BACKGROUND: More than 1000 reports have been published in the past two decades on associations between variants in candidate genes and risk of breast cancer. Results have been generally inconsistent. We did a literature search and meta-analyses to provide a synopsis of the current understanding of the genetic architecture of breast-cancer risk. METHODS: A systematic literature search for candidate-gene association studies of breast-cancer risk was done in two stages, using PubMed on or before Feb 28, 2010. A total of 24,500 publications were identified, of which 1059 were deemed eligible for inclusion. Meta-analyses were done for 279 genetic variants in 128 candidate genes or chromosomal loci that had at least three data sources. Variants with significant associations by meta-analysis were assessed using the Venice criteria and scored as having strong, moderate, or weak cumulative evidence for an association with breast-cancer risk. FINDINGS: 51 variants in 40 genes showed significant associations with breast-cancer risk. Cumulative epidemiological evidence of an association was graded as strong for ten variants in six genes (ATM, CASP8, CHEK2, CTLA4, NBN, and TP53), moderate for four variants in four genes (ATM, CYP19A1, TERT, and XRCC3), and weak for 37 variants. Additionally, in meta-analyses that included a minimum of 10,000 cases and 10,000 controls, convincing evidence of no association with breast-cancer risk was identified for 45 variants in 37 genes. INTERPRETATION: Whereas most genetic variants assessed in previous candidate-gene studies showed no association with breast-cancer risk in meta-analyses, 14 variants in nine genes had moderate to strong evidence for an association. Further evaluation of these variants is warranted. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute.
BACKGROUND: More than 1000 reports have been published in the past two decades on associations between variants in candidate genes and risk of breast cancer. Results have been generally inconsistent. We did a literature search and meta-analyses to provide a synopsis of the current understanding of the genetic architecture of breast-cancer risk. METHODS: A systematic literature search for candidate-gene association studies of breast-cancer risk was done in two stages, using PubMed on or before Feb 28, 2010. A total of 24,500 publications were identified, of which 1059 were deemed eligible for inclusion. Meta-analyses were done for 279 genetic variants in 128 candidate genes or chromosomal loci that had at least three data sources. Variants with significant associations by meta-analysis were assessed using the Venice criteria and scored as having strong, moderate, or weak cumulative evidence for an association with breast-cancer risk. FINDINGS: 51 variants in 40 genes showed significant associations with breast-cancer risk. Cumulative epidemiological evidence of an association was graded as strong for ten variants in six genes (ATM, CASP8, CHEK2, CTLA4, NBN, and TP53), moderate for four variants in four genes (ATM, CYP19A1, TERT, and XRCC3), and weak for 37 variants. Additionally, in meta-analyses that included a minimum of 10,000 cases and 10,000 controls, convincing evidence of no association with breast-cancer risk was identified for 45 variants in 37 genes. INTERPRETATION: Whereas most genetic variants assessed in previous candidate-gene studies showed no association with breast-cancer risk in meta-analyses, 14 variants in nine genes had moderate to strong evidence for an association. Further evaluation of these variants is warranted. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute.
Authors: R Varon; C Vissinga; M Platzer; K M Cerosaletti; K H Chrzanowska; K Saar; G Beckmann; E Seemanová; P R Cooper; N J Nowak; M Stumm; C M Weemaes; R A Gatti; R K Wilson; M Digweed; A Rosenthal; K Sperling; P Concannon; A Reis Journal: Cell Date: 1998-05-01 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Tom Walsh; Silvia Casadei; Kathryn Hale Coats; Elizabeth Swisher; Sunday M Stray; Jake Higgins; Kevin C Roach; Jessica Mandell; Ming K Lee; Sona Ciernikova; Lenka Foretova; Pavel Soucek; Mary-Claire King Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-03-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: D Malkin; F P Li; L C Strong; J F Fraumeni; C E Nelson; D H Kim; J Kassel; M A Gryka; F Z Bischoff; M A Tainsky Journal: Science Date: 1990-11-30 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Anthony Renwick; Deborah Thompson; Sheila Seal; Patrick Kelly; Tasnim Chagtai; Munaza Ahmed; Bernard North; Hiran Jayatilake; Rita Barfoot; Katarina Spanova; Lesley McGuffog; D Gareth Evans; Diana Eccles; Douglas F Easton; Michael R Stratton; Nazneen Rahman Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2006-07-09 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: John P A Ioannidis; Marta Gwinn; Julian Little; Julian P T Higgins; Jonine L Bernstein; Paolo Boffetta; Melissa Bondy; Molly S Bray; Paul E Brenchley; Patricia A Buffler; Juan Pablo Casas; Anand Chokkalingam; John Danesh; George Davey Smith; Siobhan Dolan; Ross Duncan; Nelleke A Gruis; Patricia Hartge; Mia Hashibe; David J Hunter; Marjo-Riitta Jarvelin; Beatrice Malmer; Demetrius M Maraganore; Julia A Newton-Bishop; Thomas R O'Brien; Gloria Petersen; Elio Riboli; Georgia Salanti; Daniela Seminara; Liam Smeeth; Emanuela Taioli; Nic Timpson; Andre G Uitterlinden; Paolo Vineis; Nick Wareham; Deborah M Winn; Ron Zimmern; Muin J Khoury Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Chan Xiang; Haidong Gao; Lei Meng; Zhaoyu Qin; Rong Ma; Yang Liu; Yan Jiang; Chengxue Dang; Li Jin; Fuchu He; Haijian Wang Journal: Cancer Sci Date: 2012-04-12 Impact factor: 6.716
Authors: Katie M O'Brien; Stephen R Cole; Charles Poole; Jeannette T Bensen; Amy H Herring; Lawrence S Engel; Robert C Millikan Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-11-10 Impact factor: 4.897
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