| 1. |
- Campa, Daniele, et al.
(författare)
-
Interactions Between Genetic Variants and Breast Cancer Risk Factors in the Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0027-8874 .- 1460-2105. ; 103:16, s. 1252-1263
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Recently, several genome-wide association studies have identified various genetic susceptibility loci for breast cancer. Relatively little is known about the possible interactions between these loci and the established risk factors for breast cancer. Methods To assess interactions between single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and established risk factors, we prospectively collected DNA samples and questionnaire data from 8576 breast cancer case subjects and 11 892 control subjects nested within the National Cancer Institute's Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium (BPC3). We genotyped 17 germline SNPs (FGFR2-rs2981582, FGFR2-rs3750817, TNRC9-rs3803662, 2q35-rs13387042, MAP3K1-rs889312, 8q24-rs13281615, CASP8-rs1045485, LSP1-rs3817198, COL1A1-rs2075555, COX11-rs6504950, RNF146-rs2180341, 6q25-rs2046210, SLC4A7-rs4973768, NOTCH2-rs11249433, 5p12-rs4415084, 5p12-rs10941679, RAD51L1-rs999737), and odds ratios were estimated by logistic regression to confirm previously reported associations with breast cancer risk. We performed likelihood ratio test to assess interactions between 17 SNPs and nine established risk factors (age at menarche, parity, age at menopause, use of hormone replacement therapy, family history, height, body mass index, smoking status, and alcohol consumption), and a correction for multiple testing of 153 tests (adjusted P value threshold = .05/153 = 3 x 10(-4)) was done. Casecase comparisons were performed for possible differential associations of polymorphisms by subgroups of tumor stage, estrogen and progesterone receptor status, and age at diagnosis. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results We confirmed the association of 14 SNPs with breast cancer risk (P(trend) = 2.57 x 10(-3) -3.96 x 10(-19)). Three SNPs (LSP1-rs3817198, COL1A1-rs2075555, and RNF146-rs2180341) did not show association with breast cancer risk. After accounting for multiple testing, no statistically significant interactions were detected between the 17 SNPs and the nine risk factors. We also confirmed that SNPs in FGFR2 and TNRC9 were associated with greater risk of estrogen receptor-positive than estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer (P(heterogeneity) = .0016 for FGFR2-rs2981582 and P(heterogeneity) = .0053 for TNRC9-rs3803662). SNP 5p12-rs10941679 was statistically significantly associated with greater risk of progesterone receptor-positive than progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer (P(heterogeneity) = .0028). Conclusion This study does not support the hypothesis that known common breast cancer susceptibility loci strongly modify the associations between established risk factors and breast cancer.
|
|
| 3. |
- Smith, Todd, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of prognostic models to predict the occurrence of colorectal cancer in asymptomatic individuals : a systematic literature review and external validation in the EPIC and UK Biobank prospective cohort studies
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Gut. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 0017-5749 .- 1468-3288. ; 68, s. 672-683
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To systematically identify and validate published colorectal cancer risk prediction models that do not require invasive testing in two large population-based prospective cohorts.DESIGN: Models were identified through an update of a published systematic review and validated in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) and the UK Biobank. The performance of the models to predict the occurrence of colorectal cancer within 5 or 10 years after study enrolment was assessed by discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration (plots of observed vs predicted probability).RESULTS: The systematic review and its update identified 16 models from 8 publications (8 colorectal, 5 colon and 3 rectal). The number of participants included in each model validation ranged from 41 587 to 396 515, and the number of cases ranged from 115 to 1781. Eligible and ineligible participants across the models were largely comparable. Calibration of the models, where assessable, was very good and further improved by recalibration. The C-statistics of the models were largely similar between validation cohorts with the highest values achieved being 0.70 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.72) in the UK Biobank and 0.71 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.74) in EPIC.CONCLUSION: Several of these non-invasive models exhibited good calibration and discrimination within both external validation populations and are therefore potentially suitable candidates for the facilitation of risk stratification in population-based colorectal screening programmes. Future work should both evaluate this potential, through modelling and impact studies, and ascertain if further enhancement in their performance can be obtained.
|
|
