ABSTRACT
Background Breast cancer is multifactorial. Focusing on limited risk factors may miss high-risk individuals.
Methods We assessed the performance and overlap of various risk factors in identifying high-risk individuals for invasive breast cancer (BrCa) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in 161,849 European-ancestry and 18,549 Asian-ancestry women. Discriminatory ability was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). High-risk criteria included: 5-year absolute risk ≥1·66% by the Gail model [GAILbinary]; first-degree family history of breast cancer [FHbinary]; 5-year absolute risk ≥1·66% by a 313-variants polygenic risk score [PRSbinary]; and carriers of pathogenic variants in breast cancer predisposition genes [PTVbinary].
Findings The 5-year absolute risk by PRS outperformed the Gail model in predicting BrCa (Europeansvs controls: AUCPRS=0·635 [0·632-0·638] vs AUCGail=0·492 [0·489-0·495]; Asiansvs controls: AUCPRS=0·564 [0·556-0·573] vs AUCGail=0·506 [0·497-0·514]). PRSbinary and GAILbinary identified more high-risk European than Asia individuals. High-risk proportions were higher among BrCa (16-26%) and DCIS (20-33%) compared to controls (9-15%) among young Europeans and all Asians. Fewer than 7% of BrCa, 10% of DCIS, and 3% of controls were classified as high-risk by multiple risk classifiers. Overlap between PRSbinary and PTVbinary was minimal (<0·65% Europeans, <0·15% Asians) compared to the proportion at high risk using PTVbinary alone (Europeans: 4·6%, Asians: 4·4%) and PRSbinary alone (Europeans: 13·9%, Asians: 8·5%). PRSbinary and FHbinary uniquely identified 5-6% and 9-11% of young BrCa, respectively.
Interpretation The incomplete overlap between high-risk individuals identified by PRSbinary, GAILbinary, FHbinary, and PTVbinary highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to breast cancer risk prediction.
SIGNIFICANCE This study shows that different ways of predicting breast cancer risk do not always flag the same people, suggesting that combining multiple risk factors could improve early detection and screening.
INTRODUCTION
A worldwide increase of 31% in the number of breast cancer cases is projected over the next two decades.1 Early detection significantly improves survival rates.2,3 Multiple studies have shown that mammogram screenings reduce mortality rates for women above 50 years of age, while the benefits of screening for those younger are less clear.4,5 Current screening guidelines are based on age, yet many patients are diagnosed before reaching the recommended screening age.6
Advances in breast cancer research suggest the potential for more risk-based approaches to cost-effective screening programs.7 Developed in the 1980s, the Gail model, a validated statistical tool, uses personal information to estimate breast cancer risk over the next five years. Originally developed for White females in the United States without a history of in situ or invasive breast cancer, its accuracy for non-White populations is debated.8–10 Common issues include both underestimation and overestimation in non-European populations, leading to unclear recommendations for diverse ethnic groups.9,11
In addition to non-genetic risk factors, studies have explored the use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) to enhance existing prediction models.12,13 Breast cancer has a significant heritable component. While PRS has added value to prediction models, its implementation, particularly in Asian populations, remains inconclusive.15 This is partly because PRS training datasets have predominantly included European populations due to their larger representation in research.16
Protein-truncating variants (PTVs) are another genetic factor used in risk prediction. Unlike PRS, which aggregates the associated effects of numerous, relatively common genetic variants across the genome, PTVs specifically target variants that lead to premature protein termination, potentially disrupting gene function. This distinction means that PTVs are specific genetic changes with known functional impacts, while PRS provides an overview of associated genetic risks of small effect sizes across the genome. PTVs in nine breast cancer predisposition genes, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, or TP53 have been shown clinically useful for inclusion on breast cancer risk prediction panels in a large analytical cohort comprising over 113,000 subjects and has been included in BOADICEA (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm).17,18
Studying the overlap of genetic and non-genetic risk factors in identifying high-risk individuals will provide us with information on complementary risk factors that will enhance our ability to identify the subgroup of the population who would benefit from risk reduction interventions. In this case-control analysis involving the Breast Cancer Consortium (BCAC) dataset, we explore how prediction tools— such as the Gail model, PRS, PTVs in known breast cancer predisposition genes, and family history— apply to both European and Asian populations across non-screening and screening age groups.
METHODS
Study population
BCAC is an international collaboration that was formed to provide large sample sizes for investigating genetic associations.19 Women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer (BrCa) or ductal carcinoma in situ patients (DCIS), and women with no prior diagnosis of breast cancer (controls) were recruited by study groups across the globe and collectively studied under BCAC.20 Our study focuses on individuals who are genetically Asian or European-White (from here on referred to as “European”).
To reduce the influence of missing values on the performance of the Gail model, studies with missing values for 50% or more for each of at least two of the three risk factors in the Gail model8 –age of menarche, age at first live birth, and first-degree family history of breast cancer–were excluded. The studies included are listed in Supplementary Table 1· Exclusion was done separately for individual studies and each disease status (BrCa, DCIS, and controls).
Further exclusions were made on an individual level (Supplementary Figure 1). Women with unknown age at enrolment for controls (n=5,566) and unknown age at diagnosis for BrCa and DCIS cases (n=2,103) were excluded. Women below the age of 30 years (n=2,360) and women above 80 years (n=1,897) for whom the Gail model prediction is not valid were excluded. A total of 180,398 individuals were included in our study. We compared demographic differences between the included and excluded individuals to assess potential selection bias. The result is presented in Additional Material - Supplementary Table 2·
Criteria to identify women at high risk of breast cancer
Four criteria were used to identify women at high risk of breast cancer: 1) 5-year absolute risk ≥1·66% by the Gail model [GAILbinary], 2) first-degree family history for breast cancer [FHbinary, yes/no], 3) 5-year absolute risk ≥1·66% by a 313-variant breast cancer polygenic risk score14 [PRSbinary], and in a subset of women 4) carriers of pathogenic variants in breast cancer predisposition genes [PTVbinary]. The 1.66% five-year absolute risk threshold for breast cancer is widely adopted in clinical and research settings to reflect the level of risk at which women are considered for additional screening or preventive interventions, such as tamoxifen or raloxifene (from here onwards the high-risk category).21 Details of each risk factor are presented in Additional Materials - Methods ·
Due to the large number of studies with varying degrees of missing data for different risk factors, the parsimonious Gail model, which most studies would have information on, was selected.8 The R package “BCRA” (version 2.1.2) was used to calculate 5-year absolute risk.8 Implementation is described in Additional Material-Genetic breast cancer risk factor. In our analysis, those with unknown family history were considered to have no family history.
We studied genetic risk based on common germline variants associated with breast cancer, using the breast cancer PRS with 313 variants calculated with PLINK (version 3) with the scoresum option.22,23 The 5-year absolute risk was calculated by estimating the theoretical odds ratio of this percentile in relation to the 40-60 percentile, which is taken to represent the general population.24 A subgroup of individuals (nEuropean=56,387, nAsian=3,617) had both genotyping and targeted-sequencing data. Nine breast cancer predisposition genes (PTVs in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, or TP53) were studied collectively.
Statistical analysis
Differences in genetic and non-genetic breast cancer risk factors of BrCa, DCIS, and controls were assessed using the Chi-squared test (categorical variables) and Kruskal-Wallis test (continuous variables). Venn diagrams (R package “VennDiagram”) were used to visualise the overlaps in high-risk individuals identified by the high-risk criteria. We subset the population by ancestry (European or Asian) and age (30-49 or 50-80 years). Overlaps between pairs of high-risk criteria were further considered by country. In the subset of individuals with both genotyping and targeted sequencing information (n=60,004), PRSbinary and PTVbinary (yes/no) were analysed for their ability to uniquely identify high-risk individuals.
Evaluating the drivers of Gail risk score in differentiating breast cancer cases from controls
Although studies with high missingness rates for variables required to compute the Gail risk score were excluded (see “Excluded participants” above), there were still individuals with missing values. Hence, we studied the potential drivers of the Gail risk score in discriminating BrCa cases from controls using logistic regression models. All combinations of risk factors, where available, were assessed. Discriminatory ability was assessed by the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC). Missing values were coded in accordance to the “BCRA”.8
All analyses were performed in R version 4.2.2.
RESULTS
Cohort description
A total of 180,398 women were included, where 161,849 (90%) women were of European-ancestry and 18,549 (10%) were Asian-ancestry (Table 1). Of the European women, 68,540 (42%) were controls, and 83,685 (52%) were diagnosed with BrCa. Of the 18,549 Asian women, 8,347 (45%) were controls and 9,222 (50%) were BrCa cases (Table 1). In addition, there were 9,624 (6%) and 980 (5%) DCIS cases in European and Asian women, respectively (Table 1).
Characteristics of 161,849 European-ancestry and 18,549 Asian-ancestry individuals (non-breast cancer controls (controls), patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer (BrCa) and patients diagnosed with DCIS (DCIS)) between ages 30 and 80 years. IQR interquartile range. Family history: number of first-degree relatives with breast cancer.
European-ancestry study population
The median age at diagnosis for BrCa cases of European ancestry was 57 years [interquartile range [IQR]: 49-65]. The corresponding age at interview for European-ancestry controls was 57 years [IQR: 50-64] (Table 1). BrCa cases were more likely to have a family history than controls (14% vs 9%, respectively). The distribution of the 5-year absolute risk by the Gail model was very similar between BrCa cases (median 1·25% [IQR: 0·89-1·73]) and controls (1·25% [IQR: 0·92-1·64]). The median 5-year absolute risk by PRS in BrCa cases was 0·95% [IQR: 0·62-1·44], significantly greater than that of controls 0·69% [IQR: 0·46-1·05]. The PRS distributions (scoresum) and 5-year absolute risks were similar across countries (Supplementary Figure 2). Less than 40% of the population had PTV information. Out of 29,853 European BrCa patients, 1,927 (6%) were PTV carriers, which is three times the proportion found in the control group (583 out of 24,798, or 2%). The observations were largely similar for DCIS (Table 1).
Asian-ancestry study population
The median age at diagnosis for BrCa cases was 49 years [IQR: 43-57], and the age at enrolment was 50 years [IQR: 44-58] for controls (Table 1). Of the BrCa cases, 10% reported positive family history, while a smaller proportion of controls (6%) reported so. The distribution of 5-year absolute risk by the Gail model was not significantly different between BrCa cases and controls. The distribution of 5-year absolute risk by PRS for BrCa patients was shifted rightwards of controls (p<0.001). The distribution of PRS (scoresum) and 5-year absolute risks varied by country (Supplementary Figure 3). Among BrCa patients with known PTV information (n=2,178) 6% were mutation carriers. A smaller percentage (2%) of controls (n=1,115) were PTV carriers. As with the Europeans, the observations were mostly similar for DCIS in Asians (Table 1). and controls.
Associations between risk stratifiers, BrCa and DCIS
Table 2 and Table 3 display the strengths of association of different risk stratifiers (PRSbinary, GAILbinary, and FHbinary) with BrCa and DCIS, respectively, stratified by ancestry and age groups. Using both PRSbinary and GAILbinary (i.e. individuals is stratified as high risk when either PRS or GAIL is ≥1.66%) improves the discriminatory ability as compared to using GAILbinary alone (in Europeans: AUCBrCa-PRS_GAIL=0·554 [0·552 to 0·557] vs AUCBrCa-GAIL=0·522 [0·520-0·524]; in Asian: AUCBrCa-PRS_GAIL=0·527 [0·523 to 0·532] vs AUCBrCa-GAIL=0·506 [0·503-0·508]) (Table 2), In Europeans, the odds ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals for PRSbinary and GAILbinary (≥1·66% 5-year absolute risk threshold) were 2·60 [2·52-2·69] and 1·25 [1·22-1·28], respectively, for BrCa, and 2·21 [2·08-2·35] and 1·21 [1·15-1·27], respectively, for DCIS. In Asians, PRSbinary showed significant associations with BrCa (1·83 [1·64-2·05]) and DCIS (2·30 [1·88-2·83]). The GAILbinary showed associations with BrCa (1·59 [1·31-1·92]) and DCIS (2·13 [1·51-3·00]) in Asians. The effect sizes for the associations between PRSbinary, GAILbinary and FHbinary were larger for younger Europeans than the older Europeans. In Asians, the same trend was observed for PRSbinary and BrCa, and FHbinary and DCIS.
Association between high-risk criteria and case-control status (invasive breast cancer cases/ non-breast cancer controls), using univariate logistic regression. Analysis was repeated by age categories 30 to 49 years (nEuropean=40,306, nAsian=8,456) and 50 to 80 years (nEuropean=111,919, nAsian=9,113). PRS: 5-year absolute risk using polygenic risk score ≥1·66%. GAIL: 5-year absolute risk using the Gail model ≥1·66%. FH: having at least one first-degree family history of breast cancer. * High: individuals who were identified by any of the criteria were classified as “Yes”. OR: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval, P: p-value. 5-yr abs risk: 5-year absolute risk (continuous).
Association between high-risk criteria and case-control status (DCIS cases/ non-breast cancer controls), using univariate logistic regression. Analysis was repeated by age categories 30 to 49 years (nEuropean=19,424, nAsian=4,322) and 50 to 80 years (nEuropean= 58,740, nAsian=5,005). PRS: 5-year absolute risk using polygenic risk score ≥1·66%. GAIL: 5-year absolute risk using the Gail model ≥1·66%. FH: having at least one first-degree family history of breast cancer. * High: individuals who were identified by any of the three criteria (PRS, GAIL, FH) were classified as “Yes”. OR: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval, P: p-value. 5-yr abs risk: 5-year absolute risk (continuous).
Intersection of high-risk individuals identified by different risk factors
Figure 1 illustrates the overlap of high-risk individuals identified by PRSbinary, GAILbinary, and FHbinary across different ancestry and age groups. For young Europeans and all Asians, the proportion of high-risk individuals among BrCa (16-26%) and DCIS (20-30%) cases was about twice that of the controls (9-13%). In these groups, women were primarily classified as high-risk due to FHbinary and PRSbinary. Less than 7%, 10%, and 3% of the BrCa, DCIS, and controls, respectively, were classified as high-risk by more than one criterion (i.e. PRSbinary, GAILbinary, or FHbinary). PRSbinary uniquely identified 4-7% of young BrCa and DCIS cases as high-risk, and 10-18% of older BrCa and DCIS cases as high-risk. FHbinary uniquely identified 9-11% of young BrCa and DCIS cases as high-risk, and 2-5% of older BrCa and DCIS cases as high-risk. The proportion of young Europeans (aged 30-49) uniquely identified by GAILbinary to be at high-risk is 1%. Among Asians, all individuals classified as GAILbinary high-risk were also positive for FH (i.e. 0% uniquely called by GAILbinary). Among the older Europeans, 40% of the controls were identified as high-risk, compared to 52% of BrCa cases and 47% of DCIS cases.
Venn diagram depicting the overlaps between individuals identified as high risk by the three criteria. Breast cancer polygenic risk score (PRS, 5-year absolute risk using polygenic risk score ≥1·66%), the Gail model (GAIL, 5-year absolute risk using the Gail model ≥1·66%), and family history (FH, having at least one first-degree family history of breast cancer). European: women of European ancestry; Asian: women of Asian ancestry.
Breast cancer predisposition genes (PTVbinary) and common variants (PRSbinary) identified different high-risk individuals
In the subgroup of individuals with target-enriched sequencing data, the proportion of women identified to be at high risk by both PRSbinary and PTVbinary was limited (0·6% of European and 0·1% of Asian) compared to PTVbinary alone (Europeans: 4·6%; Asians: 4·4%) and PRSbinary alone (Europeans: 13·9%; Asians: 8·5%) (Table 4). There were more older women than younger women at high risk due to PRS (2·3x in Europeans; 3·8x in Asians). Conversely, there were more younger women than older women at high risk due to PTV (1.9x in Europeans; 1.5x in Asians).
Overlap of individuals with 5-year absolute risk by polygenic risk score ≥1·66% (PRS) and carriers of protein-truncating variants in at least one of nine breast cancer predisposition genes (i.e. PTVs in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, or TP53).
Country-specific differences in high-risk individuals identified by PRS and GAIL
Figure 2 shows the breakdown of BrCa/DCIS cases and controls identified to be at high risk by PRSbinary and GAILbinary by country and age. Generally, both PRSbinary and GAILbinary identified a higher proportion (%) of high-risk BrCa/DCIS individuals in the European-ancestry populations (median [IQR], PRSbinary-young: 5 [3-9], PRSbinary-old: 20 [10-23], GAILbinary-young: 3 [2-7], GAILbinary-old: 30 [24-39]) than the Asian countries (PRSbinary-young: 4 [2-5], PRSbinary-old: 15 [10-16], GAILbinary-young: <1 [<1 to 2], GAILbinary-old: 4 [2-10]).
The proportion of individuals identified as at high risk by the breast cancer polygenic risk score (PRS) and the Gail model (GAIL), by country and age. The proportion of individuals identified as high risk by both criteria is indicated in grey. PRS: 5-year absolute risk using polygenic risk score ≥1·66%. GAIL: 5-year absolute risk using the Gail model ≥1·66%. Numbers adjacent to the bars represent the number of high-risk individuals identified by respective risk tools. European: women of European ancestry; Asian: women of Asian ancestry.
Factors influencing the performance of the Gail model across different demographics
Figure 2 shows that both PRSbinary and GAILbinary identified a higher proportion of high-risk individuals in European-ancestry compared to Asian-ancestry populations, with variations in performance by age. By studying the factors that influence the Gail model’s performance across different demographics, we can better understand what drives the model’s effectiveness in various populations. In Figure 3A and Figure 3B, we show that in Europeans, incorporating both family history (number of first-degree relatives with breast cancer) and prior breast biopsies was sufficient to achieve the highest AUC. For younger Asians, the key factors affecting model performance are age at menarche and the number of prior biopsies, with higher discriminatory ability observed in models that did not include family history (Figure 3C). In older Asians, the model’s performance was not significantly different between those that included both age at first live birth and family history (Figure 3D). This indicates that, while the Gail model’s performance for Europeans is primarily influenced by the number of first-degree relatives with breast cancer and prior biopsies, younger Asians are more influenced by age at first menarche, and for older Asians, both age at first live birth and family history are important.
Discriminatory ability of risk factor combinations in the Gail model. The five-year absolute risk was calculated using the R package “BCRA” and used to predict the invasive breast cancer case-control status of the individuals. Dots represent risk factors included in the model, and crosses indicate the model with all risk factors with the addition of atypical hyperplasia. European: women of European ancestry; Asian: women of Asian ancestry.
Applying the high-risk criterion of ≥1·66% 5-year absolute risk resulted in changes in the order of the models regarding their discriminatory ability (AUC) (Supplementary Figure 4). However, the AUCs of the models were small (highest AUC [95%CI]: 0·529 [0·526-0·531]) and not appreciably different (within 0·03 difference in AUCs. Excluding models with confidence intervals including 0·5, lowest AUC: 0·501 [0·500-0·501]) (Supplementary Table 2).
Discussion
We evaluated the performance of different risk stratifiers, including PRS, GAIL, and FH, in identifying high-risk individuals for BrCa and DCIS across various demographics and to understand the overlap and unique contributions of these models in different populations. The association between different risk stratifiers (PRS, GAIL, and FH) with BrCa and DCIS varies by ancestry and age. PRS demonstrated superior discrimination compared to the Gail model for predicting both BrCa and DCIS in European- and Asian-ancestry populations. Specifically, the 5-year absolute risk from PRS showed higher AUC values than the Gail model for both conditions. In Europeans, PRS and GAIL showed significant odds ratios for identifying high-risk individuals, with larger effect sizes observed in younger populations. In Asians, PRS and GAIL also showed significant associations. The overlap of high-risk individuals identified by PRS, GAIL, and FH revealed that PRS and FH were primary contributors to high-risk classification, particularly in young Europeans and all Asians. PRS uniquely identified a notable percentage of high-risk individuals that were missed by GAIL and FH, while GAIL identified a significant portion in older Europeans. Additionally, target-enriched sequencing data showed that high-risk individuals identified by both PRS and predisposition genes (PTV) were limited, with PRS alone identifying a larger proportion of high-risk individuals compared to PTV alone. Country-specific analysis indicated that both PRS and GAIL identified a higher proportion of high-risk individuals in European-ancestry populations compared to Asian-ancestry populations, with greater variability observed for GAIL.
Given the complexity and multifactorial nature of breast cancer, relying on a single risk factor or model may not sufficiently capture all high-risk individuals.6,12 The analysis of the intersection between high-risk individuals identified by PRS, GAIL, and FH reveals important insights into how these risk stratifiers overlap and uniquely contribute to risk assessment. Our results derived from the analysis of 180,398 woman across diverse ancestries corroborate previous findings that report a limited overlap in the high-risk individuals identified by different risk predictors.6,12 The unique contribution of PRS is particularly notable. Traditional risk models like the Gail model are less accurate in younger populations. These models often rely on risk factors which may not fully capture the risk in younger women. Younger women may not have a significant personal or reproductive history, making genetic information from PRS and specific gene mutations particularly valuable for risk assessment.6,12 No single model is suitable for every subgroup within the general population. The limited overlap and the unique contributions of each risk stratifier suggest that using a combination of these tools could provide a more comprehensive risk assessment, capturing high-risk individuals that might be missed by any single model. Comprehensive risk models such as BOADICEA improve prediction, however they can be challenging to implement at the general population level.18 In addition, calibration and validation for populations not used in the model’s development need to be done.
The evaluation of country-specific differences in high-risk identification by PRS and GAIL shows that European-ancestry populations generally had higher proportions of predicted high-risk individuals compared to Asian-ancestry populations. This is expected, as two risk predictors utilize breast cancer incidence rates that were higher in Europeans (i.e. the “White” used to develop the Gail model) than in Asians (i.e. the “Chinese”).15 The variability in the performance of the GAIL model across different countries, with larger standard deviations compared to PRS, suggests that GAIL’s effectiveness may be more influenced by regional factors, such as differences in reproductive factors, lifestyle and healthcare practices.11,25 The analysis of factors influencing the performance of the Gail model reveals differences in its effectiveness based on age and demographic factors. For Europeans, incorporating family history and prior breast biopsies achieved the highest AUC, emphasizing the importance of these factors in risk prediction. In younger Asians, age at menarche and the number of prior biopsies were more influential, with models excluding family history showing better performance. While there are likely regional differences in genetics, lifestyle, and healthcare practices, the Gail model may be compounded by variations in data quality and recall.25,26
The current guidelines for breast cancer screening are based on sex and age. The recommendations typically advocate biennial mammography for women aged 50 to 69 or 70 years.3,27 Previously, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) advised that the decision to begin biennial screening before age 50 should be personalized, considering the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms. It is unclear if clinicians are provided with directives on the specific topics to discuss with patients regarding screening suitability. For age groups where the evidence for mammography is less definitive, integrating comprehensive risk stratification into discussions about screening would ensure that recommendations are as relevant as possible. However, in Apr 2024, the USPSTF published in its Final Recommendation Statement biennial mammogram screenings for all women aged 40 to 74 years to detect early-stage cancer (accessed Jul 23, 2024).28 While this earlier screening will benefit many, it also raises concerns about over-screening and its potential consequences. Risk stratification could enhance the effectiveness of the new USPSTF guidelines by targeting screening efforts more precisely. By incorporating complementary individual risk factors, healthcare providers can better identify those who are genuinely at higher risk for breast cancer. As a result, risk stratification can help balance the benefits of early detection with the potential drawbacks of excessive screening.
Our study uses one of the largest breast cancer association study datasets, providing high statistical power for comprehensive risk factor analyses and diverse population coverage that includes both European and Asian ancestries. The study’s multi-center scope allowed for the comparison of risk models across different countries. However, differences in study design, data collection methods, and risk factor definitions across included studies may have introduced variability and affected the consistency of results. Variations in the time of data collection and changes in clinical practices over time could affect the comparability of data across studies. Combining different studies introduced gaps in data (i.e. missingness) for some risk factors, and exclusions of certain studies affected the generalizability of our findings for those regions. In addition, while the study covers women of European and Asian ancestries, it does not represent all global populations. Regional variations in absolute risk—due to genetic differences, varying gene predispositions, lifestyle factors, and healthcare access—also impact the applicability of risk models to other settings or demographics.11,29 Not all known breast cancer risk factors were considered in our analyses. Examples of other risk factors include mammographic density, physical activity, alcohol use, and smoking.18,30
Overall, while PRS shows consistent superiority in breast cancer risk stratification across demographics, the complementary use of the Gail model and family history can enhance the overall risk assessment process. Integrating and calibrating these models for different ethnic populations, along with understanding their unique contributions and limitations, can lead to more precise identification of high-risk individuals who would otherwise be missed.13 Ideally, evaluating individual breast cancer risk could lead to more precise and cost-effective early detection by tailoring screening approaches to risk levels. However, despite advancements in risk assessment, it remains important to adhere to the established consensus guidelines for minimum mammography screening, as set by nationally recognized organizations with expertise in screening methodology.
DECLARATIONS
Ethics approval
This study was approved by the A*STAR Institutional Review Board (reference number: 2022-041).
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained by the individual studies that contributed to BCAC.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.
Availability of data and materials
The data used in our analyses are available upon reasonable request through BCAC, subject to data access committee approval.
Author contributions
Conception and design of the study: JL; Acquisition of data: All; Analysis and interpretation of data: PJH, MHG, CKYL, JL; Drafting of the manuscript or revising it for important content: JL, PJH, CKYL; Final approval of the version submitted for publication: All.
Acknowledgements
This study is funded by the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) and PRECISION Health Research, Singapore (PRECISE). The breast cancer genome-wide association analyses in BCAC were supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the ‘Ministère de l’Économie, de la Science et de l’Innovation du Québec’ through Genome Québec and grant PSR-SIIRI-701, The National Institutes of Health (U19 CA148065, X01HG007492), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A16563, C1287/A10710), and The European Union (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175 and H2020 633784 and 634935). All studies and funders are listed in Additional Materials (BCAC Funding and Acknowledgments).
References
