Interactive effect of genetic susceptibility with height, body mass index, and hormone replacement therapy on the risk of breast cancer

Genome-wide interaction analysis of menopausal hormone therapy use and breast cancer risk among 62,370 women

Use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is associated with increased risk for breast cancer. However, the relevant mechanisms and its interaction with genetic variants are not fully understood. We conducted a genome-wide interaction analysis between MHT use and genetic variants for breast cancer risk in 27,585 cases and 34,785 controls from 26 observational studies. All women were post-menopausal and of European ancestry. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to test for multiplicative interactions between genetic variants and current MHT use. We considered interaction p-values < 5 × 10-8 as genome-wide significant, and p-values < 1 × 10-5 as suggestive. Linkage disequilibrium (LD)-based clumping was performed to identify independent candidate variants. None of the 9.7 million genetic variants tested for interactions with MHT use reached genome-wide significance. Only 213 variants, representing 18 independent loci, had p-values < 1 × 105. The strongest evidence was found for rs4674019 (p-value = 2.27 × 10-7), which showed genome-wide significant interaction (p-value = 3.8 × 10-8) with current MHT use when analysis was restricted to population-based studies only. Limiting the analyses to combined estrogen-progesterone MHT use only or to estrogen receptor (ER) positive cases did not identify any genome-wide significant evidence of interactions. In this large genome-wide SNP-MHT interaction study of breast cancer, we found no strong support for common genetic variants modifying the effect of MHT on breast cancer risk. These results suggest that common genetic variation has limited impact on the observed MHT-breast cancer risk association.

Relationships of physical and breast cancer phenotypes with three single-nucleotide polymorphisms (rs2046210, rs3757318, and rs3803662) associated with breast cancer risk in Japanese women

BACKGROUND

Recent genome-wide association studies have shown that many single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are associated with breast cancer risk. However, it is often unclear how these SNPs are related to breast cancer. Analysis of associations between SNPs and phenotypes may be important for determining mechanisms of action, including carcinogenesis.

METHODS

In previous case-control studies, we found three SNPs (rs2046210, rs3757318, and rs3573318) associated with breast cancer risk in Japanese women. Among these SNPs, two (rs2046210 and rs3757318) are located at 6q25.1, in proximity to the estrogen receptor 1 gene (ESR1). Using data from these studies, we examined associations between factors related to breast cancer risk, such as height, weight, and breast density, and the three SNPs in cases and controls. We also investigated whether the SNPs correlated with breast cancer features, such as estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor type-2 (HER2) status, and clinical stage.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in mean height between risk and non-risk allele carriers for rs2046210 (156.0 ± 5.8 vs. 154.3 ± 5.5 cm, p = 0.002), and rs3757318 (155.8 ± 5.7 vs. 154.7 ± 5.6 cm, p = 0.035) in cases, but no significant associations between height and these SNPs in controls. There was also a significant difference in breast density between risk and non-risk allele carriers for rs2046210 (p = 0.040) and rs3757318 (p = 0.044) in cases. rs2046210 and rs3757318 risk allele carriers tended to have higher breast density in all subjects and in controls. In cases, rs3757318 risk allele carriers were also significantly more likely to be ER-negative compared to non-risk allele carriers (ER-positive rate: 77% vs. 84%, p = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

SNPs rs2046210 and rs3757318, which are associated with breast cancer risk in Japanese women, were significantly associated with height and high breast density, and this association was particularly strong in those with breast cancer. These findings suggest that SNPs in the ESR1 gene region affect phenotypes such as height and breast density.

World Cancer Research Fund International: Continuous Update Project-systematic literature review and meta-analysis of observational cohort studies on physical activity, sedentary behavior, adiposity, and weight change and breast cancer risk

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to systematically review the complex associations between energy balance-related factors and breast cancer risk, for which previous evidence has suggested different associations in the life course of women and by hormone receptor (HR) status of the tumor.

METHODS

Relevant publications on adulthood physical activity, sedentary behavior, body mass index (BMI), waist and hip circumferences, waist-to-hip ratio, and weight change and pre- and postmenopausal breast cancer risk were identified in PubMed up to 30 April 2017. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the relative risks across studies.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-six observational cohort studies comprising over 22,900 premenopausal and 103,000 postmenopausal breast cancer cases were meta-analyzed. Higher physical activity was inversely associated with both pre- and postmenopausal breast cancers, whereas increased sitting time was positively associated with postmenopausal breast cancer. Although higher early adult BMI (ages 18-30 years) was inversely associated with pre- and postmenopausal breast cancers, adult weight gain and greater body adiposity increased breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women, and the increased risk was evident for HR+ but not HR- breast cancers, and among never but not current users of postmenopausal hormones. The evidence was less consistent in premenopausal women. There were no associations with adult weight gain, inverse associations with adult BMI (study baseline) and hip circumference, and non-significant associations with waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio that were reverted to positive associations on average in studies accounting for BMI. No significant associations were observed for HR-defined premenopausal breast cancers.

CONCLUSION

Better understanding on the impact of these factors on pre- and postmenopausal breast cancers and their subtypes along the life course is needed.

Breast Cancer and Menopausal Hormone Therapy by Race/Ethnicity and Body Mass Index

In analyses combining estrogen with or without progestin, some observational studies describe minimal breast cancer risk in obese and black women. Therefore, we examined these suggested interactions in the two Women's Health Initiative (WHI) randomized hormone therapy trials. The estrogen plus progestin trial entered 16 608 postmenopausal women with a uterus, while the estrogen trial entered 10 736 postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy. Hazard ratios (HRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and P values from log-rank x(2) statistics were estimated from Cox proportional hazards models with subgroup analyses based on tests of interaction. All statistical tests were two-sided. Estrogen plus progestin statistically significantly increased breast cancer incidence (HR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.48, P < .001), with hazard ratios greater than 1 in all body mass index (BMI) subgroups (P interaction = .58) and hazard ratios greater than 1 in black and white women (P interaction = .96). In contrast, estrogen alone statistically significantly decreased breast cancer incidence (HR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.65 to 0.90, P = .02), with hazard ratios lower than 1 in all BMI subgroups (P interaction = .86) and hazard ratios lower than 1 in black and white women, where analyses with limited numbers suggest somewhat greater reduction in black women (P interaction = .09). In summary, estrogen plus progestin and estrogen alone have opposite effects on breast cancer incidence, with no statistically significant interactions by race/ethnicity or BMI. Therefore, observational studies should not combine these two regimens when examining breast cancer risk.

Interaction between common breast cancer susceptibility variants, genetic ancestry, and nongenetic risk factors in Hispanic women

BACKGROUND

Most genetic variants associated with breast cancer risk have been discovered in women of European ancestry, and only a few genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been conducted in minority groups. This research disparity persists in post-GWAS gene-environment interaction analyses. We tested the interaction between hormonal and lifestyle risk factors for breast cancer, and ten GWAS-identified SNPs among 2,107 Hispanic women with breast cancer and 2,587 unaffected controls, to gain insight into a previously reported gene by ancestry interaction in this population.

METHODS

We estimated genetic ancestry with a set of 104 ancestry-informative markers selected to discriminate between Indigenous American and European ancestry. We used logistic regression models to evaluate main effects and interactions.

RESULTS

We found that the rs13387042-2q35(G/A) SNP was associated with breast cancer risk only among postmenopausal women who never used hormone therapy [per A allele OR: 0.94 (95% confidence intervals, 0.74-1.20), 1.20 (0.94-1.53), and 1.49 (1.28-1.75) for current, former, and never hormone therapy users, respectively, Pinteraction 0.002] and premenopausal women who breastfed >12 months [OR: 1.01 (0.72-1.42), 1.19 (0.98-1.45), and 1.69 (1.26-2.26) for never, <12 months, and >12 months breastfeeding, respectively, Pinteraction 0.014].

CONCLUSIONS

The correlation between genetic ancestry, hormone replacement therapy use, and breastfeeding behavior partially explained a previously reported interaction between a breast cancer risk variant and genetic ancestry in Hispanic women.

IMPACT

These results highlight the importance of understanding the interplay between genetic ancestry, genetics, and nongenetic risk factors and their contribution to breast cancer risk.

Menopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer mortality: clinical implications

The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) has conducted two randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials to evaluate the influence of menopausal hormone therapy on chronic disease risk. Estrogen plus progestin was evaluated in 16,608 postmenopausal women without prior hysterectomy during 5.6 years' intervention. In that setting, combined hormone therapy use significantly increased breast cancer incidence and interfered with breast cancer detection. The breast cancers were not limited to estrogen receptor positive, favorable prognosis cancers and were identified at more advanced stage. As a result, deaths from breast cancer were significantly increased by estrogen plus progestin use. While the absolute breast cancer risk for relatively short term (2-4 years) use of combined hormone therapy is small, on a population basis a therapy which nearly doubles deaths from breast cancer requires cautious use. Estrogen alone was evaluated in 10,739 postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy during 7.1 years' intervention. There was an overall reduction of breast cancer incidence seen with estrogen alone use and a suggestion that the effect on risk was more pronounced in women initiating hormone therapy further from menopause. Nonetheless, women with prior hysterectomy can be assured that short duration estrogen alone use for climacteric symptom management is relatively safe. Neither estrogen plus progestin nor estrogen alone should be used for chronic disease risk reduction. The safety of duration of use on chronic disease risk longer than in the WHI clinical trials is not defined.

Body mass index and breast cancer risk according to postmenopausal estrogen-progestin use and hormone receptor status

To assess the joint relationships among body mass index, menopausal status, and breast cancer according to breast cancer subtype and estrogen-progestin medication use, we conducted a meta-analysis of 89 epidemiologic reports published in English during 1980-2012 identified through a systematic search of bibliographic databases. Pooled analysis yielded a summary risk ratio of 0.78 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67, 0.92) for hormone receptor-positive premenopausal breast cancer associated with obesity (body mass index (weight (kg)/height (m)(2)) ≥30 compared with <25). Obesity was associated with a summary risk ratio of 1.39 (95% CI: 1.14, 1.70) for receptor-positive postmenopausal breast cancer. For receptor-negative breast cancer, the summary risk ratios of 1.06 (95% CI: 0.70, 1.60) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.78, 1.22) associated with obesity were null for both premenopausal and postmenopausal women, respectively. Elevated postmenopausal breast cancer risk ratios associated with obesity were limited to women who never took estrogen-progestin therapy, with risk ratios of 1.42 (95% CI: 1.30, 1.55) among never users and 1.18 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.42) among users; too few studies were available to examine this relationship according to receptor subtype. Future research is needed to confirm whether obesity is unrelated to receptor-negative breast cancer in populations of postmenopausal women with low prevalence of hormone medication use.