A Personal Breast Cancer Risk Stratification Model Using Common Variants and Environmental Risk Factors in Japanese Females

Simple Summary

Breast cancer remains the most common cancer in females, warranting the development of new approaches to prevention. One such approach is personalized prevention using genetic risk models. Here, we developed a risk model using both genetic and environmental risk factors. Results showed that a genetic risk score defined by the number of risk alleles for 14 breast cancer risk SNPs clearly stratified breast cancer risk. Moreover, the combination of this genetic risk score model with an environmental risk model which included established environmental risk factors showed significantly better C-statistics than the environmental risk model alone. This genetic risk score model in combination with the environmental model may be suitable for stratifying individual breast cancer risk, and may form the basis for a new personalized approach to breast cancer prevention.

Abstract

Personalized approaches to prevention based on genetic risk models have been anticipated, and many models for the prediction of individual breast cancer risk have been developed. However, few studies have evaluated personalized risk using both genetic and environmental factors. We developed a risk model using genetic and environmental risk factors using 1319 breast cancer cases and 2094 controls from three case–control studies in Japan. Risk groups were defined based on the number of risk alleles for 14 breast cancer susceptibility loci, namely low (0–10 alleles), moderate (11–16) and high (17+). Environmental risk factors were collected using a self-administered questionnaire and implemented with harmonization. Odds ratio (OR) and C-statistics, calculated using a logistic regression model, were used to evaluate breast cancer susceptibility and model performance. Respective breast cancer ORs in the moderate- and high-risk groups were 1.69 (95% confidence interval, 1.39–2.04) and 3.27 (2.46–4.34) compared with the low-risk group. The C-statistic for the environmental model of 0.616 (0.596–0.636) was significantly improved by combination with the genetic model, to 0.659 (0.640–0.678). This combined genetic and environmental risk model may be suitable for the stratification of individuals by breast cancer risk. New approaches to breast cancer prevention using the model are warranted.

Preventing Breast Cancer Through Identification and Pharmacologic Management of High-Risk Patients

Breast cancer remains the most common cancer in women in the United States. For certain women at high risk for breast cancer, endocrine therapy (ET) can greatly decrease the risk. Tools such as the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (or Gail Model) and the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study risk calculator are available to help identify women at increased risk for breast cancer. Physician awareness of family history, reproductive and lifestyle factors, dense breast tissue, and history of benign proliferative breast disease are important when identifying high-risk women. The updated US Preventive Services Task Force and American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines encourage primary care providers to identify at-risk women and offer risk-reducing medications. Among the various ETs, which include tamoxifen, raloxifene, anastrozole, and exemestane, tamoxifen is the only one available for premenopausal women aged 35 years and older. A shared decision-making process should be used to increase the usage of ET and must be individualized. This individualized approach must account for each woman's medical history and weigh the benefits and risks of ET in combination with the personal values of the patient.

Genotype imputation and variability in polygenic risk score estimation

BACKGROUND

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are a summarization of an individual's genetic risk for a disease or trait. These scores are being generated in research and commercial settings to study how they may be used to guide healthcare decisions. PRSs should be updated as genetic knowledgebases improve; however, no guidelines exist for their generation or updating.

METHODS

Here, we characterize the variability introduced in PRS calculation by a common computational process used in their generation-genotype imputation. We evaluated PRS variability when performing genotype imputation using 3 different pre-phasing tools (Beagle, Eagle, SHAPEIT) and 2 different imputation tools (Beagle, Minimac4), relative to a WGS-based gold standard. Fourteen different PRSs spanning different disease architectures and PRS generation approaches were evaluated.

RESULTS

We find that genotype imputation can introduce variability in calculated PRSs at the individual level without any change to the underlying genetic model. The degree of variability introduced by genotype imputation differs across algorithms, where pre-phasing algorithms with stochastic elements introduce the greatest degree of score variability. In most cases, PRS variability due to imputation is minor (< 5 percentile rank change) and does not influence the interpretation of the score. PRS percentile fluctuations are also reduced in the more informative tails of the PRS distribution. However, in rare instances, PRS instability at the individual level can result in singular PRS calculations that differ substantially from a whole genome sequence-based gold standard score.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights some challenges in applying population genetics tools to individual-level genetic analysis including return of results. Rare individual-level variability events are masked by a high degree of overall score reproducibility at the population level. In order to avoid PRS result fluctuations during updates, we suggest that deterministic imputation processes or the average of multiple iterations of stochastic imputation processes be used to generate and deliver PRS results.