Citations

Abstract Background: It is not known whether modifiable lifestyle factors that predict survival after invasive breast cancer differ by subtype. Methods: We analyzed data for 121,435 women diagnosed with breast cancer from 67 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium with 16,890 deaths (8,554 breast cancer specific) over 10 years. Cox regression was used to estimate associations between risk factors and 10-year all-cause mortality and breast cancer–specific mortality overall, by estrogen receptor (ER) status, and by intrinsic-like subtype. Results: There was no evidence of heterogeneous associations between risk factors and mortality by subtype (Padj > 0.30). The strongest associations were between all-cause mortality and BMI ≥30 versus 18.5–25 kg/m2 [HR (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19 (1.06–1.34)]; current versus never smoking [1.37 (1.27–1.47)], high versus low physical activity [0.43 (0.21–0.86)], age ≥30 years versus <20 years at first pregnancy [0.79 (0.72–0.86)]; >0–<5 years versus ≥10 years since last full-term birth [1.31 (1.11–1.55)]; ever versus never use of oral contraceptives [0.91 (0.87–0.96)]; ever versus never use of menopausal hormone therapy, including current estrogen–progestin therapy [0.61 (0.54–0.69)]. Similar associations with breast cancer mortality were weaker; for example, 1.11 (1.02–1.21) for current versus never smoking. Conclusions: We confirm associations between modifiable lifestyle factors and 10-year all-cause mortality. There was no strong evidence that associations differed by ER status or intrinsic-like subtype. Impact: Given the large dataset and lack of evidence that associations between modifiable risk factors and 10-year mortality differed by subtype, these associations could be cautiously used in prognostication models to inform patient-centered care.

Abstract Introduction: The vast majority of cancer patients continue to receive treatments that are minimally informed by omics data. In the case of breast cancer, only ER and HER2 are routinely used for treatment selection. There is a particular need for personalized treatment in individuals with primary and secondary drug resistance or aggressive breast cancers. Emerging bioinformatics and statistical methods have made a fundamental impact on cancer research. However, challenges remains with regard to patient-centric data analysis and providing genomic data guidance to oncologists. There exists a large number of FDA approved anti-neoplastic drugs used to treat cancers other than breast and the development of innovative informatics methods and algorithms to repurpose those drugs should benefit breast cancer patients. Methods and Results: We have developed precision care systems (such as PANOPLY and CORPUS) to identify personalized therapies for an individual patient and to deliver genomic reports in a standard, searchable format so that a researcher or an oncologist can quickly navigate through molecular data and obtain prioritized drugs and targets.The PANOPLY (Precision cancer genomics report: single sample inventory) algorithm applies machine learning and topology-based network analysis methods to integrate multi-omics profiles and clinical data; individual-specific molecular alterations are identified and compared with a set of matched-controls having similar clinical data. Since there is a lack of a “gold standard” dataset to test such algorithms, we simulated 500 case-control sets and evaluated drug predictions across multiple simulation scenarios. We applied the PANOPLY algorithm to The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) breast cancer cohort, which consists of multi-omics data and clinical data. In addition, PANOPLY was also applied to an in-house neoadjuvant breast cancer study (BEAUTY) that consists of multi-omics data, clinical data, and patient-derived xenografts (PDXs). In the TCGA breast cancer study we obtained survival data to determine the cases and matched-controls; and in the BEAUTY, we used pathologic complete response (pCR) as an outcome to determine responders and non-responders. Recurrent targetable alterations were not enriched in patients without pCR in the BEAUTY study. We have applied the PANOPLY to non-responder patients to identify individual specific alterations, dysregulated networks, drug targets, and drugs for each patient and stored them as case reports in CORPUS (Computational Oncology Reports and Precision therapeUticS), a web-based repository that allows clinicians to review genomic reports. Using comprehensive “omic” data derived from a triple negative breast cancer patient who had pre and post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy PDXs, PANOPLY prioritized the PARP inhibitors as the top class of drug. Using the PDX models available from this patient, we tested olaparib and confirmed the in vivo antitumor activity (more effective than vehicle with a p-value < 0.05 in the PDXs). Further studies to confirm PANOPLY findings are currently underway. Conclusions: In summary, the PANOPLY and CORPUS systems incorporate molecular data together with clinical data to provide genomic reports with proposed drug targets to advance or enable precision breast cancer care. Citation Format: Kalari KR, Sinnwell JP, Thompson KJ, Tang X, Carlson EE, Alaparthi T, Yu J, Vedell PT, Kalmbach MT, Bockol MA, Hossain A, Weinshilboum RM, Boughey JC, Wang L, Suman VJ, Goetz MP. Multiscale modeling of omics data for precision breast cancer treatment [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-06-10.

Abstract Breast cancer risks conferred by many germline missense variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, often referred to as variants of uncertain significance (VUS), have not been established. In this study, associations between 19 BRCA1 and 33 BRCA2 missense substitution variants and breast cancer risk were investigated through a breast cancer case–control study using genotyping data from 38 studies of predominantly European ancestry (41,890 cases and 41,607 controls) and nine studies of Asian ancestry (6,269 cases and 6,624 controls). The BRCA2 c.9104A>C, p.Tyr3035Ser (OR = 2.52; P = 0.04), and BRCA1 c.5096G>A, p.Arg1699Gln (OR = 4.29; P = 0.009) variant were associated with moderately increased risks of breast cancer among Europeans, whereas BRCA2 c.7522G>A, p.Gly2508Ser (OR = 2.68; P = 0.004), and c.8187G>T, p.Lys2729Asn (OR = 1.4; P = 0.004) were associated with moderate and low risks of breast cancer among Asians. Functional characterization of the BRCA2 variants using four quantitative assays showed reduced BRCA2 activity for p.Tyr3035Ser compared with wild-type. Overall, our results show how BRCA2 missense variants that influence protein function can confer clinically relevant, moderately increased risks of breast cancer, with potential implications for risk management guidelines in women with these specific variants. Cancer Res; 77(11); 2789–99. ©2017 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.

Abstract Background: The single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) 5p12-rs10941679 has been found to be associated with risk of breast cancer, particularly estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease. We aimed to further explore this association overall, and by tumor histopathology, in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Methods: Data were combined from 37 studies, including 40,972 invasive cases, 1,398 cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 46,334 controls, all of white European ancestry, as well as 3,007 invasive cases and 2,337 controls of Asian ancestry. Associations overall and by tumor invasiveness and histopathology were assessed using logistic regression. Results: For white Europeans, the per-allele OR associated with 5p12-rs10941679 was 1.11 (95% CI = 1.08–1.14, P = 7 × 10−18) for invasive breast cancer and 1.10 (95% CI = 1.01–1.21, P = 0.03) for DCIS. For Asian women, the estimated OR for invasive disease was similar (OR = 1.07, 95%CI = 0.99–1.15, P = 0.09). Further analyses suggested that the association in white Europeans was largely limited to progesterone receptor (PR)-positive disease (per-allele OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.12–1.20, P = 1 × 10−18 vs. OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.99–1.07, P = 0.2 for PR-negative disease; Pheterogeneity = 2 × 10−7); heterogeneity by ER status was not observed (P = 0.2) once PR status was accounted for. The association was also stronger for lower grade tumors [per-allele OR (95% CI) = 1.20 (1.14–1.25), 1.13 (1.09–1.16), and 1.04 (0.99–1.08) for grade 1, 2, and 3/4, respectively; Ptrend = 5 × 10−7]. Conclusion: 5p12 is a breast cancer susceptibility locus for PR-positive, lower grade breast cancer. Impact: Multicenter fine-mapping studies of this region are needed as a first step to identifying the causal variant or variants. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 20(10); 2222–31. ©2011 AACR.

Abstract Previous studies have suggested that minor alleles for ERCC4 rs744154, TNF rs361525, CASP10 rs13010627, PGR rs1042838, and BID rs8190315 may influence breast cancer risk, but the evidence is inconclusive due to their small sample size. These polymorphisms were genotyped in more than 30,000 breast cancer cases and 30,000 controls, primarily of European descent, from 30 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) as a measure of association. We found that the minor alleles for these polymorphisms were not related to invasive breast cancer risk overall in women of European descent: ECCR4 per-allele OR (95% CI) = 0.99 (0.97-1.02), minor allele frequency = 27.5%; TNF 1.00 (0.95-1.06), 5.0%; CASP10 1.02 (0.98-1.07), 6.5%; PGR 1.02 (0.99-1.06), 15.3%; and BID 0.98 (0.86-1.12), 1.7%. However, we observed significant between-study heterogeneity for associations with risk for single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in CASP10, PGR, and BID. Estimates were imprecise for women of Asian and African descent due to small numbers and lower minor allele frequencies (with the exception of BID SNP). The ORs for each copy of the minor allele were not significantly different by estrogen or progesterone receptor status, nor were any significant interactions found between the polymorphisms and age or family history of breast cancer. In conclusion, our data provide persuasive evidence against an overall association between invasive breast cancer risk and ERCC4 rs744154, TNF rs361525, CASP10 rs13010627, PGR rs1042838, and BID rs8190315 genotypes among women of European descent. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(5):1610–6)