PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Fritsche, Lars G. AU - Ma, Ying AU - Zhang, Daiwei AU - Salvatore, Maxwell AU - Lee, Seunggeun AU - Zhou, Xiang AU - Mukherjee, Bhramar TI - On Cross-ancestry Cancer Polygenic Risk Scores AID - 10.1101/2021.02.24.21252351 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.02.24.21252351 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/02/2021.02.24.21252351.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/02/2021.02.24.21252351.full AB - Polygenic risk scores (PRS) can provide useful information for personalized risk stratification and disease risk assessment, especially when combined with non-genetic risk factors. However, their construction depends on the availability of summary statistics from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) independent from the target sample. For best compatibility, it was reported that GWAS and the target sample should match in terms of ancestries. Yet, GWAS, especially in the field of cancer, often lack diversity and are predominated by European ancestry. This bias is a limiting factor in PRS research. By using electronic health records and genetic data from the UK Biobank, we contrast the utility of breast and prostate cancer PRS derived from external European-ancestry-based GWAS across African, East Asian, European, and South Asian ancestry groups. We highlight differences in the PRS distributions of these groups that are amplified when PRS methods condense hundreds of thousands of variants into a single score. While European-GWAS-derived PRS were not directly transferrable across ancestries on an absolute scale, we establish their predictive potential when considering them separately within each group. For example, the top 10% of the breast cancer PRS distributions within each ancestry group each revealed significant enrichments of breast cancer cases compared to the bottom 90% (odds ratio of 2.81 [95%CI: 2.69,2.93] in European, 2.88 [1.85, 4.48] in African, 2.60 [1.25, 5.40] in East Asian, and 2.33 [1.55, 3.51] in South Asian individuals). Our findings highlight a compromise solution for PRS research to compensate for the lack of diversity in well-powered European GWAS efforts while recruitment of diverse participants in the field catches up.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis material is based in part upon work supported by the National Institutes of Health/NIH (NCI P30CA046592 [LGF, MS, BM]), by the University of Michigan (UM-Precision Health Investigators Award U063790 [LGF, SP, YM, BM]), by the National Research Foundation of Korea (BP+ Program [SL]) and by the National Science Foundation under grant number DMS-1712933. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The open-access UK Biobank data used in this study included questionnaire data, electronic health record data, and genotype and genotyped derived data. UK Biobank received ethical approval from the NHS National Research Ethics Service North West (11/NW/0382).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData cannot be shared publicly due to patient confidentiality. The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the UK Biobank for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/register-apply/