Citations

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 <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 Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy and the sixth most common cause of death from all cancer in women, with an estimated 140,000 deaths per year worldwide. Endometrial cancer (cancer of the uterine lining) is the most commonly diagnosed gynecologic cancer, ranking sixth in incident cancer in women. Ovarian and endometrial cancer share many epidemiologic, histopathologic, and tumor genetic characteristics. Meta-analyses of genome-wide association study (GWAS) datasets across etiologically related diseases have successfully been used to increase statistical power and identify novel genetic risk regions. We hypothesised that joint meta-analysis of ovarian and endometrial cancer GWAS datasets would identify novel genetic loci for both cancers. Following quality control, summary statistics for >11 million genetic variants were available from the largest genome-wide association studies performed by the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC, Phelan et al., Nature Genetics 2017) and the Endometrial Cancer Association Consortium (ECAC, unpublished). A total of 35,312 cancer cases from all histologic subtypes (22,406 ovarian and 12,906 endometrial cancer cases) and 149,920 controls were included in the analysis. Summary statistics were combined using an inverse-variance, fixed-effects model in METAL and identified ten loci at genome-wide significance (P < 5 x 10-8), of which one locus at 14q23.3 (rs4072776 combined OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.92-0.96; P = 8.0 x 10-9) had not been previously associated with the risk of either cancer. Integration with chromatin conformation data (RNAPolII HiChIP) from the Ishikawa endometrial cancer cell line suggests interaction between the risk signal and the promoter of FUT8. FUT8 encodes a fucosyltransferase and its expression has been implicated in breast, stomach, and melanoma and lung cancer. Interestingly, FUT8 is a downstream target regulated by the loss of PAX2 and mutated p53, which is the earliest known molecular aberration in the progression of the fallopian tissue epithelial to serous ovarian cancer. Further functional evaluation of the 14q23.3 risk region is required to determine the regulatory effect of genetic risk variants on FUT8. Future meta-analyses of datasets, stratifying results by histologic subtypes, will be undertaken. Citation Format: Tracy A. O'Mara, Dylan M. Glubb, Daniel D. Buchanan, Diether Lambrechts, Per Hall, Emma Tham, Jone Trovik, Ellen L. Goode, Peter Fasching, Thilo Dörk, Rodney J. Scott, Paul L. Auer, Roger L. Milne, Graham G. Giles, John Perry, Immaculata de Vivo, Ian Tomlinson, Douglas F. Easton, Deborah J. Thompson, Amanda B. Spurdle, E2C2, BCAC, OCAC, ECAC. Joint genome-wide association study of endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer identifies a novel genetic risk region at 14q23.3 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 230.

Abstract Background: Radiologically dense area (DA) on a mammogram represents the stromal and epithelial tissue in the breast, while non-dense area (NDA) represents adipose tissue. Quantitative measurements of DA, NDA as well as the proportion of dense area in the breast (percent density, PD) adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI) have all been associated with breast cancer (BC) risk. Previous genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified genetic loci that show association with both mammographic density (MD) phenotypes and BC, but little is known about the genome-wide and local genetic correlation between MD phenotypes and BC. Methods: We estimated the genome-wide and local genetic correlation between MD phenotypes adjusted for age and BMI and BC, leveraging GWAS summary statistics for MD phenotypes based on 12,866 women (MODE consortium) and for BC based on 122,977 cases and 105,974 controls (BCAC consortium). We also conducted partitioned heritability analysis to identify specific functional annotations that contribute to MD heritability. Results: We observed a negative genetic correlation between DA and NDA (-0.62, p=0.002). Both DA and PD showed positive genetic correlations with overall BC (DA: rg=0.24, p=0.004; PD: rg=0.27, p=0.0001), estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC (DA: rg=0.23, p=0.005; PD: rg=0.23, p=0.001), and ER- BC (DA: rg=0.26, p=0.01; PD: rg=0.32, p=0.0006). In contrast, NDA showed a nonsignificant negative genetic correlation with BC (rg=-0.11, p=0.21). Local genetic correlation analyses between MD phenotypes and BC reflected known findings including positive correlation at 10q21 region between both PD and DA and BC (both p<5x10-7), negative correlation at 22q13.1 between DA and BC (p=4.6x10-6), and positive correlation at 8p11.23 between NDA and BC (p=2.8x10-6). Two known BC regions that have not previously been associated with MD showed suggestive genetic correlations between BC and DA: 1q21.2 (negative genetic correlation, p=1.3x10-4) and 12q21.31 (positive genetic correlation, p=6.7x10-4). In exploratory analyses estimating the genome-wide genetic correlation between MD and hormone-related phenotypes in UK Biobank (n=337,199), we observed nominally significant positive genetic correlations between PD and benign mammary dysplasia (rg=0.45, p=0.01), NDA and endometriosis (rg=0.45, p=0.02), and negative genetic correlation between NDA and menstrual cycle length (rg=-0.30, p=0.05). We identified multiple functional annotations that contribute to MD heritability including histone mark H3K27ac that marks active enhancers (~2,5-fold enrichment in heritability for both DA and NDA) and DNAsel Hypersensitive Sites (DHS, 9.1-fold enrichment in heritability for DA). Conclusion: Our results provide evidence of shared genetic basis between mammographic density and breast cancer. Citation Format: Hongjie Chen, Julie Douglas, William Gordon, Deborah Thompson, Fergus Couch, Peter Fasching, Per Hall, John Hopper, Gertraud Maskarenic, Marina Pollan, Jennifer Stone, Rulla Tamimi, Sara Lindstroem. Evidence for a shared genetic basis between breast cancer and mammographic density phenotypes [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 224.

AbstractEpidemiological, biological, and molecular data suggest links between endometriosis and endometrial cancer, with recent epidemiological studies providing evidence for an association between a previous diagnosis of endometriosis and risk of endometrial cancer. We used genetic data as an alternative approach to investigate shared biological etiology of these two diseases. Genetic correlation analysis of summary level statistics from genomewide association studies (GWAS) using LD Score regression revealed moderate but significant genetic correlation (rg = 0.23, P = 9.3 × 10−3), and SNP effect concordance analysis provided evidence for significant SNP pleiotropy (P = 6.0 × 10−3) and concordance in effect direction (P = 2.0 × 10−3) between the two diseases. Cross‐disease GWAS meta‐analysis highlighted 13 distinct loci associated at P ≤ 10−5 with both endometriosis and endometrial cancer, with one locus (SNP rs2475335) located within PTPRD associated at a genomewide significant level (P = 4.9 × 10−8, OR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.07–1.15). PTPRD acts in the STAT3 pathway, which has been implicated in both endometriosis and endometrial cancer. This study demonstrates the value of cross‐disease genetic analysis to support epidemiological observations and to identify biological pathways of relevance to multiple diseases.

Investigating the most likely causal variants identified by fine‐mapping analyses may improve the power to detect gene–environment interactions. We assessed the interplay between 70 single nucleotide polymorphisms identified by genetic fine‐scale mapping of susceptibility loci and 11 epidemiological breast cancer risk factors in relation to breast cancer. Analyses were conducted on up to 58,573 subjects (26,968 cases and 31,605 controls) from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium, in one of the largest studies of its kind. Analyses were carried out separately for estrogen receptor (ER) positive (ER+) and ER negative (ER–) disease. The Bayesian False Discovery Probability (BFDP) was computed to assess the noteworthiness of the results. Four potential gene–environment interactions were identified as noteworthy (BFDP < 0.80) when assuming a true prior interaction probability of 0.01. The strongest interaction result in relation to overall breast cancer risk was found between CFLAR‐rs7558475 and current smoking (ORint = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.67–0.88, pint = 1.8 × 10−4). The interaction with the strongest statistical evidence was found between 5q14‐rs7707921 and alcohol consumption (ORint =1.36, 95% CI: 1.16–1.59, pint = 1.9 × 10−5) in relation to ER– disease risk. The remaining two gene–environment interactions were also identified in relation to ER– breast cancer risk and were found between 3p21‐rs6796502 and age at menarche (ORint = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.12–1.43, pint =1.8 × 10−4) and between 8q23‐rs13267382 and age at first full‐term pregnancy (ORint = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.83–0.95, pint = 5.2 × 10−4). While these results do not suggest any strong gene–environment interactions, our results may still be useful to inform experimental studies. These may in turn, shed light on the potential interactions observed.