Back to Authors

García‐Closas, Montserrat

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1033-2650

Mayo Clinic

Institute of Cancer Research

Citations 86

Rare Copy Number Variants (CNVs) and Breast Cancer Risk
Dorling, Leila , Bola, Manjeet, Wang, Qin , Andrulis, Irene L. , Antonenkova, Natalia, Aronson, Kristan J. , Freeman, Laura Beane, Beckmann, Matthias W. , Bojeson, Stig, Chang‐Claude, Jenny , Chenevix‐Trench, Georgia , Collaborators, NBCS, Collée, J. Margriet, Evans, D. Gareth , Fasching, Peter A. , Flyger, Henrik, Hahen, Eric, Haiman, Christopher A. , Hoppe, Reine, Investigators, ACTB, Investigators, kConFab, Jager, Agnes , Johnson, Nichola , Keeman, Renske , Ko, Yon‐Dschun, Kosma, Veli‐Matti , Kristensen, Vessela N. , Kubelka‐Sabit, Katerina , Kurian, Alison, Larson, Nicole L. , Linet, Martha S. , Łukomska, Alicja, Mannermaa, Arto , Mavroudis, Dimitrios, Park‐Simon, Tjoung‐Won , Peterlongo, Paolo , Plaseska-Karanfilska, Dijana, Sawyer, Elinor J. , Schmutzler, Rita K., Shibli, Rana , Soucy, Penny, Tomlinson, Ian , Vachon, Celine M. , Wendt, Camilla, Yang, Xiaohong R. , Easton, Douglas F. , Peterlongo, Paolo , Evans, D Gareth , Chenevix-Trench, Georgia , Sawyer, Elinor J , Dennis, Joe , Tyrer, Jonathan P. , Walker, Logan C. , Michailidou, Kyriaki , Ahearn, Thomas U. , Anton‐Culver, Hoda , Arndt, Volker , Behrens, Sabine , Benı́tez, Javier , Bermisheva, Marina , Bojesen, Stig E. , Brenner, Hermann , Castelao, Jose E. , Clarke, Christine L. , Couch, Fergus J. , Cox, Angela , Cross, Simon S. , Czene, Kamila , Devilee, Peter , Dörk, Thilo , Dossus, Laure , Eliassen, A. Heather , Eriksson, Mikael , Figueroa, Jonine D. , Fletcher, Olivia , Fritschi, Lin , Gabrielson, Marike , Gago-Domínguez, Manuela , García‐Closas, Montserrat , Giles, Graham G. , González‐Neira, Anna , Guénel, Pascal , Hall, Per N , Hollestelle, Antoinette , Hoppe, Reiner , Hopper, John L. , Howell, Anthony , Jakubowska, Anna , John, Esther M. , Jones, Michael E. , Jung, Audrey , Kaaks, Rudolf , Хуснутдинова, Э. К. , Kitahara, Cari M. , Koutros, Stella , Kraft, Peter , Lambrechts, Diether , Manoukian, Siranoush , Margolin, Sara , Milne, Roger L. , Muranen, Taru , Murphy, Rachel A. , Nevanlinna, Heli , Olson, Janet E. , Olsson, Håkan , Perou, Charles M. , Pylkäs, Katri , Rennert, Gad , Saloustros, Emmanouil , Sandler, Dale P. , Schmidt, Marjanka K. , Smeets, Ann , Southey, Melissa C. , Swerdlow, Anthony J. , Tamimi, Rulla M. , Taylor, Jack A. , Teras, Lauren R. , Terry, Mary Beth , Troester, Melissa A. , Truong, Thérèse , Vachon, Celine M. , Wendt, Camilla, Winqvist, Robert , Wolk, Alicja , Zheng, Wei , Ziogas, Argyrios , Simard, Jacques , Dunning, Alison M. , Pharoah, Paul D.P.

No container title available | June 22, 2021 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.21203/rs.3.rs-602209/v1 Get It

Abstract BackgroundCopy number variants (CNVs) are pervasive in the human genome but potential disease associations with rare CNVs have not been comprehensively assessed in large datasets. We analysed rare CNVs in genes and non-coding regions for 86,788 breast cancer cases and 76,122 controls of European ancestry with genome-wide array data.ResultsGene burden tests detected the strongest association for deletions in BRCA1 (P= 3.7E-18). Nine other genes were associated with a p-value < 0.01 including known susceptibility genes CHEK2 (P= 0.0008), ATM (P= 0.002) and BRCA2 (P= 0.008). Outside the known genes we detected associations with p-values < 0.001 for either overall or subtype-specific breast cancer at nine deletion regions and four duplication regions. Three of the deletion regions were in established common susceptibility loci.ConclusionsThis is the first genome-wide analysis of rare CNVs in a large breast cancer case-control dataset. We detected associations with exonic deletions in established breast cancer susceptibility genes. We also detected suggestive associations with non-coding CNVs in known and novel loci with large effects sizes. Larger sample sizes will be required to reach robust levels of statistical significance.
Genome-Wide Interaction Analysis of Menopausal Hormone Therapy Use and Breast Cancer Risk Among 62,370 Women
Wang, Xiaoliang , Auer, Paul L. , Wang, Qin , Bolla, Manjeet K. , Aronson, Kristan J. , Lee, Derrick G. , Mulot, Claire , Patel, Alpa V. , Hoppe, Reiner , Lo, Wing‐Yee, Brüning, Thomas , Hamann, Ute , Larson, Nicole L. , Ruddy, Kathryn J. , Haiman, Christopher A. , Krüger, Ute , Wagner, Philippe , Vachon, Celine M. , Hunter, David J. , Andrulis, Irene L., Linet, Martha S. , Prentice, Ross L. , Easton, Douglas F. , Chang‐Claude, Jenny , Lindström, Sara , Wang, Xiaoliang , Middha, Pooja , Dennis, Joe , Dunning, Alison M. , Lush, Michael J. , Michailidou, Kyriaki , Murphy, Rachel A. , Brooks‐Wilson, Angela , Cordina‐Duverger, Emilie , Guénel, Pascal , Truong, Thérèse , Teras, Lauren R. , Dossus, Laure , Kaaks, Rudolf , Czene, Kamila , Gabrielson, Marike , Hall, Per N , Eriksson, Mikael , Jung, Audrey , Becher, Heiko , Couch, Fergus J. , Olson, Janet E. , Giles, Graham G. , MacInnis, Robert J. , Southey, Melissa C. , Marchand, Loı̈c Le , Wilkens, Lynne R. , Olsson, Håkan , Augustinsson, Annelie , Scott, Christopher G. , Winham, Stacey J. , Vachon, Celine M. , Perou, Charles M. , Olshan, Andrew F. , Troester, Melissa A. , Eliassen, A. Heather , Tamimi, Rulla M. , Brantley, Kristen D. , Figueroa, Jonine D. , Chanock, Stephen Jacob , Ahearn, Thomas U. , García‐Closas, Montserrat , Evans, D. Gareth , Newman, William G. , Veen, Elke M. van , Howell, Anthony , Wolk, Alicja , Håkansson, Niclas , Anton‐Culver, Hoda , Ziogas, Argyrios , Jones, Michael E. , Orr, Nick , Schoemaker, Minouk J. , Swerdlow, Anthony J. , Kitahara, Cari M. , Milne, Roger L. , Kraft, Peter

No container title available | May 24, 2021 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.21203/rs.3.rs-532921/v1 Get It

Abstract Background: 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. Methods: 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<5x10-8 as genome-wide significant, and p-values<1x10-5 as suggestive. Linkage disequilibrium (LD)-based clumping was performed to identify independent candidate variants.Results: 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<1x105. The strongest evidence was found for rs4674019 (p-value=2.27x10-7), which showed genome-wide significant interaction (p-value=3.8x10-8) 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. Conclusions: 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.
Prospective evaluation of a breast-cancer risk model integrating classical risk factors and polygenic risk in 15 cohorts from six countries
Hurson, Amber N. , Choudhury, Parichoy Pal , Gao, Chi , Eriksson, Mikael , Shi, Min , Jones, Michael E. , Evans, D. Gareth , Gaudet, Mia M. , Vachon, Celine M. , Easton, Douglas F. , García‐Closas, Montserrat , Chatterjee, Nilanjan , Group, for the B-CAST Risk Modelling, Simard, Jacques , Newman, William G. , Veen, Elke M. van , Harkness, Elaine F. , Chasman, Daniel I , Evans, D Gareth , Jones, Michael E , Newman, William G , García-Closas, Montserrat , Simard, Jacques , Eriksson, Mikael , Hüsing, Anika , Milne, Roger L. , Vachon, Celine M. , Chasman, Daniel I. , Schmidt, Marjanka K. , Kraft, Peter , Group, for the B-CAST Risk Modelling

International Journal of Epidemiology | February 19, 2021 | Volume: 50 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 1897-1911

10.1093/ije/dyab036 Get It

Abstract Background Rigorous evaluation of the calibration and discrimination of breast-cancer risk-prediction models in prospective cohorts is critical for applications under clinical guidelines. We comprehensively evaluated an integrated model incorporating classical risk factors and a 313-variant polygenic risk score (PRS) to predict breast-cancer risk. Methods Fifteen prospective cohorts from six countries with 239 340 women (7646 incident breast-cancer cases) of European ancestry aged 19–75 years were included. Calibration of 5-year risk was assessed by comparing expected and observed proportions of cases overall and within risk categories. Risk stratification for women of European ancestry aged 50–70 years in those countries was evaluated by the proportion of women and future cases crossing clinically relevant risk thresholds. Results Among women &lt;50 years old, the median (range) expected-to-observed ratio for the integrated model across 15 cohorts was 0.9 (0.7–1.0) overall and 0.9 (0.7–1.4) at the highest-risk decile; among women ≥50 years old, these were 1.0 (0.7–1.3) and 1.2 (0.7–1.6), respectively. The proportion of women identified above a 3% 5-year risk threshold (used for recommending risk-reducing medications in the USA) ranged from 7.0% in Germany (∼841 000 of 12 million) to 17.7% in the USA (∼5.3 of 30 million). At this threshold, 14.7% of US women were reclassified by adding the PRS to classical risk factors, with identification of 12.2% of additional future cases. Conclusion Integrating a 313-variant PRS with classical risk factors can improve the identification of European-ancestry women at elevated risk who could benefit from targeted risk-reducing strategies under current clinical guidelines.
Breast Cancer Risk Factors and Survival by Tumor Subtype: Pooled Analyses from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium
Morra, Anna , Jung, Audrey , Behrens, Sabine , Keeman, Renske , Ahearn, Thomas U. , Arndt, Volker , Augustinsson, Annelie , Auvinen, Päivi , Becher, Heiko , Beckmann, Matthias W. , Bojesen, Stig E. , Bolla, Manjeet K. , Brenner, Hermann , Camp, Nicola J. , Campa, Daniele , Castelao, Jose E. , Choi, Ji‐Yeob , Cox, Angela , Easton, Douglas F. , Eccles, Diana M., Egan, Kathleen M. , Evans, D. Gareth , Fasching, Peter A. , Flyger, Henrik, Gago-Domínguez, Manuela , Gapstur, Susan M. , Gaudet, Mia M. , Grip, Mervi, Guénel, Pascal , Haiman, Christopher A. , Håkansson, Niclas , Hamann, Ute, Hartman, Mikael , Heyworth, Jane , Hoppe, Reiner , Hopper, John L. , Hunter, David J. , Jager, Agnes , Jakimovska, Milena , Janni, Wolfgang , Koutros, Stella , Kristensen, Vessela N. , Lambrechts, Diether , Li, Jingmei , Lindblom, Annika , Mannermaa, Arto , Manoochehri, Mehdi, Margolin, Sara , Mariapun, Shivaani, Mavroudis, Dimitrios, Muranen, Taru , Newman, William G. , Noh, Dong‐Young , Nordestgaard, Børge G. , Obi, Nadia , Olsson, Håkan , Park‐Simon, Tjoung‐Won , Petridis, Christos , Plaseska‐Karanfilska, Dijana , Rashid, Muhammad Usman , Rennert, Gad , Rennert, Gad , Rhenius, Valerie , Romero, Atocha , Saloustros, Emmanouil , Sawyer, Elinor J. , Schneeweiß, Andreas , Schwentner, Lukas , Shah, Mitul , Shen, Chen‐Yang , Tollenaar, Rob A.�E.�M. , Tomlinson, Ian , Torres, Diana , Vachon, Celine M. , Wang, Qin , Wang, Sophia , Williams, Justin A. , Winqvist, Robert , Wu, Anna H. , Yoo, Keun-Young, Yu, Jyh‐Cherng , Zheng, Wei , Yang, Xiaohong R. , Eliassen, A. Heather , García‐Closas, Montserrat , Teo, Soo‐Hwang , Chang‐Claude, Jenny , Eccles, Diana , Khaw, Kay‐Tee , Lambrechts, Diether , Arndt, Volker , Augustinsson, Annelie , Brenner, Hermann , Camp, Nicola J , Canzian, Federico , Cox, Angela , Dunning, Alison M , Evans, D Gareth , Fasching, Peter A , Gago-Dominguez, Manuela , García-Sáenz, José A , Gaudet, Mia M , Giles, Graham G , Guénel, Pascal , Hall, Per N , Hart, Steven N , Hartman, Mikael , Ito, Hidemi , Jager, Agnes , Jakubowska, Anna , Janni, Wolfgang , Kaaks, Rudolf , Kapoor, Pooja Middha , Koutros, Stella , Lambrechts, Diether , Li, Jingmei , Matsuo, Keitaro , Milne, Roger L , Muranen, Taru A , Newman, William G , Park-Simon, Tjoung-Won , Pharoah, Paul D P , Rennert, Gad , Rennert, Gad , Rhenius, Valerie , Romero, Atocha , Saloustros, Emmanouil , Schneeweiss, Andreas , Scott, Christopher , Southey, Melissa C , Stram, Daniel O. , Tamimi, Rulla M , Tomlinson, Ian , Torres, Diana , Vachon, Celine M. , Wolk, Alicja , Ziogas, Argyrios , Holmes, Michelle D , García-Closas, Montserrat , Teo, Soo H , Schmidt, Marjanka K , Chang-Claude, Jenny , Lambrechts, Diether , Behrens, Sabine , Eccles, Diana , Keeman, Renske , Zheng, Wei , Wang, Sophia S , Jung, Audrey Y , Becher, Heiko , Eliassen, A Heather , Håkansson, Niclas , Rashid, Muhammad U , Bojesen, Stig E , Lindblom, Annika , Plaseska-Karanfilska, Dijana , Sawyer, Elinor J , Anton‐Culver, Hoda , Freeman, Laura E. Beane , Blomqvist, Carl , Briceño, Ignacio , Brucker, Sara Yvonne , Canzian, Federico , Chanock, Stephen Jacob , Clarke, Christine L. , Couch, Fergus J. , Cross, Simon S. , Czene, Kamila , Dörk, Thilo , Dunning, Alison M. , Dwek, Miriam , García-Sáenz, José Á. , Giles, Graham G. , Han, Sileny , Hart, Steven N. , Ito, Hidemi , Jakubowska, Anna , Kaaks, Rudolf , Kang, Daehee , Middha, Pooja , Kitahara, Cari M. , Kraft, Peter , Lacey, James V. , Marchand, Loı̈c Le , Lubiński, Jan , Lush, Michael J. , Manoochehri, Mehdi, Matsuo, Keitaro , Milne, Roger L. , Olshan, Andrew F. , Pharoah, Paul D.P. , Presneau, Nadège , Scott, Christopher G. , Shu, Xiao‐Ou , Southey, Melissa C. , Tamimi, Rulla M. , Tapper, William , Troester, Melissa A. , Truong, Thérèse , Wolk, Alicja , Ziogas, Argyrios , Schmidt, Marjanka K.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention | January 26, 2021 | Volume: 30 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 623-642

10.1158/1055-9965.epi-20-0924 Get It

Abstract Background: It is not known whether modifiable lifestyle factors that predict survival after invasive breast cancer differ by subtype. Methods: We analyzed data for 121,435 women diagnosed with breast cancer from 67 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium with 16,890 deaths (8,554 breast cancer specific) over 10 years. Cox regression was used to estimate associations between risk factors and 10-year all-cause mortality and breast cancer–specific mortality overall, by estrogen receptor (ER) status, and by intrinsic-like subtype. Results: There was no evidence of heterogeneous associations between risk factors and mortality by subtype (Padj &gt; 0.30). The strongest associations were between all-cause mortality and BMI ≥30 versus 18.5–25 kg/m2 [HR (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19 (1.06–1.34)]; current versus never smoking [1.37 (1.27–1.47)], high versus low physical activity [0.43 (0.21–0.86)], age ≥30 years versus &lt;20 years at first pregnancy [0.79 (0.72–0.86)]; &gt;0–&lt;5 years versus ≥10 years since last full-term birth [1.31 (1.11–1.55)]; ever versus never use of oral contraceptives [0.91 (0.87–0.96)]; ever versus never use of menopausal hormone therapy, including current estrogen–progestin therapy [0.61 (0.54–0.69)]. Similar associations with breast cancer mortality were weaker; for example, 1.11 (1.02–1.21) for current versus never smoking. Conclusions: We confirm associations between modifiable lifestyle factors and 10-year all-cause mortality. There was no strong evidence that associations differed by ER status or intrinsic-like subtype. Impact: Given the large dataset and lack of evidence that associations between modifiable risk factors and 10-year mortality differed by subtype, these associations could be cautiously used in prognostication models to inform patient-centered care.
Mendelian randomization analyses suggest a role for cholesterol in the development of endometrial cancer
Annibali, Daniela , Ashton, Katie A. , Auer, Paul L. , Beckmann, Matthias W. , Black, Amanda , Brinton, Louise A. , Buchanan, Daniel D. , Chen, Chu , Chen, Maxine , Cheng, Timothy, Crous‐Bou, Marta , Vivo, Immaculata De , Dörk, Thilo , Dowdy, Sean C. , Easton, Douglas F. , Ekici, Arif B. , Fasching, Peter A. , García‐Closas, Montserrat , Gaudet, Mia M. , Goode, Ellen L. , Gorman, Maggie, Haiman, Christopher A. , Hankinson, Susan E. , Hein, Alexander , Hillemanns, Peter , Hodgson, Shirley, Høivik, Erling A. , Holliday, Elizabeth , Hunter, David J., Lambrechts, Diether , Liang, Xiaolin , Lindblom, Annika , Lissowska, Jolanta , Magliocco, Anthony M., Martin, Lynn , McEvoy, Mark , Mints, Miriam, Nassir, Rami , Otton, Geoffrey, Palles, Claire , Pooler, Loreall , Proietto, Tony, Rübner, Matthias, Runnebaum, Ingo B. , Sacerdote, Carlotta , Sarto, Gloria E., Scott, Rodney J. , Shah, Mitul , Sheng, Xin , Tomlinson, Ian , Trovik, Jone , Wang, Zhaoming , Wentzensen, Nicolas , Xia, Lucy , Webb, Penelope M. , Thompson, Deborah J. , Glubb, Dylan M., O’Mara, Tracy A. , Lambrechts, Diether , Buchanan, Daniel D , Chen, Chu , De Vivo, Immaculata , Dörk, Thilo , Fasching, Peter A , Friedenreich, Christine M , Gaudet, Mia M , Goode, Ellen L , Lu, Lingeng , Sacerdote, Carlotta , Shu, Xiao-Ou , Wang, Zhaoming , Wentzensen, Nicolas , Xiang, Yong‐Bing , Yu, Herbert , Spurdle, Amanda B , O'Mara, Tracy A , Lambrechts, Diether , Webb, Penelope M , Hein, Alexander , Hillemanns, Peter , Lissowska, Jolanta , Lambrechts, Diether , García-Closas, Montserrat , Ekici, Arif B , Nassir, Rami , Palles, Claire , Lindblom, Annika , Kho, Pik Fang , Amant, Frédéric , Attia, John , Chanock, Stephen Jacob , Cook, Linda S. , Czene, Kamila , Dennis, Joe , Dunning, Alison M. , Dürst, Matthias , Fridley, Brooke L. , Giles, Graham G. , Hall, Per N , Hankinson, Susan E. , Jones, Angela, Kraft, Peter , Krakstad, Camilla , Marchand, Loı̈c Le , Long, Jirong , Milne, Roger L. , Mints, Miriam , Rebbeck, Timothy R. , Renner, Stefan P. , Risch, Harvey A. , Schumacher, Fredrick R. , Setiawan, Veronica Wendy , Shu, Xiao‐Ou , Southey, Melissa C. , Tham, Emma , Turman, Constance , Tyrer, Jonathan P. , Berg, David Van Den , Yang, Hannah , Yu, Kai , Zheng, Wei , Spurdle, Amanda B.

International Journal of Cancer | July 13, 2020 | Volume: 148 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 307-319

10.1002/ijc.33206 Get It

Abstract Blood lipids have been associated with the development of a range of cancers, including breast, lung and colorectal cancer. For endometrial cancer, observational studies have reported inconsistent associations between blood lipids and cancer risk. To reduce biases from unmeasured confounding, we performed a bidirectional, two‐sample Mendelian randomization analysis to investigate the relationship between levels of three blood lipids (low‐density lipoprotein [LDL] and high‐density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol, and triglycerides) and endometrial cancer risk. Genetic variants associated with each of these blood lipid levels ( P < 5 × 10 −8 ) were identified as instrumental variables, and assessed using genome‐wide association study data from the Endometrial Cancer Association Consortium (12 906 cases and 108 979 controls) and the Global Lipids Genetic Consortium (n = 188 578). Mendelian randomization analyses found genetically raised LDL cholesterol levels to be associated with lower risks of endometrial cancer of all histologies combined, and of endometrioid and non‐endometrioid subtypes. Conversely, higher genetically predicted HDL cholesterol levels were associated with increased risk of non‐endometrioid endometrial cancer. After accounting for the potential confounding role of obesity (as measured by genetic variants associated with body mass index), the association between genetically predicted increased LDL cholesterol levels and lower endometrial cancer risk remained significant, especially for non‐endometrioid endometrial cancer. There was no evidence to support a role for triglycerides in endometrial cancer development. Our study supports a role for LDL and HDL cholesterol in the development of non‐endometrioid endometrial cancer. Further studies are required to understand the mechanisms underlying these findings.
Combined Associations of a Polygenic Risk Score and Classical Risk Factors With Breast Cancer Risk
Middha, Pooja , Choudhury, Parichoy Pal , Wilcox, Amber N , Lindström, Sara , Behrens, Sabine , Michailidou, Kyriaki , Bolla, Manjeet K. , Wang, Qin , Jung, Audrey , Abu‐Ful, Zomoroda, Andrulis, Irene L. , Aronson, Kristan J. , Auer, Paul L. , Becher, Heiko , Beckmann, Matthias W. , Beeghly‐Fadiel, Alicia, Bojesen, Stig E. , Brauch, Hiltrud , Brenner, Hermann , Brüning, Thomas , Campa, Daniele , Carracedo, Ángel , Carter, Brian D., Castelao, Jose E. , Chatterjee, Nilanjan , Chenevix‐Trench, Georgia , Cox, Angela , Earp, H. Shelton , Ekici, Arif B. , Eliassen, A. Heather , Eriksson, Mikael , Evans, D. Gareth , Fasching, Peter A. , Figueroa, Jonine D. , Gabrielson, Marike , Gago-Domínguez, Manuela , Gao, Chi , Gapstur, Susan M. , Gaudet, Mia M. , González‐Neira, Anna , Guénel, Pascal , Haeberle, Lothar, Haiman, Christopher A. , Håkansson, Niclas , Hamann, Ute, Hatse, Sigrid , Holleczek, Bernd , Hoover, Robert N. , Hopper, John L. , Hunter, David J. , Investigators, ABCTB, Investigators, kConFab/AOCS, John, Esther M. , Jones, Michael E. , Kaaks, Rudolf, Keeman, Renske , Ko, Yon-Dschun, Koutros, Stella , Kurian, Allison W. , Lambrechts, Diether , Lee, Eunjung , Lejbkowicz, Flavio, Linet, Martha S. , Lissowska, Jolanta , Llaneza, Ana, MacInnis, Robert J. , Martinez, Maria Elena, Maurer, Tabea, Newman, William G, Orr, Nick , Perou, Charles M. , Pita, Guillermo , Prentice, Ross L. , Rennert, Gad , Rennert, Hedy S., Ruddy, Kathryn J. , Schoemaker, Minouk J. , Scott, Rodney J. , Smeets, Ann , Spinelli, John J. , Stone, Jennifer , Taylor, Jack A. , Vachon, Celine M. , Veen, Elke M. van , Weltens, Caroline , Yang, Xiaohong R. , Easton, Douglas F. , García‐Closas, Montserrat , Chang‐Claude, Jenny, Newman, William G. , Lambrechts, Diether , Norman, Aaron, Polley, Eric C. , Lambrechts, Diether , Rennert, Gad , Behrens, Sabine , Lissowska, Jolanta , Evans, D Gareth , John, Esther M , Maclnnis, Robert , Perou, Charles M , Jones, Michael E , Lambrechts, Diether , Brenner, Hermann , Cox, Angela , Gago-Dominguez, Manuela , Guénel, Pascal , Kapoor, Pooja Middha , Koutros, Stella , Newman, William G , García-Closas, Montserrat , Ekici, Arif B , Michailidou, Kyriaki , Taylor, Jack A , Chenevix-Trench, Georgia , Kurian, Allison W , Eriksson, Mikael , Figueroa, Jonine D , Jung, Audrey Y , Becher, Heiko , Eliassen, A Heather , Gabrielson, Marike , Håkansson, Niclas , Stone, Jennifer , Bojesen, Stig E , Schoemaker, Minouk J , Wang, Qin , Brauch, Hiltrud , Orr, Nick , Mavaddat, Nasim , Hurson, Amber N. , Dennis, Joe , Ahearn, Thomas U. , Anton‐Culver, Hoda , Arndt, Volker , Freeman, Laura E. Beane , Beeghly‐Fadiel, Alicia , Benı́tez, Javier , Bernstein, Leslie , Cai, Qiuyin , Canzian, Federico , Chanock, Stephen Jacob , Clarke, Christine L. , Couch, Fergus J. , Cross, Simon S. , Czene, Kamila , Dai, James Y. , Fritschi, Lin , Giles, Graham G. , Hall, Per N , Heyworth, Jane , Howell, Anthony , Investigators, ABCTB, Investigators, kConFab/AOCS, Kitahara, Cari M. , Ko, Yon‐Dschun, Marchand, Loı̈c Le , McLean, Catriona , Neuhausen, Susan L. , Norman, Aaron D. , O’Brien, Katie M. , Olshan, Andrew F. , Olson, Janet E. , Olsson, Håkan , Sandler, Dale P. , Saunders, Christobel , Schöttker, Ben , Schumacher, Fredrick R. , Scott, Christopher G. , Shu, Xiao‐Ou , Southey, Melissa C. , Swerdlow, Anthony J. , Tamimi, Rulla M. , Troester, Melissa A. , Vachon, Celine M. , Wang, Xiaoliang , Weinberg, Clarice R. , Willett, Walter C. , Winham, Stacey J. , Wolk, Alicja , Zheng, Wei , Ziogas, Argyrios , Dunning, Alison M. , Pharoah, Paul D.P. , Schmidt, Marjanka K. , Kraft, Peter , Milne, Roger L.

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute | April 23, 2020 | Volume: 113 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 329-337

10.1093/jnci/djaa056 Get It

Abstract We evaluated the joint associations between a new 313-variant PRS (PRS313) and questionnaire-based breast cancer risk factors for women of European ancestry, using 72 284 cases and 80 354 controls from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Interactions were evaluated using standard logistic regression and a newly developed case-only method for breast cancer risk overall and by estrogen receptor status. After accounting for multiple testing, we did not find evidence that per-standard deviation PRS313 odds ratio differed across strata defined by individual risk factors. Goodness-of-fit tests did not reject the assumption of a multiplicative model between PRS313 and each risk factor. Variation in projected absolute lifetime risk of breast cancer associated with classical risk factors was greater for women with higher genetic risk (PRS313 and family history) and, on average, 17.5% higher in the highest vs lowest deciles of genetic risk. These findings have implications for risk prevention for women at increased risk of breast cancer.
Transcriptome‐wide association study of breast cancer risk by estrogen‐receptor status
Feng, Helian , Gusev, Alexander , Wu, Lang , Abu-Full, Zomoroda, Aittomäki, Kristiina, Andrulis, Irene L. , Antoniou, Antonis C. , Arason, Aðalgeir , Arndt, Volker , Aronson, Kristan J. , Asseryanis, Ella, Auer, Paul L. , Azzollini, Jacopo , Barkardóttir, Rósa B. , Barrowdale, Daniel , Beckmann, Matthias W. , Bermisheva, Marina , Białkowska, Katarzyna , Bogdanova, Natalia , Bojesen, Stig E. , Bolla, Manjeet K. , Borg, Åke , Brauch, Hiltrud , Brenner, Hermann , Brüning, Thomas , Burwinkel, Barbara , Caldés, Trinidad , Canisius, Sander , Campa, Daniele , Carter, Brian D., Castelao, Jose E. , Chang‐Claude, Jenny , Christiansen, Hans , Claes, Kathleen , Collaborators, GEMO Study, Collaborators, EMBRACE, Collaborators, GC‐HBOC study, Cox, Angela , Daly, Mary B., Leeneer, Kim De , Dörk, Thilo , Dwek, Miriam , Eccles, Diana M., Ejlertsen, Bent , Engel, Christoph , Fasching, Peter A. , Flyger, Henrik, Friedman, Eitan , Frost, Debra, Gabrielson, Marike , Ganz, Patricia A. , Gapstur, Susan M. , García‐Closas, Montserrat , Gaudet, Mia M. , Glendon, Gord , Goldberg, Mark S. , Goldgar, David E., González‐Neira, Anna , Greene, Mark H. , Guénel, Pascal , Haiman, Christopher A. , Hamann, Ute, Hake, Christopher R., He, Wei , Heyworth, Jane , Hogervorst, Frans B.L., Hooning, Maartje J. , Hoover, Robert N. , Hopper, John L. , Huang, Guanmengqian, Hulick, Peter J. , Humphreys, Keith , Imyanitov, Evgeny N., Investigators, ABCTB, Investigators, HEBON, Investigators, BCFR, Investigators, OCGN, Jakimovska, Milena , Jakubowska, Anna , James, Paul A. , Janavicius, Ramunas, Jankowitz, Rachel C. , John, Esther M. , Johnson, Nichola , Jung, Audrey , Kiiski, Johanna I. , Konstantopoulou, Irene , Kristensen, Vessela N. , Laitman, Yael , Lambrechts, Diether , Leroux, Dominique, Lester, Jenny, Lesueur, Fabienne , Lindor, Noralane M. , Lindström, Sara, Lo, Wing‐Yee, Loud, Jennifer T. , Makalic, Enes , Mannermaa, Arto, Manoochehri, Mehdi, Manoukian, Siranoush , Margolin, Sara , Matricardi, Laura , Maurer, Tabea, Mavroudis, Dimitrios, McGuffog, Lesley, Meindl, Alfons , Menon, Usha , Michailidou, Kyriaki , Kapoor, Pooja M., Montagna, Marco , Moreno, Fernando , Muranen, Taru , Nathanson, Katherine L. , Nevelsteen, Ines, Ņikitina-Zaķe, Liene , Offit, Kenneth, Oláh, Edith , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I. , Olsson, Håkan , Osório, Ana , Papp, J., Park‐Simon, Tjoung‐Won , Pedersen, Inge Søkilde , Peixoto, Ana , Peterlongo, Paolo , Peto, Julian , Phillips, Kelly‐Anne , Plaseska‐Karanfilska, Dijana , Poppe, Bruce , Pradhan, Nisha , Prajzendanc, Karolina , Punie, Kevin , Pylkäs, Katri , Rantala, Johanna, Rashid, Muhammad Usman , Rennert, Gad , Romero, Atocha , Saloustros, Emmanouil , Sandler, Dale P. , Santos, Catarina , Sawyer, Elinor J. , Schmutzler, Rita K., Schoemaker, Minouk J. , Scott, Rodney J. , Simard, Jacques , Skytte, Anne‐Bine , Soucy, Penny, Spinelli, John J. , Stone, Jennifer , Tapper, William , Taylor, Jack A. , Teixeira, Manuel R. , Terry, Mary Beth , Teulé, Àlex , Thomassen, Mads , Thöne, Kathrin , Thull, Darcy L. , Tollenaar, Rob A.�E.�M. , Torres, Diana , Vachon, Celine M. , Ouweland, Ans M.W. van den, Vega, Ana , Viel, Alessandra , Vieiro‐Balo, Paula, Wang, Qin , Wappenschmidt, Barbara , Weinberg, Clarice R. , Weitzel, Jeffrey N. , Wendt, Camilla, Winqvist, Robert , Yang, Xiaohong R., Easton, Douglas F. , Chenevix‐Trench, Georgia , Durocher, Francine , Eccles, Diana , Janavičius, Ramūnas , Khaw, Kay‐Tee , Lambrechts, Diether , Lindor, Noralane, Dörk, Thilo , Lambrechts, Diether , Hulick, Peter J , James, Paul , Lesueur, Fabienne , Peterlongo, Paolo , Rennert, Gad , Sandler, Dale P , Teixeira, Manuel R , Eccles, Diana , Menon, Usha , Vega, Ana , Weitzel, Jeffrey N , Claes, Kathleen B M , Azzollini, Jacopo , John, Esther M , Konstantopoulou, Irene , Matricardi, Laura , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I , Arndt, Volker , Jakubowska, Anna , Lambrechts, Diether , Brenner, Hermann , Cox, Angela , Guénel, Pascal , Muranen, Taru A , Romero, Atocha , Saloustros, Emmanouil , Torres, Diana , García-Closas, Montserrat , Makalic, Enes , Michailidou, Kyriaki , Bogdanova, Natalia V , Taylor, Jack A , Nathanson, Katherine L , Arason, Adalgeir , Barrowdale, Daniel , Engel, Christoph , Montagna, Marco , Viel, Alessandra , Simard, Jacques , Chenevix-Trench, Georgia , Jung, Audrey Y , Gabrielson, Marike , Stone, Jennifer , Pylkäs, Katri , Rashid, Muhammad U , De Leeneer, Kim , Manoukian, Siranoush , Bojesen, Stig E , Schoemaker, Minouk J , Weinberg, Clarice R , Phillips, Kelly-Anne , Terry, Mary Beth , Brauch, Hiltrud , Plaseska-Karanfilska, Dijana , Sawyer, Elinor J , Paşaniuc, Bogdan , Long, Jirong , Anton‐Culver, Hoda , Arun, Banu , Balmañà, Judith , Barnes, Daniel R. , Behrens, Sabine , Benı́tez, Javier , Blanco, Ana , Blomqvist, Carl , Boeckx, Bram , Bonanni, Bernardo , Borg, Åke , Briceño, Ignacio , Broeks, Annegien , Cai, Qiuyin , Caligo, Maria A. , Campbell, Ian , Carter, Jonathan , Chanock, Stephen Jacob , Chung, Wendy K. , Clarke, Christine L. , Collaborators, GEMO Study, Collaborators, EMBRACE, Collaborators, GC‐HBOC study, Couch, Fergus J. , Cross, Simon S. , Cybulski, Cezary , Czene, Kamila , Hoya, Miguel de la , Dennis, Joe , Devilee, Peter , Dı́ez, Orland , Domchek, Susan M. , dos‐Santos‐Silva, Isabel , Dunning, Alison M. , Ellberg, Carolina , Eriksson, Mikael , Fletcher, Olivia , Fostira, Florentia , Fritschi, Lin , Garber, Judy E. , García-Sáenz, José Á. , Giles, Graham G. , Godwin, Andrew K. , Goldgar, David E., Gronwald, Jacek , Hall, Per N , Hollestelle, Antoinette , Investigators, ABCTB, Investigators, HEBON, Investigators, BCFR, Investigators, OCGN, Isaacs, Claudine , Vijai, Joseph , Karlan, Beth Y. , Хуснутдинова, Э. К. , Lázaro, Conxi , Leslie, Goska , Lubiński, Jan , Mannermaa, Arto, Martens, John W.M. , Martı́nez, Marı́a Elena , Meindl, Alfons , Kapoor, Pooja M., Miller, Austin , Moserle, Lidia , Mulligan, Anna Marie , Neuhausen, Susan L. , Nevanlinna, Heli , Nielsen, Finn Cilius , Parsons, Michael T. , Pharoah, Paul D.P. , Presneau, Nadège , Radice, Paolo , Risch, Harvey A. , Robson, Mark E. , Schmidt, Marjanka K. , Schmidt, Daniel F. , Sharma, Priyanka , Shu, Xiao‐Ou , Singer, Christian F. , Southey, Melissa C. , Spurdle, Amanda B. , Swerdlow, Anthony J. , Tischkowitz, Marc D. , Toland, Amanda Ewart , Truong, Thérèse , Tung, Nadine , Vachon, Celine M. , Asperen, Christi J. van , Rensburg, Elizabeth J. van , Yannoukakos, Drakoulis , Ziogas, Argyrios , Milne, Roger L. , Zheng, Wei , Kraft, Peter , Jiang, Xia

Genetic Epidemiology | March 2, 2020 | Volume: 44 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 442-468

10.1002/gepi.22288 Get It

AbstractPrevious transcriptome‐wide association studies (TWAS) have identified breast cancer risk genes by integrating data from expression quantitative loci and genome‐wide association studies (GWAS), but analyses of breast cancer subtype‐specific associations have been limited. In this study, we conducted a TWAS using gene expression data from GTEx and summary statistics from the hitherto largest GWAS meta‐analysis conducted for breast cancer overall, and by estrogen receptor subtypes (ER+ and ER−). We further compared associations with ER+ and ER− subtypes, using a case‐only TWAS approach. We also conducted multigene conditional analyses in regions with multiple TWAS associations. Two genes, STXBP4 and HIST2H2BA, were specifically associated with ER+ but not with ER– breast cancer. We further identified 30 TWAS‐significant genes associated with overall breast cancer risk, including four that were not identified in previous studies. Conditional analyses identified single independent breast‐cancer gene in three of six regions harboring multiple TWAS‐significant genes. Our study provides new information on breast cancer genetics and biology, particularly about genomic differences between ER+ and ER− breast cancer.
Abstract 962: Validation of breast cancer risk model incorporating classical risk factors and polygenic risk scores in 14 prospective cohort studies in 6 countries
Choudhury, Parichoy Pal , Wilcox, Amber, Gao, Chi , Brook, Mark N. , Martin, Kara, Schoemaker, Minouk J. , Chang‐Claude, Jenny , Easton, Doug , Vachon, Celine M. , Kaaks, Rudolph, Gaudet, Mia M. , Antoniou, Antonis C. , Chatterjee, Nilanjan , Schoemaker, Minouk J , Wilcox, Amber, Carter, Brian, Hüsing, Anika , Eriksson, Mikael , Scott, Christopher G. , Shi, Min Yan , Ahearn, Thomas U. , Jones, Michael E. , Orr, Nick , Czene, Kamila , Simard, Jacques , Easton, Douglas F. , Schmidt, Marjanka K. , Sandler, Dale P. , Weinberg, Clarice R. , Vachon, Celine M. , Milne, Roger L. , Hall, Per N , Swerdlow, Anthony J. , Kraft, Peter , García‐Closas, Montserrat

Cancer Research | August 7, 2019 | Volume: 79 | Issue: 13_Supplement | Pages: 962-962

10.1158/1538-7445.am2019-962 Get It

Abstract Background: Prospective validation of breast cancer risk models integrating classical risk factors and genetic variants is required for risk-stratified prevention and screening strategies. The objective of this study was to validate a breast cancer risk model integrating classical risk factors and a 313-variant polygenic risk score (PRS) in multiple prospective cohort studies, and to project five-year risk of breast cancer in six different countries. Methods: The study population included 7,529 cases and 230,103 controls from 14 prospective cohort studies in Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, UK, and USA. We used the Individualized Coherent Absolute Risk Estimator (iCARE) tool for risk model building, validation, and risk projection. Expected five-year risk of invasive or in situ breast cancer was compared to observed risk, overall and within deciles of expected risk using goodness of fit statistics. We evaluated calibration of the relative risk through meta-analysis across cohorts, and of the absolute risk within each cohort. Model discrimination was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC), and percentages of women crossing risk thresholds. Projections of five-year risk distributions were estimated for women of European ancestry aged 50-70 years in the general populations of these six countries. Results: Analysis showed overall good calibration of the integrated iCARE-based model relative risk for both women younger than 50 years (χ2=14.9, P=0.09) and aged 50 years or older (χ2=14.6, P=0.10), with a small overestimation of risk for women in the highest decile of expected risk (RR = 3.5 expected vs 2.3 (95% CI 1.6 to 3.2) observed for women &lt;50 years; and 2.8 expected vs 2.3 (95% CI 2.0 to 2.7) observed for women 50+ years). The age-adjusted AUCs for the integrated model were 63.1 (95% CI 60.9 to 65.3) and 62.9 (95% CI 61.8 to 64.0), for the two age groups respectively. The calibration of absolute risk showed substantial variation across cohorts, particularly for the older group, but had no systematic bias. Model based projections in the general populations showed that compared to the population average, women in the 1st and 99th percentiles of the integrated risk score had relative risks 0.19 and 3.56 respectively. The proportion of women of European ancestry aged 50-70 years with a five-year risk greater than 3% (threshold for consideration of risk-lowering drugs by U.S. Preventive Services Task Force) ranged from 7.1% in Germany to 18.2% in the US, which corresponds to ~5.5 million women in the US. Conclusions: Five-year risk predictions from a model with classical risk factors and PRS are well calibrated and provide substantial risk stratification across multiple cohorts in six different countries. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical utility of the validated model for risk stratified screening and prevention of breast cancer. Citation Format: Parichoy Pal Choudhury, Amber Wilcox, Chi Gao, Brian Carter, Anika Husing, Mark Brook, Mikael Eriksson, Kara Martin, Chris Scott, Min Shi, Thomas Ahearn, Michael Jones, Nick Orr, Minouk Schoemaker, Kamila Czene, Jenny Chang-Claude, Jacques Simard, Doug Easton, Marjanka K. Schmidt, Dale Sandler, Clarice R. Weinberg, Celine Vachon, Roger Milne, Per Hall, Anthony Swerdlow, Rudolph Kaaks, Myrto Barrdahl, Mia Gaudet, Antonis Antoniou, Peter Kraft, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Nilanjan Chatterjee. Validation of breast cancer risk model incorporating classical risk factors and polygenic risk scores in 14 prospective cohort studies in 6 countries [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 962.
Abstract 2971: Digital image analysis based IHC4+C assay and prognosis in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer
Abubakar, Mustapha , Pharoah, Paul D.P. , Sherman, Mark E. , García‐Closas, Montserrat , Dowsett, Mitch

Cancer Research | August 17, 2018 | Volume: 78 | Issue: 13_Supplement | Pages: 2971-2971

10.1158/1538-7445.am2018-2971 Get It

Abstract Background The immunohistochemical (IHC) 4 + clinical treatment score (C) i.e. IHC4+C assay combines IHC assessment of four routinely measured markers in the clinical setting, including estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and KI67, with other clinical parameters for aiding decision-making on adjuvant chemotherapy in hormone positive (HR+) breast cancer. It is low cost, widely available and has been shown to provide similar prognostic information to the 21-gene (Oncotype DX) test. Clinical use of IHC4+C is limited by the need for standardized scoring of the IHC markers. Here, we examine the prognostic value of a digital image analysis (DIA) based IHC4+C assay in two study populations and compare this with pathologists' visual assay in a subset of patients. We also evaluated its potential clinical relevance in relation to the Nottingham prognostic index [NPI; i.e. low (&lt;3.4), intermediate (3.4-5.4) and high (&gt;5.4)] and IHC defined breast cancer subtypes (i.e. luminal A-like and B-like). Methods Using DIA data on ER, PR, HER2 and KI67, in addition to clinicopathological characteristics of tumors, we computed DIA based IHC4+C (i.e. DIAIHC4+C) assay for 2,034 women from study populations in Poland (PBCS) and the United Kingdom (SEARCH). A total of 246 deaths occurred over a median follow-up period of 6.7 years. A relevant threshold was determined using quartile analysis and the relationship between dichotomous categories (&gt;75th vs ≤ 75th percentile) of DIAIHC4+C and 10-year breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) was investigated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and in Cox proportional hazard regression models, overall and stratified by study, NPI and subtype. Results DIAIHC4+C score was associated with worse 10-year BCSS overall [HR (95% CI) &gt;75th vs ≤ 75th percentile = 2.92 (1.77, 4.82); p-value &lt;0.0001] and in both the PBCS [3.48 (1.40, 8.65); p-value = 0.007] and SEARCH [3.87 (2.24, 6.68); p-value &lt;0.0001] study populations. DIAIHC4+C was associated with significantly worse survival outcomes in women with intermediate NPI [1.94 (1.31, 2.88); p-value = 0.001] and luminal A-like subtype of HR+ tumors [5.37 (3.50, 8.26); p-value &lt;0.0001]. DIA and visual IHC4+C results were highly correlated (r = 0.95) and survival associations and model fit parameters were similar for DIA [3.82 (2.08, 7.00); p-value &lt; 0.0001; AIC = 472.3] and visual [4.73 (2.55, 8.76); p-value &lt; 0.0001; AIC = 466.1] IHC4+C scores amongst 444 patients with data from both sources. Conclusion These findings are in support of the prognostic value of DIAIHC4+C assay in HR+ breast cancer and demonstrate its potential clinical relevance as an adjunct to the NPI. Given the advantages of being high-throughput and highly reproducible, DIA based methods could find use in the standardization of the analytical processes for the IHC4+C assay. Citation Format: Mustapha Abubakar, Paul D. Pharoah, Mark E. Sherman, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Mitch Dowsett. Digital image analysis based IHC4+C assay and prognosis in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 2971.
Abstract 2211: Patient level polygenic risk scores and continuous estrogen receptor expression in breast cancer
Shetty, Anamay , Blows, Fiona M., Inard, Nicholas, Couch, Fergus J., Easton, Douglas F. , Mannermaa, Arto, Raza, Ali , Caldas, Carlos , Benı́tez, Javier , Chang, Jenny C. , Chenevix‐Trench, Georgia , Couch, Fergus J. , Cox, Angela , Devilee, Peter , García‐Closas, Montserrat , Mannermaa, Arto, Nevanlinna, Heli , Schmidt, Marjanka K. , Pharoah, Paul D.P.

Cancer Research | August 17, 2018 | Volume: 78 | Issue: 13_Supplement | Pages: 2211-2211

10.1158/1538-7445.am2018-2211 Get It

Abstract Introduction: Genome-wide association studies over the past 10 years have identified over 100 common variants associated with breast cancer risk. The association of these polymorphisms varies according to estrogen receptor status of the tumor, with some associated primarily with ER+ or ER- disease, or both subtypes. However, ER expression in breast cancer cells is continuous. The aim of this study was to establish whether the association between polygenic risk scores and ER expression in breast cancer is continuous in nature. Methods: Data were taken from the international Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). Germline genotype data for 75 SNPs previously reported to be associated with breast cancer were available for 4,999 breast cancer cases for which ER expression data were also available. Automated ER expression on a continuous scale was measured using two image analysis algorithms: Astrogrid and Ariol. A third form of ER expression score, the manual Allred ordinal, was used. Genotype data were used to calculate polygenic risk scores using the equation: PRS = ∑ βx where β is the log-odds of the odds ratio (OR) of breast cancer associated with that single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), and x is the number of variant alleles at a SNP locus. Five different PRSs were calculated: i) SNPs associated with both ER+ and ER- disease (PRS-A, n= 74) ii) SNPs associated with ER+ disease at P&lt;0.01 (PRS-B, n= 65) iii) SNPs associated with ER- disease at P&lt;0.01 (PRS-C, n= 43) iv) SNPs associated with ER+ but not ER- disease (PRS-D, n= 30) v) SNPs associated with ER- but not ER+ disease (PRS-E, n = 8) The ER-specific weights for the PRS were taken from previous OR estimates. Linear regression models adjusted for study were used to test for a relationship between the five PRSs and ER expression measured on the Ariol, Astrogrid and Allred scales. Results: There was a strong positive correlation found between PRS-B against Astrogrid (β=0.0176, P=4.06x10-4), a weak negative correlation found with PRS-C (β=-0.012, P=0.019) and a weak positive correlation for PRS-A (β=0.012, P=0.0144). PRS-D and E showed far stronger association with Astrogrid than PRS-B and C, respectively (β=0.0186 and -0.017, P=1.97x10-4 and 8.1x10-4). There was a qualitatively similar association when the PRSs were correlated with Ariol and Allred, apart from the stronger correlations with PRS-B (β=91.2 and 0.0853, P=5.52x10-4 and 1.33x10-3). Conclusion: We have shown a robust association between PRS and ER expression in the directions we predicted. This suggests that the continuous variation in ER expression is biologically plausible and linked to genetic polymorphism. The weakening of association with PRS-A and the stronger associations with PRS-D and E show that having SNPs that are associated with both ER subtypes in the same PRS weakens significance, and suggests that subtype-specific PRSs may be improved on by using SNPs exclusive to the respective subtype. Citation Format: Anamay H. Shetty, Raza Ali, Fiona Blows, Carlos Caldas, Nicholas Inard, Javier Benítez, Jenny Chang-Claude, Georgia Chenevix-Trench, Fergus Couch, Angela Cox, Peter Devilee, Douglas Easton, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Arto Mannermaa, Heli Nevanlinna, Marjanka Schmidt, Paul Pharoah. Patient level polygenic risk scores and continuous estrogen receptor expression in breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 2211.