Limitations in next-generation sequencing-based genotyping of breast cancer polygenic risk score loci
-
Published:2024-06-21
Issue:8
Volume:32
Page:987-997
-
ISSN:1018-4813
-
Container-title:European Journal of Human Genetics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Eur J Hum Genet
Author:
Baumann Alexandra, Ruckert Christian, Meier Christoph, Hutschenreiter Tim, Remy Robert, Schnur BenediktORCID, Döbel MarvinORCID, Fankep Rudel Christian Nkouamedjo, Skowronek Dariush, Kutz Oliver, Arnold Norbert, Katzke Anna-Lena, Forster MichaelORCID, Kobiela Anna-LenaORCID, Thiedig Katharina, Zimmer AndreasORCID, Ritter Julia, Weber Bernhard H. F.ORCID, Honisch Ellen, Hackmann KarlORCID, , Drukewitz Stephan, Engel Christoph, Frommolt Peter, Groß Eva, Helmuth Johannes, Kowalzyk Zarah, Radtke Maximilian, Ramser Juliane, Uebe Steffen, Wang-Gohrke Shan, Schmidt Gunnar, Sturm MarcORCID, Ernst CorinnaORCID
Abstract
AbstractConsidering polygenic risk scores (PRSs) in individual risk prediction is increasingly implemented in genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer (BC) based on next-generation sequencing (NGS). To calculate individual BC risks, the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) with the inclusion of the BCAC 313 or the BRIDGES 306 BC PRS is commonly used. The PRS calculation depends on accurately reproducing the variant allele frequencies (AFs) and, consequently, the distribution of PRS values anticipated by the algorithm. Here, the 324 loci of the BCAC 313 and the BRIDGES 306 BC PRS were examined in population-specific database gnomAD and in real-world data sets of five centers of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC), to determine whether these expected AFs can be reproduced by NGS-based genotyping. Four PRS loci were non-existent in gnomAD v3.1.2 non-Finnish Europeans, further 24 loci showed noticeably deviating AFs. In real-world data, between 11 and 23 loci were reported with noticeably deviating AFs, and were shown to have effects on final risk prediction. Deviations depended on the sequencing approach, variant caller and calling mode (forced versus unforced) employed. Therefore, this study demonstrates the necessity to apply quality assurance not only in terms of sequencing coverage but also observed AFs in a sufficiently large cohort, when implementing PRSs in a routine diagnostic setting. Furthermore, future PRS design should be guided by the technical reproducibility of expected AFs across commonly used genotyping methods, especially NGS, in addition to the observed effect sizes.
Funder
Bundesministerium für Gesundheit Deutsche Krebshilfe
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference26 articles.
1. Lakeman IM, Hilbers FS, Rodrìguez-Girondo M, Lee A, Vreeswijk MP, Hollestelle A, et al. Addition of a 161-SNP polygenic risk score to family history-based risk prediction: impact on clinical management in non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer families. J Med Genet. 2019;56:581–9. 2. Mavaddat N, Michailidou K, Dennis J, Lush M, Fachal L, Lee A, et al. Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer and breast cancer subtypes. Am J Hum Genet. 2019;104:21–34. 3. Shieh Y, Hu D, Ma L, Huntsman S, Gard CC, Leung JW, et al. Breast cancer risk prediction using a clinical risk model and polygenic risk score. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;159:513–25. 4. Borde J, Ernst C, Wappenschmidt B, Niederacher D, Weber-Lassalle K, Schmidt G, et al. Performance of breast cancer polygenic risk scores in 760 female CHEK2 germline mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113:893–9. 5. Borde J, Laitman Y, Blümcke B, Niederacher D, Weber-Lassalle K, Sutter C, et al. Polygenic risk scores indicate extreme ages at onset of breast cancer in female BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:1–9.
|
|