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.

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.

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed neoplasm in American men. Although existing biomarkers may detect localized prostate cancer, additional strategies are necessary for improving detection and identifying aggressive disease that may require further intervention. One promising, minimally invasive biomarker is cell-free DNA (cfDNA), which consist of short DNA fragments released into circulation by dying or lysed cells that may reflect underlying cancer. Here we investigated whether differences in cfDNA concentration and cfDNA fragment size could improve the sensitivity for detecting more advanced and aggressive prostate cancer. This study included 268 individuals: 34 healthy controls, 112 men with localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP), and 122 men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Plasma cfDNA concentration and fragment size were quantified with the Qubit 3.0 and the 2100 Bioanalyzer. The potential relationship between cfDNA concentration or fragment size and localized or mCRPC prostate cancer was evaluated with descriptive statistics, logistic regression, and area under the curve analysis with cross-validation. Plasma cfDNA concentrations were elevated in mCRPC patients in comparison to localized disease (OR5ng/mL = 1.34, P = 0.027) or to being a control (OR5ng/mL = 1.69, P = 0.034). Decreased average fragment size was associated with an increased risk of localized disease compared to controls (OR5bp = 0.77, P = 0.0008). This study suggests that while cfDNA concentration can identify mCRPC patients, it is unable to distinguish between healthy individuals and patients with localized prostate cancer. In addition to PSA, average cfDNA fragment size may be an alternative that can differentiate between healthy individuals and those with localized disease, but the low sensitivity and specificity results in an imperfect diagnostic marker. While quantification of cfDNA may provide a quick, cost-effective approach to help guide treatment decisions in advanced disease, its use is limited in the setting of localized prostate cancer.

Genetic factors that influence etiologic mechanisms shared across cancers could affect the risk of multiple cancer types. We investigated polygenic risk score (PRS)-specific pleiotropy across 17 cancers in two large population-based cohorts. The study population included European ancestry individuals from the Genetic Epidemiology Research on Adult Health and Aging cohort (16,012 cases, 50,552 controls) and the UK Biobank (48,969 cases, 359,802 controls). We selected known independent risk variants from published GWAS to construct a PRS for each cancer type. Within cohorts, each PRS was evaluated in multivariable logistic regression models with respect to the cancer for which it was developed and each other cancer type. Results were then meta-analyzed across cohorts. In the UK Biobank, each PRS was additionally evaluated relative to 20 cancer risk factors or biomarkers. All PRS replicated associations with their corresponding cancers (p<0.05). Eleven cross-cancer associations -ten positive and one inverse -were found after correction for multiple testing (p<0.05/17=0.0029). Two cancer pairs showed bidirectional associations; the melanoma PRS was positively associated with oral cavity/pharyngeal cancer and vice versa, whereas the lung cancer PRS was positively associated with oral cavity/pharyngeal cancer, and the oral cavity/pharyngeal cancer PRS was inversely associated with lung cancer. We identified 65 associations between a cancer PRS and non-cancer phenotype. In this study examining cross-cancer PRS associations in two cohorts unselected for phenotype, we validated known and uncovered novel patterns of pleiotropy. Our results have the potential to inform investigations of risk prediction, shared etiology, and precision cancer prevention strategies. 5 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCEBy examining cross-cancer polygenic risk score associations, we validated known and uncovered novel patterns of pleiotropy. Our results may inform investigations of risk prediction, shared etiology, and precision prevention strategies.

Background: Cell-free DNA's (cfDNA) use as a biomarker in cancer is challenging due to genetic heterogeneity of malignancies and rarity of tumor-derived molecules. Here we describe and demonstrate a novel machine-learning guided panel design strategy for improving the detection of tumor variants in cfDNA. Using this approach, we first generated a model to classify and score candidate variants for inclusion on a prostate cancer targeted sequencing panel. We then used this panel to screen tumor variants from prostate cancer patients with localized disease in both in silico and hybrid capture settings. Methods: Whole Genome Sequence (WGS) data from 550 prostate tumors was analyzed to build a targeted sequencing panel of single point and small (< 200 bp) indel mutations, which was subsequently screened in silico against prostate tumor sequences from 5 patients to assess performance against commonly used alternative panel designs. The panel's ability to detect tumor-derived cfDNA variants was then assessed using prospectively collected cfDNA and tumor foci from a test set 18 prostate cancer patients with localized disease undergoing radical proctectomy. Results: The panel generated from this approach identified as top candidates mutations in known driver genes (e.g. HRAS) and prostate cancer related transcription factor binding sites (e.g. MYC, AR). It outperformed two commonly used designs in detecting somatic mutations found in the cfDNA of 5 prostate cancer patients when analyzed in an in silico setting. Additionally, hybrid capture and 2500X sequencing of cfDNA molecules using the panel resulted in detection of tumor variants in all 18 patients of a test set, where 15 of the 18 patients had detected variants found in multiple foci. Conclusion: Machine learning-prioritized targeted sequencing panels may prove useful for broad and sensitive variant detection in the cfDNA of heterogeneous diseases. This strategy has implications for disease detection and monitoring when applied to the cfDNA isolated from prostate cancer patients.