| 1. |
- Purrington, Kristen S., et al.
(författare)
-
Genome-wide association study identifies 25 known breast cancer susceptibility loci as risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Carcinogenesis. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0143-3334 .- 1460-2180. ; 35:5, s. 1012-1019
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In a genome-wide scan, we show that 30 variants in 25 genomic regions are associated with risk of TN breast cancer. Women carrying many of the risk variants may have 4-fold increased risk relative to women with few variants.Triple-negative (TN) breast cancer is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer associated with a unique set of epidemiologic and genetic risk factors. We conducted a two-stage genome-wide association study of TN breast cancer (stage 1: 1529 TN cases, 3399 controls; stage 2: 2148 cases, 1309 controls) to identify loci that influence TN breast cancer risk. Variants in the 19p13.1 and PTHLH loci showed genome-wide significant associations (P < 5 x 10(-) (8)) in stage 1 and 2 combined. Results also suggested a substantial enrichment of significantly associated variants among the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) analyzed in stage 2. Variants from 25 of 74 known breast cancer susceptibility loci were also associated with risk of TN breast cancer (P < 0.05). Associations with TN breast cancer were confirmed for 10 loci (LGR6, MDM4, CASP8, 2q35, 2p24.1, TERT-rs10069690, ESR1, TOX3, 19p13.1, RALY), and we identified associations with TN breast cancer for 15 additional breast cancer loci (P < 0.05: PEX14, 2q24.1, 2q31.1, ADAM29, EBF1, TCF7L2, 11q13.1, 11q24.3, 12p13.1, PTHLH, NTN4, 12q24, BRCA2, RAD51L1-rs2588809, MKL1). Further, two SNPs independent of previously reported signals in ESR1 [rs12525163 odds ratio (OR) = 1.15, P = 4.9 x 10(-) (4)] and 19p13.1 (rs1864112 OR = 0.84, P = 1.8 x 10(-) (9)) were associated with TN breast cancer. A polygenic risk score (PRS) for TN breast cancer based on known breast cancer risk variants showed a 4-fold difference in risk between the highest and lowest PRS quintiles (OR = 4.03, 95% confidence interval 3.46-4.70, P = 4.8 x 10(-) (69)). This translates to an absolute risk for TN breast cancer ranging from 0.8% to 3.4%, suggesting that genetic variation may be used for TN breast cancer risk prediction.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Martrat, Griselda, et al.
(författare)
-
Exploring the link between MORF4L1 and risk of breast cancer
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Breast Cancer Research. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1465-5411 .- 1465-542X. ; 13:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Proteins encoded by Fanconi anemia (FA) and/or breast cancer (BrCa) susceptibility genes cooperate in a common DNA damage repair signaling pathway. To gain deeper insight into this pathway and its influence on cancer risk, we searched for novel components through protein physical interaction screens. Methods: Protein physical interactions were screened using the yeast two-hybrid system. Co-affinity purifications and endogenous co-immunoprecipitation assays were performed to corroborate interactions. Biochemical and functional assays in human, mouse and Caenorhabditis elegans models were carried out to characterize pathway components. Thirteen FANCD2-monoubiquitinylation-positive FA cell lines excluded for genetic defects in the downstream pathway components and 300 familial BrCa patients negative for BRCA1/2 mutations were analyzed for genetic mutations. Common genetic variants were genotyped in 9,573 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers for associations with BrCa risk. Results: A previously identified co-purifying protein with PALB2 was identified, MRG15 (MORF4L1 gene). Results in human, mouse and C. elegans models delineate molecular and functional relationships with BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51 and RPA1 that suggest a role for MRG15 in the repair of DNA double-strand breaks. Mrg15-deficient murine embryonic fibroblasts showed moderate sensitivity to g-irradiation relative to controls and reduced formation of Rad51 nuclear foci. Examination of mutants of MRG15 and BRCA2 C. elegans orthologs revealed phenocopy by accumulation of RPA-1 (human RPA1) nuclear foci and aberrant chromosomal compactions in meiotic cells. However, no alterations or mutations were identified for MRG15/MORF4L1 in unclassified FA patients and BrCa familial cases. Finally, no significant associations between common MORF4L1 variants and BrCa risk for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers were identified: rs7164529, P-trend = 0.45 and 0.05, P-2df = 0.51 and 0.14, respectively; and rs10519219, P-trend = 0.92 and 0.72, P-2df = 0.76 and 0.07, respectively. Conclusions: While the present study expands on the role of MRG15 in the control of genomic stability, weak associations cannot be ruled out for potential low-penetrance variants at MORF4L1 and BrCa risk among BRCA2 mutation carriers.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Reveiz, Ludovic, et al.
(författare)
-
Prioritization strategies in clinical practice guidelines development : a pilot study
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Health Research Policy and Systems. - : BioMed Central. - 1478-4505 .- 1478-4505. ; 8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: Few methodological studies address the prioritization of clinical topics for the development of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs). The aim of this study was to validate a methodology for Priority Determination of Topics (PDT) of CPGs.METHODS AND RESULTS: Firstly, we developed an instrument for PDT with 41 criteria that were grouped under 10 domains, based on a comprehensive systematic search. Secondly, we performed a survey of stakeholders involved in CPGs development, and end users of guidelines, using the instrument. Thirdly, a pilot testing of the PDT procedure was performed in order to choose 10 guideline topics among 34 proposed projects; using a multi-criteria analysis approach, we validated a mechanism that followed five stages: determination of the composition of groups, item/domain scoring, weights determination, quality of the information used to support judgments, and finally, topic selection. Participants first scored the importance of each domain, after which four different weighting procedures were calculated (including the survey results). The process of weighting was determined by correlating the data between them. We also reported the quality of evidence used for PDT. Finally, we provided a qualitative analysis of the process. The main domains used to support judgement, having higher quality scores and weightings, were feasibility, disease burden, implementation and information needs. Other important domains such as user preferences, adverse events, potential for health promotion, social effects, and economic impact had lower relevance for clinicians. Criteria for prioritization were mainly judged through professional experience, while good quality information was only used in 15% of cases.CONCLUSION: The main advantages of the proposed methodology are supported by the use of a systematic approach to identify, score and weight guideline topics selection, limiting or exposing the influence of personal biases. However, the methodology was complex and included a number of quantitative and qualitative approaches reflecting the difficulties of the prioritization process.
|
|
