Genome-wide meta-analysis identifies eight new susceptibility loci for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is one of the most common cancers in the United States. Previous genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 14 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with cutaneous SCC. Here, we report the largest cutaneous SCC meta-analysis to date, representing six international cohorts and totaling 19,149 SCC cases and 680,049 controls. We discover eight novel loci associated with SCC, confirm all previously associated loci, and perform fine mapping of causal variants. The novel SNPs occur within skin-specific regulatory elements and implicate loci involved in cancer development, immune regulation, and keratinocyte differentiation in SCC susceptibility

Association of genetic susceptibility variants for type 2 diabetes with breast cancer risk in women of European ancestry.

Purpose: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) has been reported to be associated with an elevated risk of breast cancer. It is unclear, however, whether this association is due to shared genetic factors. Methods: We constructed a genetic risk score (GRS) using risk variants from 33 known independent T2D susceptibility loci and evaluated its relation to breast cancer risk using the data from two consortia, including 62,328 breast cancer patients and 83,817 controls of European ancestry. Unconditional logistic regression models were used to derive adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) to measure the association of breast cancer risk with T2D GRS or T2D-associated genetic risk variants. Meta-analyses were conducted to obtain summary ORs across all studies. Results: The T2D GRS was not found to be associated with breast cancer risk, overall, by menopausal status, or for estrogen receptor positive or negative breast cancer. Three T2D associated risk variants were individually associated with breast cancer risk after adjustment for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method (at p < 0.001), rs9939609 (FTO) (OR 0.94, 95 % CI = 0.92–0.95, p = 4.13E−13), rs7903146 (TCF7L2) (OR 1.04, 95 % CI = 1.02–1.06, p = 1.26E−05), and rs8042680 (PRC1) (OR 0.97, 95 % CI = 0.95–0.99, p = 8.05E−04). Conclusions: We have shown that several genetic risk variants were associated with the risk of both T2D and breast cancer. However, overall genetic susceptibility to T2D may not be related to breast cancer risk

Identification of independent association signals and putative functional variants for breast cancer risk through fine-scale mapping of the 12p11 locus.

BACKGROUND: Multiple recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), rs10771399, at 12p11 that is associated with breast cancer risk. METHOD: We performed a fine-scale mapping study of a 700 kb region including 441 genotyped and more than 1300 imputed genetic variants in 48,155 cases and 43,612 controls of European descent, 6269 cases and 6624 controls of East Asian descent and 1116 cases and 932 controls of African descent in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC; http://bcac.ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/ ), and in 15,252 BRCA1 mutation carriers in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Stepwise regression analyses were performed to identify independent association signals. Data from the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements project (ENCODE) and the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) were used for functional annotation. RESULTS: Analysis of data from European descendants found evidence for four independent association signals at 12p11, represented by rs7297051 (odds ratio (OR) = 1.09, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 1.06-1.12; P = 3 × 10(-9)), rs805510 (OR = 1.08, 95 % CI = 1.04-1.12, P = 2 × 10(-5)), and rs1871152 (OR = 1.04, 95 % CI = 1.02-1.06; P = 2 × 10(-4)) identified in the general populations, and rs113824616 (P = 7 × 10(-5)) identified in the meta-analysis of BCAC ER-negative cases and BRCA1 mutation carriers. SNPs rs7297051, rs805510 and rs113824616 were also associated with breast cancer risk at P < 0.05 in East Asians, but none of the associations were statistically significant in African descendants. Multiple candidate functional variants are located in putative enhancer sequences. Chromatin interaction data suggested that PTHLH was the likely target gene of these enhancers. Of the six variants with the strongest evidence of potential functionality, rs11049453 was statistically significantly associated with the expression of PTHLH and its nearby gene CCDC91 at P < 0.05. CONCLUSION: This study identified four independent association signals at 12p11 and revealed potentially functional variants, providing additional insights into the underlying biological mechanism(s) for the association observed between variants at 12p11 and breast cancer risk.UK funding includes Cancer Research UK and NIH.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from BioMed Central via http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0718-

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

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

Assessing the goodness of fit of personal risk models.

We describe a flexible family of tests for evaluating the goodness of fit (calibration) of a pre-specified personal risk model to the outcomes observed in a longitudinal cohort. Such evaluation involves using the risk model to assign each subject an absolute risk of developing the outcome within a given time from cohort entry and comparing subjects&#39; assigned risks with their observed outcomes. This comparison involves several issues. For example, subjects followed only for part of the risk period have unknown outcomes. Moreover, existing tests do not reveal the reasons for poor model fit when it occurs, which can reflect misspecification of the model&#39;s hazards for the competing risks of outcome development and death. To address these issues, we extend the model-specified hazards for outcome and death, and use score statistics to test the null hypothesis that the extensions are unnecessary. Simulated cohort data applied to risk models whose outcome and mortality hazards agreed and disagreed with those generating the data show that the tests are sensitive to poor model fit, provide insight into the reasons for poor fit, and accommodate a wide range of model misspecification. We illustrate the methods by examining the calibration of two breast cancer risk models as applied to a cohort of participants in the Breast Cancer Family Registry. The methods can be implemented using the Risk Model Assessment Program, an R package freely available at http://stanford.edu/~ggong/rmap/

Breast cancer risk assessment across the risk continuum: Genetic and nongenetic risk factors contributing to differential model performance.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Clinicians use different breast cancer risk models for patients considered at average and above-average risk, based largely on their family histories and genetic factors. We used longitudinal cohort data from women whose breast cancer risks span the full spectrum to determine the genetic and nongenetic covariates that differentiate the performance of two commonly used models that include nongenetic factors - BCRAT, also called Gail model, generally used for patients with average risk and IBIS, also called Tyrer Cuzick model, generally used for patients with above-average risk. METHODS: We evaluated the performance of the BCRAT and IBIS models as currently applied in clinical settings for 10-year absolute risk of breast cancer, using prospective data from 1,857 women over a mean follow-up length of 8.1 years, of whom 83 developed cancer. This cohort spans the continuum of breast cancer risk, with some subjects at lower than average population risk. Therefore, the wide variation in individual risk makes it an interesting population to examine model performance across subgroups of women. For model calibration, we divided the cohort into quartiles of model-assigned risk and compared differences between assigned and observed risks using the Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) chi-squared statistic. For model discrimination, we computed the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) and the case risk percentiles (CRPs). RESULTS: The 10-year risks assigned by BCRAT and IBIS differed (range of difference 0.001 to 79.5). The mean BCRAT- and IBIS-assigned risks of 3.18% and 5.49%, respectively, were lower than the cohort&#39;s 10-year cumulative probability of developing breast cancer (6.25%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 5.0 to 7.8%). Agreement between assigned and observed risks was better for IBIS (HL X42 = 7.2, P value 0.13) than BCRAT (HL X42 = 22.0, P value &lt;0.001). The IBIS model also showed better discrimination (AUC = 69.5%, CI = 63.8% to 75.2%) than did the BCRAT model (AUC = 63.2%, CI = 57.6% to 68.9%). In almost all covariate-specific subgroups, BCRAT mean risks were significantly lower than the observed risks, while IBIS risks showed generally good agreement with observed risks, even in the subgroups of women considered at average risk (for example, no family history of breast cancer, BRCA1/2 mutation negative). CONCLUSIONS: Models developed using extended family history and genetic data, such as the IBIS model, also perform well in women considered at average risk (for example, no family history of breast cancer, BRCA1/2 mutation negative). Extending such models to include additional nongenetic information may improve performance in women across the breast cancer risk continuum

Practical problems with clinical guidelines for breast cancer prevention based on remaining lifetime risk.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines for breast cancer chemoprevention and MRI screening involve estimates of remaining lifetime risk (RLR); in the United States, women with an RLR of 20% or higher meet &quot;high-risk&quot; criteria for MRI screening. METHODS: We prospectively followed 1764 women without breast cancer to compare the RLRs and 10-year risks assigned by the risk models International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) and Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) and to compare both sets of model-assigned 10-year risks to subsequent incidence of breast cancer in the cohort. We used chi-square statistics to assess calibration and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to assess discrimination. All statistical tests are two-sided. RESULTS: The models classified different proportions of women as high-risk (IBIS = 59.3% vs BOADICEA = 20.1%) using the RLR threshold of 20%. The difference was smaller (IBIS = 52.9% vs BOADICEA = 43.2%) using a 10-year risk threshold of 3.34%. IBIS risks (mean = 4.9%) were better calibrated to observed breast cancer incidence (5.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.2% to 6.4%) than were those of BOADICEA (mean = 3.7%) overall and within quartiles of model risk (P = .20 by IBIS and P = .07 by BOADICEA). Both models gave similar discrimination, with AUCs of 0.67 (95% CI = 0.61 to 0.73) using IBIS and 0.68 (95% CI = 0.62 to 0.74) using BOADICEA. Model sensitivities at thresholds for a 20% false-positive rate were also similar, with 41.8% using IBIS and 38.0% using BOADICEA. CONCLUSION: RLR-based guidelines for high-risk women are limited by discordance between commonly used risk models. Guidelines based on short-term risks would be more useful, as models are generally developed and validated under a short fixed time horizon (&le;10 years)