METHODS: We consider several PRSs trained using European and/or Asian GWAS. For each PRS, we evaluate the discrimination and calibration of three absolute risk models among 41 031 women from the Korean Cancer Prevention Study (KCPS)-II Biobank: (i) a model using incidence, mortality and risk factor distributions (reference inputs) among US women and European relative risks; (ii) a recalibrated model, using Korean reference but European relative risks; and (iii) a fully Korean-based model using Korean reference and relative risk estimates from KCPS.
RESULTS: All Asian and European PRS improved discrimination over lifestyle, clinical and environmental (Qx) factors in Korean women. US-based absolute risk models overestimated the risks for women aged ≥50 years, and this overestimation was larger for models that only included PRS (expected-to-observed ratio E/O = 1.2 for women <50, E/O = 2.7 for women ≥50). Recalibrated and Korean-based risk models had better calibration in the large, although the risk in the highest decile was consistently overestimated. Absolute risk projections suggest that risk-reducing lifestyle changes would lead to larger absolute risk reductions among women at higher PRS.
CONCLUSIONS: Absolute risk models incorporating PRS trained in European and Asian GWAS and population-appropriate average age-specific incidences may be useful for risk-stratified interventions in Korean women.
METHODS: The development data set comprised 138,309 women from 17 case-control studies. PRSs were generated using a clumping and thresholding method, lasso penalized regression, an Empirical Bayes approach, a Bayesian polygenic prediction approach, or linear combinations of multiple PRSs. These PRSs were evaluated in 89,898 women from 3 prospective studies (1592 incident cases).
RESULTS: The best performing PRS (genome-wide set of single-nucleotide variations [formerly single-nucleotide polymorphism]) had a hazard ratio per unit SD of 1.62 (95% CI = 1.46-1.80) and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.635 (95% CI = 0.622-0.649). Combined Asian and European PRSs (333 single-nucleotide variations) had a hazard ratio per SD of 1.53 (95% CI = 1.37-1.71) and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.621 (95% CI = 0.608-0.635). The distribution of the latter PRS was different across ethnic subgroups, confirming the importance of population-specific calibration for valid estimation of breast cancer risk.
CONCLUSION: PRSs developed in this study, from association data from multiple ancestries, can enhance risk stratification for women of Asian ancestry.