Associations of common breast cancer susceptibility alleles with risk of breast cancer subtypes in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Introduction: More than 70 common alleles are known to be involved in breast cancer (BC) susceptibility, and several exhibit significant heterogeneity in their associations with different BC subtypes. Although there are differences in the association patterns between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and the general population for several loci, no study has comprehensively evaluated the associations of all known BC susceptibility alleles with risk of BC subtypes in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Methods: We used data from 15,252 BRCA1 and 8,211 BRCA2 carriers to analyze the associations between approximately 200,000 genetic variants on the iCOGS array and risk of BC subtypes defined by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and triple-negative- (TN) status; morphologic subtypes; histological grade; and nodal involvement. Results: The estimated BC hazard ratios (HRs) for the 74 known BC alleles in BRCA1 carriers exhibited moderate correlations with the corresponding odds ratios from the general population. However, their associations with ER-positive BC in BRCA1 carriers were more consistent with the ER-positive as

Refined histopathological predictors of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status: A large-scale analysis of breast cancer characteristics from the BCAC, CIMBA, and ENIGMA consortia

Introduction: The distribution of histopathological features of invasive breast tumors in BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation carriers differs from that of individuals with no known mutation. Histopathological features thus have utility for mutation prediction, including statistical modeling to assess pathogenicity of BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants of uncertain clinical significance. We analyzed large pathology datasets accrued by the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) and the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) to reassess histopathological predictors of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status, and provide robust likelihood ratio (LR) estimates for statistical modeling. Methods: Selection criteria for study/center inclusion were estrogen receptor (ER) status or grade data available for invasive breast cancer diagnosed younger than 70 years. The dataset included 4,477 BRCA1 mutation carriers, 2,565 BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 47,565 BCAC breast cancer cases. Country-stratified estimates of the

Functional mechanisms underlying pleiotropic risk alleles at the 19p13.1 breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility locus

A locus at 19p13 is associated with breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Here we analyse 438 SNPs in this region in 46,451 BC and 15,438 OC cases, 15,252 BRCA1 mutation carriers and 73,444 controls and identify 13 candidate causal SNPs associated with serous OC (P=9.2 × 10-20), ER-negative BC (P=1.1 × 10-13), BRCA1-associated BC (P=7.7 × 10-16) and triple negative BC (P-diff=2 × 10-5). Genotype-gene expression associations are identified for candidate target genes ANKLE1 (P=2 × 10-3) and ABHD8 (P<2 × 10-3). Chromosome conformation capture identifies interactions between four candidate SNPs and ABHD8, and luciferase assays indicate six risk alleles increased transactivation of the ADHD8 promoter. Targeted deletion of a region containing risk SNP rs56069439 in a putative enhancer induces ANKLE1 downregulation; and mRNA stability assays indicate functional effects for an ANKLE1 3′-UTR SNP. Altogether, these data suggest that multiple SNPs at 19p13 regulate ABHD8 and perhaps ANKLE1 expression, and indicate common mechanisms underlying breast and ovarian cancer risk

Genome-Wide Association Study in BRCA1 Mutation Carriers Identifies Novel Loci Associated with Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk

BRCA1-associated breast and ovarian cancer risks can be modified by common genetic variants. To identify further cancer risk-modifying loci, we performed a multi-stage GWAS of 11,705 BRCA1 carriers (of whom 5,920 were diagnosed with breast and 1,839 were diagnosed with ovarian cancer), with a further replication in an additional sample of 2,646 BRCA1 carriers. We identified a novel breast cancer risk modifier locus at 1q32 for BRCA1 carriers (rs2290854, P = 2.7×10-8, HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.09-1.20). In addition, we identified two novel ovarian cancer risk modifier loci: 17q21.31 (rs17631303, P = 1.4×10-8, HR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.17-1.38) and 4q32.3 (rs4691139, P = 3.4×10-8, HR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.17-1.38). The 4q32.3 locus was not associated with ovarian cancer risk in the general population or BRCA2 carriers, suggesting a BRCA1-specific associat

Association of the CHEK2 c.1100delC variant, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment with contralateral breast cancer risk and breast cancer-specific survival

Background Breast cancer (BC) patients with a germline CHEK2 c.1100delC variant have an increased risk of contralateral BC (CBC) and worse BC-specific survival (BCSS) compared to non-carriers. Aim To assessed the associations of CHEK2 c.1100delC, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment with CBC risk and BCSS. Methods Analyses were based on 82,701 women diagnosed with a first primary invasive BC including 963 CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers; median follow-up was 9.1 years. Differential associations with treatment by CHEK2 c.1100delC status were tested by including interaction terms in a multivariable Cox regression model. A multi-state model was used for further insight into the relation between CHEK2 c.1100delC status, treatment, CBC risk and death. Results There was no evidence for differential associations of therapy with CBC risk by CHEK2 c.1100delC status. The strongest association with reduced CBC risk was observed for the combination of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy [HR (95% CI): 0.66 (0.55–0.78)]. No association was observed with radiotherapy. Results from the multi-state model showed shorter BCSS for CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers versus non-carriers also after accounting for CBC occurrence [HR (95% CI): 1.30 (1.09–1.56)]. Conclusion Systemic therapy was associated with reduced CBC risk irrespective of CHEK2 c.1100delC status. Moreover, CHEK2 c.1100delC carriers had shorter BCSS, which appears not to be fully explained by their CBC risk

A genome-wide gene-environment interaction study of breast cancer risk for women of European ancestry

Background Genome-wide studies of gene–environment interactions (G×E) may identify variants associated with disease risk in conjunction with lifestyle/environmental exposures. We conducted a genome-wide G×E analysis of ~ 7.6 million common variants and seven lifestyle/environmental risk factors for breast cancer risk overall and for estrogen receptor positive (ER +) breast cancer. Methods Analyses were conducted using 72,285 breast cancer cases and 80,354 controls of European ancestry from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Gene–environment interactions were evaluated using standard unconditional logistic regression models and likelihood ratio tests for breast cancer risk overall and for ER + breast cancer. Bayesian False Discovery Probability was employed to assess the noteworthiness of each SNP-risk factor pairs. Results Assuming a 1 × 10–5 prior probability of a true association for each SNP-risk factor pairs and a Bayesian False Discovery Probability < 15%, we identified two independent SNP-risk factor pairs: rs80018847(9p13)-LINGO2 and adult height in association with overall breast cancer risk (ORint = 0.94, 95% CI 0.92–0.96), and rs4770552(13q12)-SPATA13 and age at menarche for ER + breast cancer risk (ORint = 0.91, 95% CI 0.88–0.94). Conclusions Overall, the contribution of G×E interactions to the heritability of breast cancer is very small. At the population level, multiplicative G×E interactions do not make an important contribution to risk prediction in breast cancer

Associations of obesity and circulating insulin and glucose with breast cancer risk: a Mendelian randomization analysis.

BACKGROUND: In addition to the established association between general obesity and breast cancer risk, central obesity and circulating fasting insulin and glucose have been linked to the development of this common malignancy. Findings from previous studies, however, have been inconsistent, and the nature of the associations is unclear. METHODS: We conducted Mendelian randomization analyses to evaluate the association of breast cancer risk, using genetic instruments, with fasting insulin, fasting glucose, 2-h glucose, body mass index (BMI) and BMI-adjusted waist-hip-ratio (WHRadj BMI). We first confirmed the association of these instruments with type 2 diabetes risk in a large diabetes genome-wide association study consortium. We then investigated their associations with breast cancer risk using individual-level data obtained from 98 842 cases and 83 464 controls of European descent in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. RESULTS: All sets of instruments were associated with risk of type 2 diabetes. Associations with breast cancer risk were found for genetically predicted fasting insulin [odds ratio (OR) = 1.71 per standard deviation (SD) increase, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.26-2.31, p  =  5.09  ×  10-4], 2-h glucose (OR = 1.80 per SD increase, 95% CI = 1.3 0-2.49, p  =  4.02  ×  10-4), BMI (OR = 0.70 per 5-unit increase, 95% CI = 0.65-0.76, p  =  5.05  ×  10-19) and WHRadj BMI (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.79-0.91, p  =  9.22  ×  10-6). Stratified analyses showed that genetically predicted fasting insulin was more closely related to risk of estrogen-receptor [ER]-positive cancer, whereas the associations with instruments of 2-h glucose, BMI and WHRadj BMI were consistent regardless of age, menopausal status, estrogen receptor status and family history of breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed the previously reported inverse association of genetically predicted BMI with breast cancer risk, and showed a positive association of genetically predicted fasting insulin and 2-h glucose and an inverse association of WHRadj BMI with breast cancer risk. Our study suggests that genetically determined obesity and glucose/insulin-related traits have an important role in the aetiology of breast cancer

Physical activity, sedentary time and breast cancer risk: a Mendelian randomisation study

Objectives: Physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour are associated with higher breast cancer risk in observational studies, but ascribing causality is difficult. Mendelian randomisation (MR) assesses causality by simulating randomised trial groups using genotype. We assessed whether lifelong physical activity or sedentary time, assessed using genotype, may be causally associated with breast cancer risk overall, pre/post-menopause, and by case-groups defined by tumour characteristics. Methods: We performed two-sample inverse-variance-weighted MR using individual-level Breast Cancer Association Consortium case-control data from 130 957 European-ancestry women (69 838 invasive cases), and published UK Biobank data (n=91 105–377 234). Genetic instruments were single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated in UK Biobank with wrist-worn accelerometer-measured overall physical activity (nsnps=5) or sedentary time (nsnps=6), or accelerometer-measured (nsnps=1) or self-reported (nsnps=5) vigorous physical activity. Results: Greater genetically-predicted overall activity was associated with lower breast cancer overall risk (OR=0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.83 per-standard deviation (SD;~8 milligravities acceleration)) and for most case-groups. Genetically-predicted vigorous activity was associated with lower risk of pre/perimenopausal breast cancer (OR=0.62; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.87,≥3 vs. 0 self-reported days/week), with consistent estimates for most case-groups. Greater genetically-predicted sedentary time was associated with higher hormone-receptor-negative tumour risk (OR=1.77; 95% CI 1.07 to 2.92 per-SD (~7% time spent sedentary)), with elevated estimates for most case-groups. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses examining pleiotropy (including weighted-median-MR, MR-Egger). Conclusion: Our study provides strong evidence that greater overall physical activity, greater vigorous activity, and lower sedentary time are likely to reduce breast cancer risk. More widespread adoption of active lifestyles may reduce the burden from the most common cancer in women