Controversies in Communication of Genetic Risk for Hereditary Breast Cancer

n Abstract: Increased availability and heightened consumer awareness of ''cancer genes'' has increased consumer interest in, and demand for breast cancer risk assessment, and thus a pressing need for providers to identify effective, efficient methods of communicating complicated genetic information to consumers and their potentially at-risk relatives. With increasing direct-to-consumer and -physician marketing of predictive genetic tests, there has been considerable growth in web-and telephone-based genetic services. There is urgent need to further evaluate the psychosocial and behavioral outcomes (i.e., risks and benefits) of telephone and web-based methods of delivery before they become fully incorporated into clinical care models. Given the implications of genetic test results for family members, and the inherent conflicts in health care providers' dual responsibilities to protect patient privacy and to ''warn'' those at-risk, new models for communicating risk to at-risk relatives are emerging. Additional controversies arise when the at-risk relative is a minor. Research evaluating the impact of communicating genetic risk to offspring is necessary to inform optimal communication of genetic risk for breast cancer across the lifespan. Better understanding the risks and benefits associated with each of these controversial areas in cancer risk communication are crucial to optimizing adherence to recommended breast cancer risk management strategies and ensuring psycho-social well-being in the clinical delivery of genetic services for breast cancer susceptibility. n T he discovery of the role of BRCA1/2 mutations in the development of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and the development of a clinical test for the identification of those mutations holds great promise for reducing the risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Although professional societies have provided recommendations for pre-and post-test counseling by health care practitioners with specialized genetics training, there are aspects of genetic testing for hereditary cancer that remain controversial. Increased availability and heightened consumer awareness of ''cancer genes'' has increased consumer interest in, and demand for hereditary cancer risk assessment, and thus, a pressing need for providers to identify effective, efficient methods of communicating complicated genetic information to consumers and their potentially at-risk relatives. Optimal outcomes of communication of genetic test results include adherence to recommended risk management strategies and maximization of psycho-social well-being. This requires not only the effective communication of risk information, but also an understanding of the consumers' translation of that information into personalized perceptions of risk of disease, benefits of interventions and the bio-psychosocial factors that mediate that process. Other concerns include the transfer of genetic risk information to atrisk relatives, including providers' obligation regarding ''duty to warn'' at-risk relatives. When the at-risk relative is a minor, additional controversies arise regarding the timing of disclosure of familial risk, and the appropriateness of minors' testing for adult-onset hereditary cancers. These concerns remain the subjects of ongoing debate and necessitate further empiric research to inform evidence-based guidelines. PROVIDER COMMUNICATION OF GENETIC RISK INFORMATION TO PATIENTS Effective counseling of patients undergoing BRCA1/2 genetic testing includes risk communication, informed consent, and psychosocial support (1-7)

F4‐02‐04: The Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative (API) Program: Genetic Testing and Disclosure Strategies

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152610/1/alzjjalz201606595.pd

Breast cancer family history and allele-specific DNA methylation in the Legacy Girls Study

Family history, a well-established risk factor for breast cancer, can have both genetic and environmental contributions. Shared environment in families as well as epigenetic changes that also may be influenced by shared genetics and environment may also explain familial clustering of cancers. Epigenetic regulation, such as DNA methylation, can change the activity of a DNA segment without a change in the sequence; environmental exposures experienced across the life course can induce such changes. However, genetic-epigenetic interactions, detected as methylation quantitative trait loci (mQTLs; a.k.a. meQTLs) and haplotype-dependent allele-specific methylation (hap-ASM), can also contribute to inter-individual differences in DNA methylation patterns. To identify differentially methylated regions (DMRs) associated with breast cancer susceptibility, we examined differences in white blood cell DNA methylation in 29 candidate genes in 426 girls (ages 6-13 years) from the LEGACY Girls Study, 239 with and 187 without a breast cancer family history (BCFH). We measured methylation by targeted massively parallel bisulfite sequencing (bis-seq) and observed BCFH DMRs in two genes: ESR1 (Δ4.9%, P = 0.003) and SEC16B (Δ3.6%, P = 0.026), each of which has been previously implicated in breast cancer susceptibility and pubertal development. These DMRs showed high inter-individual variability in methylation, suggesting the presence of mQTLs/hap-ASM. Using single nucleotide polymorphisms data in the bis-seq amplicon, we found strong hap-ASM in SEC16B (with allele specific-differences ranging from 42% to 74%). These findings suggest that differential methylation in genes relevant to breast cancer susceptibility may be present early in life, and that inherited genetic factors underlie some of these epigenetic differences

Evaluation of polygenic risk scores for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 94 common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer (BC) risk and 18 associated with ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Several of these are also associated with risk of BC or OC for women who carry a pathogenic mutation in the high-risk BC and OC genes BRCA1 or BRCA2. The combined effects of these variants on BC or OC risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have not yet been assessed while their clinical management could benefit from improved personalized risk estimates. Methods: We constructed polygenic risk scores (PRS) using BC and OC susceptibility SNPs identified through population-based GWAS: for BC (overall, estrogen receptor [ER]-positive, and ER-negative) and for OC. Using data from 15 252 female BRCA1 and 8211 BRCA2 carriers, the association of each PRS with BC or OC risk was evaluated using a weighted cohort approach, with time to diagnosis as the outcome and estimation of the hazard ratios (HRs) per standard deviation increase in the PRS. Results: The PRS for ER-negative BC displayed the strongest association with BC risk in BRCA1 carriers (HR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 1.31, P = 8.2 x 10(53)). In BRCA2 carriers, the strongest association with BC risk was seen for the overall BC PRS (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.28, P = 7.2 x 10(-20)). The OC PRS was strongly associated with OC risk for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These translate to differences in absolute risks (more than 10% in each case) between the top and bottom deciles of the PRS distribution; for example, the OC risk was 6% by age 80 years for BRCA2 carriers at the 10th percentile of the OC PRS compared with 19% risk for those at the 90th percentile of PRS. Conclusions: BC and OC PRS are predictive of cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Incorporation of the PRS into risk prediction models has promise to better inform decisions on cancer risk management

MMTV-Wnt1 and -ΔN89β-Catenin Induce Canonical Signaling in Distinct Progenitors and Differentially Activate Hedgehog Signaling within Mammary Tumors

Canonical Wnt/β-catenin signaling regulates stem/progenitor cells and, when perturbed, induces many human cancers. A significant proportion of human breast cancer is associated with loss of secreted Wnt antagonists and mice expressing MMTV-Wnt1 and MMTV-ΔN89β-catenin develop mammary adenocarcinomas. Many studies have assumed these mouse models of breast cancer to be equivalent. Here we show that MMTV-Wnt1 and MMTV-ΔN89β-catenin transgenes induce tumors with different phenotypes. Using axin2/conductin reporter genes we show that MMTV-Wnt1 and MMTV-ΔN89β-catenin activate canonical Wnt signaling within distinct cell-types. ΔN89β-catenin activated signaling within a luminal subpopulation scattered along ducts that exhibited a K18+ER−PR−CD24highCD49flow profile and progenitor properties. In contrast, MMTV-Wnt1 induced canonical signaling in K14+ basal cells with CD24/CD49f profiles characteristic of two distinct stem/progenitor cell-types. MMTV-Wnt1 produced additional profound effects on multiple cell-types that correlated with focal activation of the Hedgehog pathway. We document that large melanocytic nevi are a hitherto unreported hallmark of early hyperplastic Wnt1 glands. These nevi formed along the primary mammary ducts and were associated with Hedgehog pathway activity within a subset of melanocytes and surrounding stroma. Hh pathway activity also occurred within tumor-associated stromal and K14+/p63+ subpopulations in a manner correlated with Wnt1 tumor onset. These data show MMTV-Wnt1 and MMTV-ΔN89β-catenin induce canonical signaling in distinct progenitors and that Hedgehog pathway activation is linked to melanocytic nevi and mammary tumor onset arising from excess Wnt1 ligand. They further suggest that Hedgehog pathway activation maybe a critical component and useful indicator of breast tumors arising from unopposed Wnt1 ligand

Copy number variants as modifiers of breast cancer risk for BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers

The risk of germline copy number variants (CNVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers in breast cancer is assessed, with CNVs overlapping SULT1A1 decreasing breast cancer risk in BRCA1 carriers.The contribution of germline copy number variants (CNVs) to risk of developing cancer in individuals with pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants remains relatively unknown. We conducted the largest genome-wide analysis of CNVs in 15,342 BRCA1 and 10,740 BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. We used these results to prioritise a candidate breast cancer risk-modifier gene for laboratory analysis and biological validation. Notably, the HR for deletions in BRCA1 suggested an elevated breast cancer risk estimate (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.21), 95% confidence interval (95% CI = 1.09-1.35) compared with non-CNV pathogenic variants. In contrast, deletions overlapping SULT1A1 suggested a decreased breast cancer risk (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.91) in BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers. Functional analyses of SULT1A1 showed that reduced mRNA expression in pathogenic BRCA1 variant cells was associated with reduced cellular proliferation and reduced DNA damage after treatment with DNA damaging agents. These data provide evidence that deleterious variants in BRCA1 plus SULT1A1 deletions contribute to variable breast cancer risk in BRCA1 carriers.Peer reviewe

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

Funder: CIMBA: The CIMBA data management and data analysis were supported by Cancer Research – UK grants C12292/A20861, C12292/A11174. ACA is a Cancer Research -UK Senior Cancer Research Fellow. GCT and ABS are NHMRC Research Fellows. iCOGS: the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement No. 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/A16565), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112 - the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer (CRN-87521), and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade (PSR-SIIRI-701), Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. The PERSPECTIVE project was supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ministry of Economy, Science and Innovation through Genome Québec, and The Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation. BCFR: UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government or the BCFR. BFBOCC: Lithuania (BFBOCC-LT): Research Council of Lithuania grant SEN-18/2015. BIDMC: Breast Cancer Research Foundation. BMBSA: Cancer Association of South Africa (PI Elizabeth J. van Rensburg). CNIO: Spanish Ministry of Health PI16/00440 supported by FEDER funds, the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) SAF2014-57680-R and the Spanish Research Network on Rare diseases (CIBERER). COH-CCGCRN: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under grant number R25CA112486, and RC4CA153828 (PI: J. Weitzel) from the National Cancer Institute and the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. CONSIT: Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2014 no.15547) to P. Radice. Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC; grant no.16933) to L. Ottini. Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2015 no.16732) to P. Peterlongo. Jacopo Azzollini is supported by funds from Italian citizens who allocated the 5x1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects ‘5x1000’). DEMOKRITOS: European Union (European Social Fund – ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program "Education and Lifelong Learning" of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program of the General Secretariat for Research & Technology: SYN11_10_19 NBCA. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund. DFKZ: German Cancer Research Center. EMBRACE: Cancer Research UK Grants C1287/A10118 and C1287/A11990. D. Gareth Evans and Fiona Lalloo are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester. The Investigators at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Ros Eeles and Elizabeth Bancroft are supported by Cancer Research UK Grant C5047/A8385. Ros Eeles is also supported by NIHR support to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. FCCC: The University of Kansas Cancer Center (P30 CA168524) and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. A.K.G. was funded by R0 1CA140323, R01 CA214545, and by the Chancellors Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences Professorship. FPGMX: FISPI05/2275 and Mutua Madrileña Foundation (FMMA). GC-HBOC: German Cancer Aid (grant no 110837, Rita K. Schmutzler) and the European Regional Development Fund and Free State of Saxony, Germany (LIFE - Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases, project numbers 713-241202, 713-241202, 14505/2470, 14575/2470). GEMO: Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer; the Association “Le cancer du sein, parlons-en!” Award, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the "CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer" program and the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa grants 2013-1-BCB-01-ICH-1 and SHS-E-SP 18-015). GEORGETOWN: the Non-Therapeutic Subject Registry Shared Resource at Georgetown University (NIH/NCI grant P30-CA051008), the Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, and Swing Fore the Cure. G-FAST: Bruce Poppe is a senior clinical investigator of FWO. Mattias Van Heetvelde obtained funding from IWT. HCSC: Spanish Ministry of Health PI15/00059, PI16/01292, and CB-161200301 CIBERONC from ISCIII (Spain), partially supported by European Regional Development FEDER funds. HEBCS: Helsinki University Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (266528), the Finnish Cancer Society and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. HEBON: the Dutch Cancer Society grants NKI1998-1854, NKI2004-3088, NKI2007-3756, the Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research grant NWO 91109024, the Pink Ribbon grants 110005 and 2014-187.WO76, the BBMRI grant NWO 184.021.007/CP46 and the Transcan grant JTC 2012 Cancer 12-054. HRBCP: Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Dr Ellen Li Charitable Foundation, The Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, National Institute of Health1R 03CA130065, and North California Cancer Center. HUNBOCS: Hungarian Research Grants KTIA-OTKA CK-80745 and OTKA K-112228. ICO: The authors would like to particularly acknowledge the support of the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (organismo adscrito al Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad) and “Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), una manera de hacer Europa” (PI10/01422, PI13/00285, PIE13/00022, PI15/00854, PI16/00563 and CIBERONC) and the Institut Català de la Salut and Autonomous Government of Catalonia (2009SGR290, 2014SGR338 and PERIS Project MedPerCan). IHCC: PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. ILUH: Icelandic Association “Walking for Breast Cancer Research” and by the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. INHERIT: Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program – grant # CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade – grant # PSR-SIIRI-701. IOVHBOCS: Ministero della Salute and “5x1000” Istituto Oncologico Veneto grant. IPOBCS: Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro. kConFab: The National Breast Cancer Foundation, and previously by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. MAYO: NIH grants CA116167, CA192393 and CA176785, an NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201),and a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. MCGILL: Jewish General Hospital Weekend to End Breast Cancer, Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade. Marc Tischkowitz is supported by the funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program (2007Y2013)/European Research Council (Grant No. 310018). MODSQUAD: MH CZ - DRO (MMCI, 00209805), MEYS - NPS I - LO1413 to LF and by the European Regional Development Fund and the State Budget of the Czech Republic (RECAMO, CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0101) to LF, and by Charles University in Prague project UNCE204024 (MZ). MSKCC: the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Initiative, the Andrew Sabin Research Fund and a Cancer Center Support Grant/Core Grant (P30 CA008748). NAROD: 1R01 CA149429-01. NCI: the Intramural Research Program of the US National Cancer Institute, NIH, and by support services contracts NO2-CP-11019-50, N02-CP-21013-63 and N02-CP-65504 with Westat, Inc, Rockville, MD. NICCC: Clalit Health Services in Israel, the Israel Cancer Association and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), NY. NNPIO: the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants 17-54-12007, 17-00-00171 and 18-515-12007). NRG Oncology: U10 CA180868, NRG SDMC grant U10 CA180822, NRG Administrative Office and the NRG Tissue Bank (CA 27469), the NRG Statistical and Data Center (CA 37517) and the Intramural Research Program, NCI. OSUCCG: Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. PBCS: Italian Association of Cancer Research (AIRC) [IG 2013 N.14477] and Tuscany Institute for Tumors (ITT) grant 2014-2015-2016. SEABASS: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation. SMC: the Israeli Cancer Association. SWE-BRCA: the Swedish Cancer Society. UCHICAGO: NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA125183), R01 CA142996, 1U01CA161032, P20CA233307, American Cancer Society (MRSG-13-063-01-TBG, CRP-10-119-01-CCE), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Susan G. Komen Foundation (SAC110026), and Ralph and Marion Falk Medical Research Trust, the Entertainment Industry Fund National Women's Cancer Research Alliance. Mr. Qian was supported by the Alpha Omega Alpha Carolyn L. Cuckein Student Research Fellowship. UCLA: Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Foundation; Breast Cancer Research Foundation. UCSF: UCSF Cancer Risk Program and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. UKFOCR: Cancer Research UK. UPENN: Breast Cancer Research Foundation; Susan G. Komen Foundation for the cure, Basser Center for BRCA. UPITT/MWH: Hackers for Hope Pittsburgh. VFCTG: Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, National Breast Cancer Foundation. WCP: Dr Karlan is funded by the American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124.Abstract: 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/m2 increase in observed and genetically determined BMI, respectively. No association was found for postmenopausal women. Interaction between menopausal status and BMI was significant (Pinteraction < 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

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

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

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

Purpose We assessed the associations between population-based polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with cancer risks forBRCA1andBRCA2pathogenic variant carriers. Methods Retrospective cohort data on 18,935BRCA1and 12,339BRCA2female 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 forBRCA1carriers (hazard ratio [HR] per standard deviation = 1.29 [95% CI 1.25-1.33],P = 3x10(-72)). ForBRCA2, the strongest association was with overall BC PRS (HR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.27-1.36],P = 7x10(-50)). 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 forBRCA1(HR = 1.32 [95% CI 1.25-1.40],P = 3x10(-22)) andBRCA2(HR = 1.44 [95% CI 1.30-1.60],P = 4x10(-12)) carriers. The associations in the prospective cohort were similar. Conclusion Population-based PRS are strongly associated with BC and EOC risks forBRCA1/2carriers and predict substantial absolute risk differences for women at PRS distribution extremes.Peer reviewe

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

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