Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Breast cancer polygenic risk scores are associated with short-term risk of poor prognosis breast cancer

  • Epidemiology
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast cancer may help guide screening decisions. However, few studies have examined whether PRS are associated with risk of short-term or poor prognosis breast cancers. The study purpose was to evaluate the association of the 313 SNP breast cancer PRS with 2-year risk of poor prognosis breast cancer.

Methods

We evaluated the association of breast cancer PRS with breast cancer overall, ER + and ER- breast cancer, and poor prognosis breast cancer diagnosed within 2 years of a negative mammogram among a cohort of 3657 women using logistic regression adjusted for age, breast density, race/ethnicity, year of screening, and genetic ancestry principal components. Breast cancers were considered poor prognosis if they were metastatic, positive lymph nodes, ER/PR + HER2− and > 2 cm, ER/PR/HER2−, or HER2 + and > 1 cm.

Results

Of the 308 breast cancers, 137 (44%) were poor prognosis. The overall breast cancer PRS was significantly associated with breast cancer diagnosis within 2 years (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.23–1.57, p < 0.001). The breast cancer PRS was also associated specifically with diagnosis of poor prognosis disease (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03–1.49, p = 0.018), but was more strongly associated with good prognosis cancer (OR 1.52 95% CI 1.29–1.80 p = 3.60 × 10–7) The ER + PRS was significantly associated with ER/PR + breast cancer (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.24–1.61, p < 0.001) and the ER− PRS was significantly associated with ER− breast cancer (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.08–2.02, p = 0.015).

Conclusion

Breast cancer PRS was independently and significantly associated with diagnosis of both breast cancer overall and poor prognosis breast cancer within 2 years of a negative mammogram, suggesting PRS may help guide decisions about screening intervals and supplemental screening.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig.1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to patient privacy protections, but de-identified data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request and with institutional approval.

References

  1. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L (2009) Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 151(10):727–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Henderson LM, Miglioretti DL, Kerlikowske K, Wernli KJ, Sprague BL, Lehman CD (2015) breast cancer characteristics associated with digital versus film-screen mammography for screen-detected and interval cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205(3):676–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shieh Y, Eklund M, Madlensky L, Sawyer SD, Thompson CK, Stover Fiscalini A, Ziv E, Van’t Veer LJ, Esserman LJ, Tice JA (2017) Breast cancer screening in the precision medicine era: risk-based screening in a population-based trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gierach GL, Choudhury PP, García-Closas M (2020) Toward risk-stratified breast cancer screening: considerations for changes in screening guidelines. JAMA Oncol 6(1):31–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM, Mann RM, Peeters PHM, Monninkhof EM, Emaus MJ, Loo CE, Bisschops RHC, Lobbes MBI et al (2019) Supplemental MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue. N Engl J Med 381(22):2091–2102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Phi XA, Houssami N, Obdeijn IM, Warner E, Sardanelli F, Leach MO, Riedl CC, Trop I, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Mandel R et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging improves breast screening sensitivity in BRCA mutation carriers age ≥ 50 years: evidence from an individual patient data meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 33(4):349–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Warner E, Hill K, Causer P, Plewes D, Jong R, Yaffe M, Foulkes WD, Ghadirian P, Lynch H, Couch F et al (2011) Prospective study of breast cancer incidence in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation under surveillance with and without magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol 29(13):1664–1669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP, Miglioretti DL, Weyrich MS, Thompson JH, Shah K (2016) Supplemental screening for breast cancer in women with dense breasts: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 164(4):268–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ghoussaini M, Pharoah PDP, Easton DF (2013) Inherited genetic susceptibility to breast cancer: the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning? Am J Pathol 183(4):1038–1051

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Michailidou K, Lindström S, Dennis J, Beesley J, Hui S, Kar S, Lemaçon A, Soucy P, Glubb D, Rostamianfar A et al (2017) Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci. Nature 551(7678):92–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Milne RL, Kuchenbaecker KB, Michailidou K, Beesley J, Kar S, Lindström S, Hui S, Lemaçon A, Soucy P, Dennis J et al (2017) Identification of ten variants associated with risk of estrogen-receptor-negative breast cancer. Nat Genet 49(12):1767–1778

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mavaddat N, Michailidou K, Dennis J, Lush M, Fachal L, Lee A, Tyrer JP, Chen TH, Wang Q, Bolla MK et al (2019) Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer and breast cancer subtypes. Am J Hum Genet 104(1):21–34

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lilyquist J, Ruddy KJ, Vachon CM, Couch FJ (2018) Common genetic variation and breast cancer risk-past, present, and future. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 27(4):380–394

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kapoor PM, Mavaddat N, Choudhury PP, Wilcox AN, Lindström S, Behrens S, Michailidou K, Dennis J, Bolla MK, Wang Q et al (2021) Combined associations of a polygenic risk score and classical risk factors with breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 113(3):329–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kerlikowske K, Bissell MCS, Sprague BL, Buist DSM, Henderson LM, Lee JM, Miglioretti DL (2021) Advanced breast cancer definitions by staging system examined in the breast cancer surveillance consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst 113(7):909–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McCarthy AM, Ehsan S, Appel S, Welch M, He W, Bahl M, Chen J, Lehman CD, Armstrong K (2021) Risk factors for an advanced breast cancer diagnosis within 2 years of a negative mammogram. Cancer 127(18):3334–3342

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kapoor PM, Mavaddat N, Choudhury PP, Wilcox AN, Lindstrom S, Behrens S, Michailidou K, Dennis J, Bolla MK, Wang Q et al (2021) Combined associations of a polygenic risk score and classical risk factors with breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 113(3):329–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Holm J, Li J, Darabi H, Eklund M, Eriksson M, Humphreys K, Hall P, Czene K (2016) Associations of breast cancer risk prediction tools with tumor characteristics and metastasis. J Clin Oncol 34(3):251–258

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Eriksson M, Czene K, Strand F, Zackrisson S, Lindholm P, Lång K, Förnvik D, Sartor H, Mavaddat N, Easton D et al (2020) Identification of women at high risk of breast cancer who need supplemental screening. Radiology 297(2):327–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Li J, Holm J, Bergh J, Eriksson M, Darabi H, Lindström LS, Törnberg S, Hall P, Czene K (2015) Breast cancer genetic risk profile is differentially associated with interval and screen-detected breast cancers. Ann Oncol 26(3):517–522

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Evans DGR, Harkness EF, Brentnall AR, van Veen EM, Astley SM, Byers H, Sampson S, Southworth J, Stavrinos P, Howell SJ et al (2019) Breast cancer pathology and stage are better predicted by risk stratification models that include mammographic density and common genetic variants. Breast Cancer Res Treat 176(1):141–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. van den Broek JJ, Schechter CB, van Ravesteyn NT, Janssens A, Wolfson MC, Trentham-Dietz A, Simard J, Easton DF, Mandelblatt JS, Kraft P et al (2021) Personalizing breast cancer screening based on polygenic risk and family History. J Natl Cancer Inst 113(4):434–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Susan G. Komen Foundation (PI McCarthy CCR17480662).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Marie McCarthy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Lehman reports that her institution, Massachusetts General Hospital, receives research support from GE Healthcare and Hologic, Inc. and that she is a co-founder and serves as a consultant to Clairity, Inc. The other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Research involving human and animal rights

The authors confirm that human research participants provided informed consent for their genetic information and data to be used for research purposes.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

Table 5 Recruitment of breast cancer cases for DNA analysis
Table 6 Comparison of full cohort and analytic sample by case status
Table 7 Sensitivity analyses: logistic regression of PRS and cancer diagnosis within 2 years of a negative mammogram, overall, by prognosis, and by ER status among women aged 40–74
Table 8 Comparison of models additionally adjusted for body mass index (BMI) as a continuous or categorical variable
Table 9 Comparison of models adjusting for race/ethnicity and PCs

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McCarthy, A.M., Manning, A.K., Hsu, S. et al. Breast cancer polygenic risk scores are associated with short-term risk of poor prognosis breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 196, 389–398 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-022-06739-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-022-06739-5

Keywords

Navigation