101
|
Johnatty SE, Tyrer JP, Kar S, Beesley J, Lu Y, Gao B, Fasching PA, Hein A, Ekici AB, Beckmann MW, Lambrechts D, Van Nieuwenhuysen E, Vergote I, Lambrechts S, Rossing MA, Doherty JA, Chang-Claude J, Modugno F, Ness RB, Moysich KB, Levine DA, Kiemeney LA, Massuger LFAG, Gronwald J, Lubiński J, Jakubowska A, Cybulski C, Brinton L, Lissowska J, Wentzensen N, Song H, Rhenius V, Campbell I, Eccles D, Sieh W, Whittemore AS, McGuire V, Rothstein JH, Sutphen R, Anton-Culver H, Ziogas A, Gayther SA, Gentry-Maharaj A, Menon U, Ramus SJ, Pearce CL, Pike MC, Stram DO, Wu AH, Kupryjanczyk J, Dansonka-Mieszkowska A, Rzepecka IK, Spiewankiewicz B, Goodman MT, Wilkens LR, Carney ME, Thompson PJ, Heitz F, du Bois A, Schwaab I, Harter P, Pisterer J, Hillemanns P, Karlan BY, Walsh C, Lester J, Orsulic S, Winham SJ, Earp M, Larson MC, Fogarty ZC, Høgdall E, Jensen A, Kjaer SK, Fridley BL, Cunningham JM, Vierkant RA, Schildkraut JM, Iversen ES, Terry KL, Cramer DW, Bandera EV, Orlow I, Pejovic T, Bean Y, Høgdall C, Lundvall L, McNeish I, Paul J, Carty K, Siddiqui N, Glasspool R, Sellers T, Kennedy C, Chiew YE, Berchuck A, MacGregor S, Pharoah PDP, Goode EL, deFazio A, Webb PM, Chenevix-Trench G. Genome-wide Analysis Identifies Novel Loci Associated with Ovarian Cancer Outcomes: Findings from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium. Clin Cancer Res 2015; 21:5264-76. [PMID: 26152742 PMCID: PMC4624261 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-15-0632] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2015] [Accepted: 05/20/2015] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Chemotherapy resistance remains a major challenge in the treatment of ovarian cancer. We hypothesize that germline polymorphisms might be associated with clinical outcome. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN We analyzed approximately 2.8 million genotyped and imputed SNPs from the iCOGS experiment for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in 2,901 European epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients who underwent first-line treatment of cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy regardless of regimen, and in a subset of 1,098 patients treated with ≥ 4 cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin at standard doses. We evaluated the top SNPs in 4,434 EOC patients, including patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas. In addition, we conducted pathway analysis of all intragenic SNPs and tested their association with PFS and OS using gene set enrichment analysis. RESULTS Five SNPs were significantly associated (P ≤ 1.0 × 10(-5)) with poorer outcomes in at least one of the four analyses, three of which, rs4910232 (11p15.3), rs2549714 (16q23), and rs6674079 (1q22), were located in long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) RP11-179A10.1, RP11-314O13.1, and RP11-284F21.8, respectively (P ≤ 7.1 × 10(-6)). ENCODE ChIP-seq data at 1q22 for normal ovary show evidence of histone modification around RP11-284F21.8, and rs6674079 is perfectly correlated with another SNP within the super-enhancer MEF2D, expression levels of which were reportedly associated with prognosis in another solid tumor. YAP1- and WWTR1 (TAZ)-stimulated gene expression and high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-mediated lipid transport pathways were associated with PFS and OS, respectively, in the cohort who had standard chemotherapy (pGSEA ≤ 6 × 10(-3)). CONCLUSIONS We have identified SNPs in three lncRNAs that might be important targets for novel EOC therapies.
Collapse
|
102
|
Zhang B, Shu XO, Delahanty RJ, Zeng C, Michailidou K, Bolla MK, Wang Q, Dennis J, Wen W, Long J, Li C, Dunning AM, Chang-Claude J, Shah M, Perkins BJ, Czene K, Darabi H, Eriksson M, Bojesen SE, Nordestgaard BG, Nielsen SF, Flyger H, Lambrechts D, Neven P, Wildiers H, Floris G, Schmidt MK, Rookus MA, van den Hurk K, de Kort WLAM, Couch FJ, Olson JE, Hallberg E, Vachon C, Rudolph A, Seibold P, Flesch-Janys D, Peto J, Dos-Santos-Silva I, Fletcher O, Johnson N, Nevanlinna H, Muranen TA, Aittomäki K, Blomqvist C, Li J, Humphreys K, Brand J, Guénel P, Truong T, Cordina-Duverger E, Menegaux F, Burwinkel B, Marme F, Yang R, Surowy H, Benitez J, Zamora MP, Perez JIA, Cox A, Cross SS, Reed MWR, Andrulis IL, Knight JA, Glendon G, Tchatchou S, Sawyer EJ, Tomlinson I, Kerin MJ, Miller N, Chenevix-Trench G, Haiman CA, Henderson BE, Schumacher F, Marchand LL, Lindblom A, Margolin S, Hooning MJ, Martens JWM, Tilanus-Linthorst MMA, Collée JM, Hopper JL, Southey MC, Tsimiklis H, Apicella C, Slager S, Toland AE, Ambrosone CB, Yannoukakos D, Giles GG, Milne RL, McLean C, Fasching PA, Haeberle L, Ekici AB, Beckmann MW, Brenner H, Dieffenbach AK, Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Swerdlow AJ, Ashworth A, Orr N, Jones M, Figueroa J, Garcia-Closas M, Brinton L, Lissowska J, Dumont M, Winqvist R, Pylkäs K, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Grip M, Brauch H, Brüning T, Ko YD, Peterlongo P, Manoukian S, Bonanni B, Radice P, Bogdanova N, Antonenkova N, Dörk T, Mannermaa A, Kataja V, Kosma VM, Hartikainen JM, Devilee P, Seynaeve C, Van Asperen CJ, Jakubowska A, Lubiński J, Jaworska-Bieniek K, Durda K, Hamann U, Torres D, Schmutzler RK, Neuhausen SL, Anton-Culver H, Kristensen VN, Grenaker Alnæs GI, Pierce BL, Kraft P, Peters U, Lindstrom S, Seminara D, Burgess S, Ahsan H, Whittemore AS, John EM, Gammon MD, Malone KE, Tessier DC, Vincent D, Bacot F, Luccarini C, Baynes C, Ahmed S, Maranian M, Healey CS, González-Neira A, Pita G, Alonso MR, Álvarez N, Herrero D, Pharoah PDP, Simard J, Hall P, Hunter DJ, Easton DF, Zheng W. Height and Breast Cancer Risk: Evidence From Prospective Studies and Mendelian Randomization. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; 107:djv219. [PMID: 26296642 PMCID: PMC4643630 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv219] [Citation(s) in RCA: 83] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2014] [Revised: 02/03/2015] [Accepted: 07/15/2015] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epidemiological studies have linked adult height with breast cancer risk in women. However, the magnitude of the association, particularly by subtypes of breast cancer, has not been established. Furthermore, the mechanisms of the association remain unclear. METHODS We performed a meta-analysis to investigate associations between height and breast cancer risk using data from 159 prospective cohorts totaling 5216302 women, including 113178 events. In a consortium with individual-level data from 46325 case patients and 42482 control patients, we conducted a Mendelian randomization analysis using a genetic score that comprised 168 height-associated variants as an instrument. This association was further evaluated in a second consortium using summary statistics data from 16003 case patients and 41335 control patients. RESULTS The pooled relative risk of breast cancer was 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.15 to 1.19) per 10cm increase in height in the meta-analysis of prospective studies. In Mendelian randomization analysis, the odds ratio of breast cancer per 10cm increase in genetically predicted height was 1.22 (95% CI = 1.13 to 1.32) in the first consortium and 1.21 (95% CI = 1.05 to 1.39) in the second consortium. The association was found in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women but restricted to hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Analyses of height-associated variants identified eight new loci associated with breast cancer risk after adjusting for multiple comparisons, including three loci at 1q21.2, DNAJC27, and CCDC91 at genome-wide significance level P < 5×10(-8). CONCLUSIONS Our study provides strong evidence that adult height is a risk factor for breast cancer in women and certain genetic factors and biological pathways affecting adult height have an important role in the etiology of breast cancer.
Collapse
|
103
|
Ramus SJ, Song H, Dicks E, Tyrer JP, Rosenthal AN, Intermaggio MP, Fraser L, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hayward J, Philpott S, Anderson C, Edlund CK, Conti D, Harrington P, Barrowdale D, Bowtell DD, Alsop K, Mitchell G, Cicek MS, Cunningham JM, Fridley BL, Alsop J, Jimenez-Linan M, Poblete S, Lele S, Sucheston-Campbell L, Moysich KB, Sieh W, McGuire V, Lester J, Bogdanova N, Dürst M, Hillemanns P, Odunsi K, Whittemore AS, Karlan BY, Dörk T, Goode EL, Menon U, Jacobs IJ, Antoniou AC, Pharoah PDP, Gayther SA. Germline Mutations in the BRIP1, BARD1, PALB2, and NBN Genes in Women With Ovarian Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; 107:djv214. [PMID: 26315354 PMCID: PMC4643629 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv214] [Citation(s) in RCA: 266] [Impact Index Per Article: 29.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2015] [Revised: 04/19/2015] [Accepted: 07/10/2015] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the most lethal gynecological malignancy, responsible for 13 000 deaths per year in the United States. Risk prediction based on identifying germline mutations in ovarian cancer susceptibility genes could have a clinically significant impact on reducing disease mortality. METHODS Next generation sequencing was used to identify germline mutations in the coding regions of four candidate susceptibility genes-BRIP1, BARD1, PALB2 and NBN-in 3236 invasive EOC case patients and 3431 control patients of European origin, and in 2000 unaffected high-risk women from a clinical screening trial of ovarian cancer (UKFOCSS). For each gene, we estimated the prevalence and EOC risks and evaluated associations between germline variant status and clinical and epidemiological risk factor information. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS We found an increased frequency of deleterious mutations in BRIP1 in case patients (0.9%) and in the UKFOCSS participants (0.6%) compared with control patients (0.09%) (P = 1 x 10(-4) and 8 x 10(-4), respectively), but no differences for BARD1 (P = .39), NBN1 ( P = .61), or PALB2 (P = .08). There was also a difference in the frequency of rare missense variants in BRIP1 between case patients and control patients (P = 5.5 x 10(-4)). The relative risks associated with BRIP1 mutations were 11.22 for invasive EOC (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.22 to 34.10, P = 1 x 10(-4)) and 14.09 for high-grade serous disease (95% CI = 4.04 to 45.02, P = 2 x 10(-5)). Segregation analysis in families estimated the average relative risks in BRIP1 mutation carriers compared with the general population to be 3.41 (95% CI = 2.12 to 5.54, P = 7×10(-7)). CONCLUSIONS Deleterious germline mutations in BRIP1 are associated with a moderate increase in EOC risk. These data have clinical implications for risk prediction and prevention approaches for ovarian cancer and emphasize the critical need for risk estimates based on very large sample sizes before genes of moderate penetrance have clinical utility in cancer prevention.
Collapse
|
104
|
Lawrenson K, Iversen ES, Tyrer J, Weber RP, Concannon P, Hazelett DJ, Li Q, Marks JR, Berchuck A, Lee JM, Aben KKH, Anton-Culver H, Antonenkova N, Bandera EV, Bean Y, Beckmann MW, Bisogna M, Bjorge L, Bogdanova N, Brinton LA, Brooks-Wilson A, Bruinsma F, Butzow R, Campbell IG, Carty K, Chang-Claude J, Chenevix-Trench G, Chen A, Chen Z, Cook LS, Cramer DW, Cunningham JM, Cybulski C, Plisiecka-Halasa J, Dennis J, Dicks E, Doherty JA, Dörk T, du Bois A, Eccles D, Easton DT, Edwards RP, Eilber U, Ekici AB, Fasching PA, Fridley BL, Gao YT, Gentry-Maharaj A, Giles GG, Glasspool R, Goode EL, Goodman MT, Gronwald J, Harter P, Hasmad HN, Hein A, Heitz F, Hildebrandt MAT, Hillemanns P, Hogdall E, Hogdall C, Hosono S, Jakubowska A, Paul J, Jensen A, Karlan BY, Kjaer SK, Kelemen LE, Kellar M, Kelley JL, Kiemeney LA, Krakstad C, Lambrechts D, Lambrechts S, Le ND, Lee AW, Cannioto R, Leminen A, Lester J, Levine DA, Liang D, Lissowska J, Lu K, Lubinski J, Lundvall L, Massuger LFAG, Matsuo K, McGuire V, McLaughlin JR, Nevanlinna H, McNeish I, Menon U, Modugno F, Moysich KB, Narod SA, Nedergaard L, Ness RB, Noor Azmi MA, Odunsi K, Olson SH, Orlow I, Orsulic S, Pearce CL, Pejovic T, Pelttari LM, Permuth-Wey J, Phelan CM, Pike MC, Poole EM, Ramus SJ, Risch HA, Rosen B, Rossing MA, Rothstein JH, Rudolph A, Runnebaum IB, Rzepecka IK, Salvesen HB, Budzilowska A, Sellers TA, Shu XO, Shvetsov YB, Siddiqui N, Sieh W, Song H, Southey MC, Sucheston L, Tangen IL, Teo SH, Terry KL, Thompson PJ, Timorek A, Tworoger SS, Van Nieuwenhuysen E, Vergote I, Vierkant RA, Wang-Gohrke S, Walsh C, Wentzensen N, Whittemore AS, Wicklund KG, Wilkens LR, Woo YL, Wu X, Wu AH, Yang H, Zheng W, Ziogas A, Coetzee GA, Freedman ML, Monteiro ANA, Moes-Sosnowska J, Kupryjanczyk J, Pharoah PD, Gayther SA, Schildkraut JM. Common variants at the CHEK2 gene locus and risk of epithelial ovarian cancer. Carcinogenesis 2015; 36:1341-53. [PMID: 26424751 PMCID: PMC4635670 DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgv138] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2015] [Revised: 09/14/2015] [Accepted: 09/16/2015] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies have identified 20 genomic regions associated with risk of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), but many additional risk variants may exist. Here, we evaluated associations between common genetic variants [single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and indels] in DNA repair genes and EOC risk. We genotyped 2896 common variants at 143 gene loci in DNA samples from 15 397 patients with invasive EOC and controls. We found evidence of associations with EOC risk for variants at FANCA, EXO1, E2F4, E2F2, CREB5 and CHEK2 genes (P ≤ 0.001). The strongest risk association was for CHEK2 SNP rs17507066 with serous EOC (P = 4.74 x 10(-7)). Additional genotyping and imputation of genotypes from the 1000 genomes project identified a slightly more significant association for CHEK2 SNP rs6005807 (r (2) with rs17507066 = 0.84, odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% CI 1.11-1.24, P = 1.1×10(-7)). We identified 293 variants in the region with likelihood ratios of less than 1:100 for representing the causal variant. Functional annotation identified 25 candidate SNPs that alter transcription factor binding sites within regulatory elements active in EOC precursor tissues. In The Cancer Genome Atlas dataset, CHEK2 gene expression was significantly higher in primary EOCs compared to normal fallopian tube tissues (P = 3.72×10(-8)). We also identified an association between genotypes of the candidate causal SNP rs12166475 (r (2) = 0.99 with rs6005807) and CHEK2 expression (P = 2.70×10(-8)). These data suggest that common variants at 22q12.1 are associated with risk of serous EOC and CHEK2 as a plausible target susceptibility gene.
Collapse
|
105
|
Lu Y, Cuellar-Partida G, Painter JN, Nyholt DR, Morris AP, Fasching PA, Hein A, Burghaus S, Beckmann MW, Lambrechts D, Van Nieuwenhuysen E, Vergote I, Vanderstichele A, Doherty JA, Rossing MA, Wicklund KG, Chang-Claude J, Eilber U, Rudolph A, Wang-Gohrke S, Goodman MT, Bogdanova N, Dörk T, Dürst M, Hillemanns P, Runnebaum IB, Antonenkova N, Butzow R, Leminen A, Nevanlinna H, Pelttari LM, Edwards RP, Kelley JL, Modugno F, Moysich KB, Ness RB, Cannioto R, Høgdall E, Jensen A, Giles GG, Bruinsma F, Kjaer SK, Hildebrandt MAT, Liang D, Lu KH, Wu X, Bisogna M, Dao F, Levine DA, Cramer DW, Terry KL, Tworoger SS, Missmer S, Bjorge L, Salvesen HB, Kopperud RK, Bischof K, Aben KKH, Kiemeney LA, Massuger LFAG, Brooks-Wilson A, Olson SH, McGuire V, Rothstein JH, Sieh W, Whittemore AS, Cook LS, Le ND, Gilks CB, Gronwald J, Jakubowska A, Lubiński J, Gawełko J, Song H, Tyrer JP, Wentzensen N, Brinton L, Trabert B, Lissowska J, Mclaughlin JR, Narod SA, Phelan C, Anton-Culver H, Ziogas A, Eccles D, Gayther SA, Gentry-Maharaj A, Menon U, Ramus SJ, Wu AH, Dansonka-Mieszkowska A, Kupryjanczyk J, Timorek A, Szafron L, Cunningham JM, Fridley BL, Winham SJ, Bandera EV, Poole EM, Morgan TK, Risch HA, Goode EL, Schildkraut JM, Webb PM, Pearce CL, Berchuck A, Pharoah PDP, Montgomery GW, Zondervan KT, Chenevix-Trench G, MacGregor S. Shared genetics underlying epidemiological association between endometriosis and ovarian cancer. Hum Mol Genet 2015; 24:5955-64. [PMID: 26231222 PMCID: PMC4581608 DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddv306] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2015] [Revised: 07/16/2015] [Accepted: 07/24/2015] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Epidemiological studies have demonstrated associations between endometriosis and certain histotypes of ovarian cancer, including clear cell, low-grade serous and endometrioid carcinomas. We aimed to determine whether the observed associations might be due to shared genetic aetiology. To address this, we used two endometriosis datasets genotyped on common arrays with full-genome coverage (3194 cases and 7060 controls) and a large ovarian cancer dataset genotyped on the customized Illumina Infinium iSelect (iCOGS) arrays (10 065 cases and 21 663 controls). Previous work has suggested that a large number of genetic variants contribute to endometriosis and ovarian cancer (all histotypes combined) susceptibility. Here, using the iCOGS data, we confirmed polygenic architecture for most histotypes of ovarian cancer. This led us to evaluate if the polygenic effects are shared across diseases. We found evidence for shared genetic risks between endometriosis and all histotypes of ovarian cancer, except for the intestinal mucinous type. Clear cell carcinoma showed the strongest genetic correlation with endometriosis (0.51, 95% CI = 0.18-0.84). Endometrioid and low-grade serous carcinomas had similar correlation coefficients (0.48, 95% CI = 0.07-0.89 and 0.40, 95% CI = 0.05-0.75, respectively). High-grade serous carcinoma, which often arises from the fallopian tubes, showed a weaker genetic correlation with endometriosis (0.25, 95% CI = 0.11-0.39), despite the absence of a known epidemiological association. These results suggest that the epidemiological association between endometriosis and ovarian adenocarcinoma may be attributable to shared genetic susceptibility loci.
Collapse
|
106
|
Vilhjálmsson B, Yang J, Finucane H, Gusev A, Lindström S, Ripke S, Genovese G, Loh PR, Bhatia G, Do R, Hayeck T, Won HH, Kathiresan S, Pato M, Pato C, Tamimi R, Stahl E, Zaitlen N, Pasaniuc B, Belbin G, Kenny EE, Schierup MH, De Jager P, Patsopoulos NA, McCarroll S, Daly M, Purcell S, Chasman D, Neale B, Goddard M, Visscher PM, Kraft P, Patterson N, Price AL, Ripke S, Neale B, Corvin A, Walters J, Farh KH, Holmans P, Lee P, Bulik-Sullivan B, Collier D, Huang H, Pers T, Agartz I, Agerbo E, Albus M, Alexander M, Amin F, Bacanu S, Begemann M, Belliveau R, Bene J, Bergen S, Bevilacqua E, Bigdeli T, Black D, Bruggeman R, Buccola N, Buckner R, Byerley W, Cahn W, Cai G, Campion D, Cantor R, Carr V, Carrera N, Catts S, Chambert K, Chan R, Chen R, Chen E, Cheng W, Cheung E, Chong S, Cloninger C, Cohen D, Cohen N, Cormican P, Craddock N, Crowley J, Curtis D, Davidson M, Davis K, Degenhardt F, Del Favero J, DeLisi L, Demontis D, Dikeos D, Dinan T, Djurovic S, Donohoe G, Drapeau E, Duan J, Dudbridge F, Durmishi N, Eichhammer P, Eriksson J, Escott-Price V, Essioux L, Fanous A, Farrell M, Frank J, Franke L, Freedman R, Freimer N, Friedl M, Friedman J, Fromer M, Genovese G, Georgieva L, Gershon E, Giegling I, Giusti-Rodrguez P, Godard S, Goldstein J, Golimbet V, Gopal S, Gratten J, Grove J, de Haan L, Hammer C, Hamshere M, Hansen M, Hansen T, Haroutunian V, Hartmann A, Henskens F, Herms S, Hirschhorn J, Hoffmann P, Hofman A, Hollegaard M, Hougaard D, Ikeda M, Joa I, Julia A, Kahn R, Kalaydjieva L, Karachanak-Yankova S, Karjalainen J, Kavanagh D, Keller M, Kelly B, Kennedy J, Khrunin A, Kim Y, Klovins J, Knowles J, Konte B, Kucinskas V, Kucinskiene Z, Kuzelova-Ptackova H, Kahler A, Laurent C, Keong J, Lee S, Legge S, Lerer B, Li M, Li T, Liang KY, Lieberman J, Limborska S, Loughland C, Lubinski J, Lnnqvist J, Macek M, Magnusson P, Maher B, Maier W, Mallet J, Marsal S, Mattheisen M, Mattingsdal M, McCarley R, McDonald C, McIntosh A, Meier S, Meijer C, Melegh B, Melle I, Mesholam-Gately R, Metspalu A, Michie P, Milani L, Milanova V, Mokrab Y, Morris D, Mors O, Mortensen P, Murphy K, Murray R, Myin-Germeys I, Mller-Myhsok B, Nelis M, Nenadic I, Nertney D, Nestadt G, Nicodemus K, Nikitina-Zake L, Nisenbaum L, Nordin A, O’Callaghan E, O’Dushlaine C, O’Neill F, Oh SY, Olincy A, Olsen L, Van Os J, Pantelis C, Papadimitriou G, Papiol S, Parkhomenko E, Pato M, Paunio T, Pejovic-Milovancevic M, Perkins D, Pietilinen O, Pimm J, Pocklington A, Powell J, Price A, Pulver A, Purcell S, Quested D, Rasmussen H, Reichenberg A, Reimers M, Richards A, Roffman J, Roussos P, Ruderfer D, Salomaa V, Sanders A, Schall U, Schubert C, Schulze T, Schwab S, Scolnick E, Scott R, Seidman L, Shi J, Sigurdsson E, Silagadze T, Silverman J, Sim K, Slominsky P, Smoller J, So HC, Spencer C, Stahl E, Stefansson H, Steinberg S, Stogmann E, Straub R, Strengman E, Strohmaier J, Stroup T, Subramaniam M, Suvisaari J, Svrakic D, Szatkiewicz J, Sderman E, Thirumalai S, Toncheva D, Tooney P, Tosato S, Veijola J, Waddington J, Walsh D, Wang D, Wang Q, Webb B, Weiser M, Wildenauer D, Williams N, Williams S, Witt S, Wolen A, Wong E, Wormley B, Wu J, Xi H, Zai C, Zheng X, Zimprich F, Wray N, Stefansson K, Visscher P, Adolfsson R, Andreassen O, Blackwood D, Bramon E, Buxbaum J, Børglum A, Cichon S, Darvasi A, Domenici E, Ehrenreich H, Esko T, Gejman P, Gill M, Gurling H, Hultman C, Iwata N, Jablensky A, Jonsson E, Kendler K, Kirov G, Knight J, Lencz T, Levinson D, Li Q, Liu J, Malhotra A, McCarroll S, McQuillin A, Moran J, Mortensen P, Mowry B, Nthen M, Ophoff R, Owen M, Palotie A, Pato C, Petryshen T, Posthuma D, Rietschel M, Riley B, Rujescu D, Sham P, Sklar P, St. Clair D, Weinberger D, Wendland J, Werge T, Daly M, Sullivan P, O’Donovan M, Kraft P, Hunter DJ, Adank M, Ahsan H, Aittomäki K, Baglietto L, Berndt S, Blomquist C, Canzian F, Chang-Claude J, Chanock SJ, Crisponi L, Czene K, Dahmen N, Silva IDS, Easton D, Eliassen AH, Figueroa J, Fletcher O, Garcia-Closas M, Gaudet MM, Gibson L, Haiman CA, Hall P, Hazra A, Hein R, Henderson BE, Hofman A, Hopper JL, Irwanto A, Johansson M, Kaaks R, Kibriya MG, Lichtner P, Lindström S, Liu J, Lund E, Makalic E, Meindl A, Meijers-Heijboer H, Müller-Myhsok B, Muranen TA, Nevanlinna H, Peeters PH, Peto J, Prentice RL, Rahman N, Sánchez MJ, Schmidt DF, Schmutzler RK, Southey MC, Tamimi R, Travis R, Turnbull C, Uitterlinden AG, van der Luijt RB, Waisfisz Q, Wang Z, Whittemore AS, Yang R, Zheng W. Modeling Linkage Disequilibrium Increases Accuracy of Polygenic Risk Scores. Am J Hum Genet 2015; 97:576-92. [PMID: 26430803 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2015.09.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 773] [Impact Index Per Article: 85.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2015] [Accepted: 09/01/2015] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores have shown great promise in predicting complex disease risk and will become more accurate as training sample sizes increase. The standard approach for calculating risk scores involves linkage disequilibrium (LD)-based marker pruning and applying a p value threshold to association statistics, but this discards information and can reduce predictive accuracy. We introduce LDpred, a method that infers the posterior mean effect size of each marker by using a prior on effect sizes and LD information from an external reference panel. Theory and simulations show that LDpred outperforms the approach of pruning followed by thresholding, particularly at large sample sizes. Accordingly, predicted R(2) increased from 20.1% to 25.3% in a large schizophrenia dataset and from 9.8% to 12.0% in a large multiple sclerosis dataset. A similar relative improvement in accuracy was observed for three additional large disease datasets and for non-European schizophrenia samples. The advantage of LDpred over existing methods will grow as sample sizes increase.
Collapse
|
107
|
Kar SP, Tyrer JP, Li Q, Lawrenson K, Aben KKH, Anton-Culver H, Antonenkova N, Chenevix-Trench G, Baker H, Bandera EV, Bean YT, Beckmann MW, Berchuck A, Bisogna M, Bjørge L, Bogdanova N, Brinton L, Brooks-Wilson A, Butzow R, Campbell I, Carty K, Chang-Claude J, Chen YA, Chen Z, Cook LS, Cramer D, Cunningham JM, Cybulski C, Dansonka-Mieszkowska A, Dennis J, Dicks E, Doherty JA, Dörk T, du Bois A, Dürst M, Eccles D, Easton DF, Edwards RP, Ekici AB, Fasching PA, Fridley BL, Gao YT, Gentry-Maharaj A, Giles GG, Glasspool R, Goode EL, Goodman MT, Grownwald J, Harrington P, Harter P, Hein A, Heitz F, Hildebrandt MAT, Hillemanns P, Hogdall E, Hogdall CK, Hosono S, Iversen ES, Jakubowska A, Paul J, Jensen A, Ji BT, Karlan BY, Kjaer SK, Kelemen LE, Kellar M, Kelley J, Kiemeney LA, Krakstad C, Kupryjanczyk J, Lambrechts D, Lambrechts S, Le ND, Lee AW, Lele S, Leminen A, Lester J, Levine DA, Liang D, Lissowska J, Lu K, Lubinski J, Lundvall L, Massuger L, Matsuo K, McGuire V, McLaughlin JR, McNeish IA, Menon U, Modugno F, Moysich KB, Narod SA, Nedergaard L, Ness RB, Nevanlinna H, Odunsi K, Olson SH, Orlow I, Orsulic S, Weber RP, Pearce CL, Pejovic T, Pelttari LM, Permuth-Wey J, Phelan CM, Pike MC, Poole EM, Ramus SJ, Risch HA, Rosen B, Rossing MA, Rothstein JH, Rudolph A, Runnebaum IB, Rzepecka IK, Salvesen HB, Schildkraut JM, Schwaab I, Shu XO, Shvetsov YB, Siddiqui N, Sieh W, Song H, Southey MC, Sucheston-Campbell LE, Tangen IL, Teo SH, Terry KL, Thompson PJ, Timorek A, Tsai YY, Tworoger SS, van Altena AM, Van Nieuwenhuysen E, Vergote I, Vierkant RA, Wang-Gohrke S, Walsh C, Wentzensen N, Whittemore AS, Wicklund KG, Wilkens LR, Woo YL, Wu X, Wu A, Yang H, Zheng W, Ziogas A, Sellers TA, Monteiro ANA, Freedman ML, Gayther SA, Pharoah PDP. Network-Based Integration of GWAS and Gene Expression Identifies a HOX-Centric Network Associated with Serous Ovarian Cancer Risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015; 24:1574-84. [PMID: 26209509 PMCID: PMC4592449 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-14-1270] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2014] [Accepted: 06/29/2015] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have so far reported 12 loci associated with serous epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) risk. We hypothesized that some of these loci function through nearby transcription factor (TF) genes and that putative target genes of these TFs as identified by coexpression may also be enriched for additional EOC risk associations. METHODS We selected TF genes within 1 Mb of the top signal at the 12 genome-wide significant risk loci. Mutual information, a form of correlation, was used to build networks of genes strongly coexpressed with each selected TF gene in the unified microarray dataset of 489 serous EOC tumors from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Genes represented in this dataset were subsequently ranked using a gene-level test based on results for germline SNPs from a serous EOC GWAS meta-analysis (2,196 cases/4,396 controls). RESULTS Gene set enrichment analysis identified six networks centered on TF genes (HOXB2, HOXB5, HOXB6, HOXB7 at 17q21.32 and HOXD1, HOXD3 at 2q31) that were significantly enriched for genes from the risk-associated end of the ranked list (P < 0.05 and FDR < 0.05). These results were replicated (P < 0.05) using an independent association study (7,035 cases/21,693 controls). Genes underlying enrichment in the six networks were pooled into a combined network. CONCLUSION We identified a HOX-centric network associated with serous EOC risk containing several genes with known or emerging roles in serous EOC development. IMPACT Network analysis integrating large, context-specific datasets has the potential to offer mechanistic insights into cancer susceptibility and prioritize genes for experimental characterization.
Collapse
|
108
|
Lawrenson K, Li Q, Kar S, Seo JH, Tyrer J, Spindler TJ, Lee J, Chen Y, Karst A, Drapkin R, Aben KKH, Anton-Culver H, Antonenkova N, Baker H, Bandera EV, Bean Y, Beckmann MW, Berchuck A, Bisogna M, Bjorge L, Bogdanova N, Brinton LA, Brooks-Wilson A, Bruinsma F, Butzow R, Campbell IG, Carty K, Chang-Claude J, Chenevix-Trench G, Chen A, Chen Z, Cook LS, Cramer DW, Cunningham JM, Cybulski C, Dansonka-Mieszkowska A, Dennis J, Dicks E, Doherty JA, Dörk T, du Bois A, Dürst M, Eccles D, Easton DT, Edwards RP, Eilber U, Ekici AB, Fasching PA, Fridley BL, Gao YT, Gentry-Maharaj A, Giles GG, Glasspool R, Goode EL, Goodman MT, Grownwald J, Harrington P, Harter P, Hasmad HN, Hein A, Heitz F, Hildebrandt MAT, Hillemanns P, Hogdall E, Hogdall C, Hosono S, Iversen ES, Jakubowska A, James P, Jensen A, Ji BT, Karlan BY, Kruger Kjaer S, Kelemen LE, Kellar M, Kelley JL, Kiemeney LA, Krakstad C, Kupryjanczyk J, Lambrechts D, Lambrechts S, Le ND, Lee AW, Lele S, Leminen A, Lester J, Levine DA, Liang D, Lissowska J, Lu K, Lubinski J, Lundvall L, Massuger LFAG, Matsuo K, McGuire V, McLaughlin JR, Nevanlinna H, McNeish I, Menon U, Modugno F, Moysich KB, Narod SA, Nedergaard L, Ness RB, Azmi MAN, Odunsi K, Olson SH, Orlow I, Orsulic S, Weber RP, Pearce CL, Pejovic T, Pelttari LM, Permuth-Wey J, Phelan CM, Pike MC, Poole EM, Ramus SJ, Risch HA, Rosen B, Rossing MA, Rothstein JH, Rudolph A, Runnebaum IB, Rzepecka IK, Salvesen HB, Schildkraut JM, Schwaab I, Sellers TA, Shu XO, Shvetsov YB, Siddiqui N, Sieh W, Song H, Southey MC, Sucheston L, Tangen IL, Teo SH, Terry KL, Thompson PJ, Timorek A, Tsai YY, Tworoger SS, van Altena AM, Van Nieuwenhuysen E, Vergote I, Vierkant RA, Wang-Gohrke S, Walsh C, Wentzensen N, Whittemore AS, Wicklund KG, Wilkens LR, Woo YL, Wu X, Wu AH, Yang H, Zheng W, Ziogas A, Monteiro A, Pharoah PD, Gayther SA, Freedman ML. Cis-eQTL analysis and functional validation of candidate susceptibility genes for high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Nat Commun 2015; 6:8234. [PMID: 26391404 PMCID: PMC4580986 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9234] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2015] [Accepted: 07/31/2015] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies have reported 11 regions conferring risk of high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer (HGSOC). Expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) analyses can identify candidate susceptibility genes at risk loci. Here we evaluate cis-eQTL associations at 47 regions associated with HGSOC risk (P≤10(-5)). For three cis-eQTL associations (P<1.4 × 10(-3), FDR<0.05) at 1p36 (CDC42), 1p34 (CDCA8) and 2q31 (HOXD9), we evaluate the functional role of each candidate by perturbing expression of each gene in HGSOC precursor cells. Overexpression of HOXD9 increases anchorage-independent growth, shortens population-doubling time and reduces contact inhibition. Chromosome conformation capture identifies an interaction between rs2857532 and the HOXD9 promoter, suggesting this SNP is a leading causal variant. Transcriptomic profiling after HOXD9 overexpression reveals enrichment of HGSOC risk variants within HOXD9 target genes (P=6 × 10(-10) for risk variants (P<10(-4)) within 10 kb of a HOXD9 target gene in ovarian cells), suggesting a broader role for this network in genetic susceptibility to HGSOC.
Collapse
|
109
|
Zhang C, Doherty JA, Burgess S, Hung RJ, Lindström S, Kraft P, Gong J, Amos CI, Sellers TA, Monteiro ANA, Chenevix-Trench G, Bickeböller H, Risch A, Brennan P, Mckay JD, Houlston RS, Landi MT, Timofeeva MN, Wang Y, Heinrich J, Kote-Jarai Z, Eeles RA, Muir K, Wiklund F, Grönberg H, Berndt SI, Chanock SJ, Schumacher F, Haiman CA, Henderson BE, Amin Al Olama A, Andrulis IL, Hopper JL, Chang-Claude J, John EM, Malone KE, Gammon MD, Ursin G, Whittemore AS, Hunter DJ, Gruber SB, Knight JA, Hou L, Le Marchand L, Newcomb PA, Hudson TJ, Chan AT, Li L, Woods MO, Ahsan H, Pierce BL. Genetic determinants of telomere length and risk of common cancers: a Mendelian randomization study. Hum Mol Genet 2015; 24:5356-66. [PMID: 26138067 PMCID: PMC4550826 DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddv252] [Citation(s) in RCA: 117] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2014] [Revised: 06/03/2015] [Accepted: 06/25/2015] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Epidemiological studies have reported inconsistent associations between telomere length (TL) and risk for various cancers. These inconsistencies are likely attributable, in part, to biases that arise due to post-diagnostic and post-treatment TL measurement. To avoid such biases, we used a Mendelian randomization approach and estimated associations between nine TL-associated SNPs and risk for five common cancer types (breast, lung, colorectal, ovarian and prostate cancer, including subtypes) using data on 51 725 cases and 62 035 controls. We then used an inverse-variance weighted average of the SNP-specific associations to estimate the association between a genetic score representing long TL and cancer risk. The long TL genetic score was significantly associated with increased risk of lung adenocarcinoma (P = 6.3 × 10(-15)), even after exclusion of a SNP residing in a known lung cancer susceptibility region (TERT-CLPTM1L) P = 6.6 × 10(-6)). Under Mendelian randomization assumptions, the association estimate [odds ratio (OR) = 2.78] is interpreted as the OR for lung adenocarcinoma corresponding to a 1000 bp increase in TL. The weighted TL SNP score was not associated with other cancer types or subtypes. Our finding that genetic determinants of long TL increase lung adenocarcinoma risk avoids issues with reverse causality and residual confounding that arise in observational studies of TL and disease risk. Under Mendelian randomization assumptions, our finding suggests that longer TL increases lung adenocarcinoma risk. However, caution regarding this causal interpretation is warranted in light of the potential issue of pleiotropy, and a more general interpretation is that SNPs influencing telomere biology are also implicated in lung adenocarcinoma risk.
Collapse
|
110
|
Jim HS, Lin HY, Tyrer JP, Lawrenson K, Dennis J, Chornokur G, Chen Z, Chen AY, Permuth-Wey J, Aben KKH, Anton-Culver H, Antonenkova N, Bruinsma F, Bandera EV, Bean YT, Beckmann MW, Bisogna M, Bjorge L, Bogdanova N, Brinton LA, Brooks-Wilson A, Bunker CH, Butzow R, Campbell IG, Carty K, Chang-Claude J, Cook LS, Cramer DW, Cunningham JM, Cybulski C, Dansonka-Mieszkowska A, du Bois A, Despierre E, Sieh W, Doherty JA, Dörk T, Dürst M, Easton DF, Eccles DM, Edwards RP, Ekici AB, Fasching PA, Fridley BL, Gao YT, Gentry-Maharaj A, Giles GG, Glasspool R, Goodman MT, Gronwald J, Harter P, Hasmad HN, Hein A, Heitz F, Hildebrandt MA, Hillemanns P, Hogdall CK, Hogdall E, Hosono S, Iversen ES, Jakubowska A, Jensen A, Ji BT, Karlan BY, Kellar M, Kiemeney LA, Krakstad C, Kjaer SK, Kupryjanczyk J, Vierkant RA, Lambrechts D, Lambrechts S, Le ND, Lee AW, Lele S, Leminen A, Lester J, Levine DA, Liang D, Lim BK, Lissowska J, Lu K, Lubinski J, Lundvall L, Massuger LF, Matsuo K, McGuire V, McLaughlin JR, McNeish I, Menon U, Milne RL, Modugno F, Thomsen L, Moysich KB, Ness RB, Nevanlinna H, Eilber U, Odunsi K, Olson SH, Orlow I, Orsulic S, Palmieri Weber R, Paul J, Pearce CL, Pejovic T, Pelttari LM, Pike MC, Poole EM, Schernhammer E, Risch HA, Rosen B, Rossing MA, Rothstein JH, Rudolph A, Runnebaum IB, Rzepecka IK, Salvesen HB, Schwaab I, Shu XO, Shvetsov YB, Siddiqui N, Song H, Southey MC, Spiewankiewicz B, Sucheston-Campbell L, Teo SH, Terry KL, Thompson PJ, Tangen IL, Tworoger SS, van Altena AM, Vergote I, Walsh CS, Wang-Gohrke S, Wentzensen N, Whittemore AS, Wicklund KG, Wilkens LR, Wu AH, Wu X, Woo YL, Yang H, Zheng W, Ziogas A, Amankwah E, Berchuck A, Schildkraut JM, Kelemen LE, Ramus SJ, Monteiro AN, Goode EL, Narod SA, Gayther SA, Pharoah PDP, Sellers TA, Phelan CM. Common Genetic Variation in Circadian Rhythm Genes and Risk of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer (EOC). JOURNAL OF GENETICS AND GENOME RESEARCH 2015; 2:017. [PMID: 26807442 PMCID: PMC4722961 DOI: 10.23937/2378-3648/1410017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Disruption in circadian gene expression, whether due to genetic variation or environmental factors (e.g., light at night, shiftwork), is associated with increased incidence of breast, prostate, gastrointestinal and hematologic cancers and gliomas. Circadian genes are highly expressed in the ovaries where they regulate ovulation; circadian disruption is associated with several ovarian cancer risk factors (e.g., endometriosis). However, no studies have examined variation in germline circadian genes as predictors of ovarian cancer risk and invasiveness. The goal of the current study was to examine single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in circadian genes BMAL1, CRY2, CSNK1E, NPAS2, PER3, REV1 and TIMELESS and downstream transcription factors KLF10 and SENP3 as predictors of risk of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and histopathologic subtypes. The study included a test set of 3,761 EOC cases and 2,722 controls and a validation set of 44,308 samples including 18,174 (10,316 serous) cases and 26,134 controls from 43 studies participating in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC). Analysis of genotype data from 36 genotyped SNPs and 4600 imputed SNPs indicated that the most significant association was rs117104877 in BMAL1 (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.68-0.90, p = 5.59 × 10-4]. Functional analysis revealed a significant down regulation of BMAL1 expression following cMYC overexpression and increasing transformation in ovarian surface epithelial (OSE) cells as well as alternative splicing of BMAL1 exons in ovarian and granulosa cells. These results suggest that variation in circadian genes, and specifically BMAL1, may be associated with risk of ovarian cancer, likely through disruption of hormonal pathways.
Collapse
|
111
|
Sieh W, Rothstein JH, McGuire V, Whittemore AS. The role of genome sequencing in personalized breast cancer prevention. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015; 23:2322-7. [PMID: 25342391 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-14-0559] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is uncertainty about the benefits of using genome-wide sequencing to implement personalized preventive strategies at the population level, with some projections suggesting little benefit. We used data for all currently known breast cancer susceptibility variants to assess the benefits and harms of targeting preventive efforts to a population subgroup at highest genomic risk of breast cancer. METHODS We used the allele frequencies and effect sizes of 86 known breast cancer variants to estimate the population distribution of breast cancer risks and evaluate the strategy of targeting preventive efforts to those at highest risk. We compared the efficacy of this strategy with that of a "best-case" strategy based on a risk distribution estimated from breast cancer concordance in monozygous twins, and with strategies based on previously estimated risk distributions. RESULTS Targeting those in the top 25% of the risk distribution would include approximately half of all future breast cancer cases, compared with 70% captured by the best-case strategy and 35% based on previously known variants. In addition, current evidence suggests that reducing exposure to modifiable nongenetic risk factors will have greatest benefit for those at highest genetic risk. CONCLUSIONS These estimates suggest that personalized breast cancer preventive strategies based on genome sequencing will bring greater gains in disease prevention than previously projected. Moreover, these gains will increase with increased understanding of the genetic etiology of breast cancer. IMPACT These results support the feasibility of using genome-wide sequencing to target the women who would benefit from mammography screening.
Collapse
|
112
|
Chornokur G, Lin HY, Tyrer JP, Lawrenson K, Dennis J, Amankwah EK, Qu X, Tsai YY, Jim HSL, Chen Z, Chen AY, Permuth-Wey J, Aben KKH, Anton-Culver H, Antonenkova N, Bruinsma F, Bandera EV, Bean YT, Beckmann MW, Bisogna M, Bjorge L, Bogdanova N, Brinton LA, Brooks-Wilson A, Bunker CH, Butzow R, Campbell IG, Carty K, Chang-Claude J, Cook LS, Cramer DW, Cunningham JM, Cybulski C, Dansonka-Mieszkowska A, du Bois A, Despierre E, Dicks E, Doherty JA, Dörk T, Dürst M, Easton DF, Eccles DM, Edwards RP, Ekici AB, Fasching PA, Fridley BL, Gao YT, Gentry-Maharaj A, Giles GG, Glasspool R, Goodman MT, Gronwald J, Harrington P, Harter P, Hein A, Heitz F, Hildebrandt MAT, Hillemanns P, Hogdall CK, Hogdall E, Hosono S, Jakubowska A, Jensen A, Ji BT, Karlan BY, Kelemen LE, Kellar M, Kiemeney LA, Krakstad C, Kjaer SK, Kupryjanczyk J, Lambrechts D, Lambrechts S, Le ND, Lee AW, Lele S, Leminen A, Lester J, Levine DA, Liang D, Lim BK, Lissowska J, Lu K, Lubinski J, Lundvall L, Massuger LFAG, Matsuo K, McGuire V, McLaughlin JR, McNeish I, Menon U, Milne RL, Modugno F, Moysich KB, Ness RB, Nevanlinna H, Eilber U, Odunsi K, Olson SH, Orlow I, Orsulic S, Weber RP, Paul J, Pearce CL, Pejovic T, Pelttari LM, Pike MC, Poole EM, Risch HA, Rosen B, Rossing MA, Rothstein JH, Rudolph A, Runnebaum IB, Rzepecka IK, Salvesen HB, Schernhammer E, Schwaab I, Shu XO, Shvetsov YB, Siddiqui N, Sieh W, Song H, Southey MC, Spiewankiewicz B, Sucheston L, Teo SH, Terry KL, Thompson PJ, Thomsen L, Tangen IL, Tworoger SS, van Altena AM, Vierkant RA, Vergote I, Walsh CS, Wang-Gohrke S, Wentzensen N, Whittemore AS, Wicklund KG, Wilkens LR, Wu AH, Wu X, Woo YL, Yang H, Zheng W, Ziogas A, Hasmad HN, Berchuck A, Iversen ES, Schildkraut JM, Ramus SJ, Goode EL, Monteiro ANA, Gayther SA, Narod SA, Pharoah PDP, Sellers TA, Phelan CM. Common Genetic Variation In Cellular Transport Genes and Epithelial Ovarian Cancer (EOC) Risk. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0128106. [PMID: 26091520 PMCID: PMC4474865 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128106] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2014] [Accepted: 04/22/2015] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Defective cellular transport processes can lead to aberrant accumulation of trace elements, iron, small molecules and hormones in the cell, which in turn may promote the formation of reactive oxygen species, promoting DNA damage and aberrant expression of key regulatory cancer genes. As DNA damage and uncontrolled proliferation are hallmarks of cancer, including epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), we hypothesized that inherited variation in the cellular transport genes contributes to EOC risk. METHODS In total, DNA samples were obtained from 14,525 case subjects with invasive EOC and from 23,447 controls from 43 sites in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC). Two hundred seventy nine SNPs, representing 131 genes, were genotyped using an Illumina Infinium iSelect BeadChip as part of the Collaborative Oncological Gene-environment Study (COGS). SNP analyses were conducted using unconditional logistic regression under a log-additive model, and the FDR q<0.2 was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons. RESULTS The most significant evidence of an association for all invasive cancers combined and for the serous subtype was observed for SNP rs17216603 in the iron transporter gene HEPH (invasive: OR = 0.85, P = 0.00026; serous: OR = 0.81, P = 0.00020); this SNP was also associated with the borderline/low malignant potential (LMP) tumors (P = 0.021). Other genes significantly associated with EOC histological subtypes (p<0.05) included the UGT1A (endometrioid), SLC25A45 (mucinous), SLC39A11 (low malignant potential), and SERPINA7 (clear cell carcinoma). In addition, 1785 SNPs in six genes (HEPH, MGST1, SERPINA, SLC25A45, SLC39A11 and UGT1A) were imputed from the 1000 Genomes Project and examined for association with INV EOC in white-European subjects. The most significant imputed SNP was rs117729793 in SLC39A11 (per allele, OR = 2.55, 95% CI = 1.5-4.35, p = 5.66x10-4). CONCLUSION These results, generated on a large cohort of women, revealed associations between inherited cellular transport gene variants and risk of EOC histologic subtypes.
Collapse
|
113
|
Quante AS, Whittemore AS, Shriver T, Hopper JL, Strauch K, Terry MB. Practical problems with clinical guidelines for breast cancer prevention based on remaining lifetime risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; 107:djv124. [PMID: 25956172 PMCID: PMC4554256 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv124] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2014] [Accepted: 04/08/2015] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: Clinical guidelines for breast cancer chemoprevention and MRI screening involve estimates of remaining lifetime risk (RLR); in the United States, women with an RLR of 20% or higher meet “high-risk” criteria for MRI screening. Methods: We prospectively followed 1764 women without breast cancer to compare the RLRs and 10-year risks assigned by the risk models International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) and Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) and to compare both sets of model-assigned 10-year risks to subsequent incidence of breast cancer in the cohort. We used chi-square statistics to assess calibration and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to assess discrimination. All statistical tests are two-sided. Results: The models classified different proportions of women as high-risk (IBIS = 59.3% vs BOADICEA = 20.1%) using the RLR threshold of 20%. The difference was smaller (IBIS = 52.9% vs BOADICEA = 43.2%) using a 10-year risk threshold of 3.34%. IBIS risks (mean = 4.9%) were better calibrated to observed breast cancer incidence (5.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.2% to 6.4%) than were those of BOADICEA (mean = 3.7%) overall and within quartiles of model risk (P = .20 by IBIS and P = .07 by BOADICEA). Both models gave similar discrimination, with AUCs of 0.67 (95% CI = 0.61 to 0.73) using IBIS and 0.68 (95% CI = 0.62 to 0.74) using BOADICEA. Model sensitivities at thresholds for a 20% false-positive rate were also similar, with 41.8% using IBIS and 38.0% using BOADICEA. Conclusion: RLR-based guidelines for high-risk women are limited by discordance between commonly used risk models. Guidelines based on short-term risks would be more useful, as models are generally developed and validated under a short fixed time horizon (≤10 years).
Collapse
|
114
|
Mavaddat N, Pharoah PDP, Michailidou K, Tyrer J, Brook MN, Bolla MK, Wang Q, Dennis J, Dunning AM, Shah M, Luben R, Brown J, Bojesen SE, Nordestgaard BG, Nielsen SF, Flyger H, Czene K, Darabi H, Eriksson M, Peto J, Dos-Santos-Silva I, Dudbridge F, Johnson N, Schmidt MK, Broeks A, Verhoef S, Rutgers EJ, Swerdlow A, Ashworth A, Orr N, Schoemaker MJ, Figueroa J, Chanock SJ, Brinton L, Lissowska J, Couch FJ, Olson JE, Vachon C, Pankratz VS, Lambrechts D, Wildiers H, Van Ongeval C, van Limbergen E, Kristensen V, Grenaker Alnæs G, Nord S, Borresen-Dale AL, Nevanlinna H, Muranen TA, Aittomäki K, Blomqvist C, Chang-Claude J, Rudolph A, Seibold P, Flesch-Janys D, Fasching PA, Haeberle L, Ekici AB, Beckmann MW, Burwinkel B, Marme F, Schneeweiss A, Sohn C, Trentham-Dietz A, Newcomb P, Titus L, Egan KM, Hunter DJ, Lindstrom S, Tamimi RM, Kraft P, Rahman N, Turnbull C, Renwick A, Seal S, Li J, Liu J, Humphreys K, Benitez J, Pilar Zamora M, Arias Perez JI, Menéndez P, Jakubowska A, Lubinski J, Jaworska-Bieniek K, Durda K, Bogdanova NV, Antonenkova NN, Dörk T, Anton-Culver H, Neuhausen SL, Ziogas A, Bernstein L, Devilee P, Tollenaar RAEM, Seynaeve C, van Asperen CJ, Cox A, Cross SS, Reed MWR, Khusnutdinova E, Bermisheva M, Prokofyeva D, Takhirova Z, Meindl A, Schmutzler RK, Sutter C, Yang R, Schürmann P, Bremer M, Christiansen H, Park-Simon TW, Hillemanns P, Guénel P, Truong T, Menegaux F, Sanchez M, Radice P, Peterlongo P, Manoukian S, Pensotti V, Hopper JL, Tsimiklis H, Apicella C, Southey MC, Brauch H, Brüning T, Ko YD, Sigurdson AJ, Doody MM, Hamann U, Torres D, Ulmer HU, Försti A, Sawyer EJ, Tomlinson I, Kerin MJ, Miller N, Andrulis IL, Knight JA, Glendon G, Marie Mulligan A, Chenevix-Trench G, Balleine R, Giles GG, Milne RL, McLean C, Lindblom A, Margolin S, Haiman CA, Henderson BE, Schumacher F, Le Marchand L, Eilber U, Wang-Gohrke S, Hooning MJ, Hollestelle A, van den Ouweland AMW, Koppert LB, Carpenter J, Clarke C, Scott R, Mannermaa A, Kataja V, Kosma VM, Hartikainen JM, Brenner H, Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Karina Dieffenbach A, Winqvist R, Pylkäs K, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Grip M, Offit K, Vijai J, Robson M, Rau-Murthy R, Dwek M, Swann R, Annie Perkins K, Goldberg MS, Labrèche F, Dumont M, Eccles DM, Tapper WJ, Rafiq S, John EM, Whittemore AS, Slager S, Yannoukakos D, Toland AE, Yao S, Zheng W, Halverson SL, González-Neira A, Pita G, Rosario Alonso M, Álvarez N, Herrero D, Tessier DC, Vincent D, Bacot F, Luccarini C, Baynes C, Ahmed S, Maranian M, Healey CS, Simard J, Hall P, Easton DF, Garcia-Closas M. Prediction of breast cancer risk based on profiling with common genetic variants. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; 107:djv036. [PMID: 25855707 PMCID: PMC4754625 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 376] [Impact Index Per Article: 41.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2014] [Revised: 12/01/2014] [Accepted: 01/26/2015] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Data for multiple common susceptibility alleles for breast cancer may be combined to identify women at different levels of breast cancer risk. Such stratification could guide preventive and screening strategies. However, empirical evidence for genetic risk stratification is lacking. METHODS We investigated the value of using 77 breast cancer-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for risk stratification, in a study of 33 673 breast cancer cases and 33 381 control women of European origin. We tested all possible pair-wise multiplicative interactions and constructed a 77-SNP polygenic risk score (PRS) for breast cancer overall and by estrogen receptor (ER) status. Absolute risks of breast cancer by PRS were derived from relative risk estimates and UK incidence and mortality rates. RESULTS There was no strong evidence for departure from a multiplicative model for any SNP pair. Women in the highest 1% of the PRS had a three-fold increased risk of developing breast cancer compared with women in the middle quintile (odds ratio [OR] = 3.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.95 to 3.83). The ORs for ER-positive and ER-negative disease were 3.73 (95% CI = 3.24 to 4.30) and 2.80 (95% CI = 2.26 to 3.46), respectively. Lifetime risk of breast cancer for women in the lowest and highest quintiles of the PRS were 5.2% and 16.6% for a woman without family history, and 8.6% and 24.4% for a woman with a first-degree family history of breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS The PRS stratifies breast cancer risk in women both with and without a family history of breast cancer. The observed level of risk discrimination could inform targeted screening and prevention strategies. Further discrimination may be achievable through combining the PRS with lifestyle/environmental factors, although these were not considered in this report.
Collapse
|
115
|
Rebbeck TR, Mitra N, Wan F, Sinilnikova OM, Healey S, McGuffog L, Mazoyer S, Chenevix-Trench G, Easton DF, Antoniou AC, Nathanson KL, Laitman Y, Kushnir A, Paluch-Shimon S, Berger R, Zidan J, Friedman E, Ehrencrona H, Stenmark-Askmalm M, Einbeigi Z, Loman N, Harbst K, Rantala J, Melin B, Huo D, Olopade OI, Seldon J, Ganz PA, Nussbaum RL, Chan SB, Odunsi K, Gayther SA, Domchek SM, Arun BK, Lu KH, Mitchell G, Karlan BY, Walsh C, Lester J, Godwin AK, Pathak H, Ross E, Daly MB, Whittemore AS, John EM, Miron A, Terry MB, Chung WK, Goldgar DE, Buys SS, Janavicius R, Tihomirova L, Tung N, Dorfling CM, van Rensburg EJ, Steele L, Neuhausen SL, Ding YC, Ejlertsen B, Gerdes AM, Hansen TVO, Ramón y Cajal T, Osorio A, Benitez J, Godino J, Tejada MI, Duran M, Weitzel JN, Bobolis KA, Sand SR, Fontaine A, Savarese A, Pasini B, Peissel B, Bonanni B, Zaffaroni D, Vignolo-Lutati F, Scuvera G, Giannini G, Bernard L, Genuardi M, Radice P, Dolcetti R, Manoukian S, Pensotti V, Gismondi V, Yannoukakos D, Fostira F, Garber J, Torres D, Rashid MU, Hamann U, Peock S, Frost D, Platte R, Evans DG, Eeles R, Davidson R, Eccles D, Cole T, Cook J, Brewer C, Hodgson S, Morrison PJ, Walker L, Porteous ME, Kennedy MJ, Izatt L, Adlard J, Donaldson A, Ellis S, Sharma P, Schmutzler RK, Wappenschmidt B, Becker A, Rhiem K, Hahnen E, Engel C, Meindl A, Engert S, Ditsch N, Arnold N, Plendl HJ, Mundhenke C, Niederacher D, Fleisch M, Sutter C, Bartram CR, Dikow N, Wang-Gohrke S, Gadzicki D, Steinemann D, Kast K, Beer M, Varon-Mateeva R, Gehrig A, Weber BH, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Sinilnikova OM, Mazoyer S, Houdayer C, Belotti M, Gauthier-Villars M, Damiola F, Boutry-Kryza N, Lasset C, Sobol H, Peyrat JP, Muller D, Fricker JP, Collonge-Rame MA, Mortemousque I, Nogues C, Rouleau E, Isaacs C, De Paepe A, Poppe B, Claes K, De Leeneer K, Piedmonte M, Rodriguez G, Wakely K, Boggess J, Blank SV, Basil J, Azodi M, Phillips KA, Caldes T, de la Hoya M, Romero A, Nevanlinna H, Aittomäki K, van der Hout AH, Hogervorst FBL, Verhoef S, Collée JM, Seynaeve C, Oosterwijk JC, Gille JJP, Wijnen JT, Gómez Garcia EB, Kets CM, Ausems MGEM, Aalfs CM, Devilee P, Mensenkamp AR, Kwong A, Olah E, Papp J, Diez O, Lazaro C, Darder E, Blanco I, Salinas M, Jakubowska A, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, Jaworska-Bieniek K, Durda K, Sukiennicki G, Huzarski T, Byrski T, Cybulski C, Toloczko-Grabarek A, Złowocka-Perłowska E, Menkiszak J, Arason A, Barkardottir RB, Simard J, Laframboise R, Montagna M, Agata S, Alducci E, Peixoto A, Teixeira MR, Spurdle AB, Lee MH, Park SK, Kim SW, Friebel TM, Couch FJ, Lindor NM, Pankratz VS, Guidugli L, Wang X, Tischkowitz M, Foretova L, Vijai J, Offit K, Robson M, Rau-Murthy R, Kauff N, Fink-Retter A, Singer CF, Rappaport C, Gschwantler-Kaulich D, Pfeiler G, Tea MK, Berger A, Greene MH, Mai PL, Imyanitov EN, Toland AE, Senter L, Bojesen A, Pedersen IS, Skytte AB, Sunde L, Thomassen M, Moeller ST, Kruse TA, Jensen UB, Caligo MA, Aretini P, Teo SH, Selkirk CG, Hulick PJ, Andrulis I. Association of type and location of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with risk of breast and ovarian cancer. JAMA 2015; 313:1347-61. [PMID: 25849179 PMCID: PMC4537700 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.5985] [Citation(s) in RCA: 354] [Impact Index Per Article: 39.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Limited information about the relationship between specific mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) and cancer risk exists. OBJECTIVE To identify mutation-specific cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1/2. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Observational study of women who were ascertained between 1937 and 2011 (median, 1999) and found to carry disease-associated BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The international sample comprised 19,581 carriers of BRCA1 mutations and 11,900 carriers of BRCA2 mutations from 55 centers in 33 countries on 6 continents. We estimated hazard ratios for breast and ovarian cancer based on mutation type, function, and nucleotide position. We also estimated RHR, the ratio of breast vs ovarian cancer hazard ratios. A value of RHR greater than 1 indicated elevated breast cancer risk; a value of RHR less than 1 indicated elevated ovarian cancer risk. EXPOSURES Mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Breast and ovarian cancer risks. RESULTS Among BRCA1 mutation carriers, 9052 women (46%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 2317 (12%) with ovarian cancer, 1041 (5%) with breast and ovarian cancer, and 7171 (37%) without cancer. Among BRCA2 mutation carriers, 6180 women (52%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 682 (6%) with ovarian cancer, 272 (2%) with breast and ovarian cancer, and 4766 (40%) without cancer. In BRCA1, we identified 3 breast cancer cluster regions (BCCRs) located at c.179 to c.505 (BCCR1; RHR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.22-1.74; P = 2 × 10(-6)), c.4328 to c.4945 (BCCR2; RHR = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.78; P = .04), and c. 5261 to c.5563 (BCCR2', RHR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.55; P = 6 × 10(-9)). We also identified an ovarian cancer cluster region (OCCR) from c.1380 to c.4062 (approximately exon 11) with RHR = 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.70; P = 9 × 10(-17)). In BRCA2, we observed multiple BCCRs spanning c.1 to c.596 (BCCR1; RHR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.06-2.78; P = .03), c.772 to c.1806 (BCCR1'; RHR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.10-2.40; P = .01), and c.7394 to c.8904 (BCCR2; RHR = 2.31; 95% CI, 1.69-3.16; P = .00002). We also identified 3 OCCRs: the first (OCCR1) spanned c.3249 to c.5681 that was adjacent to c.5946delT (6174delT; RHR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.44-0.60; P = 6 × 10(-17)). The second OCCR spanned c.6645 to c.7471 (OCCR2; RHR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.80; P = .001). Mutations conferring nonsense-mediated decay were associated with differential breast or ovarian cancer risks and an earlier age of breast cancer diagnosis for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Breast and ovarian cancer risks varied by type and location of BRCA1/2 mutations. With appropriate validation, these data may have implications for risk assessment and cancer prevention decision making for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.
Collapse
|
116
|
Michailidou K, Beesley J, Lindstrom S, Canisius S, Dennis J, Lush MJ, Maranian MJ, Bolla MK, Wang Q, Shah M, Perkins BJ, Czene K, Eriksson M, Darabi H, Brand JS, Bojesen SE, Nordestgaard BG, Flyger H, Nielsen SF, Rahman N, Turnbull C, Fletcher O, Peto J, Gibson L, dos-Santos-Silva I, Chang-Claude J, Flesch-Janys D, Rudolph A, Eilber U, Behrens S, Nevanlinna H, Muranen TA, Aittomäki K, Blomqvist C, Khan S, Aaltonen K, Ahsan H, Kibriya MG, Whittemore AS, John EM, Malone KE, Gammon MD, Santella RM, Ursin G, Makalic E, Schmidt DF, Casey G, Hunter DJ, Gapstur SM, Gaudet MM, Diver WR, Haiman CA, Schumacher F, Henderson BE, Le Marchand L, Berg CD, Chanock SJ, Figueroa J, Hoover RN, Lambrechts D, Neven P, Wildiers H, van Limbergen E, Schmidt MK, Broeks A, Verhoef S, Cornelissen S, Couch FJ, Olson JE, Hallberg E, Vachon C, Waisfisz Q, Meijers-Heijboer H, Adank MA, van der Luijt RB, Li J, Liu J, Humphreys K, Kang D, Choi JY, Park SK, Yoo KY, Matsuo K, Ito H, Iwata H, Tajima K, Guénel P, Truong T, Mulot C, Sanchez M, Burwinkel B, Marme F, Surowy H, Sohn C, Wu AH, Tseng CC, Van Den Berg D, Stram DO, González-Neira A, Benitez J, Zamora MP, Perez JIA, Shu XO, Lu W, Gao YT, Cai H, Cox A, Cross SS, Reed MWR, Andrulis IL, Knight JA, Glendon G, Mulligan AM, Sawyer EJ, Tomlinson I, Kerin MJ, Miller N, Lindblom A, Margolin S, Teo SH, Yip CH, Taib NAM, Tan GH, Hooning MJ, Hollestelle A, Martens JWM, Collée JM, Blot W, Signorello LB, Cai Q, Hopper JL, Southey MC, Tsimiklis H, Apicella C, Shen CY, Hsiung CN, Wu PE, Hou MF, Kristensen VN, Nord S, Alnaes GIG, Giles GG, Milne RL, McLean C, Canzian F, Trichopoulos D, Peeters P, Lund E, Sund M, Khaw KT, Gunter MJ, Palli D, Mortensen LM, Dossus L, Huerta JM, Meindl A, Schmutzler RK, Sutter C, Yang R, Muir K, Lophatananon A, Stewart-Brown S, Siriwanarangsan P, Hartman M, Miao H, Chia KS, Chan CW, Fasching PA, Hein A, Beckmann MW, Haeberle L, Brenner H, Dieffenbach AK, Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Ashworth A, Orr N, Schoemaker MJ, Swerdlow AJ, Brinton L, Garcia-Closas M, Zheng W, Halverson SL, Shrubsole M, Long J, Goldberg MS, Labrèche F, Dumont M, Winqvist R, Pylkäs K, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Grip M, Brauch H, Hamann U, Brüning T, Radice P, Peterlongo P, Manoukian S, Bernard L, Bogdanova NV, Dörk T, Mannermaa A, Kataja V, Kosma VM, Hartikainen JM, Devilee P, Tollenaar RAEM, Seynaeve C, Van Asperen CJ, Jakubowska A, Lubinski J, Jaworska K, Huzarski T, Sangrajrang S, Gaborieau V, Brennan P, McKay J, Slager S, Toland AE, Ambrosone CB, Yannoukakos D, Kabisch M, Torres D, Neuhausen SL, Anton-Culver H, Luccarini C, Baynes C, Ahmed S, Healey CS, Tessier DC, Vincent D, Bacot F, Pita G, Alonso MR, Álvarez N, Herrero D, Simard J, Pharoah PPDP, Kraft P, Dunning AM, Chenevix-Trench G, Hall P, Easton DF. Genome-wide association analysis of more than 120,000 individuals identifies 15 new susceptibility loci for breast cancer. Nat Genet 2015; 47:373-80. [PMID: 25751625 PMCID: PMC4549775 DOI: 10.1038/ng.3242] [Citation(s) in RCA: 427] [Impact Index Per Article: 47.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2014] [Accepted: 02/11/2015] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and large-scale replication studies have identified common variants in 79 loci associated with breast cancer, explaining ∼14% of the familial risk of the disease. To identify new susceptibility loci, we performed a meta-analysis of 11 GWAS, comprising 15,748 breast cancer cases and 18,084 controls together with 46,785 cases and 42,892 controls from 41 studies genotyped on a 211,155-marker custom array (iCOGS). Analyses were restricted to women of European ancestry. We generated genotypes for more than 11 million SNPs by imputation using the 1000 Genomes Project reference panel, and we identified 15 new loci associated with breast cancer at P < 5 × 10(-8). Combining association analysis with ChIP-seq chromatin binding data in mammary cell lines and ChIA-PET chromatin interaction data from ENCODE, we identified likely target genes in two regions: SETBP1 at 18q12.3 and RNF115 and PDZK1 at 1q21.1. One association appears to be driven by an amino acid substitution encoded in EXO1.
Collapse
|
117
|
Asgari MM, Warton EM, Whittemore AS. Family history of skin cancer is associated with increased risk of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Dermatol Surg 2015; 41:481-6. [PMID: 25760557 PMCID: PMC5758040 DOI: 10.1097/dss.0000000000000292] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The contribution of family history to cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) risk has not been systematically quantified. OBJECTIVE To examine the association between self-reported family history of skin cancer and SCC risk. METHODS AND MATERIALS Cases (n = 415) with a pathology-verified SCC and 415 age-, gender-, and race-matched controls were identified within a large integrated health care delivery system. Family history and skin cancer risk factors were ascertained by survey. Odds ratios (ORs) for associations of SCC with family history of skin cancer were estimated using conditional logistic regression adjusted for environmental and innate SCC risk factors. RESULTS Any known family history of skin cancer was associated with a four-fold higher risk of SCC, adjusting for known environmental and innate SCC risk factors (OR, 4.0; confidence interval [CI]: 2.5-6.5). An unknown family history of skin cancer showed similar risk for SCC (OR, 3.9; CI: 2.4-6.5). In models including skin cancer type, the strongest association was for family history of basal cell carcinoma (OR, 9.8; CI: 2.6-36.8) and for multiple skin cancer types (OR, 10.5; CI: 3.7-29.6). CONCLUSION Family history of skin cancer is an important independent risk factor for cutaneous SCCs.
Collapse
|
118
|
Lee AW, Tyrer JP, Doherty JA, Stram DA, Kupryjanczyk J, Dansonka-Mieszkowska A, Plisiecka-Halasa J, Spiewankiewicz B, Myers EJ, Chenevix-Trench G, Fasching PA, Beckmann MW, Ekici AB, Hein A, Vergote I, Van Nieuwenhuysen E, Lambrechts D, Wicklund KG, Eilber U, Wang-Gohrke S, Chang-Claude J, Rudolph A, Sucheston-Campbell L, Odunsi K, Moysich KB, Shvetsov YB, Thompson PJ, Goodman MT, Wilkens LR, Dörk T, Hillemanns P, Dürst M, Runnebaum IB, Bogdanova N, Pelttari LM, Nevanlinna H, Leminen A, Edwards RP, Kelley JL, Harter P, Schwaab I, Heitz F, du Bois A, Orsulic S, Lester J, Walsh C, Karlan BY, Hogdall E, Kjaer SK, Jensen A, Vierkant RA, Cunningham JM, Goode EL, Fridley BL, Southey MC, Giles GG, Bruinsma F, Wu X, Hildebrandt MAT, Lu K, Liang D, Bisogna M, Levine DA, Weber RP, Schildkraut JM, Iversen ES, Berchuck A, Terry KL, Cramer DW, Tworoger SS, Poole EM, Olson SH, Orlow I, Bandera EV, Bjorge L, Tangen IL, Salvesen HB, Krakstad C, Massuger LFAG, Kiemeney LA, Aben KKH, van Altena AM, Bean Y, Pejovic T, Kellar M, Le ND, Cook LS, Kelemen LE, Brooks-Wilson A, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, Cybulski C, Jakubowska A, Wentzensen N, Brinton LA, Lissowska J, Yang H, Nedergaard L, Lundvall L, Hogdall C, Song H, Campbell IG, Eccles D, Glasspool R, Siddiqui N, Carty K, Paul J, McNeish IA, Sieh W, McGuire V, Rothstein JH, Whittemore AS, McLaughlin JR, Risch HA, Phelan CM, Anton-Culver H, Ziogas A, Menon U, Ramus SJ, Gentry-Maharaj A, Harrington P, Pike MC, Modugno F, Rossing MA, Ness RB, Pharoah PDP, Stram DO, Wu AH, Pearce CL. Evaluating the ovarian cancer gonadotropin hypothesis: a candidate gene study. Gynecol Oncol 2015; 136:542-8. [PMID: 25528498 PMCID: PMC4892108 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.12.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2014] [Revised: 12/09/2014] [Accepted: 12/11/2014] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Ovarian cancer is a hormone-related disease with a strong genetic basis. However, none of its high-penetrance susceptibility genes and GWAS-identified variants to date are known to be involved in hormonal pathways. Given the hypothesized etiologic role of gonadotropins, an assessment of how variability in genes involved in the gonadotropin signaling pathway impacts disease risk is warranted. METHODS Genetic data from 41 ovarian cancer study sites were pooled and unconditional logistic regression was used to evaluate whether any of the 2185 SNPs from 11 gonadotropin signaling pathway genes was associated with ovarian cancer risk. A burden test using the admixture likelihood (AML) method was also used to evaluate gene-level associations. RESULTS We did not find any genome-wide significant associations between individual SNPs and ovarian cancer risk. However, there was some suggestion of gene-level associations for four gonadotropin signaling pathway genes: INHBB (p=0.045, mucinous), LHCGR (p=0.046, high-grade serous), GNRH (p=0.041, high-grade serous), and FSHB (p=0.036, overall invasive). There was also suggestive evidence for INHA (p=0.060, overall invasive). CONCLUSIONS Ovarian cancer studies have limited sample numbers, thus fewer genome-wide susceptibility alleles, with only modest associations, have been identified relative to breast and prostate cancers. We have evaluated the majority of ovarian cancer studies with biological samples, to our knowledge, leaving no opportunity for replication. Using both our understanding of biology and powerful gene-level tests, we have identified four putative ovarian cancer loci near INHBB, LHCGR, GNRH, and FSHB that warrant a second look if larger sample sizes and denser genotype chips become available.
Collapse
|
119
|
Candido-dos-Reis FJ, Song H, Goode EL, Cunningham JM, Fridley BL, Larson MC, Alsop K, Dicks E, Harrington P, Ramus SJ, de Fazio A, Mitchell G, Fereday S, Bolton KL, Gourley C, Michie C, Karlan B, Lester J, Walsh C, Cass I, Olsson H, Gore M, Benitez JJ, Garcia MJ, Andrulis I, Mulligan AM, Glendon G, Blanco I, Lazaro C, Whittemore AS, McGuire V, Sieh W, Montagna M, Alducci E, Sadetzki S, Chetrit A, Kwong A, Kjaer SK, Jensen A, Høgdall E, Neuhausen S, Nussbaum R, Daly M, Greene MH, Mai PL, Loud JT, Moysich K, Toland AE, Lambrechts D, Ellis S, Frost D, Brenton JD, Tischkowitz M, Easton DF, Antoniou A, Chenevix-Trench G, Gayther SA, Bowtell D, Pharoah PDP. Germline mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 and ten-year survival for women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2015. [PMID: 25398451 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-2497] [] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To analyze the effect of germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 on mortality in patients with ovarian cancer up to 10 years after diagnosis. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN We used unpublished survival time data for 2,242 patients from two case-control studies and extended survival time data for 4,314 patients from previously reported studies. All participants had been screened for deleterious germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Survival time was analyzed for the combined data using Cox proportional hazard models with BRCA1 and BRCA2 as time-varying covariates. Competing risks were analyzed using Fine and Gray model. RESULTS The combined 10-year overall survival rate was 30% [95% confidence interval (CI), 28%-31%] for non-carriers, 25% (95% CI, 22%-28%) for BRCA1 carriers, and 35% (95% CI, 30%-41%) for BRCA2 carriers. The HR for BRCA1 was 0.53 at time zero and increased over time becoming greater than one at 4.8 years. For BRCA2, the HR was 0.42 at time zero and increased over time (predicted to become greater than 1 at 10.5 years). The results were similar when restricted to 3,202 patients with high-grade serous tumors and to ovarian cancer-specific mortality. CONCLUSIONS BRCA1/2 mutations are associated with better short-term survival, but this advantage decreases over time and in BRCA1 carriers is eventually reversed. This may have important implications for therapy of both primary and relapsed disease and for analysis of long-term survival in clinical trials of new agents, particularly those that are effective in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.
Collapse
|
120
|
Kuchenbaecker KB, Ramus SJ, Tyrer J, Lee A, Shen HC, Beesley J, Lawrenson K, McGuffog L, Healey S, Lee JM, Spindler TJ, Lin YG, Pejovic T, Bean Y, Li Q, Coetzee S, Hazelett D, Miron A, Southey M, Terry MB, Goldgar DE, Buys SS, Janavicius R, Dorfling CM, van Rensburg EJ, Neuhausen SL, Ding YC, Hansen TVO, Jønson L, Gerdes AM, Ejlertsen B, Barrowdale D, Dennis J, Benitez J, Osorio A, Garcia MJ, Komenaka I, Weitzel JN, Ganschow P, Peterlongo P, Bernard L, Viel A, Bonanni B, Peissel B, Manoukian S, Radice P, Papi L, Ottini L, Fostira F, Konstantopoulou I, Garber J, Frost D, Perkins J, Platte R, Ellis S, Godwin AK, Schmutzler RK, Meindl A, Engel C, Sutter C, Sinilnikova OM, Damiola F, Mazoyer S, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Claes K, De Leeneer K, Kirk J, Rodriguez GC, Piedmonte M, O'Malley DM, de la Hoya M, Caldes T, Aittomäki K, Nevanlinna H, Collée JM, Rookus MA, Oosterwijk JC, Tihomirova L, Tung N, Hamann U, Isaccs C, Tischkowitz M, Imyanitov EN, Caligo MA, Campbell IG, Hogervorst FBL, Olah E, Diez O, Blanco I, Brunet J, Lazaro C, Pujana MA, Jakubowska A, Gronwald J, Lubinski J, Sukiennicki G, Barkardottir RB, Plante M, Simard J, Soucy P, Montagna M, Tognazzo S, Teixeira MR, Pankratz VS, Wang X, Lindor N, Szabo CI, Kauff N, Vijai J, Aghajanian CA, Pfeiler G, Berger A, Singer CF, Tea MK, Phelan CM, Greene MH, Mai PL, Rennert G, Mulligan AM, Tchatchou S, Andrulis IL, Glendon G, Toland AE, Jensen UB, Kruse TA, Thomassen M, Bojesen A, Zidan J, Friedman E, Laitman Y, Soller M, Liljegren A, Arver B, Einbeigi Z, Stenmark-Askmalm M, Olopade OI, Nussbaum RL, Rebbeck TR, Nathanson KL, Domchek SM, Lu KH, Karlan BY, Walsh C, Lester J, Hein A, Ekici AB, Beckmann MW, Fasching PA, Lambrechts D, Van Nieuwenhuysen E, Vergote I, Lambrechts S, Dicks E, Doherty JA, Wicklund KG, Rossing MA, Rudolph A, Chang-Claude J, Wang-Gohrke S, Eilber U, Moysich KB, Odunsi K, Sucheston L, Lele S, Wilkens LR, Goodman MT, Thompson PJ, Shvetsov YB, Runnebaum IB, Dürst M, Hillemanns P, Dörk T, Antonenkova N, Bogdanova N, Leminen A, Pelttari LM, Butzow R, Modugno F, Kelley JL, Edwards RP, Ness RB, du Bois A, Heitz F, Schwaab I, Harter P, Matsuo K, Hosono S, Orsulic S, Jensen A, Kjaer SK, Hogdall E, Hasmad HN, Azmi MAN, Teo SH, Woo YL, Fridley BL, Goode EL, Cunningham JM, Vierkant RA, Bruinsma F, Giles GG, Liang D, Hildebrandt MAT, Wu X, Levine DA, Bisogna M, Berchuck A, Iversen ES, Schildkraut JM, Concannon P, Weber RP, Cramer DW, Terry KL, Poole EM, Tworoger SS, Bandera EV, Orlow I, Olson SH, Krakstad C, Salvesen HB, Tangen IL, Bjorge L, van Altena AM, Aben KKH, Kiemeney LA, Massuger LFAG, Kellar M, Brooks-Wilson A, Kelemen LE, Cook LS, Le ND, Cybulski C, Yang H, Lissowska J, Brinton LA, Wentzensen N, Hogdall C, Lundvall L, Nedergaard L, Baker H, Song H, Eccles D, McNeish I, Paul J, Carty K, Siddiqui N, Glasspool R, Whittemore AS, Rothstein JH, McGuire V, Sieh W, Ji BT, Zheng W, Shu XO, Gao YT, Rosen B, Risch HA, McLaughlin JR, Narod SA, Monteiro AN, Chen A, Lin HY, Permuth-Wey J, Sellers TA, Tsai YY, Chen Z, Ziogas A, Anton-Culver H, Gentry-Maharaj A, Menon U, Harrington P, Lee AW, Wu AH, Pearce CL, Coetzee G, Pike MC, Dansonka-Mieszkowska A, Timorek A, Rzepecka IK, Kupryjanczyk J, Freedman M, Noushmehr H, Easton DF, Offit K, Couch FJ, Gayther S, Pharoah PP, Antoniou AC, Chenevix-Trench G. Identification of six new susceptibility loci for invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. Nat Genet 2015; 47:164-71. [PMID: 25581431 PMCID: PMC4445140 DOI: 10.1038/ng.3185] [Citation(s) in RCA: 190] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2014] [Accepted: 12/05/2014] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 12 epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) susceptibility alleles. The pattern of association at these loci is consistent in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers who are at high risk of EOC. After imputation to 1000 Genomes Project data, we assessed associations of 11 million genetic variants with EOC risk from 15,437 cases unselected for family history and 30,845 controls and from 15,252 BRCA1 mutation carriers and 8,211 BRCA2 mutation carriers (3,096 with ovarian cancer), and we combined the results in a meta-analysis. This new study design yielded increased statistical power, leading to the discovery of six new EOC susceptibility loci. Variants at 1p36 (nearest gene, WNT4), 4q26 (SYNPO2), 9q34.2 (ABO) and 17q11.2 (ATAD5) were associated with EOC risk, and at 1p34.3 (RSPO1) and 6p22.1 (GPX6) variants were specifically associated with the serous EOC subtype, all with P < 5 × 10(-8). Incorporating these variants into risk assessment tools will improve clinical risk predictions for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.
Collapse
|
121
|
Candido-dos-Reis FJ, Song H, Goode EL, Cunningham JM, Fridley BL, Larson MC, Alsop K, Dicks E, Harrington P, Ramus SJ, de Fazio A, Mitchell G, Fereday S, Bolton KL, Gourley C, Michie C, Karlan B, Lester J, Walsh C, Cass I, Olsson H, Gore M, Benitez JJ, Garcia MJ, Andrulis I, Mulligan AM, Glendon G, Blanco I, Lazaro C, Whittemore AS, McGuire V, Sieh W, Montagna M, Alducci E, Sadetzki S, Chetrit A, Kwong A, Kjaer SK, Jensen A, Høgdall E, Neuhausen S, Nussbaum R, Daly M, Greene MH, Mai PL, Loud JT, Moysich K, Toland AE, Lambrechts D, Ellis S, Frost D, Brenton JD, Tischkowitz M, Easton DF, Antoniou A, Chenevix-Trench G, Gayther SA, Bowtell D, Pharoah PDP. Germline mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 and ten-year survival for women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2015; 21:652-7. [PMID: 25398451 PMCID: PMC4338615 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-2497] [Citation(s) in RCA: 126] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To analyze the effect of germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 on mortality in patients with ovarian cancer up to 10 years after diagnosis. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN We used unpublished survival time data for 2,242 patients from two case-control studies and extended survival time data for 4,314 patients from previously reported studies. All participants had been screened for deleterious germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Survival time was analyzed for the combined data using Cox proportional hazard models with BRCA1 and BRCA2 as time-varying covariates. Competing risks were analyzed using Fine and Gray model. RESULTS The combined 10-year overall survival rate was 30% [95% confidence interval (CI), 28%-31%] for non-carriers, 25% (95% CI, 22%-28%) for BRCA1 carriers, and 35% (95% CI, 30%-41%) for BRCA2 carriers. The HR for BRCA1 was 0.53 at time zero and increased over time becoming greater than one at 4.8 years. For BRCA2, the HR was 0.42 at time zero and increased over time (predicted to become greater than 1 at 10.5 years). The results were similar when restricted to 3,202 patients with high-grade serous tumors and to ovarian cancer-specific mortality. CONCLUSIONS BRCA1/2 mutations are associated with better short-term survival, but this advantage decreases over time and in BRCA1 carriers is eventually reversed. This may have important implications for therapy of both primary and relapsed disease and for analysis of long-term survival in clinical trials of new agents, particularly those that are effective in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.
Collapse
|
122
|
Spurdle AB, Couch FJ, Parsons MT, McGuffog L, Barrowdale D, Bolla MK, Wang Q, Healey S, Schmutzler RK, Wappenschmidt B, Rhiem K, Hahnen E, Engel C, Meindl A, Ditsch N, Arnold N, Plendl H, Niederacher D, Sutter C, Wang-Gohrke S, Steinemann D, Preisler-Adams S, Kast K, Varon-Mateeva R, Ellis S, Frost D, Platte R, Perkins J, Evans DG, Izatt L, Eeles R, Adlard J, Davidson R, Cole T, Scuvera G, Manoukian S, Bonanni B, Mariette F, Fortuzzi S, Viel A, Pasini B, Papi L, Varesco L, Balleine R, Nathanson KL, Domchek SM, Offitt K, Jakubowska A, Lindor N, Thomassen M, Jensen UB, Rantala J, Borg Å, Andrulis IL, Miron A, Hansen TVO, Caldes T, Neuhausen SL, Toland AE, Nevanlinna H, Montagna M, Garber J, Godwin AK, Osorio A, Factor RE, Terry MB, Rebbeck TR, Karlan BY, Southey M, Rashid MU, Tung N, Pharoah PDP, Blows FM, Dunning AM, Provenzano E, Hall P, Czene K, Schmidt MK, Broeks A, Cornelissen S, Verhoef S, Fasching PA, Beckmann MW, Ekici AB, Slamon DJ, Bojesen SE, Nordestgaard BG, Nielsen SF, Flyger H, Chang-Claude J, Flesch-Janys D, Rudolph A, Seibold P, Aittomäki K, Muranen TA, Heikkilä P, Blomqvist C, Figueroa J, Chanock SJ, Brinton L, Lissowska J, Olson JE, Pankratz VS, John EM, Whittemore AS, West DW, Hamann U, Torres D, Ulmer HU, Rüdiger T, Devilee P, Tollenaar RAEM, Seynaeve C, Van Asperen CJ, Eccles DM, Tapper WJ, Durcan L, Jones L, Peto J, dos-Santos-Silva I, Fletcher O, Johnson N, Dwek M, Swann R, Bane AL, Glendon G, Mulligan AM, Giles GG, Milne RL, Baglietto L, McLean C, Carpenter J, Clarke C, Scott R, Brauch H, Brüning T, Ko YD, Cox A, Cross SS, Reed MWR, Lubinski J, Jaworska-Bieniek K, Durda K, Gronwald J, Dörk T, Bogdanova N, Park-Simon TW, Hillemanns P, Haiman CA, Henderson BE, Schumacher F, Le Marchand L, Burwinkel B, Marme F, Surovy H, Yang R, Anton-Culver H, Ziogas A, Hooning MJ, Collée JM, Martens JWM, Tilanus-Linthorst MMA, Brenner H, Dieffenbach AK, Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Winqvist R, Pylkäs K, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Grip M, Lindblom A, Margolin S, Joseph V, Robson M, Rau-Murthy R, González-Neira A, Arias JI, Zamora P, Benítez J, Mannermaa A, Kataja V, Kosma VM, Hartikainen JM, Peterlongo P, Zaffaroni D, Barile M, Capra F, Radice P, Teo SH, Easton DF, Antoniou AC, Chenevix-Trench G, Goldgar DE. Refined histopathological predictors of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status: a large-scale analysis of breast cancer characteristics from the BCAC, CIMBA, and ENIGMA consortia. Breast Cancer Res 2014; 16:3419. [PMID: 25857409 PMCID: PMC4352262 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-014-0474-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 81] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2014] [Accepted: 11/05/2014] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The distribution of histopathological features of invasive breast tumors in BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation carriers differs from that of individuals with no known mutation. Histopathological features thus have utility for mutation prediction, including statistical modeling to assess pathogenicity of BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants of uncertain clinical significance. We analyzed large pathology datasets accrued by the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) and the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) to reassess histopathological predictors of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status, and provide robust likelihood ratio (LR) estimates for statistical modeling. METHODS Selection criteria for study/center inclusion were estrogen receptor (ER) status or grade data available for invasive breast cancer diagnosed younger than 70 years. The dataset included 4,477 BRCA1 mutation carriers, 2,565 BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 47,565 BCAC breast cancer cases. Country-stratified estimates of the likelihood of mutation status by histopathological markers were derived using a Mantel-Haenszel approach. RESULTS ER-positive phenotype negatively predicted BRCA1 mutation status, irrespective of grade (LRs from 0.08 to 0.90). ER-negative grade 3 histopathology was more predictive of positive BRCA1 mutation status in women 50 years or older (LR = 4.13 (3.70 to 4.62)) versus younger than 50 years (LR = 3.16 (2.96 to 3.37)). For BRCA2, ER-positive grade 3 phenotype modestly predicted positive mutation status irrespective of age (LR = 1.7-fold), whereas ER-negative grade 3 features modestly predicted positive mutation status at 50 years or older (LR = 1.54 (1.27 to 1.88)). Triple-negative tumor status was highly predictive of BRCA1 mutation status for women younger than 50 years (LR = 3.73 (3.43 to 4.05)) and 50 years or older (LR = 4.41 (3.86 to 5.04)), and modestly predictive of positive BRCA2 mutation status in women 50 years or older (LR = 1.79 (1.42 to 2.24)). CONCLUSIONS These results refine likelihood-ratio estimates for predicting BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status by using commonly measured histopathological features. Age at diagnosis is an important variable for most analyses, and grade is more informative than ER status for BRCA2 mutation carrier prediction. The estimates will improve BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant classification and inform patient mutation testing and clinical management.
Collapse
|
123
|
Kelemen LE, Terry KL, Goodman MT, Webb PM, Bandera EV, McGuire V, Rossing MA, Wang Q, Dicks E, Tyrer JP, Song H, Kupryjanczyk J, Dansonka-Mieszkowska A, Plisiecka-Halasa J, Timorek A, Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Gayther SA, Ramus SJ, Narod SA, Risch HA, McLaughlin JR, Siddiqui N, Glasspool R, Paul J, Carty K, Gronwald J, Lubiński J, Jakubowska A, Cybulski C, Kiemeney LA, Massuger LFAG, van Altena AM, Aben KKH, Olson SH, Orlow I, Cramer DW, Levine DA, Bisogna M, Giles GG, Southey MC, Bruinsma F, Kjær SK, Høgdall E, Jensen A, Høgdall CK, Lundvall L, Engelholm SA, Heitz F, du Bois A, Harter P, Schwaab I, Butzow R, Nevanlinna H, Pelttari LM, Leminen A, Thompson PJ, Lurie G, Wilkens LR, Lambrechts D, Van Nieuwenhuysen E, Lambrechts S, Vergote I, Beesley J, Fasching PA, Beckmann MW, Hein A, Ekici AB, Doherty JA, Wu AH, Pearce CL, Pike MC, Stram D, Chang-Claude J, Rudolph A, Dörk T, Dürst M, Hillemanns P, Runnebaum IB, Bogdanova N, Antonenkova N, Odunsi K, Edwards RP, Kelley JL, Modugno F, Ness RB, Karlan BY, Walsh C, Lester J, Orsulic S, Fridley BL, Vierkant RA, Cunningham JM, Wu X, Lu K, Liang D, Hildebrandt MA, Weber RP, Iversen ES, Tworoger SS, Poole EM, Salvesen HB, Krakstad C, Bjorge L, Tangen IL, Pejovic T, Bean Y, Kellar M, Wentzensen N, Brinton LA, Lissowska J, Garcia-Closas M, Campbell IG, Eccles D, Whittemore AS, Sieh W, Rothstein JH, Anton-Culver H, Ziogas A, Phelan CM, Moysich KB, Goode EL, Schildkraut JM, Berchuck A, Pharoah PD, Sellers TA, Brooks-Wilson A, Cook LS, Le ND. Consortium analysis of gene and gene-folate interactions in purine and pyrimidine metabolism pathways with ovarian carcinoma risk. Mol Nutr Food Res 2014; 58:2023-35. [PMID: 25066213 PMCID: PMC4197821 DOI: 10.1002/mnfr.201400068] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2014] [Revised: 04/29/2014] [Accepted: 06/01/2014] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
SCOPE We reevaluated previously reported associations between variants in pathways of one-carbon (1-C) (folate) transfer genes and ovarian carcinoma (OC) risk, and in related pathways of purine and pyrimidine metabolism, and assessed interactions with folate intake. METHODS AND RESULTS Odds ratios (OR) for 446 genetic variants were estimated among 13,410 OC cases and 22,635 controls, and among 2281 cases and 3444 controls with folate information. Following multiple testing correction, the most significant main effect associations were for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) variants rs11587873 (OR = 0.92; p = 6 × 10⁻⁵) and rs828054 (OR = 1.06; p = 1 × 10⁻⁴). Thirteen variants in the pyrimidine metabolism genes, DPYD, DPYS, PPAT, and TYMS, also interacted significantly with folate in a multivariant analysis (corrected p = 9.9 × 10⁻⁶) but collectively explained only 0.2% of OC risk. Although no other associations were significant after multiple testing correction, variants in SHMT1 in 1-C transfer, previously reported with OC, suggested lower risk at higher folate (p(interaction) = 0.03-0.006). CONCLUSION Variation in pyrimidine metabolism genes, particularly DPYD, which was previously reported to be associated with OC, may influence risk; however, stratification by folate intake is unlikely to modify disease risk appreciably in these women. SHMT1 SNP-by-folate interactions are plausible but require further validation. Polymorphisms in selected genes in purine metabolism were not associated with OC.
Collapse
|
124
|
Kurian AW, Hare EE, Mills MA, Kingham KE, McPherson L, Whittemore AS, McGuire V, Ladabaum U, Kobayashi Y, Lincoln SE, Cargill M, Ford JM. Clinical evaluation of a multiple-gene sequencing panel for hereditary cancer risk assessment. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32:2001-9. [PMID: 24733792 PMCID: PMC4067941 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2013.53.6607] [Citation(s) in RCA: 376] [Impact Index Per Article: 37.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Multiple-gene sequencing is entering practice, but its clinical value is unknown. We evaluated the performance of a customized germline-DNA sequencing panel for cancer-risk assessment in a representative clinical sample. METHODS Patients referred for clinical BRCA1/2 testing from 2002 to 2012 were invited to donate a research blood sample. Samples were frozen at -80° C, and DNA was extracted from them after 1 to 10 years. The entire coding region, exon-intron boundaries, and all known pathogenic variants in other regions were sequenced for 42 genes that had cancer risk associations. Potentially actionable results were disclosed to participants. RESULTS In total, 198 women participated in the study: 174 had breast cancer and 57 carried germline BRCA1/2 mutations. BRCA1/2 analysis was fully concordant with prior testing. Sixteen pathogenic variants were identified in ATM, BLM, CDH1, CDKN2A, MUTYH, MLH1, NBN, PRSS1, and SLX4 among 141 women without BRCA1/2 mutations. Fourteen participants carried 15 pathogenic variants, warranting a possible change in care; they were invited for targeted screening recommendations, enabling early detection and removal of a tubular adenoma by colonoscopy. Participants carried an average of 2.1 variants of uncertain significance among 42 genes. CONCLUSION Among women testing negative for BRCA1/2 mutations, multiple-gene sequencing identified 16 potentially pathogenic mutations in other genes (11.4%; 95% CI, 7.0% to 17.7%), of which 15 (10.6%; 95% CI, 6.5% to 16.9%) prompted consideration of a change in care, enabling early detection of a precancerous colon polyp. Additional studies are required to quantify the penetrance of identified mutations and determine clinical utility. However, these results suggest that multiple-gene sequencing may benefit appropriately selected patients.
Collapse
|
125
|
Block MS, Charbonneau B, Vierkant RA, Fogarty Z, Bamlet WR, Pharoah PDP, Rossing MA, Cramer D, Pearce CL, Schildkraut J, Menon U, Kjaer SK, Levine DA, Gronwald J, Culver HA, Whittemore AS, Karlan BY, Lambrechts D, Wentzensen N, Kupryjanczyk J, Chang-Claude J, Bandera EV, Hogdall E, Heitz F, Kaye SB, Fasching PA, Campbell I, Goodman MT, Pejovic T, Bean YT, Hays LE, Lurie G, Eccles D, Hein A, Beckmann MW, Ekici AB, Paul J, Brown R, Flanagan JM, Harter P, du Bois A, Schwaab I, Hogdall CK, Lundvall L, Olson SH, Orlow I, Paddock LE, Rudolph A, Eilber U, Dansonka-Mieszkowska A, Rzepecka IK, Ziolkowska-Seta I, Brinton LA, Yang H, Garcia-Closas M, Despierre E, Lambrechts S, Vergote I, Walsh CS, Lester J, Sieh W, McGuire V, Rothstein JH, Ziogas A, Lubiński J, Cybulski C, Menkiszak J, Jensen A, Gayther SA, Ramus SJ, Gentry-Maharaj A, Berchuck A, Wu AH, Pike MC, Van Den Berg D, Terry KL, Vitonis AF, Ramirez SM, Rider DN, Knutson KL, Sellers TA, Phelan CM, Doherty JA, Johnatty SE, deFazio A, Song H, Tyrer J, Kalli KR, Fridley BL, Cunningham JM, Goode EL. Variation in NF-κB signaling pathways and survival in invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014; 23:1421-7. [PMID: 24740199 PMCID: PMC4082406 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-13-0962] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Survival in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is influenced by the host immune response, yet the key genetic determinants of inflammation and immunity that affect prognosis are not known. The nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) transcription factor family plays an important role in many immune and inflammatory responses, including the response to cancer. We studied common inherited variation in 210 genes in the NF-κB family in 10,084 patients with invasive EOC (5,248 high-grade serous, 1,452 endometrioid, 795 clear cell, and 661 mucinous) from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium. Associations between genotype and overall survival were assessed using Cox regression for all patients and by major histology, adjusting for known prognostic factors and correcting for multiple testing (threshold for statistical significance, P < 2.5 × 10(-5)). Results were statistically significant when assessed for patients of a single histology. Key associations were with caspase recruitment domain family, member 11 (CARD11) rs41324349 in patients with mucinous EOC [HR, 1.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.41-2.35; P = 4.13 × 10(-6)] and tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily, member 13B (TNFRSF13B) rs7501462 in patients with endometrioid EOC (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56-0.82; P = 2.33 × 10(-5)). Other associations of note included TNF receptor-associated factor 2 (TRAF2) rs17250239 in patients with high-grade serous EOC (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77-0.92; P = 6.49 × 10(-5)) and phospholipase C, gamma 1 (PLCG1) rs11696662 in patients with clear cell EOC (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26-0.73; P = 4.56 × 10(-4)). These associations highlight the potential importance of genes associated with host inflammation and immunity in modulating clinical outcomes in distinct EOC histologies.
Collapse
|