Multi-Cancer PRS Constellation Model for Cancer Risk Prediction

Study populations

The UK Biobank (UKB - https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/) is a large, ongoing cohort study with genetic, clinical, and lifestyle data from 502,463 UK participants (2006-2010). The study design and methods have been previously described(9). For this study, we selected incident CRC, BC (only in woman), and PC cases. Cases and controls were defined as “white British” individuals of European ancestry. Prevalent cases, BC in men, and participants with poor genotyping data or study discontinuation were excluded. A random selection of 10 control subjects free of cancer was performed for each cancer outcome. The study comprised 5288 CRC cases, 7765 BC cases, and 8733 PC cases, and 52880, 77650, and 87330 controls respectively for each type of cancer. This research was conducted using the UK Biobank Resource (UKBv3) under Application 69033.

GenRisk is a sub-project of the MCC-Spain, a multicentre case-control study conducted between 2008 and 2013 in 12 provinces of Spain(10). The study included among other, cases of CRC, BC, PC, and share a common control population. For this study we selected a total of 6,387 subjects with genotype data, comprising 1,431 cases with CRC, 1,179 with BC, 913 with PC and 2,864 controls(11).

Risk factors and Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) selection

Selection of risk factors for CRC, BC and PC was based on bibliography(6–8). A total of 63 traits of interest were considered for exploration, that were divided into 10 categories: alcohol consumption, smoking consumption, anthropometric body measurements, physical activity, dietary habits, supplement medicaments intake, medical history, cardiac function, women’s/men health, and biomarkers.

The PRS for CRC, BC, PC, and for each risk factor variable were developed using lists of SNPs derived from pre-existing PRSs proposed in other studies. These PRSs were obtained from the PGS catalog database(12) (https://www.pgscatalog.org/) and PubMed publications(13,14). The selection was based on the most recent studies and with the highest percentage of participants with European ancestry. SNPs on the sex chromosomes were excluded from PRS. Supplementary Table 1 provides a comprehensive overview of the variables used to calculate the PRSs. The UKB was the unique source for the risk factor PRS, and contributed to all the cancer-specific PRSs.

Genotype data and imputation

The UKB and GenRisk data followed different procedures in terms of genotyping and imputation. UKB v3 imputed genotype data from 488,000 participants were obtained from their website, the genotyping and imputation protocol has been described elsewhere(9). Briefly, samples were genotyped using two arrays the UK BiLEVE Axiom Array (∼50000 participants) and UK Biobank Axiom Array (∼450000 participants) by Affymetrix. As a result, of the combination of the two arrays, 805426 markers were obtained in the + stand and in GRCh37 coordinates. Genotyped data was imputed using the Haplotype Reference Consortium (HRC) and UK10K reference panels, ∼96 million variants were obtained which are stored in BGEN v1.2 format (.bgen, .sample, .bgi). SNPs associated with the risk variables were extracted using the bgnix (https://enkre.net/cgi-bin/code/bgen/doc/trunk/doc/wiki/bgenix.md) program, and transformed into PLINK2 format (pgen, .pvar, .psam).

The GenRisk study was genotyped using two platforms. Infinium Oncoarray-500k was used for CRC cases an controls that were included in the CORECT(15) project and PC cases and controls included in the PRACTICAL(16), both part of the GAME-ON project(17), and Illumina Global Screening Array-24 v3.0 for the remaining cases and controls. A description of the sample types associated with each project is available in Supplementary Table 2. Quality control (QC) measures included sample removal based on call rate, sex concordance, heterozygosity, and duplicate handling. SNPs were filtered based on chromosomal location, allele validity, multi-locus nature, minor allele frequency, and call rate. Individual imputations were performed using the HRC panel for each of the subsets and subsequently merged selecting SNPs with good imputation quality (r2>0.4) in all platforms. The extraction of SNPs associated with risk variables and data manipulation were accomplished using bcftools (https://samtools.github.io/bcftools/bcftools.html)(18), and PLINK2(19).

Construction and Assessment of PRS

The risk SNPs extracted from the imputed data from the UKB and GenRisk studies were subjected to rigorous QC measures prior to PRS calculation. The QC process encompassed the following steps: 1) Exclusion of multi-allelic, duplicated, and ambiguous SNPs with effective allele frequencies (EAF) ranging between 0.4 and 0.6. 2) Exclusion of variants with low imputation information (r2 < 0.4). 3) Exclusion of SNPs exhibiting a minor allele frequency (MAF) below the threshold of 0.005. 4) Exclusion of SNPs with high linkage disequilibrium (LD), using a correlation threshold (R2) of 0.3. When multiple SNPs were in LD, one was randomly selected and those with R2>0.3 were excluded, and 5) The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE) filter was applied to exclude variants exhibiting deviations from equilibrium, showing a statistical significance (p<1xE^-6) in the HWE test.

Weighted PRSs were calculated using PLINK2 --score command, which calculates the lineal risk scores for each individual (j in the formula below) as a weighted sum of the i trait associated SNPs divided by the number of non-missing alleles, following the protocol defined for Collister et al. 2022(20), and using the following formula: Where:

• N - The total number of SNPs.

• β_i - The SNPs weight

• dosage_ij - The allelic dosage for the effect allele in SNP i for individual j.

• P - The ploidy of the individuals (P = 2 in humans).

• M_j - The number of non-missing variants observed for individual j.

The PRS calculation used weights obtained from the SNPs effect sizes in the GWAS study that defined the PRS (Supplementary Table 1).

Statistical analysis

All statistical analysis were performed using R software (version 4.2.0) and PLINK software (version 2.0). For simple comparisons between cases and controls, the chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test were used. Pearson correlation was used to assess the association among quantitative variables.

PRS Constellation prediction model building

A Bayesian network (BN) was constructed based on PRS calculated for each cancer type. The networks included as candidate nodes all the PRSs and were directed to predict the actual case/control status for each cancer. The structure learning of the BN was performed using the Hill-Climbing (hc) algorithm, which is a score-based learning approach. The hc() function from the bnlearn package in R was employed for this purpose. The learning process was guided by the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) score, which was used to evaluate the goodness of fit of different network structures. The UKB was utilized for the structure learning process, enabling the identification of the optimal BN structure. To perform this procedure, the UKB data was initially partitioned into two distinct subsets: a train subset and a test subset. Subsequently, 10 train/test datasets were generated from the train subset utilizing a resampling technique. Each of these 10 datasets was employed for constructing a BN. From the models generated, the PRS associated with variables deemed significant in 8 out of 10 models were identified. These selected variables were utilized in the formulation of the ultimate PRS constellation model. The BN graphical structure was constructed to directed acyclic graph (DAG) using the viewer() function from bnviewer package. The ggvenn package in R were used to create a Venn diagram of pleiotropic associations between cancer-related SNPs and trait-associated SNPs.

The predictive discrimination of the models was assessed with the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve in the UKB test subset and in the completely independent GenRisk study. The DeLong test was used to compare the AUCs. The pROC package in R were used to create the calibration curve and the ROC graph. Optimal cutoffs to maximize sensitivity and specificity in the UKB dataset were calculated and applied to the GenRisk study to calculate accuracy.

General characteristics of study population

The baseline characteristics of the UKB participants in the PRS constellation model development, spanning CRC, BC, and PC cancers are summarized in Table 1. The CRC set (5288 cases, 52880 controls) had a median age of 62 for cases and 56 for controls, with CRC cases showing associations with higher tobacco and red meat consumption, lower vegetables, and fruit intake, and elevated diabetes and hypertension rates. The BC set (7765 cases, 77650 controls) showed that cases, compared to controls, tend to be older, smokers, and consume more red meat. The PC cohort (8733 cases, 87330 controls) comprised only men, with cases that had higher consumption of tobacco, more frequent diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol levels.

Construction of PRS constellation model

A total of 63 weighted PRSs were created and evaluated for each cancer type and risk factor. Supplementary Figure 1 shows risk score distributions for CRC, BC, and PC, comparing cases and controls. The predictive power for the PRS evaluation of each trait is shown in Supplementary Table 3, demonstrating significant differences between case and control scores for all variables.

These PRSs were integrated into Bayesian network models, directed to predict the actual case status for each cancer type. The Bayesian network model was pruned from a fully connected model to identify variables influencing the target cancer and assigned coefficients to quantify their association strength. Age, and sex in the CRC model, were fixed in all models to ensure adjustment.

The constellation model for CRC was developed using a combination of 51 PRS, sex, and age variables, and the final model included 9 PRSs influencing CRC risk (Figure 1A). The mathematical formula was: CRC risk score = (0.0289 * Sex) + (0.0067 * Age at recruitment) + (0.0344 * PRS_CRC) – (0.0033 * PRS_Never_smoker) + (0.0047 * PRS_Standing_height) + (0.0042 * PRS_WHR) – (0.0036 * PRS_Aspirin) + (0.003 * PRS_Diabetes) + (0.006 * PRS_essential_Hypertension) + (0.004 * PRS_LDL_Cholesterol) + (0.004 * PRS_Pulse_rate_AR) – (0.0036 * PRS_Red_blood_cell_count). Figure 1B represents this PRS constellation model in a visualization of the relationships and dependencies among the variables, highlighting those influential in cases of CRC.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. PRS Constellation Models for CRC, BC, and PC Risk Prediction.

The figure displays the PRS constellation models and its coefficients for A,B) CRC, C,D) BC, and E,F) PC risk prediction. A, C, and D) Coefficients associated with each PRS variable in the Bayesian prediction models, sorted by their influence. Colours represent the group to which each variable belongs. B, D, and F) The models were constructed using the bnviewer package in R, which enables the visualization of Bayesian networks. The nodes in the figure represent a specific factor that contributes to the overall risk prediction. The arrows connecting the nodes depict the relationships and dependencies among the variables. The direction of the arrows indicates the direction of influence or causal relationships between the variables.

The BC PRS constellation model (Figures 1C and 1D) obtained using a combination of 54 PRS and age variable included 9 PRSs: BC risk score = (0.0023 * Age at recruitment) + (0.0391 * PRS_BC) + (0.0029 * PRS_Waist_circumference) + (0.0059 * PRS_Standing_height) + (0.0036 * PRS_essential_Hypertension) + (0.0026 * PRS_Uterine_fibroids) - (0.0016 * PRS_Age_menarche) + (0.0022 * PRS_Age_menopause) – (0.0044 * PRS_SHBG) + (0.006 * PRS_Testosterone).

The PC PRS constellation model (Figures 1E and 1F) was derived by incorporating a combination of 50 PRS variables along with the age variable, and included 10 PRSs: PC risk score = (0.0078 * Age at recruitment) + (0.0275 * PRS_PC) + (0.0022 * PRS_Alcohol_consumed) + (0.0039 * PRS_Standing_height) + (0.0025 * PRS_WHR) – (0.0018 * PRS_Bread_intake) - (0,0028 * PRS_Coffee_intake) + (0.0056 * PRS_essential_hypertension) + (0.0134 * PRS_hyperplasia_prostate) + (0.0025 * PRS_Vitamin_D_BM) + (0.0023 * PRS_Platelet_count_BM).

Evaluation of cancer PRS constellation model using AUC analysis in the UKB test dataset

The three generated models underwent 10-fold cross-validation to assess their prediction power. ROC curves, illustrating sensitivity and specificity, were used alongside the AUC to evaluate the models’ discriminatory ability in predicting CRC, BC, and PC cancers. CRC model achieved an AUC of 0.74 (95%CI 0.72-0.76), with 60% sensitivity, 74% specificity, and 73% overall accuracy for a cutoff or 0.13. The BC model had an AUC of 0.65 (95%CI 0.63-0.67), yielding moderate sensitivity (56%), specificity (65%), and 64% overall accuracy for the 0.10 cutoff. The PC model obtained an AUC of 0.75 (95%CI 0.74-0.76), with 72% sensitivity, 66% specificity, and 66% overall accuracy for the 0.12 cutoff (Table 2, Supplementary Table 4 and Supplementary Figure 2).

Impact on the accuracy of risk prediction when combining tumour related PRS traits with specific cancer PRS

While individual PRSs for traits demonstrated limited impact on overall risk (Supplementary Figure 3), a comprehensive evaluation was conducted to assess their combined influence. This evaluation compared models incorporating all PRSs (All-model), cancer-specific PRSs (Cancer-model), and trait-specific PRSs (Traits-model), both with and without the inclusion of sex and age. The findings revealed that the combined PRS traits did not significantly enhance the CRC or BC models when including or not age and sex. Nevertheless, a significant improvement was observed in the PC model when trait PRSs were combined with the cancer-specific PRS (Figure 2 and Table 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Comparative analysis of predictive power among models:

PRS by Cancer (Cancer-model), PRS for case-related traits (Traits-model), and complete models (All-model). Evaluation includes ROC curves and AUC values for prediction models of A) Colorectal Cancer (CRC), B) Breast Cancer (BC), and C) Prostate Cancer (PC), including age and sex. Panels D-F represent ROC curves and AUC values for prediction models of D) CRC, E) BC, and F) PC, not including age and sex.

Remarkably, the traits-model demonstrated predictive capacity for all cancers, albeit to a lesser extent than the models incorporating cancer-specific PRSs. On the other hand, it should be noted that including age and sex variables in the model notably enhanced the AUC, especially in the CRC models, and age in the PC model (Figure 2 and Table 2).

Additionally, potential pleiotropic effects between cancer-related SNPs and trait-associated SNPs were analysed, indicating minimal overlap. Shared SNPs constituted a small fraction of the total SNP count (Supplementary Figure 4-6).

Validation of PRS Constellation Models in the GenRisk study

The GenRisk study was utilized for the validation of the three risk prediction models, encompassing the comprehensive models (All-model), as well as an evaluation of the predictive potential of the specific PRS of each cancer (Cancer-model) and the PRSs associated with individual characteristics (Trait-model), both including and excluding age and sex.

In the external validation cohort of the CRC model including sex and age, we observed robust predictive accuracy for CRC, yielding an AUC value of 0.65 (95% CI 0.63-0.67) (Table 2). The model demonstrated a sensitivity of 70%, specificity of 50%, and an overall accuracy of 56%.. Additionally, it has been found that both the CRC-specific PRS (case-model) and the PRS associated with CRC-related variables (traits-model), in isolation, exhibited notable predictive capabilities for CRC, as evidenced by AUC values of 0.65 (95% CI 0.63-0.67) and 0.61 (95% CI 0.59-0.64), respectively. Thus, as observed in the UKB cohort, adding PRS traits to the CRC case-model did not improve its performance (Figure 3A, Table 2). In fact, the traits-model lacked predictive power when the variables age and sex were not included.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Discrimination ability of the PRS constellation models in the external validation cohort GenRisk.

ROC curves of PRS constellations models: PRS by case (Case-model), PRS for case-related traits (Traits-model), and complete models (All-model). Evaluation includes ROC curves and AUC values for prediction models of A) Colorectal Cancer (CRC), B) Breast Cancer (BC), and C) Prostate Cancer (PC), including age and sex. Panels D-F) represent ROC curves and AUC values for prediction models of D) CRC, E) BC, and F) PC, not including age and sex.

The external validation of the BC All-model, including age, showed an AUC of 0.56 (95% CI 0.54-0.58) (Table 2), with a sensitivity of 52%, specificity of 54%, and overall accuracy of 53%. Similarly, the BC case-model, including age, demonstrated predictive capability with an AUC of 0.56 (95% CI 0.54-0.58) but the traits-model, even including age, did not exhibit significant predictive power, with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI 0.53 - 0.58) (Figure 3B, Table 2). On the other hand, when age is excluded from the models, the AUC of both the all-model and the BC-model surprisingly improved to 0.62 (95% CI 0.60-0.64), while the trait-model still lacked predictive power, with an AUC of 0.51 (95% CI 0.49-0.54) (Figure 3E, Table 2).

The PC model did not replicate in the GenRisk study, showing no significant findings. The AUC was 0.50 (95% CI 0.47-0.53)(Table 2), with a sensitivity of 81%, specificity of 27%, and an overall accuracy of 43% (Figure 3C). Similarly, the PC case-model, including age, showed limited predictive capability with an AUC of 0.50 (95% CI 0.46-0.53). Meanwhile, the traits-model, including age, also did not demonstrate significant predictive power, with an AUC of 0.54 (95% CI 0.50 - 0.57) (Figure 3B, Table 2). Conversely, when age was excluded from the models, the AUC of both the all-model and the BC-model surprisingly improved significantly to 0.56 (95% CI 0.53 - 0.59) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.55-0.62), respectively. Meanwhile, the trait-model still lacks predictive power, with an AUC of 0.53 (95% CI 0.49-0.56) (Figure 3E, Table 2).

Considering BC and PC results, where excluding age improved the model slightly, we found that this was due to the GenRisk study design, that had a common pool of controls for all the cases, selected in an overall frequency matched design. As expected, the median ages in the UK cohort were always greater for cases than controls. However, in the GenRisk study, BC and PC cases were younger than controls, which made the age model parameter trained in the UKB reduce the predictive accuracy in the validation (Table 1. Supplementary Table 5).