Literature DB >> 22972951

Prediction of breast cancer risk by genetic risk factors, overall and by hormone receptor status.

Anika Hüsing1, Federico Canzian, Lars Beckmann, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, W Ryan Diver, Michael J Thun, Christine D Berg, Robert N Hoover, Regina G Ziegler, Jonine D Figueroa, Claudine Isaacs, Anja Olsen, Vivian Viallon, Heiner Boeing, Giovanna Masala, Dimitrios Trichopoulos, Petra H M Peeters, Eiliv Lund, Eva Ardanaz, Kay-Tee Khaw, Per Lenner, Laurence N Kolonel, Daniel O Stram, Loïc Le Marchand, Catherine A McCarty, Julie E Buring, I-Min Lee, Shumin Zhang, Sara Lindström, Susan E Hankinson, Elio Riboli, David J Hunter, Brian E Henderson, Stephen J Chanock, Christopher A Haiman, Peter Kraft, Rudolf Kaaks.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: There is increasing interest in adding common genetic variants identified through genome wide association studies (GWAS) to breast cancer risk prediction models. First results from such models showed modest benefits in terms of risk discrimination. Heterogeneity of breast cancer as defined by hormone-receptor status has not been considered in this context. In this study we investigated the predictive capacity of 32 GWAS-detected common variants for breast cancer risk, alone and in combination with classical risk factors, and for tumours with different hormone receptor status.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Within the Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium, we analysed 6009 invasive breast cancer cases and 7827 matched controls of European ancestry, with data on classical breast cancer risk factors and 32 common gene variants identified through GWAS. Discriminatory ability with respect to breast cancer of specific hormone receptor-status was assessed with the age adjusted and cohort-adjusted concordance statistic (AUROC(a)). Absolute risk scores were calculated with external reference data. Integrated discrimination improvement was used to measure improvements in risk prediction.
RESULTS: We found a small but steady increase in discriminatory ability with increasing numbers of genetic variants included in the model (difference in AUROC(a) going from 2.7% to 4%). Discriminatory ability for all models varied strongly by hormone receptor status. DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSIONS: Adding information on common polymorphisms provides small but statistically significant improvements in the quality of breast cancer risk prediction models. We consistently observed better performance for receptor-positive cases, but the gain in discriminatory quality is not sufficient for clinical application.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22972951      PMCID: PMC3793888          DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2011-100716

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Genet        ISSN: 0022-2593            Impact factor:   6.318


  46 in total

1.  Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis.

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

2.  Chemoprevention of breast cancer: recommendations and rationale.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-07-02       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Interactions between genetic variants and breast cancer risk factors in the breast and prostate cancer cohort consortium.

Authors:  Daniele Campa; Rudolf Kaaks; Loïc Le Marchand; Christopher A Haiman; Ruth C Travis; Christine D Berg; Julie E Buring; Stephen J Chanock; W Ryan Diver; Lucie Dostal; Agnes Fournier; Susan E Hankinson; Brian E Henderson; Robert N Hoover; Claudine Isaacs; Mattias Johansson; Laurence N Kolonel; Peter Kraft; I-Min Lee; Catherine A McCarty; Kim Overvad; Salvatore Panico; Petra H M Peeters; Elio Riboli; Maria José Sanchez; Fredrick R Schumacher; Guri Skeie; Daniel O Stram; Michael J Thun; Dimitrios Trichopoulos; Shumin Zhang; Regina G Ziegler; David J Hunter; Sara Lindström; Federico Canzian
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-07-26       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Benefit/risk assessment for breast cancer chemoprevention with raloxifene or tamoxifen for women age 50 years or older.

Authors:  Andrew N Freedman; Binbing Yu; Mitchell H Gail; Joseph P Costantino; Barry I Graubard; Victor G Vogel; Garnet L Anderson; Worta McCaskill-Stevens
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-05-02       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Etiologic and early marker studies in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial.

Authors:  R B Hayes; D Reding; W Kopp; A F Subar; N Bhat; N Rothman; N Caporaso; R G Ziegler; C C Johnson; J L Weissfeld; R N Hoover; P Hartge; C Palace; J K Gohagan
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  2000-12

6.  The American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort: rationale, study design, and baseline characteristics.

Authors:  Eugenia E Calle; Carmen Rodriguez; Eric J Jacobs; M Lyn Almon; Ann Chao; Marjorie L McCullough; Heather S Feigelson; Michael J Thun
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2002-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  A multiethnic cohort in Hawaii and Los Angeles: baseline characteristics.

Authors:  L N Kolonel; B E Henderson; J H Hankin; A M Nomura; L R Wilkens; M C Pike; D O Stram; K R Monroe; M E Earle; F S Nagamine
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2000-02-15       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 8.  Screening for breast cancer with mammography.

Authors:  Peter C Gøtzsche; Margrethe Nielsen
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-01-19

9.  Common genetic variants and modification of penetrance of BRCA2-associated breast cancer.

Authors:  Mia M Gaudet; Tomas Kirchhoff; Todd Green; Joseph Vijai; Joshua M Korn; Candace Guiducci; Ayellet V Segrè; Kate McGee; Lesley McGuffog; Christiana Kartsonaki; Jonathan Morrison; Sue Healey; Olga M Sinilnikova; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Sylvie Mazoyer; Marion Gauthier-Villars; Hagay Sobol; Michel Longy; Marc Frenay; Frans B L Hogervorst; Matti A Rookus; J Margriet Collée; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Kees E P van Roozendaal; Marion Piedmonte; Wendy Rubinstein; Stacy Nerenstone; Linda Van Le; Stephanie V Blank; Trinidad Caldés; Miguel de la Hoya; Heli Nevanlinna; Kristiina Aittomäki; Conxi Lazaro; Ignacio Blanco; Adalgeir Arason; Oskar T Johannsson; Rosa B Barkardottir; Peter Devilee; Olofunmilayo I Olopade; Susan L Neuhausen; Xianshu Wang; Zachary S Fredericksen; Paolo Peterlongo; Siranoush Manoukian; Monica Barile; Alessandra Viel; Paolo Radice; Catherine M Phelan; Steven Narod; Gad Rennert; Flavio Lejbkowicz; Anath Flugelman; Irene L Andrulis; Gord Glendon; Hilmi Ozcelik; Amanda E Toland; Marco Montagna; Emma D'Andrea; Eitan Friedman; Yael Laitman; Ake Borg; Mary Beattie; Susan J Ramus; Susan M Domchek; Katherine L Nathanson; Tim Rebbeck; Amanda B Spurdle; Xiaoqing Chen; Helene Holland; Esther M John; John L Hopper; Saundra S Buys; Mary B Daly; Melissa C Southey; Mary Beth Terry; Nadine Tung; Thomas V Overeem Hansen; Finn C Nielsen; Mark H Greene; Mark I Greene; Phuong L Mai; Ana Osorio; Mercedes Durán; Raquel Andres; Javier Benítez; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Judy Garber; Ute Hamann; Susan Peock; Margaret Cook; Clare Oliver; Debra Frost; Radka Platte; D Gareth Evans; Fiona Lalloo; Ros Eeles; Louise Izatt; Lisa Walker; Jacqueline Eason; Julian Barwell; Andrew K Godwin; Rita K Schmutzler; Barbara Wappenschmidt; Stefanie Engert; Norbert Arnold; Dorothea Gadzicki; Michael Dean; Bert Gold; Robert J Klein; Fergus J Couch; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Douglas F Easton; Mark J Daly; Antonis C Antoniou; David M Altshuler; Kenneth Offit
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 5.917

10.  Novel breast cancer susceptibility locus at 9q31.2: results of a genome-wide association study.

Authors:  Olivia Fletcher; Nichola Johnson; Nick Orr; Fay J Hosking; Lorna J Gibson; Kate Walker; Diana Zelenika; Ivo Gut; Simon Heath; Claire Palles; Ben Coupland; Peter Broderick; Minouk Schoemaker; Michael Jones; Jill Williamson; Sarah Chilcott-Burns; Katarzyna Tomczyk; Gemma Simpson; Kevin B Jacobs; Stephen J Chanock; David J Hunter; Ian P Tomlinson; Anthony Swerdlow; Alan Ashworth; Gillian Ross; Isabel dos Santos Silva; Mark Lathrop; Richard S Houlston; Julian Peto
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-01-24       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  33 in total

Review 1.  Characterising the epigenome as a key component of the fetal exposome in evaluating in utero exposures and childhood cancer risk.

Authors:  Akram Ghantous; Hector Hernandez-Vargas; Graham Byrnes; Terence Dwyer; Zdenko Herceg
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 3.000

2.  Combined associations of genetic and environmental risk factors: implications for prevention of breast cancer.

Authors:  Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Necdet Burak Gunsoy; Nilanjan Chatterjee
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Additive interactions between susceptibility single-nucleotide polymorphisms identified in genome-wide association studies and breast cancer risk factors in the Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium.

Authors:  Amit D Joshi; Sara Lindström; Anika Hüsing; Myrto Barrdahl; Tyler J VanderWeele; Daniele Campa; Federico Canzian; Mia M Gaudet; Jonine D Figueroa; Laura Baglietto; Christine D Berg; Julie E Buring; Stephen J Chanock; María-Dolores Chirlaque; W Ryan Diver; Laure Dossus; Graham G Giles; Christopher A Haiman; Susan E Hankinson; Brian E Henderson; Robert N Hoover; David J Hunter; Claudine Isaacs; Rudolf Kaaks; Laurence N Kolonel; Vittorio Krogh; Loic Le Marchand; I-Min Lee; Eiliv Lund; Catherine A McCarty; Kim Overvad; Petra H Peeters; Elio Riboli; Fredrick Schumacher; Gianluca Severi; Daniel O Stram; Malin Sund; Michael J Thun; Ruth C Travis; Dimitrios Trichopoulos; Walter C Willett; Shumin Zhang; Regina G Ziegler; Peter Kraft
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Testing calibration of risk models at extremes of disease risk.

Authors:  Minsun Song; Peter Kraft; Amit D Joshi; Myrto Barrdahl; Nilanjan Chatterjee
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 5.899

5.  Computational gene expression modeling identifies salivary biomarker analysis that predict oral feeding readiness in the newborn.

Authors:  Jill L Maron; Jooyeon S Hwang; Subash Pathak; Robin Ruthazer; Ruby L Russell; Gil Alterovitz
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.406

6.  Variation in predictive ability of common genetic variants by established strata: the example of breast cancer and age.

Authors:  Hugues Aschard; Noah Zaitlen; Sara Lindström; Peter Kraft
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.822

7.  Inclusion of endogenous hormone levels in risk prediction models of postmenopausal breast cancer.

Authors:  Shelley S Tworoger; Xuehong Zhang; A Heather Eliassen; Jing Qian; Graham A Colditz; Walter C Willett; Bernard A Rosner; Peter Kraft; Susan E Hankinson
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-08-18       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Risk Prediction for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in 11 United States-Based Case-Control Studies: Incorporation of Epidemiologic Risk Factors and 17 Confirmed Genetic Loci.

Authors:  Merlise A Clyde; Rachel Palmieri Weber; Edwin S Iversen; Elizabeth M Poole; Jennifer A Doherty; Marc T Goodman; Roberta B Ness; Harvey A Risch; Mary Anne Rossing; Kathryn L Terry; Nicolas Wentzensen; Alice S Whittemore; Hoda Anton-Culver; Elisa V Bandera; Andrew Berchuck; Michael E Carney; Daniel W Cramer; Julie M Cunningham; Kara L Cushing-Haugen; Robert P Edwards; Brooke L Fridley; Ellen L Goode; Galina Lurie; Valerie McGuire; Francesmary Modugno; Kirsten B Moysich; Sara H Olson; Celeste Leigh Pearce; Malcolm C Pike; Joseph H Rothstein; Thomas A Sellers; Weiva Sieh; Daniel Stram; Pamela J Thompson; Robert A Vierkant; Kristine G Wicklund; Anna H Wu; Argyrios Ziogas; Shelley S Tworoger; Joellen M Schildkraut
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  Breast cancer risk prediction and mammography biopsy decisions: a model-based study.

Authors:  Katrina Armstrong; Elizabeth A Handorf; Jinbo Chen; Mirar N Bristol Demeter
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 5.043

10.  Validation of Polygenic Scores for QT Interval in Clinical Populations.

Authors:  Michael A Rosenberg; Steven A Lubitz; Honghuang Lin; Gulum Kosova; Victor M Castro; Paul Huang; Patrick T Ellinor; Roy H Perlis; Christopher Newton-Cheh
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Genet       Date:  2017-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.