluation was performed on subjects with solid breast masses (≤ 5 cm) intended for surgical resection and/or biopsy. The orientation angle, defined as the acute angle between the align of the maximal longitudinal diameter of the breast mass and the surface of the breast skin, was measured. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was conducted, and various performance measures including sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, accuracy, odds ratio, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) were calculated. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine if the orientation angle was an independent predictor of breast malignancy. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was also conducted to assess the net benefit of adopting the orientation angle for predicting breast mass malignancy. The final analysis included 83 subjects with breast cancer and 135 subjects with benign masses. The intra-group correlation coefficient for the measurement of the orientation angle of breast masses was 0.986 (P = 0.001), indicating high reproducibility. The orientation angles of malignant and benign breast masses were 36.51 ± 14.90 (range: 10.7-88.6) degrees and 15.28 ± 8.40 (range: 0.0-58.7) degrees, respectively, and there was a significant difference between them (P < 0.001). The cutoff value for the orientation angle was determined to be 22.9°. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, accuracy, odds ratio, and AUC for the prediction of breast malignancy using the orientation angle were 88.0%, 87.4%, 81.1%, 92.2%, 87.6%, 50.67%, and 0.925%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that the orientation angle (> 22.9°), not circumscribed margin, and calcifications of the breast mass were independent factors predicting breast malignancy. The net benefit of adopting the orientation angle for predicting breast malignancy was 0.303. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that quantifying the orientation angle of breast masses is useful in predicting breast malignancy, as it demonstrates high sensitivity, specificity, AUC, and standardized net benefit. It optimizes the utility of the not parallel orientation in assessing breast mass malignancy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kailiang Chen
- Department of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University, No.31, Longhua Road, Haikou, 570102, China
| | - Size Wu
- Department of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University, No.31, Longhua Road, Haikou, 570102, China.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Zirpoli GR, Pfeiffer RM, Bertrand KA, Huo D, Lunetta KL, Palmer JR. Addition of polygenic risk score to a risk calculator for prediction of breast cancer in US Black women. Breast Cancer Res 2024; 26:2. [PMID: 38167144 PMCID: PMC10763003 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-023-01748-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2023] [Accepted: 11/30/2023] [Indexed: 01/05/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Previous work in European ancestry populations has shown that adding a polygenic risk score (PRS) to breast cancer risk prediction models based on epidemiologic factors results in better discriminatory performance as measured by the AUC (area under the curve). Following publication of the first PRS to perform well in women of African ancestry (AA-PRS), we conducted an external validation of the AA-PRS and then evaluated the addition of the AA-PRS to a risk calculator for incident breast cancer in Black women based on epidemiologic factors (BWHS model). METHODS Data from the Black Women's Health Study, an ongoing prospective cohort study of 59,000 US Black women followed by biennial questionnaire since 1995, were used to calculate AUCs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for discriminatory accuracy of the BWHS model, the AA-PRS alone, and a new model that combined them. Analyses were based on data from 922 women with invasive breast cancer and 1844 age-matched controls. RESULTS AUCs were 0.577 (95% CI 0.556-0.598) for the BWHS model and 0.584 (95% CI 0.563-0.605) for the AA-PRS. For a model that combined estimates from the questionnaire-based BWHS model with the PRS, the AUC increased to 0.623 (95% CI 0.603-0.644). CONCLUSIONS This combined model represents a step forward for personalized breast cancer preventive care for US Black women, as its performance metrics are similar to those from models in other populations. Use of this new model may mitigate exacerbation of breast cancer disparities if and when it becomes feasible to include a PRS in routine health care decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gary R Zirpoli
- Slone Epidemiology Center at Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ruth M Pfeiffer
- Biostatistics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Biostatistics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA.
| | - Kimberly A Bertrand
- Slone Epidemiology Center at Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Dezheng Huo
- Department of Public Health Sciences, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
- Center for Clinical Cancer Genetics & Global Health, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Kathryn L Lunetta
- Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Julie R Palmer
- Slone Epidemiology Center at Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
- Department of Medicine, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Kachuri L, Chatterjee N, Hirbo J, Schaid DJ, Martin I, Kullo IJ, Kenny EE, Pasaniuc B, Witte JS, Ge T. Principles and methods for transferring polygenic risk scores across global populations. Nat Rev Genet 2024; 25:8-25. [PMID: 37620596 PMCID: PMC10961971 DOI: 10.1038/s41576-023-00637-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 45.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/11/2023] [Indexed: 08/26/2023]
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) summarize the genetic predisposition of a complex human trait or disease and may become a valuable tool for advancing precision medicine. However, PRSs that are developed in populations of predominantly European genetic ancestries can increase health disparities due to poor predictive performance in individuals of diverse and complex genetic ancestries. We describe genetic and modifiable risk factors that limit the transferability of PRSs across populations and review the strengths and weaknesses of existing PRS construction methods for diverse ancestries. Developing PRSs that benefit global populations in research and clinical settings provides an opportunity for innovation and is essential for health equity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linda Kachuri
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
- Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Nilanjan Chatterjee
- Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Jibril Hirbo
- Department of Medicine Division of Genetic Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
- Vanderbilt Genetics Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Daniel J Schaid
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Iman Martin
- Division of Genomic Medicine, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Iftikhar J Kullo
- Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Eimear E Kenny
- Institute for Genomic Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Genetics and Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Bogdan Pasaniuc
- Department of Computational Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Department of Human Genetics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - John S Witte
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
- Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
- Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
- Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
| | - Tian Ge
- Psychiatric and Neurodevelopmental Genetics Unit, Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
- Center for Precision Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
- Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Mbuya-Bienge C, Pashayan N, Kazemali CD, Lapointe J, Simard J, Nabi H. A Systematic Review and Critical Assessment of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Tools Incorporating a Polygenic Risk Score for the General Population. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:5380. [PMID: 38001640 PMCID: PMC10670420 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15225380] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2023] [Revised: 10/26/2023] [Accepted: 11/03/2023] [Indexed: 11/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the form of a polygenic risk score (PRS) have emerged as a promising factor that could improve the predictive performance of breast cancer (BC) risk prediction tools. This study aims to appraise and critically assess the current evidence on these tools. Studies were identified using Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library up to November 2022 and were included if they described the development and/ or validation of a BC risk prediction model using a PRS for women of the general population and if they reported a measure of predictive performance. We identified 37 articles, of which 29 combined genetic and non-genetic risk factors using seven different risk prediction tools. Most models (55.0%) were developed on populations from European ancestry and performed better than those developed on populations from other ancestry groups. Regardless of the number of SNPs in each PRS, models combining a PRS with genetic and non-genetic risk factors generally had better discriminatory accuracy (AUC from 0.52 to 0.77) than those using a PRS alone (AUC from 0.48 to 0.68). The overall risk of bias was considered low in most studies. BC risk prediction tools combining a PRS with genetic and non-genetic risk factors provided better discriminative accuracy than either used alone. Further studies are needed to cross-compare their clinical utility and readiness for implementation in public health practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cynthia Mbuya-Bienge
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (C.D.K.)
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada;
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
| | - Cornelia D. Kazemali
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (C.D.K.)
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada;
| | - Julie Lapointe
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada;
| | - Jacques Simard
- Endocrinology and Nephology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada;
- Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Hermann Nabi
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (C.D.K.)
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada;
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Balasubramanian JB, Choudhury PP, Mukhopadhyay S, Ahearn T, Chatterjee N, García-Closas M, Almeida JS. Wasm-iCARE: a portable and privacy-preserving web module to build, validate, and apply absolute risk models. ARXIV 2023:arXiv:2310.09252v1. [PMID: 37873020 PMCID: PMC10593073] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/25/2023]
Abstract
Objective Absolute risk models estimate an individual's future disease risk over a specified time interval. Applications utilizing server-side risk tooling, such as the R-based iCARE (R-iCARE), to build, validate, and apply absolute risk models, face serious limitations in portability and privacy due to their need for circulating user data in remote servers for operation. Our objective was to overcome these limitations. Materials and Methods We refactored R-iCARE into a Python package (Py-iCARE) then compiled it to WebAssembly (Wasm-iCARE): a portable web module, which operates entirely within the privacy of the user's device. Results We showcase the portability and privacy of Wasm-iCARE through two applications: for researchers to statistically validate risk models, and to deliver them to end-users. Both applications run entirely on the client-side, requiring no downloads or installations, and keeps user data on-device during risk calculation. Conclusions Wasm-iCARE fosters accessible and privacy-preserving risk tools, accelerating their validation and delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Parichoy Pal Choudhury
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
- American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Srijon Mukhopadhyay
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
| | - Thomas Ahearn
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
| | - Nilanjan Chatterjee
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
- Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Montserrat García-Closas
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
- The Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England
| | - Jonas S Almeida
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Strandberg R, Czene K, Hall P, Humphreys K. Novel predictions of invasive breast cancer risk in mammography screening cohorts. Stat Med 2023; 42:3816-3837. [PMID: 37337390 DOI: 10.1002/sim.9834] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2022] [Revised: 05/23/2023] [Accepted: 06/04/2023] [Indexed: 06/21/2023]
Abstract
Mammography screening programs are aimed at reducing mortality due to breast cancer by detecting tumors at an early stage. There is currently interest in moving away from the age-based screening programs, and toward personalized screening based on individual risk factors. To accomplish this, risk prediction models for breast cancer are needed to determine who should be screened, and when. We develop a novel approach using a (random effects) continuous growth model, which we apply to a large population-based, Swedish screening cohort. Unlike existing breast cancer prediction models, this approach explicitly incorporates each woman's individual screening visits in the prediction. It jointly models invasive breast cancer tumor onset, tumor growth rate, symptomatic detection rate, and screening sensitivity. In addition to predicting the overall risk of invasive breast cancer, this model can make separate predictions regarding specific tumor sizes, and the mode of detection (eg, detected at screening, or through symptoms between screenings). It can also predict how these risks change depending on whether or not a woman will attend her next screening. In our study, we predict, given a future diagnosis, that the probability of having a tumor less than (as opposed to greater than) 10-mm diameter, at detection, will be, on average, 2.6 times higher if a woman in the cohort attends their next screening. This indicates that the model can be used to evaluate the short-term benefit of screening attendance, at an individual level.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rickard Strandberg
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Swedish eScience Research Centre (SeRC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Kamila Czene
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Per Hall
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Keith Humphreys
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Swedish eScience Research Centre (SeRC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Mertens E, Barrenechea-Pulache A, Sagastume D, Vasquez MS, Vandevijvere S, Peñalvo JL. Understanding the contribution of lifestyle in breast cancer risk prediction: a systematic review of models applicable to Europe. BMC Cancer 2023; 23:687. [PMID: 37480028 PMCID: PMC10360320 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-11174-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2023] [Accepted: 07/12/2023] [Indexed: 07/23/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Breast cancer (BC) is a significant health concern among European women, with the highest prevalence rates among all cancers. Existing BC prediction models account for major risks such as hereditary, hormonal and reproductive factors, but research suggests that adherence to a healthy lifestyle can reduce the risk of developing BC to some extent. Understanding the influence and predictive role of lifestyle variables in current risk prediction models could help identify actionable, modifiable, targets among high-risk population groups. PURPOSE To systematically review population-based BC risk prediction models applicable to European populations and identify lifestyle predictors and their corresponding parameter values for a better understanding of their relative contribution to the prediction of incident BC. METHODS A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from January 2000 to August 2021. Risk prediction models were included if (i) developed and/or validated in adult cancer-free women in Europe, (ii) based on easily ascertained information, and (iii) reported models' final predictors. To investigate further the comparability of lifestyle predictors across models, estimates were standardised into risk ratios and visualised using forest plots. RESULTS From a total of 49 studies, 33 models were developed and 22 different existing models, mostly from Gail (22 studies) and Tyrer-Cuzick and co-workers (12 studies) were validated or modified for European populations. Family history of BC was the most frequently included predictor (31 models), while body mass index (BMI) and alcohol consumption (26 and 21 models, respectively) were the lifestyle predictors most often included, followed by smoking and physical activity (7 and 6 models respectively). Overall, for lifestyle predictors, their modest predictive contribution was greater for riskier lifestyle levels, though highly variable model estimates across different models. CONCLUSIONS Given the increasing BC incidence rates in Europe, risk models utilising readily available risk factors could greatly aid in widening the population coverage of screening efforts, while the addition of lifestyle factors could help improving model performance and serve as intervention targets of prevention programmes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elly Mertens
- Unit of Non-Communicable Diseases, Department of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nationalestraat 155, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium.
| | - Antonio Barrenechea-Pulache
- Unit of Non-Communicable Diseases, Department of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nationalestraat 155, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Diana Sagastume
- Unit of Non-Communicable Diseases, Department of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nationalestraat 155, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Maria Salve Vasquez
- Health Information, Scientific Institute of Public Health (Sciensano), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Stefanie Vandevijvere
- Health Information, Scientific Institute of Public Health (Sciensano), Brussels, Belgium
| | - José L Peñalvo
- Unit of Non-Communicable Diseases, Department of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nationalestraat 155, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium
- Global Health Institute, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Luoh SW, Minnier J, Zhao H, Gao L. Predicting Breast Cancer Risk for Women Veterans of African Ancestry in the Million Veteran Program. Health Equity 2023; 7:303-306. [PMID: 37284538 PMCID: PMC10240329 DOI: 10.1089/heq.2023.0011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/23/2023] [Indexed: 06/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer and, therefore, a major health threat for women in the United States and worldwide. We have seen over the years major advances in breast cancer prevention and care. Breast cancer screening with mammography leads to reduction in breast cancer mortality, and breast cancer prevention treatment with antiestrogens results in reduction in breast cancer incidence. More progress, however, is urgently needed for this common cancer that affects 1 in 11 American women in their lifetime. Not all women have the same breast cancer risk. A personalized approach is highly desirable as women with higher breast cancer risk may benefit from more intense breast cancer screening and/or prevention intervention while lower risk women may be spared with the cost, inconvenience, and emotional burden of these procedures. In addition to age, demographics, family history, lifestyle, and personal health, genetics is an important determinant of an individual's risk for breast cancer. Over the past 10 years, advances in cancer genomics identified multiple common genetic variants from population studies that collectively can contribute significantly to an individual's breast cancer risk. The effects of these genetic variants can be summarized as a "polygenic risk score" (PRS). We are among the first groups to prospectively evaluate the performance of these risk prediction instruments among women veterans of the Million Veteran Program (MVP). A 313-variant PRS (PRS313) predicted incident breast cancer for a prospective cohort of European (EUR) ancestry women veterans with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.622. The PRS313 performed less well for AFR ancestry however, with an AUC of 0.579. This is not surprising as most genome-wide association studies were conducted in people of European ancestry. This is an important area of health disparity and unmet need. The large population size and diversity of the MVP provide a unique and important opportunity to explore novel approaches to produce accurate and clinically useful genetic risk prediction instruments for minority populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shiuh-Wen Luoh
- VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon, USA
- Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Jessica Minnier
- VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon, USA
- Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
- OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Hongyu Zhao
- Department of Biostatistics, Yale School of Public Health, VA Connecticut Health Care System, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Lina Gao
- VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon, USA
- Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Tshiaba PT, Ratman DK, Sun JM, Tunstall TS, Levy B, Shah PS, Weitzel JN, Rabinowitz M, Kumar A, Im KM. Integration of a Cross-Ancestry Polygenic Model With Clinical Risk Factors Improves Breast Cancer Risk Stratification. JCO Precis Oncol 2023; 7:e2200447. [PMID: 36809055 DOI: 10.1200/po.22.00447] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/23/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To develop and validate a cross-ancestry integrated risk score (caIRS) that combines a cross-ancestry polygenic risk score (caPRS) with a clinical estimator for breast cancer (BC) risk. We hypothesized that the caIRS is a better predictor of BC risk than clinical risk factors across diverse ancestry groups. METHODS We used diverse retrospective cohort data with longitudinal follow-up to develop a caPRS and integrate it with the Tyrer-Cuzick (T-C) clinical model. We tested the association between the caIRS and BC risk in two validation cohorts including > 130,000 women. We compared model discrimination for 5-year and remaining lifetime BC risk between the caIRS and T-C and assessed how the caIRS would affect screening in the clinic. RESULTS The caIRS outperformed T-C alone for all populations tested in both validation cohorts and contributed significantly to risk prediction beyond T-C. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve improved from 0.57 to 0.65, and the odds ratio per standard deviation increased from 1.35 (95% CI, 1.27 to 1.43) to 1.79 (95% CI, 1.70 to 1.88) in validation cohort 1 with similar improvements observed in validation cohort 2. We observed the largest gain in positive predictive value using the caIRS in Black/African American women across both validation cohorts, with an approximately two-fold increase and an equivalent negative predictive value as the T-C. In a multivariate, age-adjusted logistic regression model including both caIRS and T-C, caIRS remained significant, indicating that caIRS provides information over T-C alone. CONCLUSION Adding a caPRS to the T-C model improves BC risk stratification for women of multiple ancestries, which could have implications for screening recommendations and prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Brynn Levy
- MyOme Inc, Menlo Park, CA.,Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Pang S, Yengo L, Nelson CP, Bourier F, Zeng L, Li L, Kessler T, Erdmann J, Mägi R, Läll K, Metspalu A, Mueller-Myhsok B, Samani NJ, Visscher PM, Schunkert H. Genetic and modifiable risk factors combine multiplicatively in common disease. Clin Res Cardiol 2023; 112:247-257. [PMID: 35987817 PMCID: PMC9898372 DOI: 10.1007/s00392-022-02081-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2022] [Accepted: 08/02/2022] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The joint contribution of genetic and environmental exposures to noncommunicable diseases is not well characterized. OBJECTIVES We modeled the cumulative effects of common risk alleles and their prevalence variations with classical risk factors. METHODS We analyzed mathematically and statistically numbers and effect sizes of established risk alleles for coronary artery disease (CAD) and other conditions. RESULTS In UK Biobank, risk alleles counts in the lowest (175.4) and highest decile (205.7) of the distribution differed by only 16.9%, which nevertheless increased CAD prevalence 3.4-fold (p < 0.01). Irrespective of the affected gene, a single risk allele multiplied the effects of all others carried by a person, resulting in a 2.9-fold stronger effect size in the top versus the bottom decile (p < 0.01) and an exponential increase in risk (R > 0.94). Classical risk factors shifted effect sizes to the steep upslope of the logarithmic function linking risk allele numbers with CAD prevalence. Similar phenomena were observed in the Estonian Biobank and for risk alleles affecting diabetes mellitus, breast and prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS Alleles predisposing to common diseases can be carried safely in large numbers, but few additional ones lead to sharp risk increments. Here, we describe exponential functions by which risk alleles combine interchangeably but multiplicatively with each other and with modifiable risk factors to affect prevalence. Our data suggest that the biological systems underlying these diseases are modulated by hundreds of genes but become only fragile when a narrow window of total risk, irrespective of its genetic or environmental origins, has been passed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shichao Pang
- Department of Cardiology, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Lazarettstr. 36, 80636, Munich, Germany
| | - Loic Yengo
- Institute for Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Christopher P Nelson
- Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.,NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, UK
| | - Felix Bourier
- Department of Cardiology, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Lazarettstr. 36, 80636, Munich, Germany.,Deutsches Zentrum Ffür Herz- und Kreislauferkrankungen (DZHK), Partner Site Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany
| | - Lingyao Zeng
- Department of Cardiology, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Lazarettstr. 36, 80636, Munich, Germany
| | - Ling Li
- Department of Cardiology, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Lazarettstr. 36, 80636, Munich, Germany
| | - Thorsten Kessler
- Department of Cardiology, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Lazarettstr. 36, 80636, Munich, Germany.,Deutsches Zentrum Ffür Herz- und Kreislauferkrankungen (DZHK), Partner Site Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany
| | - Jeanette Erdmann
- Institute for Cardiogenetics, and University Heart Center, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.,DZHK (German Research Centre for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site Hamburg/Lübeck/Kiel, Hamburg/Kiel/Lübeck, Germany
| | - Reedik Mägi
- Estonian Genome Centre, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Kristi Läll
- Estonian Genome Centre, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Andres Metspalu
- Estonian Genome Centre, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Bertram Mueller-Myhsok
- Statistical Genetics, Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry, Munich, Germany.,Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.,Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (SyNergy), Munich, Germany
| | - Nilesh J Samani
- Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.,NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, UK
| | - Peter M Visscher
- Institute for Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Heribert Schunkert
- Department of Cardiology, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Lazarettstr. 36, 80636, Munich, Germany. .,Deutsches Zentrum Ffür Herz- und Kreislauferkrankungen (DZHK), Partner Site Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Lee A, Mavaddat N, Cunningham A, Carver T, Ficorella L, Archer S, Walter FM, Tischkowitz M, Roberts J, Usher-Smith J, Simard J, Schmidt MK, Devilee P, Zadnik V, Jürgens H, Mouret-Fourme E, De Pauw A, Rookus M, Mooij TM, Pharoah PP, Easton DF, Antoniou AC. Enhancing the BOADICEA cancer risk prediction model to incorporate new data on RAD51C, RAD51D, BARD1 updates to tumour pathology and cancer incidence. J Med Genet 2022; 59:1206-1218. [PMID: 36162851 PMCID: PMC9691826 DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2022-108471] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2022] [Accepted: 04/23/2022] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Lee
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Nasim Mavaddat
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Alex Cunningham
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Tim Carver
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Lorenzo Ficorella
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Stephanie Archer
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Fiona M Walter
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Marc Tischkowitz
- Department of Medical Genetics and National Institute for Health Research, Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jonathan Roberts
- Department of Medical Genetics and National Institute for Health Research, Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Juliet Usher-Smith
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jacques Simard
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Université Laval, Quebec, Quebec, Canada
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Peter Devilee
- Department of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Vesna Zadnik
- Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, Institute of Oncology, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Hannes Jürgens
- Clinic of Hematology and Oncology, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia
| | | | | | - Matti Rookus
- Department of Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Thea M Mooij
- Department of Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Paul Pd Pharoah
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Chitkara A, Mesa-Eguiagaray I, Wild SH, Hall PS, Cameron DA, Sims AH, Figueroa JD. Reproductive history differs by molecular subtypes of breast cancer among women aged ≤ 50 years in Scotland diagnosed 2009–2016: a cross-sectional study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2022; 196:379-387. [PMID: 36116093 PMCID: PMC9581868 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-022-06721-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2022] [Accepted: 08/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
Background The aetiology of breast cancers diagnosed ≤ 50 years of age remains unclear. We aimed to compare reproductive risk factors between molecular subtypes of breast cancer, thereby suggesting possible aetiologic clues, using routinely collected cancer registry and maternity data in Scotland. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of 4108 women aged ≤ 50 years with primary breast cancer diagnosed between 2009 and 2016 linked to maternity data. Molecular subtypes of breast cancer were defined using immunohistochemistry (IHC) tumour markers, oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2), and tumour grade. Age-adjusted polytomous logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association of number of births, age at first birth and time since last birth with IHC-defined breast cancer subtypes. Luminal A-like was the reference compared to luminal B-like (HER2−), luminal B-like (HER2+), HER2-overexpressed and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Results Mean (SD) for number of births, age at first birth and time since last birth was 1.4 (1.2) births, 27.2 (6.1) years and 11.0 (6.8) years, respectively. Luminal A-like was the most common subtype (40%), while HER2-overexpressed and TNBC represented 5% and 15% of cases, respectively. Larger numbers of births were recorded among women with HER2-overexpressed and TNBC compared with luminal A-like tumours (> 3 vs 0 births, OR 1.87, 95%CI 1.18–2.96; OR 1.44, 95%CI 1.07–1.94, respectively). Women with their most recent birth > 10 years compared to < 2 years were less likely to have TNBC tumours compared to luminal A-like (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.41–0.97). We found limited evidence for differences by subtype with age at first birth. Conclusion Number of births and time since last birth differed by molecular subtypes of breast cancer among women aged ≤ 50 years. Analyses using linked routine electronic medical records by molecularly defined tumour pathology data can be used to investigate the aetiology and prognosis of cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anushri Chitkara
- Usher Institute, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK
| | - Ines Mesa-Eguiagaray
- Usher Institute, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK
| | - Sarah H Wild
- Usher Institute, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK
| | - Peter S Hall
- Usher Institute, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK
- Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK
| | - David A Cameron
- Usher Institute, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK
- Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK
| | - Andrew H Sims
- Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK
| | - Jonine D Figueroa
- Usher Institute, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.
- Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Lehman CD, Mercaldo S, Lamb LR, King TA, Ellisen LW, Specht M, Tamimi RM. Deep Learning vs Traditional Breast Cancer Risk Models to Support Risk-Based Mammography Screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2022; 114:1355-1363. [PMID: 35876790 PMCID: PMC9552206 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djac142] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2022] [Revised: 05/11/2022] [Accepted: 07/01/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Deep learning breast cancer risk models demonstrate improved accuracy compared with traditional risk models but have not been prospectively tested. We compared the accuracy of a deep learning risk score derived from the patient's prior mammogram to traditional risk scores to prospectively identify patients with cancer in a cohort due for screening. METHODS We collected data on 119 139 bilateral screening mammograms in 57 617 consecutive patients screened at 5 facilities between September 18, 2017, and February 1, 2021. Patient demographics were retrieved from electronic medical records, cancer outcomes determined through regional tumor registry linkage, and comparisons made across risk models using Wilcoxon and Pearson χ2 2-sided tests. Deep learning, Tyrer-Cuzick, and National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (NCI BCRAT) risk models were compared with respect to performance metrics and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS Cancers detected per thousand patients screened were higher in patients at increased risk by the deep learning model (8.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.9 to 9.4) compared with Tyrer-Cuzick (4.4, 95% CI = 3.9 to 4.9) and NCI BCRAT (3.8, 95% CI = 3.3 to 4.3) models (P < .001). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the deep learning model (0.68, 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.70) was higher compared with Tyrer-Cuzick (0.57, 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.60) and NCI BCRAT (0.57, 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.60) models. Simulated screening of the top 50th percentile risk by the deep learning model captured statistically significantly more patients with cancer compared with Tyrer-Cuzick and NCI BCRAT models (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS A deep learning model to assess breast cancer risk can support feasible and effective risk-based screening and is superior to traditional models to identify patients destined to develop cancer in large screening cohorts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Constance D Lehman
- Correspondence to: Constance D. Lehman, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General
Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Radiology, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114 USA
(e-mail: )
| | - Sarah Mercaldo
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA,Harvard Medical School, Radiology, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Leslie R Lamb
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA,Harvard Medical School, Radiology, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Tari A King
- Harvard Medical School, Surgery, Boston, MA, USA,Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston, MA,
USA
| | - Leif W Ellisen
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA,Harvard Medical School, Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Michelle Specht
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA,Harvard Medical School, Surgery, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Rulla M Tamimi
- Weill Cornell Medicine, Epidemiology and Population Health
Sciences, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Chen F, Darst BF, Madduri RK, Rodriguez AA, Sheng X, Rentsch CT, Andrews C, Tang W, Kibel AS, Plym A, Cho K, Jalloh M, Gueye SM, Niang L, Ogunbiyi OJ, Popoola O, Adebiyi AO, Aisuodionoe-Shadrach OI, Ajibola HO, Jamda MA, Oluwole OP, Nwegbu M, Adusei B, Mante S, Darkwa-Abrahams A, Mensah JE, Adjei AA, Diop H, Lachance J, Rebbeck TR, Ambs S, Gaziano JM, Justice AC, Conti DV, Haiman CA. Validation of a multi-ancestry polygenic risk score and age-specific risks of prostate cancer: A meta-analysis within diverse populations. eLife 2022; 11:78304. [PMID: 35801699 PMCID: PMC9322982 DOI: 10.7554/elife.78304] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2022] [Accepted: 07/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fei Chen
- Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
| | - Burcu F Darst
- Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States.,Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States
| | | | | | - Xin Sheng
- Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
| | - Christopher T Rentsch
- Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, United States.,VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, United States.,London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Caroline Andrews
- Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and Division of Population Sciences, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
| | - Wei Tang
- Laboratory of Human Carcinogenesis, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, United States
| | - Adam S Kibel
- Department of Surgery, Urology Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
| | - Anna Plym
- Department of Surgery, Urology Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.,Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, United States
| | - Kelly Cho
- VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, United States.,Division of Aging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, United States
| | | | | | | | - Olufemi J Ogunbiyi
- College of Medicine, University of Ibadan and University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria
| | - Olufemi Popoola
- College of Medicine, University of Ibadan and University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria
| | - Akindele O Adebiyi
- College of Medicine, University of Ibadan and University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria
| | - Oseremen I Aisuodionoe-Shadrach
- College of Health Sciences, University of Abuja, University of Abuja Teaching Hospital and Cancer Science Center, Abuja, Nigeria
| | - Hafees O Ajibola
- College of Health Sciences, University of Abuja, University of Abuja Teaching Hospital and Cancer Science Center, Abuja, Nigeria
| | - Mustapha A Jamda
- College of Health Sciences, University of Abuja, University of Abuja Teaching Hospital and Cancer Science Center, Abuja, Nigeria
| | - Olabode P Oluwole
- College of Health Sciences, University of Abuja, University of Abuja Teaching Hospital and Cancer Science Center, Abuja, Nigeria
| | - Maxwell Nwegbu
- College of Health Sciences, University of Abuja, University of Abuja Teaching Hospital and Cancer Science Center, Abuja, Nigeria
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Halimatou Diop
- Laboratoires Bacteriologie et Virologie, Hôpital Aristide Le Dantec, Dakar, Senegal
| | - Joseph Lachance
- School of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, United States
| | - Timothy R Rebbeck
- Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and Division of Population Sciences, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
| | - Stefan Ambs
- Laboratory of Human Carcinogenesis, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, United States
| | - J Michael Gaziano
- VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, United States.,Division of Aging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, United States.,Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
| | - Amy C Justice
- Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, United States.,VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, United States
| | - David V Conti
- Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
| | - Christopher A Haiman
- Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Moorthie S, Babb de Villiers C, Burton H, Kroese M, Antoniou AC, Bhattacharjee P, Garcia-Closas M, Hall P, Schmidt MK. Towards implementation of comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction tools in health care for personalised prevention. Prev Med 2022; 159:107075. [PMID: 35526672 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107075] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2021] [Revised: 04/05/2022] [Accepted: 05/02/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Advances in knowledge about breast cancer risk factors have led to the development of more comprehensive risk models. These integrate information on a variety of risk factors such as lifestyle, genetics, family history, and breast density. These risk models have the potential to deliver more personalised breast cancer prevention. This is through improving accuracy of risk estimates, enabling more effective targeting of preventive options and creating novel prevention pathways through enabling risk estimation in a wider variety of populations than currently possible. The systematic use of risk tools as part of population screening programmes is one such example. A clear understanding of how such tools can contribute to the goal of personalised prevention can aid in understanding and addressing barriers to implementation. In this paper we describe how emerging models, and their associated tools can contribute to the goal of personalised healthcare for breast cancer through health promotion, early disease detection (screening) and improved management of women at higher risk of disease. We outline how addressing specific challenges on the level of communication, evidence, evaluation, regulation, and acceptance, can facilitate implementation and uptake.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sowmiya Moorthie
- PHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Cambridge Public Health, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Forvie Site, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0SR, United Kingdom.
| | | | - Hilary Burton
- PHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Mark Kroese
- PHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Proteeti Bhattacharjee
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Montserrat Garcia-Closas
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, USA
| | - Per Hall
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Oncology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Ho PJ, Ho WK, Khng AJ, Yeoh YS, Tan BKT, Tan EY, Lim GH, Tan SM, Tan VKM, Yip CH, Mohd-Taib NA, Wong FY, Lim EH, Ngeow J, Chay WY, Leong LCH, Yong WS, Seah CM, Tang SW, Ng CWQ, Yan Z, Lee JA, Rahmat K, Islam T, Hassan T, Tai MC, Khor CC, Yuan JM, Koh WP, Sim X, Dunning AM, Bolla MK, Antoniou AC, Teo SH, Li J, Hartman M. Overlap of high-risk individuals predicted by family history, and genetic and non-genetic breast cancer risk prediction models: implications for risk stratification. BMC Med 2022; 20:150. [PMID: 35468796 PMCID: PMC9040206 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02334-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2021] [Accepted: 03/14/2022] [Indexed: 02/02/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Family history, and genetic and non-genetic risk factors can stratify women according to their individual risk of developing breast cancer. The extent of overlap between these risk predictors is not clear. METHODS In this case-only analysis involving 7600 Asian breast cancer patients diagnosed between age 30 and 75 years, we examined identification of high-risk patients based on positive family history, the Gail model 5-year absolute risk [5yAR] above 1.3%, breast cancer predisposition genes (protein-truncating variants [PTV] in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, or TP53), and polygenic risk score (PRS) 5yAR above 1.3%. RESULTS Correlation between 5yAR (at age of diagnosis) predicted by PRS and the Gail model was low (r=0.27). Fifty-three percent of breast cancer patients (n=4041) were considered high risk by one or more classification criteria. Positive family history, PTV carriership, PRS, or the Gail model identified 1247 (16%), 385 (5%), 2774 (36%), and 1592 (21%) patients who were considered at high risk, respectively. In a subset of 3227 women aged below 50 years, the four models studied identified 470 (15%), 213 (7%), 769 (24%), and 325 (10%) unique patients who were considered at high risk, respectively. For younger women, PRS and PTVs together identified 745 (59% of 1276) high-risk individuals who were not identified by the Gail model or family history. CONCLUSIONS Family history and genetic and non-genetic risk stratification tools have the potential to complement one another to identify women at high risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peh Joo Ho
- Genome Institute of Singapore, Human Genetics, Singapore, Singapore
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
- Department of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Weang Kee Ho
- Cancer Research Malaysia, 1 Jalan SS12/1A, 47500 Subang Jaya, Selangor Malaysia
- School of Mathematical Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Jalan Broga, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor Malaysia
| | - Alexis J. Khng
- Genome Institute of Singapore, Human Genetics, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Yen Shing Yeoh
- Department of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Benita Kiat-Tee Tan
- Department of General Surgery, Sengkang General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
- Department of Breast Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
- Division of Surgery and Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Ern Yu Tan
- Department of General Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 308433 Singapore
- Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technology University, Singapore, Singapore
- Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Geok Hoon Lim
- KK Breast Department, KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Singapore, 229899 Singapore
| | - Su-Ming Tan
- Division of Breast Surgery, Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Veronique Kiak Mien Tan
- Department of Breast Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
- Division of Surgery and Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Cheng-Har Yip
- Subang Jaya Medical Centre, Subang Jaya, Selangor Malaysia
| | - Nur-Aishah Mohd-Taib
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Universiti Malaya Cancer Research Institute, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Fuh Yong Wong
- Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Elaine Hsuen Lim
- Division of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Joanne Ngeow
- Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technology University, Singapore, Singapore
- Division of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
- Cancer Genetics Service, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Wen Yee Chay
- Division of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Lester Chee Hao Leong
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Wei Sean Yong
- Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Chin Mui Seah
- Division of Breast Surgery, Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Siau Wei Tang
- Department of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Celene Wei Qi Ng
- Department of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Zhiyan Yan
- KK Breast Department, KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Singapore, 229899 Singapore
| | - Jung Ah Lee
- KK Breast Department, KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Singapore, 229899 Singapore
| | - Kartini Rahmat
- Healthy Longevity Translational Research Programme, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Tania Islam
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Universiti Malaya Cancer Research Institute, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Tiara Hassan
- Cancer Research Malaysia, 1 Jalan SS12/1A, 47500 Subang Jaya, Selangor Malaysia
| | - Mei-Chee Tai
- Cancer Research Malaysia, 1 Jalan SS12/1A, 47500 Subang Jaya, Selangor Malaysia
| | - Chiea Chuen Khor
- Genome Institute of Singapore, Human Genetics, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Jian-Min Yuan
- UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA USA
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, PA USA
| | - Woon-Puay Koh
- Healthy Longevity Translational Research Programme, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
- Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences, Agency for Science Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, 117609 Singapore
| | - Xueling Sim
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Alison M. Dunning
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Manjeet K. Bolla
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Antonis C. Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Soo-Hwang Teo
- Cancer Research Malaysia, 1 Jalan SS12/1A, 47500 Subang Jaya, Selangor Malaysia
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Jalan Universiti, 50630 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Jingmei Li
- Genome Institute of Singapore, Human Genetics, Singapore, Singapore
- Department of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Mikael Hartman
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
- Department of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
- Department of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
He YQ, Wang TM, Ji M, Mai ZM, Tang M, Wang R, Zhou Y, Zheng Y, Xiao R, Yang D, Wu Z, Deng C, Zhang J, Xue W, Dong S, Zhan J, Cai Y, Li F, Wu B, Liao Y, Zhou T, Zheng M, Jia Y, Li D, Cao L, Yuan L, Zhang W, Luo L, Tong X, Wu Y, Li X, Zhang P, Zheng X, Zhang S, Hu Y, Qin W, Deng B, Liang X, Fan P, Feng Y, Song J, Xie SH, Chang ET, Zhang Z, Huang G, Xu M, Feng L, Jin G, Bei J, Cao S, Liu Q, Kozlakidis Z, Mai H, Sun Y, Ma J, Hu Z, Liu J, Lung ML, Adami HO, Shen H, Ye W, Lam TH, Zeng YX, Jia WH. A polygenic risk score for nasopharyngeal carcinoma shows potential for risk stratification and personalized screening. Nat Commun 2022; 13:1966. [PMID: 35414057 PMCID: PMC9005522 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-29570-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2021] [Accepted: 03/23/2022] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have the potential to identify individuals at risk of diseases, optimizing treatment, and predicting survival outcomes. Here, we construct and validate a genome-wide association study (GWAS) derived PRS for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), using a multi-center study of six populations (6 059 NPC cases and 7 582 controls), and evaluate its utility in a nested case-control study. We show that the PRS enables effective identification of NPC high-risk individuals (AUC = 0.65) and improves the risk prediction with the PRS incremental deciles in each population (Ptrend ranging from 2.79 × 10-7 to 4.79 × 10-44). By incorporating the PRS into EBV-serology-based NPC screening, the test's positive predictive value (PPV) is increased from an average of 4.84% to 8.38% and 11.91% in the top 10% and 5% PRS, respectively. In summary, the GWAS-derived PRS, together with the EBV test, significantly improves NPC risk stratification and informs personalized screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yong-Qiao He
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Tong-Min Wang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Mingfang Ji
- Cancer Research Institute of Zhongshan City, Zhongshan Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhongshan, China
| | - Zhi-Ming Mai
- School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R., China
- Center for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Research (CNPCR), The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R., China
- Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Minzhong Tang
- Wuzhou Red Cross Hospital, Wuzhou, Guangxi, P.R. China
- Wuzhou Cancer Center, Wuzhou, Guangxi, P.R. China
| | - Ruozheng Wang
- Key Laboratory of Cancer Immunotherapy and Radiotherapy, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Ürümqi, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, 830011, P.R. China
| | - Yifeng Zhou
- Department of Genetics, Medical College of Soochow University, Suzhou, China
| | - Yuming Zheng
- Wuzhou Red Cross Hospital, Wuzhou, Guangxi, P.R. China
- Wuzhou Cancer Center, Wuzhou, Guangxi, P.R. China
| | - Ruowen Xiao
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Dawei Yang
- School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, P.R. China
| | - Ziyi Wu
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Changmi Deng
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Jiangbo Zhang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Wenqiong Xue
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Siqi Dong
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Jiyun Zhan
- Public Health Service Center of Xiaolan Town, Zhongshan City, Guangdong, China
| | - Yonglin Cai
- Wuzhou Red Cross Hospital, Wuzhou, Guangxi, P.R. China
| | - Fugui Li
- Cancer Research Institute of Zhongshan City, Zhongshan Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhongshan, China
| | - Biaohua Wu
- Cancer Research Institute of Zhongshan City, Zhongshan Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhongshan, China
| | - Ying Liao
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Ting Zhou
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Meiqi Zheng
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Yijing Jia
- School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, P.R. China
| | - Danhua Li
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Lianjing Cao
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Leilei Yuan
- School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, P.R. China
| | - Wenli Zhang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Luting Luo
- School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, P.R. China
| | - Xiating Tong
- School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, P.R. China
| | - Yanxia Wu
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Xizhao Li
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Peifen Zhang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Xiaohui Zheng
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Shaodan Zhang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Yezhu Hu
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Weiling Qin
- Wuzhou Red Cross Hospital, Wuzhou, Guangxi, P.R. China
| | - Bisen Deng
- Public Health Service Center of Xiaolan Town, Zhongshan City, Guangdong, China
| | - Xuejun Liang
- Public Health Service Center of Xiaolan Town, Zhongshan City, Guangdong, China
| | - Peiwen Fan
- State Key Laboratory of Pathogenesis, Prevention and Treatment of High Incidence Diseases in Central Asia, Departments of Institute for Cancer Research, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Ürümqi, 830011, P.R. China
| | - Yaning Feng
- Key Laboratory of Oncology of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, Ürümqi, 830011, China
| | - Jia Song
- Departments of Institute for Cancer Research, The Third Affiliated Teaching Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Affiliated Cancer Hospital, Ürümqi, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, 830010, P.R. China
| | - Shang-Hang Xie
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Ellen T Chang
- Center for Health Sciences, Exponent, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, USA
- Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Zhe Zhang
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China
| | - Guangwu Huang
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China
| | - Miao Xu
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Lin Feng
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Guangfu Jin
- Department of Epidemiology, International Joint Research Center on Environment and Human Health, Center for Global Health, Jiangsu Key Lab of Cancer Biomarkers, Prevention and Treatment, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Jinxin Bei
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Sumei Cao
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Qing Liu
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Zisis Kozlakidis
- Division of Infection and Immunity, Faculty of Medical Sciences - University College London, London, UK
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France
| | - Haiqiang Mai
- Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ying Sun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jun Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhibin Hu
- Department of Epidemiology, International Joint Research Center on Environment and Human Health, Center for Global Health, Jiangsu Key Lab of Cancer Biomarkers, Prevention and Treatment, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Jianjun Liu
- Human Genetics, Genome Institute of Singapore, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore
- Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Maria Li Lung
- Center for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Research (CNPCR), The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R., China
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R., China
| | - Hans-Olov Adami
- Clinical Effectiveness Group, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Hongbing Shen
- Department of Epidemiology, International Joint Research Center on Environment and Human Health, Center for Global Health, Jiangsu Key Lab of Cancer Biomarkers, Prevention and Treatment, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
| | - Weimin Ye
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
- Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics & Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Gastrointestinal Cancer, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
| | - Tai-Hing Lam
- School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R., China.
- Center for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Research (CNPCR), The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R., China.
| | - Yi-Xin Zeng
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Wei-Hua Jia
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
- School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, P.R. China.
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Clift AK, Dodwell D, Lord S, Petrou S, Brady SM, Collins GS, Hippisley-Cox J. The current status of risk-stratified breast screening. Br J Cancer 2022; 126:533-550. [PMID: 34703006 PMCID: PMC8854575 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01550-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2021] [Revised: 08/25/2021] [Accepted: 09/14/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Apart from high-risk scenarios such as the presence of highly penetrant genetic mutations, breast screening typically comprises mammography or tomosynthesis strategies defined by age. However, age-based screening ignores the range of breast cancer risks that individual women may possess and is antithetical to the ambitions of personalised early detection. Whilst screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, this is at the risk of potentially significant harms including overdiagnosis with overtreatment, and psychological morbidity associated with false positives. In risk-stratified screening, individualised risk assessment may inform screening intensity/interval, starting age, imaging modality used, or even decisions not to screen. However, clear evidence for its benefits and harms needs to be established. In this scoping review, the authors summarise the established and emerging evidence regarding several critical dependencies for successful risk-stratified breast screening: risk prediction model performance, epidemiological studies, retrospective clinical evaluations, health economic evaluations and qualitative research on feasibility and acceptability. Family history, breast density or reproductive factors are not on their own suitable for precisely estimating risk and risk prediction models increasingly incorporate combinations of demographic, clinical, genetic and imaging-related parameters. Clinical evaluations of risk-stratified screening are currently limited. Epidemiological evidence is sparse, and randomised trials only began in recent years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ash Kieran Clift
- Cancer Research UK Oxford Centre, Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - David Dodwell
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Simon Lord
- Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Julia Hippisley-Cox
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Hibler EA, Fought AJ, Kershaw KN, Molsberry R, Nowakowski V, Lindner D. Novel Interactive Tool for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Assessment (Bright Pink Assess Your Risk): Development and Usability Study. J Med Internet Res 2022; 24:e29124. [PMID: 35200148 PMCID: PMC8914739 DOI: 10.2196/29124] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2021] [Revised: 07/23/2021] [Accepted: 12/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancer is significantly higher among women with genetic susceptibility or a strong family history. However, current risk assessment tools and clinical practices may identify only 10% of asymptomatic carriers of susceptibility genes. Bright Pink developed the Assess Your Risk (AYR) tool to estimate breast and ovarian cancer risk through a user-friendly, informative web-based quiz for risk assessment at the population level. Objective This study aims to present the AYR tool, describe AYR users, and present evidence that AYR works as expected by comparing classification using the AYR tool with gold standard genetic testing guidelines. Methods The AYR is a recently developed population-level risk assessment tool that includes 26 questions based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and factors from other commonly used risk assessment tools. We included all women who completed the AYR between November 2018 and January 2019, with the exception of self-reported cancer or no knowledge of family history. We compared AYR classifications with those that were independently created using NCCN criteria using measures of validity and the McNemar test. Results There were 143,657 AYR completions, and most participants were either at increased or average risk for breast cancer or ovarian cancer (137,315/143,657, 95.59%). Using our estimates of increased and average risk as the gold standard, based on the NCCN guidelines, we estimated the sensitivity and specificity for the AYR algorithm–generated risk categories as 100% and 89.9%, respectively (P<.001). The specificity improved when we considered the additional questions asked by the AYR to define increased risk, which were not examined by the NCCN criteria. By race, ethnicity, and age group; we found that the lowest observed specificity was for the Asian race (85.9%) and the 30 to 39 years age group (87.6%) for the AYR-generated categories compared with the NCCN criteria. Conclusions These results demonstrate that Bright Pink’s AYR is an accurate tool for use by the general population to identify women at increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. We plan to validate the tool longitudinally in future studies, including the impact of race, ethnicity, and age on breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth A Hibler
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Angela J Fought
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Kiarri N Kershaw
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Rebecca Molsberry
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Virginia Nowakowski
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States
| | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
The WID-BC-index identifies women with primary poor prognostic breast cancer based on DNA methylation in cervical samples. Nat Commun 2022; 13:449. [PMID: 35105882 PMCID: PMC8807602 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-27918-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2021] [Accepted: 12/02/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Genetic and non-genetic factors contribute to breast cancer development. An epigenome-based signature capturing these components in easily accessible samples could identify women at risk. Here, we analyse the DNA methylome in 2,818 cervical, 357 and 227 matched buccal and blood samples respectively, and 42 breast tissue samples from women with and without breast cancer. Utilising cervical liquid-based cytology samples, we develop the DNA methylation-based Women’s risk IDentification for Breast Cancer index (WID-BC-index) that identifies women with breast cancer with an AUROC (Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic) of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80–0.88) and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.76–0.86) in internal and external validation sets, respectively. CpGs at progesterone receptor binding sites hypomethylated in normal breast tissue of women with breast cancer or in BRCA mutation carriers are also hypomethylated in cervical samples of women with poor prognostic breast cancer. Our data indicate that a systemic epigenetic programming defect is highly prevalent in women who develop breast cancer. Further studies validating the WID-BC-index may enable clinical implementation for monitoring breast cancer risk. Breast cancer is most commonly diagnosed via a needle biopsy. In this study, the authors show that cervical samples from women with breast cancer have a methylation signature different to that of healthy controls.
Collapse
|
25
|
Houssami N, Kerlikowske K. AI as a new paradigm for risk-based screening for breast cancer. Nat Med 2022; 28:29-30. [PMID: 35027759 DOI: 10.1038/s41591-021-01649-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Nehmat Houssami
- The Daffodil Centre, University of Sydney-a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| | - Karla Kerlikowske
- Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Saghatchian M, Abehsera M, Yamgnane A, Geyl C, Gauthier E, Hélin V, Bazire M, Villoing-Gaudé L, Reyes C, Gentien D, Golmard L, Stoppa-Lyonnet D. Feasibility of personalized screening and prevention recommendations in the general population through breast cancer risk assessment: results from a dedicated risk clinic. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2022; 192:375-383. [PMID: 34994879 PMCID: PMC8739506 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-021-06445-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2021] [Accepted: 11/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE A personalized approach to prevention and early detection based on known risk factors should contribute to early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. We initiated a risk assessment clinic for all women wishing to undergo an individual breast cancer risk assessment. METHODS Women underwent a complete breast cancer assessment including a questionnaire, mammogram with evaluation of breast density, collection of saliva sample, consultation with a radiologist, and a breast cancer specialist. Women aged 40 or older, with 0 or 1 first-degree relative with breast cancer diagnosed after the age of 40 were eligible for risk assessment using MammoRisk, a machine learning-based tool that provides an individual 5-year estimated risk of developing breast cancer based on the patient's clinical data and breast density, with or without polygenic risk scores (PRSs). DNA was extracted from saliva samples for genotyping of 76 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. The individual risk was communicated to the patient, with individualized screening and prevention recommendations. RESULTS A total of 290 women underwent breast cancer assessment, among which 196 women (68%) were eligible for risk assessment using MammoRisk (median age 52, range 40-72). When PRS was added to MammoRisk, 40% (n = 78) of patients were assigned a different risk category, with 28% (n = 55) of patients changing from intermediate to moderate or high risk. CONCLUSION Individual risk assessment is feasible in the general population. Screening recommendations could be given based on individual risk. The use of PRS changed the risk score and screening recommendations in 40% of women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mahasti Saghatchian
- American Hospital of Paris, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France. .,Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France.
| | - Marc Abehsera
- American Hospital of Paris, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France
| | | | - Caroline Geyl
- American Hospital of Paris, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Lisa Golmard
- INSERM U830 D.R.U.M. Team, Institut Curie Hospital, Paris-University, Paris, France
| | - Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet
- Institut Curie, Paris, France.,INSERM U830 D.R.U.M. Team, Institut Curie Hospital, Paris-University, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Hurson AN, Pal Choudhury P, Gao C, Hüsing A, Eriksson M, Shi M, Jones ME, Evans DGR, Milne RL, Gaudet MM, Vachon CM, Chasman DI, Easton DF, Schmidt MK, Kraft P, Garcia-Closas M, Chatterjee N. Prospective evaluation of a breast-cancer risk model integrating classical risk factors and polygenic risk in 15 cohorts from six countries. Int J Epidemiol 2022; 50:1897-1911. [PMID: 34999890 PMCID: PMC8743128 DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyab036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2020] [Accepted: 02/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rigorous evaluation of the calibration and discrimination of breast-cancer risk-prediction models in prospective cohorts is critical for applications under clinical guidelines. We comprehensively evaluated an integrated model incorporating classical risk factors and a 313-variant polygenic risk score (PRS) to predict breast-cancer risk. METHODS Fifteen prospective cohorts from six countries with 239 340 women (7646 incident breast-cancer cases) of European ancestry aged 19-75 years were included. Calibration of 5-year risk was assessed by comparing expected and observed proportions of cases overall and within risk categories. Risk stratification for women of European ancestry aged 50-70 years in those countries was evaluated by the proportion of women and future cases crossing clinically relevant risk thresholds. RESULTS Among women <50 years old, the median (range) expected-to-observed ratio for the integrated model across 15 cohorts was 0.9 (0.7-1.0) overall and 0.9 (0.7-1.4) at the highest-risk decile; among women ≥50 years old, these were 1.0 (0.7-1.3) and 1.2 (0.7-1.6), respectively. The proportion of women identified above a 3% 5-year risk threshold (used for recommending risk-reducing medications in the USA) ranged from 7.0% in Germany (∼841 000 of 12 million) to 17.7% in the USA (∼5.3 of 30 million). At this threshold, 14.7% of US women were reclassified by adding the PRS to classical risk factors, with identification of 12.2% of additional future cases. CONCLUSION Integrating a 313-variant PRS with classical risk factors can improve the identification of European-ancestry women at elevated risk who could benefit from targeted risk-reducing strategies under current clinical guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amber N Hurson
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Parichoy Pal Choudhury
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
- Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Chi Gao
- Program in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Anika Hüsing
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Mikael Eriksson
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska Univ Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Min Shi
- Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Michael E Jones
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - D Gareth R Evans
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary’s Hospital, Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS, Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Roger L Milne
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Mia M Gaudet
- Behavioral and Epidemiology Research Group, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Celine M Vachon
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Division of Epidemiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Daniel I Chasman
- Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute—Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute—Antoni van Leeuwenhoek hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Peter Kraft
- Program in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | - Nilanjan Chatterjee
- Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Yiangou K, Kyriacou K, Kakouri E, Marcou Y, Panayiotidis MI, Loizidou MA, Hadjisavvas A, Michailidou K. Combination of a 15-SNP Polygenic Risk Score and Classical Risk Factors for the Prediction of Breast Cancer Risk in Cypriot Women. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13184568. [PMID: 34572793 PMCID: PMC8468424 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13184568] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2021] [Revised: 09/03/2021] [Accepted: 09/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed type of cancer in women worldwide. Stratification of women based on their individual breast cancer risk could guide targeted preventative strategies and population screening. Integrated models that combine the effects of a polygenic risk score (PRS) with classical breast cancer risk factors could provide an individualized breast-cancer risk estimation. Although various studies have extensively evaluated the performance of such integrated models in populations of European ancestry, no previous studies have included individuals of Greek-Cypriot origin. To this end, we have assessed the predictive performance of a 15-SNP PRS (PRS15), in combination with classical breast-cancer risk factors, in women of Greek-Cypriot origin. This proof-of-concept study suggests that models combining genetic data with classical risk factors may be used in the future for the prediction of breast-cancer risk and, therefore, supports their potential clinical utility for targeted preventative strategies in Cypriot women. Abstract The PRS combines multiplicatively the effects of common low-risk single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and has the potential to be used for the estimation of an individual’s risk for a trait or disease. PRS has been successfully implemented for the prediction of breast cancer risk. The combination of PRS with classical breast cancer risk factors provides a more comprehensive risk estimation and could, thus, improve risk stratification and personalized preventative strategies. In this study, we assessed the predictive performance of the combined effect of PRS15 with classical breast-cancer risk factors in Cypriot women using 1109 cases and 1177 controls from the MASTOS study. The PRS15 was significantly associated with an increased breast cancer risk in Cypriot women OR (95% CI) 1.66 (1.25–2.19). The integrated risk model obtained an AUC (95% CI) 0.70 (0.67–0.72) and had the ability to stratify women according to their disease status at the extreme deciles. These results provide evidence that the combination of PRS with classical risk factors may be used in the future for the stratification of Cypriot women based on their disease risk, and support its potential clinical utility for targeted preventative actions and population screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristia Yiangou
- Department of Cancer Genetics, Therapeutics and Ultrastructural Pathology, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus; (K.Y.); (K.K.); (M.I.P.); (M.A.L.)
- The Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus
| | - Kyriacos Kyriacou
- Department of Cancer Genetics, Therapeutics and Ultrastructural Pathology, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus; (K.Y.); (K.K.); (M.I.P.); (M.A.L.)
- The Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus
| | - Eleni Kakouri
- Department of Medical Oncology, Bank of Cyprus Oncology Center, Nicosia 2012, Cyprus; (E.K.); (Y.M.)
| | - Yiola Marcou
- Department of Medical Oncology, Bank of Cyprus Oncology Center, Nicosia 2012, Cyprus; (E.K.); (Y.M.)
| | - Mihalis I. Panayiotidis
- Department of Cancer Genetics, Therapeutics and Ultrastructural Pathology, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus; (K.Y.); (K.K.); (M.I.P.); (M.A.L.)
- The Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus
| | - Maria A. Loizidou
- Department of Cancer Genetics, Therapeutics and Ultrastructural Pathology, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus; (K.Y.); (K.K.); (M.I.P.); (M.A.L.)
- The Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus
| | - Andreas Hadjisavvas
- Department of Cancer Genetics, Therapeutics and Ultrastructural Pathology, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus; (K.Y.); (K.K.); (M.I.P.); (M.A.L.)
- The Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus
- Correspondence: (A.H.); (K.M.)
| | - Kyriaki Michailidou
- The Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus
- Biostatistics Unit, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus
- Correspondence: (A.H.); (K.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Du Z, Gao G, Adedokun B, Ahearn T, Lunetta KL, Zirpoli G, Troester MA, Ruiz-Narváez EA, Haddad SA, PalChoudhury P, Figueroa J, John EM, Bernstein L, Zheng W, Hu JJ, Ziegler RG, Nyante S, Bandera EV, Ingles SA, Mancuso N, Press MF, Deming SL, Rodriguez-Gil JL, Yao S, Ogundiran TO, Ojengbe O, Bolla MK, Dennis J, Dunning AM, Easton DF, Michailidou K, Pharoah PDP, Sandler DP, Taylor JA, Wang Q, Weinberg CR, Kitahara CM, Blot W, Nathanson KL, Hennis A, Nemesure B, Ambs S, Sucheston-Campbell LE, Bensen JT, Chanock SJ, Olshan AF, Ambrosone CB, Olopade OI, Yarney J, Awuah B, Wiafe-Addai B, Conti DV, Palmer JR, Garcia-Closas M, Huo D, Haiman CA. Evaluating Polygenic Risk Scores for Breast Cancer in Women of African Ancestry. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 113:1168-1176. [PMID: 33769540 PMCID: PMC8418423 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djab050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2020] [Revised: 02/03/2021] [Accepted: 03/22/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have been demonstrated to identify women of European, Asian, and Latino ancestry at elevated risk of developing breast cancer (BC). We evaluated the performance of existing PRSs trained in European ancestry populations among women of African ancestry. METHODS We assembled genotype data for women of African ancestry, including 9241 case subjects and 10 193 control subjects. We evaluated associations of 179- and 313-variant PRSs with overall and subtype-specific BC risk. PRS discriminatory accuracy was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. We also evaluated a recalibrated PRS, replacing the index variant with variants in each region that better captured risk in women of African ancestry and estimated lifetime absolute risk of BC in African Americans by PRS category. RESULTS For overall BC, the odds ratio per SD of the 313-variant PRS (PRS313) was 1.27 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 1.31), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.571 (95% CI = 0.562 to 0.579). Compared with women with average risk (40th-60th PRS percentile), women in the top decile of PRS313 had a 1.54-fold increased risk (95% CI = 1.38-fold to 1.72-fold). By age 85 years, the absolute risk of overall BC was 19.6% for African American women in the top 1% of PRS313 and 6.7% for those in the lowest 1%. The recalibrated PRS did not improve BC risk prediction. CONCLUSION The PRSs stratify BC risk in women of African ancestry, with attenuated performance compared with that reported in European, Asian, and Latina populations. Future work is needed to improve BC risk stratification for women of African ancestry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhaohui Du
- Center for Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Guimin Gao
- Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Babatunde Adedokun
- Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Thomas Ahearn
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | | - Gary Zirpoli
- Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Melissa A Troester
- Department of Epidemiology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | | | | | - Parichoy PalChoudhury
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Jonine Figueroa
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
- Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh, UK
- Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Esther M John
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Medicine (Oncology), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Leslie Bernstein
- Division of Biomarkers of Early Detection and Prevention Department of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute of the City of Hope, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Wei Zheng
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Jennifer J Hu
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA
| | - Regina G Ziegler
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Sarah Nyante
- Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Elisa V Bandera
- Department of Population Science, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Sue A Ingles
- Center for Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Nicholas Mancuso
- Center for Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Michael F Press
- Department of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine and Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Sandra L Deming
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Jorge L Rodriguez-Gil
- Genomics, Development and Disease Section, Genetic Disease Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
- Medical Scientist Training Program, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Song Yao
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Temidayo O Ogundiran
- Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
| | - Oladosu Ojengbe
- Center for Population and Reproductive Health, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria
| | - Manjeet K Bolla
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Joe Dennis
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Alison M Dunning
- Department of Oncology, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Department of Oncology, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Kyriaki Michailidou
- Biostatistics Unit, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia, Cyprus
| | - Paul D P Pharoah
- Department of Oncology, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Dale P Sandler
- Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Jack A Taylor
- Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Qin Wang
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Clarice R Weinberg
- Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Cari M Kitahara
- Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - William Blot
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA
- International Epidemiology Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
| | - Katherine L Nathanson
- Department of Medicine, Abramson Cancer Center, The Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Anselm Hennis
- Chronic Disease Research Centre and Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of the West Indies, Bridgetown, Barbados
| | - Barbara Nemesure
- Department of Family, Population and Preventive Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
| | - Stefan Ambs
- Laboratory of Human Carcinogenesis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Lara E Sucheston-Campbell
- College of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
- College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Jeannette T Bensen
- Department of Epidemiology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Stephen J Chanock
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Andrew F Olshan
- Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Christine B Ambrosone
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Olufunmilayo I Olopade
- Department of Medicine, Center for Clinical Cancer Genetics and Global Health, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Julie R Palmer
- Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Montserrat Garcia-Closas
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Dezheng Huo
- Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Christopher A Haiman
- Center for Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Ward ZJ, Atun R, Hricak H, Asante K, McGinty G, Sutton EJ, Norton L, Scott AM, Shulman LN. The impact of scaling up access to treatment and imaging modalities on global disparities in breast cancer survival: a simulation-based analysis. Lancet Oncol 2021; 22:1301-1311. [PMID: 34416159 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(21)00403-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2021] [Revised: 06/21/2021] [Accepted: 06/30/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Female breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the world, with wide variations in reported survival by country. Women in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) in particular face several barriers to breast cancer services, including diagnostics and treatment. We aimed to estimate the potential impact of scaling up the availability of treatment and imaging modalities on breast cancer survival globally, together with improvements in quality of care. METHODS For this simulation-based analysis, we used a microsimulation model of global cancer survival, which accounts for the availability and stage-specific survival impact of specific treatment modalities (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, and targeted therapy), imaging modalities (ultrasound, x-ray, CT, MRI, PET, and single-photon emission computed tomography [SPECT]), and quality of cancer care, to simulate 5-year net survival for women with newly diagnosed breast cancer in 200 countries and territories in 2018. We calibrated the model to empirical data on 5-year net breast cancer survival in 2010-14 from CONCORD-3. We evaluated the potential impact of scaling up specific imaging and treatment modalities and quality of care to the mean level of high-income countries, individually and in combination. We ran 1000 simulations for each policy intervention and report the means and 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) for all model outcomes. FINDINGS We estimate that global 5-year net survival for women diagnosed with breast cancer in 2018 was 67·9% (95% UI 62·9-73·4) overall, with an almost 25-times difference between low-income (3·5% [0·4-10·0]) and high-income (87·0% [85·6-88·4]) countries. Among individual treatment modalities, scaling up access to surgery alone was estimated to yield the largest survival gains globally (2·7% [95% UI 0·4-8·3]), and scaling up CT alone would have the largest global impact among imaging modalities (0·5% [0·0-2·0]). Scaling up a package of traditional modalities (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, ultrasound, and x-ray) could improve global 5-year net survival to 75·6% (95% UI 70·6-79·4), with survival in low-income countries improving from 3·5% (0·4-10·0) to 28·6% (4·9-60·1). Adding concurrent improvements in quality of care could further improve global 5-year net survival to 78·2% (95% UI 74·9-80·4), with a substantial impact in low-income countries, improving net survival to 55·3% (42·2-67·8). Comprehensive scale-up of access to all modalities and improvements in quality of care could improve global 5-year net survival to 82·3% (95% UI 79·3-85·0). INTERPRETATION Comprehensive scale-up of treatment and imaging modalities, and improvements in quality of care could improve global 5-year net breast cancer survival by nearly 15 percentage points. Scale-up of traditional modalities and quality-of-care improvements could achieve 70% of these total potential gains, with substantial impact in LMICs, providing a more feasible pathway to improving breast cancer survival in these settings even without the benefits of future investments in targeted therapy and advanced imaging. FUNDING Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, and National Cancer Institute P30 Cancer Center Support Grant to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zachary J Ward
- Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Rifat Atun
- Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Hedvig Hricak
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Kwanele Asante
- African Organisation for Research and Training in Cancer, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Geraldine McGinty
- Departments of Radiology and Population Science, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
| | - Elizabeth J Sutton
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Larry Norton
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Andrew M Scott
- Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Austin Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; School of Cancer Medicine, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Lawrence N Shulman
- Department of Medicine, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Gao C, Polley EC, Hart SN, Huang H, Hu C, Gnanaolivu R, Lilyquist J, Boddicker NJ, Na J, Ambrosone CB, Auer PL, Bernstein L, Burnside ES, Eliassen AH, Gaudet MM, Haiman C, Hunter DJ, Jacobs EJ, John EM, Lindström S, Ma H, Neuhausen SL, Newcomb PA, O'Brien KM, Olson JE, Ong IM, Patel AV, Palmer JR, Sandler DP, Tamimi R, Taylor JA, Teras LR, Trentham-Dietz A, Vachon CM, Weinberg CR, Yao S, Weitzel JN, Goldgar DE, Domchek SM, Nathanson KL, Couch FJ, Kraft P. Risk of Breast Cancer Among Carriers of Pathogenic Variants in Breast Cancer Predisposition Genes Varies by Polygenic Risk Score. J Clin Oncol 2021; 39:2564-2573. [PMID: 34101481 PMCID: PMC8330969 DOI: 10.1200/jco.20.01992] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2020] [Revised: 02/19/2021] [Accepted: 04/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE This study assessed the joint association of pathogenic variants (PVs) in breast cancer (BC) predisposition genes and polygenic risk scores (PRS) with BC in the general population. METHODS A total of 26,798 non-Hispanic white BC cases and 26,127 controls from predominately population-based studies in the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility consortium were evaluated for PVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, BARD1, BRIP1, CDH1, and NF1. PRS based on 105 common variants were created using effect estimates from BC genome-wide association studies; the performance of an overall BC PRS and estrogen receptor-specific PRS were evaluated. The odds of BC based on the PVs and PRS were estimated using penalized logistic regression. The results were combined with age-specific incidence rates to estimate 5-year and lifetime absolute risks of BC across percentiles of PRS by PV status and first-degree family history of BC. RESULTS The estimated lifetime risks of BC among general-population noncarriers, based on 10th and 90th percentiles of PRS, were 9.1%-23.9% and 6.7%-18.2% for women with or without first-degree relatives with BC, respectively. Taking PRS into account, more than 95% of BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 carriers had > 20% lifetime risks of BC, whereas, respectively, 52.5% and 69.7% of ATM and CHEK2 carriers without first-degree relatives with BC, and 78.8% and 89.9% of those with a first-degree relative with BC had > 20% risk. CONCLUSION PRS facilitates personalization of BC risk among carriers of PVs in predisposition genes. Incorporating PRS into BC risk estimation may help identify > 30% of CHEK2 and nearly half of ATM carriers below the 20% lifetime risk threshold, suggesting the addition of PRS may prevent overscreening and enable more personalized risk management approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chi Gao
- Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| | | | | | - Hongyan Huang
- Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| | | | | | | | | | - Jie Na
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - Paul L. Auer
- UWM Joseph J. Zilber School of Public Health, Milwaukee, WI
| | | | | | - A. Heather Eliassen
- Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
- Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Mia M. Gaudet
- Department of Population Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA
| | - Christopher Haiman
- Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
| | - David J. Hunter
- Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
- University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Eric J. Jacobs
- Department of Population Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA
| | | | - Sara Lindström
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | - Huiyan Ma
- Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, Duarte, CA
| | | | - Polly A. Newcomb
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | | | | | | | - Alpa V. Patel
- Department of Population Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA
| | - Julie R. Palmer
- Boston University School of Medicine and Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston, MA
| | - Dale P. Sandler
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, NC
| | - Rulla Tamimi
- Population Health Sciences Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY
| | - Jack A. Taylor
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, NC
| | - Lauren R. Teras
- Department of Population Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA
| | | | | | | | - Song Yao
- Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY
| | | | | | - Susan M. Domchek
- Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | | | | | - Peter Kraft
- Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Minnier J, Rajeevan N, Gao L, Park B, Pyarajan S, Spellman P, Haskell SG, Brandt CA, Luoh SW. Polygenic Breast Cancer Risk for Women Veterans in the Million Veteran Program. JCO Precis Oncol 2021; 5:PO.20.00541. [PMID: 34381935 DOI: 10.1200/po.20.00541] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/31/2020] [Revised: 04/15/2021] [Accepted: 06/11/2021] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Accurate breast cancer (BC) risk assessment allows personalized screening and prevention. Prospective validation of prediction models is required before clinical application. Here, we evaluate clinical- and genetic-based BC prediction models in a prospective cohort of women from the Million Veteran Program. MATERIALS AND METHODS Clinical BC risk prediction models were validated in combination with a genetic polygenic risk score of 313 (PRS313) single-nucleotide polymorphisms in genetic females without prior BC diagnosis (n = 35,130, mean age 49 years) with 30% non-Hispanic African ancestry (AA). Clinical risk models tested were Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium, literature review, and Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool, and implemented with or without PRS313. Prediction accuracy and association with incident breast cancer was evaluated with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), hazard ratios, and proportion with high absolute lifetime risk. RESULTS Three hundred thirty-eight participants developed incident breast cancers with a median follow-up of 3.9 years (2.5 cases/1,000 person-years), with 196 incident cases in women of European ancestry and 112 incident cases in AA women. Individualized Coherent Absolute Risk Estimator-literature review in combination with PRS313 had an AUC of 0.708 (95% CI, 0.659 to 0.758) in women with European or non-African ancestries and 0.625 (0.539 to 0.711) in AA women. Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool with PRS313 had an AUC of 0.695 (0.62 to 0.729) in European or non-AA and 0.675 (0.626 to 0.723) in AA women. Incorporation of PRS313 with clinical models improved prediction in European but not in AA women. Models estimated up to 9% of European and 18% of AA women with absolute lifetime risk > 20%. CONCLUSION Clinical and genetic BC risk models predict incident BC in a large prospective multiracial cohort; however, more work is needed to improve genetic risk estimation in AA women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica Minnier
- OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.,Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.,VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR
| | - Nallakkandi Rajeevan
- Clinical Epidemiology Research Center (CERC), VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT.,Yale Center for Medical Informatics (YCMI), Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
| | - Lina Gao
- OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.,Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.,VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR
| | - Byung Park
- OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.,Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.,VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR
| | - Saiju Pyarajan
- VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA.,Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Paul Spellman
- Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.,VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR
| | - Sally G Haskell
- VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT.,Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
| | - Cynthia A Brandt
- Yale Center for Medical Informatics (YCMI), Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.,VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT
| | - Shiuh-Wen Luoh
- Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.,VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Sud A, Turnbull C, Houlston R. Will polygenic risk scores for cancer ever be clinically useful? NPJ Precis Oncol 2021; 5:40. [PMID: 34021222 PMCID: PMC8139954 DOI: 10.1038/s41698-021-00176-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2020] [Accepted: 04/05/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Amit Sud
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
| | - Clare Turnbull
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Richard Houlston
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71:209-249. [PMID: 33538338 DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51248] [Impact Index Per Article: 17082.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2020] [Accepted: 12/15/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
This article provides an update on the global cancer burden using the GLOBOCAN 2020 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Worldwide, an estimated 19.3 million new cancer cases (18.1 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and almost 10.0 million cancer deaths (9.9 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) occurred in 2020. Female breast cancer has surpassed lung cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer, with an estimated 2.3 million new cases (11.7%), followed by lung (11.4%), colorectal (10.0 %), prostate (7.3%), and stomach (5.6%) cancers. Lung cancer remained the leading cause of cancer death, with an estimated 1.8 million deaths (18%), followed by colorectal (9.4%), liver (8.3%), stomach (7.7%), and female breast (6.9%) cancers. Overall incidence was from 2-fold to 3-fold higher in transitioned versus transitioning countries for both sexes, whereas mortality varied <2-fold for men and little for women. Death rates for female breast and cervical cancers, however, were considerably higher in transitioning versus transitioned countries (15.0 vs 12.8 per 100,000 and 12.4 vs 5.2 per 100,000, respectively). The global cancer burden is expected to be 28.4 million cases in 2040, a 47% rise from 2020, with a larger increase in transitioning (64% to 95%) versus transitioned (32% to 56%) countries due to demographic changes, although this may be further exacerbated by increasing risk factors associated with globalization and a growing economy. Efforts to build a sustainable infrastructure for the dissemination of cancer prevention measures and provision of cancer care in transitioning countries is critical for global cancer control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hyuna Sung
- Surveillance and Health Equity Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Jacques Ferlay
- Section of Cancer Surveillance, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
| | - Rebecca L Siegel
- Surveillance and Health Equity Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Mathieu Laversanne
- Section of Cancer Surveillance, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
| | - Isabelle Soerjomataram
- Section of Cancer Surveillance, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
| | - Ahmedin Jemal
- Surveillance and Health Equity Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Freddie Bray
- Section of Cancer Surveillance, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Quante AS, Hüsing A, Chang-Claude J, Kiechle M, Kaaks R, Pfeiffer RM. Estimating the Breast Cancer Burden in Germany and Implications for Risk-based Screening. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2021; 14:627-634. [PMID: 34162683 DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.capr-20-0437] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2020] [Revised: 11/26/2020] [Accepted: 03/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
In Germany, it is currently recommended that women start mammographic breast cancer screening at age 50. However, recently updated guidelines state that for women younger than 50 and older than 70 years of age, screening decisions should be based on individual risk. International clinical guidelines recommend starting screening when a woman's 5-year risk of breast cancer exceeds 1.7%. We thus compared the performance of the current age-based screening practice with an alternative risk-adapted approach using data from a German population representative survey. We found that 10,498,000 German women ages 50-69 years are eligible for mammographic screening based on age alone. Applying the 5-year risk threshold of 1.7% to individual breast cancer risk estimated from a model that considers a woman's reproductive and personal characteristics, 39,000 German women ages 40-49 years would additionally be eligible. Among those women, the number needed to screen to detect one breast cancer case, NNS, was 282, which was close to the NNS = 292 among all 50- to 69-year-old women. In contrast, NNS = 703 for the 113,000 German women ages 50-69 years old with 5-year breast cancer risk <0.8%, the median 5-year breast cancer risk for German women ages 45-49 years, which we used as a low-risk threshold. For these low-risk women, longer screening intervals might be considered to avoid unnecessary diagnostic procedures. In conclusion, we show that risk-adapted mammographic screening could benefit German women ages 40-49 years who are at elevated breast cancer risk and reduce cost and burden among low-risk women ages 50-69 years. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: We show that a risk-based approach to mammography screening for German women can help detect breast cancer in women ages 40-49 years with increased risk and reduce screening costs and burdens for low-risk women ages 50-69 years. However, before recommending a particular implementation of a risk-based mammographic screening approach, further investigations of models and thresholds used are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne S Quante
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany. .,Institute of Human Genetics, University Medical Centre Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Anika Hüsing
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Jenny Chang-Claude
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Cancer Epidemiology Group, University Cancer Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Marion Kiechle
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany
| | - Rudolf Kaaks
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Ruth M Pfeiffer
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland.
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Kapoor PM, Mavaddat N, Choudhury PP, Wilcox AN, Lindström S, Behrens S, Michailidou K, Dennis J, Bolla MK, Wang Q, Jung A, Abu-Ful Z, Ahearn T, Andrulis IL, Anton-Culver H, Arndt V, Aronson KJ, Auer PL, Freeman LEB, Becher H, Beckmann MW, Beeghly-Fadiel A, Benitez J, Bernstein L, Bojesen SE, Brauch H, Brenner H, Brüning T, Cai Q, Campa D, Canzian F, Carracedo A, Carter BD, Castelao JE, Chanock SJ, Chatterjee N, Chenevix-Trench G, Clarke CL, Couch FJ, Cox A, Cross SS, Czene K, Dai JY, Earp HS, Ekici AB, Eliassen AH, Eriksson M, Evans DG, Fasching PA, Figueroa J, Fritschi L, Gabrielson M, Gago-Dominguez M, Gao C, Gapstur SM, Gaudet MM, Giles GG, González-Neira A, Guénel P, Haeberle L, Haiman CA, Håkansson N, Hall P, Hamann U, Hatse S, Heyworth J, Holleczek B, Hoover RN, Hopper JL, Howell A, Hunter DJ, John EM, Jones ME, Kaaks R, Keeman R, Kitahara CM, Ko YD, Koutros S, Kurian AW, Lambrechts D, Le Marchand L, Lee E, Lejbkowicz F, Linet M, Lissowska J, Llaneza A, MacInnis RJ, Martinez ME, Maurer T, McLean C, Neuhausen SL, Newman WG, Norman A, O’Brien KM, Olshan AF, Olson JE, Olsson H, Orr N, Perou CM, Pita G, Polley EC, Prentice RL, Rennert G, Rennert HS, Ruddy KJ, Sandler DP, Saunders C, Schoemaker MJ, Schöttker B, Schumacher F, Scott C, Scott RJ, Shu XO, Smeets A, Southey MC, Spinelli JJ, Stone J, Swerdlow AJ, Tamimi RM, Taylor JA, Troester MA, Vachon CM, van Veen EM, Wang X, Weinberg CR, Weltens C, Willett W, Winham SJ, Wolk A, Yang XR, Zheng W, Ziogas A, Dunning AM, Pharoah PDP, Schmidt MK, Kraft P, Easton DF, Milne RL, García-Closas M, Chang-Claude J. Combined Associations of a Polygenic Risk Score and Classical Risk Factors With Breast Cancer Risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 113:329-337. [PMID: 32359158 PMCID: PMC7936056 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djaa056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2019] [Revised: 03/30/2020] [Accepted: 04/23/2020] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pooja Middha Kapoor
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Nasim Mavaddat
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Parichoy Pal Choudhury
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Amber N Wilcox
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Sara Lindström
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA, USA
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Sabine Behrens
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Kyriaki Michailidou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Biostatistics Unit and the Cyprus, School of Molecular Medicine, Cyprus Institute of Neurology & Genetics, Nicosia, Cyprus
| | - Joe Dennis
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Manjeet K Bolla
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Qin Wang
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Audrey Jung
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Zomoroda Abu-Ful
- Clalit National Cancer Control Center, Carmel Medical Center and Technion Faculty of Medicine, Haifa, Israel
| | - Thomas Ahearn
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Irene L Andrulis
- Fred A. Litwin Center for Cancer Genetics, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Hoda Anton-Culver
- Department of Epidemiology, Genetic Epidemiology Research Institute, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Volker Arndt
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, C070, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Kristan J Aronson
- Department of Public Health Sciences and Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - Paul L Auer
- Cancer Prevention Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
- Zilber School of Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA
| | - Laura E Beane Freeman
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Heiko Becher
- Institute of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- Institute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Matthias W Beckmann
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Comprehensive Cancer Center ER-EMN, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Alicia Beeghly-Fadiel
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Javier Benitez
- Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Raras (CIBERER), Madrid, Spain
- Human Cancer Genetics Programme, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO), Madrid, Spain
| | - Leslie Bernstein
- Department of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Stig E Bojesen
- Copenhagen General Population Study, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Hiltrud Brauch
- Copenhagen General Population Study, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Dr Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Stuttgart, Germany
- iFIT-Cluster of Excellence, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Hermann Brenner
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, C070, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Preventive Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thomas Brüning
- Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum (IPA), Bochum, Germany
| | - Qiuyin Cai
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Daniele Campa
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Biology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Federico Canzian
- Genomic Epidemiology Group, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Angel Carracedo
- Genomic Medicine Group, Galician Foundation of Genomic Medicine, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago, SERGAS, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
- Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Raras (CIBERER) y Centro Nacional de Genotipado (CEGEN-PRB2), Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago De Compostela, Spain
| | - Brian D Carter
- Behavioral and Epidemiology Research Group, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Jose E Castelao
- Oncology and Genetics Unit, Instituto de Investigacion Sanitaria Galicia Sur (IISGS), Xerencia de Xestion Integrada de Vigo-SERGAS, Vigo, Spain
| | - Stephen J Chanock
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Nilanjan Chatterjee
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
- Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Georgia Chenevix-Trench
- Department of Genetics and Computational Biology, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Christine L Clarke
- Westmead Institute for Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Fergus J Couch
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Angela Cox
- Sheffield Institute for Nucleic Acids (SInFoNiA), Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Simon S Cross
- Academic Unit of Pathology, Department of Neuroscience, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Kamila Czene
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - James Y Dai
- Cancer Prevention Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - H Shelton Earp
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Arif B Ekici
- Institute of Human Genetics, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - A Heather Eliassen
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Mikael Eriksson
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
- North West Genomics Laboratory Hub, Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary’s Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Peter A Fasching
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Comprehensive Cancer Center ER-EMN, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
- David Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Medicine Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Jonine Figueroa
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
- Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh, UK
- Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Lin Fritschi
- School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Marike Gabrielson
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Manuela Gago-Dominguez
- Genomic Medicine Group, Galician Foundation of Genomic Medicine, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago, SERGAS, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
- Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Chi Gao
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Program in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Susan M Gapstur
- Behavioral and Epidemiology Research Group, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Mia M Gaudet
- Behavioral and Epidemiology Research Group, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Graham G Giles
- Copenhagen General Population Study, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Dr Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Stuttgart, Germany
- iFIT-Cluster of Excellence, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Anna González-Neira
- Human Cancer Genetics Programme, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO), Madrid, Spain
| | - Pascal Guénel
- Cancer & Environment Group, Center for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health (CESP), INSERM, University Paris-Sud, University Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France
| | - Lothar Haeberle
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Christopher A Haiman
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Niclas Håkansson
- Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Per Hall
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Oncology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Ute Hamann
- Molecular Genetics of Breast Cancer, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Sigrid Hatse
- Laboratory of Experimental Oncology (LEO), Department of Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Jane Heyworth
- School of Population and Global Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | | | - Robert N Hoover
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - John L Hopper
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Anthony Howell
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - David J Hunter
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Program in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - ABCTB Investigators
- Australian Breast Cancer Tissue Bank, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - kConFab/AOCS Investigators
- Research Department, Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Esther M John
- Division of Oncology, Departments of Epidemiology & Population Health and of Medicine, Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Michael E Jones
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Rudolf Kaaks
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Renske Keeman
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Cari M Kitahara
- Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Yon-Dschun Ko
- Department of Internal Medicine, Evangelische Kliniken Bonn gGmbH, Johanniter Krankenhaus, Bonn, Germany
| | - Stella Koutros
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Allison W Kurian
- Division of Oncology, Departments of Epidemiology & Population Health and of Medicine, Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Diether Lambrechts
- VIB Center for Cancer Biology, VIB, Leuven, Belgium
- Laboratory for Translational Genetics, Department of Human Genetics, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Loic Le Marchand
- Epidemiology Program, University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI, USA
| | - Eunjung Lee
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Flavio Lejbkowicz
- Clalit National Cancer Control Center, Carmel Medical Center and Technion Faculty of Medicine, Haifa, Israel
| | - Martha Linet
- Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Jolanta Lissowska
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, M. Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Ana Llaneza
- General and Gastroenterology Surgery Service, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain
| | - Robert J MacInnis
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Maria Elena Martinez
- Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
- Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Tabea Maurer
- Cancer Epidemiology Group, University Cancer Center Hamburg (UCCH), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Catriona McLean
- Anatomical Pathology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Susan L Neuhausen
- Department of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - William G Newman
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
- North West Genomics Laboratory Hub, Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary’s Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Aaron Norman
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Katie M O’Brien
- Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Andrew F Olshan
- Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health and UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Janet E Olson
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Håkan Olsson
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Nick Orr
- Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Ireland, UK
| | - Charles M Perou
- Department of Genetics, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Guillermo Pita
- Human Genotyping-CEGEN Unit, Human Cancer Genetic Program, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, Madrid, Spain
| | - Eric C Polley
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Ross L Prentice
- Cancer Prevention Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Gad Rennert
- Clalit National Cancer Control Center, Carmel Medical Center and Technion Faculty of Medicine, Haifa, Israel
| | - Hedy S Rennert
- Clalit National Cancer Control Center, Carmel Medical Center and Technion Faculty of Medicine, Haifa, Israel
| | | | - Dale P Sandler
- Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Christobel Saunders
- School of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Minouk J Schoemaker
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Ben Schöttker
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, C070, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Network Aging Research, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Fredrick Schumacher
- Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Christopher Scott
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Rodney J Scott
- Copenhagen General Population Study, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Dr Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Stuttgart, Germany
- iFIT-Cluster of Excellence, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
- Division of Molecular Medicine, Pathology North, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
- Discipline of Medical Genetics, School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Xiao-Ou Shu
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Ann Smeets
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Melissa C Southey
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Clinical Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Cancer Epidemiology Centre, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - John J Spinelli
- Population Oncology, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada
- School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Jennifer Stone
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- The Curtin UWA Centre for Genetic Origins of Health and Disease, Curtin University and University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Anthony J Swerdlow
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
- Division of Breast Cancer Research, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Rulla M Tamimi
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Program in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jack A Taylor
- Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
- Epigenetic and Stem Cell Biology Laboratory, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Melissa A Troester
- Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health and UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Celine M Vachon
- Department of Health Science Research, Division of Epidemiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Elke M van Veen
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
- North West Genomics Laboratory Hub, Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary’s Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Xiaoliang Wang
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA, USA
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Clarice R Weinberg
- Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Caroline Weltens
- Leuven Multidisciplinary Breast Center, Department of Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Walter Willett
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Stacey J Winham
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Science Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Alicja Wolk
- Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Xiaohong R Yang
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Wei Zheng
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Argyrios Ziogas
- Department of Epidemiology, Genetic Epidemiology Research Institute, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Alison M Dunning
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Paul D P Pharoah
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Peter Kraft
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Program in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Roger L Milne
- Copenhagen General Population Study, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Dr Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Stuttgart, Germany
- iFIT-Cluster of Excellence, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
- Division of Molecular Medicine, Pathology North, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
- Discipline of Medical Genetics, School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Montserrat García-Closas
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Jenny Chang-Claude
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Cancer Epidemiology Group, University Cancer Center Hamburg (UCCH), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Pal Choudhury P, Brook MN, Hurson AN, Lee A, Mulder CV, Coulson P, Schoemaker MJ, Jones ME, Swerdlow AJ, Chatterjee N, Antoniou AC, Garcia-Closas M. Comparative validation of the BOADICEA and Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk models incorporating classical risk factors and polygenic risk in a population-based prospective cohort of women of European ancestry. Breast Cancer Res 2021; 23:22. [PMID: 33588869 PMCID: PMC7885342 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-021-01399-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2020] [Accepted: 01/25/2021] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) and the Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk prediction models are commonly used in clinical practice and have recently been extended to include polygenic risk scores (PRS). In addition, BOADICEA has also been extended to include reproductive and lifestyle factors, which were already part of Tyrer-Cuzick model. We conducted a comparative prospective validation of these models after incorporating the recently developed 313-variant PRS. METHODS Calibration and discrimination of 5-year absolute risk was assessed in a nested case-control sample of 1337 women of European ancestry (619 incident breast cancer cases) aged 23-75 years from the Generations Study. RESULTS The extended BOADICEA model with reproductive/lifestyle factors and PRS was well calibrated across risk deciles; expected-to-observed ratio (E/O) at the highest risk decile :0.97 (95 % CI 0.51 - 1.86) for women younger than 50 years and 1.09 (0.66 - 1.80) for women 50 years or older. Adding reproductive/lifestyle factors and PRS to the BOADICEA model improved discrimination modestly in younger women (area under the curve (AUC) 69.7 % vs. 69.1%) and substantially in older women (AUC 64.6 % vs. 56.8%). The Tyrer-Cuzick model with PRS showed evidence of overestimation at the highest risk decile: E/O = 1.54(0.81 - 2.92) for younger and 1.73 (1.03 - 2.90) for older women. CONCLUSION The extended BOADICEA model identified women in a European-ancestry population at elevated breast cancer risk more accurately than the Tyrer-Cuzick model with PRS. With the increasing availability of PRS, these analyses can inform choice of risk models incorporating PRS for risk stratified breast cancer prevention among women of European ancestry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Parichoy Pal Choudhury
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive 7E-342, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA
| | - Mark N Brook
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Amber N Hurson
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive 7E-342, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Andrew Lee
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Charlotta V Mulder
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive 7E-342, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA
| | - Penny Coulson
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Minouk J Schoemaker
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Michael E Jones
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Anthony J Swerdlow
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
- Division of Breast Cancer Research, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Nilanjan Chatterjee
- Department of Biostatistics, The Johns Hopkins University, MD, Baltimore, USA
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Montserrat Garcia-Closas
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive 7E-342, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Glycolysis-Related Genes Serve as Potential Prognostic Biomarkers in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma. OXIDATIVE MEDICINE AND CELLULAR LONGEVITY 2021; 2021:6699808. [PMID: 33564363 PMCID: PMC7850857 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6699808] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2020] [Revised: 01/01/2021] [Accepted: 01/05/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Metabolic rearrangement is a marker of cancer that has been widely studied in recent years. One of the major metabolic characteristics of tumor cells is the high levels of glycolysis, even under aerobic conditions, a phenomenon that is called the "Warburg effect." We investigated the expression and copy number variation (CNV) frequency of all glycolysis-related genes in multiple cancer types and found many differentially expressed genes, particularly in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Single nucleotide variants (SNVs) showed that the overall average mutation frequency for all genes was low. The purpose of this study was to establish a predictive model by studying glycolysis-related genes in ccRCC. We compared the expression of glycolysis-related genes in 539 ccRCC tissues and 72 normal renal tissues from The Cancer Genome Atlas dataset and identified 17 upregulated and 26 downregulated genes. Pathway analysis revealed that PSAT1 and SDHB could activate the cell cycle, RPIA could activate the DNA damage response, and HK3 could activate apoptosis and EMT signaling, while PDK2 could inhibit apoptosis. The results of the drug sensitivity analysis suggested that some of these differentially expressed genes were positively correlated with drug sensitivity. Thirteen genes were selected from the gene coexpression network and the LASSO regression analysis. The Kaplan-Meier overall survival curves showed that the expression of upregulated genes in ccRCC patients was associated with lower overall survival. We established a predictive model consisting of 13 genes (RPIA, G6PD, PSAT1, ENO2, HK3, IDH1, PDK4, PGM2, PGK1, FBP1, OGDH, SUCLA2, and SUCLG2). This predictive model correlated well with the development and progression of ccRCC. Thus, it is of great value in the diagnosis and prognostic evaluation of ccRCC and may aid the identification of potential prognostic biomarkers and drug targets.
Collapse
|
39
|
McCarthy AM, Guan Z, Welch M, Griffin ME, Sippo DA, Deng Z, Coopey SB, Acar A, Semine A, Parmigiani G, Braun D, Hughes KS. Performance of Breast Cancer Risk-Assessment Models in a Large Mammography Cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 112:489-497. [PMID: 31556450 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz177] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2019] [Revised: 07/23/2019] [Accepted: 09/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Several breast cancer risk-assessment models exist. Few studies have evaluated predictive accuracy of multiple models in large screening populations. METHODS We evaluated the performance of the BRCAPRO, Gail, Claus, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), and Tyrer-Cuzick models in predicting risk of breast cancer over 6 years among 35 921 women aged 40-84 years who underwent mammography screening at Newton-Wellesley Hospital from 2007 to 2009. We assessed model discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and assessed calibration by comparing the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) cases. We calculated the square root of the Brier score and positive and negative predictive values of each model. RESULTS Our results confirmed the good calibration and comparable moderate discrimination of the BRCAPRO, Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick, and BCSC models. The Gail model had slightly better O/E ratio and AUC (O/E = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91 to 1.06, AUC = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.65) compared with BRCAPRO (O/E = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.02, AUC = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.63) and Tyrer-Cuzick (version 8, O/E = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.91, AUC = 0.62, 95% 0.60 to 0.64) in the full study population, and the BCSC model had the highest AUC among women with available breast density information (O/E = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.05, AUC = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.66). All models had poorer predictive accuracy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive and triple-negative breast cancers than hormone receptor positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative breast cancers. CONCLUSIONS In a large cohort of patients undergoing mammography screening, existing risk prediction models had similar, moderate predictive accuracy and good calibration overall. Models that incorporate additional genetic and nongenetic risk factors and estimate risk of tumor subtypes may further improve breast cancer risk prediction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne Marie McCarthy
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Zoe Guan
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.,Department of Data Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Michaela Welch
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Molly E Griffin
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Dorothy A Sippo
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Zhengyi Deng
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Suzanne B Coopey
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Ahmet Acar
- Istanbul School of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Alan Semine
- Department of Radiology, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Newton, MA
| | - Giovanni Parmigiani
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.,Department of Data Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Danielle Braun
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.,Department of Data Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Kevin S Hughes
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
[Diagnosis of breast diseases in a certified breast center]. Radiologe 2021; 61:137-149. [PMID: 33404685 DOI: 10.1007/s00117-020-00791-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/09/2020] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
The beginning of the 21st century has seen immense improvements in the quality of diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer due to several, simultaneous developments. In particular, the introduction of a certification program from the German Cancer Society based on level III guidelines has enhanced the transparency and quality of treatment of breast diseases for all actors. As a result, patients have benefited from intensified cooperation especially between core disciplines in breast disease, gynecology, pathology, and radiology. The standardized and synoptic reading of multiple diagnostic modalities has enabled precise sampling of histologic specimen, which has improved prognosis and the successful individualization of therapy. In this article the benefits of breast cancer diagnosis and therapy in a certified breast center are illustrated using four case examples.
Collapse
|
41
|
Long-Term Evaluation of Women Referred to a Breast Cancer Family History Clinic (Manchester UK 1987-2020). Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:cancers12123697. [PMID: 33317064 PMCID: PMC7763143 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12123697] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2020] [Revised: 12/02/2020] [Accepted: 12/05/2020] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary This study reports the management of women at high risk for breast cancer over a 33 years period. The aim was to summarize the numbers seen and to report the results of our studies on gene testing, the outcomes of screening and the success of preventive methods including lifestyle change, chemoprevention and risk-reducing mastectomy. We also discuss how the clinical Family History Service may be improved in the future. Abstract Clinics for women concerned about their family history of breast cancer are widely established. A Family History Clinic was set-up in Manchester, UK, in 1987 in a Breast Unit serving a population of 1.8 million. In this review, we report the outcome of risk assessment, screening and prevention strategies in the clinic and propose future approaches. Between 1987–2020, 14,311 women were referred, of whom 6.4% were from known gene families, 38.2% were at high risk (≥30% lifetime risk), 37.7% at moderate risk (17–29%), and 17.7% at an average/population risk who were discharged. A total of 4168 (29.1%) women were eligible for genetic testing and 736 carried pathogenic variants, predominantly in BRCA1 and BRCA2 but also other genes (5.1% of direct referrals). All women at high or moderate risk were offered annual mammographic screening between ages 30 and 40 years old: 646 cancers were detected in women at high and moderate risk (5.5%) with a detection rate of 5 per 1000 screens. Incident breast cancers were largely of good prognosis and resulted in a predicted survival advantage. All high/moderate-risk women were offered lifestyle prevention advice and 14–27% entered various lifestyle studies. From 1992–2003, women were offered entry into IBIS-I (tamoxifen) and IBIS-II (anastrozole) trials (12.5% of invitees joined). The NICE guidelines ratified the use of tamoxifen and raloxifene (2013) and subsequently anastrozole (2017) for prevention; 10.8% women took up the offer of such treatment between 2013–2020. Since 1994, 7164 eligible women at ≥25% lifetime risk of breast cancer were offered a discussion of risk-reducing breast surgery and 451 (6.2%) had surgery. New approaches in all aspects of the service are needed to build on these results.
Collapse
|
42
|
Rosner B, Tamimi RM, Kraft P, Gao C, Mu Y, Scott C, Winham SJ, Vachon CM, Colditz GA. Simplified Breast Risk Tool Integrating Questionnaire Risk Factors, Mammographic Density, and Polygenic Risk Score: Development and Validation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020; 30:600-607. [PMID: 33277321 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-20-0900] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2020] [Revised: 09/01/2020] [Accepted: 12/01/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinical use of breast cancer risk prediction requires simplified models. We evaluate a simplified version of the validated Rosner-Colditz model and add percent mammographic density (MD) and polygenic risk score (PRS), to assess performance from ages 45-74. We validate using the Mayo Mammography Health Study (MMHS). METHODS We derived the model in the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) based on: MD, 77 SNP PRS and a questionnaire score (QS; lifestyle and reproductive factors). A total of 2,799 invasive breast cancer cases were diagnosed from 1990-2000. MD (using Cumulus software) and PRS were assessed in a nested case-control study. We assess model performance using this case-control dataset and evaluate 10-year absolute breast cancer risk. The prospective MMHS validation dataset includes 21.8% of women age <50, and 434 incident cases identified over 10 years of follow-up. RESULTS In the NHS, MD has the highest odds ratio (OR) for 10-year risk prediction: ORper SD = 1.48 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.31-1.68], followed by PRS, ORper SD = 1.37 (95% CI: 1.21-1.55) and QS, ORper SD = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.11-1.41). In MMHS, the AUC adjusted for age + MD + QS 0.650; for age + MD + QS + PRS 0.687, and the NRI was 6% in cases and 16% in controls. CONCLUSION A simplified assessment of QS, MD, and PRS performs consistently to discriminate those at high 10-year breast cancer risk. IMPACT This simplified model provides accurate estimation of 10-year risk of invasive breast cancer that can be used in a clinical setting to identify women who may benefit from chemopreventive intervention.See related commentary by Tehranifar et al., p. 587.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bernard Rosner
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Rulla M Tamimi
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Division of Epidemiology, Population Health Sciences Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Peter Kraft
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
- Program in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Chi Gao
- Program in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Yi Mu
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Christopher Scott
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Stacey J Winham
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Celine M Vachon
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Graham A Colditz
- Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center and Department of Surgery, Division of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Gail MH. Choosing Breast Cancer Risk Models: Importance of Independent Validation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2020; 112:433-435. [PMID: 31556449 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz180] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2019] [Accepted: 09/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Mitchel H Gail
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Pashayan N, Antoniou AC, Ivanus U, Esserman LJ, Easton DF, French D, Sroczynski G, Hall P, Cuzick J, Evans DG, Simard J, Garcia-Closas M, Schmutzler R, Wegwarth O, Pharoah P, Moorthie S, De Montgolfier S, Baron C, Herceg Z, Turnbull C, Balleyguier C, Rossi PG, Wesseling J, Ritchie D, Tischkowitz M, Broeders M, Reisel D, Metspalu A, Callender T, de Koning H, Devilee P, Delaloge S, Schmidt MK, Widschwendter M. Personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer: ENVISION consensus statement. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2020; 17:687-705. [PMID: 32555420 PMCID: PMC7567644 DOI: 10.1038/s41571-020-0388-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 160] [Impact Index Per Article: 40.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/06/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
The European Collaborative on Personalized Early Detection and Prevention of Breast Cancer (ENVISION) brings together several international research consortia working on different aspects of the personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer. In a consensus conference held in 2019, the members of this network identified research areas requiring development to enable evidence-based personalized interventions that might improve the benefits and reduce the harms of existing breast cancer screening and prevention programmes. The priority areas identified were: 1) breast cancer subtype-specific risk assessment tools applicable to women of all ancestries; 2) intermediate surrogate markers of response to preventive measures; 3) novel non-surgical preventive measures to reduce the incidence of breast cancer of poor prognosis; and 4) hybrid effectiveness-implementation research combined with modelling studies to evaluate the long-term population outcomes of risk-based early detection strategies. The implementation of such programmes would require health-care systems to be open to learning and adapting, the engagement of a diverse range of stakeholders and tailoring to societal norms and values, while also addressing the ethical and legal issues. In this Consensus Statement, we discuss the current state of breast cancer risk prediction, risk-stratified prevention and early detection strategies, and their implementation. Throughout, we highlight priorities for advancing each of these areas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, University College London, London, UK
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Urska Ivanus
- Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Laura J Esserman
- Carol Franc Buck Breast Care Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - David French
- Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Gaby Sroczynski
- Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria
- Division of Health Technology Assessment, Oncotyrol - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Per Hall
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Oncology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Jack Cuzick
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London, Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Jacques Simard
- Genomics Center, CHU de Québec - Université Laval Research Center, Québec, Canada
| | | | - Rita Schmutzler
- Center of Family Breast and Ovarian Cancer, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Odette Wegwarth
- Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Center for Adaptive Rationality, Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Berlin, Germany
| | - Paul Pharoah
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | | | | | | | - Zdenko Herceg
- Epigenetic Group, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), WHO, Lyon, France
| | - Clare Turnbull
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | | | - Paolo Giorgi Rossi
- Epidemiology Unit, Azienda USL di Reggio Emilia - IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy
| | - Jelle Wesseling
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - David Ritchie
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Marc Tischkowitz
- Department of Medical Genetics, National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Mireille Broeders
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - Dan Reisel
- Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Andres Metspalu
- The Estonian Genome Center, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Thomas Callender
- Department of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, University College London, London, UK
| | - Harry de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Peter Devilee
- Department of Human Genetics, Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Suzette Delaloge
- Breast Cancer Department, Gustave Roussy Institute, Paris, France
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Martin Widschwendter
- Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
- Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
- European Translational Oncology Prevention and Screening (EUTOPS) Institute, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Kim JO, Schaid DJ, Vachon CM, Cooke A, Couch FJ, Kim CA, Sinnwell JP, Hasadsri L, Stan DL, Goldenberg B, Neal L, Grenier D, Degnim AC, Thicke LA, Pruthi S. Impact of Personalized Genetic Breast Cancer Risk Estimation With Polygenic Risk Scores on Preventive Endocrine Therapy Intention and Uptake. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2020; 14:175-184. [PMID: 33097489 DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.capr-20-0154] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2020] [Revised: 08/06/2020] [Accepted: 10/13/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Endocrine therapy is underutilized to reduce breast cancer incidence among women at increased risk. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) assessing 77 breast cancer genetic susceptibility loci personalizes risk estimates. We examined effect of personalized PRS breast cancer risk prediction on intention to take and endocrine therapy uptake among women at increased risk. Eligible participants had a 10-year breast cancer risk ≥5% by Tyrer-Cuzick model [International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS)] or ≥3.0 % 5-year Gail Model risk with no breast cancer history or hereditary breast cancer syndrome. Breast cancer risk was estimated, endocrine therapy options were discussed, and endocrine therapy intent was assessed at baseline. After genotyping, PRS-updated breast cancer risk estimates, endocrine therapy options, and intent to take endocrine therapy were reassessed; endocrine therapy uptake was assessed during follow-up. From March 2016 to October 2017, 151 patients were enrolled [median (range) age, 56.1 (36.0-76.4 years)]. Median 10-year and lifetime IBIS risks were 7.9% and 25.3%. Inclusion of PRS increased lifetime IBIS breast cancer risk estimates for 81 patients (53.6%) and reduced risk for 70 (46.4%). Of participants with increased breast cancer risk by PRS, 39 (41.9%) had greater intent to take endocrine therapy; of those with decreased breast cancer risk by PRS, 28 (46.7%) had less intent to take endocrine therapy (P < 0.001). On multivariable regression, increased breast cancer risk by PRS was associated with greater intent to take endocrine therapy (P < 0.001). Endocrine therapy uptake was greater among participants with increased breast cancer risk by PRS (53.4%) than with decreased risk (20.9%; P < 0.001). PRS testing influenced intent to take and endocrine therapy uptake. Assessing PRS effect on endocrine therapy adherence is needed.Prevention Relevance: Counseling women at increased breast cancer risk using polygenic risk score (PRS) risk estimates can significantly impact preventive endocrine therapy uptake. Further development of PRS testing to personalize breast cancer risk assessments and endocrine therapy counselling may serve to potentially reduce the incidence of breast cancer in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julian O Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.,Research Institute in Oncology and Hematology, CancerCare Manitoba, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - Daniel J Schaid
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.,Department of Clinical Genomics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Celine M Vachon
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Andrew Cooke
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Fergus J Couch
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.,Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Christina A Kim
- Department of Medical Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Jason P Sinnwell
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Linda Hasadsri
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Daniela L Stan
- Breast Diagnostic Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.,Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Benjamin Goldenberg
- Department of Medical Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Lonzetta Neal
- Breast Diagnostic Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.,Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Debjani Grenier
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.,Department of Medical Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Amy C Degnim
- Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.,Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Lori A Thicke
- Breast Diagnostic Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sandhya Pruthi
- Breast Diagnostic Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. .,Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Uzan C, Ndiaye-Guèye D, Nikpayam M, Oueld Es Cheikh E, Lebègue G, Canlorbe G, Azais H, Gonthier C, Belghiti J, Benusiglio PR, Séroussi B, Gligorov J, Uzan S. [First results of a breast cancer risk assessment and management consultation]. Bull Cancer 2020; 107:972-981. [PMID: 32977936 DOI: 10.1016/j.bulcan.2020.08.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2020] [Revised: 07/09/2020] [Accepted: 08/08/2020] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In France, participation in the organized breast cancer screening program remains insufficient. A personalized approach adapted to the risk factors for breast cancer (RBC) should make screening more efficient. A RBC evaluation consultation would therefore make it possible to personalize this screening. Here we report our initial experience. MATERIAL AND METHOD This is a prospective study on women who were seen at the RBC evaluation consultation and analyzing: their profile, their risk assessed according to Tyrer Cuzick model (TC)±Mammorisk© (MMR), the existence of an indication of oncogenetic consultation (Eisinger and Manchester score), their satisfaction and the recommended monitoring. RESULTS Among the women who had had a TCS and/or MMR evaluation of SCR (n=153), 76 (50%) had a high risk (n=67) or a very high risk (n=9). Almost half (47%) had a possible (15%) or certain (32%) indication to an oncogenetic consultation. Regarding this consultation, 98% of women were satisfied or very satisfied. In total, 60% of women had a change in screening methods. CONCLUSION This RBC evaluation consultation satisfies women and for a majority of them, modifies their methods of breast cancer screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Catherine Uzan
- AP-HP, hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Université, service de chirurgie et cancérologie gynécologique et mammaire, 47-83, boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France; Inserm UMR S938 « Biologie et thérapeutique des cancers », Paris, France; AP-HP, institut universitaire de cancérologie, Sorbonne Université (IUC AP-HP.SU), Paris, France.
| | - Diaretou Ndiaye-Guèye
- AP-HP, institut universitaire de cancérologie, Sorbonne Université (IUC AP-HP.SU), Paris, France
| | - Marianne Nikpayam
- AP-HP, hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Université, service de chirurgie et cancérologie gynécologique et mammaire, 47-83, boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France; AP-HP, institut universitaire de cancérologie, Sorbonne Université (IUC AP-HP.SU), Paris, France
| | - Eva Oueld Es Cheikh
- AP-HP, hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Université, service de chirurgie et cancérologie gynécologique et mammaire, 47-83, boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France; AP-HP, institut universitaire de cancérologie, Sorbonne Université (IUC AP-HP.SU), Paris, France
| | - Geraldine Lebègue
- AP-HP, hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Université, service de chirurgie et cancérologie gynécologique et mammaire, 47-83, boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France; AP-HP, institut universitaire de cancérologie, Sorbonne Université (IUC AP-HP.SU), Paris, France
| | - Geoffroy Canlorbe
- AP-HP, hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Université, service de chirurgie et cancérologie gynécologique et mammaire, 47-83, boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France; Inserm UMR S938 « Biologie et thérapeutique des cancers », Paris, France; AP-HP, institut universitaire de cancérologie, Sorbonne Université (IUC AP-HP.SU), Paris, France
| | - Henri Azais
- AP-HP, hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Université, service de chirurgie et cancérologie gynécologique et mammaire, 47-83, boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France
| | - Clementine Gonthier
- AP-HP, hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Université, service de chirurgie et cancérologie gynécologique et mammaire, 47-83, boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France
| | - Jeremie Belghiti
- AP-HP, hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Université, service de chirurgie et cancérologie gynécologique et mammaire, 47-83, boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France; AP-HP, institut universitaire de cancérologie, Sorbonne Université (IUC AP-HP.SU), Paris, France
| | - Patrick R Benusiglio
- AP-HP, institut universitaire de cancérologie, Sorbonne Université (IUC AP-HP.SU), Paris, France; AP-HP, groupe hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Université, département de génétique, UF d'oncogénétique, Paris, France
| | - Brigitte Séroussi
- AP-HP, institut universitaire de cancérologie, Sorbonne Université (IUC AP-HP.SU), Paris, France; Département de santé publique, Tenon, France; Sorbonne Université, université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, UMR S_1142, LIMICS, Paris, France
| | - Joseph Gligorov
- Inserm UMR S938 « Biologie et thérapeutique des cancers », Paris, France; AP-HP, institut universitaire de cancérologie, Sorbonne Université (IUC AP-HP.SU), Paris, France; AP-HP Tenon, Sorbonne Université, oncologie médicale, Paris, France
| | - Serge Uzan
- AP-HP, institut universitaire de cancérologie, Sorbonne Université (IUC AP-HP.SU), Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Smirnova E, Leroux A, Cao Q, Tabacu L, Zipunnikov V, Crainiceanu C, Urbanek JK. The Predictive Performance of Objective Measures of Physical Activity Derived From Accelerometry Data for 5-Year All-Cause Mortality in Older Adults: National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey 2003-2006. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2020; 75:1779-1785. [PMID: 31504213 PMCID: PMC7494021 DOI: 10.1093/gerona/glz193] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2019] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Declining physical activity (PA) is a hallmark of aging. Wearable technology provides reliable measures of the frequency, duration, intensity, and timing of PA. Accelerometry-derived measures of PA are compared with established predictors of 5-year all-cause mortality in older adults in terms of individual, relative, and combined predictive performance. METHODS Participants aged between 50 and 85 years from the 2003-2006 National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES, n = 2,978) wore a hip-worn accelerometer in the free-living environment for up to 7 days. A total of 33 predictors of 5-year all-cause mortality (number of events = 297), including 20 measures of objective PA, were compared using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS In univariate logistic regression, the total activity count was the best predictor of 5-year mortality (Area under the Curve (AUC) = 0.771) followed by age (AUC = 0.758). Overall, 9 of the top 10 predictors were objective PA measures (AUC from 0.771 to 0.692). In multivariate regression, the 10-fold cross-validated AUC was 0.798 for the model without objective PA variables (9 predictors) and 0.838 for the forward selection model with objective PA variables (13 predictors). The Net Reclassification Index was substantially improved by adding objective PA variables (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS Objective accelerometry-derived PA measures outperform traditional predictors of 5-year mortality, including age. This highlights the importance of wearable technology for providing reproducible, unbiased, and prognostic biomarkers of health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ekaterina Smirnova
- Department of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond
| | - Andrew Leroux
- Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Quy Cao
- Department of Mathematical Sciences, College of Humanities and Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula
| | - Lucia Tabacu
- Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
| | - Vadim Zipunnikov
- Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Ciprian Crainiceanu
- Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Jacek K Urbanek
- Division of Geriatric Medicine, and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Di Maria E, Latini A, Borgiani P, Novelli G. Genetic variants of the human host influencing the coronavirus-associated phenotypes (SARS, MERS and COVID-19): rapid systematic review and field synopsis. Hum Genomics 2020; 14:30. [PMID: 32917282 PMCID: PMC7484929 DOI: 10.1186/s40246-020-00280-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2020] [Accepted: 08/31/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has strengthened the interest in the biological mechanisms underlying the complex interplay between infectious agents and the human host. The spectrum of phenotypes associated with the SARS-CoV-2 infection, ranging from the absence of symptoms to severe systemic complications, raised the question as to what extent the variable response to coronaviruses (CoVs) is influenced by the variability of the hosts' genetic background.To explore the current knowledge about this question, we designed a systematic review encompassing the scientific literature published from Jan. 2003 to June 2020, to include studies on the contemporary outbreaks caused by SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 (namely SARS, MERS and COVID-19 diseases). Studies were eligible if human genetic variants were tested as predictors of clinical phenotypes.An ad hoc protocol for the rapid review process was designed according to the PRISMA paradigm and registered at the PROSPERO database (ID: CRD42020180860). The systematic workflow provided 32 articles eligible for data abstraction (28 on SARS, 1 on MERS, 3 on COVID-19) reporting data on 26 discovery cohorts. Most studies considered the definite clinical diagnosis as the primary outcome, variably coupled with other outcomes (severity was the most frequently analysed). Ten studies analysed HLA haplotypes (1 in patients with COVID-19) and did not provide consistent signals of association with disease-associated phenotypes. Out of 22 eligible articles that investigated candidate genes (2 as associated with COVID-19), the top-ranked genes in the number of studies were ACE2, CLEC4M (L-SIGN), MBL, MxA (n = 3), ACE, CD209, FCER2, OAS-1, TLR4, TNF-α (n = 2). Only variants in MBL and MxA were found as possibly implicated in CoV-associated phenotypes in at least two studies. The number of studies for each predictor was insufficient to conduct meta-analyses.Studies collecting large cohorts from different ancestries are needed to further elucidate the role of host genetic variants in determining the response to CoVs infection. Rigorous design and robust statistical methods are warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilio Di Maria
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
- Unit of Medical Genetics, Galliera Hospital, Genova, Italy.
| | - Andrea Latini
- Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, Genetics Unit, University of Roma "Tor Vergata", Roma, Italy
| | - Paola Borgiani
- Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, Genetics Unit, University of Roma "Tor Vergata", Roma, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Novelli
- Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, Genetics Unit, University of Roma "Tor Vergata", Roma, Italy
- IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli (IS), Italy
- Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, 89557, USA
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Fahed AC, Wang M, Homburger JR, Patel AP, Bick AG, Neben CL, Lai C, Brockman D, Philippakis A, Ellinor PT, Cassa CA, Lebo M, Ng K, Lander ES, Zhou AY, Kathiresan S, Khera AV. Polygenic background modifies penetrance of monogenic variants for tier 1 genomic conditions. Nat Commun 2020; 11:3635. [PMID: 32820175 PMCID: PMC7441381 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-17374-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 225] [Impact Index Per Article: 56.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2020] [Accepted: 06/22/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Genetic variation can predispose to disease both through (i) monogenic risk variants that disrupt a physiologic pathway with large effect on disease and (ii) polygenic risk that involves many variants of small effect in different pathways. Few studies have explored the interplay between monogenic and polygenic risk. Here, we study 80,928 individuals to examine whether polygenic background can modify penetrance of disease in tier 1 genomic conditions — familial hypercholesterolemia, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and Lynch syndrome. Among carriers of a monogenic risk variant, we estimate substantial gradients in disease risk based on polygenic background — the probability of disease by age 75 years ranged from 17% to 78% for coronary artery disease, 13% to 76% for breast cancer, and 11% to 80% for colon cancer. We propose that accounting for polygenic background is likely to increase accuracy of risk estimation for individuals who inherit a monogenic risk variant. Genetic variation predisposes to disease via monogenic and polygenic risk variants. Here, the authors assess the interplay between these types of variation on disease penetrance in 80,928 individuals. In carriers of monogenic variants, they show that disease risk is a gradient influenced by polygenic background.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Akl C Fahed
- Center for Genomic Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.,Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.,Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Cardiovascular Disease Initiative, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA.,Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Minxian Wang
- Cardiovascular Disease Initiative, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA.,Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | | | - Aniruddh P Patel
- Center for Genomic Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.,Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.,Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Cardiovascular Disease Initiative, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA.,Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Alexander G Bick
- Center for Genomic Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.,Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Cardiovascular Disease Initiative, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA.,Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | | | | | - Deanna Brockman
- Center for Genomic Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.,Cardiovascular Disease Initiative, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA.,Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Anthony Philippakis
- Cardiovascular Disease Initiative, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA.,Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Patrick T Ellinor
- Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.,Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Cardiovascular Disease Initiative, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA.,Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Christopher A Cassa
- Division of Genetics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Matthew Lebo
- Laboratory for Molecular Medicine, Partners HealthCare Personalized Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Kenney Ng
- Center for Computational Health, IBM Research, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Eric S Lander
- Cardiovascular Disease Initiative, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA.,Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA.,Department of Biology, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.,Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | - Sekar Kathiresan
- Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.,Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA.,Verve Therapeutics, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Amit V Khera
- Center for Genomic Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. .,Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. .,Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. .,Cardiovascular Disease Initiative, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA. .,Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
McWilliams L, Woof VG, Donnelly LS, Howell A, Evans DG, French DP. Risk stratified breast cancer screening: UK healthcare policy decision-making stakeholders' views on a low-risk breast screening pathway. BMC Cancer 2020; 20:680. [PMID: 32698780 PMCID: PMC7374862 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07158-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2020] [Accepted: 07/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is international interest in risk-stratification of breast screening programmes to allow women at higher risk to benefit from more frequent screening and chemoprevention. Risk-stratification also identifies women at low-risk who could be screened less frequently, as the harms of breast screening may outweigh benefits for this group. The present research aimed to elicit the views of national healthcare policy decision-makers regarding implementation of less frequent screening intervals for women at low-risk. METHODS Seventeen professionals were purposively recruited to ensure relevant professional group representation directly or indirectly associated with the UK National Screening Committee and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS Three themes are reported: (1) producing the evidence defining low-risk, describing requirements preceding implementation; (2) the impact of risk stratification on women is complicated, focusing on gaining acceptability from women; and (3) practically implementing a low-risk pathway, where feasibility questions are highlighted. CONCLUSIONS Overall, national healthcare policy decision-makers appear to believe that risk-stratified breast screening is acceptable, in principle. It will however be essential to address key obstacles prior to implementation in national programmes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorna McWilliams
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
| | - Victoria G Woof
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Louise S Donnelly
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
- NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Centre for Mental Health and Safety, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Anthony Howell
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
- Department of Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK
| | - David P French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.
| |
Collapse
|