Spurdle, Amanda B.

Abstract Background: Common cancers develop through a multistep process often including inherited susceptibility. Collaboration among multiple institutions, and funding from multiple sources, has allowed the development of an inexpensive genotyping microarray, the OncoArray. The array includes a genome-wide backbone, comprising 230,000 SNPs tagging most common genetic variants, together with dense mapping of known susceptibility regions, rare variants from sequencing experiments, pharmacogenetic markers, and cancer-related traits. Methods: The OncoArray can be genotyped using a novel technology developed by Illumina to facilitate efficient genotyping. The consortium developed standard approaches for selecting SNPs for study, for quality control of markers, and for ancestry analysis. The array was genotyped at selected sites and with prespecified replicate samples to permit evaluation of genotyping accuracy among centers and by ethnic background. Results: The OncoArray consortium genotyped 447,705 samples. A total of 494,763 SNPs passed quality control steps with a sample success rate of 97% of the samples. Participating sites performed ancestry analysis using a common set of markers and a scoring algorithm based on principal components analysis. Conclusions: Results from these analyses will enable researchers to identify new susceptibility loci, perform fine-mapping of new or known loci associated with either single or multiple cancers, assess the degree of overlap in cancer causation and pleiotropic effects of loci that have been identified for disease-specific risk, and jointly model genetic, environmental, and lifestyle-related exposures. Impact: Ongoing analyses will shed light on etiology and risk assessment for many types of cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(1); 126–35. ©2016 AACR.

Background The rarity of mutations in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM make it difficult to estimate precisely associated cancer risks. Population-based family studies have provided evidence that at least some of these mutations are associated with breast cancer risk as high as those associated with rare BRCA2 mutations. We aimed to estimate the relative risks associated with specific rare variants in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM via a multicentre case-control study. Methods We genotyped 10 rare mutations using the custom iCOGS array: PALB2 c.1592delT, c.2816T>G and c.3113G>A, CHEK2 c.349A>G, c.538C>T, c.715G>A, c.1036C>T, c.1312G>T, and c.1343T>G and ATM c.7271T>G. We assessed associations with breast cancer risk (42 671 cases and 42 164 controls), as well as prostate (22 301 cases and 22 320 controls) and ovarian (14 542 cases and 23 491 controls) cancer risk, for each variant. Results For European women, strong evidence of association with breast cancer risk was observed for PALB2 c.1592delT OR 3.44 (95% CI 1.39 to 8.52, p=7.1×10−5), PALB2 c.3113G>A OR 4.21 (95% CI 1.84 to 9.60, p=6.9×10−8) and ATM c.7271T>G OR 11.0 (95% CI 1.42 to 85.7, p=0.0012). We also found evidence of association with breast cancer risk for three variants in CHEK2, c.349A>G OR 2.26 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.95), c.1036C>T OR 5.06 (95% CI 1.09 to 23.5) and c.538C>T OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.67) (p≤0.017). Evidence for prostate cancer risk was observed for CHEK2 c.1343T>G OR 3.03 (95% CI 1.53 to 6.03, p=0.0006) for African men and CHEK2 c.1312G>T OR 2.21 (95% CI 1.06 to 4.63, p=0.030) for European men. No evidence of association with ovarian cancer was found for any of these variants. Conclusions This report adds to accumulating evidence that at least some variants in these genes are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer that is clinically important.

Abstract Background: The strongest known risk factor for endometrial cancer is obesity. To determine whether SNPs associated with increased body mass index (BMI) or waist–hip ratio (WHR) are associated with endometrial cancer risk, independent of measured BMI, we investigated relationships between 77 BMI and 47 WHR SNPs and endometrial cancer in 6,609 cases and 37,926 country-matched controls. Methods: Logistic regression analysis and fixed effects meta-analysis were used to test for associations between endometrial cancer risk and (i) individual BMI or WHR SNPs, (ii) a combined weighted genetic risk score (wGRS) for BMI or WHR. Causality of BMI for endometrial cancer was assessed using Mendelian randomization, with BMIwGRS as instrumental variable. Results: The BMIwGRS was significantly associated with endometrial cancer risk (P = 3.4 × 10−17). Scaling the effect of the BMIwGRS on endometrial cancer risk by its effect on BMI, the endometrial cancer OR per 5 kg/m2 of genetically predicted BMI was 2.06 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.89–2.21], larger than the observed effect of BMI on endometrial cancer risk (OR = 1.55; 95% CI, 1.44–1.68, per 5 kg/m2). The association attenuated but remained significant after adjusting for BMI (OR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10–1.39; P = 5.3 × 10−4). There was evidence of directional pleiotropy (P = 1.5 × 10−4). BMI SNP rs2075650 was associated with endometrial cancer at study-wide significance (P < 4.0 × 10−4), independent of BMI. Endometrial cancer was not significantly associated with individual WHR SNPs or the WHRwGRS. Conclusions: BMI, but not WHR, is causally associated with endometrial cancer risk, with evidence that some BMI-associated SNPs alter endometrial cancer risk via mechanisms other than measurable BMI. Impact: The causal association between BMI SNPs and endometrial cancer has possible implications for endometrial cancer risk modeling. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(11); 1503–10. ©2016 AACR.

Abstract Breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers are hormone-related and may have a shared genetic basis, but this has not been investigated systematically by genome-wide association (GWA) studies. Meta-analyses combining the largest GWA meta-analysis data sets for these cancers totaling 112,349 cases and 116,421 controls of European ancestry, all together and in pairs, identified at P < 10−8 seven new cross-cancer loci: three associated with susceptibility to all three cancers (rs17041869/2q13/BCL2L11; rs7937840/11q12/INCENP; rs1469713/19p13/GATAD2A), two breast and ovarian cancer risk loci (rs200182588/9q31/SMC2; rs8037137/15q26/RCCD1), and two breast and prostate cancer risk loci (rs5013329/1p34/NSUN4; rs9375701/6q23/L3MBTL3). Index variants in five additional regions previously associated with only one cancer also showed clear association with a second cancer type. Cell-type–specific expression quantitative trait locus and enhancer–gene interaction annotations suggested target genes with potential cross-cancer roles at the new loci. Pathway analysis revealed significant enrichment of death receptor signaling genes near loci with P < 10−5 in the three-cancer meta-analysis. Significance: We demonstrate that combining large-scale GWA meta-analysis findings across cancer types can identify completely new risk loci common to breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers. We show that the identification of such cross-cancer risk loci has the potential to shed new light on the shared biology underlying these hormone-related cancers. Cancer Discov; 6(9); 1052–67. ©2016 AACR. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 932

Abstract Background: Unnecessary intervention and overtreatment of indolent disease are common challenges in clinical management of prostate cancer. Improved tools to distinguish lethal from indolent disease are critical. Methods: We performed a genome-wide survival analysis of cause-specific death in 24,023 prostate cancer patients (3,513 disease-specific deaths) from the PRACTICAL and BPC3 consortia. Top findings were assessed for replication in a Norwegian cohort (CONOR). Results: We observed no significant association between genetic variants and prostate cancer survival. Conclusions: Common genetic variants with large impact on prostate cancer survival were not observed in this study. Impact: Future studies should be designed for identification of rare variants with large effect sizes or common variants with small effect sizes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(11); 1796–800. ©2015 AACR.

Abstract Background: Nulliparity is an established endometrial cancer risk factor, but whether this association is related to infertility is unclear. Although there are many underlying causes of infertility, few studies have assessed risk relationships according to specific causes. Despite concerns that most treatments induce ovulation and that the endometrium is highly hormonally-responsive, previous studies have provided conflicting results on treatment associations. Methods: To address these issues, we conducted a pooled analysis of 8,151 cases and12,471 controls from 2 cohort and 12 case-control studies conducted in 1982 to 2009 (N. America, Europe, Australia, Asia). All studies provided self-reported infertility, causes and treatments, except for 1 study that relied on data from national registries. Study-specific exposures and covariate data were harmonized across studies. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for study, age, interview year, race, parity, oral contraceptive and menopausal hormone use, and body mass index. If data were not reported for a particular variable, that study was excluded from the variable-specific analysis. Results: Nulliparous women had an elevated endometrial cancer risk compared with parous women (adjusted OR=1.73; 95% CI: 1.58-1.90).Women with self-reported infertility also had an increased risk (adjusted OR=1.22; 95% CI: 1.13-1.32) compared with those without infertility issues, even after adjusting for parity; the strongest associations was seen among studies that defined infertility as unsuccessfully trying to conceive for 2+ years (adjusted OR=1.31; 95% CI: 1.07-1.60). Infertility was associated with similar risks among nulliparous (1.22; 1.10-1.48) and parous (1.22; 1.12-1.34) women, although there was no increased risk associated with infertility among those who had given birth to 3+ children. Two infertility causes associated with risk elevation were endometriosis (adjusted OR=2.08; 95% CI: 1.46-2.95 compared with women no infertility problems) and anovulation (adjusted OR=1.40; 95% CI: 1.16-1.70). Based on relatively small numbers, none of the individual treatments (in vitro fertilization, selective estrogen response modulators, gonatropins, progestins, estrogens) were substantially related to risk. Conclusion: Based on mainly self-reported infertility data, we found that parity and infertility independently contribute to endometrial cancer risk, with parity seemingly being the predominant risk predictor. Understanding residual endometrial cancer relationships related to causes of infertility and infertility treatment may benefit from documented medical information on causes of infertility and treatment parameters. Citation Format: Hannah P. Yang, Linda S. Cook, Elisabete Weiderpass, Hans-Olov Adami, Kristin E. Anderson, Hui Cai, James R. Cerhan, Tess Clendenen, Ashley S. Felix, Christine Friedenreich, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Marc T. Goodman, Xiaolin Liang, Jolanta Lissowska, Lingeng Lu, Anthony M. Magliocco, Susan E. McCann, Kristen B. Moysich, Sara H. Olson, Malcolm C. Pike, Silvia Polidoro, Fulvio Ricceri, Harvey Risch, Carlotta Sacerdote, V. Wendy Setiawan, Xiao Ou Shu, Amanda B. Spurdle, Britton Trabert, Penelope M. Webb, Nicolas Wentzensen, Yong-Bing Xiang, Youming Xu, Herbert Yu, Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte, Louise A. Brinton. Infertility and risk of incident endometrial carcinoma: a pooled analysis from the Epidemiology of Endometrial Cancer Consortium. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 2167. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-2167

Abstract Background: Genome-wide association studies have identified multiple genetic variants associated with prostate cancer risk which explain a substantial proportion of familial relative risk. These variants can be used to stratify individuals by their risk of prostate cancer. Methods: We genotyped 25 prostate cancer susceptibility loci in 40,414 individuals and derived a polygenic risk score (PRS). We estimated empirical odds ratios (OR) for prostate cancer associated with different risk strata defined by PRS and derived age-specific absolute risks of developing prostate cancer by PRS stratum and family history. Results: The prostate cancer risk for men in the top 1% of the PRS distribution was 30.6 (95% CI, 16.4–57.3) fold compared with men in the bottom 1%, and 4.2 (95% CI, 3.2–5.5) fold compared with the median risk. The absolute risk of prostate cancer by age of 85 years was 65.8% for a man with family history in the top 1% of the PRS distribution, compared with 3.7% for a man in the bottom 1%. The PRS was only weakly correlated with serum PSA level (correlation = 0.09). Conclusions: Risk profiling can identify men at substantially increased or reduced risk of prostate cancer. The effect size, measured by OR per unit PRS, was higher in men at younger ages and in men with family history of prostate cancer. Incorporating additional newly identified loci into a PRS should improve the predictive value of risk profiles. Impact: We demonstrate that the risk profiling based on SNPs can identify men at substantially increased or reduced risk that could have useful implications for targeted prevention and screening programs. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(7); 1121–9. ©2015 AACR.