Publications by authors named "Goska Leslie"

28 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Association of germline variation with the survival of women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants and breast cancer.

NPJ Breast Cancer 2020 Sep 10;6(1):44. Epub 2020 Sep 10.

Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute of Mount Sinai Hospital, Fred A. Litwin Center for Cancer Genetics, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Germline genetic variation has been suggested to influence the survival of breast cancer patients independently of tumor pathology. We have studied survival associations of genetic variants in two etiologically unique groups of breast cancer patients, the carriers of germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. We found that rs57025206 was significantly associated with the overall survival, predicting higher mortality of BRCA1 carrier patients with estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer, with a hazard ratio 4.37 (95% confidence interval 3.03-6.30, P = 3.1 × 10). Multivariable analysis adjusted for tumor characteristics suggested that rs57025206 was an independent survival marker. In addition, our exploratory analyses suggest that the associations between genetic variants and breast cancer patient survival may depend on tumor biological subgroup and clinical patient characteristics.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41523-020-00185-6DOI Listing
September 2020

Breast and Prostate Cancer Risks for Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers Using Polygenic Risk Scores.

J Natl Cancer Inst 2021 Jul 28. Epub 2021 Jul 28.

Department of Molecular Medicine, University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy.

Background: Recent population-based female breast cancer and prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed. We assessed the associations of these PRS with breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers.

Methods: 483 BRCA1 and 1,318 BRCA2 European ancestry male carriers were available from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). A 147-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) prostate cancer PRS (PRSPC) and a 313-SNP breast cancer PRS were evaluated. There were three versions of the breast cancer PRS, optimized to predict overall (PRSBC), estrogen-receptor (ER) negative (PRSER-) or ER-positive (PRSER+) breast cancer risk.

Results: PRSER+ yielded the strongest association with breast cancer risk. The odds ratios (ORs) per PRSER+ standard deviation estimates were 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.07-1.83) for BRCA1 and 1.33 (95% CI = 1.16-1.52) for BRCA2 carriers. PRSPC was associated with prostate cancer risk for both BRCA1 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.28-2.33) and BRCA2 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.34-1.91) carriers. The estimated breast cancer ORs were larger after adjusting for female relative breast cancer family history. By age 85 years, for BRCA2 carriers, the breast cancer risk varied from 7.7% to 18.4% and prostate cancer risk from 34.1% to 87.6% between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS distributions.

Conclusions: Population-based prostate and female breast cancer PRS are associated with a wide range of absolute breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These findings warrant further investigation aimed at providing personalized cancer risks for male carriers and to inform clinical management.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djab147DOI Listing
July 2021

The predictive ability of the 313 variant-based polygenic risk score for contralateral breast cancer risk prediction in women of European ancestry with a heterozygous BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant.

Genet Med 2021 Jun 10. Epub 2021 Jun 10.

Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic.

Purpose: To evaluate the association between a previously published 313 variant-based breast cancer (BC) polygenic risk score (PRS) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk, in BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant heterozygotes.

Methods: We included women of European ancestry with a prevalent first primary invasive BC (BRCA1 = 6,591 with 1,402 prevalent CBC cases; BRCA2 = 4,208 with 647 prevalent CBC cases) from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA), a large international retrospective series. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the association between overall and ER-specific PRS and CBC risk.

Results: For BRCA1 heterozygotes the estrogen receptor (ER)-negative PRS showed the largest association with CBC risk, hazard ratio (HR) per SD = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.06-1.18), C-index = 0.53; for BRCA2 heterozygotes, this was the ER-positive PRS, HR = 1.15, 95% CI (1.07-1.25), C-index = 0.57. Adjusting for family history, age at diagnosis, treatment, or pathological characteristics for the first BC did not change association effect sizes. For women developing first BC < age 40 years, the cumulative PRS 5th and 95th percentile 10-year CBC risks were 22% and 32% for BRCA1 and 13% and 23% for BRCA2 heterozygotes, respectively.

Conclusion: The PRS can be used to refine individual CBC risks for BRCA1/2 heterozygotes of European ancestry, however the PRS needs to be considered in the context of a multifactorial risk model to evaluate whether it might influence clinical decision-making.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41436-021-01198-7DOI Listing
June 2021

A case-only study to identify genetic modifiers of breast cancer risk for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Nat Commun 2021 02 17;12(1):1078. Epub 2021 Feb 17.

Copenhagen General Population Study, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.

Breast cancer (BC) risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers varies by genetic and familial factors. About 50 common variants have been shown to modify BC risk for mutation carriers. All but three, were identified in general population studies. Other mutation carrier-specific susceptibility variants may exist but studies of mutation carriers have so far been underpowered. We conduct a novel case-only genome-wide association study comparing genotype frequencies between 60,212 general population BC cases and 13,007 cases with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. We identify robust novel associations for 2 variants with BC for BRCA1 and 3 for BRCA2 mutation carriers, P < 10, at 5 loci, which are not associated with risk in the general population. They include rs60882887 at 11p11.2 where MADD, SP11 and EIF1, genes previously implicated in BC biology, are predicted as potential targets. These findings will contribute towards customising BC polygenic risk scores for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20496-3DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7890067PMC
February 2021

Association of germline variation with the survival of women with pathogenic variants and breast cancer.

NPJ Breast Cancer 2020 10;6:44. Epub 2020 Sep 10.

Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute of Mount Sinai Hospital, Fred A. Litwin Center for Cancer Genetics, Toronto, ON Canada.

Germline genetic variation has been suggested to influence the survival of breast cancer patients independently of tumor pathology. We have studied survival associations of genetic variants in two etiologically unique groups of breast cancer patients, the carriers of germline pathogenic variants in or genes. We found that rs57025206 was significantly associated with the overall survival, predicting higher mortality of carrier patients with estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer, with a hazard ratio 4.37 (95% confidence interval 3.03-6.30,  = 3.1 × 10). Multivariable analysis adjusted for tumor characteristics suggested that rs57025206 was an independent survival marker. In addition, our exploratory analyses suggest that the associations between genetic variants and breast cancer patient survival may depend on tumor biological subgroup and clinical patient characteristics.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41523-020-00185-6DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7483417PMC
September 2020

Polygenic risk scores and breast and epithelial ovarian cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

Genet Med 2020 10 15;22(10):1653-1666. Epub 2020 Jul 15.

Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital, Department of Clinical Genetics, Exeter, UK.

Purpose: We assessed the associations between population-based polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers.

Methods: Retrospective cohort data on 18,935 BRCA1 and 12,339 BRCA2 female pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestry were available. Three versions of a 313 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) BC PRS were evaluated based on whether they predict overall, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, or ER-positive BC, and two PRS for overall or high-grade serous EOC. Associations were validated in a prospective cohort.

Results: The ER-negative PRS showed the strongest association with BC risk for BRCA1 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] per standard deviation = 1.29 [95% CI 1.25-1.33], P = 3×10). For BRCA2, the strongest association was with overall BC PRS (HR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.27-1.36], P = 7×10). HR estimates decreased significantly with age and there was evidence for differences in associations by predicted variant effects on protein expression. The HR estimates were smaller than general population estimates. The high-grade serous PRS yielded the strongest associations with EOC risk for BRCA1 (HR = 1.32 [95% CI 1.25-1.40], P = 3×10) and BRCA2 (HR = 1.44 [95% CI 1.30-1.60], P = 4×10) carriers. The associations in the prospective cohort were similar.

Conclusion: Population-based PRS are strongly associated with BC and EOC risks for BRCA1/2 carriers and predict substantial absolute risk differences for women at PRS distribution extremes.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41436-020-0862-xDOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7521995PMC
October 2020

Characterization of the Cancer Spectrum in Men With Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variants: Results From the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA).

JAMA Oncol 2020 08;6(8):1218-1230

Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Importance: The limited data on cancer phenotypes in men with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants (PVs) have hampered the development of evidence-based recommendations for early cancer detection and risk reduction in this population.

Objective: To compare the cancer spectrum and frequencies between male BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV carriers.

Design, Setting, And Participants: Retrospective cohort study of 6902 men, including 3651 BRCA1 and 3251 BRCA2 PV carriers, older than 18 years recruited from cancer genetics clinics from 1966 to 2017 by 53 study groups in 33 countries worldwide collaborating through the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Clinical data and pathologic characteristics were collected.

Main Outcomes And Measures: BRCA1/2 status was the outcome in a logistic regression, and cancer diagnoses were the independent predictors. All odds ratios (ORs) were adjusted for age, country of origin, and calendar year of the first interview.

Results: Among the 6902 men in the study (median [range] age, 51.6 [18-100] years), 1634 cancers were diagnosed in 1376 men (19.9%), the majority (922 of 1,376 [67%]) being BRCA2 PV carriers. Being affected by any cancer was associated with a higher probability of being a BRCA2, rather than a BRCA1, PV carrier (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.81-3.70; P < .001), as well as developing 2 (OR, 7.97; 95% CI, 5.47-11.60; P < .001) and 3 (OR, 19.60; 95% CI, 4.64-82.89; P < .001) primary tumors. A higher frequency of breast (OR, 5.47; 95% CI, 4.06-7.37; P < .001) and prostate (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.09-1.78; P = .008) cancers was associated with a higher probability of being a BRCA2 PV carrier. Among cancers other than breast and prostate, pancreatic cancer was associated with a higher probability (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.55-5.81; P = .001) and colorectal cancer with a lower probability (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29-0.78; P = .003) of being a BRCA2 PV carrier.

Conclusions And Relevance: Significant differences in the cancer spectrum were observed in male BRCA2, compared with BRCA1, PV carriers. These data may inform future recommendations for surveillance of BRCA1/2-associated cancers and guide future prospective studies for estimating cancer risks in men with BRCA1/2 PVs.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2134DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7333177PMC
August 2020

Genome-wide association study identifies 32 novel breast cancer susceptibility loci from overall and subtype-specific analyses.

Nat Genet 2020 06 18;52(6):572-581. Epub 2020 May 18.

Molecular Medicine Unit, Fundación Pública Galega de Medicina Xenómica, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.

Breast cancer susceptibility variants frequently show heterogeneity in associations by tumor subtype. To identify novel loci, we performed a genome-wide association study including 133,384 breast cancer cases and 113,789 controls, plus 18,908 BRCA1 mutation carriers (9,414 with breast cancer) of European ancestry, using both standard and novel methodologies that account for underlying tumor heterogeneity by estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status and tumor grade. We identified 32 novel susceptibility loci (P < 5.0 × 10), 15 of which showed evidence for associations with at least one tumor feature (false discovery rate < 0.05). Five loci showed associations (P < 0.05) in opposite directions between luminal and non-luminal subtypes. In silico analyses showed that these five loci contained cell-specific enhancers that differed between normal luminal and basal mammary cells. The genetic correlations between five intrinsic-like subtypes ranged from 0.35 to 0.80. The proportion of genome-wide chip heritability explained by all known susceptibility loci was 54.2% for luminal A-like disease and 37.6% for triple-negative disease. The odds ratios of polygenic risk scores, which included 330 variants, for the highest 1% of quantiles compared with middle quantiles were 5.63 and 3.02 for luminal A-like and triple-negative disease, respectively. These findings provide an improved understanding of genetic predisposition to breast cancer subtypes and will inform the development of subtype-specific polygenic risk scores.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41588-020-0609-2DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7808397PMC
June 2020

Transcriptome-wide association study of breast cancer risk by estrogen-receptor status.

Genet Epidemiol 2020 07 1;44(5):442-468. Epub 2020 Mar 1.

Department of Radiation Oncology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.

Previous 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.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gepi.22288DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7987299PMC
July 2020

Ovarian and Breast Cancer Risks Associated With Pathogenic Variants in RAD51C and RAD51D.

J Natl Cancer Inst 2020 12;112(12):1242-1250

Department of Clinical Genetics Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Background: The purpose of this study was to estimate precise age-specific tubo-ovarian carcinoma (TOC) and breast cancer (BC) risks for carriers of pathogenic variants in RAD51C and RAD51D.

Methods: We analyzed data from 6178 families, 125 with pathogenic variants in RAD51C, and 6690 families, 60 with pathogenic variants in RAD51D. TOC and BC relative and cumulative risks were estimated using complex segregation analysis to model the cancer inheritance patterns in families while adjusting for the mode of ascertainment of each family. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results: Pathogenic variants in both RAD51C and RAD51D were associated with TOC (RAD51C: relative risk [RR] = 7.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.60 to 10.19; P = 5 × 10-40; RAD51D: RR = 7.60, 95% CI = 5.61 to 10.30; P = 5 × 10-39) and BC (RAD51C: RR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.39 to 2.85; P = 1.55 × 10-4; RAD51D: RR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.24 to 2.72; P = .002). For both RAD51C and RAD51D, there was a suggestion that the TOC relative risks increased with age until around age 60 years and decreased thereafter. The estimated cumulative risks of developing TOC to age 80 years were 11% (95% CI = 6% to 21%) for RAD51C and 13% (95% CI = 7% to 23%) for RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers. The estimated cumulative risks of developing BC to 80 years were 21% (95% CI = 15% to 29%) for RAD51C and 20% (95% CI = 14% to 28%) for RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers. Both TOC and BC risks for RAD51C and RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers varied by cancer family history and could be as high as 32-36% for TOC, for carriers with two first-degree relatives diagnosed with TOC, or 44-46% for BC, for carriers with two first-degree relatives diagnosed with BC.

Conclusions: These estimates will facilitate the genetic counseling of RAD51C and RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers and justify the incorporation of RAD51C and RAD51D into cancer risk prediction models.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaa030DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7735771PMC
December 2020

Fine-mapping of 150 breast cancer risk regions identifies 191 likely target genes.

Nat Genet 2020 01 7;52(1):56-73. Epub 2020 Jan 7.

Unit of Medical Genetics, Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Milan, Italy.

Genome-wide association studies have identified breast cancer risk variants in over 150 genomic regions, but the mechanisms underlying risk remain largely unknown. These regions were explored by combining association analysis with in silico genomic feature annotations. We defined 205 independent risk-associated signals with the set of credible causal variants in each one. In parallel, we used a Bayesian approach (PAINTOR) that combines genetic association, linkage disequilibrium and enriched genomic features to determine variants with high posterior probabilities of being causal. Potentially causal variants were significantly over-represented in active gene regulatory regions and transcription factor binding sites. We applied our INQUSIT pipeline for prioritizing genes as targets of those potentially causal variants, using gene expression (expression quantitative trait loci), chromatin interaction and functional annotations. Known cancer drivers, transcription factors and genes in the developmental, apoptosis, immune system and DNA integrity checkpoint gene ontology pathways were over-represented among the highest-confidence target genes.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41588-019-0537-1DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6974400PMC
January 2020

Cancer Risks Associated With Germline Pathogenic Variants: An International Study of 524 Families.

J Clin Oncol 2020 03 16;38(7):674-685. Epub 2019 Dec 16.

Biopathologie, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.

Purpose: To estimate age-specific relative and absolute cancer risks of breast cancer and to estimate risks of ovarian, pancreatic, male breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers associated with germline pathogenic variants (PVs) because these risks have not been extensively characterized.

Methods: We analyzed data from 524 families with PVs from 21 countries. Complex segregation analysis was used to estimate relative risks (RRs; relative to country-specific population incidences) and absolute risks of cancers. The models allowed for residual familial aggregation of breast and ovarian cancer and were adjusted for the family-specific ascertainment schemes.

Results: We found associations between PVs and risk of female breast cancer (RR, 7.18; 95% CI, 5.82 to 8.85; = 6.5 × 10), ovarian cancer (RR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.40 to 6.04; = 4.1 × 10), pancreatic cancer (RR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.24 to 4.50; = 8.7 × 10), and male breast cancer (RR, 7.34; 95% CI, 1.28 to 42.18; = 2.6 × 10). There was no evidence for increased risks of prostate or colorectal cancer. The breast cancer RRs declined with age ( for trend = 2.0 × 10). After adjusting for family ascertainment, breast cancer risk estimates on the basis of multiple case families were similar to the estimates from families ascertained through population-based studies ( for difference = .41). On the basis of the combined data, the estimated risks to age 80 years were 53% (95% CI, 44% to 63%) for female breast cancer, 5% (95% CI, 2% to 10%) for ovarian cancer, 2%-3% (95% CI females, 1% to 4%; 95% CI males, 2% to 5%) for pancreatic cancer, and 1% (95% CI, 0.2% to 5%) for male breast cancer.

Conclusion: These results confirm as a major breast cancer susceptibility gene and establish substantial associations between germline PVs and ovarian, pancreatic, and male breast cancers. These findings will facilitate incorporation of into risk prediction models and optimize the clinical cancer risk management of PV carriers.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.01907DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7049229PMC
March 2020

Association of Genomic Domains in and with Prostate Cancer Risk and Aggressiveness.

Cancer Res 2020 02 13;80(3):624-638. Epub 2019 Nov 13.

Unité de Prévention et d'Epidémiologie Génétique, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.

Pathogenic sequence variants (PSV) in or () are associated with increased risk and severity of prostate cancer. We evaluated whether PSVs in were associated with risk of overall prostate cancer or high grade (Gleason 8+) prostate cancer using an international sample of 65 and 171 male PSV carriers with prostate cancer, and 3,388 and 2,880 male PSV carriers without prostate cancer. PSVs in the 3' region of (c.7914+) were significantly associated with elevated risk of prostate cancer compared with reference bin c.1001-c.7913 [HR = 1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25-2.52; = 0.001], as well as elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.63-5.95; = 0.001). c.756-c.1000 was also associated with elevated prostate cancer risk (HR = 2.83; 95% CI, 1.71-4.68; = 0.00004) and elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 4.95; 95% CI, 2.12-11.54; = 0.0002). No genotype-phenotype associations were detected for PSVs in . These results demonstrate that specific PSVs may be associated with elevated risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer. SIGNIFICANCE: Aggressive prostate cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers may vary according to the specific BRCA2 mutation inherited by the at-risk individual.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-19-1840DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7553241PMC
February 2020

The :p.Arg658* truncating variant is associated with risk of triple-negative breast cancer.

NPJ Breast Cancer 2019 1;5:38. Epub 2019 Nov 1.

25University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Breast Medical Oncology, Houston, TX USA.

Breast cancer is a common disease partially caused by genetic risk factors. Germline pathogenic variants in DNA repair genes , , , , and are associated with breast cancer risk. , which encodes for a DNA translocase, has been proposed as a breast cancer predisposition gene, with greater effects for the ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtypes. We tested the three recurrent protein-truncating variants :p.Arg658*, p.Gln1701*, and p.Arg1931* for association with breast cancer risk in 67,112 cases, 53,766 controls, and 26,662 carriers of pathogenic variants of or . These three variants were also studied functionally by measuring survival and chromosome fragility in patient-derived immortalized fibroblasts treated with diepoxybutane or olaparib. We observed that :p.Arg658* was associated with increased risk of ER-negative disease and TNBC (OR = 2.44,  = 0.034 and OR = 3.79;  = 0.009, respectively). In a country-restricted analysis, we confirmed the associations detected for :p.Arg658* and found that also :p.Arg1931* was associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk (OR = 1.96;  = 0.006). The functional results indicated that all three variants were deleterious affecting cell survival and chromosome stability with :p.Arg658* causing more severe phenotypes. In conclusion, we confirmed that the two rare deleterious variants p.Arg658* and p.Arg1931* are risk factors for ER-negative and TNBC subtypes. Overall our data suggest that the effect of truncating variants on breast cancer risk may depend on their position in the gene. Cell sensitivity to olaparib exposure, identifies a possible therapeutic option to treat -associated tumors.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41523-019-0127-5DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6825205PMC
November 2019

Mendelian randomisation study of height and body mass index as modifiers of ovarian cancer risk in 22,588 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Br J Cancer 2019 07 19;121(2):180-192. Epub 2019 Jun 19.

Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse and The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.

Background: Height and body mass index (BMI) are associated with higher ovarian cancer risk in the general population, but whether such associations exist among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is unknown.

Methods: We applied a Mendelian randomisation approach to examine height/BMI with ovarian cancer risk using the Consortium of Investigators for the Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) data set, comprising 14,676 BRCA1 and 7912 BRCA2 mutation carriers, with 2923 ovarian cancer cases. We created a height genetic score (height-GS) using 586 height-associated variants and a BMI genetic score (BMI-GS) using 93 BMI-associated variants. Associations were assessed using weighted Cox models.

Results: Observed height was not associated with ovarian cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.07 per 10-cm increase in height, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.23). Height-GS showed similar results (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.85-1.23). Higher BMI was significantly associated with increased risk in premenopausal women with HR = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.06-1.48) and HR = 1.59 (95% CI: 1.08-2.33) per 5-kg/m increase in observed and genetically determined BMI, respectively. No association was found for postmenopausal women. Interaction between menopausal status and BMI was significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: Our observation of a positive association between BMI and ovarian cancer risk in premenopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is consistent with findings in the general population.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0492-8DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6738050PMC
July 2019

The spectrum of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic sequence variants in Middle Eastern, North African, and South European countries.

Hum Mutat 2019 11 26;40(11):e1-e23. Epub 2019 Jul 26.

Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.

BRCA1 BRCA2 mutational spectrum in the Middle East, North Africa, and Southern Europe is not well characterized. The unique history and cultural practices characterizing these regions, often involving consanguinity and inbreeding, plausibly led to the accumulation of population-specific founder pathogenic sequence variants (PSVs). To determine recurring BRCA PSVs in these locales, a search in PUBMED, EMBASE, BIC, and CIMBA was carried out combined with outreach to researchers from the relevant countries for unpublished data. We identified 232 PSVs in BRCA1 and 239 in BRCA2 in 25 of 33 countries surveyed. Common PSVs that were detected in four or more countries were c.5266dup (p.Gln1756Profs), c.181T>G (p.Cys61Gly), c.68_69del (p.Glu23Valfs), c.5030_5033del (p.Thr1677Ilefs), c.4327C>T (p.Arg1443Ter), c.5251C>T (p.Arg1751Ter), c.1016dup (p.Val340Glyfs), c.3700_3704del (p.Val1234Glnfs), c.4065_4068del (p.Asn1355Lysfs), c.1504_1508del (p.Leu502Alafs), c.843_846del (p.Ser282Tyrfs), c.798_799del (p.Ser267Lysfs), and c.3607C>T (p.Arg1203Ter) in BRCA1 and c.2808_2811del (p.Ala938Profs), c.5722_5723del (p.Leu1908Argfs), c.9097dup (p.Thr3033Asnfs), c.1310_1313del (p. p.Lys437Ilefs), and c.5946del (p.Ser1982Argfs) for BRCA2. Notably, some mutations (e.g., p.Asn257Lysfs (c.771_775del)) were observed in unrelated populations. Thus, seemingly genotyping recurring BRCA PSVs in specific populations may provide first pass BRCA genotyping platform.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/humu.23842DOI Listing
November 2019

Genome-wide association and transcriptome studies identify target genes and risk loci for breast cancer.

Nat Commun 2019 04 15;10(1):1741. Epub 2019 Apr 15.

Molecular Oncology Laboratory, CIBERONC, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, IdISSC (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos), 28040, Madrid, Spain.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 170 breast cancer susceptibility loci. Here we hypothesize that some risk-associated variants might act in non-breast tissues, specifically adipose tissue and immune cells from blood and spleen. Using expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) reported in these tissues, we identify 26 previously unreported, likely target genes of overall breast cancer risk variants, and 17 for estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer, several with a known immune function. We determine the directional effect of gene expression on disease risk measured based on single and multiple eQTL. In addition, using a gene-based test of association that considers eQTL from multiple tissues, we identify seven (and four) regions with variants associated with overall (and ER-negative) breast cancer risk, which were not reported in previous GWAS. Further investigation of the function of the implicated genes in breast and immune cells may provide insights into the etiology of breast cancer.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08053-5DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6465407PMC
April 2019

Shared heritability and functional enrichment across six solid cancers.

Nat Commun 2019 01 25;10(1):431. Epub 2019 Jan 25.

Human Cancer Genetics Programme, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO), Calle de Melchor Fernández Almagro, 3, 28029, Madrid, Spain.

Quantifying the genetic correlation between cancers can provide important insights into the mechanisms driving cancer etiology. Using genome-wide association study summary statistics across six cancer types based on a total of 296,215 cases and 301,319 controls of European ancestry, here we estimate the pair-wise genetic correlations between breast, colorectal, head/neck, lung, ovary and prostate cancer, and between cancers and 38 other diseases. We observed statistically significant genetic correlations between lung and head/neck cancer (r = 0.57, p = 4.6 × 10), breast and ovarian cancer (r = 0.24, p = 7 × 10), breast and lung cancer (r = 0.18, p =1.5 × 10) and breast and colorectal cancer (r = 0.15, p = 1.1 × 10). We also found that multiple cancers are genetically correlated with non-cancer traits including smoking, psychiatric diseases and metabolic characteristics. Functional enrichment analysis revealed a significant excess contribution of conserved and regulatory regions to cancer heritability. Our comprehensive analysis of cross-cancer heritability suggests that solid tumors arising across tissues share in part a common germline genetic basis.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08054-4DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6347624PMC
January 2019

Homeobox B13 G84E Mutation and Prostate Cancer Risk.

Eur Urol 2019 05 8;75(5):834-845. Epub 2018 Dec 8.

Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Background: The homeobox B13 (HOXB13) G84E mutation has been recommended for use in genetic counselling for prostate cancer (PCa), but the magnitude of PCa risk conferred by this mutation is uncertain.

Objective: To obtain precise risk estimates for mutation carriers and information on how these vary by family history and other factors.

Design, Setting, And Participants: Two-fold: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published risk estimates, and a kin-cohort study comprising pedigree data on 11983 PCa patients enrolled during 1993-2014 from 189 UK hospitals and who had been genotyped for HOXB13 G84E.

Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: Relative and absolute PCa risks. Complex segregation analysis with ascertainment adjustment to derive age-specific risks applicable to the population, and to investigate how these vary by family history and birth cohort.

Results And Limitations: A meta-analysis of case-control studies revealed significant heterogeneity between reported relative risks (RRs; range: 0.95-33.0, p<0.001) and differences by case selection (p=0.007). Based on case-control studies unselected for PCa family history, the pooled RR estimate was 3.43 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.78-4.23). In the kin-cohort study, PCa risk for mutation carriers varied by family history (p<0.001). There was a suggestion that RRs decrease with age, but this was not significant (p=0.068). We found higher RR estimates for men from more recent birth cohorts (p=0.004): 3.09 (95% CI 2.03-4.71) for men born in 1929 or earlier and 5.96 (95% CI 4.01-8.88) for men born in 1930 or later. The absolute PCa risk by age 85 for a male HOXB13 G84E carrier varied from 60% for those with no PCa family history to 98% for those with two relatives diagnosed at young ages, compared with an average risk of 15% for noncarriers. Limitations include the reliance on self-reported cancer family history.

Conclusions: PCa risks for HOXB13 G84E mutation carriers are heterogeneous. Counselling should not be based on average risk estimates but on age-specific absolute risk estimates tailored to individual mutation carriers' family history and birth cohort.

Patient Summary: Men who carry a hereditary mutation in the homeobox B13 (HOXB13) gene have a higher than average risk for developing prostate cancer. In our study, we examined a large number of families of men with prostate cancer recruited across UK hospitals, to assess what other factors may contribute to this risk and to assess whether we could create a precise model to help in predicting a man's prostate cancer risk. We found that the risk of developing prostate cancer in men who carry this genetic mutation is also affected by a family history of prostate cancer and their year of birth. This information can be used to assess more personalised prostate cancer risks to men who carry HOXB13 mutations and hence better counsel them on more personalised risk management options, such as tailoring prostate cancer screening frequency.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.015DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6470122PMC
May 2019

Height and Body Mass Index as Modifiers of Breast Cancer Risk in BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers: A Mendelian Randomization Study.

J Natl Cancer Inst 2019 04;111(4):350-364

Department of Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.

Background: BRCA1/2 mutations confer high lifetime risk of breast cancer, although other factors may modify this risk. Whether height or body mass index (BMI) modifies breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers remains unclear.

Methods: We used Mendelian randomization approaches to evaluate the association of height and BMI on breast cancer risk, using data from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 with 14 676 BRCA1 and 7912 BRCA2 mutation carriers, including 11 451 cases of breast cancer. We created a height genetic score using 586 height-associated variants and a BMI genetic score using 93 BMI-associated variants. We examined both observed and genetically determined height and BMI with breast cancer risk using weighted Cox models. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results: Observed height was positively associated with breast cancer risk (HR = 1.09 per 10 cm increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0 to 1.17; P = 1.17). Height genetic score was positively associated with breast cancer, although this was not statistically significant (per 10 cm increase in genetically predicted height, HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.17; P = .47). Observed BMI was inversely associated with breast cancer risk (per 5 kg/m2 increase, HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.90 to 0.98; P = .007). BMI genetic score was also inversely associated with breast cancer risk (per 5 kg/m2 increase in genetically predicted BMI, HR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.76 to 0.98; P = .02). BMI was primarily associated with premenopausal breast cancer.

Conclusion: Height is associated with overall breast cancer and BMI is associated with premenopausal breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Incorporating height and BMI, particularly genetic score, into risk assessment may improve cancer management.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djy132DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6449171PMC
April 2019

A Transcriptome-Wide Association Study Among 97,898 Women to Identify Candidate Susceptibility Genes for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Risk.

Cancer Res 2018 09 27;78(18):5419-5430. Epub 2018 Jul 27.

Department of Clinical Genetics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified approximately 35 loci associated with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) risk. The majority of GWAS-identified disease susceptibility variants are located in noncoding regions, and causal genes underlying these associations remain largely unknown. Here, we performed a transcriptome-wide association study to search for novel genetic loci and plausible causal genes at known GWAS loci. We used RNA sequencing data (68 normal ovarian tissue samples from 68 individuals and 6,124 cross-tissue samples from 369 individuals) and high-density genotyping data from European descendants of the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx V6) project to build ovarian and cross-tissue models of genetically regulated expression using elastic net methods. We evaluated 17,121 genes for their -predicted gene expression in relation to EOC risk using summary statistics data from GWAS of 97,898 women, including 29,396 EOC cases. With a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of < 2.2 × 10, we identified 35 genes, including at 11q14.2 (Z = 5.08, = 3.83 × 10, the cross-tissue model; 1 Mb away from any GWAS-identified EOC risk variant), a potential novel locus for EOC risk. All other 34 significantly associated genes were located within 1 Mb of known GWAS-identified loci, including 23 genes at 6 loci not previously linked to EOC risk. Upon conditioning on nearby known EOC GWAS-identified variants, the associations for 31 genes disappeared and three genes remained ( < 1.47 × 10). These data identify one novel locus ) and 34 genes at 13 known EOC risk loci associated with EOC risk, providing new insights into EOC carcinogenesis. Transcriptomic analysis of a large cohort confirms earlier GWAS loci and reveals FZD4 as a novel locus associated with EOC risk. .
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-0951DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6139053PMC
September 2018

Evaluation of polygenic risk scores for ovarian cancer risk prediction in a prospective cohort study.

J Med Genet 2018 08 5;55(8):546-554. Epub 2018 May 5.

Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Background: Genome-wide association studies have identified >30 common SNPs associated with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We evaluated the combined effects of EOC susceptibility SNPs on predicting EOC risk in an independent prospective cohort study.

Methods: We genotyped ovarian cancer susceptibility single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a nested case-control study (750 cases and 1428 controls) from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening trial. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) were constructed and their associations with EOC risk were evaluated using logistic regression. The absolute risk of developing ovarian cancer by PRS percentiles was calculated.

Results: The association between serous PRS and serous EOC (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.58, p=1.3×10) was stronger than the association between overall PRS and overall EOC risk (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.45, p=5.4×10). Women in the top fifth percentile of the PRS had a 3.4-fold increased EOC risk compared with women in the bottom 5% of the PRS, with the absolute EOC risk by age 80 being 2.9% and 0.9%, respectively, for the two groups of women in the population.

Conclusion: PRSs can be used to predict future risk of developing ovarian cancer for women in the general population. Incorporation of PRSs into risk prediction models for EOC could inform clinical decision-making and health management.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2018-105313DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6073911PMC
August 2018

Mutational spectrum in a worldwide study of 29,700 families with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

Hum Mutat 2018 05 12;39(5):593-620. Epub 2018 Mar 12.

Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.

The prevalence and spectrum of germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 have been reported in single populations, with the majority of reports focused on White in Europe and North America. The Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) has assembled data on 18,435 families with BRCA1 mutations and 11,351 families with BRCA2 mutations ascertained from 69 centers in 49 countries on six continents. This study comprehensively describes the characteristics of the 1,650 unique BRCA1 and 1,731 unique BRCA2 deleterious (disease-associated) mutations identified in the CIMBA database. We observed substantial variation in mutation type and frequency by geographical region and race/ethnicity. In addition to known founder mutations, mutations of relatively high frequency were identified in specific racial/ethnic or geographic groups that may reflect founder mutations and which could be used in targeted (panel) first pass genotyping for specific populations. Knowledge of the population-specific mutational spectrum in BRCA1 and BRCA2 could inform efficient strategies for genetic testing and may justify a more broad-based oncogenetic testing in some populations.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/humu.23406DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5903938PMC
May 2018

Prediction of Breast and Prostate Cancer Risks in Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers Using Polygenic Risk Scores.

J Clin Oncol 2017 Jul 27;35(20):2240-2250. Epub 2017 Apr 27.

Julie Lecarpentier, Karoline B. Kuchenbaecker, Daniel Barrowdale, Joe Dennis, Lesley McGuffog, Goska Leslie, Andrew Lee, Ali Amin Al Olama, Jonathan P. Tyrer, Debra Frost, Steve Ellis, Douglas F. Easton, and Antonis C. Antoniou, University of Cambridge; Karoline B. Kuchenbaecker, The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton; Marc Tischkowitz, Addenbrooke's Treatment Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge; D. Gareth Evans, Manchester University, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester; Alex Henderson, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne; Carole Brewer, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter; Diana Eccles, Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust, Southampton; Jackie Cook, Sheffield Children's Hospital, Sheffield; Kai-ren Ong, Birmingham Women's Hospital Healthcare NHS Trust, Edgbaston, Birmingham; Lisa Walker, Churchill Hospital, Oxford; Lucy E. Side, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust; Shirley Hodgson, St George's, University of London; Louise Izatt, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust; Ros Eeles, The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust; Nick Orr, The Institute of Cancer Research, London; Mary E. Porteous, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh; Rosemarie Davidson, South Glasgow University Hospitals, Glasgow; Julian Adlard, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom; Valentina Silvestri, Piera Rizzolo, Anna Sara Navazio, Virginia Valentini, Veronica Zelli, and Laura Ottini, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome; Angela Toss, Veronica Medici, and Laura Cortesi, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena; Ines Zanna and Domenico Palli, Cancer Research and Prevention Institute, Florence; Paolo Radice, Siranoush Manoukian, Bernard Peissel, and Jacopo Azzollini, Fondazione Istituto Di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Istituto Nazionale Tumori (INT); Paolo Peterlongo, Italian Foundation for Cancer Research Institute of Molecular Oncology (IFOM), Milan; Alessandra Viel and Giulia Cini, CRO Aviano, National Cancer Institute, Aviano; Giuseppe Damante, University of Udine, Udine; Stefania Tommasi, Istituto Nazionale Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II", Bari; Elisa Alducci, Silvia Tognazzo, and Marco Montagna, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV - IRCCS, Padua; Maria A. Caligo, University and University Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; Penny Soucy and Jacques Simard, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec Research Center and Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec; Anna Marie Mulligan and Irene L. Andrulis, University of Toronto; Gord Glendon and Irene L. Andrulis, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Melissa Southey, Ian Campbell, Paul James, and Gillian Mitchell, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria; Amanda B. Spurdle, Helene Holland, and Georgia Chenevix-Trench, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland; Ian Campbell, Paul James, and Gillian Mitchell, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, New South Wales, Australia; Esther M. John, Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont; Linda Steele, Yuan Chun Ding, Susan L. Neuhausen, and Jeffrey N. Weitzel, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Thomas A. Conner and Saundra S. Buys, Huntsman Cancer Institute; David E. Goldgar, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Andrew K. Godwin, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City; Priyanka Sharma, University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Timothy R. Rebbeck, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Joseph Vijai, Mark Robson, Anne Lincoln, Jacob Musinsky, Pragna Gaddam, and Kenneth Offit, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jennifer T. Loud and Mark H. Greene, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Amanda Ewart Toland and Leigha Senter, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; Dezheng Huo, Sarah M. Nielsen, and Olufunmilayo I. Olopade, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Katherine L. Nathanson and Susan M. Domchek, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; Christa Lorenchick and Rachel C. Jankowitz, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; Fergus J. Couch, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Ramunas Janavicius, State Research Institute Innovative Medicine Center, Vilnius, Lithuania; Thomas V.O. Hansen, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen; Anders Bojesen and Henriette Roed Nielsen, Vejle Hospital, Vejle; Anne-Bine Skytte, Lone Sunde, and Uffe Birk Jensen, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus; Inge Sokilde Pedersen, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg; Lotte Krogh, Torben A. Kruse, and Mads Thomassen, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Ana Osorio, National Cancer Research Centre and Spanish Network on Rare Diseases; Miguel de la Hoya, Vanesa Garcia-Barberan, Trinidad Caldes, and Pedro Perez Segura, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, El Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid; Judith Balmaña, University Hospital, Vall d'Hebron; Sara Gutiérrez-Enríquez and Orland Diez, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology; Orland Diez, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron; Alex Teulé, Jesús Del Valle, Lidia Feliubadalo, Miquel Angel Pujana, and Conxi Lazaro, Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute, Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona; Angel Izquierdo, Esther Darder, and Joan Brunet, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Girona, Catalan Institute of Oncology, Girona, Spain; Florentia Fostira, National Centre for Scientific Research "Demokritos," Athens, Greece; Ute Hamann, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ); Christian Sutter, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg; Alfons Meindl, Klinikumrechts der Isar, Technical University Munich; Nina Ditsch, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich; Andrea Gehrig, University Würzburg, Würzburg; Bernd Dworniczak, University of Münster, Münster; Christoph Engel, University of Leipzig; Dorothea Wand, University Hospital, Leipzig; Dieter Niederacher, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf; Doris Steinemann, Hannover Medical School, Hannover; Eric Hahnen, Jan Hauke, Kerstin Rhiem, Barbara Wappenschmidt, and Rita K. Schmutzler, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne; Karin Kast, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University Dresden, Dresden; Norbert Arnold, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Christian-Albrechts University Kiel, Kiel; Shan Wang-Gohrke, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany; Christine Lasset, Francesca Damiola, and Laure Barjhoux, Centre Léon Bérard; Sylvie Mazoyer, University of Lyon, Lyon; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet and Muriel Belotti, Institut Curie, Paris, France; Mattias Van Heetvelde, Bruce Poppe, Kim De Leeneer, and Kathleen B.M. Claes, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium; Johanna I. Kiiski, Sofia Khan, and Heli Nevanlinna, University of Helsinki; Johanna I. Kiiski, Kristiina Aittomäki, Sofia Khan, and Heli Nevanlinna, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland; Christi J. van Asperen, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; Tibor Vaszko, Miklos Kasler, and Edith Olah, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; Adalgeir Arason, Bjarni A. Agnarsson, Oskar Th. Johannsson, and Rosa B. Barkardottir, Landspitali University Hospital and Biomedical Centre, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland; Manuel R. Teixeira and Pedro Pinto, Portuguese Oncology Institute; Manuel R. Teixeira, Porto University, Porto, Portugal; Jong Won Lee, Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center; Min Hyuk Lee and Jihyoun Lee, Soonchunhyang University and Hospital; Sung-Won Kim and Eunyoung Kang, Daerim St Mary's Hospital; Sue Kyung Park, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul; Zisun Kim, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, Bucheon, Korea; Yen Y. Tan, Andreas Berger, and Christian F. Singer, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Sook-Yee Yoon and Soo-Hwang Teo, Sime Darby Medical Centre, Subang Jaya, Malaysia; and Anna von Wachenfeldt, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.

Purpose BRCA1/2 mutations increase the risk of breast and prostate cancer in men. Common genetic variants modify cancer risks for female carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations. We investigated-for the first time to our knowledge-associations of common genetic variants with breast and prostate cancer risks for male carriers of BRCA1/ 2 mutations and implications for cancer risk prediction. Materials and Methods We genotyped 1,802 male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 by using the custom Illumina OncoArray. We investigated the combined effects of established breast and prostate cancer susceptibility variants on cancer risks for male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations by constructing weighted polygenic risk scores (PRSs) using published effect estimates as weights. Results In male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations, PRS that was based on 88 female breast cancer susceptibility variants was associated with breast cancer risk (odds ratio per standard deviation of PRS, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.56; P = 8.6 × 10). Similarly, PRS that was based on 103 prostate cancer susceptibility variants was associated with prostate cancer risk (odds ratio per SD of PRS, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.81; P = 3.2 × 10). Large differences in absolute cancer risks were observed at the extremes of the PRS distribution. For example, prostate cancer risk by age 80 years at the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS varies from 7% to 26% for carriers of BRCA1 mutations and from 19% to 61% for carriers of BRCA2 mutations, respectively. Conclusion PRSs may provide informative cancer risk stratification for male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations that might enable these men and their physicians to make informed decisions on the type and timing of breast and prostate cancer risk management.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.69.4935DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5501359PMC
July 2017

Identification of 12 new susceptibility loci for different histotypes of epithelial ovarian cancer.

Nat Genet 2017 May 27;49(5):680-691. Epub 2017 Mar 27.

N.N. Alexandrov National Cancer Centre of Belarus, Minsk, Belarus.

To identify common alleles associated with different histotypes of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), we pooled data from multiple genome-wide genotyping projects totaling 25,509 EOC cases and 40,941 controls. We identified nine new susceptibility loci for different EOC histotypes: six for serous EOC histotypes (3q28, 4q32.3, 8q21.11, 10q24.33, 18q11.2 and 22q12.1), two for mucinous EOC (3q22.3 and 9q31.1) and one for endometrioid EOC (5q12.3). We then performed meta-analysis on the results for high-grade serous ovarian cancer with the results from analysis of 31,448 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, including 3,887 mutation carriers with EOC. This identified three additional susceptibility loci at 2q13, 8q24.1 and 12q24.31. Integrated analyses of genes and regulatory biofeatures at each locus predicted candidate susceptibility genes, including OBFC1, a new candidate susceptibility gene for low-grade and borderline serous EOC.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ng.3826DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5612337PMC
May 2017

Association of breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with genetic variants showing differential allelic expression: identification of a modifier of breast cancer risk at locus 11q22.3.

Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017 01 28;161(1):117-134. Epub 2016 Oct 28.

Center for Medical Genetics, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.

Purpose: Cis-acting regulatory SNPs resulting in differential allelic expression (DAE) may, in part, explain the underlying phenotypic variation associated with many complex diseases. To investigate whether common variants associated with DAE were involved in breast cancer susceptibility among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, a list of 175 genes was developed based of their involvement in cancer-related pathways.

Methods: Using data from a genome-wide map of SNPs associated with allelic expression, we assessed the association of ~320 SNPs located in the vicinity of these genes with breast and ovarian cancer risks in 15,252 BRCA1 and 8211 BRCA2 mutation carriers ascertained from 54 studies participating in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2.

Results: We identified a region on 11q22.3 that is significantly associated with breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers (most significant SNP rs228595 p = 7 × 10). This association was absent in BRCA2 carriers (p = 0.57). The 11q22.3 region notably encompasses genes such as ACAT1, NPAT, and ATM. Expression quantitative trait loci associations were observed in both normal breast and tumors across this region, namely for ACAT1, ATM, and other genes. In silico analysis revealed some overlap between top risk-associated SNPs and relevant biological features in mammary cell data, which suggests potential functional significance.

Conclusion: We identified 11q22.3 as a new modifier locus in BRCA1 carriers. Replication in larger studies using estrogen receptor (ER)-negative or triple-negative (i.e., ER-, progesterone receptor-, and HER2-negative) cases could therefore be helpful to confirm the association of this locus with breast cancer risk.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-4018-2DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5222911PMC
January 2017
-->