Fine-Scale mapping of the 11q13 breast cancer susceptibility locus

The Cancer Genetic Markers of Susceptibility genome-wide association study (GWAS) originally identified a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs11249433 at 1p11.2 associated with breast cancer risk. To fine-map this locus, we genotyped 92 SNPs in a 900kb region (120,505,799–121,481,132) flanking rs11249433 in 45,276 breast cancer cases and 48,998 controls of European, Asian and African ancestry from 50 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Genotyping was done using iCOGS, a custom-built array. Due to the complicated nature of the region on chr1p11.2: 120,300,000–120,505,798, that lies near the centromere and contains seven duplicated genomic segments, we restricted analyses to 429 SNPs excluding the duplicated regions (42 genotyped and 387 imputed). Perallelic associations with breast cancer risk were estimated using logistic regression models adjusting for study and ancestry-specific principal components. The strongest association observed was with the original identified index SNP rs11249433 (minor allele frequency (MAF) 0.402; per-allele odds ratio (OR) = 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08–1.13, $\small \textit{P}$ = 1.49 x 10$^{-21}$). The association for rs11249433 was limited to ER-positive breast cancers (test for heterogeneity $\small \textit{P}$ $\leq$ 8.41 x 10$^{-5}$). Additional analyses by other tumor characteristics showed stronger associations with moderately/well differentiated tumors and tumors of lobular histology. Although no significant eQTL associations were observed, in silico analyses showed that rs11249433 was located in a region that is likely a weak enhancer/promoter. Fine-mapping analysis of the 1p11.2 breast cancer susceptibility locus confirms this region to be limited to risk to cancers that are ER-positive.Cancer Research UK (Grant IDs: C1287/A10118, C1287/A12014, C490/A10124, C1287/A10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/A16565), European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (Grant ID: HEALTH-F2-2009-223175), National Institutes of Health (Grant IDs: CA128978, CA116167, CA176785, CA116201, CA63464, CA54281, CA098758, CA132839, R01CA100374, R01CA64277, R01CA148667, R37CA70867, R01CA092447), National Institute for Health Research. See also Table K via http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160316.s003This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from the Public Library of Science via http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.016031

A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes

In computing the probability that a woman is a BRCA1 or BRCA2 carrier for genetic counselling purposes, it is important to allow for the fact that other breast cancer susceptibility genes may exist. We used data from both a population based series of breast cancer cases and high risk families in the UK, with information on BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status, to investigate the genetic models that can best explain familial breast cancer outside BRCA1 and BRCA2 families. We also evaluated the evidence for risk modifiers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. We estimated the simultaneous effects of BRCA1, BRCA2, a third hypothetical gene ‘BRCA3’, and a polygenic effect using segregation analysis. The hypergeometric polygenic model was used to approximate polygenic inheritance and the effect of risk modifiers. BRCA1 and BRCA2 could not explain all the observed familial clustering. The best fitting model for the residual familial breast cancer was the polygenic, although a model with a single recessive allele produced a similar fit. There was also significant evidence for a modifying effect of other genes on the risks of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Under this model, the frequency of BRCA1 was estimated to be 0.051% (95% CI: 0.021–0.125%) and of BRCA2 0.068% (95% CI: 0.033–0.141%). The breast cancer risk by age 70 years, based on the average incidence over all modifiers was estimated to be 35.3% for BRCA1 and 50.3% for BRCA2. The corresponding ovarian cancer risks were 25.9% for BRCA1 and 9.1% for BRCA2. The findings suggest that several common, low penetrance genes with multiplicative effects on risk may account for the residual non-BRCA1/2 familial aggregation of breast cancer. The modifying effect may explain the previously reported differences between population based estimates for BRCA1/2 penetrance and estimates based on high-risk families

Systematic review of studies generating individual participant data on the efficacy of drugs for treating soil-transmitted helminthiases and the case for data-sharing

Preventive chemotherapy and transmission control (PCT) by mass drug administration is the cornerstone of the World Health Organization (WHO)’s policy to control soil-transmitted helminthiases (STHs) caused by Ascaris lumbricoides (roundworm), Trichuris trichiura (whipworm) and hookworm species (Necator americanus and Ancylostama duodenale) which affect over 1 billion people globally. Despite consensus that drug efficacies should be monitored for signs of decline that could jeopardise the effectiveness of PCT, systematic monitoring and evaluation is seldom implemented. Drug trials mostly report aggregate efficacies in groups of participants, but heterogeneities in design complicate classical meta-analyses of these data. Individual participant data (IPD) permit more detailed analysis of drug efficacies, offering increased sensitivity to identify atypical responses potentially caused by emerging drug resistance

A genome-wide association study to identify genetic markers associated with endometrial cancer grade

RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are

Moving conferences online: lessons learned from an international virtual meeting

We consider the opportunities and challenges associated with organizing a conference online, using a case study of a medium-sized (approx. 400 participants) international conference held virtually in August 2020. In addition, we present quantifiable evidence of the participants' experience using the results from an online post-conference questionnaire. Although the virtual meeting was not able to replicate the in-person experience in some aspects (e.g. less engagement between participants) the overwhelming majority of respondents found the meeting an enjoyable experience and would join similar events again. Notably, there was a strong desire for future in-person meetings to have at least some online component. Online attendance by lower-income researchers was higher compared with a past, similar-themed in-person meeting held in a high-income nation, but comparable to one held in an upper-middle-income nation. This indicates that online conferences are not a panacea for diversity and inclusivity, and that holding in-person meetings in developing economies can be at least as effective. Given that it is now relatively easy to stream contents of meetings online using low-cost methods, there are clear benefits in making all presented content accessible online, as well as organizing online networking events for those unable to attend in person

Should Age-Dependent Absolute Risk Thresholds Be Used for Risk Stratification in Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening?

In risk-stratified cancer screening, multiple risk factors are incorporated into the risk assessment. An individual’s estimated absolute cancer risk is linked to risk categories with tailored screening recommendations for each risk category. Absolute risk, expressed as either remaining lifetime risk or shorter-term (five- or ten-year) risk, is estimated from the age at assessment. These risk estimates vary by age; however, some clinical guidelines (e.g., enhanced breast cancer surveillance guidelines) and ongoing personalised breast screening trials, stratify women based on absolute risk thresholds that do not vary by age. We examine an alternative approach in which the risk thresholds used for risk stratification vary by age and consider the implications of using age-independent risk thresholds on risk stratification. We demonstrate that using an age-independent remaining lifetime risk threshold approach could identify high-risk younger women but would miss high-risk older women, whereas an age-independent 5-year or 10-year absolute risk threshold could miss high-risk younger women and classify lower-risk older women as high risk. With risk misclassification, women with an equivalent risk level would be offered a different screening plan. To mitigate these problems, age-dependent absolute risk thresholds should be used to inform risk stratification

Critical research gaps and translational priorities for the successful prevention and treatment of breast cancer

INTRODUCTION Breast cancer remains a significant scientific, clinical and societal challenge. This gap analysis has reviewed and critically assessed enduring issues and new challenges emerging from recent research, and proposes strategies for translating solutions into practice. METHODS More than 100 internationally recognised specialist breast cancer scientists, clinicians and healthcare professionals collaborated to address nine thematic areas: genetics, epigenetics and epidemiology; molecular pathology and cell biology; hormonal influences and endocrine therapy; imaging, detection and screening; current/novel therapies and biomarkers; drug resistance; metastasis, angiogenesis, circulating tumour cells, cancer 'stem' cells; risk and prevention; living with and managing breast cancer and its treatment. The groups developed summary papers through an iterative process which, following further appraisal from experts and patients, were melded into this summary account. RESULTS The 10 major gaps identified were: (1) understanding the functions and contextual interactions of genetic and epigenetic changes in normal breast development and during malignant transformation; (2) how to implement sustainable lifestyle changes (diet, exercise and weight) and chemopreventive strategies; (3) the need for tailored screening approaches including clinically actionable tests; (4) enhancing knowledge of molecular drivers behind breast cancer subtypes, progression and metastasis; (5) understanding the molecular mechanisms of tumour heterogeneity, dormancy, de novo or acquired resistance and how to target key nodes in these dynamic processes; (6) developing validated markers for chemosensitivity and radiosensitivity; (7) understanding the optimal duration, sequencing and rational combinations of treatment for improved personalised therapy; (8) validating multimodality imaging biomarkers for minimally invasive diagnosis and monitoring of responses in primary and metastatic disease; (9) developing interventions and support to improve the survivorship experience; (10) a continuing need for clinical material for translational research derived from normal breast, blood, primary, relapsed, metastatic and drug-resistant cancers with expert bioinformatics support to maximise its utility. The proposed infrastructural enablers include enhanced resources to support clinically relevant in vitro and in vivo tumour models; improved access to appropriate, fully annotated clinical samples; extended biomarker discovery, validation and standardisation; and facilitated cross-discipline working. CONCLUSIONS With resources to conduct further high-quality targeted research focusing on the gaps identified, increased knowledge translating into improved clinical care should be achievable within five years