Schoemaker, Minouk J

Abstract Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate RB1 expression and survival across ovarian carcinoma histotypes and how co-occurrence of BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) alterations and RB1 loss influences survival in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC). Experimental Design: RB1 protein expression was classified by immunohistochemistry in ovarian carcinomas of 7,436 patients from the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium. We examined RB1 expression and germline BRCA status in a subset of 1,134 HGSC, and related genotype to overall survival (OS), tumor-infiltrating CD8+ lymphocytes, and transcriptomic subtypes. Using CRISPR-Cas9, we deleted RB1 in HGSC cells with and without BRCA1 alterations to model co-loss with treatment response. We performed whole-genome and transcriptome data analyses on 126 patients with primary HGSC to characterize tumors with concurrent BRCA deficiency and RB1 loss. Results: RB1 loss was associated with longer OS in HGSC but with poorer prognosis in endometrioid ovarian carcinoma. Patients with HGSC harboring both RB1 loss and pathogenic germline BRCA variants had superior OS compared with patients with either alteration alone, and their median OS was three times longer than those without pathogenic BRCA variants and retained RB1 expression (9.3 vs. 3.1 years). Enhanced sensitivity to cisplatin and paclitaxel was seen in BRCA1-altered cells with RB1 knockout. Combined RB1 loss and BRCA deficiency correlated with transcriptional markers of enhanced IFN response, cell-cycle deregulation, and reduced epithelial–mesenchymal transition. CD8+ lymphocytes were most prevalent in BRCA-deficient HGSC with co-loss of RB1. Conclusions: Co-occurrence of RB1 loss and BRCA deficiency was associated with exceptionally long survival in patients with HGSC, potentially due to better treatment response and immune stimulation.

AbstractBackgroundCyclin E1 (CCNE1) is a potential predictive marker and therapeutic target in tubo‐ovarian high‐grade serous carcinoma (HGSC). Smaller studies have revealed unfavorable associations for CCNE1 amplification and CCNE1 overexpression with survival, but to date no large‐scale, histotype‐specific validation has been performed. The hypothesis was that high‐level amplification of CCNE1 and CCNE1 overexpression, as well as a combination of the two, are linked to shorter overall survival in HGSC.MethodsWithin the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium, amplification status and protein level in 3029 HGSC cases and mRNA expression in 2419 samples were investigated.ResultsHigh‐level amplification (>8 copies by chromogenic in situ hybridization) was found in 8.6% of HGSC and overexpression (>60% with at least 5% demonstrating strong intensity by immunohistochemistry) was found in 22.4%. CCNE1 high‐level amplification and overexpression both were linked to shorter overall survival in multivariate survival analysis adjusted for age and stage, with hazard stratification by study (hazard ratio [HR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.08‐1.47, p = .034, and HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05‐1.32, p = .015, respectively). This was also true for cases with combined high‐level amplification/overexpression (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.09‐1.47, p = .033). CCNE1 mRNA expression was not associated with overall survival (HR, 1.00 per 1‐SD increase; 95% CI, 0.94‐1.06; p = .58). CCNE1 high‐level amplification is mutually exclusive with the presence of germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants and shows an inverse association to RB1 loss.ConclusionThis study provides large‐scale validation that CCNE1 high‐level amplification is associated with shorter survival, supporting its utility as a prognostic biomarker in HGSC.

Abstract ARID1A (BAF250a) is a component of the SWI/SNF chromatin modifying complex, plays an important tumour suppressor role, and is considered prognostic in several malignancies. However, in ovarian carcinomas there are contradictory reports on its relationship to outcome, immune response, and correlation with clinicopathological features. We assembled a series of 1623 endometriosis‐associated ovarian carcinomas, including 1078 endometrioid (ENOC) and 545 clear cell (CCOC) ovarian carcinomas, through combining resources of the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis (OTTA) Consortium, the Canadian Ovarian Unified Experimental Resource (COEUR), local, and collaborative networks. Validated immunohistochemical surrogate assays for ARID1A mutations were applied to all samples. We investigated associations between ARID1A loss/mutation, clinical features, outcome, CD8 + tumour‐infiltrating lymphocytes (CD8 + TILs), and DNA mismatch repair deficiency (MMRd). ARID1A loss was observed in 42% of CCOCs and 25% of ENOCs. We found no associations between ARID1A loss and outcomes, stage, age, or CD8 + TIL status in CCOC. Similarly, we found no association with outcome or stage in endometrioid cases. In ENOC, ARID1A loss was more prevalent in younger patients ( p = 0.012) and was associated with MMRd ( p < 0.001) and the presence of CD8 + TILs ( p = 0.008). Consistent with MMRd being causative of ARID1A mutations, in a subset of ENOCs we also observed an association with ARID1A loss‐of‐function mutation as a result of small indels ( p = 0.035, versus single nucleotide variants). In ENOC, the association with ARID1A loss, CD8 + TILs, and age appears confounded by MMRd status. Although this observation does not explicitly rule out a role for ARID1A influence on CD8 + TIL infiltration in ENOC, given current knowledge regarding MMRd, it seems more likely that effects are dominated by the hypermutation phenotype. This large dataset with consistently applied biomarker assessment now provides a benchmark for the prevalence of ARID1A loss‐of‐function mutations in endometriosis‐associated ovarian cancers and brings clarity to the prognostic significance. © 2021 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

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.

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 Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have so far identified 25 loci associated with glioma risk, with most showing specificity for either glioblastoma (GBM) or non-GBM tumors. The majority of these GWAS susceptibility variants reside in noncoding regions and the causal genes underlying the associations are largely unknown. Here we performed a transcriptome-wide association study to search for novel risk loci and candidate causal genes at known GWAS loci using Genotype-Tissue Expression Project (GTEx) data to predict cis-predicted gene expression in relation to GBM and non-GBM risk in conjunction with GWAS summary statistics on 12,488 glioma cases (6,183 GBM and 5,820 non-GBM) and 18,169 controls. Imposing a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of P &lt; 5.69 × 10−6, we identified 31 genes, including GALNT6 at 12q13.33, as a candidate novel risk locus for GBM (mean Z = 4.43; P = 5.68 × 10−6). GALNT6 resides at least 55 Mb away from any previously identified glioma risk variant, while all other 30 significantly associated genes were located within 1 Mb of known GWAS-identified loci and were not significant after conditioning on the known GWAS-identified variants. These data identify a novel locus (GALNT6 at 12q13.33) and 30 genes at 12 known glioma risk loci associated with glioma risk, providing further insights into glioma tumorigenesis. Significance: This study identifies new genes associated with glioma risk, increasing understanding of how these tumors develop.

Limited epidemiological evidence suggests that the etiology of hormone receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer may differ by levels of histologic grade and proliferation. We pooled risk factor and pathology data on 5,905 HR+ breast cancer cases and 26,281 controls from 11 epidemiological studies. Proliferation was determined by centralized automated measures of KI67 in tissue microarrays. Odds ratios (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p‐values for case–case and case–control comparisons for risk factors in relation to levels of grade and quartiles (Q1–Q4) of KI67 were estimated using polytomous logistic regression models. Case–case comparisons showed associations between nulliparity and high KI67 [OR (95% CI) for Q4 vs. Q1 = 1.54 (1.22, 1.95)]; obesity and high grade [grade 3 vs. 1 = 1.68 (1.31, 2.16)] and current use of combined hormone therapy (HT) and low grade [grade 3 vs. 1 = 0.27 (0.16, 0.44)] tumors. In case–control comparisons, nulliparity was associated with elevated risk of tumors with high but not low levels of proliferation [1.43 (1.14, 1.81) for KI67 Q4 vs. 0.83 (0.60, 1.14) for KI67 Q1]; obesity among women ≥50 years with high but not low grade tumors [1.55 (1.17, 2.06) for grade 3 vs. 0.88 (0.66, 1.16) for grade 1] and HT with low but not high grade tumors [3.07 (2.22, 4.23) for grade 1 vs. 0.85 (0.55, 1.30) for grade 3]. Menarcheal age and family history were similarly associated with HR+ tumors of different grade or KI67 levels. These findings provide insights into the etiologic heterogeneity of HR+ tumors.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Glioma accounts for ~27% of all primary brain tumors and is responsible for ~13,000 cancer-related deaths in the US each year. Glioma tumors can be broadly classified into glioblastoma (GBM) and lower-grade non-GBM. Typically gliomas have a poor prognosis irrespective of medical care, with the most common form, GBM, having a five-year survival rate of only 5%. While genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have transformed our understanding of glioma susceptibility, individual studies have had limited power to identify risk loci. METHODS: We performed the largest glioma GWAS to date, comprising a meta-analysis of six existing GWAS (6,405 cases, 14,100 controls) as well as new GWAS from the Glioma International Case Control Consortium (GICC; 4,572 cases and 3,286 controls) and University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)-Mayo (1,519 cases, 804 controls), totaling 12,496 cases (6,191 classified as GBM, 5,819 as non-GBM) and 18,190 controls. RESULTS: We identified five new risk loci for GBM at 1p31.3 (rs12752552; near JAK1, P=2.04×10-9, odds ratio (OR)=1.22), 11q14.1 (rs11233250; P=9.95×10-10, OR=1.24), 16p13.3 (rs2562152; near MPG, P=1.93x10-8, OR=1.21), 16q12.1 (rs10852606; HEATR3, P=1.29×10-11, OR=1.18), 22q13.1 (rs2235573; P=1.76×10-10, OR=1.15) and eight for non-GBM at 1q32.1 (rs4252707; MDM4, P=3.34×10-9, OR=1.19), 1q44 (rs12076373; AKT3, P=2.63×10-10, OR=1.23), 2q33.3 (rs7572263; near IDH1, P=2.18×10-10, OR=1.20), 3p14.1 (rs11706832; LRIG1, P=7.66×10-9, OR=1.15), 10q24.33 (rs11598018; OBFC1, P=3.39×10-8, OR=1.14), 11q21 (rs7107785; P=3.87×10-10, OR=1.16), 14q12 (rs10131032; P=5.07x10-11, OR=1.33) and 16p13.3 (rs3751667; P=2.61×10-9, OR=1.18). Case-only analyses confirmed the specificity of 11q14.1, 16p13.3 and 22q13.1 associations for GBM and 1q44, 2q33.3, 3p14.1, 11q21 and 14q12 for non-GBM tumors. In the combined meta-analysis, among previously published glioma risk SNPs, those for all glioma at 17p13.1 (TP53), GBM at 5p15.33 (TERT), 7p11.2 (EGFR), 9p21.3 (CDKN2B-AS1) and 20q13.33 (RTEL1) and for non-GBM at 8q24.21 (CCDC26), 11q23.2, 11q23.3 (PHLDB1) and 15q24.2 (ETFA) showed even greater evidence for association. SNPs at 10q25.2 and 12q12.1 for non-GBM tumors retained genome-wide significance (i.e. P&lt;5.0x10-8). Associations at the previously reported loci for GBM at 3q26.2 (near TERC) and 12q23.33 (POLR3B) did not retain statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings substantiate genetic susceptibility to GBM and non-GBM glioma being highly distinct, consistent with their distinctive molecular profiles presumably resulting from different etiological pathways. Functional analyses should lead to further insights into the biological basis of the different glioma histologies. Such information can inform gene discovery initiatives and therefore have a measurable impact on the successful development of new therapeutic agents. Citation Format: Ben Kinnersley, Beatrice S. Melin, Jill S. Barnholtz-Sloan, Margaret R. Wrensch, Christoffer Johansen, Dora Il’yasova, Quinn Ostrom, and members of GICC, Karim Labreche, Jeanette E. Eckel-Passow, Paul A. Decker, Marianne Labussière, Ahmed Idbaih, Khe Hoang-Xuan, Anna-Luisa Di Stefano, Karima Mokhtari, Jean-Yves Delattre, Pilar Galan, Konstantinos Gousias, Johannes Schramm, Minouk J. Schoemaker, Sarah J. Fleming, Stefan Herms, Stefanie Heilmann, Marcus M. Nöthen, Heinz-Erich Wichmann, Stefan Schreiber, Anthony Swerdlow, Mark Lathrop, Matthias Simon, Marc Sanson, Preetha Rajaraman, Stephen Chanock, Martha Linet, Zhaoming Wang, Meredith Yeager, Rose K. Lai, Elizabeth B. Claus, Sara H. Olson, Robert B. Jenkins, Richard S. Houlston, Melissa L. Bondy. Genome-wide association study of glioma reveals specific differences in genetic susceptibility to glioblastoma and non-glioblastoma [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 1302. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-1302