Silverman, Debra T.

Abstract Pancreatic cancer disproportionately affects Black individuals in the United States, but they have limited representation in genetic studies of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). To address this gap, we performed admixture mapping and genome-wide association analysis (GWAS) in genetically inferred African ancestry individuals (1,030 cases and 889 controls). Admixture mapping identified three regions with a significantly higher proportion of African ancestry in cases compared to controls (5q33.3, 10p1, 22q12.3). GWAS identified a genome-wide significant association at 5p15.33 ( CLPTM1L , rs383009:T>C, T Allele Frequency=0.51, OR:1.45, P value=1.24×10 -8 ), a locus previously associated with PDAC. Known loci at 5p15.33, 7q32.3, 8q24.21 and 7q25.1 also replicated (P value <0.01). Multi-ancestral fine-mapping identified two potential causal SNPs (rs3830069 and rs2735940) at 5p15.33. Collectively these findings identified novel PDAC risk loci and expanded our understanding of this deadly cancer in underrepresented populations, emphasizing the multifactorial nature of PDAC risk including inherited genetic and non-genetic factors. Statement of Significance To understand how genetic variation contributes to PDAC risk in Black people in North American, we studied individuals of genetically-inferred African ancestry. We identified novel risk loci and differences in the contribution of known loci. This demonstrates that ancestry-informed genetic analyses improve our understanding of PDAC risk and enhances discovery.

Abstract Background The associations between different types of diabetes, characterized by distinct pathophysiology and genetic architecture, and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) risk are not understood. Methods We investigated associations of genetic susceptibility to type 2 diabetes (T2D), 8 T2D mechanistic clusters, type 1 diabetes (T1D), and maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) with PDAC risk. We used genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary-level statistics for T2D (242 283 cases, 1 569 734 controls), T1D (18 942 cases, 501 638 controls), and PDAC (10 244 cases and 360 535 controls) in individuals of European ancestry. Results Two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) using the Robust Adjusted Profile Score (MR-RAPS) method indicated that genetically predicted T2D was associated with PDAC risk (OR = 1.10; 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.15), particularly the T2D obesity (OR = 1.28; 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.42) and lipodystrophy (OR = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.51) clusters. No association was observed for T1D with PDAC risk (OR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.02). Pathway/gene-set analysis using the summary-based Adaptive Rank Truncated Product (sARTP) method revealed a significant association between the MODY gene-sets and PDAC risk (P = 1.5 × 10−8), which remained after excluding 20 known PDAC GWAS loci (P = 7.6 × 10−4). HNF1A, FOXA3, and HNF4A were the top contributing genes after excluding the previously identified GWAS loci regions. Conclusions Our results from this genetic association study support that T2D, particularly the obesity and lipodystrophy mechanistic clusters, and MODY genomic susceptibility regions play a role in the etiology of PDAC.

Abstract Background: There are conflicting data on whether nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is associated with susceptibility to pancreatic cancer. Using Mendelian randomization (MR), we investigated the relationship between genetic predisposition to NAFLD and risk for pancreatic cancer. Methods: Data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) within the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium (PanScan; cases n = 5,090, controls n = 8,733) and the Pancreatic Cancer Case Control Consortium (PanC4; cases n = 4,163, controls n = 3,792) were analyzed. We used data on 68 genetic variants with four different MR methods [inverse variance weighting (IVW), MR-Egger, simple median, and penalized weighted median] separately to predict genetic heritability of NAFLD. We then assessed the relationship between each of the four MR methods and pancreatic cancer risk, using logistic regression to calculate ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusting for PC risk factors, including obesity and diabetes. Results: No association was found between genetically predicted NAFLD and pancreatic cancer risk in the PanScan or PanC4 samples [e.g., PanScan, IVW OR, 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.88–1.22; MR-Egger OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65–1.21; PanC4, IVW OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.90–1.27; MR-Egger OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.67–1.28]. None of the four MR methods indicated an association between genetically predicted NAFLD and pancreatic cancer risk in either sample. Conclusions: Genetic predisposition to NAFLD is not associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Impact: Given the close relationship between NAFLD and metabolic conditions, it is plausible that any association between NAFLD and pancreatic cancer might reflect host metabolic perturbations (e.g., obesity, diabetes, or metabolic syndrome) and does not necessarily reflect a causal relationship between NAFLD and pancreatic cancer.

Abstract Background: Whether circulating polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) levels are associated with pancreatic cancer risk is uncertain. Mendelian randomization (MR) represents a study design using genetic instruments to better characterize the relationship between exposure and outcome. Methods: We utilized data from genome-wide association studies within the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium and Pancreatic Cancer Case–Control Consortium, involving approximately 9,269 cases and 12,530 controls of European descent, to evaluate associations between pancreatic cancer risk and genetically predicted plasma n-6 PUFA levels. Conventional MR analyses were performed using individual-level and summary-level data. Results: Using genetic instruments, we did not find evidence of associations between genetically predicted plasma n-6 PUFA levels and pancreatic cancer risk [estimates per one SD increase in each PUFA-specific weighted genetic score using summary statistics: linoleic acid odds ratio (OR) = 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.98–1.02; arachidonic acid OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.99–1.01; and dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.87–1.02]. The OR estimates remained virtually unchanged after adjustment for covariates, using individual-level data or summary statistics, or stratification by age and sex. Conclusions: Our results suggest that variations of genetically determined plasma n-6 PUFA levels are not associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Impact: These results suggest that modifying n-6 PUFA levels through food sources or supplementation may not influence risk of pancreatic cancer.

Abstract Registry-based epidemiologic studies suggest associations between chronic inflammatory intestinal diseases and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). As genetic susceptibility contributes to a large proportion of chronic inflammatory intestinal diseases, we hypothesize that the genomic regions surrounding established genome-wide associated variants for these chronic inflammatory diseases are associated with PDAC. We examined the association between PDAC and genomic regions (±500 kb) surrounding established common susceptibility variants for ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, chronic pancreatitis, and primary sclerosing cholangitis. We analyzed summary statistics from genome-wide association studies data for 8,384 cases and 11,955 controls of European descent from two large consortium studies using the summary data-based adaptive rank truncated product method to examine the overall association of combined genomic regions for each inflammatory disease group. Combined genomic susceptibility regions for ulcerative colitis, Crohn disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and chronic pancreatitis were associated with PDAC at P values &lt; 0.05 (0.0040, 0.0057, 0.011, and 3.4 × 10−6, respectively). After excluding the 20 PDAC susceptibility regions (±500 kb) previously identified by GWAS, the genomic regions for ulcerative colitis, Crohn disease, and inflammatory bowel disease remained associated with PDAC (P = 0.0029, 0.0057, and 0.0098, respectively). Genomic regions for celiac disease (P = 0.22) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (P = 0.078) were not associated with PDAC. Our results support the hypothesis that genomic regions surrounding variants associated with inflammatory intestinal diseases, particularly, ulcerative colitis, Crohn disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and chronic pancreatitis are associated with PDAC. Significance: The joint effects of common variants in genomic regions containing susceptibility loci for inflammatory bowel disease and chronic pancreatitis are associated with PDAC and may provide insights to understanding pancreatic cancer etiology.

Abstract Background: Obesity and diabetes are major modifiable risk factors for pancreatic cancer. Interactions between genetic variants and diabetes/obesity have not previously been comprehensively investigated in pancreatic cancer at the genome-wide level. Methods: We conducted a gene–environment interaction (GxE) analysis including 8,255 cases and 11,900 controls from four pancreatic cancer genome-wide association study (GWAS) datasets (Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium I–III and Pancreatic Cancer Case Control Consortium). Obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2) and diabetes (duration ≥3 years) were the environmental variables of interest. Approximately 870,000 SNPs (minor allele frequency ≥0.005, genotyped in at least one dataset) were analyzed. Case–control (CC), case-only (CO), and joint-effect test methods were used for SNP-level GxE analysis. As a complementary approach, gene-based GxE analysis was also performed. Age, sex, study site, and principal components accounting for population substructure were included as covariates. Meta-analysis was applied to combine individual GWAS summary statistics. Results: No genome-wide significant interactions (departures from a log-additive odds model) with diabetes or obesity were detected at the SNP level by the CC or CO approaches. The joint-effect test detected numerous genome-wide significant GxE signals in the GWAS main effects top hit regions, but the significance diminished after adjusting for the GWAS top hits. In the gene-based analysis, a significant interaction of diabetes with variants in the FAM63A (family with sequence similarity 63 member A) gene (significance threshold P &lt; 1.25 × 10−6) was observed in the meta-analysis (PGxE = 1.2 ×10−6, PJoint = 4.2 ×10−7). Conclusions: This analysis did not find significant GxE interactions at the SNP level but found one significant interaction with diabetes at the gene level. A larger sample size might unveil additional genetic factors via GxE scans. Impact: This study may contribute to discovering the mechanism of diabetes-associated pancreatic cancer.

Abstract Background Although 20 pancreatic cancer susceptibility loci have been identified through genome-wide association studies in individuals of European ancestry, much of its heritability remains unexplained and the genes responsible largely unknown. Methods To discover novel pancreatic cancer risk loci and possible causal genes, we performed a pancreatic cancer transcriptome-wide association study in Europeans using three approaches: FUSION, MetaXcan, and Summary-MulTiXcan. We integrated genome-wide association studies summary statistics from 9040 pancreatic cancer cases and 12 496 controls, with gene expression prediction models built using transcriptome data from histologically normal pancreatic tissue samples (NCI Laboratory of Translational Genomics [n = 95] and Genotype-Tissue Expression v7 [n = 174] datasets) and data from 48 different tissues (Genotype-Tissue Expression v7, n = 74–421 samples). Results We identified 25 genes whose genetically predicted expression was statistically significantly associated with pancreatic cancer risk (false discovery rate &lt; .05), including 14 candidate genes at 11 novel loci (1p36.12: CELA3B; 9q31.1: SMC2, SMC2-AS1; 10q23.31: RP11-80H5.9; 12q13.13: SMUG1; 14q32.33: BTBD6; 15q23: HEXA; 15q26.1: RCCD1; 17q12: PNMT, CDK12, PGAP3; 17q22: SUPT4H1; 18q11.22: RP11-888D10.3; and 19p13.11: PGPEP1) and 11 at six known risk loci (5p15.33: TERT, CLPTM1L, ZDHHC11B; 7p14.1: INHBA; 9q34.2: ABO; 13q12.2: PDX1; 13q22.1: KLF5; and 16q23.1: WDR59, CFDP1, BCAR1, TMEM170A). The association for 12 of these genes (CELA3B, SMC2, and PNMT at novel risk loci and TERT, CLPTM1L, INHBA, ABO, PDX1, KLF5, WDR59, CFDP1, and BCAR1 at known loci) remained statistically significant after Bonferroni correction. Conclusions By integrating gene expression and genotype data, we identified novel pancreatic cancer risk loci and candidate functional genes that warrant further investigation.

Objectives Growing evidence suggests that gender-blind assessment of exposure may introduce exposure misclassification, but few studies have characterised gender differences across occupations and industries. We pooled control responses to job-specific, industry-specific and exposure-specific questionnaires (modules) that asked detailed questions about work activities from three US population-based case–control studies to examine gender differences in work tasks and their frequencies. Methods We calculated the ratio of female-to-male controls that completed each module. For four job modules (assembly worker, machinist, health professional, janitor/cleaner) and for subgroups of jobs that completed those modules, we evaluated gender differences in task prevalence and frequency using χ2 and Mann–Whitney U tests, respectively. Results The 1360 female and 2245 male controls reported 6033 and 12 083 jobs, respectively. Gender differences in female:male module completion ratios were observed for 39 of 45 modules completed by ≥20 controls. Gender differences in task prevalence varied in direction and magnitude. For example, female janitors were significantly more likely to polish furniture (79% vs 44%), while male janitors were more likely to strip floors (73% vs 50%). Women usually reported more time spent on tasks than men. For example, the median hours per week spent degreasing for production workers in product manufacturing industries was 6.3 for women and 3.0 for men. Conclusions Observed gender differences may reflect actual differences in tasks performed or differences in recall, reporting or perception, all of which contribute to exposure misclassification and impact relative risk estimates. Our findings reinforce the need to capture subject-specific information on work tasks.