Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 14
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Benign breast disease increases breast cancer risk independent of underlying familial risk profile: Findings from a Prospective Family Study Cohort
    Zeinomar, N ; Phillips, K-A ; Daly, MB ; Milne, RL ; Dite, GS ; MacInnis, RJ ; Liao, Y ; Kehm, RD ; Knight, JA ; Southey, MC ; Chung, WK ; Giles, GG ; McLachlan, S-A ; Friedlander, ML ; Weideman, PC ; Glendon, G ; Nesci, S ; Andrulis, IL ; Buys, SS ; John, EM ; Hopper, JL ; Terry, MB (WILEY, 2019-07-15)
    Benign breast disease (BBD) is an established breast cancer (BC) risk factor, but it is unclear whether the magnitude of the association applies to women at familial or genetic risk. This information is needed to improve BC risk assessment in clinical settings. Using the Prospective Family Study Cohort, we used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of BBD with BC risk. We also examined whether the association with BBD differed by underlying familial risk profile (FRP), calculated using absolute risk estimates from the Breast Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) model. During 176,756 person-years of follow-up (median: 10.9 years, maximum: 23.7) of 17,154 women unaffected with BC at baseline, we observed 968 incident cases of BC. A total of 4,704 (27%) women reported a history of BBD diagnosis at baseline. A history of BBD was associated with a greater risk of BC: HR = 1.31 (95% CI: 1.14-1.50), and did not differ by underlying FRP, with HRs of 1.35 (95% CI: 1.11-1.65), 1.26 (95% CI: 1.00-1.60), and 1.40 (95% CI: 1.01-1.93), for categories of full-lifetime BOADICEA score <20%, 20 to <35%, ≥35%, respectively. There was no difference in the association for women with BRCA1 mutations (HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.04-2.58), women with BRCA2 mutations (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.78-2.3) or for women without a known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (HR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.13-1.53) (pinteraction  = 0.95). Women with a history of BBD have an increased risk of BC that is independent of, and multiplies, their underlying familial and genetic risk.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Age-specific breast cancer risk by body mass index and familial risk: prospective family study cohort (ProF-SC)
    Hopper, JL ; Dite, GS ; MacInnis, RJ ; Liao, Y ; Zeinomar, N ; Knight, JA ; Southey, MC ; Milne, RL ; Chung, WK ; Giles, GG ; Genkinger, JM ; McLachlan, S-A ; Friedlander, ML ; Antoniou, AC ; Weideman, PC ; Glendon, G ; Nesci, S ; Andrulis, IL ; Buys, SS ; Daly, MB ; John, EM ; Phillips, KA ; Terry, MB (BMC, 2018-11-03)
    BACKGROUND: The association between body mass index (BMI) and risk of breast cancer depends on time of life, but it is unknown whether this association depends on a woman's familial risk. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of a cohort enriched for familial risk consisting of 16,035 women from 6701 families in the Breast Cancer Family Registry and the Kathleen Cunningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer followed for up to 20 years (mean 10.5 years). There were 896 incident breast cancers (mean age at diagnosis 55.7 years). We used Cox regression to model BMI risk associations as a function of menopausal status, age, and underlying familial risk based on pedigree data using the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA), all measured at baseline. RESULTS: The strength and direction of the BMI risk association depended on baseline menopausal status (P < 0.001); after adjusting for menopausal status, the association did not depend on age at baseline (P = 0.6). In terms of absolute risk, the negative association with BMI for premenopausal women has a much smaller influence than the positive association with BMI for postmenopausal women. Women at higher familial risk have a much larger difference in absolute risk depending on their BMI than women at lower familial risk. CONCLUSIONS: The greater a woman's familial risk, the greater the influence of BMI on her absolute postmenopausal breast cancer risk. Given that age-adjusted BMI is correlated across adulthood, maintaining a healthy weight throughout adult life is particularly important for women with a family history of breast cancer.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Polygenic Risk Scores for Prediction of Breast Cancer and Breast Cancer Subtypes
    Mavaddat, N ; Michailidou, K ; Dennis, J ; Lush, M ; Fachal, L ; Lee, A ; Tyrer, JP ; Chen, T-H ; Wang, Q ; Bolla, MK ; Yang, X ; Adank, MA ; Ahearn, T ; Aittomaki, K ; Allen, J ; Andrulis, IL ; Anton-Culver, H ; Antonenkova, NN ; Arndt, V ; Aronson, KJ ; Auer, PL ; Auvinen, P ; Barrdahl, M ; Freeman, LEB ; Beckmann, MW ; Behrens, S ; Benitez, J ; Bermisheva, M ; Bernstein, L ; Blomqvist, C ; Bogdanova, N ; Bojesen, SE ; Bonanni, B ; Borresen-Dale, A-L ; Brauch, H ; Bremer, M ; Brenner, H ; Brentnall, A ; Brock, IW ; Brooks-Wilson, A ; Brucker, SY ; Bruening, T ; Burwinkel, B ; Campa, D ; Carter, BD ; Castelao, JE ; Chanock, SJ ; Chlebowski, R ; Christiansen, H ; Clarke, CL ; Collee, JM ; Cordina-Duverger, E ; Cornelissen, S ; Couch, FJ ; Cox, A ; Cross, SS ; Czene, K ; Daly, MB ; Devilee, P ; Doerk, T ; dos-Santos-Silva, I ; Dumont, M ; Durcan, L ; Dwek, M ; Eccles, DM ; Ekici, AB ; Eliassen, AH ; Ellberg, C ; Engel, C ; Eriksson, M ; Evans, DG ; Fasching, PA ; Figueroa, J ; Fletcher, O ; Flyger, H ; Foersti, A ; Fritschi, L ; Gabrielson, M ; Gago-Dominguez, M ; Gapstur, SM ; Garcia-Saenz, JA ; Gaudet, MM ; Georgoulias, V ; Giles, GG ; Gilyazova, IR ; Glendon, G ; Goldberg, MS ; Goldgar, DE ; Gonzalez-Neira, A ; Alnaes, GIG ; Grip, M ; Gronwald, J ; Grundy, A ; Guenel, P ; Haeberle, L ; Hahnen, E ; Haiman, CA ; Hakansson, N ; Hamann, U ; Hankinson, SE ; Harkness, EF ; Hart, SN ; He, W ; Hein, A ; Heyworth, J ; Hillemanns, P ; Hollestelle, A ; Hooning, MJ ; Hoover, RN ; Hopper, JL ; Howell, A ; Huang, G ; Humphreys, K ; Hunter, DJ ; Jakimovska, M ; Jakubowska, A ; Janni, W ; John, EM ; Johnson, N ; Jones, ME ; Jukkola-Vuorinen, A ; Jung, A ; Kaaks, R ; Kaczmarek, K ; Kataja, V ; Keeman, R ; Kerin, MJ ; Khusnutdinova, E ; Kiiski, J ; Knight, JA ; Ko, Y-D ; Kosma, V-M ; Koutros, S ; Kristensen, VN ; Kruger, U ; Kuehl, T ; Lambrechts, D ; Le Marchand, L ; Lee, E ; Lejbkowicz, F ; Lilyquist, J ; Lindblom, A ; Lindstrom, S ; Lissowska, J ; Lo, W-Y ; Loibl, S ; Long, J ; Lubinski, J ; Lux, MP ; MacInnis, RJ ; Maishman, T ; Makalic, E ; Kostovska, IM ; Mannermaa, A ; Manoukian, S ; Margolin, S ; Martens, JWM ; Martinez, ME ; Mavroudis, D ; McLean, C ; Meindl, A ; Menon, U ; Middha, P ; Miller, N ; Moreno, F ; Mulligan, AM ; Mulot, C ; Munoz-Garzon, VM ; Neuhausen, SL ; Nevanlinna, H ; Neven, P ; Newman, WG ; Nielsen, SF ; Nordestgaard, BG ; Norman, A ; Offit, K ; Olson, JE ; Olsson, H ; Orr, N ; Pankratz, VS ; Park-Simon, T-W ; Perez, JIA ; Perez-Barrios, C ; Peterlongo, P ; Peto, J ; Pinchev, M ; Plaseska-Karanfilska, D ; Polley, EC ; Prentice, R ; Presneau, N ; Prokofyeva, D ; Purrington, K ; Pylkas, K ; Rack, B ; Radice, P ; Rau-Murthy, R ; Rennert, G ; Rennert, HS ; Rhenius, V ; Robson, M ; Romero, A ; Ruddy, KJ ; Ruebner, M ; Saloustros, E ; Sandler, DP ; Sawyer, EJ ; Schmidt, DF ; Schmutzler, RK ; Schneeweiss, A ; Schoemaker, MJ ; Schumacher, F ; Schuermann, P ; Schwentner, L ; Scott, C ; Scott, RJ ; Seynaeve, C ; Shah, M ; Sherman, ME ; Shrubsole, MJ ; Shu, X-O ; Slager, S ; Smeets, A ; Sohn, C ; Soucy, P ; Southey, MC ; Spinelli, JJ ; Stegmaier, C ; Stone, J ; Swerdlow, AJ ; Tamimi, RM ; Tapper, WJ ; Taylor, JA ; Terry, MB ; Thoene, K ; Tollenaar, RAEM ; Tomlinson, I ; Truong, T ; Tzardi, M ; Ulmer, H-U ; Untch, M ; Vachon, CM ; van Veen, EM ; Vijai, J ; Weinberg, CR ; Wendt, C ; Whittemore, AS ; Wildiers, H ; Willett, W ; Winqvist, R ; Wolk, A ; Yang, XR ; Yannoukakos, D ; Zhang, Y ; Zheng, W ; Ziogas, A ; Clarke, C ; Balleine, R ; Baxter, R ; Braye, S ; Carpenter, J ; Dahlstrom, J ; Forbes, J ; Lee, CS ; Marsh, D ; Morey, A ; Pathmanathan, N ; Scott, R ; Simpson, P ; Spigelman, A ; Wilcken, N ; Yip, D ; Zeps, N ; Sexton, A ; Dobrovic, A ; Christian, A ; Trainer, A ; Fellows, A ; Shelling, A ; De Fazio, A ; Blackburn, A ; Crook, A ; Meiser, B ; Patterson, B ; Clarke, C ; Saunders, C ; Hunt, C ; Scott, C ; Amor, D ; Ortega, DG ; Marsh, D ; Edkins, E ; Salisbury, E ; Haan, E ; Macrea, F ; Farshid, G ; Lindeman, G ; Trench, G ; Mann, G ; Giles, G ; Gill, G ; Thorne, H ; Campbell, I ; Hickie, I ; Caldon, L ; Winship, I ; Cui, J ; Flanagan, J ; Kollias, J ; Visvader, J ; Taylor, J ; Burke, J ; Saunus, J ; Forbs, J ; Hopper, J ; Beesley, J ; Kirk, J ; French, J ; Tucker, K ; Wu, K ; Phillips, K ; Forrest, L ; Lipton, L ; Andrews, L ; Lobb, L ; Walker, L ; Kentwell, M ; Spurdle, M ; Cummings, M ; Gleeson, M ; Harris, M ; Jenkins, M ; Young, MA ; Delatycki, M ; Wallis, M ; Burgess, M ; Brown, M ; Southey, M ; Bogwitz, M ; Field, M ; Friedlander, M ; Gattas, M ; Saleh, M ; Aghmesheh, M ; Hayward, N ; Pachter, N ; Cohen, P ; Duijf, P ; James, P ; Simpson, P ; Fong, P ; Butow, P ; Williams, R ; Kefford, R ; Simard, J ; Balleine, R-M ; Dawson, S-J ; Lok, S ; O'connell, S ; Greening, S ; Nightingale, S ; Edwards, S ; Fox, S ; McLachlan, S-A ; Lakhani, S ; Dudding, T ; Antill, Y ; Sahlberg, KK ; Ottestad, L ; Karesen, R ; Schlichting, E ; Holmen, MM ; Sauer, T ; Haakensen, V ; Engebraten, O ; Naume, B ; Fossa, A ; Kiserud, CE ; Reinertsen, K ; Helland, A ; Riis, M ; Geisler, J ; Dunning, AM ; Thompson, DJ ; Chenevix-Trench, G ; Chang-Claude, J ; Schmidt, MK ; Hall, P ; Milne, RL ; Pharoah, PDP ; Antoniou, AC ; Chatterjee, N ; Kraft, P ; Garcia-Closas, M ; Easton, DF (CELL PRESS, 2019-01-03)
    Stratification of women according to their risk of breast cancer based on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) could improve screening and prevention strategies. Our aim was to develop PRSs, optimized for prediction of estrogen receptor (ER)-specific disease, from the largest available genome-wide association dataset and to empirically validate the PRSs in prospective studies. The development dataset comprised 94,075 case subjects and 75,017 control subjects of European ancestry from 69 studies, divided into training and validation sets. Samples were genotyped using genome-wide arrays, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected by stepwise regression or lasso penalized regression. The best performing PRSs were validated in an independent test set comprising 11,428 case subjects and 18,323 control subjects from 10 prospective studies and 190,040 women from UK Biobank (3,215 incident breast cancers). For the best PRSs (313 SNPs), the odds ratio for overall disease per 1 standard deviation in ten prospective studies was 1.61 (95%CI: 1.57-1.65) with area under receiver-operator curve (AUC) = 0.630 (95%CI: 0.628-0.651). The lifetime risk of overall breast cancer in the top centile of the PRSs was 32.6%. Compared with women in the middle quintile, those in the highest 1% of risk had 4.37- and 2.78-fold risks, and those in the lowest 1% of risk had 0.16- and 0.27-fold risks, of developing ER-positive and ER-negative disease, respectively. Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that this PRS was well calibrated and predicts disease risk accurately in the tails of the distribution. This PRS is a powerful and reliable predictor of breast cancer risk that may improve breast cancer prevention programs.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Regular use of aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and breast cancer risk for women at familial or genetic risk: a cohort study
    Kehm, RD ; Hopper, JL ; John, EM ; Phillips, K-A ; MacInnis, RJ ; Dite, GS ; Milne, RL ; Liao, Y ; Zeinomar, N ; Knight, JA ; Southey, MC ; Vahdat, L ; Kornhauser, N ; Cigler, T ; Chung, WK ; Giles, GG ; McLachlan, S-A ; Friedlander, ML ; Weideman, PC ; Glendon, G ; Nesci, S ; Andrulis, IL ; Buys, SS ; Daly, MB ; Terry, MB (BMC, 2019-04-18)
    BACKGROUND: The use of aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) has been associated with reduced breast cancer risk, but it is not known if this association extends to women at familial or genetic risk. We examined the association between regular NSAID use and breast cancer risk using a large cohort of women selected for breast cancer family history, including 1054 BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. METHODS: We analyzed a prospective cohort (N = 5606) and a larger combined, retrospective and prospective, cohort (N = 8233) of women who were aged 18 to 79 years, enrolled before June 30, 2011, with follow-up questionnaire data on medication history. The prospective cohort was further restricted to women without breast cancer when medication history was asked by questionnaire. Women were recruited from seven study centers in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Associations were estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for demographics, lifestyle factors, family history, and other medication use. Women were classified as regular or non-regular users of aspirin, COX-2 inhibitors, ibuprofen and other NSAIDs, and acetaminophen (control) based on self-report at follow-up of ever using the medication for at least twice a week for ≥1 month prior to breast cancer diagnosis. The main outcome was incident invasive breast cancer, based on self- or relative-report (81% confirmed pathologically). RESULTS: From fully adjusted analyses, regular aspirin use was associated with a 39% and 37% reduced risk of breast cancer in the prospective (HR = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.33-1.14) and combined cohorts (HR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.57-0.71), respectively. Regular use of COX-2 inhibitors was associated with a 61% and 71% reduced risk of breast cancer (prospective HR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.15-0.97; combined HR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.23-0.38). Other NSAIDs and acetaminophen were not associated with breast cancer risk in either cohort. Associations were not modified by familial risk, and consistent patterns were found by BRCA1 and BRCA2 carrier status, estrogen receptor status, and attained age. CONCLUSION: Regular use of aspirin and COX-2 inhibitors might reduce breast cancer risk for women at familial or genetic risk.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Accuracy of Risk Estimates from the iPrevent Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Management Tool
    Phillips, K-A ; Liao, Y ; Milne, RL ; MacInnis, RJ ; Collins, IM ; Buchsbaum, R ; Weideman, PC ; Bickerstaffe, A ; Nesci, S ; Chung, WK ; Southey, MC ; Knight, JA ; Whittemore, AS ; Dite, GS ; Goldgar, D ; Giles, GG ; Glendon, G ; Cuzick, J ; Antoniou, AC ; Andrulis, IL ; John, EM ; Daly, MB ; Buys, SS ; Hopper, JL ; Terry, MB ; kConFab Investigators, (Oxford University Press, 2019-12)

    Background

    iPrevent is an online breast cancer (BC) risk management decision support tool. It uses an internal switching algorithm, based on a woman's risk factor data, to estimate her absolute BC risk using either the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) version 7.02, or Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm version 3 models, and then provides tailored risk management information. This study assessed the accuracy of the 10-year risk estimates using prospective data.

    Methods

    iPrevent-assigned 10-year invasive BC risk was calculated for 15 732 women aged 20-70 years and without BC at recruitment to the Prospective Family Study Cohort. Calibration, the ratio of the expected (E) number of BCs to the observed (O) number and discriminatory accuracy were assessed.

    Results

    During the 10 years of follow-up, 619 women (3.9%) developed BC compared with 702 expected (E/O = 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.05 to 1.23). For women younger than 50 years, 50 years and older, and BRCA1/2-mutation carriers and noncarriers, E/O was 1.04 (95% CI = 0.93 to 1.16), 1.24 (95% CI = 1.11 to 1.39), 1.13 (95% CI = 0.96 to 1.34), and 1.13 (95% CI = 1.04 to 1.24), respectively. The C-statistic was 0.70 (95% CI = 0.68 to 0.73) overall and 0.74 (95% CI = 0.71 to 0.77), 0.63 (95% CI = 0.59 to 0.66), 0.59 (95% CI = 0.53 to 0.64), and 0.65 (95% CI = 0.63 to 0.68), respectively, for the subgroups above. Applying the newer IBIS version 8.0b in the iPrevent switching algorithm improved calibration overall (E/O = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.15) and in all subgroups, without changing discriminatory accuracy.

    Conclusions

    For 10-year BC risk, iPrevent had good discriminatory accuracy overall and was well calibrated for women aged younger than 50 years. Calibration may be improved in the future by incorporating IBIS version 8.0b.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Development and validation of a targeted gene sequencing panel for application to disparate cancers
    McCabe, MJ ; Gauthier, M-EA ; Chan, C-L ; Thompson, TJ ; De Sousa, SMC ; Puttick, C ; Grady, JP ; Gayevskiy, V ; Tao, J ; Ying, K ; Cipponi, A ; Deng, N ; Swarbrick, A ; Thomas, ML ; kConFab, ; Lord, RV ; Johns, AL ; Kohonen-Corish, M ; O'Toole, SA ; Clark, J ; Mueller, SA ; Gupta, R ; McCormack, AI ; Dinger, ME ; Cowley, MJ (Nature Publishing Group, 2019-11-19)
    Next generation sequencing has revolutionised genomic studies of cancer, having facilitated the development of precision oncology treatments based on a tumour's molecular profile. We aimed to develop a targeted gene sequencing panel for application to disparate cancer types with particular focus on tumours of the head and neck, plus test for utility in liquid biopsy. The final panel designed through Roche/Nimblegen combined 451 cancer-associated genes (2.01 Mb target region). 136 patient DNA samples were collected for performance and application testing. Panel sensitivity and precision were measured using well-characterised DNA controls (n = 47), and specificity by Sanger sequencing of the Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Interacting Protein (AIP) gene in 89 patients. Assessment of liquid biopsy application employed a pool of synthetic circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA). Library preparation and sequencing were conducted on Illumina-based platforms prior to analysis with our accredited (ISO15189) bioinformatics pipeline. We achieved a mean coverage of 395x, with sensitivity and specificity of >99% and precision of >97%. Liquid biopsy revealed detection to 1.25% variant allele frequency. Application to head and neck tumours/cancers resulted in detection of mutations aligned to published databases. In conclusion, we have developed an analytically-validated panel for application to cancers of disparate types with utility in liquid biopsy.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, and familial breast cancer risk: findings from the Prospective Family Study Cohort (ProF-SC)
    Zeinomar, N ; Knight, JA ; Genkinger, JM ; Phillips, K-A ; Daly, MB ; Milne, RL ; Dite, GS ; Kehm, RD ; Liao, Y ; Southey, MC ; Chung, WK ; Giles, GG ; McLachlan, S-A ; Friedlander, ML ; Weideman, PC ; Glendon, G ; Nesci, S ; Andrulis, IL ; Buys, SS ; John, EM ; MacInnis, RJ ; Hopper, JL ; Terry, MB (BMC, 2019-11-28)
    BACKGROUND: Alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (BC), but it is unclear whether these associations vary by a woman's familial BC risk. METHODS: Using the Prospective Family Study Cohort, we evaluated associations between alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, and BC risk. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazard models to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We examined whether associations were modified by familial risk profile (FRP), defined as the 1-year incidence of BC predicted by Breast Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA), a pedigree-based algorithm. RESULTS: We observed 1009 incident BC cases in 17,435 women during a median follow-up of 10.4 years. We found no overall association of smoking or alcohol consumption with BC risk (current smokers compared with never smokers HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85-1.23; consuming ≥ 7 drinks/week compared with non-regular drinkers HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92-1.32), but we did observe differences in associations based on FRP and by estrogen receptor (ER) status. Women with lower FRP had an increased risk of ER-positive BC associated with consuming ≥ 7 drinks/week (compared to non-regular drinkers), whereas there was no association for women with higher FRP. For example, women at the 10th percentile of FRP (5-year BOADICEA = 0.15%) had an estimated HR of 1.46 (95% CI 1.07-1.99), whereas there was no association for women at the 90th percentile (5-year BOADICEA = 4.2%) (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.80-1.44). While the associations with smoking were not modified by FRP, we observed a positive multiplicative interaction by FRP (pinteraction = 0.01) for smoking status in women who also consumed alcohol, but not in women who were non-regular drinkers. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate alcohol intake was associated with increased BC risk, particularly for women with ER-positive BC, but only for those at lower predicted familial BC risk (5-year BOADICEA < 1.25). For women with a high FRP (5-year BOADICEA ≥ 6.5%) who also consumed alcohol, being a current smoker was associated with increased BC risk.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Oral Contraceptive Use and Breast Cancer Risk: Retrospective and Prospective Analyses From a BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carrier Cohort Study
    Schrijver, LH ; Olsson, H ; Phillips, K-A ; Terry, MB ; Goldgar, DE ; Kast, K ; Engel, C ; Mooij, TM ; Adlard, J ; Barrowdale, D ; Davidson, R ; Eeles, R ; Ellis, S ; Evans, DG ; Frost, D ; Izatt, L ; Porteous, ME ; Side, LE ; Walker, L ; Berthet, P ; Bonadona, V ; Leroux, D ; Mouret-Fourme, E ; Venat-Bouvet, L ; Buys, SS ; Southey, MC ; John, EM ; Chung, WK ; Daly, MB ; Bane, A ; van Asperen, CJ ; Garcia, EBG ; Mourits, MJE ; van Os, TAM ; Roos-Blom, M-J ; Friedlander, ML ; McLachlan, S-A ; Singer, CF ; Tan, YY ; Foretova, L ; Navratilova, M ; Schmutzler, RK ; Ellberg, C ; Gerdes, A-M ; Caldes, T ; Simard, J ; Olah, E ; Jakubowska, A ; Arver, B ; Osorio, A ; Nogues, C ; Andrieu, N ; Easton, DF ; van Leeuwen, FE ; Hopper, JL ; Milne, RL ; Antoniou, AC ; Rookus, MA ; Rookus, MA ; Hogervorst, FBL ; van Leeuwen, FE ; Adank, MA ; Schmidt, MK ; Russell, NS ; de Lange, JL ; Wijnands, R ; Jenner, DJ ; Collee, JM ; van den Ouweland, AMW ; Hooning, MJ ; Seynaeve, C ; van Deurzen, CHM ; Obdeijn, IM ; van Asperen, CJ ; Wijnen, JT ; Tollenaar, RAEM ; Devilee, P ; van Cronenburg, TCTEF ; Kets, CM ; Mensenkamp, AR ; Ausems, MGEM ; van der Luijt, RB ; van der Pol, CC ; Aalfs, CM ; Meijers-Heijboer, HEJ ; van Os, TAM ; van Engelen, K ; Gille, JJP ; Waisfisz, Q ; Gomez-Garcia, EB ; Blok, MJ ; Oosterwijk, JC ; van der Hout, AH ; Mourits, MJ ; de Bock, GH ; Siesling, S ; Verloop, J ; Overbeek, LIH (OXFORD UNIV PRESS, 2018-04)
    BACKGROUND: For BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, the association between oral contraceptive preparation (OCP) use and breast cancer (BC) risk is still unclear. METHODS: Breast camcer risk associations were estimated from OCP data on 6030 BRCA1 and 3809 BRCA2 mutation carriers using age-dependent Cox regression, stratified by study and birth cohort. Prospective, left-truncated retrospective and full-cohort retrospective analyses were performed. RESULTS: For BRCA1 mutation carriers, OCP use was not associated with BC risk in prospective analyses (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75 to 1.56), but in the left-truncated and full-cohort retrospective analyses, risks were increased by 26% (95% CI = 6% to 51%) and 39% (95% CI = 23% to 58%), respectively. For BRCA2 mutation carriers, OCP use was associated with BC risk in prospective analyses (HR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.97), but retrospective analyses were inconsistent (left-truncated: HR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.33; full cohort: HR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.28 to 1.81). There was evidence of increasing risk with duration of use, especially before the first full-term pregnancy (BRCA1: both retrospective analyses, P < .001 and P = .001, respectively; BRCA2: full retrospective analysis, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective analyses did not show that past use of OCP is associated with an increased BC risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers in young middle-aged women (40-50 years). For BRCA2 mutation carriers, a causal association is also not likely at those ages. Findings between retrospective and prospective analyses were inconsistent and could be due to survival bias or a true association for younger women who were underrepresented in the prospective cohort. Given the uncertain safety of long-term OCP use for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, indications other than contraception should be avoided and nonhormonal contraceptive methods should be discussed.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Risk-Reducing Oophorectomy and Breast Cancer Risk Across the Spectrum of Familial Risk
    Terry, MB ; Daly, MB ; Phillips, KA ; Ma, X ; Zeinomar, N ; Leoce, N ; Dite, GS ; MacInnis, RJ ; Chung, WK ; Knight, JA ; Southey, MC ; Milne, RL ; Goldgar, D ; Giles, GG ; Weideman, PC ; Glendon, G ; Buchsbaum, R ; Andrulis, IL ; John, EM ; Buys, SS ; Hopper, JL (OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC, 2019-03)
    There remains debate about whether risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), which reduces ovarian cancer risk, also reduces breast cancer risk. We examined the association between RRSO and breast cancer risk using a prospective cohort of 17 917 women unaffected with breast cancer at baseline (7.2% known carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations). During a median follow-up of 10.7 years, 1046 women were diagnosed with incident breast cancer. Modeling RRSO as a time-varying exposure, there was no association with breast cancer risk overall (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87 to 1.24) or by tertiles of predicted absolute risk based on family history (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.32 to 1.47, HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.26, and HR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.39, for lowest, middle, and highest tertile of risk, respectively) or for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers when examined separately. There was also no association after accounting for hormone therapy use after RRSO. These findings suggest that RRSO should not be considered efficacious for reducing breast cancer risk.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Genome-wide association and transcriptome studies identify target genes and risk loci for breast cancer
    Ferreira, MA ; Gamazon, ER ; Al-Ejeh, F ; Aittomaki, K ; Andrulis, IL ; Anton-Culver, H ; Arason, A ; Arndt, V ; Aronson, KJ ; Arun, BK ; Asseryanis, E ; Azzollini, J ; Balmana, J ; Barnes, DR ; Barrowdale, D ; Beckmann, MW ; Behrens, S ; Benitez, J ; Bermisheva, M ; Bialkowska, K ; Blomqvist, C ; Bogdanova, N ; Bojesen, SE ; Bolla, MK ; Borg, A ; Brauch, H ; Brenner, H ; Broeks, A ; Burwinkel, B ; Caldes, T ; Caligo, MA ; Campa, D ; Campbell, I ; Canzian, F ; Carter, J ; Carter, BD ; Castelao, JE ; Chang-Claude, J ; Chanock, SJ ; Christiansen, H ; Chung, WK ; Claes, KBM ; Clarke, CL ; Couch, FJ ; Cox, A ; Cross, SS ; Czene, K ; Daly, MB ; de la Hoya, M ; Dennis, J ; Devilee, P ; Diez, O ; Doerk, T ; Dunning, AM ; Dwek, M ; Eccles, DM ; Ejlertsen, B ; Ellberg, C ; Engel, C ; Eriksson, M ; Fasching, PA ; Fletcher, O ; Flyger, H ; Friedman, E ; Frost, D ; Gabrielson, M ; Gago-Dominguez, M ; Ganz, PA ; Gapstur, SM ; Garber, J ; Garcia-Closas, M ; Garcia-Saenz, JA ; Gaudet, MM ; Giles, GG ; Glendon, G ; Godwin, AK ; Goldberg, MS ; Goldgar, DE ; Gonzalez-Neira, A ; Greene, MH ; Gronwald, J ; Guenel, P ; Haiman, CA ; Hall, P ; Hamann, U ; He, W ; Heyworth, J ; Hogervorst, FBL ; Hollestelle, A ; Hoover, RN ; Hopper, JL ; Hulick, PJ ; Humphreys, K ; Imyanitov, EN ; Isaacs, C ; Jakimovska, M ; Jakubowska, A ; James, PA ; Janavicius, R ; Jankowitz, RC ; John, EM ; Johnson, N ; Joseph, V ; Karlan, BY ; Khusnutdinova, E ; Kiiski, J ; Ko, Y-D ; Jones, ME ; Konstantopoulou, I ; Kristensen, VN ; Laitman, Y ; Lambrechts, D ; Lazaro, C ; Leslie, G ; Lester, J ; Lesueur, F ; Lindstrom, S ; Long, J ; Loud, JT ; Lubinski, J ; Makalic, E ; Mannermaa, A ; Manoochehri, M ; Margolin, S ; Maurer, T ; Mavroudis, D ; McGuffog, L ; Meindl, A ; Menon, U ; Michailidou, K ; Miller, A ; Montagna, M ; Moreno, F ; Moserle, L ; Mulligan, AM ; Nathanson, KL ; Neuhausen, SL ; Nevanlinna, H ; Nevelsteen, I ; Nielsen, FC ; Nikitina-Zake, L ; Nussbaum, RL ; Offit, K ; Olah, E ; Olopade, O ; Olsson, H ; Osorio, A ; Papp, J ; Park-Simon, T-W ; Parsons, MT ; Pedersen, IS ; Peixoto, A ; Peterlongo, P ; Pharoah, PDP ; Plaseska-Karanfilska, D ; Poppe, B ; Presneau, N ; Radice, P ; Rantala, J ; Rennert, G ; Risch, HA ; Saloustros, E ; Sanden, K ; Sawyer, EJ ; Schmidt, MK ; Schmutzler, RK ; Sharma, P ; Shu, X-O ; Simard, J ; Singer, CF ; Soucy, P ; Southey, MC ; Spinelli, JJ ; Spurdle, AB ; Stone, J ; Swerdlow, AJ ; Tapper, WJ ; Taylor, JA ; Teixeira, MR ; Terry, MB ; Teule, A ; Thomassen, M ; Thoene, K ; Thull, DL ; Tischkowitz, M ; Toland, AE ; Torres, D ; Truong, T ; Tung, N ; Vachon, CM ; van Asperen, CJ ; van den Ouweland, AMW ; van Rensburg, EJ ; Vega, A ; Viel, A ; Wang, Q ; Wappenschmidt, B ; Weitzel, JN ; Wendt, C ; Winqvist, R ; Yang, XR ; Yannoukakos, D ; Ziogas, A ; Kraft, P ; Antoniou, AC ; Zheng, W ; Easton, DF ; Milne, RL ; Beesley, J ; Chenevix-Trench, G ; Arnold, N ; Auber, B ; Bogdanova-Markov, N ; Borde, J ; Caliebe, A ; Ditsch, N ; Dworniczak, B ; Engert, S ; Faust, U ; Gehrig, A ; Hahnen, E ; Hauke, J ; Hentschel, J ; Herold, N ; Honisch, E ; Just, W ; Kast, K ; Larsen, M ; Lemke, J ; Huu, PN ; Niederacher, D ; Ott, C-E ; Platzer, K ; Pohl-Rescigno, E ; Ramser, J ; Rhiem, K ; Steinemann, D ; Sutter, C ; Varon-Mateeva, R ; Wang-Gohrke, S ; Weber, BHF ; Prieur, F ; Pujol, P ; Sagne, C ; Sevenet, N ; Sobol, H ; Sokolowska, J ; Stoppa-Lyonnet, D ; Venat-Bouvet, L ; Adlard, J ; Ahmed, M ; Barwell, J ; Brady, A ; Brewer, C ; Cook, J ; Davidson, R ; Donaldson, A ; Eason, J ; Eeles, R ; Evans, DG ; Gregory, H ; Hanson, H ; Henderson, A ; Hodgson, S ; Izatt, L ; Kennedy, MJ ; Lalloo, F ; Miller, C ; Morrison, PJ ; Ong, K-R ; Perkins, J ; Porteous, ME ; Rogers, MT ; Side, LE ; Snape, K ; Walker, L ; Harrington, PA ; Heemskerk-Gerritsen, BAM ; Rookus, MA ; Seynaeve, CM ; van der Baan, FH ; van der Hout, AH ; van der Kolk, LE ; van der Luijt, RB ; van Deurzen, CHM ; van Doorn, HC ; van Engelen, K ; van Hest, L ; van Os, TAM ; Verhoef, S ; Vogel, MJ ; Wijnen, JT ; Miron, A ; Kapuscinski, M ; Bane, A ; Ross, E ; Buys, SS ; Conner, TA ; Balleine, R ; Baxter, R ; Braye, S ; Carpenter, J ; Dahlstrom, J ; Forbes, J ; Lee, SC ; Marsh, D ; Morey, A ; Pathmanathan, N ; Simpson, P ; Spigelman, A ; Wilcken, N ; Yip, D (NATURE PORTFOLIO, 2019-04-15)
    Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 170 breast cancer susceptibility loci. Here we hypothesize that some risk-associated variants might act in non-breast tissues, specifically adipose tissue and immune cells from blood and spleen. Using expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) reported in these tissues, we identify 26 previously unreported, likely target genes of overall breast cancer risk variants, and 17 for estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer, several with a known immune function. We determine the directional effect of gene expression on disease risk measured based on single and multiple eQTL. In addition, using a gene-based test of association that considers eQTL from multiple tissues, we identify seven (and four) regions with variants associated with overall (and ER-negative) breast cancer risk, which were not reported in previous GWAS. Further investigation of the function of the implicated genes in breast and immune cells may provide insights into the etiology of breast cancer.