Literature DB >> 23894282

Quantitative assessment of 2q35-rs13387042 polymorphism and hormone receptor status with breast cancer risk.

Chao Gu1, Liang Zhou, Jianping Yu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The association between rs13387042 polymorphism on 2q35 and breast cancer (BC) has been widely evaluated since it was first identified through genome-wide association approach. However, the results have been inconclusive. To investigate this inconsistency, we performed a meta-analysis of all available studies dealing with the relationship between the 2q35-rs13387042 polymorphism and BC.
METHODS: Databases including MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, ISI web of science and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) were searched to find relevant studies. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the strength of association. The random-effects model was applied, addressing heterogeneity and publication bias.
RESULTS: A total of 24 articles involving 99,772 cases and 164,985 controls were included. In a combined analysis, the summary per-allele odds ratio (OR) for BC of 2q35-rs13387042 polymorphism was 1.13 (95% CI: 1.11-1.16; P<10(-5)). Significant associations were also detected under co-dominant, dominant and recessive genetic models. In the subgroup analysis by ethnicity, significantly increased risks were found in Asians, Caucasians and Hispanic whites for the polymorphism in all comparisons; whereas no significant associations were found among Africans. In addition, we find 2q35-rs13387042 polymorphism conferred significantly risks for both ER-positive and ER-negative tumors. Furthermore, significant associations were also detected both in PR-positive and PR-negative cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrated that rs13387042-A allele is a risk-conferring factors for the development of BC, especially in Asians, Caucasians and Hispanic whites.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23894282      PMCID: PMC3718795          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066979

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


Introduction

Breast cancer (BC), as a substantial global public health concern, is one of the most common cancers diagnosed in women and is the primary cause of death among women in both the developing and developed world [1]. It is estimated that over one million women are diagnosed with BC every year, and more than 410,000 will die from the disease [2]. During the past two decades, there are well-documented reductions in mortality from BC in many counties. However, incidence rates continue to increase and do so more rapidly in countries that historically had low rates [3]. The etiology of BC is extremely complex and, while not yet elucidated, appears to involve numerous genetic, endocrine, and external environmental factors [4]. Family history is an important risk factor for BC. The risk of developing BC for a woman with a first-degree affected relative is increased 2-fold [5]. The risk is even greater for women with multiple cases in family members. BC may be attributable to mutations in high-penetrance genes such as BRCA1, BRCA2, p53 and PTEN, as well as moderate or low penetrance genes (e.g., CHEK2, ATM, HRAS1, BRIP1, and PALB2), but these mutations account for a relatively small proportion of the heritable risk in these BC families [6], [7]. Since 2007, several genome-wide association studies of BC [5], [8]–[10], have identified a number of genetic susceptibility loci that are associated with the risk of BC. Recently, a genome-wide association (GWA) study conducted in European ancestry population by Stacey et al. identified a new genetic susceptibility locus, rs13387042, at chromosome 2q35 was associated with BC risk [11]. After that, a number of studies have investigated the association between 2q35 rs13387042 polymorphism and BC risk. However, these studies have yielded conflicting or inconclusive result. These disparate findings may be due partly to insufficient power, phenotypic heterogeneity, population stratification, small effect of the polymorphism on BC risk, and even publication biases. Therefore, we carried out a comprehensive meta-analysis on all eligible studies to estimate the overall BC risk of 2q35-rs13387042 polymorphism as well as to quantify the between-study heterogeneity and potential bias.

Materials and Methods

We performed this analysis in accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement [12] (Checklist S1).

Literature search strategy and inclusion criteria

Epidemiological genetic association studies published before the end of December 2012 on breast cancer and polymorphism in the chromosome 2q35 were sought by computer-based searches from databases including MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, ISI web of science and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) without language restriction. Search term combinations were keywords relating to the chromosome 2q35 (e.g., “2q35”, “rs13387042”) in combination with words related to breast cancer (e.g., breast cancer' or ‘malignant breast neoplasm’). All searched studies were retrieved, and their bibliographies were checked for other relevant publications. Review articles and bibliographies of other relevant studies identified were hand-searched to find additional eligible studies. Articles were included in this meta-analysis if they (a) examined the hypothesis that 2q35-rs13387042 polymorphism was associated with BC risk, (b) followed a case-control or cohort study design, (c) identify BC cases histologically or pathologically, and (d) provided sufficient information on genotype/allele counts between cases and controls to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The major reasons for exclusion of studies were (a) overlapping data, (b) case-only studies, (c) familiar based studies and review articles.

Data extraction

Information was carefully extracted from all eligible publications independently by two of the authors according to the inclusion criteria listed above. The following variables were extracted from each study if available: the first author, published year, study design, geographic area, ethnicity, mean age of cases and controls, case-control match status, definition and numbers of cases and controls, source of controls, genotyping method, frequency of genotypes, and Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) in controls. Relevant clinical characteristics included estrogen receptor (ER) status, progesterone receptor (PR) status, ERBB2 status, and tumor grade. Review reports from the two were than compared to identify any inconsistency, and differences were resolved by further discussion among all authors. Studies with different ethnic groups were considered as individual studies for our analyses.

Quality assessment: extended-quality score

For association studies with inconsistent results on the same polymorphisms, the methodological quality should be assessed by appropriate criteria to limit the risk of introducing bias into meta-analyses or systematic reviews. A procedure known as ‘extended-quality score’, has been developed to assess the quality of association studies. The procedure scores each paper categorizing it as having ‘high’, ‘median’ or ‘poor’ quality. Detailed procedure of the quality assessment was previously described [13].

Statistical methods

Deviation from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium for controls was examined by χ2 tests with 1 degree of freedom. OR with 95% CIs was used to assess the strength of association between the 2q35-rs13387042 polymorphism and BC risk. The meta-analysis examined the association between the polymorphism and the risk of BC for the: (1) allele contrast, (2) heterozygous, (3) homozygote, (5) dominant, and (6) recessive model. Heterogeneity across individual studies was calculated using the Cochran's Q-statistic test followed by subsidiary analysis or by random-effects regression models with restricted maximum likelihood estimation [14]–[16]. The Q test was also performed to detect heterogeneity between subgroups. Random-effects and fixed-effect summary measures were calculated as inverse-variance–weighted average of the log odds ratio. The results of random-effects summary were reported in the text because it takes into account the variation between studies. Sources of heterogeneity were investigated by stratified meta-analyses based on ethnicity, sample size (No. cases ≥1000 or, <1000), ER and PR status. In addition, ethnicity, sample size, genotyping method and quality score were analyzed as covariates in meta-regression. The significance of the overall OR was determined by the Z-test. Publication bias was assessed with the Begg test [17] and Egger test [18]. Sensitivity analysis was performed by removing each individual study in turn from the total and re-analyzing the remainder. This procedure was used to ensure that no individual study was entirely responsible for the combined results. Statistical power (nominal α = 0.05) of this meta-analysis based on overall sample size was calculated with the pooled OR estimate from different ethnicity and minor allele frequency in controls [19]. The analyses were carried out by using the STATA software version 10.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX). The type I error rate was set at 0.05. All P-values were two-tailed.

Results

Characteristics of included studies

Study selection process was shown in Figure S1. A total of 24 studies with 99,772 cancer cases and 164,985 controls were retrieved based on the search criteria for BC susceptibility related to the 2q35-rs13387042 polymorphism [11], [20]–[42]. In addition, all studies indicated that the frequency distributions of genotypes in the controls were consistent with Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium. The extended-quality scores ranged from 5 to 8, and 4 studies were given median quality, whereas 20 were given high quality. No ‘poor quality’ study was found. The statistical power of this meta-analysis based on overall sample size was 93%. The main study characteristics were summarized in Table 1.
Table 1

Characteristics of studies included in a meta-analysis of the association between 2q35-rs13387042 and BC.

ReferenceYearCountryEthnicityCases/controlsMatching criteriaGenotyping methodQuality score
Dai [20] 2012ChinaAsian1771/1851Age and regionTaqManHigh
Lin [21] 2012ChinaAsian88/69AgeSNP ArrayMedian
Sueta [22] 2012JapanAsian697/1394Menopausal status and ageTaqManMedian
Kim [23] 2012KoreaAsian2257/2052Age and regionSNP Array, TaqManHigh
He [24] 2012Europe, USACaucasian3683/34174Ethnicity and ageTaqManHigh
Harlid [25] 2012Sweden, Iceland, PolandCaucasian3393/4837AgeMassARRAYHigh
Huo [26] 2012NigeriaAfrican1509/1383AgeGoldenGateHigh
Shan [27] 2012TunisiaAfrican640/367AgeTaqManMedian
Fletcher [28] 2011UKCaucasian7643/7443Ethnicity, age and postmenopausal hormone useSNP Array, GoldenGateHigh
Stevens [29] 2011Europe, Australia, USACaucasian2977/4976Ethnicity and ageiPLEXHigh
Teraoka [30] 2011Denmark, USACaucasian704/1386Ethnicity, age and regionGolden GateHigh
Li [31] 2011Sweden, FinlandCaucasian1557/4584Ethnicity, age and regionSNP ArrayHigh
Jiang [32] 2011ChinaAsian492/510Ethnicity and ageSNaPshotMedian
Chen [33] 2011USAAfrican3016/2745Ethnicity and ageSNP ArrayHigh
Hutter [34] 2011USAAfrican316/7484NASNP ArrayHigh
Slattery [35] 2011USACaucasian, Hispanic white1733/2041Ethnicity and ageTaqManHigh
Campa [36] 2011USA, EuropeCaucasian, Hispanic white, Asian, African8314/11589Ethnicity and ageTaqmanHigh
Reeves [37] 2010UKCaucasian10306/10393Ethnicity, age and regionTaqManHigh
Zheng [38] 2010ChineseChinese3039/3082AgeSNP ArrayHigh
Barnholtz-Sloan [39] 2010USAAfrican1230/1117Ethnicity and ageGoldenGateHigh
Antoniou [40] 2009Europe, Australia, USA, CanadaCaucasian7805/6675Ethnicity, age and regionTaqMan, iPLEX, SequencingHigh
Milne [41] 2009Europe, Australia, USA, China, KoreaCaucasian, Asian31511/35969Ethnicity, age and regioniPLEXHigh
Zheng [42] 2009USAAfrican810/1784AgeMassarrayHigh
Stacey [11] 2008Iceland, Sweden, Holland, SpainCaucasian4420/17365Ethnicity and ageMicroarray, Nanongen Centaurus assaysHigh

NA: not applicable.

NA: not applicable.

Quantitative synthesis

Table 2 listed the main results of this meta-analysis. Using random effect model, the per-allele overall OR of the A variant for BC was 1.13 (95% CI: 1.11–1.16, P<10−5; Figure 1], with corresponding results for heterozygous and homozygote of 1.13 (95% CI: 1.10–1.15, P<10−5) and 1.20 (95% CI: 1.16–1.25, P<10−5), respectively. Significant associations were also found under dominant [OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.10–1.15, P<10−5] and recessive [OR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.14–1.26, P<10−5] genetic models (Table S1).
Table 2

Results of meta-analysis for 2q35-rs13387042 polymorphism and BC risk.

Overall and subgroups analysesNo. of cases/controlsA vs. GAG vs. GGAA vs. GG
OR (95%CI)PP(Q)a P(Q)b OR (95%CI)PP(Q)a P(Q)b OR (95%CI)PP(Q)a P(Q)b
Overall99772/1649851.13 (1.11–1.16)<10−5 0.0041.13 (1.10–1.15)<10−5 0.151.20 (1.16–1.25)<10−5 <10−5
Ethnicity0.0060.01<10−4
Asian11681/117731.12 (1.03–1.21)0.0040.181.11 (1.03–1.20)0.0060.301.17 (1.04–1.32)0.0080.68
Caucasian80040/1374761.14 (1.11–1.17)<10−5 0.011.13 (1.11–1.16)<10−5 0.151.21 (1.16–1.26)<10−5 <10−5
African6692/141931.07 (0.99–1.16)0.070.131.06 (0.97–1.16)0.190.341.10 (0.93–1.29)0.270.10
Hispanic white1359/15431.24 (1.11–1.37)<10−4 0.941.25 (1.09–1.44)0.0010.631.31(1.12–1.53)0.0010.45
Sample size0.240.130.09
<100012459/275061.18 (1.13–1.23)<10−5 0.221.16 (1.11–1.21)<10−5 0.451.22 (1.14–1.30)<10−5 0.12
≥100087313/1374791.12 (1.09–1.15)<10−5 0.0031.12 (1.09–1.16)<10−5 0.091.20 (1.14–1.26)<10−5 <10−5

Q statistic test used to assess the heterogeneity in subgroups.

Q statistic test used to assess the heterogeneity between subgroups.

Figure 1

Forest plot for association of 2q35-rs13387042 polymorphism and BC risk.

Q statistic test used to assess the heterogeneity in subgroups. Q statistic test used to assess the heterogeneity between subgroups. Significant heterogeneity was present among the included studies of the rs13387042 polymorphism (P<0.05). Ethnicity (P = 0.002) and sample size (P = 0.03) explained a large part of the heterogeneity, whereas genotyping method (P = 0.47), genotyping method (P = 0.23), and quality score (P = 0.55) explained little heterogeneity. In view of significant heterogeneity and to seek for its potential sources, we performed a panel of subgroup analyses on ethnicity and sample size. When stratifying for ethnicity, an OR of 1.12 (95% CI: 1.03–1.21, P<10−5) and 1.14 (95% CI: 1.11–1.17, P<10−5) resulted for rs13387042-A variant, among Asians and Caucasians, respectively. Significant associations were also found among Hispanic white with a per-allele OR of 1.24 (95% CI: 1.11–1.37, P<10−4), while no significant associations were detected in African populations for the polymorphism. Since, between-study heterogeneity decrease significantly, ethnicity was identified as a main source of heterogeneity. By considering sample size subgroups, the OR was 1.18 (95% CI: 1.13–1.23, P<10−5) in small studies compared to 1.12 (95% CI: 1.09–1.15, P<10−5) in larger studies. Similar results were also detected under co-dominant, dominant and recessive genetic models.

Interactions between rs13387042 and hormone receptor status with BC risk

Because ER and PR status is one of the major markers of BC subtypes, we further performed analyses to test for differences in the associations of the polymorphism with BC risk with respect to different ER and PR status (Table 3). Stratification of tumors by ER status indicated that rs13387042 polymorphism increased risk of both ER-positive and ER-negative tumors. However, stronger association was observed with ER-positive tumors 1.17 (95% CI: 1.15–1.19, P<10−5) compared to ER-negative tumors 1.08 (95% CI: 1.04–1.13, P<10−4). In addition, 2q35-rs13387042 was associated with greater risk of PR-positive BC (OR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.15–1.21, P<10−5) than PR-negative BC (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.05–1.15, P<10−4).
Table 3

Per-allele OR for rs13387042-A variant and BC risk stratified by hormone receptor status.

Hormone receptorOverall and subgroup analysisNo. of cases/controlsOR (95%CI)PP(Q)a P(Q)b
ERPositive32599/960901.17 (1.15–1.19)<10−5 0.39<10−4
Caucasian only28453/867931.18 (1.14–1.21)<10−5 0.15
Asian only3239/74351.14 (1.04–1.24)0.0050.63
Negative14519/981571.08 (1.04–1.13)<10−4 0.15
Caucasian only10696/881201.08 (1.05–1.12)<10−5 0.37
Asian only1828/69251.11 (0.90–1.37)0.310.02
PRPositive19194/561881.18 (1.15–1.21)<10−5 0.57<10−4
Caucasian only16611/513921.19 (1.14–1.24)<10−5 0.20
Asian only2416/44291.22 (1.08–1.37)0.0010.88
Negative13080/587301.10 (1.05–1.15)<10−4 0.16
Caucasian only8337/494681.09 (1.04–1.13)<10−4 0.20
Asian only1537/39191.20 (0.95–1.51)0.130.08

Q statistic test used to assess the heterogeneity in subgroups.

Q statistic test used to assess the heterogeneity between subgroups.

Q statistic test used to assess the heterogeneity in subgroups. Q statistic test used to assess the heterogeneity between subgroups.

Sensitivity analyses and publication bias

Sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding one study at a time. The results confirmed the significant association between the rs13387042 polymorphism and the risk of BC, with ORs and 95% CIs ranging from 1.13 (95% CI: 1.11–1.15) to 1.14 (95% CI: 1.11–1.16). Begg's funnel plot and Egger's test were performed to evaluate the publication bias of literatures. As shown in Figures S2, the shape of the funnel plots seemed symmetrical, suggesting no publication bias among the studies included. The statistical results still did not show publication bias (Begg test, P = 0.24; Egger test, P = 0.77; Figure S3)

Discussion

The pathogenesis of the development and progression of BC is far from being clear at present. Accumulated evidence suggests that it is a complex polygenic disorder for which genetic factors play an important role in disease etiology [4]. Common variation rs13387042 at 2q35 was originally identified in large GWA study in European population [11]. Since then, extensive case-control studies in different populations reported that the rs13387042 polymorphism in 2q35 has been implicated in BC risk. However, results of genetic association studies were confusing because of the difficulty in replicating significant associations. Different characteristics among studies such as ethnicities, BC subtype, definition of case and control, introduced heterogeneity and made the results of association studies hard to be interpreted. A meta-analysis aiming at finding out the origin of heterogeneity and assessing overall effects of these variants on BC was performed. This is the first comprehensive meta-analysis that examined the rs13387042 polymorphisms in 2q35 and the relationship with susceptibility for BC. Its strength was based on the accumulation of published data giving greater information to detect significant differences. In total, the meta-analysis involved 24 studies for BC that provided 99,772 cases and 164,985 controls. Overall, a significant association existed between the 2q35 rs13387042 variant and BC risk. In the subgroup analysis, study conducted in Caucasian populations was responsible for heterogeneity, and the ORs between different genetic models and sample size were consistent. The rs13387042 showed positive association with BC in Asian, Caucasian and Hispanic white populations. However, no associations were found in African descent population. In fact, the distribution of the less common G allele varies extensively between different races, with a prevalence of ∼88% among Asians, ∼49% among Caucasians and ∼28% among African population [34]–[36]. Thus, failing to identify any significant association in Caucasians and other populations could be due to substantially lower statistical power caused by the relatively lower prevalence of G allele of rs13387042. Such result could also be due to the limited number of studies among African populations, which had insufficient statistical power to detect a slight effect or different linkage disequilibrium (LD) pattern of the polymorphism among African populations. Therefore, additional studies are warranted to further validate ethnic difference in the effect of this polymorphism on BC risk. It is possible that variation at this locus has modest effects on BC, but environmental factors may predominate in the progress of BC, and mask the effects of this variation. Specific life style environmental factors, such as estrogen exposure status and smoking habit have been already well studied in recent decades [4]. The unconsidered factors mixed together may cover the role of 2q35-rs13387042 polymorphism. Findings from previous studies suggested that several SNPs are predominantly associated with ER+ breast cancer: TNRC9-rs3803662 [11], [37], [41], 5p12-rs4415084 [9], 5p12-rs10941679 [9], FGFR2-rs2981582 [9], [43] 8q24-rs13281615 [44]. In our results, 2q35-rs13387042 was associated with both ER+ and ER− BC. Similar risks were also observed when stratified by PR status. SNP 2q35-rs13387042 showed a strongly statistically significant association with risk in ER+ and PR+ cases compared to ER− and PR− cases. Because ER and PR status are the major markers of BC subtypes, these observations suggest that inherited risk variants of these subtypes may vary. The magnitude of the observed differences is small, and by themselves these findings are unlikely to have any immediate clinical implications. However, the observed differences provide clues to the biologic mechanisms that underpin tumor heterogeneity, which may ultimately lead to improved treatment and prevention. Since rs13387042 is located in a 90-kb region of high LD without any known genes or human RNAs, indicating that further study of the biological function of this SNP is necessary. The strengths of this study include the very large sample size, no deviation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and the high quality of the qualified studies. However, our current study should be interpreted with several technical limitations in mind. Firstly, the vast majority of white subjects in the study are of European descent, and statistical power for analyses in other ethnicities is limited. Because the sample size was considerably smaller for African studies, the main conclusions from this manuscript are based on analyses among white European and Asian women. Future studies including larger numbers of Africans are necessary to clarify the consistency of findings across ethnic groups. Secondly, our results were based on unadjusted estimates, while a more precise analysis should be conducted if individual data were available, which would allow for the adjustment by other covariates including age, menopausal status, family history, environmental factors and lifestyle [4]. Third, only published studies were included in this meta-analysis. Therefore, publication bias may have occurred, even though the use of a statistical test did not show it. Recently, two meta-analyses found that SLC4A7 and XRCC1 were associated with increased BC susceptibility [45], [46]. BC is an extremely complex disease and the same polymorphism may have different roles in different ethnicity. Using meta-analysis to combine all available evidence may help to identify new loci for BC susceptibility and thus provide insight into the in vivo relationship between candidate genes and BC. An improved understanding of the pathogenesis of BC will be beneficial in the diagnosis of prodromal symptoms and in establishing appropriate therapeutic intervention to prevent the onset and the progression of BC. In summary, findings from this meta-analysis indicate that 2q35 rs13387042 polymorphism is significantly associated with an increased risk of BC. Further studies should investigate the markers on and adjacent to 2q35 to clarify whether the present association is causal or due to linkage disequilibrium. Flow chart of literature search for studies examining 2q35-rs13387042 polymorphism and risk of BC. (TIF) Click here for additional data file. Begg's funnel plot of 2q35-rs13387042 polymorphism and BC risk. (TIF) Click here for additional data file. Test publication bias of studies of the 2q35-rs13387042 polymorphism of and BC using Egger test. (TIF) Click here for additional data file. Results of meta-analysis for 2q35-rs13387042 polymorphism and BC risk under dominant and recessive genetic model. (DOCX) Click here for additional data file. PRISMA 2009 Checklist (DOC) Click here for additional data file.
  45 in total

1.  A combined analysis of genome-wide association studies in breast cancer.

Authors:  Jingmei Li; Keith Humphreys; Tuomas Heikkinen; Kristiina Aittomäki; Carl Blomqvist; Paul D P Pharoah; Alison M Dunning; Shahana Ahmed; Maartje J Hooning; John W M Martens; Ans M W van den Ouweland; Lars Alfredsson; Aarno Palotie; Leena Peltonen-Palotie; Astrid Irwanto; Hui Qi Low; Garrett H K Teoh; Anbupalam Thalamuthu; Douglas F Easton; Heli Nevanlinna; Jianjun Liu; Kamila Czene; Per Hall
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2010-09-26       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  The SLC4A7 variant rs4973768 is associated with breast cancer risk: evidence from a case-control study and a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wei Chen; Rong Zhong; Jie Ming; Li Zou; Beibei Zhu; Xuzai Lu; Juntao Ke; Yu Zhang; Li Liu; Xiaoping Miao; Tao Huang
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2012-11-02       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Evaluation of 19 susceptibility loci of breast cancer in women of African ancestry.

Authors:  Dezheng Huo; Yonglan Zheng; Temidayo O Ogundiran; Clement Adebamowo; Katherine L Nathanson; Susan M Domchek; Timothy R Rebbeck; Michael S Simon; Esther M John; Anselm Hennis; Barbara Nemesure; Suh-Yuh Wu; M Cristina Leske; Stefan Ambs; Qun Niu; Jing Zhang; Nancy J Cox; Olufunmilayo I Olopade
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  2012-02-22       Impact factor: 4.944

4.  Evaluation of 11 breast cancer susceptibility loci in African-American women.

Authors:  Wei Zheng; Qiuyin Cai; Lisa B Signorello; Jirong Long; Margaret K Hargreaves; Sandra L Deming; Guoliang Li; Chun Li; Yong Cui; William J Blot
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Genome-wide association study identifies a new breast cancer susceptibility locus at 6q25.1.

Authors:  Wei Zheng; Jirong Long; Yu-Tang Gao; Chun Li; Ying Zheng; Yong-Bin Xiang; Wanqing Wen; Shawn Levy; Sandra L Deming; Jonathan L Haines; Kai Gu; Alecia Malin Fair; Qiuyin Cai; Wei Lu; Xiao-Ou Shu
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2009-02-15       Impact factor: 38.330

6.  Common variants on chromosome 5p12 confer susceptibility to estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Simon N Stacey; Andrei Manolescu; Patrick Sulem; Steinunn Thorlacius; Sigurjon A Gudjonsson; Gudbjörn F Jonsson; Margret Jakobsdottir; Jon T Bergthorsson; Julius Gudmundsson; Katja K Aben; Luc J Strobbe; Dorine W Swinkels; K C Anton van Engelenburg; Brian E Henderson; Laurence N Kolonel; Loic Le Marchand; Esther Millastre; Raquel Andres; Berta Saez; Julio Lambea; Javier Godino; Eduardo Polo; Alejandro Tres; Simone Picelli; Johanna Rantala; Sara Margolin; Thorvaldur Jonsson; Helgi Sigurdsson; Thora Jonsdottir; Jon Hrafnkelsson; Jakob Johannsson; Thorarinn Sveinsson; Gardar Myrdal; Hlynur Niels Grimsson; Steinunn G Sveinsdottir; Kristin Alexiusdottir; Jona Saemundsdottir; Asgeir Sigurdsson; Jelena Kostic; Larus Gudmundsson; Kristleifur Kristjansson; Gisli Masson; James D Fackenthal; Clement Adebamowo; Temidayo Ogundiran; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Christopher A Haiman; Annika Lindblom; Jose I Mayordomo; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Jeffrey R Gulcher; Thorunn Rafnar; Unnur Thorsteinsdottir; Oskar T Johannsson; Augustine Kong; Kari Stefansson
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2008-04-27       Impact factor: 38.330

7.  Risk of estrogen receptor-positive and -negative breast cancer and single-nucleotide polymorphism 2q35-rs13387042.

Authors:  Roger L Milne; Javier Benítez; Heli Nevanlinna; Tuomas Heikkinen; Kristiina Aittomäki; Carl Blomqvist; José Ignacio Arias; M Pilar Zamora; Barbara Burwinkel; Claus R Bartram; Alfons Meindl; Rita K Schmutzler; Angela Cox; Ian Brock; Graeme Elliott; Malcolm W R Reed; Melissa C Southey; Letitia Smith; Amanda B Spurdle; John L Hopper; Fergus J Couch; Janet E Olson; Xianshu Wang; Zachary Fredericksen; Peter Schürmann; Michael Bremer; Peter Hillemanns; Thilo Dörk; Peter Devilee; Christie J van Asperen; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Caroline Seynaeve; Per Hall; Kamila Czene; Jianjun Liu; Yuqing Li; Shahana Ahmed; Alison M Dunning; Melanie Maranian; Paul D P Pharoah; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Jonathan Beesley; Natalia V Bogdanova; Natalia N Antonenkova; Iosif V Zalutsky; Hoda Anton-Culver; Argyrios Ziogas; Hiltrud Brauch; Christina Justenhoven; Yon-Dschun Ko; Susanne Haas; Peter A Fasching; Reiner Strick; Arif B Ekici; Matthias W Beckmann; Graham G Giles; Gianluca Severi; Laura Baglietto; Dallas R English; Olivia Fletcher; Nichola Johnson; Isabel dos Santos Silva; Julian Peto; Clare Turnbull; Sarah Hines; Anthony Renwick; Nazneen Rahman; Børge G Nordestgaard; Stig E Bojesen; Henrik Flyger; Daehee Kang; Keun-Young Yoo; Dong-Young Noh; Arto Mannermaa; Vesa Kataja; Veli-Matti Kosma; Montserrat García-Closas; Stephen Chanock; Jolanta Lissowska; Louise A Brinton; Jenny Chang-Claude; Shan Wang-Gohrke; Chen-Yang Shen; Hui-Chun Wang; Jyh-Cherng Yu; Sou-Tong Chen; Marina Bermisheva; Tatjana Nikolaeva; Elza Khusnutdinova; Manjeet K Humphreys; Jonathan Morrison; Radka Platte; Douglas F Easton
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  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

9.  Reproductive aging-associated common genetic variants and the risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Chunyan He; Daniel I Chasman; Jill Dreyfus; Shih-Jen Hwang; Rikje Ruiter; Serena Sanna; Julie E Buring; Lindsay Fernández-Rhodes; Nora Franceschini; Susan E Hankinson; Albert Hofman; Kathryn L Lunetta; Giuseppe Palmieri; Eleonora Porcu; Fernando Rivadeneira; Lynda M Rose; Greta L Splansky; Lisette Stolk; André G Uitterlinden; Stephen J Chanock; Laura Crisponi; Ellen W Demerath; Joanne M Murabito; Paul M Ridker; Bruno H Stricker; David J Hunter
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Genome-wide association study identifies novel breast cancer susceptibility loci.

Authors:  Douglas F Easton; Karen A Pooley; Alison M Dunning; Paul D P Pharoah; Deborah Thompson; Dennis G Ballinger; Jeffery P Struewing; Jonathan Morrison; Helen Field; Robert Luben; Nicholas Wareham; Shahana Ahmed; Catherine S Healey; Richard Bowman; Kerstin B Meyer; Christopher A Haiman; Laurence K Kolonel; Brian E Henderson; Loic Le Marchand; Paul Brennan; Suleeporn Sangrajrang; Valerie Gaborieau; Fabrice Odefrey; Chen-Yang Shen; Pei-Ei Wu; Hui-Chun Wang; Diana Eccles; D Gareth Evans; Julian Peto; Olivia Fletcher; Nichola Johnson; Sheila Seal; Michael R Stratton; Nazneen Rahman; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Stig E Bojesen; Børge G Nordestgaard; Christen K Axelsson; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Louise Brinton; Stephen Chanock; Jolanta Lissowska; Beata Peplonska; Heli Nevanlinna; Rainer Fagerholm; Hannaleena Eerola; Daehee Kang; Keun-Young Yoo; Dong-Young Noh; Sei-Hyun Ahn; David J Hunter; Susan E Hankinson; David G Cox; Per Hall; Sara Wedren; Jianjun Liu; Yen-Ling Low; Natalia Bogdanova; Peter Schürmann; Thilo Dörk; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Catharina E Jacobi; Peter Devilee; Jan G M Klijn; Alice J Sigurdson; Michele M Doody; Bruce H Alexander; Jinghui Zhang; Angela Cox; Ian W Brock; Gordon MacPherson; Malcolm W R Reed; Fergus J Couch; Ellen L Goode; Janet E Olson; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Ans van den Ouweland; André Uitterlinden; Fernando Rivadeneira; Roger L Milne; Gloria Ribas; Anna Gonzalez-Neira; Javier Benitez; John L Hopper; Margaret McCredie; Melissa Southey; Graham G Giles; Chris Schroen; Christina Justenhoven; Hiltrud Brauch; Ute Hamann; Yon-Dschun Ko; Amanda B Spurdle; Jonathan Beesley; Xiaoqing Chen; Arto Mannermaa; Veli-Matti Kosma; Vesa Kataja; Jaana Hartikainen; Nicholas E Day; David R Cox; Bruce A J Ponder
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2007-06-28       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  4 in total

1.  Comparing the value of mammographic features and genetic variants in breast cancer risk prediction.

Authors:  Yirong Wu; Jie Liu; David Page; Peggy Peissig; Catherine McCarty; Adedayo A Onitilo; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2014-11-14

2.  Analyzing 395,793 samples shows significant association between rs999737 polymorphism and breast cancer.

Authors:  Haiying Dong; Zhiying Gao; Chengchong Li; Junping Wang; Ming Jin; Hua Rong; Yingcai Niu; Jicheng Liu
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-04-12

3.  The use of the Gail model, body mass index and SNPs to predict breast cancer among women with abnormal (BI-RADS 4) mammograms.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Brad Keller; Despina Kontos; Leigh Boghossian; Erin McGuire; Mirar Bristol; Jinbo Chen; Susan Domchek; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 6.466

4.  Associations of Genetic Variants at Nongenic Susceptibility Loci with Breast Cancer Risk and Heterogeneity by Tumor Subtype in Southern Han Chinese Women.

Authors:  Huiying Liang; Hong Li; Xuexi Yang; Lujia Chen; Anna Zhu; Minying Sun; Changsheng Ye; Ming Li
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-02-28       Impact factor: 3.411

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.