Huzarski, Tomasz

Abstract Background Women with a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2 are at high risk of developing ovarian cancer, and it is often recommended that they undergo bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy at an early age, resulting in surgical menopause. Menopausal hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is an effective way to mitigate the adverse outcomes of early menopause; however, the safety of menopausal HRT on breast cancer risk in this population has not been established. Methods We conducted a prospective matched analysis of HRT use following menopause and breast cancer risk in BRCA carriers. Women who initiated HRT were matched one-to-one with women who had not initiated menopausal HRT by gene, year of birth, and age at menopause, resulting in 676 matched pairs. Menopausal HRT use collected by questionnaire included formulation and mode of administration. Results After a mean of 5.6 years, there were 87 (12.9%) incident breast cancer cases in the 676 exposed women and 128 (18.9%) cases in the 676 unexposed women (P = .002). Compared with unexposed matched control individuals, women who used estrogen alone experienced a statistically significantly decreased risk of breast cancer (hazard ratio = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.57). No protective or adverse effect was associated with the use of estrogen plus progestogen (hazard ratio = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.54 to 1.63). Conclusions Our findings suggest no substantial increase in the risk of breast cancer in BRCA carriers with the use of HRT and that estrogen alone might be protective.

Abstract Background: The lack of consensus on whether bilateral oophorectomy impacts risk of developing breast cancer among BRCA1 mutation carriers might be attributed to various biases, specifically, cancer-induced testing bias due to inclusion of prevalent cases. We conducted two complementary matched case–control analyses to evaluate the association of oophorectomy and BRCA1 breast cancer. Methods: A research questionnaire was administered every two years to collect information on exposures and disease. In the first analysis, we limited the study to prevalent breast cancer cases (diagnosed prior to study entry; n = 2,962) who were matched to controls on year of birth and country of residence (n = 4,358). In the second approach, we limited to 330 incident cases (diagnosed in the follow-up period) and 1,548 matched controls. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of invasive breast cancer. Results: In the first approach, there was a significant inverse association between oophorectomy and the risk of developing breast cancer [OR = 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34–0.55; P < 00001]. In the second approach, there was no association between oophorectomy and risk (OR = 1.21; 95% CI, 0.87–1.70; P = 0.26). Conclusions: The inclusion of women with a personal history of breast cancer prior to ascertainment likely impacts upon the association of oophorectomy and BRCA1 breast cancer risk. Impact: Oophorectomy is unlikely a determinant of breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers but should be offered at age 35 to reduce the risk of ovarian and fallopian tube cancer.

Abstract Background: Accumulating evidence suggests a relationship between endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. Independent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer have identified 16 and 27 risk regions, respectively, four of which overlap between the two cancers. We aimed to identify joint endometrial and ovarian cancer risk loci by performing a meta-analysis of GWAS summary statistics from these two cancers. Methods: Using LDScore regression, we explored the genetic correlation between endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. To identify loci associated with the risk of both cancers, we implemented a pipeline of statistical genetic analyses (i.e., inverse-variance meta-analysis, colocalization, and M-values) and performed analyses stratified by subtype. Candidate target genes were then prioritized using functional genomic data. Results: Genetic correlation analysis revealed significant genetic correlation between the two cancers (rG = 0.43, P = 2.66 × 10−5). We found seven loci associated with risk for both cancers (PBonferroni < 2.4 × 10−9). In addition, four novel subgenome-wide regions at 7p22.2, 7q22.1, 9p12, and 11q13.3 were identified (P < 5 × 10−7). Promoter-associated HiChIP chromatin loops from immortalized endometrium and ovarian cell lines and expression quantitative trait loci data highlighted candidate target genes for further investigation. Conclusions: Using cross-cancer GWAS meta-analysis, we have identified several joint endometrial and ovarian cancer risk loci and candidate target genes for future functional analysis. Impact: Our research highlights the shared genetic relationship between endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. Further studies in larger sample sets are required to confirm our findings.

AbstractWe aimed to validate the prognostic association of p16 expression in ovarian high‐grade serous carcinomas (HGSC) and to explore it in other ovarian carcinoma histotypes. p16 protein expression was assessed by clinical‐grade immunohistochemistry in 6525 ovarian carcinomas including 4334 HGSC using tissue microarrays from 24 studies participating in the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium. p16 expression patterns were interpreted as abnormal (either overexpression referred to as block expression or absence) or normal (heterogeneous). CDKN2A (which encodes p16) mRNA expression was also analyzed in a subset (n = 2280) mostly representing HGSC (n = 2010). Association of p16 expression with overall survival (OS) was determined within histotypes as was CDKN2A expression for HGSC only. p16 block expression was most frequent in HGSC (56%) but neither protein nor mRNA expression was associated with OS. However, relative to heterogeneous expression, block expression was associated with shorter OS in endometriosis‐associated carcinomas, clear cell [hazard ratio (HR): 2.02, 95% confidence (CI) 1.47–2.77, p < 0.001] and endometrioid (HR: 1.88, 95% CI 1.30–2.75, p = 0.004), while absence was associated with shorter OS in low‐grade serous carcinomas (HR: 2.95, 95% CI 1.61–5.38, p = 0.001). Absence was most frequent in mucinous carcinoma (50%), and was not associated with OS in this histotype. The prognostic value of p16 expression is histotype‐specific and pattern dependent. We provide definitive evidence against an association of p16 expression with survival in ovarian HGSC as previously suggested. Block expression of p16 in clear cell and endometrioid carcinoma should be further validated as a prognostic marker, and absence in low‐grade serous carcinoma justifies CDK4 inhibition.

Abstract Background: The precise mechanism by which the immune system is adversely affected in cancer patients remains poorly understood, but the accumulation of immunosuppressive/protumorigenic myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) is thought to be a prominent mechanism contributing to immunologic tolerance of malignant cells in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). To this end, we hypothesized genetic variation in MDSC pathway genes would be associated with survival after EOC diagnoses. Methods: We measured the hazard of death due to EOC within 10 years of diagnosis, overall and by invasive subtype, attributable to SNPs in 24 genes relevant in the MDSC pathway in 10,751 women diagnosed with invasive EOC. Versatile Gene-based Association Study and the admixture likelihood method were used to test gene and pathway associations with survival. Results: We did not identify individual SNPs that were significantly associated with survival after correction for multiple testing (P &lt; 3.5 × 10−5), nor did we identify significant associations between the MDSC pathway overall, or the 24 individual genes and EOC survival. Conclusions: In this well-powered analysis, we observed no evidence that inherited variations in MDSC-associated SNPs, individual genes, or the collective genetic pathway contributed to EOC survival outcomes. Impact: Common inherited variation in genes relevant to MDSCs was not associated with survival in women diagnosed with invasive EOC. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(3); 420–4. ©2016 AACR.

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.