Genomic risk prediction for breast cancer in older women ======================================================== * Paul Lacaze * Andrew Bakshi * Moeen Riaz * Suzanne G Orchard * Jane Tiller * Johannes T Neumann * Prudence R Carr * Amit D Joshi * Yin Cao * Erica T Warner * Alisa Manning * Tú Nguyen-Dumont * Melissa C. Southey * Roger L Milne * Leslie Ford * Robert Sebra * Eric Schadt * Lucy Gately * Peter Gibbs * Bryony A Thompson * Finlay A Macrae * Paul James * Ingrid Winship * Catriona McLean * John R Zalcberg * Robyn L Woods * Andrew T Chan * Anne M Murray * John J McNeil ## Abstract **Background** Genomic risk prediction models for breast cancer (BC) have been predominantly developed with data from women aged less than 70 years. Prospective studies of women aged 70 years or older have been limited. **Methods** We assessed the effect of a 313-variant polygenic risk score (PRS) for BC in 6,339 women of European ancestry aged ≥70 years. We evaluated incident BC diagnoses over a median follow-up of 4.7 years. A multivariable Cox regression model including conventional risk factors was applied to prospective data, and re-evaluated after adding the PRS. We also assessed the association of rare pathogenic variants (PVs) with BC in susceptibility genes (*BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2/CHEK2/ATM*). **Results** The PRS, as a continuous variable, was an independent predictor of incident BC (hazard ratio [HR] per standard deviation (SD)=1.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-1.6, N=110 cases) and hormone receptor (ER/PR)-positive disease (HR=1.5 [CI 1.2-1.9], N=79 cases). Women in the top quintile of the PRS distribution had higher risk of BC than women in the lowest quintile (HR=2.2 [CI 1.2-3.9]). The concordance index of the model without the PRS was 0.62 (95% CI 0.56-0.68) which improved after addition of the PRS to 0.65 (95% CI 0.59-0.71). Among 41 (0.6%) carriers of PVs in BC susceptibility genes, we observed no incident BC diagnoses. **Conclusion** The 313-variant PRS predicts BC risk in women aged 70 years and older. ## Introduction Breast cancer (BC) risk prediction models may be improved by including genomic risk scores. A polygenic risk score (PRS) aggregates the effect of many common BC risk-associated variants into a single measure.1-4 Predictive performance of PRS for BC has mostly been assessed in women aged 40-69 years.1,3,5-9 The PRS performance, in terms of risk prediction in older women (aged ≥70 years) is unclear, despite a high proportion of BC diagnoses occurring in this age group. It is also unclear the predictive performance of a PRS for BC attenuates with age. Given the emerging clinical utility of PRS for BC risk prediction and stratification, this requires further assessment. A small proportion of women (<5%) carry rare pathogenic variants (PVs) in BC predisposition genes, including *BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2* and *ATM*.10 Rare PVs can be detected by predictive clinical genetic testing and are of high clinical significance,11,12 predisposing women to BC earlier in life5-7,10. Rare PVs account for ∼25% of familial BC risk.13. If rare PVs have age-dependent effects on BC risk, this may have important clinical implications for the appropriateness of offering predictive genetic testing to older people. Common BC risk-associated genetic variants used in a PRS, together, are estimated to account for a further 18% of familial risk.14 Many clinical studies have measured the association between rare PVs and BC risk.5-7,10 More recently, risk conferred by a 313-variant PRS for BC has been measured in meta-analysis of ten studies, with no evidence of age-related attenuation in predictive performance of the PRS reported.1 The same PRS has been assessed across several subsequent PRS validation studies.2-4 However, participant numbers aged ≥70 years were limited. Here, we evaluate the predictive performance of i) a PRS for BC and ii) rare PVs in a prospective cohort of 6,339 women aged ≥70 years. ## Methods ### Study sample The study sample comprised female participants of the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial - a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial investigating the effect of aspirin on disability-free survival.15-17. Study design18,19, recruitment20, and baseline characteristics21 have been published previously. The trial recruited 19,114 individuals from Australia (N=16,703) and the United States (N=2,411) aged 70 years or older (≥ 65 years for US ethnic minorities), who at enrolment were free from diagnosed cardiovascular disease events, dementia, physical disability and life-threatening cancer diagnoses. Biospecimens and consent for genetic analysis were obtained from 14,576 participants. The median follow-up time (randomization period) was 4.7 years (interquartile range 2.1 years). The study received local ethics committee approvals and is registered ([NCT01038583](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT01038583&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom)). ### Genome-wide genotyping and polygenic risk score DNA samples were genotyped using the Axiom 2.0 Precision Medicine Diversity Research Array (Thermo Fisher Scientific (TFS), CA, USA) following standard protocols. Only participants with European genetic ancestry (>95% of female participants) were included, to mitigate population stratification bias. Genetic ancestry was defined using principal component analysis (PCA) based on the 1,000 Genomes reference population, with participants outside of the Non-Finnish European ancestry cluster excluded (Figure S1).22. Imputation was performed using the TopMED Server (European samples).23 After variants with low imputation quality scores (r2<0.3) were excluded, a PRS was calculated based on the 313-variant score previously described (1), using genotypes for the remaining 271 variants.1 Using Plink version 1.9, we calculated the PRS for each individual as the weighted sum of the effect size for the number of risk alleles at each variant.1 ### Targeted gene panel sequencing Our custom gene panel24 included BC predisposition genes that are incorporated into the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) - *BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM*.10 Following standard protocols, DNA was extracted and sequenced using the S5TM XL system, to average 200X depth. Variants with ‘pathogenic’ or ‘likely pathogenic’ ClinVar annotation25 and/or high-confidence predicted loss-of-function in coding regions26 were curated following ACMG/AMP Standards and Guidelines for the Interpretation of Sequence Variants,27 including review by two or more laboratory scientists and a clinical geneticist. Analysis was restricted to single nucleotide variants and small insertions/deletions. ### Endpoints The study’s primary endpoint was invasive breast cancer (BC), which included incident invasive BC diagnosed during the ASPREE trial; this was adjudicated by an expert panel using histopathology, metastasis imaging or other clinical evidence.28 Age at diagnosis of prevalent BC was self-reported as before or after 50 years. ### Statistical analysis Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the association between PRS with incident BC by estimating the hazard ratio (HR) per standard deviation (SD) of the PRS, after adjusting for BC family history (first-degree blood relatives), treatment (aspirin/placebo), age at enrolment, number of children, alcohol consumption, body mass index (BMI) at enrolment, and use of estrogen or estrogen/progesterone hormone replacement therapy (HRT) at enrolment. Alcohol consumption was categorised into three groupings: none (no current consumption); low (<3 drinking days per week); and high (≥3 drinking days per week). Interaction between PRS and aspirin treatment was tested independently alongside the complete set of covariates. BMI and number of children were standardised to mean=0 (SD 1). In a separate model, PRS was categorized into three quintile-based distribution groups -low (0-20%, Q1), moderate-risk (21-80%, Q2-4), and high-risk (81-100%, Q5). R package *pec* v2019.11.03 was used for BC-free survival prediction. Net reclassification improvement (NRI) was calculated using R package *nricens* v1.6, with 1% and 3% cutoff values for predicting increased and decreased risk categories. We calculated cumulative incidence estimates for each PRS group (multivariate adjusted), treating death as a competing risk. Logistic regression was used to assess associations with prevalent breast cancer, including family history and presence of rare PVs as covariates. We further stratified by diagnosis age (<50, 50+), and included number of children in the model. We used variance inflation factor (VIF) to assess the independence of predictors, and measured the discriminative ability of the PRS using concordance index and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Goodness-of-fit for the logistic regression was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) test and the Tail-Based Max-test-statistic (TBM).29 DeLong’s test was used to compare between two correlated ROC curves.30,31 We calculated PV ORs for prevalent BC for each gene and all five genes combined. Analyses were performed using R v3.6.1. ## Results ### Baseline characteristics The mean age of the 6,339 female participants of European genetic ancestry was 75.1 years at time of enrolment, with 14% aged >80 years, and 31% current or former smokers (Table 1). The mean BMI was 28.0 kg/m2, 75% were current alcohol consumers and 13% had a family history of BC in a first-degree blood relative. At baseline, 533 (8.4%) participants were taking HRT (either estrogen alone or with progesterone). Thirteen (0.2%) were taking progesterone-only preparations. Prevalent BC, was reported by 475 (7.6%) participants, of which 60 (1%) were diagnosed before the age of 50 years. View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/05/2021.05.03.21256567/T1) Table 1. Characteristics of the study population ### PRS and rare pathogenic variants The PRS showed a normal distribution in the study sample with mean -0.13 (SD 0.58) before standardization (Figure S2a), which was scaled to a mean of 0 (SD 1) for subsequent analyses. Forty-two rare pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PVs) passed our variant curation protocol (Table S1) across 41 (0.6%) participants (one participant had two PVs detected, one each in *BRCA2* and *CHEK2*). We identified participants with PVs in the *BRCA1* (N=3), *BRCA2* (N=10), *PALB2* (N=6), *CHEK2* (N=7) and *ATM* (N=16) genes. Of these participants, 20% reported a family history of BC in a first-degree blood relative at enrolment. ### Incident breast cancer risk During median follow-up (4.7 years/participant), 110 women had incident BC, with no prevalent BC. None of these women had rare PVs in the *BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2*, and *ATM* genes. In the multivariable Cox model, conventional BC risk factors, including family history of BC, number of children, alcohol consumption and estrogen HRT were associated with risk of incident BC (Table 2). View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/05/2021.05.03.21256567/T2) Table 2: Association of a polygenic risk score (PRS) with incident breast cancer (BC) risk in 6,339 older women. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to evaluate the association between PRS as a continuous or categorical variable with incident BC (N=110 cases), after adjusting for family history of BC, treatment (aspirin/placebo), age at enrolment, number of children, alcohol use, BMI and use of hormone replacement therapy. The PRS, as a continuous variable in the same model, was an independent predictor of incident BC, with a HR of 1.43 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18 to 1.73, p<0.001) per SD (Table 2, Figure 1), after adjustment for covariates. The VIF for each term in the multivariable model was less than 1.1, indicating independence of the predictors. The concordance index of the model without the PRS was 0.62 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.68), which improved after addition of the PRS to 0.65 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.71). We found no evidence of an interaction between aspirin treatment and the PRS. ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/05/05/2021.05.03.21256567/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/05/2021.05.03.21256567/F1) Figure 1. Association of a polygenic risk score (PRS) with incident and prevalent breast cancer (BC) risk in 6,339 older women. We evaluated incident BC diagnoses over a median follow-up of 4.7 years and prevalent BC diagnosed pre-enrolment (self-reported). A multivariable Cox regression model including conventional risk factors examined association between incident BC risk and the PRS as a categorical variable by quintiles (Q) of the distribution (low-[Q1] medium-[Q2-4], high-[Q5] risk groups). Logistic regression examined associations with prevalent BC. We categorized the PRS into low- (Q1), moderate- (Q2-4) and high-risk (Q5) groups to consider PRS effect on incident BC. When using Q1 as a reference, participants in the high-risk PRS group had a significantly higher risk of developing incident BC compared to women in the low-risk PRS group (HR=2.16 [95% CI 1.21 to 3.86], p<0.01) (Table 2, Figure 2). The competing risk model showed that individuals in Q5 (the high-risk group) had higher cumulative incidence than those in Q1 (the low-risk group) and Q2-4 (the moderate-risk group) (Figure 3). Participants in the moderate- and low-risk groups did not have significantly different risks of incident BC. The calibration plot for the incident risk model (Figure S2b), illustrates high concordance between the predicted and observed events. Net reclassification analysis had point estimates of 0.15 [95% CI 0.03; 0.24] for combined change, with NRI+ 0.09 [95% CI -0.02; 0.13] and NRI-of 0.05 [95% CI 0.02; 0.08]. Reclassification of cases and controls is shown in Table S2. ![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/05/05/2021.05.03.21256567/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/05/2021.05.03.21256567/F2) Figure 2: Competing risk survival curves for incident breast cancer according to PRS groups. The PRS distribution was categorized by quintiles (Q) of the distribution into three groups; low-risk (Q1, green), medium-risk (Q2-4, brown) and high-risk (Q5, red). Competing risk estimates of the cumulative incidence were calculated for each group (multivariable adjusted). ![Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/05/05/2021.05.03.21256567/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/05/2021.05.03.21256567/F3) Figure 3: PRS distribution of female pathogenic variant (PV) carriers who were affected (red) or unaffected (blue) by prevalent BC. Density represents the proportion of individuals in each PRS group (low/medium/high). The PRS is distributed normally according to scaled PRS score (mean 0, standard deviation 1). PV carriers are highlighted across the PRS distribution. Histopathology was available for 103 incident BC cases (Table S3). The PRS was found to be a significant predictor of (ER+/PR+) disease (HR=1.53 per SD [95% CI 1.22 to 1.91)], p<0.001, n=79). ### Prevalent breast cancer Of the 41 participants with PVs, 11 (27.5%) reported prevalent BC at baseline, compared with 7.5% (475/6,339) in all female participants, giving an estimated OR of 4.69 (95% CI 2.21 to 9.27, p<0.001) for PVs grouped across all five genes (Table S4). The OR estimate for PVs in *BRCA1* and *BRCA2* (OR=6.09 [95% CI 1.77 to 19.08]) was higher than PVs in the other genes (*ATM/PALB/CHECK2*) (OR=3.33 [95% CI 1.19 to 7.92, p=0.011). Per-gene ORs are reported in Table S5, but are limited by small carrier numbers. In sub-group analysis, when stratifying prevalent BC cases by diagnosis age (before or after 50 years), the OR estimate for having a PV was higher for early-onset BC risk (diagnosed <50 years, OR=9.79 [CI 2.29 to 28.87], p=0.02) than for later-onset BC risk (diagnosed >50 years, OR=3.91 [CI 1.64 to 8.31], p=0.02) (Table S6). The PRS as a continuous variable was associated with prevalent BC after controlling for covariates in the model (OR=1.47 per SD [95% CI 1.34 to 1.61, p<0.001). The HL and TBM tests did not indicate a lack of goodness-of-fit (p>0.05). The AUC for the model with the PRS (AUC=0.62 [0.59-0.65], Figure S2c) was improved relative to the model including family history of BC only (AUC=0.53 [0.52-0.55], Figure S2d) (p<0.01). When considering the PRS as a categorical variable, participants in the high-risk group had a significantly higher BC risk compared with the low-risk group (OR=3.16 [95% CI 2.26 to 4.49], p<0.001). Participants in the moderate-risk group also had higher BC risk versus the low-risk group (OR=2.12 [95% CI 1.56 to 2.94], p<0.001.). ### Modification of BC risk by PRS in rare PV carriers Eleven participants with PVs reported prevalent BC, and 29 with PVs reported no prevalent BC. We hypothesized that individuals with PVs and a history of BC (affected) may have a higher PRS, on average, than those with PVs but without BC (unaffected), as suggested by previous *BRCA1/BRCA2* studies.32 However, we observed no evidence of over-representation of affected or unaffected carriers between low-, moderate- or high-risk PRS groups (Chi-squared χ2=1.97, df=2, P=0.37) (Figure 3, Table S7). ## Discussion The 313-variant PRS for BC predicted incident BC risk in the ASPREE cohort, for women aged ≥70 years as both a continuous (per SD) or categorical (low, moderate and high-risk groups) variable, and improved net reclassification when added to a model composed of traditional BC risk factors. This suggests adding a PRS may increase predictive performance above traditional clinical risk factors for models predicting BC risk in older women. Women in the highest quintile of the PRS distribution had over 2-fold higher risk of incident BC than those in the lowest quintile. The PRS was also associated with incident hormone receptor positive (ER+/PR+) BC specifically (HR=1.5 [95% CI 1.2-1.9]) and with prevalent BC (HR=1.4 per SD [95% CI 1.3-1.6]). The emerging clinical utility of PRS for BC risk prediction and risk stratification, previously demonstrated in women aged 40-69 years 1-4, therefore likely extends to older women. The PRS effect (HR=1.4 per SD) was similar to that reported in population-based studies of younger women,1,3,8,9 including a recent meta-analysis measuring the same PRS used in our study across ten prospective studies of younger women where ORs ranged from 1.48 to 1.75 across participants of all ages.1 Subsequent validation studies of the same PRS in other cohorts found similar ORs to our study (∼1.4), with no evidence of age-related attenuation.2-4 The average age at enrolment in ASPREE (75 years) is over 15 years older than other population-based studies, including the UK Biobank, where average enrolment age was 58 years33, yet similar HRs were observed. However, HR=1.4 is a modest effect. Most incident BC cases in our study had favourable prognoses (*e*.*g*. hormone receptor positive), meaning the PRS impact for improving survival in older women in a clinical setting may be limited, and must be balanced against overdiagnosis/overtreatment risks in this demographic. No incident BC diagnoses were observed in 41 women with rare PVs, despite the high expected BC risk conferred by these PVs (*e*.*g*. average cumulative risk to age 70 years of 50-70% for *BRCA1/BRCA2* PVs).7 This challenges the clinical value of predictive genetic testing for BC risk by sequencing of these genes alone in women aged ≥70 years. However, this testing can trigger cascade family testing, which has benefits including risk management, early detection, and/or prevention of cancer in younger family members. We also observed no incident ovarian cancer diagnoses in the 41 PV carriers. Retrospective data suggested a higher risk of BC in individuals with a PV compared with those without (OR=4.7) when all PVs across all genes were combined into a single group. This reflects the effect of PVs earlier in life. However, women with PVs diagnosed with cancer earlier in life are less likely to have been ascertained by our study, because they either died from cancer before the enrolment age or were too unwell to enrol in the ASPREE trial due to a current or recent cancer diagnosis. This has likely resulted the healthy selection bias that can often occur in older survivor cohorts.34 Thus risk estimates observed in PV carriers ascertained in our study (and the ORs and CIs reported for associations between the PRS/PVs and prevalent cases) must be interpreted with caution. In response to recent studies reporting that an individual’s PRS may modify the penetrance of rare PVs in the *BRCA1* and *BRCA2* genes,8,9,32,35 we sought evidence of risk-modification by the PRS in PV carriers affected and unaffected by prevalent BC in our study. We observed no evidence of either a higher PRS in females with a PV and affected by BC, or a protective effect of a lower PRS in unaffected PV carriers (Figure 3). However, we acknowledge our analysis was limited by a relatively small number of PV carriers. Further studies are needed to investigate this more rigorously. Key strengths of our study include the well-characterised, older study population (median age after follow-up 78 years) followed prospectively, with all incident BC diagnoses adjudicated by an expert panel. Most previous studies of genetic risk scores for BC have examined younger cohorts, some selected for family history. Limitations of our study include the unavailability of some phenotypic and clinical risk factors associated with BC, such as mammographic density, reproductive factors (*e*.*g*. age at menarche, menopause, first birth) and hormonal factors beyond HRT use (*e*.*g*. oral contraceptive use)36. Our clinical risk factor model might be improved with these additional factors. Participants may have undergone risk-reducing bilateral prophylactic mastectomy or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy prior to enrolment, to reduce BC/OC risk. The relatively small number of PVs detected (N=41) necessitated grouping of PVs across genes to calculate averaged risk, despite known differences in the magnitude of risk conferred by PVs in different genes.11,12 The relatively short follow-up period of 4.7 years limited the total number of incident BC events. Prevalent BC (pre-enrolment) was self-reported (without specific diagnosis age) and not verified through supporting documentation, potentially causing over-estimation of prevalent BC events. Our study involved only participants of European genetic ancestry, meaning results may not be generalisable to other populations. In conclusion, we demonstrate that the predictive value of a PRS extends to older women, with no evidence of age-related attenuation in predictive performance after age 70 years. Our study has clinical implications for the use and interpretation of polygenic risk prediction of BC across the female lifespan. ## Supporting information Supplementary Materials [[supplements/256567_file02.docx]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author. ## Notes ### Data availability The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author. ### Funding This work was supported by an ASPREE Flagship cluster grant (including the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Monash University, Menzies Research Institute, Australian National University, University of Melbourne); and grants (U01AG029824 and U19AG062682) from the National Institute on Aging and the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health, by grants (334047 and 1127060) from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and by Monash University and the Victorian Cancer Agency. AEC receives a NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1147843). HPS holds an NHMRC MRFF Next Generation Clinical Researchers Program Practitioner Fellowship (APP1137127). PL is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship. ### Author disclosures No conflicts are declared. ### Author contributions PL: Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft. AB: Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Software. MR: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Software. SGO: Resources, Data curation, Investigation, Project administration. JT: Investigation, Writing – original draft. JN: Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation. PRC: JN: Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation. AJ: Conceptualization, Methodology. YC: Conceptualization, Methodology. ETW: Conceptualization, Validation. AM: Methodology, Validation. TND: Conceptualization, Validation. MCSS: Conceptualization, Validation. RLM: Conceptualization, Validation. LFL: Conceptualization, Data curation. RS: Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Methodology. ES: Conceptualization, Resources. LG: Data curation, Methodology. PG: Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Methodology. BAT: Resources, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology. FAM: Conceptualization, Data curation. IW: Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation. CM: Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Methodology. JRZ: Conceptualization, Resources, Methodology. RW: Conceptualization, Resources, Methodology. ATC: Resources, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision. AM: Resources, Funding acquisition, Project administration. JJM: Conceptualization, Resources, Project administration, Supervision. All authors were involved in writing (review and editing). ## Acknowledgements We thank the trial staff in Australia and the United States, the participants who volunteered for this trial, and the general practitioners and staff of the medical clinics who cared for the participants. * Received May 3, 2021. * Revision received May 3, 2021. * Accepted May 5, 2021. * © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Mavaddat N, Michailidou K, Dennis J, et al. Polygenic Risk Scores for Prediction of Breast Cancer and Breast Cancer Subtypes. Am J Hum Genet. 2019;104(1):21–34. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.11.002&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30554720&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) 2. 2.Lakeman IMM, Rodriguez-Girondo M, Lee A, et al. Validation of the BOADICEA model and a 313-variant polygenic risk score for breast cancer risk prediction in a Dutch prospective cohort. Genet Med. 2020. 3. 3.Kapoor PM, Mavaddat N, Choudhury PP, et al. Combined associations of a polygenic risk score and classical risk factors with breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020. 4. 4.Mars N, Koskela JT, Ripatti P, et al. Polygenic and clinical risk scores and their impact on age at onset and prediction of cardiometabolic diseases and common cancers. Nat Med. 2020;26(4):549–557. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) 5. 5.Prevalence and penetrance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population-based series of breast cancer cases. Anglian Breast Cancer Study Group. Br J Cancer. 2000;83(10):1301–1308. 6. 6.Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, et al. Risks of Breast, Ovarian, and Contralateral Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. JAMA. 2017;317(23):2402–2416. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2017.7112&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28632866&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) 7. 7.Mavaddat N, Peock S, Frost D, et al. Cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from prospective analysis of EMBRACE. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(11):812–822. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jnci/djt095&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23628597&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000320134100012&link_type=ISI) 8. 8.Barnes DR, Rookus MA, McGuffog L, et al. Polygenic risk scores and breast and epithelial ovarian cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. Genet Med. 2020;22(10):1653–1666. 9. 9.Kuchenbaecker KB, McGuffog L, Barrowdale D, et al. Evaluation of Polygenic Risk Scores for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Prediction in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(7). 10. 10.Lee AJ, Cunningham AP, Tischkowitz M, et al. Incorporating truncating variants in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM into the BOADICEA breast cancer risk model. Genet Med. 2016;18(12):1190–1198. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/gim.2016.31&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27464310&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) 11. 11.Breast Cancer Association C, Dorling L, Carvalho S, et al. Breast Cancer Risk Genes - Association Analysis in More than 113,000 Women. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(5):428–439. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1913948&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) 12. 12.Hu C, Hart SN, Gnanaolivu R, et al. A Population-Based Study of Genes Previously Implicated in Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(5):440–451. 13. 13.Bahcall O. Common variation and heritability estimates for breast, ovarian and prostate cancers. Nature Genetics. 2013. 14. 14.Michailidou K, Lindstrom S, Dennis J, et al. Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci. Nature. 2017;551(7678):92–94. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) 15. 15.McNeil JJ, Wolfe R, Woods RL, et al. Effect of Aspirin on Cardiovascular Events and Bleeding in the Healthy Elderly. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(16):1509–1518. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) 16. 16.McNeil JJ, Woods RL, Nelson MR, et al. Effect of Aspirin on Disability-free Survival in the Healthy Elderly. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(16):1499–1508. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) 17. 17.McNeil JJ, Nelson MR, Woods RL, et al. Effect of Aspirin on All-Cause Mortality in the Healthy Elderly. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(16):1519–1528. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1803955&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) 18. 18.Group AI. Study design of ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE): a randomized, controlled trial. Contemporary clinical trials. 2013;36(2):555–564. 19. 19.Nelson MR, Reid CM, Ames DA, et al. Feasibility of conducting a primary prevention trial of low-dose aspirin for major adverse cardiovascular events in older people in Australia: results from the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) pilot study. The Medical journal of Australia. 2008;189(2):105–109. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18637782&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000258714600020&link_type=ISI) 20. 20.Lockery JE, Collyer TA, Abhayaratna WP, et al. Recruiting general practice patients for large clinical trials: lessons from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) study. Med J Aust. 2019;210(4):168–173. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5694/mja2.12060&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) 21. 21.McNeil JJ, Woods RL, Nelson MR, et al. Baseline Characteristics of Participants in the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2017;72(11):1586–1593. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28329340&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) 22. 22.Genomes Project C, Auton A, Brooks LD, et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature. 2015;526(7571):68–74. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nature15393&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26432245&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) 23. 23.Taliun D, Harris DN, Kessler MD, et al. Sequencing of 53,831 diverse genomes from the NHLBI TOPMed Program. Nature. 2021;590(7845):290–299. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41586-021-03205-y&link_type=DOI) 24. 24.Lacaze P, Sebra R, Riaz M, et al. Medically actionable pathogenic variants in a population of 13,131 healthy elderly individuals. Genet Med. 2020. 25. 25.Landrum MJ, Lee JM, Riley GR, et al. ClinVar: public archive of relationships among sequence variation and human phenotype. Nucleic acids research. 2014;42(Database issue):D980–985. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/nar/gkt1113&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24234437&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000331139800144&link_type=ISI) 26. 26.Lek M, Karczewski KJ, Minikel EV, et al. Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. Nature. 2016;536(7616):285–291. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nature19057&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27535533&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000381804900026&link_type=ISI) 27. 27.Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. 2015;17(5):405–424. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/gim.2015.30&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25741868&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) 28. 28.Orchard SG, Lockery JE, Gibbs P, et al. Cancer history and risk factors in healthy older people enrolling in the ASPREE clinical trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2020;96:106095. 29. 29.Song M, Kraft P, Joshi AD, Barrdahl M, Chatterjee N. Testing calibration of risk models at extremes of disease risk. Biostatistics. 2015;16(1):143–154. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/biostatistics/kxu034&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25027274&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) 30. 30.DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837–845. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2531595&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3203132&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1988Q069100016&link_type=ISI) 31. 31.Sun X, Xu W. Fast Implementation of DeLong’s Algorithm for Comparing the Areas Under Correlated Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves. IEEE Signal Processing Letters. 2014;21(11):1389–1393. 32. 32.Fahed AC, Wang M, Homburger JR, et al. Polygenic background modifies penetrance of monogenic variants for tier 1 genomic conditions. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):3635. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) 33. 33.Sudlow C, Gallacher J, Allen N, et al. UK biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS Med. 2015;12(3):e1001779. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001779&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25826379&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) 34. 34.Stovitz SD, Banack HR, Kaufman JS. ‘Depletion of the susceptibles’ taught through a story, a table and basic arithmetic. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2018;23(5):199. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiZWJtZWQiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiMjMvNS8xOTkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8wNS8wNS8yMDIxLjA1LjAzLjIxMjU2NTY3LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 35. 35.Khera AV, Chaffin M, Aragam KG, et al. Genome-wide polygenic scores for common diseases identify individuals with risk equivalent to monogenic mutations. Nat Genet. 2018;50(9):1219–1224. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41588-018–0183-z&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30104762&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom) 36. 36.Lee A, Mavaddat N, Wilcox AN, et al. BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors. Genet Med. 2019;21(8):1708–1718. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41436-018-0406-9&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30643217&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F05%2F05%2F2021.05.03.21256567.atom)