BACKGROUND: Most of the genetic variants identified from genome-wide association studies of breast cancer have not been validated in Asian women. No risk assessment model that incorporates both genetic and clinical predictors is currently available to predict breast cancer risk in this population. METHODS: We analyzed 12 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) identified in recent genome-wide association studies mostly of women of European ancestry as being associated with the risk of breast cancer in 3039 case patients and 3082 control subjects who participated in the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study. All participants were interviewed in person to obtain information regarding known and suspected risk factors for breast cancer. The c statistic, a measure of discrimination ability with a value ranging from 0.5 (random classification) to 1.0 (perfect classification), was estimated to evaluate the contribution of genetic and established clinical predictors of breast cancer to a newly established risk assessment model for Chinese women. Clinical predictors included in the model were age at menarche, age at first live birth, waist-to-hip ratio, family history of breast cancer, and a previous diagnosis of benign breast disease. The utility of the models in risk stratification was evaluated by estimating the proportion of breast cancer patients in the general population that could be accounted for above a given risk threshold as predicted by the models. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Eight SNPs (rs2046210, rs1219648, rs3817198, rs8051542, rs3803662, rs889312, rs10941679, and rs13281615), each of which reflected a genetically independent locus, were found to be associated with the risk of breast cancer. A dose-response association was observed between the risk of breast cancer and the genetic risk score, which is an aggregate measure of the effect of these eight SNPs (odds ratio for women in the highest quintile of genetic risk score vs those in the lowest = 1.85, 95% confidence interval = 1.58 to 2.18, P(trend) = 2.5 x 10(-15)). The genetic risk score, the waist-to-hip ratio, and a previous diagnosis of benign breast disease were the top three predictors of the risk of breast cancer, each contributing statistically significantly (P < .001) to the full risk assessment model. The model, with a c statistic of 0.6295 after adjustment for overfitting, showed promise for stratifying women into different risk groups; women in the top 30% risk group accounted for nearly 50% of the breast cancers diagnosed in the general population. CONCLUSION: A risk assessment model that includes both genetic markers and clinical predictors may be useful to classify Asian women into relevant risk groups for cost-efficient screening and other prevention programs.
BACKGROUND: Most of the genetic variants identified from genome-wide association studies of breast cancer have not been validated in Asian women. No risk assessment model that incorporates both genetic and clinical predictors is currently available to predict breast cancer risk in this population. METHODS: We analyzed 12 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) identified in recent genome-wide association studies mostly of women of European ancestry as being associated with the risk of breast cancer in 3039 case patients and 3082 control subjects who participated in the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study. All participants were interviewed in person to obtain information regarding known and suspected risk factors for breast cancer. The c statistic, a measure of discrimination ability with a value ranging from 0.5 (random classification) to 1.0 (perfect classification), was estimated to evaluate the contribution of genetic and established clinical predictors of breast cancer to a newly established risk assessment model for Chinese women. Clinical predictors included in the model were age at menarche, age at first live birth, waist-to-hip ratio, family history of breast cancer, and a previous diagnosis of benign breast disease. The utility of the models in risk stratification was evaluated by estimating the proportion of breast cancerpatients in the general population that could be accounted for above a given risk threshold as predicted by the models. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Eight SNPs (rs2046210, rs1219648, rs3817198, rs8051542, rs3803662, rs889312, rs10941679, and rs13281615), each of which reflected a genetically independent locus, were found to be associated with the risk of breast cancer. A dose-response association was observed between the risk of breast cancer and the genetic risk score, which is an aggregate measure of the effect of these eight SNPs (odds ratio for women in the highest quintile of genetic risk score vs those in the lowest = 1.85, 95% confidence interval = 1.58 to 2.18, P(trend) = 2.5 x 10(-15)). The genetic risk score, the waist-to-hip ratio, and a previous diagnosis of benign breast disease were the top three predictors of the risk of breast cancer, each contributing statistically significantly (P < .001) to the full risk assessment model. The model, with a c statistic of 0.6295 after adjustment for overfitting, showed promise for stratifying women into different risk groups; women in the top 30% risk group accounted for nearly 50% of the breast cancers diagnosed in the general population. CONCLUSION: A risk assessment model that includes both genetic markers and clinical predictors may be useful to classify Asian women into relevant risk groups for cost-efficient screening and other prevention programs.
Authors: E W Steyerberg; F E Harrell; G J Borsboom; M J Eijkemans; Y Vergouwe; J D Habbema Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Paul D P Pharoah; Antonis Antoniou; Martin Bobrow; Ron L Zimmern; Douglas F Easton; Bruce A J Ponder Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2002-03-04 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Y T Gao; X O Shu; Q Dai; J D Potter; L A Brinton; W Wen; T A Sellers; L H Kushi; Z Ruan; R M Bostick; F Jin; W Zheng Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2000-07-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Keun Young Yoo; Daehee Kang; Sue Kyung Park; Sook Un Kim; Sook Un Kim; Aesun Shin; Hachung Yoon; Se Hyun Ahn; Dong Young Noh; Kuk Jin Choe Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Aaron D denDekker; Xin Xu; M Derek Vaughn; Aaron H Puckett; Louis L Gardner; Courtney J Lambring; Lucas Deschenes; David J Samuelson Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Wei Zheng; Ben Zhang; Qiuyin Cai; Hyuna Sung; Kyriaki Michailidou; Jiajun Shi; Ji-Yeob Choi; Jirong Long; Joe Dennis; Manjeet K Humphreys; Qin Wang; Wei Lu; Yu-Tang Gao; Chun Li; Hui Cai; Sue K Park; Keun-Young Yoo; Dong-Young Noh; Wonshik Han; Alison M Dunning; Javier Benitez; Daniel Vincent; Francois Bacot; Daniel Tessier; Sung-Won Kim; Min Hyuk Lee; Jong Won Lee; Jong-Young Lee; Yong-Bing Xiang; Ying Zheng; Wenjin Wang; Bu-Tian Ji; Keitaro Matsuo; Hidemi Ito; Hiroji Iwata; Hideo Tanaka; Anna H Wu; Chiu-chen Tseng; David Van Den Berg; Daniel O Stram; Soo Hwang Teo; Cheng Har Yip; In Nee Kang; Tien Y Wong; Chen-Yang Shen; Jyh-Cherng Yu; Chiun-Sheng Huang; Ming-Feng Hou; Mikael Hartman; Hui Miao; Soo Chin Lee; Thomas Choudary Putti; Kenneth Muir; Artitaya Lophatananon; Sarah Stewart-Brown; Pornthep Siriwanarangsan; Suleeporn Sangrajrang; Hongbing Shen; Kexin Chen; Pei-Ei Wu; Zefang Ren; Christopher A Haiman; Aiko Sueta; Mi Kyung Kim; Ui Soon Khoo; Motoki Iwasaki; Paul D P Pharoah; Wanqing Wen; Per Hall; Xiao-Ou Shu; Douglas F Easton; Daehee Kang Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2013-03-27 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: David Barzan; Marlon R Veldwijk; Carsten Herskind; Yang Li; Bo Zhang; Elena Sperk; Wei-Dong Du; Xue-Jun Zhang; Frederik Wenz Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Douglas A Corley; Christopher D Jensen; Amy R Marks; Wei K Zhao; Jolanda de Boer; Theodore R Levin; Chyke Doubeni; Bruce H Fireman; Charles P Quesenberry Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2012-09-14 Impact factor: 11.382