Objective Determinants of the increased risk of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in SLE are unclear. Using data from a recent lymphoma genome-wide association study (GWAS), we assessed whether certain lupus-related single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were also associated with DLBCL. Methods GWAS data on European Caucasians from the International Lymphoma Epidemiology Consortium (InterLymph) provided a total of 3857 DLBCL cases and 7666 general-population controls. Data were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. Results Among the 28 SLE-related SNPs investigated, the two most convincingly associated with risk of DLBCL included the CD40 SLE risk allele rs4810485 on chromosome 20q13 (OR per risk allele=1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.16, p=0.0134), and the HLA SLE risk allele rs1270942 on chromosome 6p21.33 (OR per risk allele=1.17, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.36, p=0.0362). Of additional possible interest were rs2205960 and rs12537284. The rs2205960 SNP, related to a cytokine of the tumour necrosis factor superfamily TNFSF4, was associated with an OR per risk allele of 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.16, p=0.0549. The OR for the rs12537284 (chromosome 7q32, IRF5 gene) risk allele was 1.08, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.18, p=0.0765. Conclusions These data suggest several plausible genetic links between DLBCL and SLE.
Abstract 1295: Genomewide gene-diabetes and gene-obesity interaction scan in 7095 cases and 10710 controls from Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium and Pancreatic Cancer Case Control Consortium
Abstract Introduction: Obesity and diabetes are two major modifiable risk factors for pancreatic cancer. Genetic variation affecting the risk of obesity- and diabetes-related pancreatic cancer have yet to be comprehensively investigated at the genome-wide level. Aims: To identify novel gene-environment interactions (GxE) of obesity/diabetes on pancreatic cancer risk. Methods: We conducted a multi-stage genome-wide gene-diabetes and gene-obesity interaction study using GWAS data of 7095 cases and 10710 controls from Pancreatic Cancer Consortium (PanScan I, PanScan II and PanScan III) and Pancreatic Cancer Case Control Consortium (PanC4). About 870,000 SNPs, having MAF ≥ 0.005 and having been genotyped in at least one study, were analyzed. Missing genotypes were imputed using IMPUTE2 and the Haplotype Reference Consortium (HRC) reference panel. Case-control (CC) and case-only (CO) methods were used for SNP-level GxE analysis. Fixed-, random- and joint-effect models built in “rareGE” R package were used for gene-based GxE analysis. About 20,000 genes that have at least one SNP genotyped were included in the analysis. Age, gender and principal components accounting for subpopulation structure were adjusted in both SNP-level and gene-level analyses. Obesity was defined as body mass index ≥30 mg/m2. Diabetics with <3-year duration were excluded for gene-diabetes interaction analysis. The PanScan I, II, III and PanC4 datasets were analyzed separately followed by meta-analysis of the summary statistics. Fixed-effect and Fisher’s p-value based meta-analysis was applied for SNP-level and gene-level GxE analysis, respectively. Results: No genome-wide significant (P<5 x 10-8 ) interaction at the SNP level was detected in any of the PanScan or PanC4 datasets or in the meta-analysis. A significant interaction of diabetes and FAM63A (family with sequence similarity 63 member A) gene (P<2.5 x 10-6) was observed in the meta-analysis (PFixed= 3.4 x 10-5, PRandom= 1.9 x 10-6, PJoint= 6.8 x 10-7) . This interaction showed nominal significance in all individual dataset analyses. The corresponding P values for this interaction were 4.2 x 10-2, 3.8 x 10-2 and 6.8 x 10-2 in PanScan I, 2.8 x 10-2, 3.9 x 10-2 and 6.5 x 10-2 9.1 x 10-3, 2.2 x 10-4 and 8.8 x 10-6 in PanScan III, and 3.1 x 10-3, 3.4 x 10-3 and 8.8 x 10-3 in PanC4, respectively. Conclusions: In the largest genome-wide GxE analysis for pancreatic cancer to date, we identified a significant diabetes interacting gene in pancreatic cancer, which was consistently replicated in 4 individual GWAS studies. This observation identifies FAM63A as a candidate for future functional studies to understand its role in pancreatic cancer etiology. Further increasing the sample size may unveil additional genetic loci that contribute to the susceptibility to pancreatic cancer via G x E. Citation Format: Hongwei Tang, Lai Jiang, Laufey T. Amundadottir, Harvey A. Risch, Rachael S. Stolzenberg-Solomon, Alison P. Klein, Brian M. Wolpin, Gloria Petersen, Nilanjan Chatterjee, Donghui Li, Peter Kraft, Peng Wei. Genomewide gene-diabetes and gene-obesity interaction scan in 7095 cases and 10710 controls from Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium and Pancreatic Cancer Case Control Consortium [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 1295. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-1295
Body mass index and breast cancer survival: a Mendelian randomization analysis
Abstract Objective: Several attributes of female reproductive history, including age at natural menopause (ANM), have been related to primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). We assembled 18 previously reported common genetic variants that predict ANM to determine their association with ANM or POAG. Methods: Using data from the Nurses’ Health Study (7,143 women), we validated the ANM weighted genetic risk score in relation to self-reported ANM. Subsequently, to assess the relation with POAG, we used data from 2,160 female POAG cases and 29,110 controls in the National Eye Institute Glaucoma Human Genetics Collaboration Heritable Overall Operational Database (NEIGHBORHOOD), which consists of 8 datasets with imputed genotypes to 5.6+ million markers. Associations with POAG were assessed in each dataset, and site-specific results were meta-analyzed using the inverse weighted variance method. Results: The genetic risk score was associated with self-reported ANM (P = 2.2 × 10–77) and predicted 4.8% of the variance in ANM. The ANM genetic risk score was not associated with POAG (Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.002; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.998, 1.007; P = 0.28). No single genetic variant in the panel achieved nominal association with POAG (P ≥0.20). Compared to the middle 80 percent, there was also no association with the lowest 10th percentile or highest 90th percentile of genetic risk score with POAG (OR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.47, 1.21; P = 0.23 and OR = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.69; P = 0.65, respectively). Conclusions: A genetic risk score predicting 4.8% of ANM variation was not related to POAG; thus, genetic determinants of ANM are unlikely to explain the previously reported association between the two phenotypes.
The OncoArray Consortium: A Network for Understanding the Genetic Architecture of Common Cancers