Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 25
  • 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
    Body mass index and breast cancer survival: a Mendelian randomization analysis
    Guo, Q ; Burgess, S ; Turman, C ; Bolla, MK ; Wang, Q ; Lush, M ; Abraham, J ; Aittomaki, K ; Andrulis, IL ; Apicella, C ; Arndt, V ; Barrdahl, M ; Benitez, J ; Berg, CD ; Blomqvist, C ; Bojesen, SE ; Bonanni, B ; Brand, JS ; Brenner, H ; Broeks, A ; Burwinkel, B ; Caldas, C ; Campa, D ; Canzian, F ; Chang-Claude, J ; Chanock, SJ ; Chin, S-F ; Couch, FJ ; Cox, A ; Cross, SS ; Cybulski, C ; Czene, K ; Darabi, H ; Devilee, P ; Diver, WR ; Dunning, AM ; Earl, HM ; Eccles, DM ; Ekici, AB ; Eriksson, M ; Evans, DG ; Fasching, PA ; Figueroa, J ; Flesch-Janys, D ; Flyger, H ; Gapstur, SM ; Gaudet, MM ; Giles, GG ; Glendon, G ; Grip, M ; Gronwald, J ; Haeberle, L ; Haiman, CA ; Hall, P ; Hamann, U ; Hankinson, S ; Hartikainen, JM ; Hein, A ; Hiller, L ; Hogervorst, FB ; Holleczek, B ; Hooning, MJ ; Hoover, RN ; Humphreys, K ; Hunter, DJ ; Husing, A ; Jakubowska, A ; Jukkola-Vuorinen, A ; Kaaks, R ; Kabisch, M ; Kataja, V ; Knight, JA ; Koppert, LB ; Kosma, V-M ; Kristensen, VN ; Lambrechts, D ; Le Marchand, L ; Li, J ; Lindblom, A ; Lindstrom, S ; Lissowska, J ; Lubinski, J ; Machiela, MJ ; Mannermaa, A ; Manoukian, S ; Margolin, S ; Marme, F ; Martens, JWM ; McLean, C ; Menendez, P ; Milne, RL ; Mulligan, AM ; Muranen, TA ; Nevanlinna, H ; Neven, P ; Nielsen, SF ; Nordestgaard, BG ; Olson, JE ; Perez, JIA ; Peterlongo, P ; Phillips, K-A ; Poole, CJ ; Pylkas, K ; Radice, P ; Rahman, N ; Rudiger, T ; Rudolph, A ; Sawyer, EJ ; Schumacher, F ; Seibold, P ; Seynaeve, C ; Shah, M ; Smeets, A ; Southey, MC ; Tollenaar, RAEM ; Tomlinson, I ; Tsimiklis, H ; Ulmer, H-U ; Vachon, C ; van den Ouweland, AMW ; Van't Veer, LJ ; Wildiers, H ; Willett, W ; Winqvist, R ; Zamora, MP ; Chenevix-Trench, G ; Dork, T ; Easton, DF ; Garcia-Closas, M ; Kraft, P ; Hopper, JL ; Zheng, W ; Schmidt, MK ; Pharoah, PDP (OXFORD UNIV PRESS, 2017-12)
    BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that elevated body mass index (BMI) is associated with reduced survival for women with breast cancer. However, the underlying reasons remain unclear. We conducted a Mendelian randomization analysis to investigate a possible causal role of BMI in survival from breast cancer. METHODS: We used individual-level data from six large breast cancer case-cohorts including a total of 36 210 individuals (2475 events) of European ancestry. We created a BMI genetic risk score (GRS) based on genotypes at 94 known BMI-associated genetic variants. Association between the BMI genetic score and breast cancer survival was analysed by Cox regression for each study separately. Study-specific hazard ratios were pooled using fixed-effect meta-analysis. RESULTS: BMI genetic score was found to be associated with reduced breast cancer-specific survival for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive cases [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.11, per one-unit increment of GRS, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.22, P = 0.03). We observed no association for ER-negative cases (HR = 1.00, per one-unit increment of GRS, 95% CI 0.89-1.13, P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a causal effect of increased BMI on reduced breast cancer survival for ER-positive breast cancer. There is no evidence of a causal effect of higher BMI on survival for ER-negative breast cancer cases.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Morphological predictors of BRCA1 germline mutations in young women with breast cancer
    Southey, MC ; Ramus, SJ ; Dowty, JG ; Smith, LD ; Tesoriero, AA ; Wong, EEM ; Dite, GS ; Jenkins, MA ; Byrnes, GB ; Winship, I ; Phillips, K-A ; Giles, GG ; Hopper, JL (NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP, 2011-03-15)
    BACKGROUND: Knowing a young woman with newly diagnosed breast cancer has a germline BRCA1 mutation informs her clinical management and that of her relatives. We sought an optimal strategy for identifying carriers using family history, breast cancer morphology and hormone receptor status data. METHODS: We studied a population-based sample of 452 Australian women with invasive breast cancer diagnosed before age 40 years for whom we conducted extensive germline mutation testing (29 carried a BRCA1 mutation) and a systematic pathology review, and collected three-generational family history and tumour ER and PR status. Predictors of mutation status were identified using multiple logistic regression. Areas under receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were estimated using five-fold stratified cross-validation. RESULTS: The probability of being a BRCA1 mutation carrier increased with number of selected histology features even after adjusting for family history and ER and PR status (P<0.0001). From the most parsimonious multivariate model, the odds ratio for being a carrier were: 9.7 (95% confidence interval: 2.6-47.0) for trabecular growth pattern (P=0.001); 7.8 (2.7-25.7) for mitotic index over 50 mitoses per 10 high-powered field (P=0.0003); and 2.7 (1.3-5.9) for each first-degree relative with breast cancer diagnosed before age 60 years (P=0.01).The area under the ROC curve was 0.87 (0.83-0.90). CONCLUSION: Pathology review, with attention to a few specific morphological features of invasive breast cancers, can identify almost all BRCA1 germline mutation carriers among women with early-onset breast cancer without taking into account family history.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    A PALB2 mutation associated with high risk of breast cancer
    Southey, MC ; Teo, ZL ; Dowty, JG ; Odefrey, FA ; Park, DJ ; Tischkowitz, M ; Sabbaghian, N ; Apicella, C ; Byrnes, GB ; Winship, I ; Baglietto, L ; Giles, GG ; Goldgar, DE ; Foulkes, WD ; Hopper, JL (BMC, 2010)
    NTRODUCTION: As a group, women who carry germline mutations in partner and localizer of breast cancer 2 susceptibility protein (PALB2) are at increased risk of breast cancer. Little is known about by how much or whether risk differs by mutation or family history, owing to the paucity of studies of cases unselected for family history. METHODS: We screened 1,403 case probands for PALB2 mutations in a population-based study of Australian women with invasive breast cancer stratified by age at onset. The age-specific risk of breast cancer was estimated from the cancer histories of first- and second-degree relatives of mutation-carrying probands using a modified segregation analysis that included a polygenic modifier and was conditioned on the carrier case proband. Further screening for PALB2 c.3113G > A (W1038X) was conducted for 779 families with multiple cases of breast cancer ascertained through family cancer clinics in Australia and New Zealand and 764 population-based controls. RESULTS: We found five independent case probands in the population-based sample with the protein-truncating mutation PALB2 c.3113G > A (W1038X); 2 of 695 were diagnosed before age 40 years and 3 of 708 were diagnosed when between ages 40 and 59 years. Both of the two early-onset carrier case probands had very strong family histories of breast cancer. Further testing found that the mutation segregated with breast cancer in these families. No c.3113G > A (W1038X) carriers were found in 764 population-based unaffected controls. The hazard ratio was estimated to be 30.1 (95% confidence interval (CI), 7.5 to 120; P < 0.0001), and the corresponding cumulative risk estimates were 49% (95% CI, 15 to 93) to age 50 and 91% (95% CI, 44 to 100) to age 70. We found another eight families carrying this mutation in 779 families with multiple cases of breast cancer ascertained through family cancer clinics. CONCLUSIONS: The PALB2 c.3113G > A mutation appears to be associated with substantial risks of breast cancer that are of clinical relevance.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Contribution of large genomic BRCA1 alterations to early-onset breast cancer selected for family history and tumour morphology: a report from The Breast Cancer Family Registry
    Smith, LD ; Tesoriero, AA ; Wong, EM ; Ramus, SJ ; O'Malley, FP ; Mulligan, AM ; Terry, MB ; Senie, RT ; Santella, RM ; John, EM ; Andrulis, IL ; Ozcelik, H ; Daly, MB ; Godwin, AK ; Buys, SS ; Fox, S ; Goldgar, DE ; Giles, GG ; Hopper, JL ; Southey, MC (BIOMED CENTRAL LTD, 2011)
    INTRODUCTION: Selecting women affected with breast cancer who are most likely to carry a germline mutation in BRCA1 and applying the most appropriate test methodology remains challenging for cancer genetics services. We sought to test the value of selecting women for BRCA1 mutation testing on the basis of family history and/or breast tumour morphology criteria as well as the value of testing for large genomic alterations in BRCA1. METHODS: We studied women participating in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), recruited via population-based sampling, who had been diagnosed with breast cancer before the age of 40 years who had a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer (n = 187) and/or a first primary breast tumour with morphological features consistent with carrying a BRCA1 germline mutation (n = 133; 37 met both criteria). An additional 184 women diagnosed before the age of 40 years who had a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer and who were not known to carry a germline BRCA1 mutation were selected from among women who had been recruited into the BCFR from clinical genetics services. These 467 women had been screened for BRCA1 germline mutations, and we expanded this testing to include a screen for large genomic BRCA1 alterations using Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification. RESULTS: Twelve large genomic BRCA1 alterations were identified, including 10 (4%) of the 283 women selected from among the population-based sample. In total, 18 (12%), 18 (19%) and 16 (43%) BRCA1 mutations were identified in the population-based groups selected on the basis of family history only (n = 150), the group selected on the basis of tumour morphology only (n = 96) and meeting both criteria (n = 37), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Large genomic alterations accounted for 19% of all BRCA1 mutations identified. This study emphasises the value of combining information about family history, age at diagnosis and tumour morphology when selecting women for germline BRCA1 mutation testing as well as including a screen for large genomic alterations.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    2q36.3 is associated with prognosis for oestrogen receptor-negative breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy
    Li, J ; Lindstroem, LS ; Foo, JN ; Rafiq, S ; Schmidt, MK ; Pharoah, PDP ; Michailidou, K ; Dennis, J ; Bolla, MK ; Wang, Q ; Van't Veer, LJ ; Cornelissen, S ; Rutgers, E ; Southey, MC ; Apicella, C ; Dite, GS ; Hopper, JL ; Fasching, PA ; Haeberle, L ; Ekici, AB ; Beckmann, MW ; Blomqvist, C ; Muranen, TA ; Aittomaeki, K ; Lindblom, A ; Margolin, S ; Mannermaa, A ; Kosma, V-M ; Hartikainen, JM ; Kataja, V ; Chenevix-Trench, G ; Phillips, K-A ; McLachlan, S-A ; Lambrechts, D ; Thienpont, B ; Smeets, A ; Wildiers, H ; Chang-Claude, J ; Flesch-Janys, D ; Seibold, P ; Rudolph, A ; Giles, GG ; Baglietto, L ; Severi, G ; Haiman, CA ; Henderson, BE ; Schumacher, F ; Le Marchand, L ; Kristensen, V ; Alnaes, GIG ; Borresen-Dale, A-L ; Nord, S ; Winqvist, R ; Pylkas, K ; Jukkola-Vuorinen, A ; Grip, M ; Andrulis, IL ; Knight, JA ; Glendon, G ; Tchatchou, S ; Devilee, P ; Tollenaar, R ; Seynaeve, C ; Hooning, M ; Kriege, M ; Hollestelle, A ; Van den Ouweland, A ; Li, Y ; Hamann, U ; Torres, D ; Ulmer, HU ; Rudiger, T ; Shen, C-Y ; Hsiung, C-N ; Wu, P-E ; Chen, S-T ; Teo, SH ; Taib, NAM ; Yip, CH ; Ho, GF ; Matsuo, K ; Ito, H ; Iwata, H ; Tajima, K ; Kang, D ; Choi, J-Y ; Park, SK ; Yoo, K-Y ; Maishman, T ; Tapper, WJ ; Dunning, A ; Shah, M ; Luben, R ; Brown, J ; Khor, CC ; Eccles, DM ; Nevanlinna, H ; Easton, D ; Humphreys, K ; Liu, J ; Hall, P ; Czene, K (NATURE PORTFOLIO, 2014-06)
    Large population-based registry studies have shown that breast cancer prognosis is inherited. Here we analyse single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of genes implicated in human immunology and inflammation as candidates for prognostic markers of breast cancer survival involving 1,804 oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative patients treated with chemotherapy (279 events) from 14 European studies in a prior large-scale genotyping experiment, which is part of the Collaborative Oncological Gene-environment Study (COGS) initiative. We carry out replication using Asian COGS samples (n=522, 53 events) and the Prospective Study of Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary breast cancer (POSH) study (n=315, 108 events). Rs4458204_A near CCL20 (2q36.3) is found to be associated with breast cancer-specific death at a genome-wide significant level (n=2,641, 440 events, combined allelic hazard ratio (HR)=1.81 (1.49-2.19); P for trend=1.90 × 10(-9)). Such survival-associated variants can represent ideal targets for tailored therapeutics, and may also enhance our current prognostic prediction capabilities.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Common germline polymorphisms associated with breast cancer-specific survival
    Pirie, A ; Guo, Q ; Kraft, P ; Canisius, S ; Eccles, DM ; Rahman, N ; Nevanlinna, H ; Chen, C ; Khan, S ; Tyrer, J ; Bolla, MK ; Wang, Q ; Dennis, J ; Michailidou, K ; Lush, M ; Dunning, AM ; Shah, M ; Czene, K ; Darabi, H ; Eriksson, M ; Lambrechts, D ; Weltens, C ; Leunen, K ; van Ongeval, C ; Nordestgaard, BG ; Nielsen, SF ; Flyger, H ; Rudolph, A ; Seibold, P ; Flesch-Janys, D ; Blomqvist, C ; Aittomaki, K ; Fagerholm, R ; Muranen, TA ; Olsen, JE ; Hallberg, E ; Vachon, C ; Knight, JA ; Glendon, G ; Mulligan, AM ; Broeks, A ; Cornelissen, S ; Haiman, CA ; Henderson, BE ; Schumacher, F ; Le Marchand, L ; Hopper, JL ; Tsimiklis, H ; Apicella, C ; Southey, MC ; Cross, SS ; Reed, MWR ; Giles, GG ; Milne, RL ; McLean, C ; Winqvist, R ; Pylkas, K ; Jukkola-Vuorinen, A ; Grip, M ; Hooning, MJ ; Hollestelle, A ; Martens, JWM ; van den Ouweland, AMW ; Marme, F ; Schneeweiss, A ; Yang, R ; Burwinkel, B ; Figueroa, J ; Chanock, SJ ; Lissowska, J ; Sawyer, EJ ; Tomlinson, I ; Kerin, MJ ; Miller, N ; Brenner, H ; Butterbach, K ; Holleczek, B ; Kataja, V ; Kosma, V-M ; Hartikainen, JM ; Li, J ; Brand, JS ; Humphreys, K ; Devilee, P ; Tollenaar, RAEM ; Seynaeve, C ; Radice, P ; Peterlongo, P ; Manoukian, S ; Ficarazzi, F ; Beckmann, MW ; Hein, A ; Ekici, AB ; Balleine, R ; Phillips, K-A ; Benitez, J ; Zamora, MP ; Perez, JIA ; Menendez, P ; Jakubowska, A ; Lubinski, J ; Gronwald, J ; Durda, K ; Hamann, U ; Kabisch, M ; Ulmer, HU ; Ruediger, T ; Margolin, S ; Kristensen, V ; Nord, S ; Evans, DG ; Abraham, J ; Earl, H ; Poole, CJ ; Hiller, L ; Dunn, JA ; Bowden, S ; Yang, R ; Campa, D ; Diver, WR ; Gapstur, SM ; Gaudet, MM ; Hankinson, S ; Hoover, RN ; Husing, A ; Kaaks, R ; Machiela, MJ ; Willett, W ; Barrdahl, M ; Canzian, F ; Chin, S-F ; Caldas, C ; Hunter, DJ ; Lindstrom, S ; Garcia-Closas, M ; Couch, FJ ; Chenevix-Trench, G ; Mannermaa, A ; Andrulis, IL ; Hall, P ; Chang-Claude, J ; Easton, DF ; Bojesen, SE ; Cox, A ; Fasching, PA ; Pharoah, PDP ; Schmidt, MK (BMC, 2015-04-22)
    INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have identified common germline variants nominally associated with breast cancer survival. These associations have not been widely replicated in further studies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association of previously reported SNPs with breast cancer-specific survival using data from a pooled analysis of eight breast cancer survival genome-wide association studies (GWAS) from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. METHODS: A literature review was conducted of all previously published associations between common germline variants and three survival outcomes: breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival and disease-free survival. All associations that reached the nominal significance level of P value <0.05 were included. Single nucleotide polymorphisms that had been previously reported as nominally associated with at least one survival outcome were evaluated in the pooled analysis of over 37,000 breast cancer cases for association with breast cancer-specific survival. Previous associations were evaluated using a one-sided test based on the reported direction of effect. RESULTS: Fifty-six variants from 45 previous publications were evaluated in the meta-analysis. Fifty-four of these were evaluated in the full set of 37,954 breast cancer cases with 2,900 events and the two additional variants were evaluated in a reduced sample size of 30,000 samples in order to ensure independence from the previously published studies. Five variants reached nominal significance (P <0.05) in the pooled GWAS data compared to 2.8 expected under the null hypothesis. Seven additional variants were associated (P <0.05) with ER-positive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Although no variants reached genome-wide significance (P <5 x 10(-8)), these results suggest that there is some evidence of association between candidate common germline variants and breast cancer prognosis. Larger studies from multinational collaborations are necessary to increase the power to detect associations, between common variants and prognosis, at more stringent significance levels.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Identification of Novel Genetic Markers of Breast Cancer Survival
    Guo, Q ; Schmidt, MK ; Kraft, P ; Canisius, S ; Chen, C ; Khan, S ; Tyrer, J ; Bolla, MK ; Wang, Q ; Dennis, J ; Michailidou, K ; Lush, M ; Kar, S ; Beesley, J ; Dunning, AM ; Shah, M ; Czene, K ; Darabi, H ; Eriksson, M ; Lambrechts, D ; Weltens, C ; Leunen, K ; Bojesen, SE ; Nordestgaard, BG ; Nielsen, SF ; Flyger, H ; Chang-Claude, J ; Rudolph, A ; Seibold, P ; Flesch-Janys, D ; Blomqvist, C ; Aittomaeki, K ; Fagerholm, R ; Muranen, TA ; Couch, FJ ; Olson, JE ; Vachon, C ; Andrulis, IL ; Knight, JA ; Glendon, G ; Mulligan, AM ; Broeks, A ; Hogervorst, FB ; Haiman, CA ; Henderson, BE ; Schumacher, F ; Le Marchand, L ; Hopper, JL ; Tsimiklis, H ; Apicella, C ; Southey, MC ; Cox, A ; Cross, SS ; Reed, MWR ; Giles, GG ; Milne, RL ; McLean, C ; Winqvist, R ; Pylkaes, K ; Jukkola-Vuorinen, A ; Grip, M ; Hooning, MJ ; Hollestelle, A ; Martens, JWM ; Van den Ouweland, AMW ; Marme, F ; Schneeweiss, A ; Yang, R ; Burwinkel, B ; Figueroa, J ; Chanock, SJ ; Lissowska, J ; Sawyer, EJ ; Tomlinson, I ; Kerin, MJ ; Miller, N ; Brenner, H ; Dieffenbach, AK ; Arndt, V ; Holleczek, B ; Mannermaa, A ; Kataja, V ; Kosma, V-M ; Hartikainen, JM ; Li, J ; Brand, JS ; Humphreys, K ; Devilee, P ; Tollenaar, RAEM ; Seynaeve, C ; Radice, P ; Peterlongo, P ; Bonanni, B ; Mariani, P ; Fasching, PA ; Beckmann, MW ; Hein, A ; Ekici, AB ; Chenevix-Trench, G ; Balleine, R ; Phillips, K-A ; Benitez, J ; Zamora, MP ; Perez, JIA ; Menendez, P ; Jakubowska, A ; Lubinski, J ; Jaworska-Bieniek, K ; Durda, K ; Hamann, U ; Kabisch, M ; Ulmer, HU ; Ruediger, T ; Margolin, S ; Kristensen, V ; Nord, S ; Evans, DG ; Abraham, JE ; Earl, HM ; Hiller, L ; Dunn, JA ; Bowden, S ; Berg, C ; Campa, D ; Diver, WR ; Gapstur, SM ; Gaudet, MM ; Hankinson, SE ; Hoover, RN ; Huesing, A ; Kaaks, R ; Machiela, MJ ; Willett, W ; Barrdahl, M ; Canzian, F ; Chin, S-F ; Caldas, C ; Hunter, DJ ; Lindstrom, S ; Garcia-Closas, M ; Hall, P ; Easton, DF ; Eccles, DM ; Rahman, N ; Nevanlinna, H ; Pharoah, PDP (OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC, 2015-05)
    BACKGROUND: Survival after a diagnosis of breast cancer varies considerably between patients, and some of this variation may be because of germline genetic variation. We aimed to identify genetic markers associated with breast cancer-specific survival. METHODS: We conducted a large meta-analysis of studies in populations of European ancestry, including 37954 patients with 2900 deaths from breast cancer. Each study had been genotyped for between 200000 and 900000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) across the genome; genotypes for nine million common variants were imputed using a common reference panel from the 1000 Genomes Project. We also carried out subtype-specific analyses based on 6881 estrogen receptor (ER)-negative patients (920 events) and 23059 ER-positive patients (1333 events). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: We identified one new locus (rs2059614 at 11q24.2) associated with survival in ER-negative breast cancer cases (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.55 to 2.47, P = 1.91 x 10(-8)). Genotyping a subset of 2113 case patients, of which 300 were ER negative, provided supporting evidence for the quality of the imputation. The association in this set of case patients was stronger for the observed genotypes than for the imputed genotypes. A second locus (rs148760487 at 2q24.2) was associated at genome-wide statistical significance in initial analyses; the association was similar in ER-positive and ER-negative case patients. Here the results of genotyping suggested that the finding was less robust. CONCLUSIONS: This is currently the largest study investigating genetic variation associated with breast cancer survival. Our results have potential clinical implications, as they confirm that germline genotype can provide prognostic information in addition to standard tumor prognostic factors.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM rare variants and cancer risk: data from COGS
    Southey, MC ; Goldgar, DE ; Winqvist, R ; Pylkas, K ; Couch, F ; Tischkowitz, M ; Foulkes, WD ; Dennis, J ; Michailidou, K ; van Rensburg, EJ ; Heikkinen, T ; Nevanlinna, H ; Hopper, JL ; Doerk, T ; Claes, KBM ; Reis-Filho, J ; Teo, ZL ; Radice, P ; Catucci, I ; Peterlongo, P ; Tsimiklis, H ; Odefrey, FA ; Dowty, JG ; Schmidt, MK ; Broeks, A ; Hogervorst, FB ; Verhoef, S ; Carpenter, J ; Clarke, C ; Scott, RJ ; Fasching, PA ; Haeberle, L ; Ekici, AB ; Beckmann, MW ; Peto, J ; dos-Santos-Silva, I ; Fletcher, O ; Johnson, N ; Bolla, MK ; Sawyer, EJ ; Tomlinson, I ; Kerin, MJ ; Miller, N ; Marme, F ; Burwinkel, B ; Yang, R ; Guenel, P ; Therese, T ; Menegaux, F ; Sanchez, M ; Bojesen, S ; Nielsen, SF ; Flyger, H ; Benitez, J ; Pilar Zamora, M ; Arias Perez, JI ; Menendez, P ; Anton-Culver, H ; Neuhausen, S ; Ziogas, A ; Clarke, CA ; Brenner, H ; Arndt, V ; Stegmaier, C ; Brauch, H ; Bruening, T ; Ko, Y-D ; Muranen, TA ; Aittomaki, K ; Blomqvist, C ; Bogdanova, NV ; Antonenkova, NN ; Lindblom, A ; Margolin, S ; Mannermaa, A ; Kataja, V ; Kosma, V-M ; Hartikainen, JM ; Spurdle, AB ; Wauters, E ; Smeets, D ; Beuselinck, B ; Floris, G ; Chang-Claude, J ; Rudolph, A ; Seibold, P ; Flesch-Janys, D ; Olson, JE ; Vachon, C ; Pankratz, VS ; McLean, C ; Haiman, CA ; Henderson, BE ; Schumacher, F ; Le Marchand, L ; Kristensen, V ; Alnaes, GG ; Zheng, W ; Hunter, DJ ; Lindstrom, S ; Hankinson, SE ; Kraft, P ; Andrulis, I ; Knight, JA ; Glendon, G ; Mulligan, AM ; Jukkola-Vuorinen, A ; Grip, M ; Kauppila, S ; Devilee, P ; Tollenaar, RAEM ; Seynaeve, C ; Hollestelle, A ; Garcia-Closas, M ; Figueroa, J ; Chanock, SJ ; Lissowska, J ; Czene, K ; Darabi, H ; Eriksson, M ; Eccles, DM ; Rafiq, S ; Tapper, WJ ; Gerty, SM ; Hooning, MJ ; Martens, JWM ; Collee, JM ; Tilanus-Linthorst, M ; Hall, P ; Li, J ; Brand, JS ; Humphreys, K ; Cox, A ; Reed, MWR ; Luccarini, C ; Baynes, C ; Dunning, AM ; Hamann, U ; Torres, D ; Ulmer, HU ; Ruediger, T ; Jakubowska, A ; Lubinski, J ; Jaworska, K ; Durda, K ; Slager, S ; Toland, AE ; Ambrosone, CB ; Yannoukakos, D ; Swerdlow, A ; Ashworth, A ; Orr, N ; Jones, M ; Gonzalez-Neira, A ; Pita, G ; Rosario Alonso, M ; Alvarez, N ; Herrero, D ; Tessier, DC ; Vincent, D ; Bacot, F ; Simard, J ; Dumont, M ; Soucy, P ; Eeles, R ; Muir, K ; Wiklund, F ; Gronberg, H ; Schleutker, J ; Nordestgaard, BG ; Weischer, M ; Travis, RC ; Neal, D ; Donovan, JL ; Hamdy, FC ; Khaw, K-T ; Stanford, JL ; Blot, WJ ; Thibodeau, S ; Schaid, DJ ; Kelley, JL ; Maier, C ; Kibel, AS ; Cybulski, C ; Cannon-Albright, L ; Butterbach, K ; Park, J ; Kaneva, R ; Batra, J ; Teixeira, MR ; Kote-Jarai, Z ; Al Olama, AA ; Benlloch, S ; Renner, SP ; Hartmann, A ; Hein, A ; Ruebner, M ; Lambrechts, D ; Van Nieuwenhuysen, E ; Vergote, I ; Lambretchs, S ; Doherty, JA ; Rossing, MA ; Nickels, S ; Eilber, U ; Wang-Gohrke, S ; Odunsi, K ; Sucheston-Campbell, LE ; Friel, G ; Lurie, G ; Killeen, JL ; Wilkens, LR ; Goodman, MT ; Runnebaum, I ; Hillemanns, PA ; Pelttari, LM ; Butzow, R ; Modugno, F ; Edwards, RP ; Ness, RB ; Moysich, KB ; du Bois, A ; Heitz, F ; Harter, P ; Kommoss, S ; Karlan, BY ; Walsh, C ; Lester, J ; Jensen, A ; Kjaer, SK ; Hogdall, E ; Peissel, B ; Bonanni, B ; Bernard, L ; Goode, EL ; Fridley, BL ; Vierkant, RA ; Cunningham, JM ; Larson, MC ; Fogarty, ZC ; Kalli, KR ; Liang, D ; Lu, KH ; Hildebrandt, MAT ; Wu, X ; Levine, DA ; Dao, F ; Bisogna, M ; Berchuck, A ; Iversen, ES ; Marks, JR ; Akushevich, L ; Cramer, DW ; Schildkraut, J ; Terry, KL ; Poole, EM ; Stampfer, M ; Tworoger, SS ; Bandera, EV ; Orlow, I ; Olson, SH ; Bjorge, L ; Salvesen, HB ; van Altena, AM ; Aben, KKH ; Kiemeney, LA ; Massuger, LFAG ; Pejovic, T ; Bean, Y ; Brooks-Wilson, A ; Kelemen, LE ; Cook, LS ; Le, ND ; Grski, B ; Gronwald, J ; Menkiszak, J ; Hogdall, CK ; Lundvall, L ; Nedergaard, L ; Engelholm, SA ; Dicks, E ; Tyrer, J ; Campbell, I ; McNeish, I ; Paul, J ; Siddiqui, N ; Glasspool, R ; Whittemore, AS ; Rothstein, JH ; McGuire, V ; Sieh, W ; Cai, H ; Shu, X-O ; Teten, RT ; Sutphen, R ; McLaughlin, JR ; Narod, SA ; Phelan, CM ; Monteiro, AN ; Fenstermacher, D ; Lin, H-Y ; Permuth, JB ; Sellers, TA ; Chen, YA ; Tsai, Y-Y ; Chen, Z ; Gentry-Maharaj, A ; Gayther, SA ; Ramus, SJ ; Menon, U ; Wu, AH ; Pearce, CL ; Van den Berg, D ; Pike, MC ; Dansonka-Mieszkowska, A ; Plisiecka-Halasa, J ; Moes-Sosnowska, J ; Kupryjanczyk, J ; Pharoah, PDP ; Song, H ; Winship, I ; Chenevix-Trench, G ; Giles, GG ; Tavtigian, SV ; Easton, DF ; Milne, RL (BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2016-12)
    BACKGROUND: The rarity of mutations in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM make it difficult to estimate precisely associated cancer risks. Population-based family studies have provided evidence that at least some of these mutations are associated with breast cancer risk as high as those associated with rare BRCA2 mutations. We aimed to estimate the relative risks associated with specific rare variants in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM via a multicentre case-control study. METHODS: We genotyped 10 rare mutations using the custom iCOGS array: PALB2 c.1592delT, c.2816T>G and c.3113G>A, CHEK2 c.349A>G, c.538C>T, c.715G>A, c.1036C>T, c.1312G>T, and c.1343T>G and ATM c.7271T>G. We assessed associations with breast cancer risk (42 671 cases and 42 164 controls), as well as prostate (22 301 cases and 22 320 controls) and ovarian (14 542 cases and 23 491 controls) cancer risk, for each variant. RESULTS: For European women, strong evidence of association with breast cancer risk was observed for PALB2 c.1592delT OR 3.44 (95% CI 1.39 to 8.52, p=7.1×10-5), PALB2 c.3113G>A OR 4.21 (95% CI 1.84 to 9.60, p=6.9×10-8) and ATM c.7271T>G OR 11.0 (95% CI 1.42 to 85.7, p=0.0012). We also found evidence of association with breast cancer risk for three variants in CHEK2, c.349A>G OR 2.26 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.95), c.1036C>T OR 5.06 (95% CI 1.09 to 23.5) and c.538C>T OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.67) (p≤0.017). Evidence for prostate cancer risk was observed for CHEK2 c.1343T>G OR 3.03 (95% CI 1.53 to 6.03, p=0.0006) for African men and CHEK2 c.1312G>T OR 2.21 (95% CI 1.06 to 4.63, p=0.030) for European men. No evidence of association with ovarian cancer was found for any of these variants. CONCLUSIONS: This report adds to accumulating evidence that at least some variants in these genes are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer that is clinically important.
  • 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.