Search

Funder: Victorian Cancer Agency, Funder: NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Funder: Cancer Research UK, Funder: Cancer Council Tasmania, Funder: Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Funder: Cancer Australia, Funder: NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Funder: Fundación Científica de la Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer, Funder: Cancer Council South Australia, Funder: Swedish Cancer Society, Funder: NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Funder: Institut Català de la Salut, Funder: Cancer Council Victoria, Funder: Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Funder: National Institutes of Health, BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is a rare familial cancer syndrome caused by pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2, that cause predisposition to various cancers, predominantly colorectal and endometrial cancer. Data are emerging that pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes increase the risk of early-onset aggressive prostate cancer. The IMPACT study is prospectively assessing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in men with germline mismatch repair pathogenic variants. Here, we report the usefulness of PSA screening, prostate cancer incidence, and tumour characteristics after the first screening round in men with and without these germline pathogenic variants. METHODS: The IMPACT study is an international, prospective study. Men aged 40-69 years without a previous prostate cancer diagnosis and with a known germline pathogenic variant in the MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 gene, and age-matched male controls who tested negative for a familial pathogenic variant in these genes were recruited from 34 genetic and urology clinics in eight countries, and underwent a baseline PSA screening. Men who had a PSA level higher than 3·0 ng/mL were offered a transrectal, ultrasound-guided, prostate biopsy and a histopathological analysis was done. All participants are undergoing a minimum of 5 years' annual screening. The primary endpoint was to determine the incidence, stage, and pathology of screening-detected prostate cancer in carriers of pathogenic variants compared with non-carrier controls. We used Fisher's exact test to compare the number of cases, cancer incidence, and positive predictive values of the PSA cutoff and biopsy between carriers and non-carriers and the differences between disease types (ie, cancer vs no cancer, clinically significant cancer vs no cancer). We assessed screening outcomes and tumour characteristics by pathogenic variant status. Here we present results from the first round of PSA screening in the IMPACT study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00261456, and is now closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2012, and March 1, 2020, 828 men were recruited (644 carriers of mismatch repair pathogenic variants [204 carriers of MLH1, 305 carriers of MSH2, and 135 carriers of MSH6] and 184 non-carrier controls [65 non-carriers of MLH1, 76 non-carriers of MSH2, and 43 non-carriers of MSH6]), and in order to boost the sample size for the non-carrier control groups, we randomly selected 134 non-carriers from the BRCA1 and BRCA2 cohort of the IMPACT study, who were included in all three non-carrier cohorts. Men were predominantly of European ancestry (899 [93%] of 953 with available data), with a mean age of 52·8 years (SD 8·3). Within the first screening round, 56 (6%) men had a PSA concentration of more than 3·0 ng/mL and 35 (4%) biopsies were done. The overall incidence of prostate cancer was 1·9% (18 of 962; 95% CI 1·1-2·9). The incidence among MSH2 carriers was 4·3% (13 of 305; 95% CI 2·3-7·2), MSH2 non-carrier controls was 0·5% (one of 210; 0·0-2·6), MSH6 carriers was 3·0% (four of 135; 0·8-7·4), and none were detected among the MLH1 carriers, MLH1 non-carrier controls, and MSH6 non-carrier controls. Prostate cancer incidence, using a PSA threshold of higher than 3·0 ng/mL, was higher in MSH2 carriers than in MSH2 non-carrier controls (4·3% vs 0·5%; p=0·011) and MSH6 carriers than MSH6 non-carrier controls (3·0% vs 0%; p=0·034). The overall positive predictive value of biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 51·4% (95% CI 34·0-68·6), and the overall positive predictive value of a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 32·1% (20·3-46·0). INTERPRETATION: After the first screening round, carriers of MSH2 and MSH6 pathogenic variants had a higher incidence of prostate cancer compared with age-matched non-carrier controls. These findings support the use of targeted PSA screening in these men to identify those with clinically significant prostate cancer. Further annual screening rounds will need to confirm these findings. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, The Ronald and Rita McAulay Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research support to Biomedical Research Centres (The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust; Oxford; Manchester and the Cambridge Clinical Research Centre), Mr and Mrs Jack Baker, the Cancer Council of Tasmania, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Cancer Council of Victoria, Cancer Council of South Australia, the Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), the Institut Català de la Salut, Autonomous Government of Catalonia, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute, Swedish Cancer Society, General Hospital in Malmö Foundation for Combating Cancer.

Studies have shown that a significant number of eligible breast cancer patients are not offered genetic testing or referral to genetic counseling. To increase access to genetic testing in South Eastern Norway, testing has since 2014 been offered directly to breast cancer patients by surgeons and oncologists. This practice is termed “mainstreamed genetic testing”. The aim of this study was to investigate to what extent patients in South Eastern Norway are offered testing. Three hundred and sixty one patients diagnosed in 2016 and 2017 at one regional and one university hospital in South Eastern Norway were included. Data on whether the patients fulfilled the criteria, whether they had been offered testing and if they were tested were collected. In total, 26.6% (96/361) fulfilled the criteria for testing. Seventy five percent (69/92) of these were offered testing, and 71.7% (66/92) were tested. At the university hospital, 90.2% (37/41) of eligible patients were offered testing, and at the regional hospital 62.7% (32/51). Fifty two percent (12/23) of eligible patient not offered testing were younger than 50 years at time of diagnosis. As many as 95.4% (125/131) of all patients who were offered testing, wanted to be tested. The majority of patients who fulfilled the criteria were offered testing, supporting the practice of mainstreamed genetic testing. There were nevertheless differences in rates of testing between the hospitals that affected all groups of patients, indicating that genetic testing may not be equally accessible to all patients. We suggest that efforts should be made to increase awareness and improve routines for genetic testing of breast cancer patients in Norway.

Background Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 cause hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Screening of these genes has become easily accessible in diagnostic laboratories. Sequencing and copy number analyses are used to detect pathogenic variants, but also lead to identification of variants of unknown clinical significance (VUS). If the effect of a VUS can be clarified, it has direct consequence for the clinical management of the patient and family members. A splicing assay is one of several tools that might help in the classification of VUS. We therefore established mRNA analyses for BRCA1 and BRCA2 in the diagnostic laboratory in 2015. We hereby report the results of mRNA analysis variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 after three years. Methods Variants predicted to alter splicing and variants within the canonical splice sites were selected for splicing analyses. Splicing assays were performed by reverse transcription-PCR of patient RNA. A biallalic expression analysis was carried out whenever possible. Results Twenty-five variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 were analyzed by splicing assays; nine showed altered transcripts and 16 showed normal splicing patterns. The two novel pathogenic variants in BRCA1 c.4484 + 3 A > C and c.5407–10G > A were characterized. Conclusions We conclude that mRNA analyses are useful in characterization of variants that may affect splicing. The results can guide classification of variants from unknown clinical significance to pathogenic or benign in a diagnostic laboratory, and thus be of direct clinical importance.

In the version of this article originally published, the names of the equally contributing authors and jointly supervising authors were switched. The correct affiliations are: “These authors contributed equally: David V. Conti, Burcu F. Darst. These authors jointly supervised this work: David V. Conti, Rosalind A. Eeles, Zsofia Kote-Jarai, Christopher A. Haiman.” The error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

International audience; Prostate cancer is a highly heritable disease with large disparities in incidence rates across ancestry populations. We conducted a multiancestry meta-analysis of prostate cancer genome-wide association studies (107,247 cases and 127,006 controls) and identified 86 new genetic risk variants independently associated with prostate cancer risk, bringing the total to 269 known risk variants. The top genetic risk score (GRS) decile was associated with odds ratios that ranged from 5.06 (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.84-5.29) for men of European ancestry to 3.74 (95% CI, 3.36-4.17) for men of African ancestry. Men of African ancestry were estimated to have a mean GRS that was 2.18-times higher (95% CI, 2.14-2.22), and men of East Asian ancestry 0.73-times lower (95% CI, 0.71-0.76), than men of European ancestry. These findings support the role of germline variation contributing to population differences in prostate cancer risk, with the GRS offering an approach for personalized risk prediction.

The original version of this Article contained an error in the spelling of the author Manuela Gago-Dominguez, which was incorrectly given as Manuela G. Dominguez. This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.

Background: Whether associations between circulating metabolites and prostate cancer are causal is unknown. We report on the largest study of metabolites and prostate cancer (2,291 cases and 2,661 controls) and appraise causality for a subset of the prostate cancer–metabolite associations using two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR). Methods: The case–control portion of the study was conducted in nine UK centers with men ages 50–69 years who underwent prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer within the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial. Two data sources were used to appraise causality: a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of metabolites in 24,925 participants and a GWAS of prostate cancer in 44,825 cases and 27,904 controls within the Association Group to Investigate Cancer Associated Alterations in the Genome (PRACTICAL) consortium. Results: Thirty-five metabolites were strongly associated with prostate cancer (P < 0.0014, multiple-testing threshold). These fell into four classes: (i) lipids and lipoprotein subclass characteristics (total cholesterol and ratios, cholesterol esters and ratios, free cholesterol and ratios, phospholipids and ratios, and triglyceride ratios); (ii) fatty acids and ratios; (iii) amino acids; (iv) and fluid balance. Fourteen top metabolites were proxied by genetic variables, but MR indicated these were not causal. Conclusions: We identified 35 circulating metabolites associated with prostate cancer presence, but found no evidence of causality for those 14 testable with MR. Thus, the 14 MR-tested metabolites are unlikely to be mechanistically important in prostate cancer risk. Impact: The metabolome provides a promising set of biomarkers that may aid prostate cancer classification.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Publisher's version (útgefin grein)., Quantifying the genetic correlation between cancers can provide important insights into the mechanisms driving cancer etiology. Using genome-wide association study summary statistics across six cancer types based on a total of 296,215 cases and 301,319 controls of European ancestry, here we estimate the pair-wise genetic correlations between breast, colorectal, head/neck, lung, ovary and prostate cancer, and between cancers and 38 other diseases. We observed statistically significant genetic correlations between lung and head/neck cancer (rg = 0.57, p = 4.6 × 10−8), breast and ovarian cancer (rg = 0.24, p = 7 × 10−5), breast and lung cancer (rg = 0.18, p =1.5 × 10−6) and breast and colorectal cancer (rg = 0.15, p = 1.1 × 10−4). We also found that multiple cancers are genetically correlated with non-cancer traits including smoking, psychiatric diseases and metabolic characteristics. Functional enrichment analysis revealed a significant excess contribution of conserved and regulatory regions to cancer heritability. Our comprehensive analysis of cross-cancer heritability suggests that solid tumors arising across tissues share in part a common germline genetic basis., The authors in this manuscript were working on behalf of BCAC, CCFR, CIMBA, CORECT, GECCO, OCAC, PRACTICAL, CRUK, BPC3, CAPS, PEGASUS, TRICL-ILCCO, ABCTB, APCB, BCFR, CONSIT TEAM, EMBRACE, GC-HBOC, GEMO, HEBON, kConFab/AOCS Mod SQuaD, and SWE-BRCA. The breast cancer genome-wide association analyses: BCAC is funded by Cancer Research UK [C1287/A16563, C1287/A10118], the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant numbers 634935 and 633784 for BRIDGES and B-CAST, respectively), and by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement number 223175 (grant number HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS). The EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme funding source had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. Genotyping of the OncoArray was funded by the NIH Grant U19 CA148065, and Cancer UK Grant C1287/A16563 and the PERSPECTIVE project supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant GPH-129344) and, the Ministère de l’Économie, Science et Innovation du Québec through Genome Québec and the PSR-SIIRI-701 grant, and the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation. Funding for the iCOGS infrastructure came from: the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/A16565), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978), and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065, and 1U19 CA148112—the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer, and Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. The DRIVE Consortium was funded by U19 CA148065. The Australian Breast Cancer Family Study (ABCFS) was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (USA). The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the USA Government or the BCFR. The ABCFS 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. J.L.H. is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Principal Research Fellow. M.C.S. is a NHMRC Senior Research Fellow. The ABCS study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society [grants NKI 2007-3839; 2009 4363]. The Australian Breast Cancer Tissue Bank (ABCTB) is generously supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, The Cancer Institute NSW and the National Breast Cancer Foundation. The ACP study is funded by the Breast Cancer Research Trust, UK. The AHS study is supported by the intramural research program of the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute (grant number Z01-CP010119), and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (grant number Z01-ES049030). The work of the BBCC was partly funded by ELAN-Fond of the University Hospital of Erlangen. The BBCS is funded by Cancer Research UK and Breast Cancer Now and acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN). The BCEES was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia and the Cancer Council Western Australia and acknowledges funding from the National Breast Cancer Foundation (JS). For the BCFR-NY, BCFR-PA, and BCFR-UT this work was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government or the BCFR. For BIGGS, ES is supported by NIHR Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Guy’s & St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King’s College London, United Kingdom. IT is supported by the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. BOCS is supported by funds from Cancer Research UK (C8620/A8372/A15106) and the Institute of Cancer Research (UK). BOCS acknowledges NHS funding to the Royal Marsden/Institute of Cancer Research NIHR Specialist Cancer Biomedical Research Centre. The BREast Oncology GAlician Network (BREOGAN) is funded by Acción Estratégica de Salud del Instituto de Salud Carlos III FIS PI12/02125/Cofinanciado FEDER; Acción Estratégica de Salud del Instituto de Salud Carlos III FIS Intrasalud (PI13/01136); Programa Grupos Emergentes, Cancer Genetics Unit, Instituto de Investigacion Biomedica Galicia Sur. Xerencia de Xestion Integrada de Vigo-SERGAS, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain; Grant 10CSA012E, Consellería de Industria Programa Sectorial de Investigación Aplicada, PEME I + D e I + D Suma del Plan Gallego de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica de la Consellería de Industria de la Xunta de Galicia, Spain; Grant EC11-192. Fomento de la Investigación Clínica Independiente, Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad, Spain; and Grant FEDER-Innterconecta. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, Xunta de Galicia, Spain. The BSUCH study was supported by the Dietmar-Hopp Foundation, the Helmholtz Society and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). The CAMA study was funded by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT) (SALUD-2002-C01-7462). Sample collection and processing was funded in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute (NCI R01CA120120 and K24CA169004). CBCS is funded by the Canadian Cancer Society (grant # 313404) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CCGP is supported by funding from the University of Crete. The CECILE study was supported by Fondation de France, Institut National du Cancer (INCa), Ligue Nationale contre le Cancer, Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire, de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail (ANSES), Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR). The CGPS was supported by the Chief Physician Johan Boserup and Lise Boserup Fund, the Danish Medical Research Council, and Herlev and Gentofte Hospital. The CNIO-BCS was supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Cáncer and grants from the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer and the Fondo de Investigación Sanitario (PI11/00923 and PI12/00070). COLBCCC is supported by the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. D.T. was in part supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. The American Cancer Society funds the creation, maintenance, and updating of the CPS-II cohort. The CTS was initially supported by the California Breast Cancer Act of 1993 and the California Breast Cancer Research Fund (contract 97-10500) and is currently funded through the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA77398, UM1 CA164917, and U01 CA199277). Collection of cancer incidence data was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885. H.A.C eceives support from the Lon V Smith Foundation (LVS39420). The University of Westminster curates the DietCompLyf database funded by Against Breast Cancer Registered Charity No. 1121258 and the NCRN. The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by: Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) (France); German Cancer Aid, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Germany); the Hellenic Health Foundation, the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (Greece); Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC-Italy and National Research Council (Italy); Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Health Research Fund (FIS), PI13/00061 to Granada, PI13/01162 to EPIC-Murcia, Regional Governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, ISCIII RETIC (RD06/0020) (Spain); Cancer Research UK (14136 to EPIC-Norfolk; C570/A16491 and C8221/A19170 to EPIC-Oxford), Medical Research Council (1000143 to EPIC-Norfolk, MR/M012190/1 to EPIC-Oxford) (United Kingdom). The ESTHER study was supported by a grant from the Baden Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts. Additional cases were recruited in the context of the VERDI study, which was supported by a grant from the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe). FHRISK is funded from NIHR grant PGfAR 0707-10031. The GC-HBOC (German Consortium of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer) is supported by the German Cancer Aid (grant no 110837, coordinator: Rita K. Schmutzler, Cologne). This work was also funded by the European Regional Development Fund and Free State of Saxony, Germany (LIFE - Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases, project numbers 713-241202, 713-241202, 14505/2470, and 14575/2470). The GENICA was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany grants 01KW9975/5, 01KW9976/8, 01KW9977/0, and 01KW0114, the Robert Bosch Foundation, Stuttgart, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, the Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum (IPA), Bochum, as well as the Department of Internal Medicine, Evangelische Kliniken Bonn gGmbH, Johanniter Krankenhaus, Bonn, Germany. The GEPARSIXTO study was conducted by the German Breast Group GmbH. The GESBC was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e. V. [70492] and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). GLACIER was supported by Breast Cancer Now, CRUK and Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The HABCS study was supported by the Claudia von Schilling Foundation for Breast Cancer Research, by the Lower Saxonian Cancer Society, and by the Rudolf-Bartling Foundation. The HEBCS was financially supported by the Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (266528), the Finnish Cancer Society, and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. The HERPACC was supported by MEXT Kakenhi (No. 170150181 and 26253041) from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, Culture and Technology of Japan, by a Grant-in-Aid for the Third Term Comprehensive 10-Year Strategy for Cancer Control from Ministry Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, by Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants for Research on Applying Health Technology from Ministry Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, by National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, and “Practical Research for Innovative Cancer Control (15ck0106177h0001)” from Japan Agency for Medical Research and development, AMED, and Cancer Bio Bank Aichi. The HMBCS was supported by a grant from the Friends of Hannover Medical School and by the Rudolf Bartling Foundation. The HUBCS was supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education (RUS08/017), and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations for support the Bioresource collections and RFBR grants 14-04-97088, 17-29-06014, and 17-44-020498. ICICLE was supported by Breast Cancer Now, CRUK, and Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. Financial support for KARBAC was provided through the regional agreement on medical training and clinical research (A.L.F.) between Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet, the Swedish Cancer Society, The Gustav V Jubilee foundation and Bert von Kantzows foundation. The KARMA study was supported by Märit and Hans Rausings Initiative Against Breast Cancer. The KBCP was financially supported by the special Government Funding (E.V.O.) of Kuopio University Hospital grants, Cancer Fund of North Savo, the Finnish Cancer Organizations, and by the strategic funding of the University of Eastern Finland. kConFab is supported by a grant from the National Breast Cancer Foundation, and previously by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. Financial support for the AOCS was provided by the United States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command [DAMD17-01-1-0729], Cancer Council Victoria, Queensland Cancer Fund, Cancer Council New South Wales, Cancer Council South Australia, The Cancer Foundation of Western Australia, Cancer Council Tasmania and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC; 400413, 400281, 199600). G.C.-T. and P.W. are supported by the NHMRC. RB was a Cancer Institute NSW Clinical Research Fellow. The KOHBRA study was partially supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI16C1127; 1020350; 1420190). LAABC is supported by grants (1RB-0287, 3PB-0102, 5PB-0018, 10PB-0098) from the California Breast Cancer Research Program. Incident breast cancer cases were collected by the USC Cancer Surveillance Program (CSP) which is supported under subcontract by the California Department of Health. The CSP is also part of the National Cancer Institute’s Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, under contract number N01CN25403. L.M.B.C. is supported by the ‘Stichting tegen Kanker’. D.L. is supported by the FWO. The MABCS study is funded by the Research Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology “Georgi D. Efremov” and supported by the German Academic Exchange Program, DAAD. The MARIE study was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V. [70-2892-BR I, 106332, 108253, 108419, 110826, 110828], the Hamburg Cancer Society, the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany [01KH0402]. MBCSG is supported by grants from the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC) and by funds from the 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”). The MCBCS was supported by the NIH grants CA192393, CA116167, CA176785 an NIH Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer [CA116201], and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation. MCCS cohort recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria. The MCCS was further supported by Australian NHMRC grants 209057 and 396414, and by infrastructure provided by Cancer Council Victoria. Cases and their vital status were ascertained through the Victorian Cancer Registry (VCR) and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), including the National Death Index and the Australian Cancer Database. The MEC was support by NIH grants CA63464, CA54281, CA098758, CA132839, and CA164973. The MISS study is supported by funding from ERC-2011-294576 Advanced grant, Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council, Local hospital funds, Berta Kamprad Foundation, Gunnar Nilsson. The MMHS study was supported by NIH grants CA97396, CA128931, CA116201, CA140286, and CA177150. MSKCC is supported by grants from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Initiative. The work of MTLGEBCS was supported by the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program – grant # CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade – grant # PSR-SIIRI-701. MYBRCA is funded by research grants from the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Malaysia. MYMAMMO is supported by research grants from Yayasan Sime Darby LPGA Tournament and Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (RP046B-15HTM). The NBCS has been supported by the Research Council of Norway grant 193387/V50 (to A.-L. Børresen-Dale and V.N. Kristensen) and grant 193387/H10 (to A.-L. Børresen-Dale and V.N. Kristensen), South Eastern Norway Health Authority (grant 39346 to A.-L. Børresen-Dale and 27208 to V.N. Kristensen) and the Norwegian Cancer Society (to A.-L. Børresen-Dale and 419616 - 71248 - PR-2006-0282 to V.N. Kristensen). It has received funding from the K.G. Jebsen Centre for Breast Cancer Research (2012-2015). The NBHS was supported by NIH grant R01CA100374. Biological sample preparation was conducted the Survey and Biospecimen Shared Resource, which is supported by P30 CA68485. The Northern California Breast Cancer Family Registry (NC-BCFR) and Ontario Familial Breast Cancer Registry (OFBCR) were supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (USA). The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the USA Government or the BCFR. The Carolina Breast Cancer Study was funded by Komen Foundation, the National Cancer Institute (P50 CA058223, U54 CA156733, and U01 CA179715), and the North Carolina University Cancer Research Fund. The NGOBCS was supported by Grants-in-Aid for the Third Term Comprehensive Ten-Year Strategy for Cancer Control from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan, and for Scientific Research on Priority Areas, 17015049 and for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas, 221S0001, from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan. The NHS was supported by NIH grants P01 CA87969, UM1 CA186107, and U19 CA148065. The NHS2 was supported by NIH grants UM1 CA176726 and U19 CA148065. The OBCS was supported by research grants from the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Academy of Finland (grant number 250083, 122715 and Center of Excellence grant number 251314), the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, the University of Oulu, the University of Oulu Support Foundation, and the special Governmental EVO funds for Oulu University Hospital-based research activities. The ORIGO study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society (RUL 1997-1505) and the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI-NL CP16). The PBCS was funded by Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. Genotyping for PLCO was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, NCI, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics. The PLCO is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and supported by contracts from the Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. The POSH study is funded by Cancer Research UK (grants C1275/A11699, C1275/C22524, C1275/A19187, C1275/A15956, and Breast Cancer Campaign 2010PR62, 2013PR044. PROCAS is funded from NIHR grant PGfAR 0707-10031. The RBCS was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society (DDHK 2004-3124, DDHK 2009-4318). The SASBAC study was supported by funding from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research of Singapore (A*STAR), the US National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. The SBCGS was supported primarily by NIH grants R01CA64277, R01CA148667, UMCA182910, and R37CA70867. Biological sample preparation was conducted the Survey and Biospecimen Shared Resource, which is supported by P30 CA68485. The scientific development and funding of this project were, in part, supported by the Genetic Associations and Mechanisms in Oncology (GAME-ON) Network U19 CA148065. The SBCS was supported by Sheffield Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre and Breast Cancer Now Tissue Bank. The SCCS is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA092447). Data on SCCS cancer cases used in this publication were provided by the Alabama Statewide Cancer Registry; Kentucky Cancer Registry, Lexington, KY; Tennessee Department of Health, Office of Cancer Surveillance; Florida Cancer Data System; North Carolina Central Cancer Registry, North Carolina Division of Public Health; Georgia Comprehensive Cancer Registry; Louisiana Tumor Registry; Mississippi Cancer Registry; South Carolina Central Cancer Registry; Virginia Department of Health, Virginia Cancer Registry; Arkansas Department of Health, Cancer Registry, 4815 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72205. The Arkansas Central Cancer Registry is fully funded by a grant from National Program of Cancer Registries, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Data on SCCS cancer cases from Mississippi were collected by the Mississippi Cancer Registry which participates in the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC or the Mississippi Cancer Registry. SEARCH is funded by Cancer Research UK [C490/A10124, C490/A16561] and supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. The University of Cambridge has received salary support for PDPP from the NHS in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserve. SEBCS was supported by the BRL (Basic Research Laboratory) program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2012-0000347). SGBCC is funded by the NUS start-up Grant, National University Cancer Institute Singapore (NCIS) Centre Grant and the NMRC Clinician Scientist Award. Additional controls were recruited by the Singapore Consortium of Cohort Studies-Multi-ethnic cohort (SCCS-MEC), which was funded by the Biomedical Research Council, grant number: 05/1/21/19/425. The Sister Study (SISTER) is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01-ES044005 and Z01-ES049033). The Two Sister Study (2SISTER) was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01-ES044005 and Z01-ES102245), and, also by a grant from Susan G. Komen for the Cure, grant FAS0703856. SKKDKFZS is supported by the DKFZ. The SMC is funded by the Swedish Cancer Foundation. The SZBCS was supported by Grant PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. The TBCS was funded by The National Cancer Institute, Thailand. The TNBCC was supported by a Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation. The TWBCS is supported by the Taiwan Biobank project of the Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Academia Sinica, Taiwan. The UCIBCS component of this research was supported by the NIH [CA58860, CA92044] and the Lon V Smith Foundation [LVS39420]. The UKBGS is funded by Breast Cancer Now and the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), London. ICR acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. The UKOPS study was funded by The Eve Appeal (The Oak Foundation) and supported by the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. The US3SS study was supported by Massachusetts (K.M.E., R01CA47305), Wisconsin (P.A.N., R01 CA47147) and New Hampshire (L.T.-E., R01CA69664) centers, and Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. The USRT Study was funded by Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. The WAABCS study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA89085 and P50 CA125183 and the D43 TW009112 grant), Susan G. Komen (SAC110026), the Dr. Ralph and Marian Falk Medical Research Trust, and the Avon Foundation for Women. The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the US National Institutes of Health and the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHSN268201100046C, HHSN268201100001C, HHSN268201100002C, HHSN268201100003C, HHSN268201100004C, and HHSN271201100004C). This work was also funded by NCI U19 CA148065-01. D.G.E. is supported by the all Manchester NIHR Biomedical research center Manchester (IS-BRC-1215-20007). HUNBOCS, Hungarian Breast and Ovarian Cancer Study was supported by Hungarian Research Grant KTIA-OTKA CK-80745, NKFI_OTKA K-112228. C.I. received support from the Nontherapeutic Subject Registry Shared Resource at Georgetown University (NIH/NCI P30-CA-51008) and the Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research. K.M. is supported by CRUK C18281/A19169. City of Hope Clinical Cancer Community Research Network and the Hereditary Cancer Research Registry, supported in part by Award Number RC4CA153828 (PI: J Weitzel) from the National Cancer Institute and the office of the Directory, National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The colorectal cancer genome-wide association analyses: Colorectal Transdisciplinary Study (CORECT): The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the CORECT Consortium, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government or the CORECT Consortium. We are incredibly grateful for the contributions of Dr. Brian Henderson and Dr. Roger Green over the course of this study and acknowledge them in memoriam. We are also grateful for support from Daniel and Maryann Fong. ColoCare: we thank the many investigators and staff who made this research possible in ColoCare Seattle and ColoCare Heidelberg. ColoCare was initiated and developed at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center by Drs. Ulrich and Grady. CCFR: the Colon CFR graciously thanks the generous contributions of their study participants, dedication of study staff, and financial support from the U.S. National Cancer Institute, without which this important registry would not exist. Galeon: GALEON wishes to thank the Department of Surgery of University Hospital of Santiago (CHUS), Sara Miranda Ponte, Carmen M Redondo, and the staff of the Department of Pathology and Biobank of CHUS, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago (IDIS), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Galicia Sur (IISGS), SERGAS, Vigo, Spain, and Programa Grupos Emergentes, Cancer Genetics Unit, CHUVI Vigo Hospital, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain. MCCS: this study was made possible by the contribution of many people, including the original investigators and the diligent team who recruited participants and continue to work on follow-up. We would also like to express our gratitude to the many thousands of Melbourne residents who took part in the study and provided blood samples. SEARCH: We acknowledge the contributions of Mitul Shah, Val Rhenius, Sue Irvine, Craig Luccarini, Patricia Harrington, Don Conroy, Rebecca Mayes, and Caroline Baynes. The Swedish low-risk colorectal cancer study: we thank Berith Wejderot and the Swedish low-risk colorectal cancer study group. Genetics & Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO): we thank all those at the GECCO Coordinating Center for helping bring together the data and people that made this project possible. ASTERISK: we are very grateful to Dr. Bruno Buecher without whom this project would not have existed. We also thank all those who agreed to participate in this study, including the patients and the healthy control persons, as well as all the physicians, technicians and students. DACHS: we thank all participants and cooperating clinicians, and Ute Handte-Daub, Renate Hettler-Jensen, Utz Benscheid, Muhabbet Celik, and Ursula Eilber for excellent technical assistance. HPFS, NHS and PHS: we acknowledge Patrice Soule and Hardeep Ranu of the Dana-Farber Harvard Cancer Center High-Throughput Polymorphism Core who assisted in the genotyping for NHS, HPFS, and PHS under the supervision of Dr. Immaculata Devivo and Dr. David Hunter, Qin (Carolyn) Guo, and Lixue Zhu who assisted in programming for NHS and HPFS and Haiyan Zhang who assisted in programming for the PHS. We thank the participants and staff of the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, for their valuable contributions as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: A.L., A.Z., A.R., C.A., C.O., C.T., D.E., F.L., G.A., I.D., I.L., I.N., I.A., K.Y., L.A., M.E., M.D., M.A., M.I., N.E., N.H., N.J., N.Y., N.C., N.D., O.H., O.K., O.R., P.A., R.I., S.C., T.N., T.X., V.A., W.A., W.Y. In addition, this study was approved by the Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH) Human Investigations Committee. Certain data used in this publication were obtained from the DPH. We assume full responsibility for analyses and interpretation of these data. PLCO: we thank Drs. Christine Berg and Philip Prorok, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, the Screening Center investigators and staff or the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial, Mr. Tom Riley and staff, Information Management Services Inc., Ms. Barbara O’Brien and staff, Westat Inc. and Drs. Bill Kopp, Wen Shao and staff, SAIC-Frederick. Most importantly, we acknowledge the study participants for their contributions for making this study possible. The statements contained herein are solely those of the authors and do not represent or imply concurrence or endorsement by NCI. PMH: we thank the study participants and staff of the Hormones and Colon Cancer study. WHI: we thank the WHI investigators and staff for their dedication, and the study participants for making the program possible. A full listing of WHI investigators can be found at https://cleo.whi.org/researchers/Documents%20%20Write%20a%20Paper/WHI%20Investigator%20Short20List.pdf. CORECT: The CORECT Study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NCI/NIH), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (grant numbers U19 CA148107, R01 CA81488, P30 CA014089, R01 CA197350; P01 CA196569; and R01 CA201407) and National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health (grant number T32 ES013678). The ATBC Study was supported by the US Public Health Service contracts (N01-CN-45165, N01-RC-45035, N01-RC-37004, and HHSN261201000006C) from the National Cancer Institute. The Cancer Prevention Study-II Nutrition Cohort is funded by the American Cancer Society. ColoCare: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (grant numbers R01 CA189184, U01 CA206110, 2P30CA015704-40 (Gilliland)), the Matthias Lackas-Foundation, the German Consortium for Translational Cancer Research, and the EU TRANSCAN initiative. Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO): funding for GECCO was provided by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (grant numbers U01 CA137088, R01 CA059045, and U01 CA164930). This research was funded in part through the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA015704. The Colon Cancer Family Registry (CFR) Illumina GWAS was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (grant numbers U01 CA122839, R01 CA143247). The Colon CFR/CORECT Affymetrix Axiom GWAS and OncoArray GWAS were supported by funding from National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (grant number U19 CA148107 to S.G.). The Colon CFR participant recruitment and collection of data and biospecimens used in this study were supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (grant number UM1 CA167551) and through cooperative agreements with the following Colon CFR centers: Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (NCI/NIH grant numbers U01 CA074778 and U01/U24 CA097735), USC Consortium Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (NCI/NIH grant numbers U01/U24 CA074799), Mayo Clinic Cooperative Family Registry for Colon Cancer Studies (NCI/NIH grant number U01/U24 CA074800), Ontario Familial Colorectal Cancer Registry (NCI/NIH grant number U01/U24 CA074783), Seattle Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (NCI/NIH grant number U01/U24 CA074794), and University of Hawaii Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (NCI/NIH grant number U01/U24 CA074806), Additional support for case ascertainment was provided from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute to Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (Control Nos. N01-CN-67009 and N01-PC-35142, and Contract No. HHSN2612013000121), the Hawai’i Department of Health (Control Nos. N01-PC-67001 and N01-PC-35137, and Contract No. HHSN26120100037C, and the California Department of Public Health (contracts HHSN261201000035C awarded to the University of Southern California, and the following state cancer registries: A.Z., C.O., M.N., N.C., N.H., and by the Victoria Cancer Registry and Ontario Cancer Registry. ESTHER/VERDI was supported by grants from the Baden–Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts and the German Cancer Aid. MCCS cohort recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria. GALEON: FIS Intrasalud (PI13/01136). The MCCS was further supported by Australian NHMRC grants 509348, 209057, 251553, and 504711 and by infrastructure provided by Cancer Council Victoria. Cases and their vital status were ascertained through the Victorian Cancer Registry (VCR) and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), including the National Death Index and the Australian Cancer Database. MSKCC: the work at Sloan Kettering in New York was supported by the Robert and Kate Niehaus Center for Inherited Cancer Genomics and the Romeo Milio Foundation. Moffitt: This work was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health (grant numbers R01 CA189184, P30 CA076292), Florida Department of Health Bankhead-Coley Grant 09BN-13, and the University of South Florida Oehler Foundation. Moffitt contributions were supported in part by the Total Cancer Care Initiative, Collaborative Data Services Core, and Tissue Core at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (grant number P30 CA076292). SEARCH: Cancer Research UK (C490/A16561). The Spanish study was supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, co-funded by FEDER funds –a way to build Europe– (grants PI14-613 and PI09-1286), Catalan Government DURSI (grant 2014SGR647), and Junta de Castilla y León (grant LE22A10-2). The Swedish Low-risk Colorectal Cancer Study: the study was supported by grants from the Swedish research council; K2015-55 × -22674-01-4, K2008-55 × -20157-03-3, K2006-72 × -20157-01-2 and the Stockholm County Council (ALF project). CIDR genotyping for the Oncoarray was conducted under contract 268201200008I (to K.D.), through grant 101HG007491-01 (to C.I.A.). The Norris Cotton Cancer Center - P30CA023108, The Quantitative Biology Research Institute - P20GM103534, and the Coordinating Center for Screen Detected Lesions - U01CA196386 also supported efforts of C.I.A. This work was also supported by the National Cancer Institute (grant numbers U01 CA1817700, R01 CA144040). ASTERISK: a Hospital Clinical Research Program (PHRC) and supported by the Regional Council of Pays de la Loire, the Groupement des Entreprises Françaises dans la Lutte contre le Cancer (GEFLUC), the Association Anne de Bretagne Génétique and the Ligue Régionale Contre le Cancer (LRCC). COLO2&3: National Institutes of Health (grant number R01 CA060987). DACHS: This work was supported by the German Research Council (BR 1704/6-1, BR 1704/6-3, BR 1704/6-4, CH 117/1-1, HO 5117/2-1, HE 5998/2-1, KL 2354/3-1, RO 2270/8-1, and BR 1704/17-1), the Interdisciplinary Research Program of the National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Germany, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01KH0404, 01ER0814, 01ER0815, 01ER1505A, and 01ER1505B). DALS: National Institutes of Health (grant number R01 CA048998 to M.L.S). HPFS is supported by National Institutes of Health (grant numbers P01 CA055075, UM1 CA167552, R01 137178, and P50 CA127003), NHS by the National Institutes of Health (grant numbers UM1 CA186107, R01 CA137178, P01 CA087969, and P50 CA127003), NHSII by the National Institutes of Health (grant numbers R01 050385CA and UM1 CA176726), and PHS by the National Institutes of Health (grant number R01 CA042182). MEC: National Institutes of Health (grant numbers R37 CA054281, P01 CA033619, and R01 CA063464). OFCCR: National Institutes of Health, through funding allocated to the Ontario Registry for Studies of Familial Colorectal Cancer (grant number U01 CA074783); see Colon CFR section above. As subset of ARCTIC, OFCCR is supported by a GL2 grant from the Ontario Research Fund, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Cancer Risk Evaluation (CaRE) Program grant from the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute. T.J.H. and B.W.Z. are recipients of Senior Investigator Awards from the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, through generous support from the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation. PLCO: Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and supported by contracts from the Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS. Additionally, a subset of control samples was genotyped as part of the Cancer Genetic Markers of Susceptibility (CGEMS) Prostate Cancer GWAS, Colon CGEMS pancreatic cancer scan (PanScan), and the Lung Cancer and Smoking study. The prostate and PanScan study datasets were accessed with appropriate approval through the dbGaP online resource (http://cgems.cancer.gov/data/) accession numbers phs000207.v1.p1 and phs000206.v3.p2, respectively, and the lung datasets were accessed from the dbGaP website (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap) through accession number phs000093.v2.p2. Funding for the Lung Cancer and Smoking study was provided by National Institutes of Health (NIH), Genes, Environment and Health Initiative (GEI) Z01 CP 010200, NIH U01 HG004446, and NIH GEI U01 HG 004438. For the lung study, the GENEVA Coordinating Center provided assistance with genotype cleaning and general study coordination, 23 and the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research conducted genotyping. PMH: National Institutes of Health (grant number R01 CA076366). VITAL: National Institutes of Health (grant number K05-CA154337). WHI: The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through contracts HHSN268201600018C, HHSN268201600001C, HHSN268201600002C, HHSN268201600003C, and HHSN268201600004C. The head and neck cancer genome-wide association analyses: The study was supported by NIH/NCI: P50 CA097190, and P30 CA047904, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (no. 020214) and Cancer Care Ontario Research Chair to R.H. The Princess Margaret Hospital Head and Neck Cancer Translational Research Program is funded by the Wharton family, Joe’s Team, Gordon Tozer, Bruce Galloway and the Elia family. Geoffrey Liu was supported by the Posluns Family Fund and the Lusi Wong Family Fund at the Princess Margaret Foundation, and the Alan B. Brown Chair in Molecular Genomics. This publication presents data from Head and Neck 5000 (H&N5000). H&N5000 was a component of independent research funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (RP-PG-0707-10034). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Human papillomavirus (HPV) in H&N5000 serology was supported by a Cancer Research UK Programme Grant, the Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme (grant number: C18281/A19169). National Cancer Institute (R01-CA90731); National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (P30ES10126). The authors thank all the members of the GENCAPO team/The Head and Neck Genome Project (GENCAPO) was supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) (Grant numbers 04/12054-9 and 10/51168-0). CPS-II recruitment and maintenance is supported with intramural research funding from the American Cancer Society. Genotyping performed at the Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR) was funded through the U.S. National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) grant 1 × 01HG007780-0. The University of Pittsburgh head and neck cancer case-control study is supported by National Institutes of Health grants P50 CA097190 and P30 CA047904. The Carolina Head and Neck Cancer Study (CHANCE) was supported by the National Cancer Institute (R01-CA90731). The Head and Neck Genome Project (GENCAPO) was supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) (Grant numbers 04/12054-9 and 10/51168-0). The authors thank all the members of the GENCAPO team. The HN5000 study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (RP-PG-0707-10034), the views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The Toronto study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (020214) and the National Cancer Institute (U19-CA148127) and the Cancer Care Ontario Research Chair. The alcohol-related cancers and genetic susceptibility study in Europe (ARCAGE) was funded by the European Commission’s 5th Framework Program (QLK1-2001-00182), the Italian Association for Cancer Research, Compagnia di San Paolo/FIRMS, Region Piemonte, and Padova University (CPDA057222). The Rome Study was supported by the Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC) IG 2011 10491 and IG2013 14220 to S.B., and Fondazione Veronesi to S.B. The IARC Latin American study was funded by the European Commission INCO-DC programme (IC18-CT97-0222), with additional funding from Fondo para la Investigacion Cientifica y Tecnologica (Argentina) and the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (01/01768-2). We thank Leticia Fernandez, Instituto Nacional de Oncologia y Radiobiologia, La Habana, Cuba and Sergio and Rosalina Koifman, for their efforts with the IARC Latin America study São Paulo center. The IARC Central Europe study was supported by European Commission’s INCO-COPERNICUS Program (IC15- CT98-0332), NIH/National Cancer Institute grant CA92039, and the World Cancer Research Foundation grant WCRF 99A28. The IARC Oral Cancer Multicenter study was funded by grant S06 96 202489 05F02 from Europe against Cancer; grants FIS 97/0024, FIS 97/0662, and BAE 01/5013 from Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias, Spain; the UICC Yamagiwa-Yoshida Memorial International Cancer Study; the National Cancer Institute of Canada; Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro; and the Pan-American Health Organization. Coordination of the EPIC study is financially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The lung cancer genome-wide association analyses: Transdisciplinary Research for Cancer in Lung (TRICL) of the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO) was supported by (U19-CA148127, CA148127S1, U19CA203654, and Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas RR170048). The ILCCO data harmonization is supported by Cancer Care Ontario Research Chair of Population Studies to R. H. and Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System. The TRICL-ILCCO OncoArray was supported by in-kind genotyping by the Centre for Inherited Disease Research (26820120008i-0-26800068-1). The CAPUA study was supported by FIS-FEDER/Spain grant numbers FIS-01/310, FIS-PI03-0365, and FIS-07-BI060604, FICYT/Asturias grant numbers FICYT PB02-67 and FICYT IB09-133, and the University Institute of Oncology (IUOPA), of the University of Oviedo and the Ciber de Epidemiologia y Salud Pública. CIBERESP, SPAIN. The work performed in the CARET study was supported by the National Institute of Health/National Cancer Institute: UM1 CA167462 (PI: Goodman), National Institute of Health UO1-CA6367307 (PIs Omen, Goodman); National Institute of Health R01 CA111703 (PI Chen), National Institute of Health 5R01 CA151989-01A1(PI Doherty). The Liverpool Lung project is supported by the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. The Harvard Lung Cancer Study was supported by the NIH (National Cancer Institute) grants CA092824, CA090578, CA074386. The Multi-ethnic Cohort Study was partially supported by NIH Grants CA164973, CA033619, CA63464, and CA148127. The work performed in MSH-PMH study was supported by The Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (020214), Ontario Institute of Cancer and Cancer Care Ontario Chair Award to R.J.H. and G.L. and the Alan Brown Chair and Lusi Wong Programs at the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation. NJLCS was funded by the State Key Program of National Natural Science of China (81230067), the National Key Basic Research Program Grant (2011CB503805), the Major Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81390543). The Norway study was supported by Norwegian Cancer Society, Norwegian Research Council. The Shanghai Cohort Study (SCS) was supported by National Institutes of Health R01 CA144034 (PI: Yuan) and UM1 CA182876 (PI: Yuan). The Singapore Chinese Health Study (SCHS) was supported by National Institutes of Health R01 CA144034 (PI: Yuan) and UM1 CA182876 (PI: Yuan). The work in TLC study has been supported in part the James & Esther King Biomedical Research Program (09KN-15), National Institutes of Health Specialized Programs of Research Excellence (SPORE) Grant (P50 CA119997), and by a Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG) at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, an NCI designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (grant number P30-CA76292). The Vanderbilt Lung Cancer Study—BioVU dataset used for the analyses described was obtained from Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s BioVU, which is supported by institutional funding, the 1S10RR025141-01 instrumentation award, and by the Vanderbilt CTSA grant UL1TR000445 from NCATS/NIH. Dr. Aldrich was supported by NIH/National Cancer Institute K07CA172294 (PI: Aldrich) and Dr. Bush was supported by NHGRI/NIH U01HG004798 (PI: Crawford). The Copenhagen General Population Study (CGPS) was supported by the Chief Physician Johan Boserup and Lise Boserup Fund, the Danish Medical Research Council and Herlev Hospital. The NELCS study: Grant Number P20RR018787 from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The Kentucky Lung Cancer Research Initiative was supported by the Department of Defense [Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command Program] under award number: 10153006 (W81XWH-11-1-0781). Views and opinions of, and endorsements by the author(s) do not reflect those of the US Army or the Department of Defense. This research was also supported by unrestricted infrastructure funds from the UK Center for Clinical and Translational Science, NIH grant UL1TR000117 and Markey Cancer Center NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA177558) Shared Resource Facilities: Cancer Research Informatics, Biospecimen and Tissue Procurement, and Biostatistics and Bioinformatics. The M.D. Anderson Cancer Center study was supported in part by grants from the NIH (P50 CA070907, R01 CA176568) (to X.W.), Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas (RP130502) (to X.W.), and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center institutional support for the Center for Translational and Public Health Genomics. The deCODE study of smoking and nicotine dependence was funded in part by a grant from NIDA (R01- DA017932). The study in Lodz center was partially funded by Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, under task NIOM 10.13: Predictors of mortality from non-small cell lung cancer—field study. Genetic sharing analysis was funded by NIH grant CA194393. The research undertaken by M.D.T., L.V.W., and M.S.A. was partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. M.D.T. holds a Medical Research Council Senior Clinical Fellowship (G0902313). The work to assemble the FTND GWAS meta-analysis was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) grant number R01 DA035825 (Principal Investigator [PI]: DBH). The study populations included COGEND (dbGaP phs000092.v1.p1 and phs000404.v1.p1), COPDGene (dbGaP phs000179.v3.p2), deCODE Genetics, EAGLE (dbGaP phs000093.vs.p2), and SAGE. dbGaP phs000092.v1.p1). See Hancock et al. Transl Psychiatry 2015 (PMCID: PMC4930126) for the full listing of funding sources and other acknowledgments. The Resource for the Study of Lung Cancer Epidemiology in North Trent (ReSoLuCENT)study was funded by the Sheffield Hospitals Charity, Sheffield Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre and Weston Park Hospital Cancer Charity. The ovarian cancer genome-wide association analysis: The Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) is supported by a grant from the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund thanks to donations by the family and friends of Kathryn Sladek Smith (PPD/RPCI.07). The scientific development and funding for this project were in part supported by the US National Cancer Institute GAME-ON Post-GWAS Initiative (U19-CA148112). This study made use of data generated by the Wellcome Trust Case Control consortium that was funded by the Wellcome Trust under award 076113. The results published here are in part based upon data generated by The Cancer Genome Atlas Pilot Project established by the National Cancer Institute and National Human Genome Research Institute (dbGap accession number phs000178.v8.p7). The OCAC OncoArray genotyping project was funded through grants from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (CA1X01HG007491-01 (C.I.A.), U19-CA148112 (T.A.S.), R01-CA149429 (C.M.P.), and R01-CA058598 (M.T.G.); Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP-86727 (L.E.K.) and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund (A.B.). The COGS project was funded through a European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme grant (agreement number 223175 - HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) and through a grant from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (R01-CA122443 (E.L.G)). Funding for individual studies: AAS: National Institutes of Health (RO1-CA142081); AOV: The Canadian Institutes for Health Research (MOP-86727); AUS: The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group was supported by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (DAMD17-01-1-0729), National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia (199600, 400413 and 400281), Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania and Cancer Foundation of Western Australia (Multi-State Applications 191, 211, and 182). The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study gratefully acknowledges additional support from Ovarian Cancer Australia and the Peter MacCallum Foundation; BAV: ELAN Funds of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg; BEL: National Kankerplan; BGS: Breast Cancer Now, Institute of Cancer Research; BVU: Vanderbilt CTSA grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) (ULTR000445); CAM: National Institutes of Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre and Cancer Research UK Cambridge Cancer Centre; CHA: Innovative Research Team in University (PCSIRT) in China (IRT1076); CNI: Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI12/01319); Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (SAF2012); COE: Department of Defense (W81XWH-11-2-0131); CON: National Institutes of Health (R01-CA063678, R01-CA074850; and R01-CA080742); DKE: Ovarian Cancer Research Fund; DOV: National Institutes of Health R01-CA112523 and R01-CA87538; EMC: Dutch Cancer Society (EMC 2014-6699); EPC: The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by Danish Cancer Society (Denmark); Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) (France); German Cancer Aid, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Germany); the Hellenic Health Foundation (Greece); Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC-Italy and National Research Council (Italy); Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); ERC-2009-AdG 232997 and Nordforsk, Nordic Centre of Excellence programme on Food, Nutrition and Health (Norway); Health Research Fund (FIS), PI13/00061 to Granada, PI13/01162 to EPIC-Murcia, Regional Governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, ISCIII RETIC (RD06/0020) (Spain); Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council and County Councils of Skåne and Västerbotten (Sweden); Cancer Research UK (14136 to EPIC-Norfolk; C570/A16491 and C8221/A19170 to EPIC-Oxford), Medical Research Council (1000143 to EPIC-Norfolk, MR/M012190/1 to EPIC-Oxford) (United Kingdom); GER: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Programme of Clinical Biomedical Research (01 GB 9401) and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ); GRC: This research has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund—ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)—Research Funding Program of the General Secretariat for Research & Technology: SYN11_10_19 NBCA. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund; GRR: Roswell Park Cancer Institute Alliance Foundation, P30 CA016056; HAW: U.S. National Institutes of Health (R01-CA58598, N01-CN-55424, and N01-PC-67001); HJO: Intramural funding; Rudolf-Bartling Foundation; HMO: Intramural funding; Rudolf-Bartling Foundation; HOC: Helsinki University Research Fund; HOP: Department of Defense (DAMD17-02-1-0669) and NCI (K07-CA080668, R01-CA95023, P50-CA159981 MO1-RR000056 R01-CA126841); HUO: Intramural funding; Rudolf-Bartling Foundation; JGO: JSPS KAKENHI grant; JPN: Grant-in-Aid for the Third Term Comprehensive 10-Year Strategy for Cancer Control from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare; KRA: This study (Ko-EVE) was supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI16C1127; 0920010); LAX: American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124; LUN: ERC-2011-AdG 294576-risk factors cancer, Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council, Beta Kamprad Foundation; MAC: National Institutes of Health (R01-CA122443, P30-CA15083, P50-CA136393); Mayo Foundation; Minnesota Ovarian Cancer Alliance; Fred C. and Katherine B. Andersen Foundation; Fraternal Order of Eagles; MAL: Funding for this study was provided by research grant R01- CA61107 from the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, research grant 94 222 52 from the Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark; and the Mermaid I project; MAS: Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation; MAY: National Institutes of Health (R01-CA122443, P30-CA15083, and P50-CA136393); Mayo Foundation; Minnesota Ovarian Cancer Alliance; Fred C. and Katherine B. Andersen Foundation; MCC: Cancer Council Victoria, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) grants number 209057, 251533, 396414, and 504715; MDA: DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program (W81XWH-07-0449); MEC: NIH (CA54281, CA164973, CA63464); MOF: Moffitt Cancer Center, Merck Pharmaceuticals, the state of Florida, Hillsborough County, and the city of Tampa; NCO: National Institutes of Health (R01-CA76016) and the Department of Defense (DAMD17-02-1-0666); NEC: National Institutes of Health R01-CA54419 and P50-CA105009 and Department of Defense W81XWH-10-1-02802; NHS: UM1 CA186107, P01 CA87969, R01 CA49449, R01-CA67262, UM1 CA176726; NJO: National Cancer Institute (NIH-K07 CA095666, R01-CA83918, NIH-K22-CA138563, and P30-CA072720) and the Cancer Institute of New Jersey; If Sara Olson and/or Irene Orlow is a co-author, please add NCI CCSG award (P30-CA008748) to the funding sources; NOR: Helse Vest, The Norwegian Cancer Society, The Research Council of Norway; NTH: Radboud University Medical Centre; OPL: National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia (APP1025142) and Brisbane Women’s Club; ORE: OHSU Foundation; OVA: This work was supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant (MOP-86727) and by NIH/NCI 1 R01CA160669-01A1; PLC: Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute; POC: Pomeranian Medical University; POL: Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute; PVD: Canadian Cancer Society and Cancer Research Society GRePEC Program; RBH: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; RMH: Cancer Research UK, Royal Marsden Hospital; RPC: National Institute of Health (P50-CA159981, R01-CA126841); SEA: Cancer Research UK (C490/A10119 C490/A10124); UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres at the University of Cambridge; SIS: NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Z01-ES044005 and Z01-ES049033; SMC: The bbSwedish Research Council-SIMPLER infrastructure; the Swedish Cancer Foundation; SON: National Health Research and Development Program, Health Canada, grant 6613-1415-53; SRO: Cancer Research UK (C536/A13086, C536/A6689) and Imperial Experimental Cancer Research Centre (C1312/A15589); STA: NIH grants U01 CA71966 and U01 CA69417; SWE: Swedish Cancer foundation, WeCanCureCancer and VårKampMotCancer foundation; SWH: NIH (NCI) grant R37-CA070867; TBO: National Institutes of Health (R01-CA106414-A2), American Cancer Society (CRTG-00-196-01-CCE), Department of Defense (DAMD17-98-1-8659), Celma Mastery Ovarian Cancer Foundation; TOR: NIH grants R01-CA063678 and R01 CA063682; UCI: NIH R01-CA058860 and the Lon V Smith Foundation grant LVS39420; UHN: Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Foundation-Bridge for the Cure; UKO: The UKOPS study was funded by The Eve Appeal (The Oak Foundation) and supported by the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre; UKR: Cancer Research UK (C490/A6187), UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres at the University of Cambridge; USC: P01CA17054, P30CA14089, R01CA61132, N01PC67010, R03CA113148, R03CA115195, N01CN025403, and California Cancer Research Program (00-01389V-20170, 2II0200); VAN: BC Cancer Foundation, VGH & UBC Hospital Foundation; VTL: NIH K05-CA154337; WMH: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Enabling Grants ID 310670 & ID 628903. Cancer Institute NSW Grants 12/RIG/1-17 & 15/RIG/1-16; WOC: National Science Centren (N N301 5645 40). The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland. The University of Cambridge has received salary support for PDPP from the NHS in the East of England through the Clinical Academia Reserve. The prostate cancer genome-wide association analyses: we pay tribute to Brian Henderson, who was a driving force behind the OncoArray project, for his vision and leadership, and who sadly passed away before seeing its fruition. We also thank the individuals who participated in these studies enabling this work. The ELLIPSE/PRACTICAL (http//:practical.icr.ac.uk) prostate cancer consortium and his collaborating partners were supported by multiple funding mechanisms enabling this current work. ELLIPSE/PRACTICAL Genotyping of the OncoArray was funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) (U19 CA148537 for ELucidating Loci Involved in Prostate Cancer SuscEptibility (ELLIPSE) project and X01HG007492 to the Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR) under contract number HHSN268201200008I). Additional analytical support was provided by NIH NCI U01 CA188392 (F.R.S.). Funding for the iCOGS infrastructure came from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, and C8197/A16565), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065, and 1U19 CA148112; the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defense (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer, Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175), Cancer Research UK Grants C5047/A7357, C1287/A10118, C1287/A16563, C5047/A3354, C5047/A10692, C16913/A6135, C5047/A21332 and The National Institute of Health (NIH) Cancer Post-Cancer GWAS initiative grant: No. 1 U19 CA148537-01 (the GAME-ON initiative). We also thank the following for funding support: The Institute of Cancer Research and The Everyman Campaign, The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation, Prostate Research Campaign UK (now Prostate Action), The Orchid Cancer Appeal, The National Cancer Research Network UK, and The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) UK. We are grateful for support of NIHR funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. The Prostate Cancer Program of Cancer Council Victoria also acknowledge grant support from The National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (126402, 209057, 251533, 396414, 450104, 504700, 504702, 504715, 623204, 940394, and 614296), VicHealth, Cancer Council Victoria, The Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, The Whitten Foundation, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Tattersall’s. E.A.O., D.M.K., and E.M.K. acknowledge the Intramural Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute for their support. The BPC3 was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (cooperative agreements U01-CA98233 to D.J.H., U01-CA98710 to S.M.G., U01-CA98216 to E.R., and U01-CA98758 to B.E.H., and Intramural Research Program of NIH/National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics). CAPS GWAS study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Foundation (grant no 09-0677, 11-484, 12-823), the Cancer Risk Prediction Center (CRisP; www.crispcenter.org), a Linneus Centre (Contract ID 70867902) financed by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council (grant no K2010-70 × -20430-04-3, 2014-2269). The Hannover Prostate Cancer Study was supported by the Lower Saxonian Cancer Society. PEGASUS was supported by the Intramural Research Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. RAPPER was supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Center, Cancer Research UK (C147/A25254, C1094/A18504) and the EU’s 7th Framework Programme Grant/Agreement no 60186. Overall: this research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource (application number 16549). NHS is supported by UM1 CA186107 (NHS cohort infrastructure grant), P01 CA87969, and R01 CA49449. NHSII is supported by UM1 CA176726 (NHSII cohort infrastructure grant), and R01-CA67262. A.L.K. is supported by R01 MH107649. We would like to thank the participants and staff of the NHS and NHSII for their valuable contributions as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WY. The authors assume full responsibility for analyses and interpretation of these data.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and fine-mapping efforts to date have identified more than 100 prostate cancer (PrCa)-susceptibility loci. We meta-analyzed genotype data from a custom high-density array of 46,939 PrCa cases and 27,910 controls of European ancestry with previously genotyped data of 32,255 PrCa cases and 33,202 controls of European ancestry. Our analysis identified 62 novel loci associated (PC, p.Pro1054Arg) in ATM and rs2066827 (OR = 1.06; P = 2.3 × 10(−9); T>G, p.Val109Gly) in CDKN1B. The combination of all loci captured 28.4% of the PrCa familial relative risk, and a polygenic risk score conferred an elevated PrCa risk for men in the ninetieth to ninety-ninth percentiles (relative risk = 2.69; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.55–2.82) and first percentile (relative risk = 5.71; 95% CI: 5.04–6.48) risk stratum compared with the population average. These findings improve risk prediction, enhance fine-mapping, and provide insight into the underlying biology of PrCa(1).

Background: Medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) is rare. Nationwide population-based studies are important to evaluate its clinical course. Objectives: To describe all patients with MTC in Norway during 1994–2016 and compare time-related trends in diagnostics and surgical treatment, including prognostic factors for biochemical cure and disease-specific survival (DSS). Methods: This retrospective population-based cohort study includes data for 228 out of 237 patients (96%) with MTC; 201 patients were surgically treated. Patients were identified in the 4 regional centers treating MTC and by the Cancer Registry of Norway. Data were collected from patients’ files. Trends were compared over 2 study periods. Results: MTC accounted for 4.2% of thyroid carcinomas. During the study periods, the incidence increased from 0.18 to 0.25: 100,000 per year, preoperative diagnostics improved with increased use of calcitonin, ultrasound, and fine-needle cytology (p = 0.010, p < 0,001, and p = 0.001), patients were diagnosed at an earlier tumor stage (p = 0.004), and more patients were cured (p = 0.002). Via multivariate analysis of patients with metastatic lymph nodes, independent prognostic factors for cure were: a low ratio of metastatic and total number of dissected lymph nodes (p = 0.021) and no extrathyroidal extension (p = 0.030). Independent prognostic factors for DSS were: no distant metastasis, a younger age, and a low ratio of metastatic and dissected lymph nodes (p = 0.005, p = 0.020, p = 0.022). Conclusions: Preoperative diagnostics have improved over time with increased therapeutic control. A low ratio of metastatic and dissected lymph nodes predicts better outcomes in patients with metastatic lymph nodes.

Background Founder mutations in the two breast cancer genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, have been described in many populations, among these are Ashkenazi-Jewish, Polish, Norwegian and Icelandic. Founder mutation testing in patients with relevant ancestry has been a cost-efficient approach in such populations. Four Norwegian BRCA1 founder mutations were defined by haplotyping in 2001, and accounted for 68% of BRCA1 mutation carriers at the time. After 15 more years of genetic testing, updated knowledge on the mutation spectrum of both BRCA1 and BRCA2 in Norway is needed. In this study, we aim at describing the mutation spectrum and frequencies in the BRCA1/2 carrier population of the largest clinic of hereditary cancer in Norway. Methods A total of 2430 BRCA1 carriers from 669 different families, and 1092 BRCA2 carriers from 312 different families were included in a quality of care study. All variants were evaluated regarding pathogenicity following ACMG/ENIGMA criteria. The variants were assessed in AlaMut and supplementary databases to determine whether they were known to be founder mutations in other populations. Results There were 120 different BRCA1 and 87 different BRCA2 variants among the mutation carriers. Forty-six per cent of the registered BRCA1/2 families (454/981) had a previously reported Norwegian founder mutation. The majority of BRCA1/2 mutations (71%) were rare, each found in only one or two families. Fifteen per cent of BRCA1 families and 25% of BRCA2 families had one of these rare variants. The four well-known Norwegian BRCA1 founder mutations previously confirmed through haplotyping were still the four most frequent mutations in BRCA1 carriers, but the proportion of BRCA1 mutation carriers accounted for by these mutations had fallen from 68 to 52%, and hence the founder effect was weaker than previously described. Conclusions The spectrum of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in the carrier population at Norway’s largest cancer genetics clinic is diverse, and with a weaker founder effect than previously described. As a consequence, retesting the families that previously have been tested with specific tests/founder mutation tests should be a prioritised strategy to find more mutation positive families and possibly prevent cancer in healthy relatives.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and fine-mapping efforts to date have identified more than 100 prostate cancer (PrCa)-susceptibility loci. We meta-analyzed genotype data from a custom high-density array of 46,939 PrCa cases and 27,910 controls of European ancestry with previously genotyped data of 32,255 PrCa cases and 33,202 controls of European ancestry. Our analysis identified 62 novel loci associated (P < 5.0 × 10-8) with PrCa and one locus significantly associated with early-onset PrCa (≤55 years). Our findings include missense variants rs1800057 (odds ratio (OR) = 1.16; P = 8.2 × 10-9; G>C, p.Pro1054Arg) in ATM and rs2066827 (OR = 1.06; P = 2.3 × 10-9; T>G, p.Val109Gly) in CDKN1B. The combination of all loci captured 28.4% of the PrCa familial relative risk, and a polygenic risk score conferred an elevated PrCa risk for men in the ninetieth to ninety-ninth percentiles (relative risk = 2.69; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.55-2.82) and first percentile (relative risk = 5.71; 95% CI: 5.04-6.48) risk stratum compared with the population average. These findings improve risk prediction, enhance fine-mapping, and provide insight into the underlying biology of PrCa 1 .

Norway has one of the highest rates of death due to prostate cancer (PCa) in the world. To assess the contribution of both common and rare single nucleotide variants (SNPs) to the prostate cancer burden in Norway, we assessed the frequency of the established prostate cancer susceptibility allele, HOXB13 G84E, as well as a series of validated, common PCa risk SNPs in a Norwegian PCa population of 779 patients. The G84E allele was observed in 2.3% of patients compared to 0.7% of control individuals, OR = 3.8, P = 1 × 10‐4. While there was a trend toward an earlier age at diagnosis, overall the clinicopathologic features of PCa were not significantly different in G84E carriers and non‐carriers. Evaluation of 32 established common risk alleles revealed significant associations of risk alleles at 13 loci, including SNPs at 8q24, and near TET2, SLC22A3, NKX3‐1, CASC8, MYC, DAP2IP, MSMB, HNF1B, PPP1R14A, and KLK2/3. When the data for each SNP are combined into a genetic risk score (GRS), Norwegian men within the top decile of GRS have over 5‐fold greater risk to be diagnosed with PCa than men with GRS in the lowest decile. These results indicate that risk alleles of HOXB13 and common variant SNPs are important components of inherited PCa risk in the Norwegian population, although these factors appear to contribute little to the malignancy's aggressiveness. This is the peer reviewed version of the article, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23453. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.

Women with a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 face a lifetime risk of breast cancer of approximately 80 %. Tamoxifen treatment of the first cancer has been associated with a reduction in the risk of a subsequent contralateral cancer. We studied 1,504 women with a known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, 411 women with bilateral breast cancer (cases) and 1,093 women with unilateral breast cancer (controls) in a matched case-control study. Control women were of similar age and had a similar age of diagnosis of first breast cancer as the cases. For each woman who used tamoxifen, the starting and stopping dates were abstracted and the duration of tamoxifen use was calculated. Three hundred and thirty-one women had used tamoxifen (22 %); of these 84 (25 %) had completed four or more years of tamoxifen, the remainder stopped prematurely or were current users. For women with up to 1 year of tamoxifen use, the odds ratio for contralateral breast cancer was 0.37 (95 % CI 0.20-0.69; p = 0.001) compared to women with no tamoxifen use. Among women with 1-4 years of tamoxifen use the odds ratio was 0.53 (95 % CI 0.32-0.87; p = 0.01). Among women with four or more years of tamoxifen use the odds ratio was 0.83 (95 % CI 0.44-1.55; p = 0.55). Short-term use of tamoxifen for chemoprevention in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers may be as effective as a conventional 5-year course of treatment.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of risk-reducing mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with and without breast cancer. Uptake, methods of operation and reconstruction, complications, patient satisfaction and histopathological findings were registered at all five departments of genetics in Norway. Data from 267 affected and unaffected BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were analyzed, including a study-specific questionnaire returned by 178 mutation carriers. There was a steady increase in the uptake of risk-reducing mastectomies during the study period. Complications were observed in 106/266 (39.7%) women. Patient satisfaction was high. The majority of women expressed great relief after risk-reducing mastectomy and would have chosen the same option again.

We report the 5- and 10-year survival rate of women diagnosed with breast cancer in the context of an annual MRI-based surveillance program. In 2001, as part of a national initiative, women in Norway with a BRCA1 mutation were offered annual screening with breast MRI in addition to mammography. 802 women with a BRCA1 mutation were screened one or more times and followed for a mean of 4.2 years. As of December 2011, 68 of 802 women in the screening program were diagnosed with DCIS or invasive breast cancer (8.5 %), including eight prevalent, 50 incident screen-detected and eight interval cancers. Two latent cancers were detected at prophylactic mastectomy. Sixty-three of the cancers were invasive and five were in situ. The mean tumour size was 1.4 cm (range 0.2-4.5 cm), and 85 % of the patients were node-negative. Ten of the 68 patients died of cancer in the follow-up period. The 5-year breast cancer-specific survival for women with cancer was 75 % (95 % CI 56-86 %) and the 10-year survival was 69 % (95 % CI: 48-83 %). The 5-year survival for women with Stage 1 breast cancer was 82 % compared to 98 % in the population. The 5- and 10-year survival of women with a BRCA1-associated breast cancer detected in a national MRI-based screening program in BRCA1 mutation carriers Norway was less than anticipated. The benefit of annual MRI surveillance on reducing breast cancer mortality in BRCA1 mutation carriers remains to be proven.

Background Identification of BRCA mutations in breast cancer (BC) patients influences treatment and survival and may be of importance for their relatives. Testing is often restricted to women fulfilling high-risk criteria. However, there is limited knowledge of the sensitivity of such a strategy, and of the clinical aspects of BC caused by BRCA mutations in less selected BC cohorts. The aim of this report was to address these issues by evaluating the results of BRCA testing of BC patients in South-Eastern Norway. Methods 1371 newly diagnosed BC patients were tested with sequencing and Multi Ligation Probe Amplification (MLPA). Prevalence of mutations was calculated, and BC characteristics among carriers and non-carriers compared. Sensitivity and specificity of common guidelines for BRCA testing to identify carriers was analyzed. Number of identified female mutation positive relatives was evaluated. Results A pathogenic BRCA mutation was identified in 3.1%. Carriers differed from non-carriers in terms of age at diagnosis, family history, grade, ER/PR-status, triple negativity (TNBC) and Ki67, but not in HER2 and TNM status. One mutation positive female relative was identified per mutation positive BC patient. Using age of onset below 40 or TNBC as criteria for testing identified 32-34% of carriers. Common guidelines for testing identified 45-90%, and testing all below 60 years identified 90%. Thirty-seven percent of carriers had a family history of cancer that would have qualified for predictive BRCA testing. A Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS) was identified in 4.9%. Conclusions Mutation positive BC patients differed as a group from mutation negative. However, the commonly used guidelines for testing were insufficient to detect all mutation carriers in the BC cohort. Thirty-seven percent had a family history of cancer that would have qualified for predictive testing before they were diagnosed with BC. Based on our combined observations, we suggest it is time to discuss whether all BC patients should be offered BRCA testing, both to optimize treatment and improve survival for these women, but also to enable identification of healthy mutation carriers within their families. Health services need to be aware of referral possibility for healthy women with cancer in their family. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-017-3422-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background The incidence of malignant melanoma in Norway is among the highest in the world and rising, with approximately 1 500 persons receiving the diagnosis annually. Correct surgical primary treatment cures 80-90%, while 10-20% experience relapses. The treatment of a metastatic malignant melanoma has changed considerably in the last 1-2 years as a result of clinical experience with new drugs. The current publication provides an updated overview of the treatment of malignant melanoma in Norway. Method The article is based on a search in PubMed and on the authors' own research and clinical experience. Results After several decades with almost no change in the treatment of malignant melanoma, we have seen a positive development over the past couple of years. New treatment methods for malignant melanoma with distant spreading metastases have yielded favourable results in selected patients and are currently established in cancer departments in Norway. Interpretation Rapid and correct primary treatment is curing most patients with malignant melanoma. New drugs offer hope for selected patient groups with metastatic disease. Several new types of targeted treatment are being tested in clinical studies in Norway and elsewhere in the world.

Manuscript. Published version available in Familial Cancer, Jan. 2017, vol. 16, issue 1, pp 1–16 Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 cause hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Molecular screening of these two genes in patients with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer has revealed pathogenic variants as well as genetic variants of unknown significance (VUS). These VUS may cause a challenge in the genetic counseling process regarding clinical management of the patient and the family. We investigated 32 variants previously detected in 33 samples from patients with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. cDNA was analyzed for alternative transcripts and selected missense variants located in the BRCT domains of BRCA1 were assessed for their trans-activation ability. Although an extensive cDNA analysis was done, only three of the 32 variants appeared to affect the splice-process (BRCA1 c.213-5T>A, BRCA1 c.5434C>G and BRCA2 c.68-7T>A). In addition, two variants located in the BRCT domains of BRCA1 (c.5075A>C p.Asp1692Ala and c.5513T>G p.Val1838Gly) were shown to abolish the BRCT domain trans-activation ability, whereas BRCA1 c.5125G>A p.Gly1709Arg exhibited equal trans-activation capability as the WT domain. These functional studies may offer further insights into the pathogenicity of certain identified variants; however, this assay is only applicable for a subset of missense variants.

Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2A (MEN 2A) is an autosomal dominant syndrome caused by activating germline mutations in the RET (REarranged during Transfection) proto-oncogene. MEN 2A has a strong (95%) and age-dependent (5-25 years) clinical penetrance of medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC). Several major studies have analyzed the predictive and prognostic factors for MEN 2A to find indicators that predict the optimal timing of prophylactic thyroidectomy. The aims of this study were to describe all known RET positive MEN 2A patients diagnosed in Norway and to evaluate the clinical course of MTC, as well as its predictive and prognostic factors.This nationwide retrospective cohort study included data for 65 (14 index and 51 screening patients) out of a total of 67 MEN 2A patients with the RET gene mutation who were diagnosed in Norway since 1974. Data were collected by reviewing patient files. The variables analyzed were genotype, phenotype, preoperative basal calcitonin, age at thyroid surgery, central lymph node dissection and nodal status at primary surgery, number of surgical procedures, and biochemical cure. Of the 65 patients, 60 had undergone thyroid surgery. The median follow-up period was 9.9 years. The patients were divided into pre-RET-and RET-era, which included patients who had thyroid surgery before January 1, 1994, and after, respectively.In index and screening patients, MTC was found, respectively, in 100% and 45% of cases, central lymph node dissection at primary surgery was done for 64% and 52% of patients, and the median total number of surgical procedures was two (range 1-6) and one (range 1-4). At primary surgery, all patients (n = 13) with lymph node metastases had preoperative basal calcitonin levels ≥68 pg/mL, and all patients (n = 17) without central lymph node dissection and preoperative basal calcitonin40 pg/mL were biochemically cured. Multivariate analysis showed that preoperative basal calcitonin was a significant predictive factor for MTC superior to age at thyroid surgery when analyzing the entire period (p = 0.009) and the RET-era separately (p = 0.021). Prognostic factors for biochemical cure were preoperative basal calcitonin, central lymph node dissection, and nodal status at primary surgery (p = 0.037, p = 0.002, and p = 0.005) when analyzing the entire period, but only nodal status at primary surgery when the RET-era was considered separately (p = 0.006).Preoperative basal calcitonin alone can serve as an indicator for optimal timing and the extent of thyroid surgery for MEN 2A patients that could be considered safe. The results are consistent with previously reported data.

BACKGROUND In spite of intensive efforts, understanding of the genetic aspects of familial prostate cancer (PC) remains largely incomplete. In a previous microsatellite-based linkage scan of 1,233 PC families, we identified suggestive evidence for linkage (i.e., LOD?=?1.86) at 5q12, 15q11, 17q21, 22q12, and two loci on 8p, with additional regions implicated in subsets of families defined by age at diagnosis, disease aggressiveness, or number of affected members. METHODS. In an attempt to replicate these findings and increase linkage resolution, we used the Illumina 6000 SNP linkage panel to perform a genome-wide linkage scan of an independent set of 762 multiplex PC families, collected by 11 International Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics (ICPCG) groups. RESULTS. Of the regions identified previously, modest evidence of replication was observed only on the short arm of chromosome 8, where HLOD scores of 1.63 and 3.60 were observed in the complete set of families and families with young average age at diagnosis, respectively. The most significant linkage signals found in the complete set of families were observed across a broad, 37cM interval on 4q13-25, with LOD scores ranging from 2.02 to 2.62, increasing to 4.50 in families with older average age at diagnosis. In families with multiple cases presenting with more aggressive disease, LOD cores over 3.0 were observed at 8q24 in the vicinity of previously identified common PC risk variants, as well as MYC, an important gene in PC biology. CONCLUSIONS. These results will be useful in prioritizing future susceptibility gene discovery efforts in thiscommon cancer. Prostate 72: 410-426, 2012. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

We performed an in-depth and well-powered investigation of genetic variation across the cancer susceptibility region at chromosome 8q24 (127.6-129.0 Mb) to search for novel risk variants associated with prostate cancer (PCa) risk in the European ancestry population. We combined genotyped and imputed data from the PRACTICAL/ELLIPSE OncoArray and iCOGS consortia consisting of 71,535 PrCa cases and 52,935 controls of European ancestry. Variants with high imputation quality score (>0.8) were retained for a total of 5,600 overlapping variants between the two datasets. Associations of genetic variants with PCa risk were evaluated using unconditional logistic regression with adjustment for country and ten principal components. The marginal risk estimates for the 5,600 variants that passed quality control were combined by a fixed effects meta-analysis. A meta-stepwise selection was performed on variants marginally associated with PCa risk from the meta results (P Citation Format: Marco Matejcic, Edward J. Saunders, Tokhir Dadaev, Mark Brook, Ali Amin Al Olama, Fredrick R. Schumacher, Sonja I. Berndt, Sara Benlloch, Kenneth Muir, Koveela Govindasami, Victoria L. Stevens, Susan M. Gapstur, Catherine M. Tangen, Jyotsna Batra, Judith Clements, APCB (Australian Prostate Cancer Bio Resource), Henrik Gronberg, Nora Pashayan, Johanna Schleutker, Demetrius Albanes, Alicja Wolk, Catharine West, Lorelei Mucci, Peter Kraft, Géraldine Cancel-Tassin, Stella Koutros, Karina Dalsgaard Sorensen, Lovise Maehle, Eli Marie Grindedal, Sara Strom, David E. Neal, Freddie C. Hamdy, Jenny L. Donovan, Ruth C. Travis, Robert J. Hamilton, Sue Ann Ingles, Barry Rosenstein, Yong-Jie Lu, Graham G. Giles, Adam S. Kibel, Ana Vega, Jeanette Bensen, Manolis Kogevinas, Fredrik Wiklund, Stephen Chanock, Douglas F. Easton, Rosalind A. Eeles, Zsofia Kote-Jarai, David V. Conti, Christopher A. Haiman. Germline variation at 8q24 and prostate cancer risk in men of European ancestry [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 227.

Endometrial cancer is frequent in MMR-mutation carriers. Estimates of annual incidence rates have, however, been based on retrospective studies. The purpose of our study was to prospectively assess the incidence rates of endometrial cancer in women either having a mutation in one of the four MMR genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 or PMS2 (Mut+) or belonging to families meeting the revised Amsterdam criteria in which no MMR mutation was detected (Ams+). Eight out of 80 Mut+ (10%) contracted invasive endometrial cancer compared to 1/171 (0.6%) of the Ams+ (P = 0.0006). The annual incidence rate after first control was 2.5% in Mut+ and 0.2% in Ams+. Two of the 8 Mut+ women (25%) had synchronous gynaecological tumours. The numbers included did not allow for firm conclusions, but the results are in keeping with the notion that the inherited colon-endometrial cancer syndrome may be restricted to carriers of MMR mutations.

Ten BRCA mutations were demonstrated to be frequent in the Norwegian population. We present maps verifying the uneven distribution of prevalences according to municipality. We tested incident breast cancer cases treated in Mid-Norway from 1999 onwards for these mutations. Uptake of testing was 97% and 2.5% were demonstrated to be mutation carriers. Ten (77%) were outside families previously known to carry a mutation. Ten (77%) did not meet clinical criteria to be selected for mutation testing. We tested incident ovarian cancer cases in South-West Norway from 2001 onwards. Uptake of testing was 80% and 23% were mutation carriers. Twenty-one (88%) were outside families previously known. Twelve (67%) did not meet clinical criteria to be selected for testing. All patients with mutation collaborated actively to give our offer of predictive genetic testing to their relatives. No complaint on the activity was received.

In recent years persons at risk for colorectal cancers (CRC) have been subjected to follow-up with colonoscopy in many centres. There is, however, limited knowledge about the effect of such interventions. The objective of this study was to report the results of our observations during the past 15 years.Healthy persons were included in the study according to their family history of CRCs, and prospectively followed with colonoscopies.Altogether, 1133 individuals were included and observed for a total of 3474 follow-up years from the first to the last colonoscopy initiated by our activity. Mismatch repair (MMR) mutations were detected in 6.5% of cases. A total of 1383 polyps were removed, 72% were less than 5 mm in diameter. Findings were scored as hyperplastic polyps (n=887), adenomas with mild to moderate dysplasia (n=460), adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (n=30) and cancers (n=6). Two cancers were observed after the first colonoscopy, compared with 2.6 expected by chance and more than 20 expected under the hypothesis of predominant inherited diseases in the families. Observed annual incidence rates for adenomas were similar in all groups, while in the mutation carriers there was a higher frequency of progression to severe dysplasia or infiltrating cancer.A simple explanation for the combined findings may be that all selected families had a similar tendency to produce adenomas, while mutation carriers more frequently demonstrated dysplasia/cancer in the adenomas. The low annual incidence rates for CRC indicated that the removal of adenomas may have prevented cancers.

BRCA1 associated tumours are found to express an oestrogen receptor negative "basal epithelial-like" phenotype. In contrast to ER negative tumours in general, such tumours rarely harbour amplification of the HER-2 gene. However, little is known about TOP2A gene amplification status in BRCA1-associated tumours. Such information may be of importance to therapy, as amplification of TOP2A has been associated with dose-dependent sensitivity to anthracycline therapy in breast cancer. We examined 40 breast carcinomas from BRCA1 mutation carriers and 40 sporadic breast carcinomas matched for age, tumour diameter and histological grade for HER-2 and TOP2A amplification status using fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH). Co-amplification of TOP2A and HER-2 was found in four of the mutation carriers and in three of the controls. While six tumours in the control group harboured HER-2 amplifications with normal TOP2A, this occurred in three of the BRCA1 associated tumours only. In contrast, three of the BRCA1-associated tumours but none of the controls harboured TOP2A amplification despite normal HER-2 status. Our findings have potential therapeutic implications. HER-2 assessment is routinely used to select breast cancer patients for trastuzumab but also dose-intensive anthracycline therapy. Our data suggest that BRCA1-associated breast cancers also need to be tested for TOP2A amplification.

Objective To evaluate the relationship between use of fertility medication (i.e., selective estrogen receptor [ER] modulator, gonadotropin, or other) or infertility treatment (i.e., IVF or IUI) and the risk of ovarian cancer among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Design A matched case-control study of 941 pairs of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with and without a diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Setting Genetic clinics. Patient(s) Detailed information regarding treatment of infertility was collected from a routinely administered questionnaire. Intervention(s) None. Main Outcome Measure(s) Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals associated with fertility treatment. Result(s) There was no significant relationship between the use of any fertility medication or IVF treatment (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval 0.18–2.33) and the subsequent risk of ovarian cancer. Conclusion(s) Our findings suggest that treatment for infertility does not significantly increase the risk of ovarian cancer among women with a BRCA mutation.

Background: Unnecessary intervention and overtreatment of indolent disease are common challenges in clinical management of prostate cancer. Improved tools to distinguish lethal from indolent disease are critical. Methods: We performed a genome-wide survival analysis of cause-specific death in 24,023 prostate cancer patients (3,513 disease-specific deaths) from the PRACTICAL and BPC3 consortia. Top findings were assessed for replication in a Norwegian cohort (CONOR). Results: We observed no significant association between genetic variants and prostate cancer survival. Conclusions: Common genetic variants with large impact on prostate cancer survival were not observed in this study. Impact: Future studies should be designed for identification of rare variants with large effect sizes or common variants with small effect sizes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(11); 1796–800. ©2015 AACR.

Background: Variants in the gene encoding the macrophage scavenger receptor 1 (MSR14) protein have been identified in men with prostate cancer, and several small studies have suggested that the 999C>T (R293X) protein-truncating mutation may be associated with an increased risk for this disease. Methods: Using large case-control, cohort, and prostate cancer family studies conducted in several Western countries, we tested for the 999C>T mutation in 2,943 men with invasive prostate carcinoma, including 401 males from multiple-case families, 1,982 cases unselected for age, and 575 men diagnosed before the age of 56 years, and in 2,870 male controls. Risk ratios were estimated by unconditional logistic regression adjusting for country and by a modified segregation analysis. A meta-analysis was conducted pooling our data with published data. Results: The prevalence of MSR1*999C>T mutation carriers was 0.027 (SE, 0.003) in cases and 0.022 (SE, 0.002) in controls, and did not differ by country, ethnicity, or source. The adjusted risk ratio for prostate cancer associated with being a 999C>T carrier was 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.93-1.84; P = 0.16]. The modified segregation analysis estimated the risk ratio to be 1.20 (95% CI, 0.87-1.66; P = 0.16). The risk ratio estimated from the meta-analysis was 1.34 (95% CI, 0.94-1.89; P = 0.10). Conclusion: Our large-scale analysis of case and controls from several countries found no evidence that the 999C>T mutation is associated with increased risk of prostate cancer. The meta-analysis suggests it is unlikely that this mutation confers more than a 2-fold increased risk.

Background Identification of BRCA mutation carriers among patients with breast cancer (BC) involves costs and gains. Testing has been performed according to international guidelines, focusing on family history (FH) of breast and/or ovarian cancer. An alternative is testing all patients with BC employing sequencing of the BRCA genes and Multiplex Ligation Probe Amplification (MLPA). Patients and methods A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis, employing data from Oslo University Hospital, Ulleval (OUH-U) and a decision tree, was done. The societal and the healthcare perspectives were focused and a lifetime perspective employed. The comparators were the traditional FH approach used as standard of care at OUH-U in 2013 and the intervention (testing all patients with BC) performed in 2014 and 2015 at the same hospital. During the latter period, 535 patients with BC were offered BRCA testing with sequencing and MLPA. National 2014 data on mortality rates and costs were implemented, a 3% discount rate used and the costing year was 2015. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated in euros (€) per life-year gained (LYG). Results The net healthcare cost (healthcare perspective) was €40 503/LYG. Including all resource use (societal perspective), the cost was €5669/LYG. The univariate sensitivity analysis documented the unit cost of the BRCA test and the number of LYGs the prominent parameters affecting the result. Diagnostic BRCA testing of all patients with BC was superior to the FH approach and cost-effective within the frequently used thresholds (healthcare perspective) in Norway (€60 000–€80 000/LYG).

Dedicated clinics have been established for the early diagnosis and treatment of women at risk for inherited breast cancer, but the effects of such interventions are currently unproven. This second report on prospectively diagnosed inherited breast cancer from the European collaborating centres supports the previous conclusions and adds information on genetic heterogeneity and the effect of oophorectomy. Of 249 patients, 20% had carcinoma in situ (CIS), 54% had infiltrating cancer without spread (CaN0) and 26% had cancer with spread (CaN+). Five-year survival was 100% for CIS, 94% for CaN0 and 72% for CaN+ (p = 0.007). Thirty-six patients had BRCA1 mutations, and 8 had BRCA2 mutations. Presence of BRCA1 mutation was associated with infiltrating cancer, high grade and lack of oestrogen receptor (p < 0.05 for all 3 characteristics). For BRCA1 mutation carriers, 5-year survival was 63% vs. 91% for noncarriers (p = 0.04). For CaN0 patients, mutation carriers had 75% 5-year disease-free survival vs. 96% for noncarriers (p = 0.01). Twenty-one of the mutation carriers had undergone prophylactic oophorectomy, prior to or within 6 months of diagnosis in 13 cases. All but 1 relapse occurred in the 15 who had kept their ovaries, (p < 0.01); no relapse occurred in those who had removed the ovaries within 6 months (p = 0.04) Contralateral cancer was more frequently observed in mutation noncarriers, but this finding did not reach statistical significance. Our findings support the concept that BRCA1 cancer is biologically different from other inherited breast cancers. While current screening protocols appear satisfactory for the majority of women at risk of familial breast cancer, this may not be the case for BRCA1 mutation carriers. The observed effect of oophorectomy was striking.

A total of 845 women from breast-ovarian cancer kindreds were enrolled in a clinical follow-up program for early disease diagnosis; 35 women were prospectively identified with cancer. In order to estimate the role of genetic factors for cancer predisposition in this well-defined set of patients, considered as representative for familial breast-ovarian cancer in the Norwegian population, the BRCA1 gene was investigated for germline mutations. The entire coding region of BRCA1 was analysed using a protein truncation test, direct sequencing and a screen for known large genomic deletions and insertions. Twenty one (60%) of the 35 patients were identified as carriers of 11 distinct BRCA1 mutations. Two previously described founder mutations, 1675delA and 1135insA, were found to account for more than half (11/21) of all BRCA1 cases and for almost one third (11/35) of all breast and ovarian cancers. Supported by a previous population-based analysis of these founder mutations in ovarian cancer, our findings suggest that a significant proportion of women at risk for developing inherited breast and ovarian cancer can be identified. This is particularly obvious in certain geographic regions where these founder mutations are prevalent. Women carrying the two founder mutations had a significantly older age of disease onset as compared to women with other BRCA1 mutations. This observation indicates that BRCA mutation penetrance estimates from populations with strong founder effects may be biased. One reason why some deleterious mutations are allowed to prevail in a population may be coupled to penetrance and the fact that they seldom induce disease in women in child-bearing ages. Eleven out of 12 (92%) breast cancers in BRCA1 mutation carriers were estrogen receptor negative, versus 4 out of 9 (44%) in mutation negative patients (p = 0.03). Histopathological characteristics of the prospectively detected cancers indicated an unfavourable prognosis in mutation carriers.

Protocols for activity aiming at early diagnosis and treatment of inherited breast or breast-ovarian cancer have been reported. Available reports on outcome of such programmes are considered here. It is concluded that the ongoing activities should continue with minor modifications. Direct evidence of a survival benefit from breast and ovarian screening is not yet available. On the basis of expert opinion and preliminary results from intervention programmes indicating good detection rates for early breast cancers and 5-year survival concordant with early diagnosis, we propose that women at high risk for inherited breast cancer be offered genetic counselling, education in ‘breast awareness’ and annual mammography and clinical expert examination from around 30 years of age. Mammography every second year may be sufficient from 60 years on. BRCA1 mutation carriers may benefit from more frequent examinations and cancer risk may be reduced by oophorectomy before 40–50 years of age. We strongly advocate that all activities should be organized as multicentre studies subjected to continuous evaluation to measure the effects of the interventions on long-term mortality, to match management options more precisely to individual risks and to prepare the ground for studies on chemoprevention. publishedVersion

Based on results from our surveillance program for women at risk for inherited breast cancer, we have calculated cost per year earned. Norwegian National Insurance Service reimbursement fees were used in the calculations. The calculated costs are based on empirical figures for expanding already established medical genetic departments and diagnostic outpatient clinics to undertake the work described. Cost per year earned was estimated at Euro 753 using our current practice of identifying the high-risk women through a traditional cancer family clinic.A strategy of identifying the high-risk families through genetic testing of all incident breast and ovarian cancers for founder mutations in BRCA1, will increase the cost to Euro 832. Costs related more to genetic counseling and clinical follow-up than to laboratory procedures. This potential economic limiting factor coincides with a shortage of personnel trained in genetic counseling. The number of relatives counseled to identify one healthy female mutation carrier (i.e. the uptake of genetic testing) is more important to cost-effectiveness than family size. Costs will vary depending upon the penetrance of the mutations detected and the prevalence of founder mutations in the population examined. Prevalences of BRCA1 founder mutations in some high incidence areas of Norway may be sufficiently high to consider population screening. Unlike mutation screening of cancer genes, founder mutation analysis will not identify DNA variants of uncertain clinical significance. Identification of high-risk families through founder mutation analysis of BRCA1 ensures that families with maximum risks are given first access to the limited resources of the high-risk clinics. This may be the greatest contribution to increased cost effectiveness of such a strategy.The assumptions underlying the calculations are discussed. The conclusion is that inherited breast cancer may be managed effectively for the cost of Euro 750–1,600 per year earned.

Moller P, Maehle L, Vabo A, Clark N, Sun P, Narod SA. Age-specific incidence rates for breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 mutations from Norway. Incidence rates of breast cancer among women with a BRCA1 mutation vary according to their reproductive histories and country of residence. To measure cancer incidence, it is best to follow-up cohort of healthy women prospectively. We followed up a cohort of 675 women with a BRCA1 mutation who did not have breast or ovarian cancer before inclusion and who had a normal clinical examination and mammography at first visit. After a mean of 7.1 years, 98 incident cases of breast cancer were recorded in the cohort. Annual cancer incidence rates were calculated, and based on these, a penetrance curve was constructed. The average annual cancer risk for the Norwegian women from age 25 to 70 was 2.0%. Founder mutations had lower incidence rate (1.7%) than less frequent mutations (2.5%) (p = 0.03). The peak incidence (3.1% annual risk) was observed in women from age 50 to 59. The age-specific annual incidence rates and penetrance estimate were compared with published figures for women from North America and from Poland. The risk of breast cancer to age 70 was estimated to be 61% for women from Norway, compared with 55% for women from Poland and 69% for women from North America.

Background Genetic variants are likely to contribute to a portion of prostate cancer risk. Full elucidation of the genetic etiology of prostate cancer is difficult because of incomplete penetrance and genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity. Current evidence suggests that genetic linkage to prostate cancer has been found on several chromosomes including the X; however, identification of causative genes has been elusive. Methods Parametric and non-parametric linkage analyses were performed using 26 microsatellite markers in each of 11 groups of multiple-case prostate cancer families from the International Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics (ICPCG). Meta-analyses of the resultant family-specific linkage statistics across the entire 1,323 families and in several predefined subsets were then performed. Results Meta-analyses of linkage statistics resulted in a maximum parametric heterogeneity lod score (HLOD) of 1.28, and an allele-sharing lod score (LOD) of 2.0 in favor of linkage to Xq27-q28 at 138 cM. In subset analyses, families with average age at onset less than 65 years exhibited a maximum HLOD of 1.8 (at 138 cM) versus a maximum regional HLOD of only 0.32 in families with average age at onset of 65 years or older. Surprisingly, the subset of families with only 2–3 affected men and some evidence of male-to-male transmission of prostate cancer gave the strongest evidence of linkage to the region (HLOD = 3.24, 134 cM). For this subset, the HLOD was slightly increased (HLOD = 3.47 at 134 cM) when families used in the original published report of linkage to Xq27-28 were excluded. Conclusions Although there was not strong support for linkage to the Xq27-28 region in the complete set of families, the subset of families with earlier age at onset exhibited more evidence of linkage than families with later onset of disease. A subset of families with 2–3 affected individuals and with some evidence of male to male disease transmission showed stronger linkage signals. Our results suggest that the genetic basis for prostate cancer in our families is much more complex than a single susceptibility locus on the X chromosome, and that future explorations of the Xq27-28 region should focus on the subset of families identified here with the strongest evidence of linkage to this region.

Background: Reported prevalence, penetrance and expression of deleterious mutations in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2, may reflect differences in the clinical criteria used to select families for DNA testing. The authors have previously reported that clinical criteria are not sensitive enough to identify MMR mutation carriers among incident colorectal cancer cases. Objective: To describe the sensitivity of the criteria when applied to families with a demonstrated MMR mutation. Methods: Families with an aggregation of colorectal cancers were examined for deleterious MMR mutations according to the Mallorca guidelines. All families with a detected MMR mutation as of November 2009 were reclassified according to the Amsterdam and Bethesda criteria. Results: Sixty-nine different DNA variants were identified in a total of 129 families. The original Amsterdam clinical criteria were met by 38%, 12%, 78% and 25% of families with mutations in MSH2, MSH6, MLH1 and PMS2, respectively. Corresponding numbers for the revised Amsterdam criteria were 62%, 48%, 87% and 38%. Similarly, each of the four clinical Bethesda criteria had low sensitivity for identifying MSH6 or PMS2 mutations. Conclusion: Amsterdam criteria and each of the Bethesda criteria were inadequate for identifying MSH6 mutation-carrying kindreds. MSH6 mutations may be more common than currently assumed, and the penetrance/expression of MSH6 mutations, as derived from families meeting current clinical criteria, may be misleading. To increase detection rate of MMR mutation carriers, all cancers in the Lynch syndrome tumour spectrum should be subjected to immunohistochemical analysis and/or analysis for microsatellite instability. publishedVersion

Prostate cancer (PC) is generally believed to have a strong inherited component, but the search for susceptibility genes has been hindered by the effects of genetic heterogeneity. The recently developed sumLINK and sumLOD statistics are powerful tools for linkage analysis in the presence of heterogeneity.We performed a secondary analysis of 1,233 PC pedigrees from the International Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics (ICPCG) using two novel statistics, the sumLINK and sumLOD. For both statistics, dominant and recessive genetic models were considered. False discovery rate (FDR) analysis was conducted to assess the effects of multiple testing.Our analysis identified significant linkage evidence at chromosome 22q12, confirming previous findings by the initial conventional analyses of the same ICPCG data. Twelve other regions were identified with genome-wide suggestive evidence for linkage. Seven regions (1q23, 5q11, 5q35, 6p21, 8q12, 11q13, 20p11-q11) are near loci previously identified in the initial ICPCG pooled data analysis or the subset of aggressive PC pedigrees. Three other regions (1p12, 8p23, 19q13) confirm loci reported by others, and two (2p24, 6q27) are novel susceptibility loci. FDR testing indicates that over 70% of these results are likely true positive findings. Statistical recombinant mapping narrowed regions to an average of 9 cM.Our results represent genomic regions with the greatest consistency of positive linkage evidence across a very large collection of high-risk PC pedigrees using new statistical tests that deal powerfully with heterogeneity. These regions are excellent candidates for further study to identify PC predisposition genes.

Genetic predisposition to prostate cancer includes multiple common variants with a low penetrance (single nucleotide polymorphisms) and rare variants with higher penetrance. The mismatch repair (MMR) genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 are associated with Lynch syndrome where colon and endometrial cancers are the predominant phenotypes. The purpose of our study was to investigate whether germ-line mutations in these genes may be associated with prostate cancer. One hundred and six male carriers or obligate carriers of MMR mutations were identified. Nine had contracted prostate cancer. Immunohistochemical analysis was done on tumor tissue from eight of the nine tumors. Observed incidence, cumulative risk at 60 and 70 years of age, age of onset, and Gleason score were compared with expected as assessed from population-based series. Absence of gene product from the mutated MMR gene was found in seven of eight tumors. Expected number of prostate cancers was 1.52 compared with 9 observed (P < 0.01). Mean age of onset of prostate cancer was 60.4 years compared with 66.6 expected (P = 0.006); the number of men with a Gleason score between 8 and 10 was significantly higher than expected (P < 0.00001). Kaplan-Meier analysis suggested that cumulative risk by 70 years in MMR mutation carriers may be 30% (SE, 0.088) compared with 8.0% in the general population. This is similar to the high risk associated with BRCA2 mutations. To our knowledge, this study is the first to indicate that the MMR genes may be among the rare genetic variants that confer a high risk of prostate cancer when mutated. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(9):2460–7)

Background Women with a germline mutation in one of the MMR genes MLH1 , MSH2 or MSH6 reportedly have 4–12% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer, but there is limited knowledge on survival. Prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (PBSO) has been suggested for preventing this condition. Aim The purpose of this retrospective multicentre study was to describe survival in carriers of pathogenic mutations in one of the MMR genes, and who had contracted ovarian cancer. Methods Women who had ovarian cancer, and who tested positive for or were obligate carriers of an MMR mutation, were included from 11 European centres for hereditary cancer. Most women had not attended for gynaecological screening. Crude and disease specific survival was calculated by the Kaplan–Meier algorithm. Results Among the 144 women included, 81.5% had FIGO stage 1 or 2 at diagnosis. 10 year ovarian cancer specific survival independent of staging was 80.6%, compared to less than 40% that is reported both in population based series and in BRCA mutation carriers. Disease specific 30 year survival for ovarian cancer was 71.5%, and for all hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer (HNPCC)/Lynch syndrome related cancers including ovarian cancer it was 47.3%. Conclusions In the series examined, infiltrating ovarian cancer in Lynch syndrome had a better prognosis than infiltrating ovarian cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers or in the general population. Lifetime risk of ovarian cancer of about 10% and a risk of dying of ovarian cancer of 20% gave a lifetime risk of dying of ovarian cancer of about 2% in female MMR mutation carriers.

Several studies of survival in women with BRCA1 mutations have shown either reduced survival or no difference compared to controls. Programmes for early detection and treatment of inherited breast cancer, have failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival in BRCA1 mutation carriers. One hundred and sixty-seven women with disease-associated germline BRCA1 mutations and breast cancer from 1980 to 2001 were identified. Tumour characteristics, treatment given and survival were recorded. A control group comprising three hundred and four women matched for age, time of diagnosis and stage were used to compare survival. BRCA1 mutation carriers were found to have a poorer prognosis, which could be explained by neither the mode of surgical treatment nor the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. BRCA1 mutation carriers with node negative breast cancer had worse overall survival than controls. Our findings confirm the serious prognosis of BRCA1-associated breast cancer even when diagnosed at an early stage, and that type of treatment does not influence prognosis.

Purpose: Inherited ovarian cancer carries a serious prognosis. Prophylactic oophorectomy has been advocated. The degree to which inherited ovarian cancer is restricted to BRCA mutation carriers is not fully known. We wanted to determine the prevalence of BRCA mutation carriers in women at high risk from ovarian cancer. Experimental Design: Healthy women who were found to be at increased risk judged by family history were followed prospectively. Full BRCA1/2 mutation analysis was conducted on all patients who contracted pelvic cancer. Results: We identified 1,582 women at risk during 5,674 person-years. Forty infiltrating epithelial ovarian cancers, six peritoneal cancers, and one fallopian tube cancer were diagnosed. All but one of these patients (98%) had a BRCA mutation, a frequency that was significantly higher than for the 3 patients with borderline ovarian cancers, who were all mutation negative (P = 0.0002). Eighty-two percent of the detected mutations belonged to one of the 10 Norwegian founder mutations previously reported. At prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, cancer was found in 18 of 345 (5.2%) of mutation carriers compared with none in the 446 mutation negative (P = 0.0000). Conclusions: In healthy women with a family history of ovarian cancer, high risk for ovarian cancer was restricted to BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. A woman at risk for ovarian cancer according to her family history should have access to full BRCA1/2 mutation testing before deciding on prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

The presence of multiple primary cutaneous melanomas (MPM) has been advocated as guidance to identifying melanoma families. Frequencies of CDKN2A mutations in materials of sporadic MPM cases from pigmented lesion clinics vary between 8 and 15%. Patients with MPM have therefore been regarded as good candidates for CDKN2A mutational screening. We describe a population-based study where all persons in Norway diagnosed with MPM between 1953 and 2004 (n = 738 alive per April 2004) were invited to participate. Three-hundred-and-ninety patients (52.8%) responded confidentially. Mutations in CDKN2A were found in 6.9% of the respondents. Eighty-one MPM patients (20.8%) reported that they belonged to melanoma families, and 17 (21.0%) of these harboured a CDKN2A mutation, compared to 3.2% of the nonfamilial cases. The probability of finding a CDKN2A mutation increased when the patients had three or more melanomas, or a young age of onset of first melanoma. We identified five novel CDKN2A variants (Ala57Gly, Pro81Arg, Ala118Val, Leu130Val, and Arg131Pro) and four that previously have been reported in melanoma families (Glu27X, Met53Ile, Arg87Trp, and Ala127Pro). A large deletion (g.13623_23772del10150) encompassing exon 1α and the 5′ part of exon 2 was detected in six patients with a family history of melanoma. Three patients, belonging to the same family, had the CDK4 Arg24His mutation. The frequency of CDKN2A mutations was lower than previously reported in other studies, an observation which probably is due to the population-based design of our study. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Women with germline BRCA1 mutation have a significant risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Prophylactic bilateral mastectomy (PBM) and prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (PBSO) prevent cancer in mutation carriers. The cost-effectiveness of PBSO (age of 35 years) with or without PBM five years earlier was compared to a no intervention setting employing a marginal cost analysis. National data on cancer incidence, mortality rates and costs were implemented together with observed Norwegian BRCA1 data in a Markov model and PBSO was assumed to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer by 90%. A 3% discount rate was used. The additional health care cost per mutation carrier undergoing PBSO and PBM was €15,784, and 6.4 discounted life years gained (LYG) was indicated (PBSO alone with 100% acceptance 3.1 LYG). The additional cost per LYG was €1973 (PBSO alone €1749/LYG). Including all resource use, the figure was a cost of €496 and €1284 per LYG, respectively. PBSO with or without PBM in BRCA1 mutation carriers is cost-effective. A testing of all incident breast cancers to identify mutation carrying families should be explored.

Women with a family history of breast cancer are commonly offered regular clinical or mammographic surveillance from age 30. Data on the efficacy of such programmes are limited. Clinical, pathological and outcome data were recorded on all breast and ovarian cancers diagnosed within familial breast cancer surveillance programmes at collaborating centers in Norway and the UK up to the end of 2005. These have been analyzed according to the mutation status of the affected women (BRCA1+ve, BRCA2+ve or mutation-negative). Breast cancer was diagnosed in 442 patients subsequently followed for a total of 2095 years. Eighty-nine (20%) had BRCA1 mutations, 35 (8%) BRCA2 mutations and in 318 (72%) no mutation could be detected ("mut neg"). Five-year survival in BRCA1 was 73% compared to 96% in BRCA2 and 92% in mut neg (p = 0.000). Among BRCA1 mutation-carriers, 5-year survival was 67% for cases diagnosed as carcinoma in situ, 84% for node-negative invasive cancers and 58% for those with nodal involvement (p > 0.05). For BRCA2 mutation-carriers the corresponding figures were 100, 100 and 90% (p > 0.05), while for mut neg women they were 100, 97 and 71% (p = 0.03). Regular surveillance in women at increased familial risk of breast cancer is associated with a good outcome if they carry BRCA2 mutations or no detectable mutation. Carriers of BRCA1 mutations fare significantly worse, even when their tumors are diagnosed at an apparently early stage. The differences in outcome associated with different genetic causes of disease were associated with demonstrated differences in tumor biology. The findings demonstrate the outcome for genetically different breast cancers detected within a programme for early diagnosis and treatment, which is relevant to genetic counseling when women at risk have to chose between the options for preventing death from inherited breast cancer.

We wanted to compare the sensitivities of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and the conventional screening programme consisting of mammography (XRM) +/- ultrasound for early diagnosis of breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were examined prospectively by both breast MRI and XRM +/- ultrasound. Eight hundred and sixty-seven MRI examinations were carried out in 445 BRCA1 and 46 BRCA2 mutation carriers. A total of 25 cancers were observed, five (20%) as interval cancers. At the time of diagnosis, sensitivity to detect cancer was 19/22=86% for MRI and 12/24=50% for XRM. Twenty-one were examined by both methods at the time of diagnosis. In the19 BRCA1 mutation carriers among them, MRI had a sensitivity of 1/3(33%) to diagnose DCIS and 15/16 (94%) among the invasive cancers. For XRM the sensitivities were 1/3(33%) for DCIS, 3/7(42%) for pT1b, 3/6(50%) for pT1c, and 3/3/100%) for pT2. In the two BRCA2 mutation carriers, both were demonstrated by breast MRI, neither was detected by XRM. Breast MRI had increased sensitivity compared to XRM to diagnose all cancers staged less than pT2.

Background: Although quality of life (QoL) and mental distress in women belonging to familial cancer families have been studied, little is known on these matters in women with absence of demonstrated mutations. The aim of this study was to examine QoL and cancer-related distress in such women. Methods: About 330 women at risk for familial cancers in the absence of demonstrated mutations were invited to the study. About 239 women (72%) (risk group) completed the Short Form 12 (SF-12) and the Impact of Event Scale (IES). The SF-12-findings were compared to the age-adjusted findings from the general female population (controls). Results: The risk group had significantly better physical QoL than controls, while no significant difference was found for mental QoL. Within the risk group the type of familial cancer did not make a significant difference in QoL, but to have a father with cancer or a deceased parent, was associated with increased risk of being a case with low QoL. Mental QoL showed moderate correlation with cancer-related distress. Conclusions: : Women belonging to familial cancer families in the absence of demonstrated mutations had at least as good QoL as controls in spite of living with a permanent cancer-related threat.