METHODS: A total of 12,901 breast cancer cases and 12,583 controls from 12 case-control studies were included in our pooled analysis. HLA imputation was performed using SNP2HLA on 10,886 quality-controlled variants within the 15-55 Mb region on chromosome 6. HLA alleles (n = 175) with info scores greater than 0.8 and frequencies greater than 0.01 were included (resolution at two-digit level: 71; four-digit level: 104). We studied the associations between HLA alleles and breast cancer risk using logistic regression, adjusting for population structure and age. Associations between HLA alleles and the risk of subtypes of breast cancer (ER-positive, ER-negative, HER2-positive, HER2-negative, early-stage, and late-stage) were examined.
RESULTS: We did not observe associations between any HLA allele and breast cancer risk at P
METHODS: We evaluated 88 breast cancer risk variants that were identified previously by GWAS in 11,760 cases and 11,612 controls of Asian ancestry. SNPs confirmed to be associated with breast cancer risk in Asian women were used to construct a polygenic risk score (PRS). The relative and absolute risks of breast cancer by the PRS percentiles were estimated based on the PRS distribution, and were used to stratify women into different levels of breast cancer risk.
RESULTS: We confirmed significant associations with breast cancer risk for SNPs in 44 of the 78 previously reported loci at P
METHODS: We included 12,595 invasive BC cases and 12,884 controls for the analysis of rs671 and BC risk, and 2,849 invasive BC cases and 3,680 controls for the analysis of the gene-environment interaction between rs671 and alcohol intake for BC risk. The pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) associated with rs671 and its interaction with alcohol intake for BC risk were estimated using logistic regression models.
RESULTS: The Lys/Lys genotype of rs671 was associated with increased BC risk (OR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.30, p = 0.014). According to tumor characteristics, the Lys/Lys genotype was associated with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive BC (OR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.05-1.36, p = 0.008), progesterone receptor (PR)-positive BC (OR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.03-1.36, p = 0.015), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative BC (OR = 1.25, 95% CI 1.05-1.48, p = 0.012). No evidence of a gene-environment interaction was observed between rs671 and alcohol intake (p = 0.537).
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the Lys/Lys genotype confers susceptibility to BC risk among women of Asian ancestry, particularly for ER-positive, PR-positive, and HER2-negative tumor types.
METHODS: Of these 279 variants, data were obtained for 228 from GWAS conducted within the Asian Breast Cancer Consortium (24,206 cases and 24,775 controls) and the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (122,977 cases and 105,974 controls of European ancestry). Meta-analyses were conducted to combine the results from these two datasets.
FINDINGS: Of those 228 variants, an association was observed for 12 variants in 10 genes at a Bonferroni-corrected threshold of P
METHODS: The development data set comprised 138,309 women from 17 case-control studies. PRSs were generated using a clumping and thresholding method, lasso penalized regression, an Empirical Bayes approach, a Bayesian polygenic prediction approach, or linear combinations of multiple PRSs. These PRSs were evaluated in 89,898 women from 3 prospective studies (1592 incident cases).
RESULTS: The best performing PRS (genome-wide set of single-nucleotide variations [formerly single-nucleotide polymorphism]) had a hazard ratio per unit SD of 1.62 (95% CI = 1.46-1.80) and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.635 (95% CI = 0.622-0.649). Combined Asian and European PRSs (333 single-nucleotide variations) had a hazard ratio per SD of 1.53 (95% CI = 1.37-1.71) and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.621 (95% CI = 0.608-0.635). The distribution of the latter PRS was different across ethnic subgroups, confirming the importance of population-specific calibration for valid estimation of breast cancer risk.
CONCLUSION: PRSs developed in this study, from association data from multiple ancestries, can enhance risk stratification for women of Asian ancestry.
METHODS: We used pooled data on tumor markers (estrogen and progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)) and reproductive risk factors (parity, age at first full-time pregnancy (FFTP) and age at menarche) from 28,095 patients with invasive BC from 34 studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). In a case-only analysis, we used logistic regression to assess associations between reproductive factors and BC subtype compared to luminal A tumors as a reference. The interaction between age and parity in BC subtype risk was also tested, across all ages and, because age was modeled non-linearly, specifically at ages 35, 55 and 75 years.
RESULTS: Parous women were more likely to be diagnosed with triple negative BC (TNBC) than with luminal A BC, irrespective of age (OR for parity = 1.38, 95% CI 1.16-1.65, p = 0.0004; p for interaction with age = 0.076). Parous women were also more likely to be diagnosed with luminal and non-luminal HER2-like BCs and this effect was slightly more pronounced at an early age (p for interaction with age = 0.037 and 0.030, respectively). For instance, women diagnosed at age 35 were 1.48 (CI 1.01-2.16) more likely to have luminal HER2-like BC than luminal A BC, while this association was not significant at age 75 (OR = 0.72, CI 0.45-1.14). While age at menarche was not significantly associated with BC subtype, increasing age at FFTP was non-linearly associated with TNBC relative to luminal A BC. An age at FFTP of 25 versus 20 years lowered the risk for TNBC (OR = 0.78, CI 0.70-0.88, p
METHOD: The prognostic effect of PR status was based on the analysis of data from 45,088 European patients with breast cancer from 49 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the hazard ratio for PR status. Data from a New Zealand study of 11,365 patients with early invasive breast cancer were used for external validation. Model calibration and discrimination were used to test the model performance.
RESULTS: Having a PR-positive tumour was associated with a 23% and 28% lower risk of dying from breast cancer for women with oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative and ER-positive breast cancer, respectively. The area under the ROC curve increased with the addition of PR status from 0.807 to 0.809 for patients with ER-negative tumours (p = 0.023) and from 0.898 to 0.902 for patients with ER-positive tumours (p = 2.3 × 10-6) in the New Zealand cohort. Model calibration was modest with 940 observed deaths compared to 1151 predicted.
CONCLUSION: The inclusion of the prognostic effect of PR status to PREDICT Breast has led to an improvement of model performance and more accurate absolute treatment benefit predictions for individual patients. Further studies should determine whether the baseline hazard function requires recalibration.
METHODS: We evaluated a truncating variant, p.Arg798Ter (rs137852986), and 10 missense variants of BRIP1, in 48 144 cases and 43 607 controls of European origin, drawn from 41 studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). Additionally, we sequenced the coding regions of BRIP1 in 13 213 cases and 5242 controls from the UK, 1313 cases and 1123 controls from three population-based studies as part of the Breast Cancer Family Registry, and 1853 familial cases and 2001 controls from Australia.
RESULTS: The rare truncating allele of rs137852986 was observed in 23 cases and 18 controls in Europeans in BCAC (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.03, p=0.79). Truncating variants were found in the sequencing studies in 34 cases (0.21%) and 19 controls (0.23%) (combined OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.70, p=0.75).
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that truncating variants in BRIP1, and in particular p.Arg798Ter, are not associated with a substantial increase in breast cancer risk. Such observations have important implications for the reporting of results from breast cancer screening panels.