Tolerability of breast ductal lavage in women from families at high genetic risk of breast cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Ductal lavage (DL) has been proposed as a minimally-invasive, well-tolerated tool for obtaining breast epithelial cells for cytological evaluation of breast cancer risk. We report DL tolerability in <it>BRCA1/2 </it>mutation-positive and -negative women from an IRB-approved research study.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>165 <it>BRCA1/2 </it>mutation-positive, 26 mutation-negative and 3 mutation unknown women underwent mammography, breast MRI and DL. Psychological well-being and perceptions of pain were obtained before and after DL, and compared with pain experienced during other screening procedures.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The average <b><it>anticipated </it></b>and <b><it>experienced </it></b>discomfort rating for DL, 47 and 48 (0–100), were significantly higher (<it>p </it>< 0.01) than the <b><it>anticipated </it></b>and <b><it>experienced </it></b>discomfort of mammogram (38 and 34), MRI (36 and 25) or nipple aspiration (42 and 27). Women with greater pre-existing emotional distress experienced more DL-related discomfort than they anticipated. Women reporting DL-related pain as worse than expected were nearly three times more likely to refuse subsequent DL than those reporting it as the same or better than expected. Twenty-five percent of participants refused repeat DL at first annual follow-up.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>DL was anticipated to be and experienced as <b>more </b>uncomfortable than other procedures used in breast cancer screening. Higher underlying psychological distress was associated with decreased DL tolerability.</p

Polygenic risk modeling for prediction of epithelial ovarian cancer risk

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) have the potential to improve risk stratification. Joint estimation of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) effects in models could improve predictive performance over standard approaches of PRS construction. Here, we implemented computationally efficient, penalized, logistic regression models (lasso, elastic net, stepwise) to individual level genotype data and a Bayesian framework with continuous shrinkage, "select and shrink for summary statistics" (S4), to summary level data for epithelial non-mucinous ovarian cancer risk prediction. We developed the models in a dataset consisting of 23,564 non-mucinous EOC cases and 40,138 controls participating in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) and validated the best models in three populations of different ancestries: prospective data from 198,101 women of European ancestries; 7,669 women of East Asian ancestries; 1,072 women of African ancestries, and in 18,915 BRCA1 and 12,337 BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestries. In the external validation data, the model with the strongest association for non-mucinous EOC risk derived from the OCAC model development data was the S4 model (27,240 SNPs) with odds ratios (OR) of 1.38 (95% CI: 1.28-1.48, AUC: 0.588) per unit standard deviation, in women of European ancestries; 1.14 (95% CI: 1.08-1.19, AUC: 0.538) in women of East Asian ancestries; 1.38 (95% CI: 1.21-1.58, AUC: 0.593) in women of African ancestries; hazard ratios of 1.36 (95% CI: 1.29-1.43, AUC: 0.592) in BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers and 1.49 (95% CI: 1.35-1.64, AUC: 0.624) in BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Incorporation of the S4 PRS in risk prediction models for ovarian cancer may have clinical utility in ovarian cancer prevention programs

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

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.Peer reviewe

Association of genomic domains in BRCA1 and BRCA2 with prostate cancer risk and aggressiveness

Pathogenic sequence variants (PSV) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk and severity of prostate cancer. Weevaluated whether PSVs inBRCA1/2 were associated with risk of overall prostate cancer or high grade (Gleason 8+) prostate cancer using an international sample of 65 BRCA1 and 171 BRCA2 male PSV carriers with prostate cancer, and 3,388 BRCA1 and 2,880 BRCA2 male PSV carriers without prostate cancer. PSVs in the 30 region of BRCA2 (c.7914+) were significantly associated with elevated risk of prostate cancer compared with reference bin c.1001c.7913 [HR = 1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25-2.52; P = 0.001], as well as elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.63-5.95; P = 0.001). c.756-c.1000 was also associated with elevated prostate cancer risk (HR = 2.83; 95% CI, 1.71-4.68; P = 0.00004) and elevated risk of Gleason 8+prostate cancer (HR = 4.95; 95% CI, 2.12-11.54; P = 0.0002). No genotype-phenotype associations were detected for PSVs in BRCA1. These results demonstrate that specific BRCA2 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.Peer reviewe

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

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

Cottingham formula and nucleon polarisabilities

The difference between the electromagnetic self-energies of proton and neutron can be calculated with the Cottingham formula, which expresses the self-energies as an integral over the electroproduction cross sections – provided the nucleon matrix elements of the current commutator do not contain a fixed pole. We show that, under the same proviso, the subtraction function occurring in the dispersive representation of the virtual Compton forward scattering amplitude is determined by the cross sections. The representation in particular leads to a parameter-free sum rule for the nucleon polarisabilities. We evaluate the sum rule for the difference between the electric polarisabilities of proton and neutron by means of the available parameterisations of the data and compare the result with experiment

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

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23162-4