Citations

ABSTRACTGenes that alter disease risk only in combination with certain environmental exposures may not be detected in genetic association analysis. By using methods accounting for gene‐environment (G × E) interaction, we aimed to identify novel genetic loci associated with breast cancer risk. Up to 34,475 cases and 34,786 controls of European ancestry from up to 23 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium were included. Overall, 71,527 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), enriched for association with breast cancer, were tested for interaction with 10 environmental risk factors using three recently proposed hybrid methods and a joint test of association and interaction. Analyses were adjusted for age, study, population stratification, and confounding factors as applicable. Three SNPs in two independent loci showed statistically significant association: SNPs rs10483028 and rs2242714 in perfect linkage disequilibrium on chromosome 21 and rs12197388 in ARID1B on chromosome 6. While rs12197388 was identified using the joint test with parity and with age at menarche (P‐values = 3 × 10−07), the variants on chromosome 21 q22.12, which showed interaction with adult body mass index (BMI) in 8,891 postmenopausal women, were identified by all methods applied. SNP rs10483028 was associated with breast cancer in women with a BMI below 25 kg/m2 (OR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.15–1.38) but not in women with a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or higher (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.72–1.11, P for interaction = 3.2 × 10−05). Our findings confirm comparable power of the recent methods for detecting G × E interaction and the utility of using G × E interaction analyses to identify new susceptibility loci.

Abstract Part of the substantial unexplained familial aggregation of breast cancer may be due to interactions between common variants, but few studies have had adequate statistical power to detect interactions of realistic magnitude. We aimed to assess all two-way interactions in breast cancer susceptibility between 70 917 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) selected primarily based on prior evidence of a marginal effect. Thirty-eight international studies contributed data for 46 450 breast cancer cases and 42 461 controls of European origin as part of a multi-consortium project (COGS). First, SNPs were preselected based on evidence (P < 0.01) of a per-allele main effect, and all two-way combinations of those were evaluated by a per-allele (1 d.f.) test for interaction using logistic regression. Second, all 2.5 billion possible two-SNP combinations were evaluated using Boolean operation-based screening and testing, and SNP pairs with the strongest evidence of interaction (P < 10−4) were selected for more careful assessment by logistic regression. Under the first approach, 3277 SNPs were preselected, but an evaluation of all possible two-SNP combinations (1 d.f.) identified no interactions at P < 10−8. Results from the second analytic approach were consistent with those from the first (P > 10−10). In summary, we observed little evidence of two-way SNP interactions in breast cancer susceptibility, despite the large number of SNPs with potential marginal effects considered and the very large sample size. This finding may have important implications for risk prediction, simplifying the modelling required. Further comprehensive, large-scale genome-wide interaction studies may identify novel interacting loci if the inherent logistic and computational challenges can be overcome.

Abstract Rare germline mutations in the breast and ovarian cancer predisposition genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 are present in roughly 5 percent of ovarian cancer patients. Both genes play key roles in DNA damage repair but appear to have distinct, although often complementary, functions. The risks of breast and ovarian cancer have been shown to differ between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, and mutation-specific effects have also been suggested for both groups. Published reports comparing the survival of ovarian cancer patients with and without BRCA1/2 mutations generally show a survival advantage among mutation carriers. This is thought to be related to an improved response of carriers to platinum-based therapies. Since it is not known whether BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers show similar survival patterns, we have performed a large, multicenter study to investigate the impact of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations on ovarian cancer survival. 3,531 invasive epithelial ovarian cancer cases (1,178 BRCA1, 367 BRCA2 and 1,986 BRCA-negative) with survival time data from twenty-four studies in the U.S.A, Europe, Israel and Asia were included. In our main analysis, we excluded patients who were known or who were likely to have not received platinum-based therapy. Compared to non-carriers, BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers were more likely to present with advanced stage (BRCA1; p=2×10−4, BRCA2; p=4×10−6), high grade (BRCA1; p=4×10−9, BRCA2; p=1×10−4), serous disease (BRCA1; p=3×10−6, BRCA2; p=0.003). BRCA1 carriers were younger at diagnosis (p=2×10−9) and BRCA2 slightly older at diagnosis (p=0.002) than non-carriers. BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers did not differ in terms of tumor stage, grade or histology but did show differences in the age at diagnosis (p=2×10−14). In an unadjusted analysis, neither BRCA1 nor BRCA2 carriers differed from non-carriers in overall survival (BRCA1: HR=1.02, p=0.77, BRCA2: HR=0.89, p=0.36). After adjusting for stage, grade, histology and age at diagnosis, BRCA1 carriers showed a modest, non-significant, survival advantage (HR=0.84, p=0.12) while BRCA2 carriers showed a marked improvement (HR=0.57, p=6×10−4) compared to non-carriers. This survival advantage was also seen when comparing BRCA2 carriers to BRCA1 carriers after adjustment for age at diagnosis (HR=0.69, p=5×10−4). Similar results were obtained when we restricted the analysis to high grade, advanced stage, serous cases. The survival differences we observed between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers could be related to differences in tumor biology or chemo-sensitivity. Additional analyses investigating the later will be presented in addition to mutation-specific effects within BRCA1 and BRCA2. In this study, we provide strong evidence for genetic heterogeneity of survival effects in ovarian cancer patients with BRCA mutations. This could be applied to both clinical prediction and to aid our understanding of the complex biology of BRCA mutations. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2011 Apr 2-6; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2011;71(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 2752. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2011-2752

Abstract Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) identified variants at 19p13.1 and ZNF365 (10q21.2) as risk factors for breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively. We explored associations with ovarian cancer and with breast cancer by tumor histopathology for these variants in mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Methods: Genotyping data for 12,599 BRCA1 and 7,132 BRCA2 mutation carriers from 40 studies were combined. Results: We confirmed associations between rs8170 at 19p13.1 and breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers [HR, 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07–1.27; P = 7.42 × 10−4] and between rs16917302 at ZNF365 (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73–0.97; P = 0.017) but not rs311499 at 20q13.3 (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.94–1.31; P = 0.22) and breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers. Analyses based on tumor histopathology showed that 19p13 variants were predominantly associated with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, whereas rs16917302 at ZNF365 was mainly associated with ER-positive breast cancer for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. We also found for the first time that rs67397200 at 19p13.1 was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer for BRCA1 (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05–1.29; P = 3.8 × 10−4) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.10–1.52; P = 1.8 × 10−3). Conclusions: 19p13.1 and ZNF365 are susceptibility loci for ovarian cancer and ER subtypes of breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Impact: These findings can lead to an improved understanding of tumor development and may prove useful for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(4); 645–57. ©2012 AACR.

Abstract The 19p13.1 breast cancer susceptibility locus is a modifier of breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers and is also associated with the risk of ovarian cancer. Here, we investigated 19p13.1 variation and risk of breast cancer subtypes, defined by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status, using 48,869 breast cancer cases and 49,787 controls from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). Variants from 19p13.1 were not associated with breast cancer overall or with ER-positive breast cancer but were significantly associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk [rs8170 OR, 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05–1.15; P = 3.49 × 10−5] and triple-negative (ER-, PR-, and HER2-negative) breast cancer (rs8170: OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.13–1.31; P = 2.22 × 10−7). However, rs8170 was no longer associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk when triple-negative cases were excluded (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89–1.07; P = 0.62). In addition, a combined analysis of triple-negative cases from BCAC and the Triple Negative Breast Cancer Consortium (TNBCC; N = 3,566) identified a genome-wide significant association between rs8170 and triple-negative breast cancer risk (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.18–1.33; P = 3.31 × 10−13]. Thus, 19p13.1 is the first triple-negative–specific breast cancer risk locus and the first locus specific to a histologic subtype defined by ER, PR, and HER2 to be identified. These findings provide convincing evidence that genetic susceptibility to breast cancer varies by tumor subtype and that triple-negative tumors and other subtypes likely arise through distinct etiologic pathways. Cancer Res; 72(7); 1795–803. ©2012 AACR.