Interactions between polygenic variants and clinical factors as predictors of breast cancer risk in the UK Biobank.

T Timothy Simmons (Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT) E Elisha Hughes (Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT) S Sandhya Pruthi (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) S Srikanth Jammulapati (Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT) D Dmitry Pruss (Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT) E Eudora Hu (Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT) R Ryan Bernhisel (Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT) A Allison W. Kurian (Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA) S Sarah Ratzel (Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT) J Jeff Jasper (Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT) K Katie Johansen Taber (Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT) A Alexander Gutin (Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT)

Abstract

10512 Background: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) combine information from single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) across the genome to explain substantial genetic breast cancer (BC) susceptibility. Previous studies have demonstrated that a multiple-ancestry PRS (MA-385) based on 56 ancestry-informative and 329 BC-associated SNPs is accurate for diverse populations and ranks among the most important known factors affecting the risk of BC development. However, medical guidelines call for more evidence before endorsing the clinical use of PRS, including studies to evaluate possible interactions of SNPs with environmental and hormonal risk factors. Here, we use longitudinal outcomes from the UK Biobank (UKB) to explore interactions of MA-385 and the five most informative individual BC-associated SNPs with the widely used Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) risk model and individual TC risk factors. Methods: The study cohort included 197,509 female UKB participants with no history of cancer at the time of study enrollment. We used Cox proportional hazards models to test associations of MA-385, individual BC SNPs, TC, and individual TC risk factors with BC outcomes. Effect modification of MA-385 and individual SNPs by clinical risk factors was evaluated by including interaction terms in the models. All models were adjusted for age at UKB enrollment and 10 principal components. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported per standard deviation, and significance tests were performed using two-sided p-values based on likelihood-ratio test statistics. Results: After a median follow-up of 11.8 years, 7,419 (3.8%) participants were diagnosed with BC.In a model including both MA-385 and TC, MA-385 was a significantly better predictor of BC development (HR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.53-1.60, p = 3.2 x 10 -329 ) over the TC model (HR = 1.21; 95% CI 1.18-1.23; p = 5.4 x 10 -69 ). We found no evidence of interaction between MA-385 and TC ( p = 0.31) , nor between individual SNPs and TC. After Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing (102 tests), we found no evidence of interaction between MA-385 or individual SNPs with clinical TC factors. The strongest evidence for interaction was found between a BC SNP on chromosome 2 (rs13387042) and age at UKB enrollment (unadjusted p = 0.002; Bonferroni adjusted p = 0.23). Conclusions: In a longitudinal analysis of UKB, MA-385 was a highly significant predictor of BC risk and substantially improved prediction over TC. In contrast, interactions of MA-385, and individual BC SNPs, with TC and individual clinical factors in the TC model were not statistically significant. Clinical TC factors have minimal, if any, impact on the strength of the association between MA-385 and BC. These results may help to alleviate concerns expressed in guidelines that SNPs interact with environmental or hormonal risk factors.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2025
Pages 10512-10512
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (12)

T

Timothy Simmons

Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT

E

Elisha Hughes

Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT

S

Sandhya Pruthi

Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

S

Srikanth Jammulapati

Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT

D

Dmitry Pruss

Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT

E

Eudora Hu

Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT

R

Ryan Bernhisel

Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT

A

Allison W. Kurian

Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA

S

Sarah Ratzel

Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT

J

Jeff Jasper

Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT

K

Katie Johansen Taber

Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT

A

Alexander Gutin

Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT