Gaudet, Mia M.

Abstract Background: Accumulating evidence suggests a relationship between endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. Independent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer have identified 16 and 27 risk regions, respectively, four of which overlap between the two cancers. We aimed to identify joint endometrial and ovarian cancer risk loci by performing a meta-analysis of GWAS summary statistics from these two cancers. Methods: Using LDScore regression, we explored the genetic correlation between endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. To identify loci associated with the risk of both cancers, we implemented a pipeline of statistical genetic analyses (i.e., inverse-variance meta-analysis, colocalization, and M-values) and performed analyses stratified by subtype. Candidate target genes were then prioritized using functional genomic data. Results: Genetic correlation analysis revealed significant genetic correlation between the two cancers (rG = 0.43, P = 2.66 × 10−5). We found seven loci associated with risk for both cancers (PBonferroni < 2.4 × 10−9). In addition, four novel subgenome-wide regions at 7p22.2, 7q22.1, 9p12, and 11q13.3 were identified (P < 5 × 10−7). Promoter-associated HiChIP chromatin loops from immortalized endometrium and ovarian cell lines and expression quantitative trait loci data highlighted candidate target genes for further investigation. Conclusions: Using cross-cancer GWAS meta-analysis, we have identified several joint endometrial and ovarian cancer risk loci and candidate target genes for future functional analysis. Impact: Our research highlights the shared genetic relationship between endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. Further studies in larger sample sets are required to confirm our findings.

Abstract Background: Racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes persist in the US, in which black women are more likely to die from breast cancer than white women. Despite levels of mammographic screening comparable to the US, Atlanta has a disproportionate burden of late-stage breast tumors and higher mortality rates, especially among black women. To better understand this disparity, we sought to identify tumor, treatment, and patient characteristics that may contribute to the observed differences in breast cancer mortality between black and white women in the metropolitan Atlanta area. Methods: In this study, patients were identified from the Georgia Cancer Registry. We included 4943 non-Hispanic white and 3580 non-Hispanic black women with an initial diagnosis of stage I-IV primary breast cancer between January 2010 and December 2014 in Atlanta. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare black vs. white breast cancer mortality by tumor (stage, grade, ER status, and molecular subtype), treatment (surgery type, receipt of chemotherapy, radiation, hormone therapy, and trastuzumab), and patient (insurance, marital status, SES, and location of service) characteristics. We performed a mediation analysis to evaluate the contribution of subtype, stage, and socioeconomic status (SES) as mediators on the path between race and breast cancer mortality. Results: Compared with white breast cancer patients, black women were younger with tumors that were higher stage, higher grade, and more likely to be larger, node positive and triple negative. In fully adjusted models, black women diagnosed with Luminal A subtype were 58% more likely to die of breast cancer compared to their white counterparts (HR=1.58, 95%CI 1.31-2.00). Similarly, black women with private insurance were 60% more likely to die of breast cancer (HR=1.61, 95%CI 1.25-1.98), and black women in the highest SES group were more than twice as likely to die from breast cancer (HR=2.26, 95%CI 1.26-4.06) than white women with comparable SES. The smallest disparities in breast cancer mortality by race were observed among women without insurance, in the lowest SES index, or those diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer. The mediation analysis showed 84.8% of the effect between race and breast cancer mortality was through stage, subtype, and SES. Conclusion: Our results indicate variation in racial disparities in breast cancer mortality by tumor and patient characteristics. Consistent with previous reports, our mediation results suggest that later stage and triple-negative subtype among black women are major contributors of the observed disparity. However, our results also shed new light on the disparity, suggesting that the largest disparities are observed among women with ER+ tumors amenable to adjuvant therapies and are most pronounced among women of high SES. More research is needed to understand the drivers of disparities in these treatable tumors. Citation Format: Lindsay J. Collin, Renjian Jiang, Kevin C. Ward, Keerthi Gogineni, Preeti D. Subhedar, Mark Sherman, Mia M. Gaudet, Carmen Radecki Breitkopf, Olivia D'Angelo, Sheryl Gabram-Mendola, Jolie Siegel, Rana Aneja, Anne Gaglioti, Lauren E. McCullough. Identification of factors contributing to breast cancer mortality disparities in the metropolitan Atlanta area [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2018 Nov 2-5; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(6 Suppl):Abstract nr C053.

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.

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.

Abstract Background: Pathogenic variants detected in multi-gene cancer predisposition panels are increasingly used to counsel women regarding their risk for breast cancer. However, the clinical implications of moderate penetrance genes (e.g. CHEK2, ATM) remain unclear. Breast MRI is indicated for women with a lifetime risk of breast cancer of &gt;20%, and polygenic risk scores (PRS) based on common variants discovered in recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) may identify women with pathogenic variants in CHEK2 and ATM who are above or below this level of risk. PRS may also stratify carriers with substantially elevated lifetime risks of breast cancer. Previous work found that PRS modified breast cancer risk in carriers of pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, but the joint effects of pathogenic variants and PRS have not been studied in samples drawn from the general population. There is also no published study evaluating the effect of PRS among women with pathogenic variants in genes other than BRCA1/2 and CHEK2. Here, we evaluated the joint effects of PRS and pathogenic variants in ten established breast cancer predisposition genes in a population-based case-control sample. Method: We analyzed 43,144 non-Hispanic European-ancestry individuals (20,988 controls and 22,120 cases) drawn from 7 cohorts and 2 population-based case-control studies in the CAnceR RIsk Estimates Related to Susceptibility” (CARRIERS) consortium. Targeted sequencing was performed using a dual bar-coded QIAseq panel of breast cancer predisposition genes. Variant calling was conducted with Haplotype Caller and Vardict. The PRS was calculated based on 106 common variants using effect estimates from the largest published breast cancer GWAS. Genetic status was evaluated for 10 breast cancer predisposition genes: ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, NF1, PALB2 and TP53. Lasso Penalized regression was performed to assess the combined effect on overall breast cancer of pathogenic variants and common variants (including main and interaction effects between age, family history, carrier status and PRS). The fraction of women at &gt;2-fold increased risk (which is associated with approximately 20% lifetime risk of breast cancer) was calculated for pathogenic variant carriers and non-carriers of different family history and age groups (&lt;40, 40-50, 50-60, 60-70, &gt;70yrs old). Results: Among non-carriers, one standard deviation change in the PRS was associated with a 1.63x change in odds of breast cancer. The best-fitting risk model did not include any PRS-by-carrier interaction terms, implying the relative risk gradient associated with PRS among women with pathogenic variants is similar to that among non-carriers. For carriers of pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance genes with no family history of breast cancer, the PRS can identify 60.6% of ATM pathogenic variant carriers and 30% of CHEK2 pathogenic variant carriers that have less than 2-fold risk of breast cancer; when carriers have a family history of breast cancer, the PRS can identify 30% of ATM pathogenic variant carriers and 11.8% of CHEK2 pathogenic variant carriers with less than 2-fold risk of breast cancer. Conclusion: In our large, population-based case-control study, the effect of the PRS among pathogenic variant carriers was not significantly different than among non-carriers. However, the PRS may be particularly important for estimating breast cancer risk among carriers of pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance genes such as CHEK2 and ATM, enabling a more precise approach for MRI screening strategy and breast cancer risk management. Citation Format: Chi Gao, Eric C. Polley, Chunling Hu, Steven N. Hart, Rohan Gnanaolivu, Kun Y. Lee, Jie Na, Nicholas J. Boddicker, Raed Samara, Paul Auer, Leslie Bernstein, Mia Gaudet, Amy Trentham-Dietz, Song Yao, Christopher Haiman, Janet E. Olson, Susan Neuhausen, Jeffrey N. Weitzel, David E. Goldgar, Susan Domchek, Katherine L. Nathanson, Fergus J. Couch, Peter Kraft, on behalf of the CARRIERS consortium. Polygenic risk scores provide clinically meaningful risk stratification among women carrying moderate penetrance pathogenic variants in breast cancer predisposition genes: Results from the CARRIERS study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD3-02.

Abstract Germline mutations in several cancer predisposition genes included in hereditary multigene testing panels have been associated with increased breast cancer risk. However, estimates of breast cancer risks for each gene have in large part been derived from studies of high-risk populations enriched for family history of breast and ovarian cancer, young age of breast cancer diagnosis, or founder mutations. The breast cancer risks associated with mutations in many of these genes in the general population remain to be clearly defined. As clinical hereditary cancer genetic testing is already provided to many women at increased risk and may soon be offered to all breast cancer patients, population-based risk estimates associated with predisposition gene mutations will be needed for appropriate clinical management of mutation carriers. The “CAnceR RIsk Estimates Related to Susceptibility” (CARRIERS) consortium of 17 cohort-based case-control, population-based case-control, and family studies focused on estimation of population-based breast cancer risks and penetrance analysis for mutations in known and candidate breast cancer predisposition genes. Germline DNA from 39486 breast cancer cases and 35868 matched controls was subjected to dual bar-coded QIAseq multiplex amplification of 1733 target regions in 37 predisposition genes. Products from sets of 768 samples were pooled and sequenced in each lane of a HiSeq 4000 system. Mutations were called by GATK Haplotype Caller and Verdict. High quality sequence data was obtained for 99.3% of target regions. Here we report on results from 34741 population-based breast cancer cases and 32728 matched unaffected controls. The mean age of breast cancer diagnosis for cases was 61.2 years and mean age for controls was 61.1 years. Overall, 20.9% of cases and 14.3% of controls had a family history of breast cancer. Furthermore, 74.3% of cases and 75.8% of controls were non-Hispanic white, whereas 13.3% of cases and 15.3% of controls were African American. Among cases with tumor information available, 81.7% were ER-positive and 7.7% were triple negative breast cancers (TNBC). We assessed mutation frequencies in 24 genes including 12 established breast cancer predisposition genes (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, andTP53). The overall mutation frequency was 6.2% in cases and 2.7% in controls. Case-control association analysis after adjusting for study, age, family history of breast cancer, and race/ethnicity showed that BRCA1(OR=7.45; 95%CI:5.24-10.95) and BRCA2(OR=5.31; 95%CI:4.15-6.88) were associated with high risks of breast cancer in the general population. However, PALB2mutations were only associated with moderate risks (OR=3.63; 95%CI:2.57-5.26). ATMmutations conferred attenuated risks (OR=1.83; 95%CI:1.47-2.28) relative to studies of high-risk families or young onset breast cancers. NBNmutations were not associated with increased breast cancer risk. Mutations in BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51Dand XRCC2were specifically significantly associated with moderate risks of ER-negative breast cancer and TNBC, whereas mutations in ATM, CDH1and CHEK2were specifically significantly associated with ER-positive disease. On the basis of these findings age-related absolute breast cancer risks for commonly mutated genes were estimated. Overall, results from the CARRIERS study establish that mutations in predisposition genes are associated with lower risks of breast cancer in the general population than in enriched populations including high-risk families and young onset, bilateral, or multiple primary cases. We anticipate that the results from this study will inform cancer screening and other risk management strategies for women in the general population with mutations in predisposition genes. Citation Format: Fergus J Couch, Chunling Hu, Steven N Hart, Rohan Gnanaolivu, Kun Y Lee, Jie Na, Chi Gao, Nicholas J Boddicker, Bruce Eckloff, Raed Samara, Josh Klebba, Christine B Ambrosone, Hoda Anton-Culver, Paul Auer, Leslie Bernstein, Mia M Gaudet, Christopher Haiman, Esther M John, Susan Neuhausen, Janet E Olson, Tuya Pal, Julie R Palmer, Dale P Sandler, Jack A Taylor, Amy Trentham-Dietz, Celine M Vachon, Clarice Weinberg, Song Yao, Jeffrey N Weitzel, David E Goldgar, Susan M Domchek, Katherine L Nathanson, Peter Kraft, Eric C Polley. Population-based breast cancer risk estimates for predisposition gene mutations: Results from the CARRIERS study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD3-01.

Abstract Background The risks of breast cancer in African American (AA) women associated with inherited mutations in breast cancer predisposition genes are not well defined. Thus, whether multigene germline hereditary cancer testing panels are applicable to this population is unknown. We assessed associations between mutations in panel-based genes and breast cancer risk in 5054 AA women with breast cancer and 4993 unaffected AA women drawn from 10 epidemiologic studies. Methods Germline DNA samples were sequenced for mutations in 23 cancer predisposition genes using a QIAseq multiplex amplicon panel. Prevalence of mutations and odds ratios (ORs) for associations with breast cancer risk were estimated with adjustment for study design, age, and family history of breast cancer. Results Pathogenic mutations were identified in 10.3% of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer, 5.2% of women with ER-positive breast cancer, and 2.3% of unaffected women. Mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 were associated with high risks of breast cancer (OR = 47.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.43 to &gt;100; OR = 7.25, 95% CI = 4.07 to 14.12; OR = 8.54, 95% CI = 3.67 to 24.95, respectively). RAD51D mutations were associated with high risk of ER-negative disease (OR = 7.82, 95% CI = 1.61 to 57.42). Moderate risks were observed for CHEK2, ATM, ERCC3, and FANCC mutations with ER-positive cancer, and RECQL mutations with all breast cancer. Conclusions The study identifies genes that predispose to breast cancer in the AA population, demonstrates the validity of current breast cancer testing panels for use in AA women, and provides a basis for increased referral of AA patients for cancer genetic testing.

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 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 Identifying risk factors for women at high risk of symptom-detected breast cancers that were missed by screening would enable targeting of alternative prevention strategies. To identify breast cancer risk factors by mode of detection, we examined these associations in heavily-screened women from the Cancer Prevention Study (CPS)-II Nutrition Cohort. Among 76,406 women followed for a median of 13.8 years, 2,469 screen-detected and 1,189 symptom-detected breast cancer cases were diagnosed. Multivariable-adjusted associations were estimated using joint Cox proportional hazards regression models with person-time calculated contingent on screening. The mean (standard deviation) age at baseline was 62.0 (6.6) years for non-cases, 61.6 (6.1) for screen-detected cases, and 61.5 (6.2) for symptom-detected cases. Women with symptom-detected tumors were diagnosed at a slightly younger age (mean=69.4) and less likely to be diagnosed with a localized tumor (65.3%), than women with a screen-detected tumor (mean age at diagnosis=70.4 and localized tumors=83.3%). Factors associated with higher risks of symptom detected vs. screen detected breast cancer, included: current combined menopausal hormone use (HR=2.04, 95% CI 1.70 - 2.46 vs. HR=1.43, 95% CI 1.25 - 1.63), current estrogen only menopausal hormone use (HR=1.41, 95% CI 1.15 - 1.72 vs. HR=0.94, 95% CI 0.82 - 1.09), and history of benign breast disease (HR=1.89, 95% CI 1.67 - 2.13 vs. HR=1.49, 95% CI 1.36 - 1.62). The opposite pattern of higher risk of screen detected vs. symptom detected breast cancer was observed for greater adult weight gain (HR=2.32, 95% CI 1.91 - 2.82 vs. HR=1.42, 95% CI 1.10 - 1.84) and alcohol intake (HR=1.39, 95% CI 1.24 - 1.64 vs. HR=1.20, 95% CI 0.92 - 1.58). Our results suggest that understanding risk factors for symptom-detected cancers may help identify women who would benefit from more intensive screening to facilitate early detection. Citation Format: Mia M. Gaudet, Emily Deubler, W. Ryan Diver, Samantha Puvanesarajah, Alpa V. Patel, Ted Gansler, Dana Flanders, Mark Sherman, Susan Gapstur. Breast cancer risk factors by mode of detection among screened women in the Cancer Prevention Study-II [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 4211.