Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Mar 27:12:e82608.
doi: 10.7554/eLife.82608.

Polygenic risk scores for the prediction of common cancers in East Asians: A population-based prospective cohort study

Peh Joo Ho  1   2   3 , Iain BeeHuat Tan  1   2   4   5 , Dawn Qingqing Chong  5   6 , Chiea Chuen Khor  1 , Jian-Min Yuan  7   8 , Woon-Puay Koh  9   10 , Rajkumar Dorajoo  1 , Jingmei Li  1   3
Affiliations

Polygenic risk scores for the prediction of common cancers in East Asians: A population-based prospective cohort study

Peh Joo Ho et al. Elife. .

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the utility of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) in identifying high-risk individuals, different publicly available PRSs for breast (n=85), prostate (n=37), colorectal (n=22), and lung cancers (n=11) were examined in a prospective study of 21,694 Chinese adults.

Methods: We constructed PRS using weights curated in the online PGS Catalog. PRS performance was evaluated by distribution, discrimination, predictive ability, and calibration. Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding confidence intervals (CI) of the common cancers after 20 years of follow-up were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models for different levels of PRS.

Results: A total of 495 breast, 308 prostate, 332 female-colorectal, 409 male-colorectal, 181 female-lung, and 381 male-lung incident cancers were identified. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve for the best-performing site-specific PRS were 0.61 (PGS000873, breast), 0.70 (PGS00662, prostate), 0.65 (PGS000055, female-colorectal), 0.60 (PGS000734, male-colorectal), 0.56 (PGS000721, female-lung), and 0.58 (PGS000070, male-lung), respectively. Compared to the middle quintile, individuals in the highest cancer-specific PRS quintile were 64% more likely to develop cancers of the breast, prostate, and colorectal. For lung cancer, the lowest cancer-specific PRS quintile was associated with 28-34% decreased risk compared to the middle quintile. In contrast, the HR observed for quintiles 4 (female-lung: 0.95 [0.61-1.47]; male-lung: 1.14 [0.82-1.57]) and 5 (female-lung: 0.95 [0.61-1.47]) were not significantly different from that for the middle quintile.

Conclusions: Site-specific PRSs can stratify the risk of developing breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers in this East Asian population. Appropriate correction factors may be required to improve calibration.

Funding: This work is supported by the National Research Foundation Singapore (NRF-NRFF2017-02), PRECISION Health Research, Singapore (PRECISE) and the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR). WP Koh was supported by National Medical Research Council, Singapore (NMRC/CSA/0055/2013). CC Khor was supported by National Research Foundation Singapore (NRF-NRFI2018-01). Rajkumar Dorajoo received a grant from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research Career Development Award (A*STAR CDA - 202D8090), and from Ministry of Health Healthy Longevity Catalyst Award (HLCA20Jan-0022).The Singapore Chinese Health Study was supported by grants from the National Medical Research Council, Singapore (NMRC/CIRG/1456/2016) and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01 CA144034 and UM1 CA182876).

Keywords: Asian; calibration; cohort study; epidemiology; genetics; genomics; global health; none; polygenic risk score; population-based cancer screening.

Plain language summary

Although humans contain the same genes, the sequence within these DNA sites can vary from person to person. These small variations, also known as genetic variants, can increase the risk of developing certain diseases. While each variant will only have a weak effect, if multiple variations are present the odds of developing the disease becomes significantly higher. To determine which variants are linked to a disease, researchers carry out genome-wide association studies which involve analyzing the genomes of individuals with and without the condition and comparing their genetic codes. This data is then used to calculate how different combinations of variants impact a person’s chance of getting the disease, also known as a polygenic risk score. Currently, most genome-wide association studies only incorporate genetic data from people with European ancestry. Consequently, polygenic risk scores performed using this information may not accurately predict the risk of developing the disease for individuals with other ethnicities, such as people with Asian ancestry. Here, Ho et al. evaluated how well previously calculated polygenic risk scores for the four most common cancers (breast, colorectal, prostate and lung) worked on individuals of East Asian descent. The scores were tested on a dataset containing the genetic sequence, medical history, diet and activity levels of over 21,000 people living in Singapore in the 1990s. Ho et al. found that the polygenic risk scores for breast, prostate and colorectal cancer were able to predict disease risk. However, the score for lung cancer did not perform as well. The polygenic risk score for breast cancer was the most accurate, and was able to stratify individuals into distinct risk bands at an earlier age than other scores. These findings shed light on which existing polygenic risk scores will be effective at assessing cancer risk in individuals with East Asian ancestry. Indeed, Ho et al. have already incorporated the polygenic risk score for breast cancer into a pilot study screening individuals in a comparable population in Singapore. However, the polygenic risk scores tested still performed better on individuals with European ancestry, highlighting the need to address the lack of Asian representation in genome-wide association studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

PH, IT, DC, CK, JY, WK, JL No competing interests declared, RD received a grant from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research Career Development Award (A*STAR CDA - 202D8090), and from Ministry of Health Healthy Longevity Catalyst Award (HLCA20Jan-0022). The author has no other competing interests to declare

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Site-specific polygenic risk scores (PRSs) performance assessment.
(A) Distribution, (B) discrimination, (C) absolute risk association, and (D) calibration for each of the four common cancers studied (from left to right: breast, prostate, lung [female], lung [male], colorectal [female], and colorectal [male]). Two-sided, two-sample t-tests with a type I error of 0.05 were used to examine whether there was a difference in the distribution of standardised PRS (subtraction of mean value followed by the division by the standard deviation) between site-specific cancer cases and non-cancer controls (A). The PRSs showcased are the best-performing scores based on area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) values in the female and male populations, (i) unadjusted [solid line], and (ii) adjusted for age at recruitment [dashed line] (B). Each colored line in the plots for absolute risk association denotes a five percentile increase in the standardised PRS score in (C). Calibration calculated based on 5-year absolute risk by PRS deciles in (D). A prediction tool is considered more accurate when the AUC is larger. An AUC of 0.9–1.0 is considered excellent, 0.8–0.9 very good, 0.7–0.8 good, 0.6–0.7 sufficient, 0.5–0.6 bad, and less than 0.5 considered not useful (PMID: 27683318).
Author response image 1.
Author response image 1.. Distributions of AUC, calibration (expected/ observed), and Hosmer-Lemeshow p-values for features of performance, by cancer type.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1101/2022.09.12.22279874

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Adami HO, Bergström R, Engholm G, Nyrén O, Wolk A, Ekbom A, Englund A, Baron J. A prospective study of smoking and risk of prostate cancer. International Journal of Cancer. 1996;67:764–768. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19960917)67:6<764::AID-IJC3>3.0.CO;2-P. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Archambault AN, Su YR, Jeon J, Thomas M, Lin Y, Conti DV, Win AK, Sakoda LC, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Peterse EFP, Zauber AG, Duggan D, Holowatyj AN, Huyghe JR, Brenner H, Cotterchio M, Bézieau S, Schmit SL, Edlund CK, Southey MC, MacInnis RJ, Campbell PT, Chang-Claude J, Slattery ML, Chan AT, Joshi AD, Song M, Cao Y, Woods MO, White E, Weinstein SJ, Ulrich CM, Hoffmeister M, Bien SA, Harrison TA, Hampe J, Li CI, Schafmayer C, Offit K, Pharoah PD, Moreno V, Lindblom A, Wolk A, Wu AH, Li L, Gunter MJ, Gsur A, Keku TO, Pearlman R, Bishop DT, Castellví-Bel S, Moreira L, Vodicka P, Kampman E, Giles GG, Albanes D, Baron JA, Berndt SI, Brezina S, Buch S, Buchanan DD, Trichopoulou A, Severi G, Chirlaque MD, Sánchez MJ, Palli D, Kühn T, Murphy N, Cross AJ, Burnett-Hartman AN, Chanock SJ, de la Chapelle A, Easton DF, Elliott F, English DR, Feskens EJM, FitzGerald LM, Goodman PJ, Hopper JL, Hudson TJ, Hunter DJ, Jacobs EJ, Joshu CE, Küry S, Markowitz SD, Milne RL, Platz EA, Rennert G, Rennert HS, Schumacher FR, Sandler RS, Seminara D, Tangen CM, Thibodeau SN, Toland AE, van Duijnhoven FJB, Visvanathan K, Vodickova L, Potter JD, Männistö S, Weigl K, Figueiredo J, Martín V, Larsson SC, Parfrey PS, Huang WY, Lenz HJ, Castelao JE, Gago-Dominguez M, Muñoz-Garzón V, Mancao C, Haiman CA, Wilkens LR, Siegel E, Barry E, Younghusband B, Van Guelpen B, Harlid S, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, Liang PS, Du M, Casey G, Lindor NM, Le Marchand L, Gallinger SJ, Jenkins MA, Newcomb PA, Gruber SB, Schoen RE, Hampel H, Corley DA, Hsu L, Peters U, Hayes RB. Cumulative burden of colorectal cancer-associated genetic variants is more strongly associated with early-onset vs late-onset cancer. Gastroenterology. 2020;158:1274–1286. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.12.012. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Archambault AN, Jeon J, Lin Y, Thomas M, Harrison TA, Bishop DT, Brenner H, Casey G, Chan AT, Chang-Claude J, Figueiredo JC, Gallinger S, Gruber SB, Gunter MJ, Guo F, Hoffmeister M, Jenkins MA, Keku TO, Le Marchand L, Li L, Moreno V, Newcomb PA, Pai R, Parfrey PS, Rennert G, Sakoda LC, Lee JK, Slattery ML, Song M, Win AK, Woods MO, Murphy N, Campbell PT, Su Y-R, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Peterse EFP, Cao Y, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, Liang PS, Du M, Corley DA, Hsu L, Peters U, Hayes RB. Risk stratification for early-onset colorectal cancer using a combination of genetic and environmental risk scores: an international multi-center study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2022;114:528–539. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djac003. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brentnall AR, van Veen EM, Harkness EF, Rafiq S, Byers H, Astley SM, Sampson S, Howell A, Newman WG, Cuzick J, Evans DGR. A case-control evaluation of 143 single nucleotide polymorphisms for breast cancer risk stratification with classical factors and mammographic density. International Journal of Cancer. 2020;146:2122–2129. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32541. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cano-Gamez E, Trynka G. From GWAS to function: using functional genomics to identify the mechanisms underlying complex diseases. Frontiers in Genetics. 2020;11:424. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2020.00424. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types