Cunningham, Julie M.

High-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) is a complex disease in which initiation and progression have been associated with copy number alterations, epigenetic processes, and, to a lesser extent, germline variation. We hypothesized that, when summarized at the gene level, tumor methylation and germline genetic variation, alone or in combination, influence tumor gene expression in HGSOC. We used Elastic Net (ENET) penalized regression method to evaluate these associations and adjust for somatic copy number in 3 independent data sets comprising tumors from more than 470 patients. Penalized regression models of germline variation, with or without methylation, did not reveal a role in HGSOC gene expression. However, we observed significant association between regional methylation and expression of 5 genes ( WDPCP, KRT6C, BRCA2, EFCAB13, and ZNF283). CpGs retained in ENET model for BRCA2 and ZNF283 appeared enriched in several regulatory elements, suggesting that regularized regression may provide a novel utility for integrative genomic analysis.

Abstract High grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) is a complex disease in which initiation and progression have been associated with gene mutation, DNA methylation changes, genetic variation, and epigenetic processes. Variation in several susceptibility regions and cancer-typical global methylation patterns have been observed in HGSOC; however, this knowledge has not been compelling in understanding HGSOC intiation or progression. As ingetration of genomic, epigenomic, and transcriptomic data has increased mechanistic understanding in other cancers, we hypothesized that tumor methylation alone or in combination with germline genetic variation influences tumor gene expression in HGSOC. We examined three nested models using an Elastnic Net (ENET) penalized regression method while adjusting for somatic copy number (CNV): a) germline genotype and tumor DNA methylation (full model), b) genotype only, and c) DNA methylation only. We included 339 cases from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), 54 cases from Mayo Clinic, and 78 cases from the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study (AOCS). Genotyping and copy number calls on germline DNA, expression, methylation and copy number on somatic samples were collected and analyzed on different platforms separately at each study site. We excluded genes with low overall expression and thus analyzed a total of 11,922 genes available in three datasets ( Ensembl IDs, 500kb window up- and downstream). In general, combining genomic data in HGSOC did not reveal a role for germline genetic variation in altering gene expression. However, in methylation only models 79 genes were associated with differential expression in the TCGA cases (permutation multiple testing adjusted p-val <0.05), in the Mayo cases (unadjusted p-val <0.05) and AOCS cases (unadjusted p-val <0.05). A known tummor suppressor (FBXW7) was associated with differential expression in the three datasets at p-val <0.01. This work demonstrates the feasibility, utility, and statistical power of ENET gene-level analyses incoporating maximal genomic information. Citation Format: Yanina Natanzon, Madalene Earp, Julie M. Cunningham, Kimberly R. Kalli, Stacey J. Winham, Sebastian M. Armasu, Melissa C. Larson, Chen Wang, David D. Bowtell, Dale W. Garsed, Ellen Goode. Omics data integration analysis in high grade serous ovarian cancer: results from three studies [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 3368. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-3368

AbstractLarge-scale genotyping studies have identified over 70 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer (BC) risk. However, knowledge regarding genetic risk factors associated with the prognosis is limited. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the prognostic effect of nine known breast cancer risk SNPs. BC patients (n = 1687) randomly sampled in an adjuvant, randomized phase III trial (SUCCESS A study) were genotyped for nine BC risk SNPs: rs17468277(CASP8), rs2981582(FGFR2), rs13281615(8q24), rs3817198(LSP1), rs889312(MAP3K1), rs3803662(TOX3), rs13387042(2q35), rs4973768(SLC4A7), rs6504950(COX11). Cox proportional hazards models were used to test the SNPsʼ association with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Additional analyses were carried out for molecular subgroups. rs3817198 in LSP1 (lymphocyte-specific protein 1) was the only SNP that significantly influenced OS (p = 0.01) and PFS (p < 0.01) in the likelihood ratio test comparing the genetic survival model with the clinical survival model. In the molecular subgroups, triple-negative patients with two minor alleles in rs3817198 had a much better prognosis relative to OS (adjusted HR 0.03; 95% CI 0.002 – 0.279) and PFS (HR 0.09; 95% CI 0.02 – 0.36) than patients with the common alleles. The same effect on PFS was shown for patients with luminal A tumors (HR 0.19; 95% CI 0.05 – 0.84), whereas patients with luminal B tumors had a poorer PFS with two minor alleles (HR 2.13; 95% CI 1.02 – 4.40). The variant in rs3817198 has a prognostic effect particularly in the subgroup of patients with triple-negative BC, suggesting a possible link with immunomodulation and BC.

Abstract Background: Common cancers develop through a multistep process often including inherited susceptibility. Collaboration among multiple institutions, and funding from multiple sources, has allowed the development of an inexpensive genotyping microarray, the OncoArray. The array includes a genome-wide backbone, comprising 230,000 SNPs tagging most common genetic variants, together with dense mapping of known susceptibility regions, rare variants from sequencing experiments, pharmacogenetic markers, and cancer-related traits. Methods: The OncoArray can be genotyped using a novel technology developed by Illumina to facilitate efficient genotyping. The consortium developed standard approaches for selecting SNPs for study, for quality control of markers, and for ancestry analysis. The array was genotyped at selected sites and with prespecified replicate samples to permit evaluation of genotyping accuracy among centers and by ethnic background. Results: The OncoArray consortium genotyped 447,705 samples. A total of 494,763 SNPs passed quality control steps with a sample success rate of 97% of the samples. Participating sites performed ancestry analysis using a common set of markers and a scoring algorithm based on principal components analysis. Conclusions: Results from these analyses will enable researchers to identify new susceptibility loci, perform fine-mapping of new or known loci associated with either single or multiple cancers, assess the degree of overlap in cancer causation and pleiotropic effects of loci that have been identified for disease-specific risk, and jointly model genetic, environmental, and lifestyle-related exposures. Impact: Ongoing analyses will shed light on etiology and risk assessment for many types of cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(1); 126–35. ©2016 AACR.

Background The rarity of mutations in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM make it difficult to estimate precisely associated cancer risks. Population-based family studies have provided evidence that at least some of these mutations are associated with breast cancer risk as high as those associated with rare BRCA2 mutations. We aimed to estimate the relative risks associated with specific rare variants in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM via a multicentre case-control study. Methods We genotyped 10 rare mutations using the custom iCOGS array: PALB2 c.1592delT, c.2816T>G and c.3113G>A, CHEK2 c.349A>G, c.538C>T, c.715G>A, c.1036C>T, c.1312G>T, and c.1343T>G and ATM c.7271T>G. We assessed associations with breast cancer risk (42 671 cases and 42 164 controls), as well as prostate (22 301 cases and 22 320 controls) and ovarian (14 542 cases and 23 491 controls) cancer risk, for each variant. Results For European women, strong evidence of association with breast cancer risk was observed for PALB2 c.1592delT OR 3.44 (95% CI 1.39 to 8.52, p=7.1×10−5), PALB2 c.3113G>A OR 4.21 (95% CI 1.84 to 9.60, p=6.9×10−8) and ATM c.7271T>G OR 11.0 (95% CI 1.42 to 85.7, p=0.0012). We also found evidence of association with breast cancer risk for three variants in CHEK2, c.349A>G OR 2.26 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.95), c.1036C>T OR 5.06 (95% CI 1.09 to 23.5) and c.538C>T OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.67) (p≤0.017). Evidence for prostate cancer risk was observed for CHEK2 c.1343T>G OR 3.03 (95% CI 1.53 to 6.03, p=0.0006) for African men and CHEK2 c.1312G>T OR 2.21 (95% CI 1.06 to 4.63, p=0.030) for European men. No evidence of association with ovarian cancer was found for any of these variants. Conclusions This report adds to accumulating evidence that at least some variants in these genes are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer that is clinically important.

Abstract Background: The strongest known risk factor for endometrial cancer is obesity. To determine whether SNPs associated with increased body mass index (BMI) or waist–hip ratio (WHR) are associated with endometrial cancer risk, independent of measured BMI, we investigated relationships between 77 BMI and 47 WHR SNPs and endometrial cancer in 6,609 cases and 37,926 country-matched controls. Methods: Logistic regression analysis and fixed effects meta-analysis were used to test for associations between endometrial cancer risk and (i) individual BMI or WHR SNPs, (ii) a combined weighted genetic risk score (wGRS) for BMI or WHR. Causality of BMI for endometrial cancer was assessed using Mendelian randomization, with BMIwGRS as instrumental variable. Results: The BMIwGRS was significantly associated with endometrial cancer risk (P = 3.4 × 10−17). Scaling the effect of the BMIwGRS on endometrial cancer risk by its effect on BMI, the endometrial cancer OR per 5 kg/m2 of genetically predicted BMI was 2.06 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.89–2.21], larger than the observed effect of BMI on endometrial cancer risk (OR = 1.55; 95% CI, 1.44–1.68, per 5 kg/m2). The association attenuated but remained significant after adjusting for BMI (OR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10–1.39; P = 5.3 × 10−4). There was evidence of directional pleiotropy (P = 1.5 × 10−4). BMI SNP rs2075650 was associated with endometrial cancer at study-wide significance (P &lt; 4.0 × 10−4), independent of BMI. Endometrial cancer was not significantly associated with individual WHR SNPs or the WHRwGRS. Conclusions: BMI, but not WHR, is causally associated with endometrial cancer risk, with evidence that some BMI-associated SNPs alter endometrial cancer risk via mechanisms other than measurable BMI. Impact: The causal association between BMI SNPs and endometrial cancer has possible implications for endometrial cancer risk modeling. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(11); 1503–10. ©2016 AACR.