Search

Stratification of women according to their risk of breast cancer based on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) could improve screening and prevention strategies. Our aim was to develop PRSs, optimized for prediction of estrogen receptor (ER)-specific disease, from the largest available genome-wide association dataset and to empirically validate the PRSs in prospective studies. The development dataset comprised 94,075 case subjects and 75,017 control subjects of European ancestry from 69 studies, divided into training and validation sets. Samples were genotyped using genome-wide arrays, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected by stepwise regression or lasso penalized regression. The best performing PRSs were validated in an independent test set comprising 11,428 case subjects and 18,323 control subjects from 10 prospective studies and 190,040 women from UK Biobank (3,215 incident breast cancers). For the best PRSs (313 SNPs), the odds ratio for overall disease per 1 standard deviation in ten prospective studies was 1.61 (95%CI: 1.57-1.65) with area under receiver-operator curve (AUC) = 0.630 (95%CI: 0.628-0.651). The lifetime risk of overall breast cancer in the top centile of the PRSs was 32.6%. Compared with women in the middle quintile, those in the highest 1% of risk had 4.37- and 2.78-fold risks, and those in the lowest 1% of risk had 0.16- and 0.27-fold risks, of developing ER-positive and ER-negative disease, respectively. Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that this PRS was well calibrated and predicts disease risk accurately in the tails of the distribution. This PRS is a powerful and reliable predictor of breast cancer risk that may improve breast cancer prevention programs.

The BRCA Challenge is a long-term data-sharing project initiated within the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) to aggregate BRCA1 and BRCA2 data to support highly collaborative research activities. Its goal is to generate an informed and current understanding of the impact of genetic variation on cancer risk across the iconic cancer predisposition genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. Initially, reported variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 available from public databases were integrated into a single, newly created site, www.brcaexchange.org. The purpose of the BRCA Exchange is to provide the community with a reliable and easily accessible record of variants interpreted for a high-penetrance phenotype. More than 20,000 variants have been aggregated, three times the number found in the next-largest public database at the project’s outset, of which approximately 7,250 have expert classifications. The data set is based on shared information from existing clinical databases—Breast Cancer Information Core (BIC), ClinVar, and the Leiden Open Variation Database (LOVD)—as well as population databases, all linked to a single point of access. The BRCA Challenge has brought together the existing international Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles (ENIGMA) consortium expert panel, along with expert clinicians, diagnosticians, researchers, and database providers, all with a common goal of advancing our understanding of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variation. Ongoing work includes direct contact with national centers with access to BRCA1 and BRCA2 diagnostic data to encourage data sharing, development of methods suitable for extraction of genetic variation at the level of individual laboratory reports, and engagement with participant communities to enable a more comprehensive understanding of the clinical significance of genetic variation in BRCA1 and BRCA2., Author summary The goal of this study and paper has been to develop an international resource to generate an informed and current understanding of the impact of genetic variation on cancer risk across the cancer predisposition genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. Reported variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 available from public databases were integrated into a single, newly created site, www.brcaexchange.org, to provide a reliable and easily accessible record of variants interpreted for a high-penetrance phenotype.

Purpose BRCA1/2 mutations increase the risk of breast and prostate cancer in men. Common genetic variants modify cancer risks for female carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations. We investigated-for the first time to our knowledge-associations of common genetic variants with breast and prostate cancer risks for male carriers of BRCA1/ 2 mutations and implications for cancer risk prediction. Materials and Methods We genotyped 1,802 male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 by using the custom Illumina OncoArray. We investigated the combined effects of established breast and prostate cancer susceptibility variants on cancer risks for male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations by constructing weighted polygenic risk scores (PRSs) using published effect estimates as weights. Results In male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations, PRS that was based on 88 female breast cancer susceptibility variants was associated with breast cancer risk (odds ratio per standard deviation of PRS, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.56; P = 8.6 × 10-6). Similarly, PRS that was based on 103 prostate cancer susceptibility variants was associated with prostate cancer risk (odds ratio per SD of PRS, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.81; P = 3.2 × 10-9). Large differences in absolute cancer risks were observed at the extremes of the PRS distribution. For example, prostate cancer risk by age 80 years at the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS varies from 7% to 26% for carriers of BRCA1 mutations and from 19% to 61% for carriers of BRCA2 mutations, respectively. Conclusion PRSs may provide informative cancer risk stratification for male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations that might enable these men and their physicians to make informed decisions on the type and timing of breast and prostate cancer risk management. We thank Sue Healey for her contribution to CIMBA, in particular, for taking on the task of mutation classification with Olga Sinilnikova. BCFR Australia: We acknowledge Maggie Angelakos, Judi Maskiell, Gillian Dite, Helen Tsimiklis. BCFR Ontario: We thank members and participants in the Ontario Familial Breast Cancer Registry for their contributions to the study. BFBOCC-LT (Baltic Familial Breast Ovarian Cancer Consortium Lithuanian section): We acknowledge Vilius Rudaitis and Laimonas Griˇskeviˇcius. CBCS (Copenhagen Breast Cancer Study, Rigshospitalet): We thank Bent Ejlertsen Ejlertsen and Anne-Marie Gerdes for the recruitment and genetic counseling of participants. CNIO (Spanish National Cancer Centre): We thank Alicia Barroso, Rosario Alonso, and Guillermo Pita for their assistance. COH-CCGCRN (City of Hope Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network): Patients were recruited for study from the City of Hope Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network. CONSIT TEAM:We acknowledge Daniela Zaffaroni of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori (INT), Milan, Italy; Brunella Pilato of the Istituto Nazionale Tumori “Giovanni Paolo II”, Bari, Italy; and the personnel of the Cogentech Cancer Genetic Test Laboratory, Milan, Italy. FCCC (Fox Chase Cancer Center):We thank Jo EllenWeaver and Betsy Bove, MD, for their technical support. GEMO (GeneticModifiers of cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers):We pay a tribute to Olga M. Sinilnikova, who with Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet, initiated and coordinated GEMO until she died on June 30, 2014, and we thank all the GEMO collaborating groups for their contribution to this study. GEMO Collaborating Centers are: Coordinating Centres, Unit´e Mixte de G´en´etique Constitutionnelle des Cancers Fr´equents, Hospices Civils de Lyon–Centre L´eon B´erard, Equipe G´en´etique du cancer du sein, Centre de Rechercheen Canc´erologie de Lyon: Olga Sinilnikova (deceased), Sylvie Mazoyer, Francesca Damiola, Laure Barjhoux, Carole Verny-Pierre, M´elanie L´eone, Nadia Boutry-Kryza, Alain Calender, Sophie Giraud; and Service de G´en´etique Oncologique, Institut Curie, Paris: Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet, Marion Gauthier-Villars, Bruno Buecher, Claude Houdayer, Etienne Rouleau, Lisa Golmard, Agn`es Collet, Virginie Moncoutier, Muriel Belotti, Antoine de Pauw, Camille Elan, Catherine Nogues, Emmanuelle Fourme, Anne-Marie Birot; Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif: Brigitte Bressac-de-Paillerets, Olivier Caron, Marine Guillaud- Bataille; Centre Jean Perrin, Clermont–Ferrand: Yves-Jean Bignon, Nancy Uhrhammer; Centre L´eon B´erard, Lyon: Christine Lasset, Val´erie Bonadona, Sandrine Handallou; Centre François Baclesse, Caen: Agn`es Hardouin, Pascaline Berthet, Dominique Vaur, Laurent Castera; Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille: Hagay Sobol, Violaine Bourdon, Tetsuro Noguchi, Audrey Remenieras, François Eisinger; CHUArnaud-de-Villeneuve,Montpellier: Isabelle Coupier, Pascal Pujol; Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille: Jean-Philippe Peyrat, Jo¨elle Fournier, Françoise R´evillion, Philippe Vennin (deceased), Claude Adenis; Centre Paul Strauss, Strasbourg: Dani`ele Muller, Jean-Pierre Fricker; Institut Bergoni´e, Bordeaux: Emmanuelle Barouk-Simonet, Françoise Bonnet, Virginie Bubien, Nicolas Sevenet, Michel Longy; Institut Claudius Regaud, Toulouse: Christine Toulas, Rosine Guimbaud, Laurence Gladieff, Viviane Feillel; CHU Grenoble: Dominique Leroux, H´el`ene Dreyfus, Christine Rebischung, Magalie Peysselon; CHU Dijon: Fanny Coron, Laurence Faivre; CHU St-Etienne: Fabienne Prieur, Marine Lebrun, Caroline Kientz; HˆotelDieu Centre Hospitalier, Chamb´ery: Sandra Fert Ferrer; Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice: Marc Fr´enay; CHU Limoges: Laurence V´enat-Bouvet; CHU Nantes: Capucine Delnatte; CHU Bretonneau, Tours: Isabelle Mortemousque; Groupe Hospitalier Piti´e-Salp´etri`ere, Paris: Florence Coulet, Chrystelle Colas, Florent Soubrier, MathildeWarcoin; CHU Vandoeuvre-les- Nancy: Johanna Sokolowska, Myriam Bronner; CHU Besançon: Marie-Agn`es Collonge-Rame, Alexandre Damette; Creighton University, Omaha, NE: Henry T. Lynch, Carrie L. Snyder. G-FAST (Ghent University Hospital): B.P. is a senior clinical investigator of FWO. We acknowledge the technical support of Ilse Coeneen Brecht Crombez. HCSC (Hospital Clinico San Carlos): We acknowledge Alicia Tosar and Paula Diaque for their technical assistance. HEBCS (Helsinki Breast Cancer Study):We thank Taru A. Muranen, Carl Blomqvist, MD, Kirsimari Aaltonen, MD, Irja Erkkil¨a, RN, and Virpi Palola, RN, for their help with the HEBCS data and samples. Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Research Group Netherlands (HEBON): HEBON consists of the following collaborating centers: Coordinating center: Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam: M.A. Rookus, F.B.L. Hogervorst, F.E. van Leeuwen, S. Verhoef, M.K. Schmidt, N.S. Russell, J.L. de Lange, R. Wijnands; Erasmus Medical Center: J.M. Coll´ee, A.M.W. van den Ouweland, M.J. Hooning, C. Seynaeve, C.H.M. van Deurzen, I.M. Obdeijn; Leiden University Medical Center: C.J. van Asperen, J.T. Wijnen, R.A.E.M. Tollenaar, P. Devilee, T.C.T.E.F. van Cronenburg; Radboud University NijmegenMedical Center: C.M. Kets, A.R.Mensenkamp; UniversityMedical Center Utrecht: M.G.E.M. Ausems, R.B. van der Luijt, C.C. van der Pol; Amsterdam Medical Center: C.M. Aalfs, T.A.M. van Os; Vrije Universiteit Medical Center: J.J.P. Gille, Q.Waisfisz, H.E.J. Meijers-Heijboer; University Hospital Maastricht: E.B. G´omez-Garcia, M.J. Blok; University Medical Center Groningen: J.C. Oosterwijk, A.H. van der Hout, M.J.Mourits, G.H. de Bock; The Netherlands Foundation for the Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden: H.F. Vasen; The Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL): S. Siesling, J. Verloop; The Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA): L.I.H. Overbeek. HEBON thanks the registration teams of IKNL and PALGA for part of the data collection. HUNBOCS (Molecular Genetic Studies of Breast- and Ovarian Cancer in Hungary):We thank the Hungarian Breast and Ovarian Cancer Study Group members (Janos Papp, Aniko Bozsik, Judit Franko, Maria Balogh, Gabriella Domokos, Judit Ferenczi, Department of Molecular Genetics, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary) and the clinicians and patients for their contributions to this study. HVH (University Hospital Vall d’Hebron): We thank the Cellex Foundation for providing research facilities and equipment. ICO (Institut Catal`a d’Oncologia): We thank the ICO Hereditary Cancer Program team led by Gabriel Capella, MD. INHERIT (INterdisciplinary HEalth Research Internal Team BReast CAncer susceptibility):We thank Martine Dumont, MD, Martine Tranchant and St´ephane Dubois for QC, sample management and skillful assistance. J.S. is Chair holder of the Canada Research Chair in Oncogenetics. J.S. and P.S. were part of the QC and Genotyping coordinating group of iCOGS and Oncoarray (BCAC and CIMBA). IPOBCS (Portuguese Oncology Institute-Porto jco.org © 2017 by American Society of Clinical Oncology Polygenic Risk Scores in Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers Downloaded from ascopubs.org by CNIO-FUND on September 27, 2019 from 193.147.150.201 Copyright © 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved. Breast Cancer Study): We thank Catarina Santos, MD, for her skillful contribution to the study. kConFab (Kathleen Cuningham Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer): We thank Heather Thorne, Eveline Niedermayr, all the kConFab research nurses and staff, the heads and staff of the Family Cancer Clinics, and the Clinical Follow Up Study for their contributions to this resource, and the many families who contribute to kConFab.Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center:We acknowledge Lauren Jacobs, MD. OCGN (Ontario Cancer Genetics Network): We thank members and participants in the Ontario Cancer Genetics Network for their contributions to the study. OSUCCG (The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center): Kevin Sweet, Caroline Craven, Julia Cooper, Leigha Senter, and Michelle O’Conor were instrumental in accrual of study participants, ascertainment of medical records, and database management. SEABASS (South East Asian Breast Cancer Association Study): We thank Yip Cheng Har, Nur Aishah Mohd Taib, Phuah Sze Yee, Norhashimah Hassan, and all the research nurses, research assistants, and doctors involved in the MyBrCa Study for assistance in patient recruitment, data collection, and sample preparation. In addition, we thank Philip Iau, Sng Jen-Hwei, and Sharifah Nor Akmal for contributing samples from the Singapore Breast Cancer Study and the HUKM-HKL Study, respectively. SWE-BRCA (Swedish Breast Cancer Study): Swedish scientists participating as SWE-BRCA collaborators are: from Lund University and University Hospital: A° ke Borg, H°akan Olsson, Helena Jernstr¨om, Karin Henriksson, Katja Harbst, Maria Soller, Ulf Kristoffersson; from Gothenburg Sahlgrenska University Hospital: Anna O¨ fverholm, Margareta Nordling, Per Karlsson, Zakaria Einbeigi; from Stockholm and Karolinska University Hospital: Anna vonWachenfeldt, Annelie Liljegren, Annika Lindblom, Brita Arver, Gisela Barbany Bustinza, Johanna Rantala; from Ume°a University Hospital: Beatrice Melin, Christina Edwinsdotter Ardnor, Monica Emanuelsson; from Uppsala University: Hans Ehrencrona, Maritta Hellstr¨om Pigg, Richard Rosenquist; from Link¨oping University Hospital: Marie Stenmark-Askmalm, Sigrun Liedgren. University of Chicago: O.I.O. is an ACS Clinical Research Professor. We thank Cecilia Zvocec, Qun Niu, physicians, genetic counsellors, research nurses, and staff of the Cancer Risk Clinic for their contributions to this resource, and the many families who contribute to our program. VFCTG (Victorian Familial Cancer Trials Group):We acknowledge Geoffrey Lindeman, Marion Harris, Martin Delatycki of the Victorian Familial Cancer Trials Group.We thank Sarah Sawyer and Rebecca Driessen for assembling these data and Ella Thompson for performing all DNA amplification. © 2017 by American Society of Clinical Oncology JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY Sí

Contains fulltext : 172560.PDF (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Population-based genome wide association studies have identified a locus at 9p22.2 associated with ovarian cancer risk, which also modifies ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. We conducted fine-scale mapping at 9p22.2 to identify potential causal variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Genotype data were available for 15,252 (2,462 ovarian cancer cases) BRCA1 and 8,211 (631 ovarian cancer cases) BRCA2 mutation carriers. Following genotype imputation, ovarian cancer associations were assessed for 4,873 and 5,020 SNPs in BRCA1 and BRCA 2 mutation carriers respectively, within a retrospective cohort analytical framework. In BRCA1 mutation carriers one set of eight correlated candidate causal variants for ovarian cancer risk modification was identified (top SNP rs10124837, HR: 0.73, 95%CI: 0.68 to 0.79, p-value 2x 10-16). These variants were located up to 20 kb upstream of BNC2. In BRCA2 mutation carriers one region, up to 45 kb upstream of BNC2, and containing 100 correlated SNPs was identified as candidate causal (top SNP rs62543585, HR: 0.69, 95%CI: 0.59 to 0.80, p-value 1.0 x 10-6). The candidate causal in BRCA1 mutation carriers did not include the strongest associated variant at this locus in the general population. In sum, we identified a set of candidate causal variants in a region that encompasses the BNC2 transcription start site. The ovarian cancer association at 9p22.2 may be mediated by different variants in BRCA1 mutation carriers and in the general population. Thus, potentially different mechanisms may underlie ovarian cancer risk for mutation carriers and the general population.

Background: We previously reported significant associations between genetic variants in insulin receptor substrate 1 (IRS1) and breast cancer risk in women carrying BRCA1 mutations. The objectives of this study were to investigate whether the IRS1 variants modified ovarian cancer risk and were associated with breast cancer risk in a larger cohort of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Methods:IRS1 rs1801123, rs1330645, and rs1801278 were genotyped in samples from 36 centers in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Data were analyzed by a retrospective cohort approach modeling the associations with breast and ovarian cancer risks simultaneously. Analyses were stratified by BRCA1 and BRCA2 status and mutation class in BRCA1 carriers. Results: Rs1801278 (Gly972Arg) was associated with ovarian cancer risk for both BRCA1 (HR, 1.43; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06–1.92; P = 0.019) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.39–3.52, P = 0.0008). For BRCA1 mutation carriers, the breast cancer risk was higher in carriers with class II mutations than class I mutations (class II HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.28–2.70; class I HR, 0.86; 95%CI, 0.69–1.09; Pdifference, 0.0006). Rs13306465 was associated with ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 class II mutation carriers (HR, 2.42; P = 0.03). Conclusion: The IRS1 Gly972Arg single-nucleotide polymorphism, which affects insulin-like growth factor and insulin signaling, modifies ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 class II mutation carriers. Impact: These findings may prove useful for risk prediction for breast and ovarian cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(8); 1362–70. ©2012 AACR.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies report reduced colorectal cancer in regular aspirin consumers. Randomised controlled trials have shown reduced risk of adenomas but none have employed prevention of colorectal cancer as a primary endpoint. The CAPP2 trial aimed to investigate the antineoplastic effects of aspirin and a resistant starch in carriers of Lynch syndrome, the major form of hereditary colorectal cancer; we now report long-term follow-up of participants randomly assigned to aspirin or placebo. METHODS: In the CAPP2 randomised trial, carriers of Lynch syndrome were randomly assigned in a two-by-two factorial design to 600 mg aspirin or aspirin placebo or 30 g resistant starch or starch placebo, for up to 4 years. Randomisation was in blocks of 16 with provision for optional single-agent randomisation and extended postintervention double-blind follow-up; participants and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was development of colorectal cancer. Analysis was by intention to treat and per protocol. This trial is registered, ISRCTN59521990. RESULTS: 861 participants were randomly assigned to aspirin or aspirin placebo. At a mean follow-up of 55.7 months, 48 participants had developed 53 primary colorectal cancers (18 of 427 randomly assigned to aspirin, 30 of 434 to aspirin placebo). Intention-to-treat analysis of time to first colorectal cancer showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.63 (95% CI 0.35-1.13, p=0.12). Poisson regression taking account of multiple primary events gave an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.56 (95% CI 0.32-0.99, p=0.05). For participants completing 2 years of intervention (258 aspirin, 250 aspirin placebo), per-protocol analysis yielded an HR of 0.41 (0.19-0.86, p=0.02) and an IRR of 0.37 (0.18-0.78, p=0.008). No data for adverse events were available postintervention; during the intervention, adverse events did not differ between aspirin and placebo groups. INTERPRETATION: 600 mg aspirin per day for a mean of 25 months substantially reduced cancer incidence after 55.7 months in carriers of hereditary colorectal cancer. Further studies are needed to establish the optimum dose and duration of aspirin treatment. FUNDING: European Union; Cancer Research UK; Bayer Corporation; National Starch and Chemical Co; UK Medical Research Council; Newcastle Hospitals trustees; Cancer Council of Victoria Australia; THRIPP South Africa; The Finnish Cancer Foundation; SIAK Switzerland; Bayer Pharma., link_to_OA_fulltext

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.-- CIMBA et al., 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 association. The 17q21.31 locus was also associated with ovarian cancer risk in 8,211 BRCA2 carriers (P = 2×10(-4)). These loci may lead to an improved understanding of the etiology of breast and ovarian tumors in BRCA1 carriers. Based on the joint distribution of the known BRCA1 breast cancer risk-modifying loci, we estimated that the breast cancer lifetime risks for the 5% of BRCA1 carriers at lowest risk are 28%-50% compared to 81%-100% for the 5% at highest risk. Similarly, based on the known ovarian cancer risk-modifying loci, the 5% of BRCA1 carriers at lowest risk have an estimated lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer of 28% or lower, whereas the 5% at highest risk will have a risk of 63% or higher. Such differences in risk may have important implications for risk prediction and clinical management for BRCA1 carriers., The study was supported by NIH grant CA128978, an NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), a U.S. Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Idea award (W81XWH-10-1-0341), grants from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and the Komen Foundation for the Cure; Cancer Research UK grants C12292/A11174 and C1287/A10118; the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme grant agreement 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175). Breast Cancer Family Registry Studies (BCFR): supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health under RFA # CA-06-503 and through cooperative agreements with members of the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR) and Principal Investigators, including Cancer Care Ontario (U01 CA69467), Cancer Prevention Institute of California (U01 CA69417), Columbia University (U01 CA69398), Fox Chase Cancer Center (U01 CA69631), Huntsman Cancer Institute (U01 CA69446), and University of Melbourne (U01 CA69638). The Australian BCFR was also supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the New South Wales Cancer Council, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (Australia), and the Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium. Melissa C. Southey is a NHMRC Senior Research Fellow and a Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium Group Leader. Carriers at FCCC were also identified with support from National Institutes of Health grants P01 CA16094 and R01 CA22435. The New York BCFR was also supported by National Institutes of Health grants P30 CA13696 and P30 ES009089. The Utah BCFR was also supported by the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH grant UL1 RR025764, and by Award Number P30 CA042014 from the National Cancer Institute. Baltic Familial Breast Ovarian Cancer Consortium (BFBOCC): BFBOCC is partly supported by Lithuania (BFBOCC-LT), Research Council of Lithuania grant LIG-19/2010, and Hereditary Cancer Association (Paveldimo vėžio asociacija)., Latvia (BFBOCC-LV) is partly supported by LSC grant 10.0010.08 and in part by a grant from the ESF Nr.2009/0220/1DP/1.1.1.2.0/09/APIA/VIAA/​016.BRCA-gene mutations and breast cancer in South African women (BMBSA): BMBSA was supported by grants from the Cancer Association of South Africa (CANSA) to Elizabeth J. van Rensburg. Beckman Research Institute of the City of Hope (BRICOH): Susan L. Neuhausen was partially supported by the Morris and Horowitz Families Endowed Professorship. BRICOH was supported by NIH R01CA74415 and NIH P30 CA033752. Copenhagen Breast Cancer Study (CBCS): The CBCS study was supported by the NEYE Foundation. Spanish National Cancer Centre (CNIO): This work was partially supported by Spanish Association against Cancer (AECC08), RTICC 06/0020/1060, FISPI08/1120, Mutua Madrileña Foundation (FMMA) and SAF2010-20493. City of Hope Cancer Center (COH): The City of Hope Clinical Cancer Genetics Community Research Network is supported by Award Number RC4A153828 (PI: Jeffrey N. Weitzel) from the National Cancer Institute and the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health. CONsorzio Studi ITaliani sui Tumori Ereditari Alla Mammella (CONSIT TEAM): CONSIT TEAM was funded by grants from Fondazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (Special Project “Hereditary tumors”), Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC, IG 8713), Italian Minitry of Health (Extraordinary National Cancer Program 2006, “Alleanza contro il Cancro” and “Progetto Tumori Femminili), Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (Prin 2008) Centro di Ascolto Donne Operate al Seno (CAOS) association and by funds from Italian citizens who allocated the 5×1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects ‘5×1000’). German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ): The DKFZ study was supported by the DKFZ. The Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Research Group Netherlands (HEBON): HEBON is supported by the Dutch Cancer Society grants NKI1998-1854, NKI2004-3088, NKI2007-3756, the NWO grant 91109024, the Pink Ribbon grant 110005, and the BBMRI grant CP46/NWO., Epidemiological study of BRCA1 & BRCA2 mutation carriers (EMBRACE): EMBRACE is supported by 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. Rosalind A. Eeles and Elizabeth Bancroft are supported by Cancer Research UK Grant C5047/A8385. Fox Chase Cancer Canter (FCCC): The authors acknowledge support from The University of Kansas Cancer Center and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. Andrew K. Godwin was funded by 5U01CA113916, R01CA140323, and by the Chancellors Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences Professorship. German Consortium of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC): The German Consortium of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC) is supported by the German Cancer Aid (grant no 109076, Rita K. Schmutzler) and by the Center for Molecular Medicine Cologne (CMMC). Genetic Modifiers of cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (GEMO): The GEMO study was supported by the Ligue National Contre le Cancer; the Association “Le cancer du sein, parlons-en!” Award and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program. Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG): This study was supported by National Cancer Institute grants to the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) Administrative Office and Tissue Bank (CA 27469), Statistical and Data Center (CA 37517), and GOG's Cancer Prevention and Control Committtee (CA 101165). Drs. Mark H. Greene and Phuong L. Mai were supported by funding from the Intramural Research Program, NCI, NIH. Hospital Clinico San Carlos (HCSC): HCSC was supported by RETICC 06/0020/0021, FIS research grant 09/00859, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity, and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)., Helsinki Breast Cancer Study (HEBCS): The HEBCS was financially supported by the Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (132473), the Finnish Cancer Society, the Nordic Cancer Union, and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. Study of Genetic Mutations in Breast and Ovarian Cancer patients in Hong Kong and Asia (HRBCP): HRBCP is supported by The Hong Kong Hereditary Breast Cancer Family Registry and the Dr. Ellen Li Charitable Foundation, Hong Kong. Molecular Genetic Studies of Breast and Ovarian Cancer in Hungary (HUNBOCS): HUNBOCS was supported by Hungarian Research Grant KTIA-OTKA CK-80745 and the Norwegian EEA Financial Mechanism HU0115/NA/2008-3/ÖP-9. Institut Català d'Oncologia (ICO): The ICO study was supported by the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer, Spanish Health Research Foundation, Ramón Areces Foundation, Carlos III Health Institute, Catalan Health Institute, and Autonomous Government of Catalonia and contract grant numbers: ISCIIIRETIC RD06/0020/1051, PI09/02483, PI10/01422, PI10/00748, 2009SGR290, and 2009SGR283. International Hereditary Cancer Centre (IHCC): Supported by the Polish Foundation of Science. Katarzyna Jaworska is a fellow of International PhD program, Postgraduate School of Molecular Medicine, Warsaw Medical University. Iceland Landspitali–University Hospital (ILUH): The ILUH group was supported by the Icelandic Association “Walking for Breast Cancer Research” and by the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. INterdisciplinary HEalth Research Internal Team BReast CAncer susceptibility (INHERIT): INHERIT work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program, the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance grant 019511 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade grant PSR-SIIRI-701. Jacques Simard is Chairholder of the Canada Research Chair in Oncogenetics., Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IOVHBOCS): The IOVHBOCS study was supported by Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca and Ministero della Salute (“Progetto Tumori Femminili” and RFPS 2006-5-341353,ACC2/R6.9”). Kathleen Cuningham Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer (kConFab): kConFab is supported by grants from the National Breast Cancer Foundation and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and by the Queensland Cancer Fund; the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia; and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. Amanda B. Spurdle is an NHMRC Senior Research Fellow. The Clinical Follow Up Study was funded from 2001–2009 by NHMRC and currently by the National Breast Cancer Foundation and Cancer Australia #628333. Mayo Clinic (MAYO): MAYO is supported by NIH grant CA128978, an NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), a U.S. Department of Defence Ovarian Cancer Idea award (W81XWH-10-1-0341) and grants from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and the Komen Foundation for the Cure. McGill University (MCGILL): The McGill Study was supported by Jewish General Hospital Weekend to End Breast Cancer, Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation, and Export Trade. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC): The MSKCC study was supported by Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Initiative, Andrew Sabin Family Foundation, and Lymphoma Foundation. Modifier Study of Quantitative Effects on Disease (MODSQUAD): MODSQUAD was supported by the European Regional Development Fund and the State Budget of the Czech Republic (RECAMO, CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0101). Women's College Research Institute, Toronto (NAROD): NAROD was supported by NIH grant: 1R01 CA149429-01. National Cancer Institute (NCI): Drs. Mark H. Greene and Phuong L. Mai were supported by the Intramural Research Program of the US National Cancer Institute, NIH, and by support services contracts NO2-CP-11019-50 and N02-CP-65504 with Westat, Rockville, MD. National Israeli Cancer Control Center (NICCC): NICCC is supported by Clalit Health Services in Israel. Some of its activities are supported by the Israel Cancer Association and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), NY. N. N. Petrov Institute of Oncology (NNPIO): The NNPIO study has been supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants 11-04-00227, 12-04-00928, and 12-04-01490), the Federal Agency for Science and Innovations, Russia (contract 02.740.11.0780), and through a Royal Society International Joint grant (JP090615). The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (OSU-CCG): OSUCCG is supported by the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center., South East Asian Breast Cancer Association Study (SEABASS): SEABASS is supported by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation. Sheba Medical Centre (SMC): The SMC study was partially funded through a grant by the Israel Cancer Association and the funding for the Israeli Inherited Breast Cancer Consortium. Swedish Breast Cancer Study (SWE-BRCA): SWE-BRCA collaborators are supported by the Swedish Cancer Society. The University of Chicago Center for Clinical Cancer Genetics and Global Health (UCHICAGO): UCHICAGO is supported by grants from the US National Cancer Institute (NIH/NCI) and by the Ralph and Marion Falk Medical Research Trust, the Entertainment Industry Fund National Women's Cancer Research Alliance, and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. University of California Los Angeles (UCLA): The UCLA study was supported by the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Foundation and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. University of California San Francisco (UCSF): The UCSF study was supported by the UCSF Cancer Risk Program and the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. United Kingdom Familial Ovarian Cancer Registries (UKFOCR): UKFOCR was supported by a project grant from CRUK to Paul Pharoah. University of Pennsylvania (UPENN): The UPENN study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01-CA102776 and R01-CA083855), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Rooney Family Foundation, Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure, and the Macdonald Family Foundation. Victorian Familial Cancer Trials Group (VFCTG): The VFCTG study was supported by the Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, and National Breast Cancer Foundation. Women's Cancer Research Initiative (WCRI): The WCRI at the Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, is funded by the American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN).

We recently reported that a sequence variant in the cell-cycle–checkpoint kinase CHEK2 (CHEK2 1100delC) is a low-penetrance breast cancer–susceptibility allele in noncarriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. To investigate whether other CHEK2 variants confer susceptibility to breast cancer, we screened the full CHEK2 coding sequence in BRCA1/2-negative breast cancer cases from 89 pedigrees with three or more cases of breast cancer. We identified one novel germline variant, R117G, in two separate families. To evaluate the possible association of R117G and two germline variants reported elsewhere, R145W and I157T with breast cancer, we screened 737 BRCA1/2-negative familial breast cancer cases from 605 families, 459 BRCA1/2-positive cases from 335 families, and 723 controls from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and North America. All three variants were rare in all groups, and none occurred at significantly elevated frequency in familial breast cancer cases compared with controls. These results indicate that 1100delC may be the only CHEK2 allele that makes an appreciable contribution to breast cancer susceptibility.

Background: Men with germline breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1) or breast cancer 2, early onset (BRCA2) gene mutations have a higher risk of developing prostate cancer (PCa) than noncarriers. IMPACT (Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and controls) is an international consortium of 62 centres in 20 countries evaluating the use of targeted PCa screening in men with BRCA1/2 mutations. Objective: To report the first year's screening results for all men at enrolment in the study. Design, setting and participants: We recruited men aged 40-69 yr with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and a control group of men who have tested negative for a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation known to be present in their families. All men underwent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing at enrolment, and those men with PSA > 3 ng/ml were offered prostate biopsy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: PSA levels, PCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the number of PCa cases among groups and the differences among disease types. Results and limitations: We recruited 2481 men (791 BRCA1 carriers, 531 BRCA1 controls; 731 BRCA2 carriers, 428 BRCA2 controls). A total of 199 men (8%) presented with PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, 162 biopsies were performed, and 59 PCas were diagnosed (18 BRCA1 carriers, 10 BRCA1 controls; 24 BRCA2 carriers, 7 BRCA2 controls); 66% of the tumours were classified as intermediate-or high-risk disease. The positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3.0 ng/ml in BRCA2 mutation carriers was 48%-double the PPV reported in population screening studies. A significant difference in detecting intermediate-or high-risk disease was observed in BRCA2 carriers. Ninety-five percent of the men were white, thus the results cannot be generalised to all ethnic groups. Conclusions: The IMPACT screening network will be useful for targeted PCa screening studies in men with germline genetic risk variants as they are discovered. These preliminary results support the use of targeted PSA screening based on BRCA genotype and show that this screening yields a high proportion of aggressive disease. Patient summary: In this report, we demonstrate that germline genetic markers can be used to identify men at higher risk of prostate cancer. Targeting screening at these men resulted in the identification of tumours that were more likely to require treatment. (C) 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, the two common forms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), affect over 2.5 million people of European ancestry, with rising prevalence in other populations(1). Genome-wide association studies and subsequent meta-analyses of these two diseases(2,3) as separate phenotypes have implicated previously unsuspected mechanisms, such as autophagy(4), in their pathogenesis and showed that some IBD loci are shared with other inflammatory diseases(5). Here we expand on the knowledge of relevant pathways by undertaking a meta-analysis of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis genome-wide association scans, followed by extensive validation of significant findings, with a combined total of more than 75,000 cases and controls. We identify 71 new associations, for a total of 163 IBD loci, that meet genome-wide significance thresholds. Most loci contribute to both phenotypes, and both directional (consistently favouring one allele over the course of human history) and balancing (favouring the retention of both alleles within populations) selection effects are evident. Many IBD loci are also implicated in other immune-mediated disorders, most notably with ankylosing spondylitis and psoriasis. We also observe considerable overlap between susceptibility loci for IBD and mycobacterial infection. Gene co-expression network analysis emphasizes this relationship, with pathways shared between host responses to mycobacteria and those predisposing to IBD.

Evidence supporting aspirin and resistant starch (RS) for colorectal cancer prevention comes from epidemiologic and laboratory studies (aspirin and RS) and randomized controlled clinical trials (aspirin). Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) strikes young people and, untreated, confers virtually a 100% risk of colorectal cancer and early death. We conducted an international, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of aspirin (600 mg/d) and/or RS (30 g/d) for from 1 to 12 years to prevent disease progression in FAP patients from 10 to 21 years of age. In a 2 × 2 factorial design, patients were randomly assigned to the following four study arms: aspirin plus RS placebo; RS plus aspirin placebo; aspirin plus RS; RS placebo plus aspirin placebo; they were followed with standard annual clinical examinations including endoscopy. The primary endpoint was polyp number in the rectum and sigmoid colon (at the end of intervention), and the major secondary endpoint was size of the largest polyp. A total of 206 randomized FAP patients commenced intervention, of whom 133 had at least one follow-up endoscopy and were therefore included in the primary analysis. Neither intervention significantly reduced polyp count in the rectum and sigmoid colon: aspirin relative risk = 0.77 (95% CI, 0.54–1.10; versus nonaspirin arms); RS relative risk = 1.05 (95% CI, 0.73–1.49; versus non-RS arms). There was a trend toward a smaller size of largest polyp in patients treated with aspirin versus nonaspirin—mean 3.8 mm versus 5.5 mm for patients treated 1 or more years (adjusted P = 0.09) and mean 3.0 mm versus 6.0 mm for patients treated more than 1 year (P = 0.02); there were similar weaker trends with RS versus non-RS. Exploratory translational endpoints included crypt length (which was significantly shorter in normal-appearing mucosa in the RS group over time) and laboratory measures of proliferation (including Ki67). This clinical trial is the largest ever conducted in the setting of FAP and found a trend of reduced polyp load (number and size) with 600 mg of aspirin daily. RS had no clinical effect on adenomas. Cancer Prev Res; 4(5); 655–65. ©2011 AACR.

Contains fulltext : 98031.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Differentiated mammary epithelium shows apicobasal polarity, and loss of tissue organization is an early hallmark of breast carcinogenesis. In BRCA1 mutation carriers, accumulation of stem and progenitor cells in normal breast tissue and increased risk of developing tumors of basal-like type suggest that BRCA1 regulates stem/progenitor cell proliferation and differentiation. However, the function of BRCA1 in this process and its link to carcinogenesis remain unknown. Here we depict a molecular mechanism involving BRCA1 and RHAMM that regulates apicobasal polarity and, when perturbed, may increase risk of breast cancer. Starting from complementary genetic analyses across families and populations, we identified common genetic variation at the low-penetrance susceptibility HMMR locus (encoding for RHAMM) that modifies breast cancer risk among BRCA1, but probably not BRCA2, mutation carriers: n = 7,584, weighted hazard ratio ((w)HR) = 1.09 (95% CI 1.02-1.16), p(trend) = 0.017; and n = 3,965, (w)HR = 1.04 (95% CI 0.94-1.16), p(trend) = 0.43; respectively. Subsequently, studies of MCF10A apicobasal polarization revealed a central role for BRCA1 and RHAMM, together with AURKA and TPX2, in essential reorganization of microtubules. Mechanistically, reorganization is facilitated by BRCA1 and impaired by AURKA, which is regulated by negative feedback involving RHAMM and TPX2. Taken together, our data provide fundamental insight into apicobasal polarization through BRCA1 function, which may explain the expanded cell subsets and characteristic tumor type accompanying BRCA1 mutation, while also linking this process to sporadic breast cancer through perturbation of HMMR/RHAMM.

Genetic analysis identifies the HMMR gene as a modifier of the breast cancer risk associated with BRCA1 gene mutation, while cell biological analysis of the protein product suggests a function in regulating development of the mammary gland., Differentiated mammary epithelium shows apicobasal polarity, and loss of tissue organization is an early hallmark of breast carcinogenesis. In BRCA1 mutation carriers, accumulation of stem and progenitor cells in normal breast tissue and increased risk of developing tumors of basal-like type suggest that BRCA1 regulates stem/progenitor cell proliferation and differentiation. However, the function of BRCA1 in this process and its link to carcinogenesis remain unknown. Here we depict a molecular mechanism involving BRCA1 and RHAMM that regulates apicobasal polarity and, when perturbed, may increase risk of breast cancer. Starting from complementary genetic analyses across families and populations, we identified common genetic variation at the low-penetrance susceptibility HMMR locus (encoding for RHAMM) that modifies breast cancer risk among BRCA1, but probably not BRCA2, mutation carriers: n = 7,584, weighted hazard ratio (wHR) = 1.09 (95% CI 1.02–1.16), ptrend = 0.017; and n = 3,965, wHR = 1.04 (95% CI 0.94–1.16), ptrend = 0.43; respectively. Subsequently, studies of MCF10A apicobasal polarization revealed a central role for BRCA1 and RHAMM, together with AURKA and TPX2, in essential reorganization of microtubules. Mechanistically, reorganization is facilitated by BRCA1 and impaired by AURKA, which is regulated by negative feedback involving RHAMM and TPX2. Taken together, our data provide fundamental insight into apicobasal polarization through BRCA1 function, which may explain the expanded cell subsets and characteristic tumor type accompanying BRCA1 mutation, while also linking this process to sporadic breast cancer through perturbation of HMMR/RHAMM., Author Summary Mutations in two genes that were initially identified as predisposing carriers to early-onset breast cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2, cause similar perturbations in cellular responses to DNA damage but predispose carriers to distinct tumor types. Thus, the two genes may trigger different carcinogenic processes. We have used genetic analyses of affected families to uncover additional genetic variation that is linked to the risk of developing cancer for carriers of BRCA1 mutations. This variation falls within a centrosomal gene, named HMMR. The protein product of HMMR, which is called RHAMM, works in concert with BRCA1 to regulate the structure of normal breast cells as they grow and become polarized. This polarization process depends upon a balance between the activities of BRCA1 and the Aurora kinase A, with the kinase opposing BRCA1 function and promoting growth. Our findings provide new insights into the mechanism through which BRCA1 may promote commitment of initially bipotent mammary cells towards the luminal lineage, and how loss of this function may predispose cells to become breast tumors of a basal-like type.

International audience; Germline BRCA1 mutations predispose to breast cancer. To identify genetic modifiers of this risk, we performed a genome-wide association study in 1,193 individuals with BRCA1 mutations who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer under age 40 and 1,190 BRCA1 carriers without breast cancer diagnosis over age 35. We took forward 96 SNPs for replication in another 5,986 BRCA1 carriers (2,974 individuals with breast cancer and 3,012 unaffected individuals). Five SNPs on 19p13 were associated with breast cancer risk (P-trend = 2.3 x 10(-9) to Ptrend = 3.9 x 10(-7)), two of which showed independent associations (rs8170, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.26, 95% CI 1.17-1.35; rs2363956 HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.80-0.89). Genotyping these SNPs in 6,800 population-based breast cancer cases and 6,613 controls identified a similar association with estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer (rs2363956 per-allele odds ratio (OR) = 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.92, P-trend = 0.0003) and an association with estrogen receptor-positive disease in the opposite direction (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14, P-trend = 0.016). The five SNPs were also associated with triple-negative breast cancer in a separate study of 2,301 triple-negative cases and 3,949 controls (Ptrend = 1 x 10(-7) to Ptrend = 8 x 10(-5); rs2363956 per-allele OR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.74-0.87, P-trend = 1.1 x 10(-7)).

Genome-wide association studies of breast cancer have identified multiple single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are associated with increased breast cancer risks in the general population. In a previous study, we demonstrated that the minor alleles at three of these SNPs, in FGFR2, TNRC9 and MAP3K1, also confer increased risks of breast cancer for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. Three additional SNPs rs3817198 at LSP1, rs13387042 at 2q35 and rs13281615 at 8q24 have since been reported to be associated with breast cancer in the general population, and in this study we evaluated their association with breast cancer risk in 9442 BRCA1 and 5665 BRCA2 mutation carriers from 33 study centres. The minor allele of rs3817198 was associated with increased breast cancer risk only for BRCA2 mutation carriers [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.07-1.25, P-trend = 2.8 x 10(-4)]. The best fit for the association of SNP rs13387042 at 2q35 with breast cancer risk was a dominant model for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers (BRCA1: HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.04-1.25, P = 0.0047; BRCA2: HR = 1.18 95% CI: 1.04-1.33, P = 0.0079). SNP rs13281615 at 8q24 was not associated with breast cancer for either BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, but the estimated association for BRCA2 mutation carriers (per-allele HR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.98-1.14) was consistent with odds ratio estimates derived from population-based case-control studies. The LSP1 and 2q35 SNPs appear to interact multiplicatively on breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers. There was no evidence that the associations vary by mutation type depending on whether the mutated protein is predicted to be stable or not.

Contains fulltext : 70182.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) Genetic testing often results in the finding of a variant whose clinical significance is unknown. A number of different approaches have been employed in the attempt to classify such variants. For some variants, case-control, segregation, family history, or other statistical studies can provide strong evidence of direct association with cancer risk. For most variants, other evidence is available that relates to properties of the protein or gene sequence. In this work we propose a Bayesian method for assessing the likelihood that a variant is pathogenic. We discuss the assessment of prior probability, and how to combine the various sources of data into a statistically valid integrated assessment with a posterior probability of pathogenicity. In particular, we propose the use of a two-component mixture model to integrate these various sources of data and to estimate the parameters related to sensitivity and specificity of specific kinds of evidence. Further, we discuss some of the issues involved in this process and the assumptions that underpin many of the methods used in the evaluation process.

Contains fulltext : 154257.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the additive value of the prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) urine test to serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in prostate cancer (PC) screening among breast cancer, early-onset gene (BRCA) mutation carriers. This study was performed among the Dutch participants of IMPACT, a large international study on the effectiveness of PSA screening among BRCA mutation carriers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Urinary PCA3 was measured in 191 BRCA1 mutation carriers, 75 BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 308 noncarriers. The physicians and participants were blinded for the results. Serum PSA level>/=3.0ng/ml was used to indicate prostate biopsies. PCA3 was evaluated (1) as an independent indicator for prostate biopsies and (2) as an indicator for prostate biopsies among men with an elevated PSA level. PC detected up to the 2-year screening was used as gold standard as end-of-study biopsies were not performed. RESULTS: Overall, 23 PCs were diagnosed, 20 of which were in men who had an elevated PSA level in the initial screening round. (1) PCA3, successfully determined in 552 participants, was elevated in 188 (cutoff>/=25; 34%) or 134 (cutoff>/=35; 24%) participants, including 2 of the 3 PCs missed by PSA. PCA3 would have added 157 (>/=25; 28%) or 109 (>/=35; 20%) biopsy sessions to screening with PSA only. (2) Elevated PCA3 as a requirement for biopsies in addition to PSA would have saved 37 (cutoff>/=25) or 43 (cutoff>/=35) of the 68 biopsy sessions, and 7 or 11 PCs would have been missed, respectively, including multiple high-risk PCs. So far, PCA3 performed best among BRCA2 mutation carriers, but the numbers are still small. Because PCA3 was not used to indicate prostate biopsies, its true diagnostic value cannot be calculated. CONCLUSIONS: The results do not provide evidence for PCA3 as a useful additional indicator of prostate biopsies in BRCA mutation carriers, as many participants had an elevated PCA3 in the absence of PC. This must be interpreted with caution because PCA3 was not used to indicate biopsies. Many participants diagnosed with PC had low PCA3, making it invalid as a restrictive marker for prostate biopsies in men with elevated PSA levels.

Contains fulltext : 97737.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have demonstrated that common breast cancer susceptibility alleles are differentially associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation carriers. It is currently unknown how these alleles are associated with different breast cancer subtypes in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers defined by estrogen (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR) status of the tumour. METHODS: We used genotype data on up to 11,421 BRCA1 and 7,080 BRCA2 carriers, of whom 4,310 had been affected with breast cancer and had information on either ER or PR status of the tumour, to assess the associations of 12 loci with breast cancer tumour characteristics. Associations were evaluated using a retrospective cohort approach. RESULTS: The results suggested stronger associations with ER-positive breast cancer than ER-negative for 11 loci in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Among BRCA1 carriers, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs2981582 (FGFR2) exhibited the biggest difference based on ER status (per-allele hazard ratio (HR) for ER-positive = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.56 vs HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.98 for ER-negative, P-heterogeneity = 6.5 x 10-6). In contrast, SNP rs2046210 at 6q25.1 near ESR1 was primarily associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. In BRCA2 carriers, SNPs in FGFR2, TOX3, LSP1, SLC4A7/NEK10, 5p12, 2q35, and 1p11.2 were significantly associated with ER-positive but not ER-negative disease. Similar results were observed when differentiating breast cancer cases by PR status. CONCLUSIONS: The associations of the 12 SNPs with risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers differ by ER-positive or ER-negative breast cancer status. The apparent differences in SNP associations between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, and non-carriers, may be explicable by differences in the prevalence of tumour subtypes. As more risk modifying variants are identified, incorporating these associations into breast cancer subtype-specific risk models may improve clinical management for mutation carriers.

Juvenile polyposis syndrome (JPS; MIM 174900) is an autosomal dominant condition with incomplete penetrance characterized by hamartomatous polyps of the gastrointestinal tract and a risk of gastrointestinal cancer. Gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyps are also present in Cowden syndrome (CS; MIM 158350) and Bannayan-Zonana syndrome (BZS; also called Ruvalcaba-Myhre-Smith syndrome; MIM 153480). The susceptibility locus for both CS and BZS has recently been identified as the novel tumor suppressor gene PTEN, encoding a dual specificity phosphatase, located at 10q23.3. A putative JPS locus, JP1, which most likely functions as a tumor suppressor, had previously been mapped to 10q22-24 in both familial and sporadic juvenile polyps. Given the shared clinical features of gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyps among the three syndromes and the coincident mapping of JP1 to the region of PTEN, we sought to determine whether JPS was allelic to CS and BZS by mutation analysis of PTEN and linkage approaches. Microsatellite markers spanning the CS/BZS locus (D10S219, D10S551, D10S579, and D10S541) were used to compute multipoint lod scores in eight informative families with JPS. Lod scores of < -2.0 were generated for the entire region, thus excluding PTEN and any genes within the flanking 20-cM interval as candidate loci for familial JPS under our statistical models. In addition, analysis of PTEN using a combination of denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and direct sequencing was unable to identify a germline mutation in 14 families with JPS and 11 sporadic cases. Therefore, at least a proportion of JPS cases are not caused by germline PTEN alteration or by an alternative locus at 10q22-24.

For genetic counselling of a woman on familial breast cancer, an accurate evaluation of the probability that she carries a germ-line mutation is needed to assist in making decisions about genetic-testing. We used data from eight collaborating centres comprising 618 families (346 breast cancer only, 239 breast or ovarian cancer) recruited as research families or counselled for familial breast cancer, representing a broad range of family structures. Screening was performed in affected women from 618 families for germ-line mutations in BRCA1 and in 176 families for BRCA2 mutations, using different methods including SSCP, CSGE, DGGE, FAMA and PTT analysis followed by direct sequencing. Germ-line BRCA1 mutations were detected in 132 families and BRCA2 mutations in 16 families. The probability of being a carrier of a dominant breast cancer gene was calculated for the screened individual under the established genetic model for breast cancer susceptibility, first, with parameters for age-specific penetrances for breast cancer only [7] and, second, with age-specific penetrances for ovarian cancer in addition [20]. Our results indicate that the estimated probability of carrying a dominant breast cancer gene gives a direct measure of the likelihood of detecting mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. For breast/ovarian cancer families, the genetic model according to Narod et al. [20] is preferable for calculating the proband's genetic risk, and gives detection rates that indicate a 50% sensitivity of the gene test. Due to the incomplete BRCA2 screening of the families, we cannot yet draw any conclusions with respect to the breast cancer only families.

Tumor lymphocyte infiltration has been associated with clinical response to chemotherapy in estrogen receptor (ER) negative breast cancer. To identify variants in immunosuppressive pathway genes associated with prognosis after adjuvant chemotherapy for ER-negative patients, we studied invasive breast cancer patients of European ancestry with stage I-III disease, including 9,334 ER-positive patients (3,151 treated with chemotherapy) and 2,334 ER-negative patients (1,499 treated with chemotherapy).

The UK national study of magnetic resonance imaging as a method of screening for breast cancer (MARIBS) is in progress. The study design, accrual to date, and related research projects are described. Revised accrual rates and expected recruitment are given. 15 cancers have been detected to date, from a total of 1236 screening measurements. This event rate and the tumour grades reported are compared with recent reports from other studies in women at high risk of breast cancer.

Breast cancer; Evidence-generating care; Risk-adjusted prevention Cáncer de mama; Atención generadora de evidencia; Prevención ajustada al riesgo Càncer de mama; Atenció generadora d'evidències; Prevenció ajustada al risc Background: Risk-adjusted cancer screening and prevention is a promising and continuously emerging option for improving cancer prevention. It is driven by increasing knowledge of risk factors and the ability to determine them for individual risk prediction. However, there is a knowledge gap between evidence of increased risk and evidence of the effectiveness and efficiency of clinical preventive interventions based on increased risk. This gap is, in particular, aggravated by the extensive availability of genetic risk factor diagnostics, since the question of appropriate preventive measures immediately arises when an increased risk is identified. However, collecting proof of effective preventive measures, ideally by prospective randomized preventive studies, typically requires very long periods of time, while the knowledge about an increased risk immediately creates a high demand for action. Summary: Therefore, we propose a risk-adjusted prevention concept that is based on the best current evidence making needed and appropriate preventive measures available, and which is constantly evaluated through outcome evaluation, and continuously improved based on these results. We further discuss the structural and procedural requirements as well as legal and socioeconomical aspects relevant for the implementation of this concept. The project was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Health (grant No. 2515FSB401 to Rita Schmutzler and Christiane Woopen) for supporting the international expert meetings, and a grant of the EU Horizon 2020 program, BRIDGES (grant No. 634935, PI Peter Devilee, WP5-PI Rita Schmutzler), for the compilation of the most recent findings of genetic risk prediction.