Overlap of high-risk individuals across family history, genetic & non-genetic breast cancer risk models: Analysis of 180,398 women from European & Asian ancestries

ABSTRACT
Background Breast cancer is multifactorial. Focusing on limited risk factors may miss high-risk individuals.
Methods We assessed the performance and overlap of various risk factors in identifying high-risk individuals for invasive breast cancer (BrCa) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in 161,849 European-ancestry and 18,549 Asian-ancestry women. Discriminatory ability was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). High-risk criteria included: 5-year absolute risk ≥1·66% by the Gail model [GAILbinary]; first-degree family history of breast cancer [FHbinary]; 5-year absolute risk ≥1·66% by a 313-variants polygenic risk score [PRSbinary]; and carriers of pathogenic variants in breast cancer predisposition genes [PTVbinary].
Findings The 5-year absolute risk by PRS outperformed the Gail model in predicting BrCa (Europeansvs controls: AUCPRS=0·635 [0·632-0·638] vs AUCGail=0·492 [0·489-0·495]; Asiansvs controls: AUCPRS=0·564 [0·556-0·573] vs AUCGail=0·506 [0·497-0·514]). PRSbinary and GAILbinary identified more high-risk European than Asia individuals. High-risk proportions were higher among BrCa (16-26%) and DCIS (20-33%) compared to controls (9-15%) among young Europeans and all Asians. Fewer than 7% of BrCa, 10% of DCIS, and 3% of controls were classified as high-risk by multiple risk classifiers. Overlap between PRSbinary and PTVbinary was minimal (<0·65% Europeans, <0·15% Asians) compared to the proportion at high risk using PTVbinary alone (Europeans: 4·6%, Asians: 4·4%) and PRSbinary alone (Europeans: 13·9%, Asians: 8·5%). PRSbinary and FHbinary uniquely identified 5-6% and 9-11% of young BrCa, respectively.
Interpretation The incomplete overlap between high-risk individuals identified by PRSbinary, GAILbinary, FHbinary, and PTVbinary highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to breast cancer risk prediction.
SIGNIFICANCE This study shows that different ways of predicting breast cancer risk do not always flag the same people, suggesting that combining multiple risk factors could improve early detection and screening.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study is funded by the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) and PRECISION Health Research, Singapore (PRECISE). The breast cancer genome-wide association analyses in BCAC were supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ministere de l'Economie, de la Science et de l'Innovation du Quebec through Genome Quebec and grant PSR-SIIRI-701, The National Institutes of Health (U19 CA148065, X01HG007492), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A16563, C1287/A10710), and The European Union (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175 and H2020 633784 and 634935). All studies and funders are listed in Additional Materials (BCAC Funding and Acknowledgments).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the A*STAR Institutional Review Board (reference number: 2022-041).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
0
Author Videos
- Addiction Medicine (418)
- Allergy and Immunology (740)
- Anesthesia (217)
- Cardiovascular Medicine (3175)
- Dermatology (268)
- Emergency Medicine (469)
- Epidemiology (13147)
- Forensic Medicine (17)
- Gastroenterology (878)
- Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4980)
- Geriatric Medicine (458)
- Health Economics (762)
- Health Informatics (3134)
- Health Policy (1115)
- Hematology (418)
- HIV/AIDS (988)
- Medical Education (462)
- Medical Ethics (121)
- Nephrology (511)
- Neurology (4727)
- Nursing (252)
- Nutrition (700)
- Oncology (2435)
- Ophthalmology (692)
- Orthopedics (272)
- Otolaryngology (335)
- Pain Medicine (315)
- Palliative Medicine (88)
- Pathology (523)
- Pediatrics (1263)
- Primary Care Research (536)
- Public and Global Health (7296)
- Radiology and Imaging (1635)
- Respiratory Medicine (953)
- Rheumatology (468)
- Sports Medicine (409)
- Surgery (527)
- Toxicology (66)
- Transplantation (226)
- Urology (196)