| 11. |
- Gaudet, Mia M., et al.
(författare)
-
Common Genetic Variants and Modification of Penetrance of BRCA2-Associated Breast Cancer
- 2010
-
Ingår i: PLoS Genetics. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1553-7404. ; 6:10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The considerable uncertainty regarding cancer risks associated with inherited mutations of BRCA2 is due to unknown factors. To investigate whether common genetic variants modify penetrance for BRCA2 mutation carriers, we undertook a two-staged genome-wide association study in BRCA2 mutation carriers. In stage 1 using the Affymetrix 6.0 platform, 592,163 filtered SNPs genotyped were available on 899 young (, 40 years) affected and 804 unaffected carriers of European ancestry. Associations were evaluated using a survival-based score test adjusted for familial correlations and stratified by country of the study and BRCA2*6174delT mutation status. The genomic inflation factor (lambda) was 1.011. The stage 1 association analysis revealed multiple variants associated with breast cancer risk: 3 SNPs had p-values, 10 25 and 39 SNPs had p-values<10(-4). These variants included several previously associated with sporadic breast cancer risk and two novel loci on chromosome 20 (rs311499) and chromosome 10 (rs16917302). The chromosome 10 locus was in ZNF365, which contains another variant that has recently been associated with breast cancer in an independent study of unselected cases. In stage 2, the top 85 loci from stage 1 were genotyped in 1,264 cases and 1,222 controls. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for stage 1 and 2 were combined and estimated using a retrospective likelihood approach, stratified by country of residence and the most common mutation, BRCA2*6174delT. The combined per allele HR of the minor allele for the novel loci rs16917302 was 0.75 (95% CI 0.66-0.86, p = 3: 8 x 10(-5)) and for rs311499 was 0.72 (95% CI 0.61-0.85, p = 6: 6 x 10(-5)). FGFR2 rs2981575 had the strongest association with breast cancer risk (per allele HR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.18-1.39, p = 1: 2 x 10(-8)). These results indicate that SNPs that modify BRCA2 penetrance identified by an agnostic approach thus far are limited to variants that also modify risk of sporadic BRCA2 wild-type breast cancer.
|
|
| 12. |
- Schmidt, Marjanka K, et al.
(författare)
-
Do MDM2 SNP309 and TP53 R72P interact in breast cancer susceptibility? A large pooled series from the breast cancer association consortium
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Cancer Research. - 0008-5472 .- 1538-7445. ; 67:19, s. 9584-9590
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Association studies in large series of breast cancer patients can be used to identify single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) contributing to breast cancer susceptibility. Previous studies have suggested associations between variants in TP53 (R72P) and MDM2 (SNP309) and cancer risk. Data from molecular studies suggest a functional interaction between these genes. We therefore investigated the effect of TP53 R72P and MDM2 SNP309 on breast cancer risk and age at onset of breast cancer in a pooled series of 5,191 cases and 3,834 controls from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). Breast cancer risk was not found to be associated with the combined variant alleles [odds ratio (OR), 1.00; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.81–1.23]. Estimated ORs were 1.01 (95% CI, 0.93–1.09) per MDM2 SNP309 allele and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.91–1.04) for TP53 R72P. Although we did find evidence for a 4-year earlier age at onset for carriers of both variant alleles in one of the breast cancer patient series of the BCAC (the German series), we were not able to confirm this effect in the pooled analysis. Even so, carriers of both variant alleles did not have different risk estimates for bilateral or estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer. In conclusion, in this large collaborative study, we did not find an association of MDM2 SNP309 and TP53 R72P, separately or in interaction, with breast cancer. This suggests that any effect of these two variants would be very small and possibly confined to subgroups that were not assessed in our present study.
|
|
