Zheng, Yingye

Abstract Purpose: Reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality through early detection would improve efficacy if targeted. We developed a colorectal cancer risk prediction model incorporating personal, family, genetic, and environmental risk factors to enhance prevention. Methods: A familial risk profile (FRP) was calculated to summarize individuals' risk based on detailed cancer family history (FH), family structure, probabilities of mutation in major colorectal cancer susceptibility genes, and a polygenic component. We developed risk models, including individuals' FRP or binary colorectal cancer FH, and colorectal cancer risk factors collected at enrollment using population-based colorectal cancer cases (N = 4,445) and controls (N = 3,967) recruited by the Colon Cancer Family Registry Cohort (CCFRC). Model validation used CCFRC follow-up data for population-based (N = 12,052) and clinic-based (N = 5,584) relatives with no cancer history at recruitment to assess model calibration [expected/observed rate ratio (E/O)] and discrimination [area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC)]. Results: The E/O [95% confidence interval (CI)] for FRP models for population-based relatives were 1.04 (0.74–1.45) for men and 0.86 (0.64–1.20) for women, and for clinic-based relatives were 1.15 (0.87–1.58) for men and 1.04 (0.76–1.45) for women. The age-adjusted AUCs (95% CI) for FRP models for population-based relatives were 0.69 (0.60–0.78) for men and 0.70 (0.62–0.77) for women, and for clinic-based relatives were 0.77 (0.69–0.84) for men and 0.68 (0.60–0.76) for women. The incremental values of AUC for FRP over FH models for population-based relatives were 0.08 (0.01–0.15) for men and 0.10 (0.04–0.16) for women, and for clinic-based relatives were 0.11 (0.05–0.17) for men and 0.11 (0.06–0.17) for women. Conclusions: Both models calibrated well. The FRP-based model provided better risk stratification and risk discrimination than the FH-based model. Impact: Our findings suggest detailed FH may be useful for targeted risk-based screening and clinical management.

Abstract Aim: We aimed to develop a comprehensive Colorectal cancer Risk Prediction Tool (CRiPT). To achieve this, it is necessary to incorporate germline mutations in the DNA mismatch repair genes and MUTYH to account for a proportion of the familial aggregation of colorectal cancer. Population prevalence of these mutations and the genetic and environmental causes of the remaining familial aggregation, however, are not known. Methods: We studied the families of 5,744 colorectal cancer cases (probands) recruited from population cancer registries in the USA, Canada and Australia, and screened probands for mutations in the mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2, and MUTYH. We fitted modified segregation analysis models to the cancer history of first-degree relatives, conditional on the age at diagnosis of the proband, using the software MENDEL. We determined the genetic model that best explained the familial aggregation of colorectal cancer by estimating the prevalence of mutations in the known susceptibility genes, the prevalence of and hazard ratio for unmeasured high-risk gene mutations, and the variance of the unmeasured polygenic component, using a χ2 goodness-of-fit test. Results: The best fitting model was a mixed dominant model with the polygenic standard deviation varying by age. Under that model, we estimated 1 in 279 of the population carry mutations in the mismatch repair genes (MLH = 1 in 1946, MSH2 = 1 in 2841, MSH6 = 1 in 758, PMS2 = 1 in 714), 1 in 45 carry mutations in MUTYH, and 1 in 504 carry mutations in unknown major gene(s) which are associated with on average a 31-fold increased risk of colorectal cancer. The estimated variance of the polygenic component decreased from 1.8 for age <40 years to 0.7 for age ≥70 years (equivalent to a sibling relative risk of 5.1 and 1.3, respectively). There was good internal consistency in the best fitting model; i.e., predicted and observed numbers were close. Conclusion: CRiPT is a comprehensive prediction model that incorporates both known and unknown major genes and polygenes. CRiPT can provide the probabilities of having a mutation in a DNA mismatch repair gene or MUTYH as well as estimate future risk (e.g., 5-year risk) of developing colorectal cancer. This model is similar to the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) that calculates for women the probabilities of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and their future risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer based on their family history. Further work will include measured environmental factors and genetic variants to CRiPT, and it will be useful for genetic counselling and targeted colorectal cancer screening in clinical practices. This abstract is also being presented as Poster B04. Citation Format: Aung Ko Win, Mark A. Jenkins, James G. Dowty, Antonis C. Antoniou, Andrew Lee, Yingye Zheng, Noralane M. Lindor, Polly A. Newcomb, John L. Hopper, Robert J. MacInnis. Development of a comprehensive colorectal cancer risk prediction tool (CRiPT) incorporating known and unknown major genes and polygenes. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PR10.

Abstract This abstract is being presented as a short talk in the scientific program. A full abstract is printed in the Proffered Abstracts section (PR10) of the Conference Proceedings. Citation Format: Aung Ko Win, Mark A. Jenkins, James G. Dowty, Antonis C. Antoniou, Andrew Lee, Yingye Zheng, Noralane M. Lindor, Polly A. Newcomb, John L. Hopper, Robert J. MacInnis. Development of a comprehensive colorectal cancer risk prediction tool (CRiPT) incorporating known and unknown major genes and polygenes. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr B04.

Abstract Background: Although high-risk mutations in identified major susceptibility genes (DNA mismatch repair genes and MUTYH) account for some familial aggregation of colorectal cancer, their population prevalence and the causes of the remaining familial aggregation are not known. Methods: We studied the families of 5,744 colorectal cancer cases (probands) recruited from population cancer registries in the United States, Canada, and Australia and screened probands for mutations in mismatch repair genes and MUTYH. We conducted modified segregation analyses using the cancer history of first-degree relatives, conditional on the proband's age at diagnosis. We estimated the prevalence of mutations in the identified genes, the prevalence of HR for unidentified major gene mutations, and the variance of the residual polygenic component. Results: We estimated that 1 in 279 of the population carry mutations in mismatch repair genes (MLH1 = 1 in 1,946, MSH2 = 1 in 2,841, MSH6 = 1 in 758, PMS2 = 1 in 714), 1 in 45 carry mutations in MUTYH, and 1 in 504 carry mutations associated with an average 31-fold increased risk of colorectal cancer in unidentified major genes. The estimated polygenic variance was reduced by 30% to 50% after allowing for unidentified major genes and decreased from 3.3 for age <40 years to 0.5 for age ≥70 years (equivalent to sibling relative risks of 5.1 to 1.3, respectively). Conclusions: Unidentified major genes might explain one third to one half of the missing heritability of colorectal cancer. Impact: Our findings could aid gene discovery and development of better colorectal cancer risk prediction models. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(3); 404–12. ©2016 AACR.

Abstract B128 Background The B vitamin folate affects colorectal carcinogenesis through effects on nucleotide synthesis and possibly DNA methylation. Animal models and epidemiologic evidence suggest that folate from diet and supplements can prevent the development of colorectal cancer (CRC), but that high folate intake after adenomas or cancer are established may accelerate progression or recurrence. The chemotherapeutic agent 5-fluorouracil inhibits thymidylate synthase, a folate-metabolizing enzyme, and the effect of folate intake on treatment efficacy is unknown. Supplement use and folate intake are high among adults in the U.S., particularly with food supply fortification, and higher still among cancer patients and survivors. However, few studies have addressed use of folic acid-containing supplements (FAS) among colorectal cancer patients, how use changes after diagnosis, and what factors determine changes in FAS use. Methods The Colon Cancer Family Registry (CCFR) is a multicenter study of colorectal cancer cases, their family members and controls, recruited since 1998 at six sites in the United States, Australia and Canada. The current analysis includes 1,092 CRC cases with epidemiologic data available from questionnaires administered at enrollment, asking about supplement use and other risk factors before diagnosis, and from follow-up questionnaires about 5 years later. Baseline characteristics for cases who began using FAS (including multivitamins) after diagnosis were compared to those for cases who used FAS neither before nor after diagnosis. We used logistic regression models to evaluate associations between age, sex, CCFR site, race, education, income, lifetime exercise, smoking, body mass index, and diet and change in FAS use, adjusting each model for age, sex and site, when appropriate. Results FAS use before CRC diagnosis was 35.4%, while 55.1% of cases used FAS after diagnosis. Women were more likely to begin FAS use after diagnosis (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.17-2.19). Current smokers were less likely than nonsmokers to begin FAS use (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.97), as were those consuming more red meat (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.70 for those in the highest versus lowest intake categories, ptrend=0.012). Subjects with higher fruit intake were more likely to begin FAS use (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.16-3.30 for highest versus lowest intake, ptrend=0.013). We also observed a suggestive association between lifetime physical activity and change in FAS use for active versus less active subjects (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.01-2.16), though there was no trend with increasing levels of physical activity (ptrend=0.27). Finally, we found that residents of non-U.S. countries were less likely to begin FAS use (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33-0.96 for Ontario, Canada and OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.11-0.38 for Australia). Conclusions: Our analysis showed substantial increases in the use of folic acid-containing supplements after diagnosis with colorectal cancer in CCFR participants, especially among women, U.S. residents, nonsmokers, and those who consumed more fruit and less meat. This study begins to characterize CRC patients likely to be using FAS, and suggests that its use is widespread. This finding is notable given evidence that folate may accelerate progression of colorectal cancer, and the unknown effect that FAS intake may have on the efficacy of cancer treatment and on survival. Citation Information: Cancer Prev Res 2008;1(7 Suppl):B128.

AbstractBackground: Supplement use among cancer patients is high, and folic acid intake in particular may adversely affect the progression of colorectal cancer. Few studies have evaluated the use of folic acid–containing supplements (FAS) and its predictors in colorectal cancer patients.Objective: To assess the use of FAS, change in use, and its predictors after colorectal cancer diagnosis.Design: We used logistic regression models to investigate predictors of FAS use and its initiation after colorectal cancer diagnosis in 1,092 patients recruited through the Colon Cancer Family Registry.Results: The prevalence of FAS use was 35.4% before and 55.1% after colorectal cancer diagnosis (P = 0.004). Women were more likely than men to use FAS after diagnosis [odds ratio (OR), 1.47; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.14-1.89], as were those consuming more fruit (Ptrend < 0.0001) or vegetables (Ptrend = 0.001), and U.S. residents (P < 0.0001). Less likely to use FAS after diagnosis were nonwhite patients (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.97), current smokers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46-0.96), and those with higher meat intake (Ptrend = 0.03). Predictors of FAS initiation after diagnosis were generally similar to those of FAS use after diagnosis, although associations with race and vegetable intake were weaker and those with exercise stronger.Conclusions: Our analysis showed substantial increases in the use of FAS after diagnosis with colorectal cancer, with use or initiation more likely among women, Caucasians, U.S. residents, and those with a health-promoting life-style.Impact: Studies of cancer prognosis that rely on prediagnostic exposure information may result in substantial misclassification. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 19(8); 2023–34. ©2010 AACR.

Abstract Esophageal adenocarcinoma risk in Barrett's esophagus (BE) is increased 30- to 125-fold versus the general population. Among all BE patients, however, neoplastic progression occurs only once per 200 patient-years. Molecular biomarkers are therefore needed to risk-stratify patients for more efficient surveillance endoscopy and to improve the early detection of progression. We therefore performed a retrospective, multicenter, double-blinded validation study of eight BE progression prediction methylation biomarkers. Progression or nonprogression were determined at 2 years (tier 1) and 4 years (tier 2). Methylation was assayed in 145 nonprogressors and 50 progressors using real-time quantitative methylation-specific PCR. Progressors were significantly older than nonprogressors (70.6 versus 62.5 years; P < 0.001). We evaluated a linear combination of the eight markers, using coefficients from a multivariate logistic regression analysis. Areas under the ROC curve (AUC) were high in the 2-year, 4-year, and combined data models (0.843, 0.829, and 0.840; P < 0.001, <0.001, and <0.001, respectively). In addition, even after rigorous overfitting correction, the incremental AUCs contributed by panels based on the 8 markers plus age versus age alone were substantial (Δ-AUC = 0.152, 0.114, and 0.118, respectively) in all 3 models. A methylation biomarker–based panel to predict neoplastic progression in BE has potential clinical value in improving both the efficiency of surveillance endoscopy and the early detection of neoplasia. [Cancer Res 2009;69(10):4112–5]

Abstract Family history is a strong predictor of colorectal cancer risk; however, a diagnosis of colorectal cancer among first-degree relatives has not been systematically investigated as a function of the colorectal cancer molecular subtypes related to tumor microsatellite instability (MSI) status. We investigated whether the observable familial colorectal cancer risks differed according to tumor MSI subtypes, stratified as MSI-High (>30% instability), MSI-Low (<30% instability), and MSS (no instability). Data from 3,143 population-based colorectal cancer cases from five institutions were assessed for family history according to the Amsterdam criteria and the Bethesda guidelines, age at diagnosis, sex, tumor location, and MSI status. The distribution of patient characteristics by MSI status was compared using polytomous logistic regression. Overall, 2.8% colorectal cancer cases met the Amsterdam criteria and 37% met the Bethesda guidelines. There were 14% MSI-High, 13% MSI-Low, and 73% MSS colorectal cancers. MSI-High (P < 0.0001) and MSI-Low tumors (P = 0.01) were more proximally located than MSS tumors. MSI-High tumors were more common among females (P < 0.001). The highest proportion of MSI-High tumors occurred in cases <40 years of age whereas the age-dependent distribution of MSI-Low tumors was unchanged. MSI-High tumors showed a statistically significant association with increasing numbers of first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer (P = 0.002); this association disappeared, however, when MSI-High cases meeting Amsterdam criteria were removed from the analysis. MSI-Low tumors did not show a similar association with family history of colorectal cancer. Familial risk associated with MSI-High tumors is primarily driven by the Amsterdam-criteria patients. MSI-Low tumors may represent a distinct subtype of colorectal cancer with respect to certain epidemiologic variables studied here. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(3):967–75)

Abstract Current users of postmenopausal hormones (PMH) have ∼30% to 40% lower risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), although associations with specific types of hormones have been inconsistent. Further, it is not clear whether some tumor types have a different risk. We conducted a case-control study to examine the relationship between PMH and CRC. Cases (n = 1,004), ages 50 to 74 years, were identified from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registry in Washington from 1998 to 2002; controls (n = 1,062) were randomly selected from population lists. Case tissue samples were obtained for microsatellite instability (MSI) analyses. Interviews collected risk-factor data for CRC, including detailed information on PMH. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Current use of any PMH was associated with a 20% reduction in CRC risk (95% CI 0.6–0.9). This reduction in risk was limited to women who had taken estrogen plus progestin (EP) preparations only (OR = 0.6, 95% CI 0.5–0.9); there was no association with estrogen-only (E alone) use (OR = 0.9, 95% CI 0.7–1.1). For women with MSI-low or MSI-stable tumors, there was a statistically significant 40% reduction in CRC risk associated with EP use (95% CI 0.4–0.9); there was no clear association with MSI-high tumors. EP use was associated with a decreased risk of CRC; however, there seemed to be no association with E alone data that are consistent with the recent Women's Health Initiative findings. Progestin may enhance the estrogenic effect of conjugated estrogen so the combination may be more biologically active in the colon than E alone. [Cancer Res 2007;67(15):7534–9]