| 1. |
- Li, Yafang, et al.
(författare)
-
Lung cancer in ever- and never-smokers : findings from multi-population GWAS studies
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. - : American Association For Cancer Research (AACR). - 1055-9965 .- 1538-7755. ; 33:3, s. 389-399
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Clinical, molecular, and genetic epidemiology studies displayed remarkable differences between ever- and never-smoking lung cancer.METHODS: We conducted a stratified multi-population (European, East Asian, and African descent) association study on 44,823 ever-smokers and 20,074 never-smokers to identify novel variants that were missed in the non-stratified analysis. Functional analysis including expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) colocalization and DNA damage assays, and annotation studies were conducted to evaluate the functional roles of the variants. We further evaluated the impact of smoking quantity on lung cancer risk for the variants associated with ever-smoking lung cancer.RESULTS: Five novel independent loci, GABRA4, intergenic region 12q24.33, LRRC4C, LINC01088, and LCNL1 were identified with the association at two or three populations (P < 5 × 10-8). Further functional analysis provided multiple lines of evidence suggesting the variants affect lung cancer risk through excessive DNA damage (GABRA4) or cis-regulation of gene expression (LCNL1). The risk of variants from 12 independent regions, including the well-known CHRNA5, associated with ever-smoking lung cancer was evaluated for never-smokers, light-smokers (packyear ≤ 20), and moderate-to-heavy-smokers (packyear > 20). Different risk patterns were observed for the variants among the different groups by smoking behavior.CONCLUSIONS: We identified novel variants associated with lung cancer in only ever- or never-smoking groups that were missed by prior main-effect association studies. IMPACT: Our study highlights the genetic heterogeneity between ever- and never-smoking lung cancer and provides etiologic insights into the complicated genetic architecture of this deadly cancer.
|
|
| 2. |
- Wang, Xinan, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of individual level uncertainty of lung cancer polygenic risk score (PRS) on risk stratification
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Genome Medicine. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1756-994X .- 1756-994X. ; 16:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Although polygenic risk score (PRS) has emerged as a promising tool for predicting cancer risk from genome-wide association studies (GWAS), the individual-level accuracy of lung cancer PRS and the extent to which its impact on subsequent clinical applications remains largely unexplored.Methods: Lung cancer PRSs and confidence/credible interval (CI) were constructed using two statistical approaches for each individual: (1) the weighted sum of 16 GWAS-derived significant SNP loci and the CI through the bootstrapping method (PRS-16-CV) and (2) LDpred2 and the CI through posteriors sampling (PRS-Bayes), among 17,166 lung cancer cases and 12,894 controls with European ancestry from the International Lung Cancer Consortium. Individuals were classified into different genetic risk subgroups based on the relationship between their own PRS mean/PRS CI and the population level threshold.Results: Considerable variances in PRS point estimates at the individual level were observed for both methods, with an average standard deviation (s.d.) of 0.12 for PRS-16-CV and a much larger s.d. of 0.88 for PRS-Bayes. Using PRS-16-CV, only 25.0% of individuals with PRS point estimates in the lowest decile of PRS and 16.8% in the highest decile have their entire 95% CI fully contained in the lowest and highest decile, respectively, while PRS-Bayes was unable to find any eligible individuals. Only 19% of the individuals were concordantly identified as having high genetic risk (> 90th percentile) using the two PRS estimators. An increased relative risk of lung cancer comparing the highest PRS percentile to the lowest was observed when taking the CI into account (OR = 2.73, 95% CI: 2.12–3.50, P-value = 4.13 × 10−15) compared to using PRS-16-CV mean (OR = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.99–2.49, P-value = 5.70 × 10−46). Improved risk prediction performance with higher AUC was consistently observed in individuals identified by PRS-16-CV CI, and the best performance was achieved by incorporating age, gender, and detailed smoking pack-years (AUC: 0.73, 95% CI = 0.72–0.74). Conclusions: Lung cancer PRS estimates using different methods have modest correlations at the individual level, highlighting the importance of considering individual-level uncertainty when evaluating the practical utility of PRS.
|
|
