Deciphering the shared genetic basis of distinct cancers has the potential to elucidate carcinogenic mechanisms and inform broadly applicable risk assessment efforts. Here, we undertake genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and comprehensive evaluations of heritability and pleiotropy across 18 cancer types in two large, population-based cohorts: the UK Biobank (408,786 European ancestry individuals; 48,961 cancer cases) and the Kaiser Permanente Genetic Epidemiology Research on Adult Health and Aging cohorts (66,526 European ancestry individuals; 16,001 cancer cases). The GWAS detect 21 genome-wide significant associations independent of previously reported results. Investigations of pleiotropy identify 12 cancer pairs exhibiting either positive or negative genetic correlations; 25 pleiotropic loci; and 100 independent pleiotropic variants, many of which are regulatory elements and/or influence cross-tissue gene expression. Our findings demonstrate widespread pleiotropy and offer further insight into the complex genetic architecture of cross-cancer susceptibility.

Cancer risk is determined by a complex interplay of environmental and heritable factors. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) provide a personalized genetic susceptibility profile that may be leveraged for disease prediction. Using data from the UK Biobank (413,753 individuals; 22,755 incident cancer cases), we quantify the added predictive value of integrating cancer-specific PRS with family history and modifiable risk factors for 16 cancers. We show that incorporating PRS measurably improves prediction accuracy for most cancers, but the magnitude of this improvement varies substantially. We also demonstrate that stratifying on levels of PRS identifies significantly divergent 5-year risk trajectories after accounting for family history and modifiable risk factors. At the population level, the top 20% of the PRS distribution accounts for 4.0% to 30.3% of incident cancer cases, exceeding the impact of many lifestyle-related factors. In summary, this study illustrates the potential for improving cancer risk assessment by integrating genetic risk scores.

Even distinct cancer types share biological hallmarks. Here, we investigate polygenic risk score (PRS)-specific pleiotropy across 16 cancers in European ancestry individuals from the Genetic Epidemiology Research on Adult Health and Aging cohort (16,012 cases, 50,552 controls) and UK Biobank (48,969 cases, 359,802 controls). Within cohorts, each PRS is evaluated in multivariable logistic regression models against all other cancer types. Results are then meta-analyzed across cohorts. Ten positive and one inverse cross-cancer associations are found after multiple testing correction. Two pairs show bidirectional associations; the melanoma PRS is positively associated with oral cavity/pharyngeal cancer and vice versa, whereas the lung cancer PRS is positively associated with oral cavity/pharyngeal cancer, and the oral cavity/pharyngeal cancer PRS is inversely associated with lung cancer. Overall, we validate known, and uncover previously unreported, patterns of pleiotropy that have the potential to inform investigations of risk prediction, shared etiology, and precision cancer prevention strategies.

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer remains controversial because it increases overdiagnosis and overtreatment of clinically insignificant tumors. Accounting for genetic determinants of constitutive, non-cancer-related PSA variation has potential to improve screening utility. In this study, we discovered 128 genome-wide significant associations (P < 5 × 10⁻⁸) in a multi-ancestry meta-analysis of 95,768 men and developed a PSA polygenic score (PGS_PSA) that explains 9.61% of constitutive PSA variation. We found that, in men of European ancestry, using PGS-adjusted PSA would avoid up to 31% of negative prostate biopsies but also result in 12% fewer biopsies in patients with prostate cancer, mostly with Gleason score <7 tumors. Genetically adjusted PSA was more predictive of aggressive prostate cancer (odds ratio (OR) = 3.44, P = 6.2 × 10⁻¹⁴, area under the curve (AUC) = 0.755) than unadjusted PSA (OR = 3.31, P = 1.1 × 10⁻¹², AUC = 0.738) in 106 cases and 23,667 controls. Compared to a prostate cancer PGS alone (AUC = 0.712), including genetically adjusted PSA improved detection of aggressive disease (AUC = 0.786, P = 7.2 × 10⁻⁴). Our findings highlight the potential utility of incorporating PGS for personalized biomarkers in prostate cancer screening.

Breast cancer is the most common solid organ malignancy and the most frequent cause of cancer death among women worldwide. Previous research has yielded insights into its genetic etiology, but there remains a gap in the understanding of genetic factors that contribute to risk, and particularly in the biological mechanisms by which genetic variation modulates risk. The National Cancer Institute’s “Up for a Challenge” (U4C) competition provided an opportunity to further elucidate the genetic basis of the disease. Our group leveraged the seven datasets made available by the U4C organizers and data from the publicly available UK Biobank cohort to examine associations between imputed gene expression and breast cancer risk. In particular, we used reference datasets describing the breast tissue and whole blood transcriptomes to impute expression levels in breast cancer cases and controls. In trans-ethnic meta-analyses of U4C and UK Biobank data, we found significant associations between breast cancer risk and the expression of RCCD1 (joint p-value: 3.6x10^-06) and DHODH (p-value: 7.1x10^-06) in breast tissue, as well as a suggestive association for ANKLE1 (p-value: 9.3x10^-05). Expression of RCCD1 in whole blood was also suggestively associated with disease risk (p-value: 1.2x10^-05), as were expression of ACAP1 (p-value: 1.9x10^-05) and LRRC25 (p-value: 5.2x10^-05). While genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have implicated RCCD1 and ANKLE1 in breast cancer risk, they have not identified the remaining three genes. Among the genetic variants that contributed to the predicted expression of the five genes, we found 23 nominally (p-value < 0.05) associated with breast cancer risk, among which 15 are not in high linkage disequilibrium with risk variants previously identified by GWAS. In summary, we used a transcriptome-based approach to investigate the genetic underpinnings of breast carcinogenesis. This approach provided an avenue for deciphering the functional relevance of genes and genetic variants involved in breast cancer. There is a clear genetic basis of breast cancer, and previous work has identified numerous genetic variants that increase risk of this common disease. However, much of the underlying genetic variation in breast cancer remains unexplained. To address this void, as part of the National Cancer Institute’s “Up for a Challenge” (U4C) competition, we undertook a large-scale study of genetically regulated gene expression and breast cancer. Specifically, we estimated gene expression levels based on germline genetics for subjects in the seven breast cancer studies provided by U4C and for subjects in the UK Biobank. We then evaluated associations between gene expression and breast cancer and detected three novel and two known breast cancer genes. These genes exhibit potential biological mechanisms for impacting breast carcinogenesis. Our work highlights the value of leveraging different sources of data to more thoroughly study the genetic basis of complex diseases.