Benı́tez, Javier

ABSTRACTGenes that alter disease risk only in combination with certain environmental exposures may not be detected in genetic association analysis. By using methods accounting for gene‐environment (G × E) interaction, we aimed to identify novel genetic loci associated with breast cancer risk. Up to 34,475 cases and 34,786 controls of European ancestry from up to 23 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium were included. Overall, 71,527 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), enriched for association with breast cancer, were tested for interaction with 10 environmental risk factors using three recently proposed hybrid methods and a joint test of association and interaction. Analyses were adjusted for age, study, population stratification, and confounding factors as applicable. Three SNPs in two independent loci showed statistically significant association: SNPs rs10483028 and rs2242714 in perfect linkage disequilibrium on chromosome 21 and rs12197388 in ARID1B on chromosome 6. While rs12197388 was identified using the joint test with parity and with age at menarche (P‐values = 3 × 10−07), the variants on chromosome 21 q22.12, which showed interaction with adult body mass index (BMI) in 8,891 postmenopausal women, were identified by all methods applied. SNP rs10483028 was associated with breast cancer in women with a BMI below 25 kg/m2 (OR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.15–1.38) but not in women with a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or higher (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.72–1.11, P for interaction = 3.2 × 10−05). Our findings confirm comparable power of the recent methods for detecting G × E interaction and the utility of using G × E interaction analyses to identify new susceptibility loci.

Abstract Part of the substantial unexplained familial aggregation of breast cancer may be due to interactions between common variants, but few studies have had adequate statistical power to detect interactions of realistic magnitude. We aimed to assess all two-way interactions in breast cancer susceptibility between 70 917 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) selected primarily based on prior evidence of a marginal effect. Thirty-eight international studies contributed data for 46 450 breast cancer cases and 42 461 controls of European origin as part of a multi-consortium project (COGS). First, SNPs were preselected based on evidence (P < 0.01) of a per-allele main effect, and all two-way combinations of those were evaluated by a per-allele (1 d.f.) test for interaction using logistic regression. Second, all 2.5 billion possible two-SNP combinations were evaluated using Boolean operation-based screening and testing, and SNP pairs with the strongest evidence of interaction (P < 10−4) were selected for more careful assessment by logistic regression. Under the first approach, 3277 SNPs were preselected, but an evaluation of all possible two-SNP combinations (1 d.f.) identified no interactions at P < 10−8. Results from the second analytic approach were consistent with those from the first (P > 10−10). In summary, we observed little evidence of two-way SNP interactions in breast cancer susceptibility, despite the large number of SNPs with potential marginal effects considered and the very large sample size. This finding may have important implications for risk prediction, simplifying the modelling required. Further comprehensive, large-scale genome-wide interaction studies may identify novel interacting loci if the inherent logistic and computational challenges can be overcome.

Background Recently, rare germline variants in XRCC2 were detected in non-BRCA1/2 familial breast cancer cases, and a significant association with breast cancer was reported. However, the breast cancer risk associated with these variants needs further evaluation. Methods The coding regions and exon–intron boundaries of XRCC2 were scanned for mutations in an international cohort of 3548 non-BRCA1/2 familial breast cancer cases and 1435 healthy controls using various mutation scanning methods. Predictions on functional relevance of detected missense variants were obtained from three different prediction algorithms. Results The only protein-truncating variant detected was found in a control. Rare non-protein-truncating variants were detected in 20 familial cases (0.6%) and nine healthy controls (0.6%). Although the number of variants predicted to be damaging or neutral differed between prediction algorithms, in all instances these categories were evenly represented among cases and controls. Conclusions Our data do not confirm an association between XRCC2 variants and breast cancer risk, although a relative risk smaller than two could not be excluded. Variants in XRCC2 are unlikely to explain a substantial proportion of familial breast cancer.

Background Clinical classification of rare sequence changes identified in the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 is essential for appropriate genetic counselling of individuals carrying these variants. We previously showed that variant BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln in the BRCA1 transcriptional transactivation domain demonstrated equivocal results from a series of functional assays, and proposed that this variant may confer low to moderate risk of cancer. Methods Measures of genetic risk (report of family history, segregation) were assessed for 68 BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) families recruited through family cancer clinics, comparing results with 34 families carrying the previously classified pathogenic BRCA1 c.5095C>T p.Arg1699Trp (R1699W) mutation at the same residue, and to 243 breast cancer families with no BRCA1 pathogenic mutation (BRCA-X). Results Comparison of BRCA1 carrier prediction scores of probands using the BOADICEA risk prediction tool revealed that BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln variant carriers had family histories that were less ‘ BRCA1 -like’ than BRCA1 c.5095C>T p.Arg1699Trp mutation carriers (p<0.00001), but more ‘ BRCA1 -like’ than BRCA-X families (p=0.0004). Further, modified segregation analysis of the subset of 30 families with additional genotyping showed that BRCA1 c.5096G >A p.Arg1699Gln had reduced penetrance compared with the average truncating BRCA1 mutation penetrance (p=0.0002), with estimated cumulative risks to age 70 of breast or ovarian cancer of 24%. Conclusions Our results provide substantial evidence that the BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) variant, demonstrating ambiguous functional deficiency across multiple assays, is associated with intermediate risk of breast and ovarian cancer, highlighting challenges for risk modelling and clinical management of patients of this and other potential moderate-risk variants.

Abstract Rare germline mutations in the breast and ovarian cancer predisposition genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 are present in roughly 5 percent of ovarian cancer patients. Both genes play key roles in DNA damage repair but appear to have distinct, although often complementary, functions. The risks of breast and ovarian cancer have been shown to differ between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, and mutation-specific effects have also been suggested for both groups. Published reports comparing the survival of ovarian cancer patients with and without BRCA1/2 mutations generally show a survival advantage among mutation carriers. This is thought to be related to an improved response of carriers to platinum-based therapies. Since it is not known whether BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers show similar survival patterns, we have performed a large, multicenter study to investigate the impact of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations on ovarian cancer survival. 3,531 invasive epithelial ovarian cancer cases (1,178 BRCA1, 367 BRCA2 and 1,986 BRCA-negative) with survival time data from twenty-four studies in the U.S.A, Europe, Israel and Asia were included. In our main analysis, we excluded patients who were known or who were likely to have not received platinum-based therapy. Compared to non-carriers, BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers were more likely to present with advanced stage (BRCA1; p=2×10−4, BRCA2; p=4×10−6), high grade (BRCA1; p=4×10−9, BRCA2; p=1×10−4), serous disease (BRCA1; p=3×10−6, BRCA2; p=0.003). BRCA1 carriers were younger at diagnosis (p=2×10−9) and BRCA2 slightly older at diagnosis (p=0.002) than non-carriers. BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers did not differ in terms of tumor stage, grade or histology but did show differences in the age at diagnosis (p=2×10−14). In an unadjusted analysis, neither BRCA1 nor BRCA2 carriers differed from non-carriers in overall survival (BRCA1: HR=1.02, p=0.77, BRCA2: HR=0.89, p=0.36). After adjusting for stage, grade, histology and age at diagnosis, BRCA1 carriers showed a modest, non-significant, survival advantage (HR=0.84, p=0.12) while BRCA2 carriers showed a marked improvement (HR=0.57, p=6×10−4) compared to non-carriers. This survival advantage was also seen when comparing BRCA2 carriers to BRCA1 carriers after adjustment for age at diagnosis (HR=0.69, p=5×10−4). Similar results were obtained when we restricted the analysis to high grade, advanced stage, serous cases. The survival differences we observed between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers could be related to differences in tumor biology or chemo-sensitivity. Additional analyses investigating the later will be presented in addition to mutation-specific effects within BRCA1 and BRCA2. In this study, we provide strong evidence for genetic heterogeneity of survival effects in ovarian cancer patients with BRCA mutations. This could be applied to both clinical prediction and to aid our understanding of the complex biology of BRCA mutations. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2011 Apr 2-6; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2011;71(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 2752. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2011-2752

Abstract Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) identified variants at 19p13.1 and ZNF365 (10q21.2) as risk factors for breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively. We explored associations with ovarian cancer and with breast cancer by tumor histopathology for these variants in mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Methods: Genotyping data for 12,599 BRCA1 and 7,132 BRCA2 mutation carriers from 40 studies were combined. Results: We confirmed associations between rs8170 at 19p13.1 and breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers [HR, 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07–1.27; P = 7.42 × 10−4] and between rs16917302 at ZNF365 (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73–0.97; P = 0.017) but not rs311499 at 20q13.3 (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.94–1.31; P = 0.22) and breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers. Analyses based on tumor histopathology showed that 19p13 variants were predominantly associated with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, whereas rs16917302 at ZNF365 was mainly associated with ER-positive breast cancer for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. We also found for the first time that rs67397200 at 19p13.1 was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer for BRCA1 (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05–1.29; P = 3.8 × 10−4) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.10–1.52; P = 1.8 × 10−3). Conclusions: 19p13.1 and ZNF365 are susceptibility loci for ovarian cancer and ER subtypes of breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Impact: These findings can lead to an improved understanding of tumor development and may prove useful for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(4); 645–57. ©2012 AACR.

Abstract The 19p13.1 breast cancer susceptibility locus is a modifier of breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers and is also associated with the risk of ovarian cancer. Here, we investigated 19p13.1 variation and risk of breast cancer subtypes, defined by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status, using 48,869 breast cancer cases and 49,787 controls from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). Variants from 19p13.1 were not associated with breast cancer overall or with ER-positive breast cancer but were significantly associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk [rs8170 OR, 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05–1.15; P = 3.49 × 10−5] and triple-negative (ER-, PR-, and HER2-negative) breast cancer (rs8170: OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.13–1.31; P = 2.22 × 10−7). However, rs8170 was no longer associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk when triple-negative cases were excluded (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89–1.07; P = 0.62). In addition, a combined analysis of triple-negative cases from BCAC and the Triple Negative Breast Cancer Consortium (TNBCC; N = 3,566) identified a genome-wide significant association between rs8170 and triple-negative breast cancer risk (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.18–1.33; P = 3.31 × 10−13]. Thus, 19p13.1 is the first triple-negative–specific breast cancer risk locus and the first locus specific to a histologic subtype defined by ER, PR, and HER2 to be identified. These findings provide convincing evidence that genetic susceptibility to breast cancer varies by tumor subtype and that triple-negative tumors and other subtypes likely arise through distinct etiologic pathways. Cancer Res; 72(7); 1795–803. ©2012 AACR.

Abstract Background: The single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) 5p12-rs10941679 has been found to be associated with risk of breast cancer, particularly estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease. We aimed to further explore this association overall, and by tumor histopathology, in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Methods: Data were combined from 37 studies, including 40,972 invasive cases, 1,398 cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 46,334 controls, all of white European ancestry, as well as 3,007 invasive cases and 2,337 controls of Asian ancestry. Associations overall and by tumor invasiveness and histopathology were assessed using logistic regression. Results: For white Europeans, the per-allele OR associated with 5p12-rs10941679 was 1.11 (95% CI = 1.08–1.14, P = 7 × 10−18) for invasive breast cancer and 1.10 (95% CI = 1.01–1.21, P = 0.03) for DCIS. For Asian women, the estimated OR for invasive disease was similar (OR = 1.07, 95%CI = 0.99–1.15, P = 0.09). Further analyses suggested that the association in white Europeans was largely limited to progesterone receptor (PR)-positive disease (per-allele OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.12–1.20, P = 1 × 10−18 vs. OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.99–1.07, P = 0.2 for PR-negative disease; Pheterogeneity = 2 × 10−7); heterogeneity by ER status was not observed (P = 0.2) once PR status was accounted for. The association was also stronger for lower grade tumors [per-allele OR (95% CI) = 1.20 (1.14–1.25), 1.13 (1.09–1.16), and 1.04 (0.99–1.08) for grade 1, 2, and 3/4, respectively; Ptrend = 5 × 10−7]. Conclusion: 5p12 is a breast cancer susceptibility locus for PR-positive, lower grade breast cancer. Impact: Multicenter fine-mapping studies of this region are needed as a first step to identifying the causal variant or variants. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 20(10); 2222–31. ©2011 AACR.