Heyworth, Jane

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 > 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 <20 years at first pregnancy [0.79 (0.72–0.86)]; >0–<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.

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.

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.