Gabrielson, Marike

Abstract Background Breast cancer (BC) patients with a germline CHEK2 c.1100delC variant have an increased risk of contralateral BC (CBC) and worse BC‐specific survival (BCSS) compared to non‐carriers. Aim To assessed the associations of CHEK2 c.1100delC, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment with CBC risk and BCSS. Methods Analyses were based on 82,701 women diagnosed with a first primary invasive BC including 963 CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers; median follow‐up was 9.1 years. Differential associations with treatment by CHEK2 c.1100delC status were tested by including interaction terms in a multivariable Cox regression model. A multi‐state model was used for further insight into the relation between CHEK2 c.1100delC status, treatment, CBC risk and death. Results There was no evidence for differential associations of therapy with CBC risk by CHEK2 c.1100delC status. The strongest association with reduced CBC risk was observed for the combination of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy [HR (95% CI): 0.66 (0.55–0.78)]. No association was observed with radiotherapy. Results from the multi‐state model showed shorter BCSS for CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers versus non‐carriers also after accounting for CBC occurrence [HR (95% CI): 1.30 (1.09–1.56)]. Conclusion Systemic therapy was associated with reduced CBC risk irrespective of CHEK2 c.1100delC status. Moreover, CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers had shorter BCSS, which appears not to be fully explained by their CBC risk.

AbstractBackgroundReproductive factors have been shown to be differentially associated with risk of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and ER-negative breast cancer. However, their associations with intrinsic-like subtypes are less clear.MethodsAnalyses included up to 23 353 cases and 71 072 controls pooled from 31 population-based case-control or cohort studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium across 16 countries on 4 continents. Polytomous logistic regression was used to estimate the association between reproductive factors and risk of breast cancer by intrinsic-like subtypes (luminal A-like, luminal B-like, luminal B-HER2–like, HER2-enriched–like, and triple-negative breast cancer) and by invasiveness. All statistical tests were 2-sided.ResultsCompared with nulliparous women, parous women had a lower risk of luminal A-like, luminal B-like, luminal B-HER2–like, and HER2-enriched–like disease. This association was apparent only after approximately 10 years since last birth and became stronger with increasing time (odds ratio [OR] = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 0.71; and OR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.28 to 0.46 for multiparous women with luminal A-like tumors 20 to less than 25 years after last birth and 45 to less than 50 years after last birth, respectively). In contrast, parous women had a higher risk of triple-negative breast cancer right after their last birth (for multiparous women: OR = 3.12, 95% CI = 2.02 to 4.83) that was attenuated with time but persisted for decades (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.79 to 1.34, for multiparous women 25 to less than 30 years after last birth). Older age at first birth (Pheterogeneity < .001 for triple-negative compared with luminal A-like breast cancer) and breastfeeding (Pheterogeneity < .001 for triple-negative compared with luminal A-like breast cancer) were associated with lower risk of triple-negative breast cancer but not with other disease subtypes. Younger age at menarche was associated with higher risk of all subtypes; older age at menopause was associated with higher risk of luminal A-like but not triple-negative breast cancer. Associations for in situ tumors were similar to luminal A-like.ConclusionsThis large and comprehensive study demonstrates a distinct reproductive risk factor profile for triple-negative breast cancer compared with other subtypes, with implications for the understanding of disease etiology and risk prediction.

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.

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.