Literature DB >> 25919761

Associations of common breast cancer susceptibility alleles with risk of breast cancer subtypes in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Karoline B Kuchenbaecker, Susan L Neuhausen, Mark Robson, Daniel Barrowdale, Lesley McGuffog, Anna Marie Mulligan, Irene L Andrulis, Amanda B Spurdle, Marjanka K Schmidt, Rita K Schmutzler, Christoph Engel, Barbara Wappenschmidt, Heli Nevanlinna, Mads Thomassen, Melissa Southey, Paolo Radice, Susan J Ramus, Susan M Domchek, Katherine L Nathanson, Andrew Lee, Sue Healey, Robert L Nussbaum, Timothy R Rebbeck, Banu K Arun, Paul James, Beth Y Karlan, Jenny Lester, Ilana Cass, Mary Beth Terry, Mary B Daly, David E Goldgar, Saundra S Buys, Ramunas Janavicius, Laima Tihomirova, Nadine Tung, Cecilia M Dorfling, Elizabeth J van Rensburg, Linda Steele, Thomas v O Hansen, Bent Ejlertsen, Anne-Marie Gerdes, Finn C Nielsen, Joe Dennis, Julie Cunningham, Steven Hart, Susan Slager, Ana Osorio, Javier Benitez, Mercedes Duran, Jeffrey N Weitzel, Isaac Tafur, Mary Hander, Paolo Peterlongo, Siranoush Manoukian, Bernard Peissel, Gaia Roversi, Giulietta Scuvera, Bernardo Bonanni, Paolo Mariani, Sara Volorio, Riccardo Dolcetti, Liliana Varesco, Laura Papi, Maria Grazia Tibiletti, Giuseppe Giannini, Florentia Fostira, Irene Konstantopoulou, Judy Garber, Ute Hamann, Alan Donaldson, Carole Brewer, Claire Foo, D Gareth Evans, Debra Frost, Diana Eccles, Fiona Douglas, Angela Brady, Jackie Cook, Marc Tischkowitz, Julian Adlard, Julian Barwell, Kai-ren Ong, Lisa Walker, Louise Izatt, Lucy E Side, M John Kennedy, Mark T Rogers, Mary E Porteous, Patrick J Morrison, Radka Platte, Ros Eeles, Rosemarie Davidson, Shirley Hodgson, Steve Ellis, Andrew K Godwin, Kerstin Rhiem, Alfons Meindl, Nina Ditsch, Norbert Arnold, Hansjoerg Plendl, Dieter Niederacher, Christian Sutter, Doris Steinemann, Nadja Bogdanova-Markov, Karin Kast, Raymonda Varon-Mateeva, Shan Wang-Gohrke, Andrea Gehrig, Birgid Markiefka, Bruno Buecher, Cédrick Lefol, Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet, Etienne Rouleau, Fabienne Prieur, Francesca Damiola, Laure Barjhoux, Laurence Faivre, Michel Longy, Nicolas Sevenet, Olga M Sinilnikova, Sylvie Mazoyer, Valérie Bonadona, Virginie Caux-Moncoutier, Claudine Isaacs, Tom Van Maerken, Kathleen Claes, Marion Piedmonte, Lesley Andrews, John Hays, Gustavo C Rodriguez, Trinidad Caldes, Miguel de la Hoya, Sofia Khan, Frans B L Hogervorst, Cora M Aalfs, J L de Lange, Hanne E J Meijers-Heijboer, Annemarie H van der Hout, Juul T Wijnen, K E P van Roozendaal, Arjen R Mensenkamp, Ans M W van den Ouweland, Carolien H M van Deurzen, Rob B van der Luijt, Edith Olah, Orland Diez, Conxi Lazaro, Ignacio Blanco, Alex Teulé, Mireia Menendez, Anna Jakubowska, Jan Lubinski, Cezary Cybulski, Jacek Gronwald, Katarzyna Jaworska-Bieniek, Katarzyna Durda, Adalgeir Arason, Christine Maugard, Penny Soucy, Marco Montagna, Simona Agata, Manuel R Teixeira, Curtis Olswold, Noralane Lindor, Vernon S Pankratz, Emily Hallberg, Xianshu Wang, Csilla I Szabo, Joseph Vijai, Lauren Jacobs, Marina Corines, Anne Lincoln, Andreas Berger, Anneliese Fink-Retter, Christian F Singer, Christine Rappaport, Daphne Gschwantler Kaulich, Georg Pfeiler, Muy-Kheng Tea, Catherine M Phelan, Phuong L Mai, Mark H Greene, Gad Rennert, Evgeny N Imyanitov, Gord Glendon, Amanda Ewart Toland, Anders Bojesen, Inge Sokilde Pedersen, Uffe Birk Jensen, Maria A Caligo, Eitan Friedman, Raanan Berger, Yael Laitman, Johanna Rantala, Brita Arver, Niklas Loman, Ake Borg, Hans Ehrencrona, Olufunmilayo I Olopade, Jacques Simard, Douglas F Easton, Georgia Chenevix-Trench, Kenneth Offit, Fergus J Couch, Antonis C Antoniou.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: More than 70 common alleles are known to be involved in breast cancer (BC) susceptibility, and several exhibit significant heterogeneity in their associations with different BC subtypes. Although there are differences in the association patterns between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and the general population for several loci, no study has comprehensively evaluated the associations of all known BC susceptibility alleles with risk of BC subtypes in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers.
METHODS: We used data from 15,252 BRCA1 and 8,211 BRCA2 carriers to analyze the associations between approximately 200,000 genetic variants on the iCOGS array and risk of BC subtypes defined by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and triple-negative- (TN) status; morphologic subtypes; histological grade; and nodal involvement.
RESULTS: The estimated BC hazard ratios (HRs) for the 74 known BC alleles in BRCA1 carriers exhibited moderate correlations with the corresponding odds ratios from the general population. However, their associations with ER-positive BC in BRCA1 carriers were more consistent with the ER-positive associations in the general population (intraclass correlation (ICC) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45 to 0.74), and the same was true when considering ER-negative associations in both groups (ICC = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.72). Similarly, there was strong correlation between the ER-positive associations for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers (ICC = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.78), whereas ER-positive associations in any one of the groups were generally inconsistent with ER-negative associations in any of the others. After stratifying by ER status in mutation carriers, additional significant associations were observed. Several previously unreported variants exhibited associations at P <10(-6) in the analyses by PR status, HER2 status, TN phenotype, morphologic subtypes, histological grade and nodal involvement.
CONCLUSIONS: Differences in associations of common BC susceptibility alleles between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers and the general population are explained to a large extent by differences in the prevalence of ER-positive and ER-negative tumors. Estimates of the risks associated with these variants based on population-based studies are likely to be applicable to mutation carriers after taking ER status into account, which has implications for risk prediction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25919761      PMCID: PMC4406179          DOI: 10.1186/s13058-014-0492-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res        ISSN: 1465-5411            Impact factor:   6.466


Introduction

Women who carry pathogenic mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 have markedly increased risks of developing breast cancer. The distributions of breast cancer tumor characteristics differ between BRCA1 mutation carriers, BRCA2 mutation carriers and those arising in the general population. The majority of breast tumors arising in BRCA1 carriers show low or absent expression of estrogen receptor (ER) [1]-[3], whereas the majority of BRCA2-associated tumors are ER-positive [1],[4],[5]. Many common breast cancer susceptibility alleles identified through population-based genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have also been associated with breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers [6],[7]. Several of these variants are specifically associated with the ER status of the breast cancer in the general population [8],[9]. Among the single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that have been evaluated in mutation carriers so far, the variants found to be associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 carriers largely overlap with loci for which stronger associations with ER-negative breast cancer have been reported in the general population [8]-[12]. An important question for risk modelling and prevention studies is whether the effects of common variants on breast cancer risk in mutation carriers are mediated through a generic influence on the development of particular hormone receptor subtypes of breast cancer or through epistatic interaction with the BRCA1/2 mutation itself. Previous studies by the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) described the impact of 29 breast cancer susceptibility variants from non-hereditary breast cancer studies on ER-positive and ER-negative breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers [6],[7],[13]-[15]. These analyses demonstrated that, despite the lack of an association between some susceptibility variants and overall breast cancer risk for BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers, residual associations exist with specific disease subtypes. In addition, the ER-specific associations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers were mainly in the same direction and of a magnitude similar to the associations observed with breast cancer stratified by ER expression status in the general population. However, these studies were conducted on smaller numbers of mutation carriers than currently available and evaluated only a subset of the currently known breast cancer susceptibility alleles for their associations with ER-specific subtypes in carriers. Recently, 45 additional SNPs have been found to be associated with breast cancer risk in the general population [8]-[10],[16]. Eighteen of these SNPs showed evidence of association with ER-positive breast cancer, but not with ER-negative breast cancer, and four loci (1q32.1 LGR6, 2p24.1, 16q12 and 20q11) were associated only with ER-negative breast cancer in the general population. These 45 newly discovered loci have not yet been evaluated for their associations with breast cancer risk for mutation carriers. In the present study, we assessed the disease subtype-specific associations of all 74 previously reported breast cancer susceptibility variants in 15,252 BRCA1 and 8,211 BRCA2 carriers. We evaluated whether differences in associations of known breast cancer susceptibility variants between BRCA1 carriers, BRCA2 carriers and the general population are mediated by tumor ER status in mutation carriers. We also analyzed the associations of about 200,000 variants on the iCOGS genotyping array with subtype-specific breast cancer risk in carriers in an attempt to uncover previously unreported subtype-specific associations in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. In addition to ER and progesterone receptor (PR) status, we report, for the first time to our knowledge, associations by HER2 status and with triple-negative disease (TN, referring to ER-, PR- and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative), and we also describe associations with clinical features such as “ductal, no specified subtype” (hereafter referred to as ductal) and lobular morphologic subtypes, nodal status and histological grade.

Methods

Study subjects

Data were obtained from 47 studies in 27 different countries in CIMBA [17]. Eligible study subjects were women who carry pathogenic mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. The majority were recruited through cancer genetics clinics and enrolled into national or regional studies. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects. Each of the host institutions recruited under ethically approved protocols. A list of the local institutional review boards that provided ethical approval for this study is given in Additional file 1: Table S1. Eligibility was restricted to mutation carriers who were 18 years of age or older at recruitment. Data collected included year of birth, age at cancer diagnosis, personal history of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and/or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, mutation description, tumor pathology and ethnicity.

Tumor pathology data

Breast tumor pathology data were gathered from a range of sources, specifically patient pathology reports, pathology review data, tumor registry records and tissue microarray results. These included information on ER, PR and HER2 status; morphologic subtype; lymph node involvement; and histological grade. For ER, PR and HER2, status was classified as negative or positive, with supplementary immunohistochemistry scoring or biochemical data and methodology provided when available. The vast majority of centers employed a cutoff of either ≥10% or ≥1% of tumor nuclei staining positive to define ER and PR positivity. Additional file 1: Table S2 lists the subtype definitions used by each study, which were not centrally reclassified, owing to the low proportion of records with supporting staining data. Similarly, HER2 status was determined using immunohistochemistry to detect strong complete membrane staining (with a score of 3+ considered positive) and/or in situ hybridization to detect HER2 gene amplification. To ensure consistency across studies, when information on the cells stained was available, we used the same cutoff to define ER-, PR- and HER2-positive tumors. The cutoffs used for the small number of cases where composite scoring methods based on the proportion and intensity of staining were available (Allred score, immunoreactive Remmele score) are given in Additional file 1: Table S2. Consistency checks were performed to validate receptor data against supplementary scoring information, if provided. Each cancer was assigned to a morphologic subgroup (ductal, lobular, medullary, other), which we confirmed using the World Health Organization International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O) code for the classification of tumor type when sufficient information was provided [18]. Lymph node status, along with the number of nodes showing metastatic carcinoma, was provided when available. Histologic grade was assigned as grade 1, 2 or 3 by local pathologists who used a modified Scarff-Bloom-Richardson malignancy grading system.

Genotyping and quality control

Genotyping was carried out using the iCOGS custom array. The array development and details of the genotyping and quality control for the CIMBA samples are described in detail elsewhere [6],[7]. Briefly, genotyping for BRCA2 carriers was conducted at McGill University and Génome Québec Innovation Centre (Canada) and for BRCA1 carriers at the Mayo Clinic (USA). SNPs were excluded if they were located on the Y chromosome, if they were monomorphic, if they deviated significantly from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (P <10−7) or if they had call rates <95%. Samples were excluded if they had a call rate <95%, if they were of non-European ancestry or if they demonstrated extreme heterozygosity. After quality control, we had 200,720 SNPs available for analysis in 15,252 BRCA1 samples and 200,908 SNPs available for analysis in 8,211 BRCA2 samples.

Statistical methods

We evaluated the associations of each genotype with risks of developing breast cancer or breast cancer subtypes defined by the tumor characteristics or morphology. The analyses were carried out within a survival analysis framework. Individuals were censored at the first of the following events: breast cancer diagnosis, ovarian cancer diagnosis, bilateral mastectomy or age at last follow-up. In order to account for non-random ascertainment of mutation carriers with respect to their disease phenotype, we used a retrospective likelihood approach that models the probability of observing the genotypes conditional on the disease phenotype [19],[20]. It was assumed that the cancer incidence depends on the underlying SNP genotype through a Cox proportional hazards model: where λ0(t i) is the baseline incidence and β is the logarithm of the per-allele hazard ratio (HR, under a multiplicative model). The association with overall breast cancer risk was evaluated by testing the hypothesis that β = 0 [20]. We evaluated the associations with the groups of each subtype class (for example, ER-positive and ER-negative), using an extension of the retrospective likelihood approach to model the simultaneous effect of each SNP on more than one tumor subtype [15]. Briefly, this involves modeling the conditional likelihood of the observed SNP genotypes and tumor subtypes, given the disease phenotypes. Within this framework, it is possible to estimate simultaneously the HRs for each tumor subtype and test for heterogeneity in the associations [15]. To maximize the available information, genotyped mutation carriers that were missing information on tumor characteristics were included in the analysis, and their disease subtype was assumed to be missing at random. In order to account for non-independence among relatives, a robust variance estimation approach was used [20]. Further details of the methods for evaluating the associations with overall breast cancer [20] and tumor subtypes have been described elsewhere [15]. We carried out association analyses by subtype for the following breast cancer characteristics: ER-positive and ER-negative, PR-positive and PR-negative, HER2-positive and HER2-negative, TN breast cancer (that is, negative for ER, PR and HER2) and non-TN (that is, tumor positive for at least one of the three receptors), ductal morphologic subtype, lobular morphologic subtype, nodal involvement (no involved lymph nodes and at least one involved lymph node) and histological grade (high grade (grade 3) and non-high grade (grades 1 and 2)). Only samples with complete information on ER, PR and HER2 expression were included in the analysis for TN as well as non-TN breast cancer. The SNP associations by tumor morphologic subtype were evaluated by comparing ductal tumors to all others and, in a separate analysis, lobular tumors to all others. We are not reporting association analyses for risk of medullary morphologic subtype, owing to sparse data as well as the difficulties in diagnosing medullary breast tumors reliably [21],[22]. All analyses were stratified by country of residence. The United States and Canada strata were further subdivided by reported Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. For subtypes with small groups, strata of geographically close countries were combined to provide sufficiently large groups for estimation. All analyses used calendar year– and cohort-specific cancer incidences for BRCA1 and BRCA2. SNPs with minor allele frequencies <3% were excluded. The retrospective likelihood was modeled using custom-written functions implemented in the pedigree analysis software MENDEL [23]. When evaluating whether the known breast cancer susceptibility loci identified through population based studies also modify breast cancer risk in mutation carriers, a significance threshold of P <0.05 was used because of the strong prior evidence of association for these loci with disease risk. For the association analyses of all the approximately 200,000 variants on the iCOGS array with the breast cancer subtypes in mutation carriers, only associations with P < 5 × 10−8 were considered significant. The discussion of findings and the tables were extended to associations at P <10−6. For variants associated with ER-positive or ER-negative breast cancer with P <0.01, we evaluated whether the associations may have been affected by a possible survival bias due to inclusion of prevalent breast cancer cases in the analysis. For the sensitivity analysis, the association analysis by ER status was repeated after excluding mutation carriers diagnosed with breast cancer ≥5 years prior to study recruitment. We evaluated the consistency between the breast cancer association estimates of previously reported breast cancer susceptibility variants in the general population (using published data) and the association estimates in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers using the intraclass correlation (ICC). We estimated ICC as outlined by Shrout and Fleiss [24] based on a one-way random-effects model and tested for agreement in absolute values of log HR. The same approach was used to evaluate the agreement between associations with ER-positive and/or -negative breast cancer in the general population and associations with ER-positive and/or -negative breast cancer in BRCA1 and in BRCA2 carriers. Furthermore, we carried out the same comparisons between associations for BRCA1 and associations for BRCA2 carriers.

Results

Subtype patterns

The analyses included data from 15,252 BRCA1 carriers and 8,211 BRCA2 carriers. Among the breast cancer–affected BRCA1 carriers, we had data on at least one disease characteristic of interest for 4,619 (59%) of the 7,797 affected women (Table 1). Data were available on tumor characteristics for 2,570 (59%) of the 4,330 affected BRCA2 carriers. Of the individuals with pathology information, 74% of the BRCA1 carriers and 75% of the BRCA2 carriers had data on ER status.
Table 1

Breast tumor characteristics of 7,797 affected mutation carriers and 4,330 affected mutation carriers

BRCA1 mutation carriersBRCA2 mutation carriers
Yes, n (%)No, n (%)Unknown statusYes, n (%)No, n (%)Unknown status
Predictive markers
 ER-positive819 (24)2,639 (76)4,3391,490 (77)434 (23)2,406
 PR-positive662 (21)2,485 (79)4,6501,099 (65)591 (35)2,640
 HER2-positive182 (9)1,816 (91)5799121 (13)847 (87)3,362
 Non-TN580 (31)1,310 (69)5907760 (85)136 (15)3,434
Morphology3,7892,087
 Ductal3,159 (82)1,770 (79)
 Lobular89 (2)188 (8)
 Medullary290 (6)39 (2)
 Other470 (10)246 (11)
Grade4,6453,840
 Grade 181 (3)113 (7)
 Grade 2574 (18)700 (42)
 Grade 32,497 (79)839 (51)
Nodal involvement1,103 (33)2,274 (67)4,420804 (43)1,068 (57)2,458
Stage5,9913,382
 Stage 0b65 (4)121 (13)
 Stage 1825 (46)327 (35)
 Stage 2772 (43)390 (41)
 Stage 3127 (7)96 (10)
 Stage 417 (1)14 (1)

aER, Estrogen receptor positive; HER2, Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; PR, Progesterone receptor; TN, Triple-negative. bCarcinoma in situ.

Breast tumor characteristics of 7,797 affected mutation carriers and 4,330 affected mutation carriers aER, Estrogen receptor positive; HER2, Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; PR, Progesterone receptor; TN, Triple-negative. bCarcinoma in situ.

Single-nucleotide polymorphism associations

After quality control, genotype data were available for analysis for 200,720 SNPs for BRCA1 carriers and for 200,908 SNPs for BRCA2 carriers. After adjusting for sample size and excluding SNPs chosen for inclusion on the genotyping array based on reported associations in subsets of the current sample, the inflation coefficient λ1000 values were 1.01 for ER-positive disease in BRCA1 carriers, 1.02 for ER-negative in BRCA1, 1.01 for ER-positive in BRCA2 and 1.02 for ER-negative in BRCA2 carriers (Additional file 1: Figure S1 and Figure S2). Similar patterns were observed for other tumor characteristics (results not shown). After excluding variants located at known breast cancer susceptibility loci, there was no evidence for an excess in associations by ER status beyond the number expected.

Associations of previously reported breast cancer susceptibility loci

Associations with overall breast cancer and by tumor estrogen receptor status

First, we considered the associations with risk for overall breast cancer and for tumor subtypes for the 74 breast cancer susceptibility variants that have been reported up to April 2013. In light of the strong prior evidence of association, we considered associations at P <0.05 as evidence that a previously reported breast cancer susceptibility allele also modifies overall or ER-specific breast cancer risk in mutation carriers. The associations with overall breast cancer risk and risk of breast cancer subtypes for all 74 variants are given in Table 2 and Additional file 1: Tables S4 to S10. Of the breast cancer susceptibility loci that had not previously been evaluated for an association in mutation carriers, SNPs at 5q33.3, 8q24.21, 11q24.3, 12q22, 16q12.1, 22q13.1 were associated with overall breast cancer risk for BRCA1 carriers, and SNPs at 6p23, 11q24.3 and 16q12.1 were associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA2 carriers at P <0.05 (Table 2). Overall, 15 breast cancer susceptibility variants were associated with ER-negative breast cancer in BRCA1 carriers and 8 variants in BRCA2 carriers at P <0.05 (Table 2). Ten significant associations with ER-positive breast cancer in BRCA1 carriers and fourteen in BRCA2 carriers were found. The strongest association with ER-positive breast cancer was observed for rs2981579 in FGFR2 at 10q26.12 for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. SNP rs10069690 in TERT at 5p15.33 displayed the strongest association with ER-negative breast cancer for BRCA1 carriers and rs9348512 at 6p24.3 for BRCA2 carriers. We found significant differences in the associations by ER status for rs3803662 in TOX3 at 16q12.1 (P = 2 × 10−4) and rs13387042 at 2q35 (P =0.002) for BRCA1 carriers, which were not previously seen. Both SNPs showed evidence of association with ER-positive breast cancer only. Similarly, six of the loci that did not show evidence of association with overall breast cancer were associated with ER-positive and two with ER-negative breast cancer in BRCA1 carriers. This included two of the loci not previously evaluated in mutation carriers: 3q26.1 and 6p25.3. In BRCA2 carriers, four of the variants lacking evidence of association with overall breast cancer were associated with ER-negative and three with ER-positive breast cancer. This included four loci not previously evaluated in mutation carriers: 2q24, 14q13.3, 19q13.31 and 22q12.2. Of the breast cancer susceptibility loci that had not yet been evaluated for an association with breast cancer in mutation carriers, rs1011970 at CDKN2A/B and rs1292011 at 12q24.21 had significantly different associations with ER-positive and ER-negative cancer for BRCA1 carriers (P het = 0.009 and P het = 0.004, respectively, for the difference between ER-positive and ER-negative). SNP rs2236007 at 14q13.3 displayed differences by ER status for BRCA2 carriers (P het = 0.008). These three SNPs had associations in different directions for ER-positive and ER-negative tumors.
Table 2

Associations of susceptibility loci with overall and estrogen receptor-positive and -negative breast cancer

BRCA1 carriersBRCA2 carriers
OverallER-negativeER-positiveOverallER-negativeER-positive
LocusSNPPosition bNearby geneRef cEff dK eMAFHR (95% CI)P -valueHR (95% CI)P -valueHR (95% CI)P -valueP het-value fMAFHR (95% CI)P -valueHR (95% CI)P -valueHR (95% CI)P -valueP het-value f
1p36.22rs61648810566215 PEX14 AGNo0.320.96 (0.92 to 1.01)0.100.95 (0.90 to 1.00)0.071.00 (0.90 to 1.10)0.920.470.330.98 (0.92 to 1.04)0.521.01 (0.88 to 1.16)0.940.97 (0.9 to 1.05)0.460.69
1p13.2rs12022378114448389 SYT6 GANo0.161.03 (0.98 to 1.09)0.251.03 (0.97 to 1.10)0.311.03 (0.90 to 1.17)0.680.940.171.03 (0.95 to 1.12)0.421.16 (0.97 to 1.37)0.101.00 (0.91 to 1.1)1.000.15
1p11.2rs11249433121280613 FCGR1B AGYes0.410.99 (0.95 to 1.04)0.780.99 (0.94 to 1.03)0.551.02 (0.93 to 1.13)0.630.500.411.05 (0.99 to 1.12)0.091.04 (0.91 to 1.19)0.571.06 (0.99 to 1.13)0.120.84
1q32.1ars6678914202187176 LGR6 GANo0.40.98 (0.94 to 1.02)0.390.96 (0.91 to 1.01)0.081.06 (0.97 to 1.17)0.210.070.411.04 (0.98 to 1.10)0.190.94 (0.82 to 1.08)0.391.07 (1.00 to 1.15)0.050.11
1q32.1brs4245739204518842 MDM4 ACYes0.281.10 (1.05 to 1.15) 4.6 × 10 −5 1.12 (1.07 to 1.19) 1.4 × 10 −5 1.02 (0.91 to 1.13)0.760.110.280.97 (0.91 to 1.04)0.381.09 (0.95 to 1.26)0.210.94 (0.87 to 1.01)0.100.07
2p24.1rs1271069619320803 OSR1 GANo0.391.01 (0.97 to 1.06)0.511.01 (0.97 to 1.07)0.571.01 (0.92 to 1.12)0.771.000.381.00 (0.94 to 1.06)0.991.14 (1.00 to 1.30) 0.05 0.96 (0.9 to 1.03)0.28 0.02
2q14.2rs4849887121245122GANo0.111.02 (0.96 to 1.09)0.531.01 (0.94 to 1.09)0.781.05(0.90 to 1.23)0.490.640.110.98 (0.89 to 1.08)0.721.08 (0.87 to 1.33)0.490.96 (0.85 to 1.07)0.430.34
2q31.1rs2016394172972971 DLX2 GANo0.471.01 (0.97 to 1.06)0.541.03 (0.98 to 1.08)0.230.96 (0.87 to 1.06)0.390.210.460.99 (0.93 to 1.05)0.741.07 (0.94 to 1.22)0.320.97 (0.9 to 1.04)0.360.21
2q31.1rs1550623174212894 CDCA7 AGNo0.151.01 (0.95 to 1.07)0.721.02 (0.95 to 1.09)0.540.97 (0.85 to 1.12)0.720.570.150.97 (0.89 to 1.06)0.491.03 (0.87 to 1.23)0.700.95 (0.87 to 1.05)0.310.41
2q35rs13387042217905832 TNP1 AGYes0.470.98 (0.94 to 1.02)0.411.02 (0.97 to 1.07)0.370.86 (0.78 to 0.95) 1.9 × 10 −3 2.3 × 10 −3 0.480.99 (0.93 to 1.05)0.680.98 (0.87 to 1.12)0.820.99 (0.93 to 1.06)0.740.96
2q35rs16857609218296508 DIRC3 GANo0.261.04 (1.00 to 1.09)0.061.03 (0.98 to 1.09)0.231.08 (0.97 to 1.21)0.140.470.270.96 (0.90 to 1.03)0.260.87 (0.74 to 1.01)0.080.99 (0.92 to 1.07)0.820.14
3p26.1rs67626444742276 ITPR1 AGNo0.361.04 (0.99 to 1.08)0.091.00 (0.95 to 1.05)0.921.16 (1.05 to 1.28) 2.9 × 10 −3 0.01 0.370.98 (0.93 to 1.05)0.611.08 (0.94 to 1.24)0.270.96 (0.89 to 1.03)0.240.13
3p24.1rs497376827416013 SLC4A7 GAYes0.491.01 (0.97 to 1.06)0.470.99 (0.95 to 1.04)0.811.09 (0.99 to 1.19)0.070.100.51.08 (1.02 to 1.15) 7.8 × 10 −3 1.05 (0.92 to 1.20)0.461.10 (1.02 to 1.18) 0.01 0.58
3p24.1rs1249360730682939 TGFBR2 CGNo0.350.99 (0.95 to 1.04)0.730.99 (0.94 to 1.04)0.631.01 (0.92 to 1.11)0.850.700.340.98 (0.92 to 1.04)0.541.07 (0.93 to 1.22)0.350.96 (0.89 to 1.03)0.230.17
4q24rs9790517106084778 TET2 GANo0.230.98 (0.94 to 1.03)0.510.97 (0.92 to 1.03)0.301.03 (0.92 to 1.15)0.610.370.220.97 (0.91 to 1.05)0.480.91 (0.77 to 1.07)0.250.99 (0.91 to 1.08)0.880.35
4q34.1rs6828523175846426 EBF1 CANo0.111.03 (0.96 to 1.1)0.411.03 (0.95 to 1.11)0.471.02 (0.88 to 1.19)0.780.940.10.98 (0.89 to 1.08)0.721.05 (0.85 to 1.30)0.640.96 (0.86 to 1.08)0.510.49
5p15.33rs100696901279790 TERT GAYes0.281.21 (1.15 to 1.26) 1.1 × 10 −15 1.24 (1.18 to 1.31) 2.7 × 10 −15 1.09 (0.98 to 1.22)0.09 0.04 0.271.11 (1.04 to 1.19) 1.6 × 10 −3 1.25 (1.08 to 1.44) 3.2 × 10 −3 1.08 (1.00 to 1.17)0.060.09
5p15.33rs77252181282414 TERT GAYes0.361.08 (1.04 to 1.13) 3.2 × 10 −4 1.09 (1.04 to 1.15) 6.4 × 10 −4 1.05 (0.95 to 1.15)0.370.470.361.06 (0.99 to 1.12)0.081.07 (0.93 to 1.23)0.351.05 (0.98 to 1.13)0.170.85
5p15.33rs27361081297488 TERT GAYes0.290.89 (0.85 to 0.93) 4.2 × 10 −7 0.86 (0.82 to 0.91) 1.1 × 10 −7 0.98 (0.88 to 1.08)0.68 0.04 0.30.93(0.88 to 1.00) 0.04 0.91 (0.78 to 1.05)0.200.94 (0.87 to 1.02)0.130.67
5p12rs1094167944706498 MRPS30 AGYes0.250.99 (0.94 to 1.04)0.610.99 (0.94 to 1.05)0.840.97 (0.86 to 1.08)0.540.660.241.07 (1.00 to 1.15) 0.03 1.09 (0.94 to 1.27)0.241.07 (0.99 to 1.15)0.090.78
5q11.2rs88931256031884 MAP3K1 ACYes0.291.01 (0.97 to 1.06)0.520.99 (0.94 to 1.05)0.821.09 (0.98 to 1.21)0.120.150.31.04 (0.98 to 1.11)0.210.99 (0.86 to 1.14)0.901.06 (0.98 to 1.14)0.140.44
5q11.3rs1047207658184061 RAB3C AGNo0.371.00 (0.96 to 1.05)0.830.98 (0.94 to 1.03)0.521.08 (0.98 to 1.18)0.130.110.380.99 (0.93 to 1.05)0.781.02 (0.89 to 1.17)0.780.98 (0.92 to 1.05)0.640.66
5q11.3rs135374758337481 PDE4D ACNo0.090.98 (0.91 to 1.05)0.530.95 (0.88 to 1.04)0.281.06 (0.90 to 1.24)0.500.290.090.95 (0.86 to 1.05)0.351.02 (0.81 to 1.27)0.880.94 (0.83 to 1.05)0.260.52
5q33.3rs1432679158244083AGNo0.441.05 (1.00 to 1.09) 0.03 1.03 (0.98 to 1.08)0.251.10 (1.01 to 1.21) 0.04 0.210.451.01 (0.95 to 1.07)0.790.92 (0.81 to 1.04)0.161.04 (0.97 to 1.11)0.300.09
6p25.3rs112426751318878 FOXQ1 AGNo0.350.96 (0.92 to 1)0.060.94 (0.90 to 0.99) 0.03 1.01 (0.91 to 1.11)0.900.280.361.01 (0.95 to 1.07)0.791.02 (0.89 to 1.18)0.751.00 (0.93 to 1.08)0.900.83
6p24.3rs934851210456706 TFAP2A CAYes0.341.00 (0.95 to 1.04)0.871.00 (0.95 to 1.05)0.881.00 (0.90 to 1.10)0.951.000.340.85 (0.8 to 0.9) 9.2 × 10 −8 0.79 (0.69 to 0.91) 1.1 × 10 −3 0.86 (0.8 to 0.92) 3.4 × 10 −5 0.32
6p23rs20424713722523 RANBP9 AGNo0.441.00 (0.96 to 1.04)0.981.00 (0.95 to 1.04)0.841.01 (0.92 to 1.12)0.750.720.441.09 (1.03 to 1.15) 3.4 × 10 −3 1.08 (0.94 to 1.24)0.251.09 (1.02 to 1.17) 9.7 × 10 −3 0.93
6q14rs1753006882193109 FAM46A AGYes0.251.03 (0.98 to 1.08)0.231.03 (0.97 to 1.09)0.291.03 (0.92 to 1.14)0.630.950.251.10 (1.03 to 1.18) 7.2 × 10 −3 1.07 (0.92 to 1.25)0.401.11 (1.02 to 1.2) 0.01 0.70
6q25.1rs3757318151914113 ESR1 GAYes0.081.20 (1.11 to 1.29) 1.1 × 10 −6 1.24 (1.14 to 1.35) 5.6 × 10 −7 1.06 (0.89 to 1.26)0.510.120.091.15 (1.03 to 1.28) 0.01 1.33 (1.07 to 1.65) 9.1 × 10 −3 1.09 (0.96 to 1.24)0.170.12
6q25.1rs2046210151948366 ESR1 GAYes0.371.16 (1.12 to 1.21) 2.4 × 10 −12 1.20 (1.15 to 1.26) 2.8 × 10 −13 1.04 (0.94 to 1.15)0.42 0.01 0.371.06 (0.99 to 1.12)0.071.15 (1.00 to 1.33) 0.04 1.03 (0.96 to 1.1)0.430.17
7q35rs720475144074929 ARHGEF5 GAYes0.260.98 (0.93 to 1.03)0.360.98 (0.93 to 1.04)0.540.96 (0.86 to 1.08)0.530.790.260.99 (0.92 to 1.06)0.710.94 (0.80 to 1.09)0.411.00 (0.93 to 1.08)0.960.45
8p12rs969344429509616 DUSP4 CAYes0.331.01 (0.96 to 1.05)0.801.01 (0.96 to 1.06)0.690.99 (0.90 to 1.09)0.830.720.330.98 (0.93 to 1.05)0.610.92 (0.80 to 1.07)0.281.00 (0.94 to 1.07)0.940.32
8q21.11rs647290376230301ACYes0.171.01 (0.96 to 1.07)0.741.01 (0.95 to 1.08)0.771.01 (0.89 to 1.14)0.890.990.160.97 (0.90 to 1.05)0.480.95 (0.79 to 1.14)0.560.98 (0.89 to 1.07)0.660.75
8q21.11rs294355976417937 HNF4G AGYes0.081.06 (0.98 to 1.14)0.121.07 (0.98 to 1.17)0.121.02 (0.86 to 1.22)0.780.680.091.10 (1.00 to 1.22)0.051.14 (0.91 to 1.43)0.271.09 (0.97 to 1.23)0.130.77
8q24.21rs11780156129194641 MYC GANo0.190.95 (0.9 to 1) 0.05 0.96 (0.90 to 1.02)0.150.93 (0.82 to 1.05)0.230.700.190.97 (0.90 to 1.04)0.440.95 (0.81 to 1.12)0.560.98 (0.9 to 1.06)0.600.79
8q24.21rs13281615128355618AGYes0.431.02 (0.98 to 1.06)0.441.01 (0.96 to 1.06)0.731.04 (0.95 to 1.15)0.380.550.431.03 (0.97 to 1.09)0.331.05 (0.92 to 1.20)0.441.02 (0.96 to 1.1)0.510.71
9p21.3rs101197022062134 CDKN2B CAYes0.171.02 (0.97 to 1.08)0.471.07 (1.00 to 1.14)0.050.87 (0.76 to 0.99) 0.04 9.3 × 10 −3 0.171.03 (0.95 to 1.11)0.501.11 (0.94 to 1.32)0.211.00 (0.92 to 1.1)0.950.29
9q31.2rs10759243110306115 KLF4 CANo0.310.98 (0.94 to 1.02)0.390.98 (0.93 to 1.03)0.490.98 (0.88 to 1.08)0.640.930.291.00 (0.94 to 1.06)0.940.94 (0.81 to 1.09)0.401.01 (0.94 to 1.09)0.690.37
9q31.2rs865686110888478 KLF4 ACYes0.360.99 (0.95 to 1.04)0.771.02 (0.97 to 1.07)0.520.92 (0.83 to 1.02)0.110.100.360.99 (0.93 to 1.05)0.751.16 (1.01 to 1.34) 0.04 0.94 (0.88 to 1.01)0.12 0.01
10p12.31rs707277622032942 MLLT10 GANo0.310.99 (0.94 to 1.03)0.520.96 (0.91 to 1.01)0.111.08 (0.98 to 1.20)0.12 0.04 0.30.99 (0.92 to 1.05)0.670.88 (0.77 to 1.02)0.081.02 (0.94 to 1.09)0.660.09
10p12.31rs1181444822315843 DNAJC1 ACNo0.021.10 (0.94 to 1.29)0.221.25 (0.93 to 1.69)0.150.50
10q21.2rs1099519064278682 ZNF365 GAYes0.150.99 (0.93 to 1.05)0.701.02 (0.96 to 1.09)0.490.88 (0.76 to 1.00)0.060.050.150.94 (0.86 to 1.02)0.160.92 (0.76 to 1.12)0.430.95 (0.86 to 1.04)0.260.84
10q22.3rs70401080841148 ZMIZ1 GAYes0.371.01 (0.97 to 1.06)0.480.99(0.94 to 1.04)0.611.12 (1.01 to 1.23) 0.03 0.03 0.381.01 (0.95 to 1.07)0.861.02 (0.90 to 1.16)0.781.00 (0.93 to 1.07)0.960.83
10q25.2rs7904519114773927 TCF7L2 AGYes0.471.09 (1.05 to 1.14) 1.6 × 10 −5 1.09 (1.04 to 1.14) 6.4 × 10 −4 1.12 (1.02 to 1.23) 0.02 0.590.471.02 (0.96 to 1.08)0.560.89 (0.78 to 1.01)0.071.06 (0.99 to 1.13)0.10 0.02
10q26.12rs2981579123337335 FGFR2 GAYes0.420.99 (0.95 to 1.04)0.810.92 (0.87 to 0.96) 6.9 × 10 −4 1.29 (1.17 to 1.43) 3.1 × 10 −7 7.5 × 10 −9 0.441.24 (1.16 to 1.31) 5.4 × 10 −12 1.05 (0.92 to 1.20)0.441.29 (1.21 to 1.38) 2.2 × 10 −13 7.3 × 10 −3
10q26.12rs11199914123093901 FGFR2 GANo0.331.02 (0.98 to 1.07)0.271.04 (0.99 to 1.10)0.090.96 (0.86 to 1.06)0.430.170.330.95 (0.90 to 1.02)0.150.90 (0.78 to 1.03)0.130.97 (0.9 to 1.04)0.440.33
11p15.5rs38171981909006 LSP1 AGYes0.331.08 (1.03 to 1.13) 6.5 × 10 −4 1.08 (1.03 to 1.14) 2.9 × 10 −3 1.07 (0.97 to 1.18)0.170.890.341.11 (1.04 to 1.18) 9.3 × 10 −4 0.98 (0.85 to 1.13)0.801.15 (1.07 to 1.24) 1.1 × 10 −4 0.06
11q13.1rs390307265583066 SNX32 CANo0.470.99 (0.95 to 1.03)0.691.00 (0.95 to 1.05)0.940.96 (0.87 to 1.05)0.390.440.470.97 (0.91 to 1.03)0.340.89 (0.78 to 1.01)0.071.00 (0.93 to 1.07)0.910.12
11q13.3rs55421969331642 CCND1 CGYes0.121.03 (0.97 to 1.09)0.371.00 (0.93 to 1.08)0.961.12 (0.97 to 1.29)0.120.200.131.09 (1.00 to 1.19) 0.05 0.90 (0.73 to 1.10)0.311.15 (1.04 to 1.26) 5.0 × 10 −3 0.04
11q13.3c11_pos6908834269379161CAYes0.061.03 (0.95 to 1.13)0.451.00 (0.90 to 1.12)0.951.14 (0.93 to 1.39)0.200.300.061.07 (0.95 to 1.21)0.280.85 (0.64 to 1.14)0.291.14 (0.99 to 1.3)0.080.09
11q13.3rs49440669344241GAYes0.251.02 (0.97 to 1.07)0.461.02 (0.97 to 1.08)0.421.00 (0.90 to 1.12)0.970.740.261.05 (0.98 to 1.12)0.161.03 (0.89 to 1.19)0.661.05 (0.98 to 1.14)0.180.80
11q24.3rs11820646129461171 BARX2 GANo0.390.93 (0.89 to 0.97) 5.9 × 10 −4 0.94 (0.90 to 0.99) 0.03 0.88 (0.79 to 0.97) 8.9 × 10 −3 0.200.390.92 (0.86 to 0.97) 4.2 × 10 −3 0.95 (0.83 to 1.09)0.450.91 (0.84 to 0.97) 5.9 × 10 −3 0.56
12p13.1rs1242255214413931 ATF7IP GCNo0.271.01 (0.97 to 1.06)0.631.01 (0.96 to 1.07)0.681.01 (0.91 to 1.13)0.850.990.281.00 (0.93 to 1.06)0.921.02 (0.88 to 1.19)0.790.99 (0.92 to 1.07)0.790.73
12p11.22rs1077139928155080 PTHLH AGYes0.100.85 (0.80 to 0.91) 1.9 × 10 −6 0.83 (0.77 to 0.9) 1.2 × 10 −5 0.91 (0.78 to 1.06)0.240.360.10.89 (0.81 to 0.98) 0.02 0.72 (0.56 to 0.91) 6.6 × 10 −3 0.94 (0.84 to 1.05)0.250.05
12q22rs1735690796027759 NTN4 AGNo0.290.95 (0.91 to 1.00) 0.03 0.94 (0.90 to 1.00) 0.03 0.98 (0.88 to 1.09)0.710.560.30.99 (0.93 to 1.06)0.780.95 (0.83 to 1.10)0.511.00 (0.93 to 1.08)0.960.55
12q24.21rs1292011115836522 TBX3 AGYes0.411.00 (0.96 to 1.05)0.821.04 (0.99 to 1.10)0.080.88 (0.80 to 0.97) 0.01 4.39 × 10 −3 0.410.92 (0.87 to 0.98) 0.01 1.07 (0.94 to 1.23)0.290.88 (0.82 to 0.95) 5.7 × 10 −4 0.01
13q13.1rs1157183332972626 BRCA2 TANo0.011.02 (0.83 to 1.26)0.831.05 (0.83 to 1.34)0.660.92 (0.53 to 1.59)0.750.660.030.95 (0.78 to 1.16)0.620.91 (0.58 to 1.41)0.660.97 (0.78 to 1.2)0.760.80
14q13.3rs223600737132769 PAX9 GANo0.210.97 (0.92 to 1.02)0.190.95 (0.90 to 1.01)0.131.01 (0.90 to 1.14)0.870.420.210.99 (0.92 to 1.07)0.831.20 (1.03 to 1.40) 0.02 0.94 (0.86 to 1.02)0.13 8.5 × 10 −3
14q24.1rs258880968660428GANo0.190.96 (0.91 to 1.01)0.090.95 (0.89 to 1.01)0.130.97 (0.86 to 1.09)0.560.850.21.01 (0.94 to 1.09)0.820.95 (0.80 to 1.13)0.551.03 (0.94 to 1.12)0.550.44
14q24.1rs99973769034682 RAD51L1 GAYes0.210.96 (0.91 to 1.01)0.090.98 (0.92 to 1.04)0.430.90 (0.80 to 1.01)0.070.220.220.97 (0.91 to 1.05)0.480.95 (0.81 to 1.11)0.530.98 (0.91 to 1.06)0.650.72
14q32.11rs94176491841069 CCDC88C AGNo0.341.03 (0.98 to 1.07)0.231.02 (0.97 to 1.07)0.471.05 (0.95 to 1.17)0.340.620.341.03 (0.97 to 1.09)0.391.00 (0.88 to 1.14)0.971.04 (0.97 to 1.11)0.320.61
16q12.1ars380366252586341 TOX3 GAYes0.291.06 (1.01 to 1.11) 0.02 1.01 (0.96 to 1.07)0.651.22 (1.10 to 1.35) 1.5 × 10 −4 2.39 × 10 −3 0.291.24 (1.16 to 1.32) 6.2 × 10 −11 1.12 (0.97 to 1.30)0.111.27 (1.18 to 1.36) 1.5 × 10 −10 0.15
16q12.1brs1107599553855291 FTO ATNo0.241.01 (0.96 to 1.06)0.610.98 (0.93 to 1.04)0.601.11 (0.99 to 1.24)0.070.070.241.02(0.95 to 1.09)0.591.01 (0.86 to 1.18)0.941.02 (0.94 to 1.11)0.570.85
16q12.1brs1781744953813367 FTO ACNo0.410.95 (0.91 to 0.99) 0.02 0.94 (0.89 to 0.98) 9.8 × 10 −3 1.00 (0.91 to 1.10)0.990.260.410.94 (0.88 to 1.00) 0.03 1.05 (0.91 to 1.21)0.490.91 (0.85 to 0.97) 6.6 × 10 −3 0.08
16q23.2rs1332983580650805 CDYL2 AGNo0.231.04 (0.99 to 1.09)0.091.03 (0.97 to 1.09)0.291.08 (0.97 to 1.21)0.170.480.241.03 (0.96 to 1.11)0.350.94 (0.81 to 1.10)0.431.06 (0.98 to 1.15)0.130.17
17q22rs650495053056471 COX11 GAYes0.270.98 (0.94 to 1.03)0.490.99 (0.94 to 1.04)0.700.96 (0.87 to 1.07)0.490.680.271.04 (0.97 to 1.11)0.241.08 (0.94 to 1.24)0.271.03 (0.95 to 1.11)0.460.54
18q11.2rs52761624337424 AQP4 CGNo0.370.99 (0.95 to 1.03)0.610.97 (0.93 to 1.02)0.301.04 (0.94 to 1.15)0.420.260.370.96 (0.9 to 1.02)0.190.95 (0.83 to 1.08)0.410.96 (0.9 to 1.03)0.300.82
18q11.2rs143690422824665ACNo0.390.99 (0.95 to 1.03)0.681.00 (0.95 to 1.05)0.860.98 (0.89 to 1.08)0.630.740.390.96 (0.9 to 1.02)0.141.02 (0.89 to 1.17)0.790.94 (0.87 to 1.01)0.070.30
19p13.11rs817017389704 BABAM1 GAYes0.191.19 (1.12 to 1.25) 2.9 × 10 −10 1.22 (1.15 to 1.30) 1.7 × 10 −10 1.06 (0.95 to 1.20)0.300.050.190.98 (0.91 to 1.06)0.621.06 (0.90 to 1.25)0.510.96 (0.88 to 1.05)0.370.33
19p13.11rs480880118571141 ELL AGNo0.320.98 (0.94 to 1.02)0.400.99 (0.94 to 1.05)0.810.94 (0.85 to 1.04)0.230.350.330.97 (0.91 to 1.03)0.331.07 (0.93 to 1.23)0.330.94 (0.87 to 1.01)0.100.11
19q13.31rs376098244286513 KCNN4 GANo0.461.03 (0.99 to 1.08)0.101.03 (0.98 to 1.08)0.191.04 (0.95 to 1.14)0.410.900.461.05 (0.99 to 1.12)0.090.97 (0.86 to 1.11)0.691.08 (1.01 to 1.15) 0.03 0.19
21q21.1rs282309316520832 NRIP1 GAYes0.270.95 (0.91 to 1) 0.04 0.96 (0.91 to 1.02)0.170.92 (0.82 to 1.02)0.110.440.270.94 (0.88 to 1.01)0.091.07 (0.92 to 1.25)0.360.91 (0.84 to 0.98) 0.02 0.06
22q12.2rs13239029621477 EMID1 AGNo0.030.98 (0.87 to 1.1)0.750.93 (0.81 to 1.07)0.301.16 (0.91 to 1.46)0.230.130.041.17 (1.00 to 1.37)0.050.92 (0.61 to 1.39)0.701.24 (1.04 to 1.49) 0.02 0.22
22q13.1rs600193040876234 SGSM3 AGNo0.111.07 (1.00 to 1.14) 0.03 1.06 (0.98 to 1.15)0.141.11 (0.96 to 1.30)0.170.600.101.02 (0.92 to 1.12)0.710.94 (0.76 to 1.18)0.611.04 (0.93 to 1.16)0.480.44

aCI, Confidence interval; ER, Estrogen receptor; HR, Hazard ratio; MAF, Mean allele frequency; SNP, Single-nucleotide polymorphism. Results represent BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers for 74 previously reported breast cancer (BC) susceptibility variants from population-based studies. P-values <0.05 are shown in bold. bPosition in build 37. cReference allele. cEffect allele. eAssociation in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers has been reported before. fP-value for the difference between the association with ER-positive BC and the association with ER-negative BC.

Associations of susceptibility loci with overall and estrogen receptor-positive and -negative breast cancer aCI, Confidence interval; ER, Estrogen receptor; HR, Hazard ratio; MAF, Mean allele frequency; SNP, Single-nucleotide polymorphism. Results represent BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers for 74 previously reported breast cancer (BC) susceptibility variants from population-based studies. P-values <0.05 are shown in bold. bPosition in build 37. cReference allele. cEffect allele. eAssociation in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers has been reported before. fP-value for the difference between the association with ER-positive BC and the association with ER-negative BC. When association analyses for ER-positive and -negative disease were repeated after excluding prevalent breast cancer cases (Additional file 1: Table S3), the HR estimates were consistent with the estimates from the complete sample but were associated with larger confidence intervals. Therefore, it is unlikely that our results are influenced by survival bias.

Associations with other subtypes and clinical features

The pattern of associations of previously reported breast cancer susceptibility variants by PR and TN status were very similar to that by ER status (Additional file 1: Tables S4 and S6), but fewer associations were observed at P <0.01. SNP rs720475 at 7q35 was the only variant that was associated with HER2-positive disease (HR = 1.45 and P = 0.003 for HER2-positive, P het = 9 × 10−4 in BRCA2 carriers) (Additional file 1: Table S5). For BRCA1 carriers, there were significant differences (P het <0.01) in the HR for high grade (grade 3) and grades 1 and 2 breast cancer for SNPs at 10q26.12 (FGFR2) and at 12q24.21 (Additional file 1: Table S9). SNP rs3803662 in TOX3 at 16q12.1 was associated exclusively with node-positive breast cancer (P = 2 × 10−4, P het = 0.005) (Additional file 1: Table S10). This was also the only variant associated with lobular cancer, as shown in Additional file 1: Table S8 (P = 8 × 10−6 for BRCA2 carriers). The HR for lobular cancer was larger than that for non-lobular cancer (lobular HR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.29 to 1.92; non-lobular HR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.28 for BRCA2 carriers; P het = 9 × 10−4). There was no evidence for differences in associations by histological grade and nodal involvement for BRCA2 carriers.

Comparison of patterns of associations by breast cancer estrogen receptor status between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers and the general population

We compared the log HR estimates for the breast cancer association of known breast cancer susceptibility variants for BRCA1 carriers, BRCA2 carriers, and for the general population using published data from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) [8]. The resulting ICC coefficients for log HR/OR estimates for all comparisons are shown in Table 3. Log HR estimates for overall breast cancer risk in BRCA2 carriers were very similar to the log odds ratios (ORs) from the general population (ICC = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.75) (Additional file 1: Figure S3B), whereas there was only moderate correlation between the log HR estimates for BRCA1 carriers and the log HR estimates from both other groups (ICC: BRCA1-BCAC estimates = 0.43, BRCA1-BRCA2 = 0.46) (Additional file 1: Figure S3A,C). When comparing ER-positive specific associations, we found stronger agreement between the log HR/OR estimates than for overall breast cancer. The ICC estimates ranged from 0.61 (95% CI: 0.45 to 0.74) (Figure 1B) for BCAC-BRCA1 to 0.69 (95% CI: 0.55 to 0.79) (Figure 1C) for BCAC-BRCA2. The ER-negative breast cancer log HR estimates in BRCA1 carriers and the corresponding BCAC estimates were strongly correlated (ICC = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.72) (Figure 1E). However, the ER-negative breast cancer log HR estimates in BRCA2 carriers were less strongly correlated with the corresponding estimates in BRCA1 carriers (ICC = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.62) (Figure 1D) and in BCAC (ICC = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.48) (Figure 1F). There was no evidence that the ICC was different from 0 for the comparison between ER-positive associations in BRCA1 carriers with ER-negative associations in BRCA2 carriers and vice versa (Additional file 1: Figure S4B,C). Similarly, there was no significant correlation between log OR estimates for ER-positive breast cancer in BCAC with log HR estimates for ER-negative breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers (Additional file 1: Figures S5B and S6B). There was only moderate correlation between log OR estimates for ER-negative breast cancer in the general population and log HR estimates for ER-positive breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers (ICC = 0.39 and ICC = 0.34, respectively) (Additional file 1: Figures S5C and S6C).
Table 3

Comparisons between the associations of 74 breast cancer susceptibility loci in carriers, in carriers, and in population-based studies

BRCA1 carriersBRCA2 carriers
OverallER-positiveER-negativeOverallER-positiveER-negative
BRCA2 carriersOverall0.46 (0.25 to 0.62)
ER-positive0.67 (0.52 to 0.78)0.13 (−0.10 to 0.35)
ER-negative0.10 (−0.13 to 0.33)0.46 (0.25 to 0.62)
BCACOverall0.43 (0.22 to 0.60)0.63 (0.47 to 0.75)
ER-positive0.61 (0.45 to 0.74)0.16 (−0.07 to 0.38)0.69 (0.55 to 0.79)0.13 (−0.11 to 0.35)
ER-negative0.34 (0.12 to 0.53)0.59 (0.42 to 0.72)0.39 (0.17 to 0.57)0.28 (0.05 to 0.48)

aER, Estrogen receptor. Data are intraclass correlation coefficients and 95% confidence intervals, which describe associations with overall breast cancer as well as by ER status. Data are derived from published studies by the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC).

Figure 1

Estrogen receptor-positive and -negative log hazard ratio estimates in the general population and in and carriers. Dots represent the association of 74 previously reported breast cancer susceptibility single-nucleotide polymorphisms with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer (A–C) and ER-negative breast cancer (D–F). (A) and (D) compare associations between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, (B) and (E) between the general population and BRCA1 carriers and (C) and (F) between the general population and BRCA2 carriers. Association results for the general population were taken from reports published by the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) [8]-[10],[16].

Comparisons between the associations of 74 breast cancer susceptibility loci in carriers, in carriers, and in population-based studies aER, Estrogen receptor. Data are intraclass correlation coefficients and 95% confidence intervals, which describe associations with overall breast cancer as well as by ER status. Data are derived from published studies by the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). Estrogen receptor-positive and -negative log hazard ratio estimates in the general population and in and carriers. Dots represent the association of 74 previously reported breast cancer susceptibility single-nucleotide polymorphisms with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer (A–C) and ER-negative breast cancer (D–F). (A) and (D) compare associations between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, (B) and (E) between the general population and BRCA1 carriers and (C) and (F) between the general population and BRCA2 carriers. Association results for the general population were taken from reports published by the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) [8]-[10],[16].

Associations by subtype with all single-nucleotide polymorphisms on iCOGS

Variants in or near the known breast cancer susceptibility loci TERT, ESR1 and 19p13.11 showed strong associations (P <10−6) with at least one of the categories in all subtype analyses in BRCA1 carriers. The same was true for SNPs in FGFR2 and TOX3 in BRCA2 carriers. Variants on the iCOGS array that exhibited associations at P <10−6 with any of the breast cancer subtypes of ER-, PR-, HER2-positive or -negative and TN breast tumors are shown in Table 4. All the variants associated with ER-positive or ER-negative breast cancer at P <10−6 were located within known breast cancer susceptibility loci. Similar associations were observed with PR-positive and PR-negative breast cancer for BRCA1 carriers. A previously unreported SNP at 2p13.2 was associated with HER2-positive breast cancer in BRCA1 carriers. In BRCA2 carriers, two previously unreported variants showed evidence of association in the analysis by PR status. Furthermore, SNPs at 8q12.1 near TOX were associated with HER2-positive cancer in BRCA2 carriers. Only SNPs in the known breast cancer susceptibility loci FGFR2 and TOX3 were associated with non-TN breast cancer in BRCA2 carriers, and none were associated with TN breast cancer at P <10−6.
Table 4

Associations with tumor subtypes

Affected by subtype, n (MAF)PositiveNegative
SubtypeSampleSNPLocusPosition bNearby geneRef cEff dReported ePositiveNegativeUnknownNumber unaffected (MAF)HR (95% CI)P -valueHR (95% CI)P -valueP het-value f
ER statusBRCA1 carriersrs100696905p15.331332790 TERT GAYes819 (0.27)2,635 (0.3)4,331 (0.3)7,449 (0.26)1.09 (0.98 to 1.22)0.091.24 (1.18 to 1.31)2.7 × 10−150.04
rs20462106q25.1151990059 C6orf97 GAYes819 (0.36)2,639 (0.39)4,338 (0.38)7,453 (0.35)1.04 (0.94 to 1.15)0.421.2 (1.15 to 1.26)2.8 × 10−130.01
rs28117089p2121963422 CDKN2A/B CAYes816 (0.24)2,634 (0.31)4,336 (0.28)7,445 (0.28)0.82 (0.73 to 0.91)2.9 × 10−41.13 (1.07 to 1.19)7.3 × 10−63.9 × 10−7
rs4563157910q26123328965 FGFR2 AGYes819 (0.48)2,639 (0.4)4,337 (0.42)7,455 (0.41)1.29 (1.17 to 1.43)2.6 × 10−70.92 (0.87 to 0.96)4.7 × 10−45.1 × 10−9
rs259027512p1228057334 PTHLH GCYes819 (0.26)2,639 (0.25)4,338 (0.26)7,454 (0.28)0.92 (0.83 to 1.03)0.140.87 (0.82 to 0.92)5.3 × 10−70.34
rs236395619p13.1117255124 ANKLE1 CAYes819 (0.47)2,635 (0.53)4,334 (0.52)7,447 (0.48)0.98 (0.89 to 1.08)0.711.25 (1.19 to 1.31)6.4 × 10−201.6 × 10−5
BRCA2 carriersrs216254010q26123342126 FGFR2 AGYes1450 (0.47)426 (0.41)2,348 (0.44)3,783 (0.38)1.34 (1.25 to 1.43)3.6 × 10−161.08 (0.94 to 1.23)0.276.1 × 10−3
rs1727195116q12.151095541 TOX3 AGYes1490 (0.32)434 (0.28)2,397 (0.3)3,879 (0.25)1.29 (1.2 to 1.39)8.4 × 10−121.14 (0.99 to 1.31)0.080.14
PR statusBRCA1 carriersrs100696905p15.331332790 TERT GAYes662 (0.27)2,481 (0.29)4,642 (0.3)7,449 (0.26)1.10 (0.98 to 1.24)0.091.24 (1.17 to 1.3)1.3 × 10−140.11
rs20462106q25.1151990059 C6orf97 GAYes662 (0.37)2,485 (0.39)4,649 (0.38)7,453 (0.35)1.09 (0.98 to 1.21)0.121.18 (1.13 to 1.24)2.0 × 10−110.19
rs4563162610q26123327325 FGFR2 GAYes662 (0.49)2,485 (0.4)4,647 (0.42)7,455 (0.42)1.33 (1.2 to 1.48)1.3 × 10−70.92 (0.88 to 0.97)9.6 × 10−45.3 × 10−9
rs259027512p1228057334 PTHLH GCYes662 (0.26)2,485 (0.25)4,649 (0.26)7,454 (0.28)0.92 (0.82 to 1.03)0.160.87 (0.82 to 0.92)8.2 × 10−70.45
rs810024119p13.1117253894 ANKLE1 GAYes657 (0.51)2,473 (0.47)4,628 (0.48)7,420 (0.52)0.98 (0.88 to 1.09)0.710.81 (0.78 to 0.85)1.8 × 10−172.4 × 10−3
BRCA2 carriersrs100175764q28.3139799629GANo1099 (0.38)591 (0.43)2,639 (0.41)3,880 (0.43)0.83 (0.77 to 0.89)8.9 × 10−71.02 (0.92 to 1.14)0.672.7 × 10−3
rs43764618p1232822117 NRG1 CANo1099 (0.15)591 (0.10)2,640 (0.14)3,881 (0.15)1.00 (0.9 to 1.12)0.930.6 (0.5 to 0.73)2.4 × 10−71.4 × 10−5
rs4563158810q26123341292 FGFR2 AGYes1099 (0.47)591 (0.43)2,640 (0.45)3,881 (0.39)1.33 (1.23 to 1.44)2.7 × 10−131.15 (1.03 to 1.28)0.010.04
rs1727195116q12.151095541 TOX3 AGYes1099 (0.32)591 (0.28)2,631 (0.3)3,879 (0.25)1.32 (1.21 to 1.43)4.3 × 10−111.14 (1.01 to 1.29)0.030.07
HER2 statusBRCA1 carriersrs170088852p13.273303647 SMYD5 TANo182 (0.19)1,816 (0.3)5,799 (0.3)7,455 (0.31)0.54 (0.43 to 0.69)7.8 × 10−70.99 (0.95 to 1.04)0.783.8 × 10−6
rs100696905p15.331332790 TERT GAYes181 (0.23)1,813 (0.29)5,791 (0.3)7,449 (0.26)0.9 (0.71 to 1.13)0.361.24 (1.18 to 1.3)3.4 × 10−170.01
rs20462106q25.1151990059 C6orf97 GAYes182 (0.39)1,816 (0.4)5,798 (0.38)7,453 (0.35)1.12 (0.91 to 1.38)0.291.17 (1.11 to 1.22)1.5 × 10−100.71
rs1084305512p1228063088 PTHLH ACYes171 (0.06)1,743 (0.06)5,615 (0.06)7,234 (0.07)0.79 (0.52 to 1.2)0.260.79 (0.72 to 0.87)6.2 × 10−70.99
rs480861619p13.1117264033 ANKLE1 CAYes176 (0.35)1,782 (0.32)5,706 (0.32)7,339 (0.28)1.37 (1.11 to 1.69)3.8 × 10−31.2 (1.14 to 1.26)6.8 × 10−130.25
BRCA2 carriersrs43058898q12.160352785 TOX AGNo121 (0.18)845 (0.09)3,353 (0.11)3,874 (0.1)2.04 (1.53 to 2.71)8.7 × 10−70.96 (0.85 to 1.08)0.471.0 × 10−5
rs4563158810q26123341292 FGFR2 AGYes121 (0.45)847 (0.46)3,362 (0.45)3,881 (0.39)1.27 (0.98 to 1.63)0.071.28 (1.19 to 1.37)2.1 × 10−120.95
rs381719711p15.51862750 LSP1 GAYes121 (0.55)847 (0.44)3,353 (0.45)3,877 (0.47)1.30 (1.02 to 1.64)0.030.84 (0.79 to 0.9)9.1 × 10−71.3 × 10−3
rs1727195116q12.151095541 TOX3 AGYes121 (0.29)847 (0.31)3,353 (0.3)3,879 (0.25)1.10 (0.85 to 1.41)0.471.27 (1.18 to 1.37)6.9 × 10−110.3
Triple-negativegBRCA1 carriersrs100696905p15.331332790 TERT GAYes579 (0.27)1,307 (0.3)5,899 (0.3)7,449 (0.26)1.06 (0.94 to 1.19)0.341.27 (1.2 to 1.36)5.2 × 10−140.02
rs20462106q25.1151990059 C6orf97 GAYes580 (0.37)1,310 (0.41)5,906 (0.38)7,453 (0.35)1.01 (0.91 to 1.13)0.791.23 (1.16 to 1.31)5.5 × 10−126.8 × 10−3
rs951272913q12.226974865 LNX2 GANo580 (0.34)1,309 (0.43)5,902 (0.41)7,454 (0.41)0.76 (0.69 to 0.85)9.1 × 10−71.08 (1.02 to 1.15)0.011.2 × 10−6
rs810024119p13.1117253894 ANKLE1 GAYes577 (0.5)1,304 (0.46)5,877 (0.48)7,420 (0.52)0.94 (0.85 to 1.04)0.220.81 (0.76 to 0.86)2.4 × 10−130.03
BRCA2 carriersrs216254010q26123342126 FGFR2 AGYes735 (0.46)133 (0.36)3,356 (0.44)3,783 (0.38)1.39 (1.29 to 1.49)9.8 × 10−200.83 (0.67 to 1.03)0.104.0 × 10−5
rs136254816q12.151121452 TOX3 CGYes760 (0.32)136 (0.29)3,434 (0.31)3,881 (0.26)1.26 (1.17 to 1.36)1.0 × 10−91.18 (0.94 to 1.49)0.160.63

aCI, Confidence interval; HR, Hazard ratio; MAF, Mean allele frequency. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated at P <10−6 with breast cancer by tumor estrogen receptor (ER) status, progesterone receptor (PR) status, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status or triple-negative (negative for ER, PR and HER2) are shown. The most strongly associated SNP from each locus is reported. bPosition in build 36. cReference allele. dEffect allele. eVariant located in previously reported breast cancer susceptibility locus. fP-value for the difference in association between subtype positive and subtype negative breast cancer (for example, ER-positive vs ER-negative). gNon–triple negative was considered as “positive” and triple-negative as “negative.”

Associations with tumor subtypes aCI, Confidence interval; HR, Hazard ratio; MAF, Mean allele frequency. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated at P <10−6 with breast cancer by tumor estrogen receptor (ER) status, progesterone receptor (PR) status, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status or triple-negative (negative for ER, PR and HER2) are shown. The most strongly associated SNP from each locus is reported. bPosition in build 36. cReference allele. dEffect allele. eVariant located in previously reported breast cancer susceptibility locus. fP-value for the difference in association between subtype positive and subtype negative breast cancer (for example, ER-positive vs ER-negative). gNon–triple negative was considered as “positive” and triple-negative as “negative.” A SNP at 7q36 was associated with ductal subtype for BRCA1 carriers (Table 5). Two loci were associated with lobular breast cancer for BRCA2 carriers: 11q23.3 and Xp11.23.
Table 5

Associations with ductal and lobular breast cancer

N tumors with morphology (MAF)Other morphologyTumors with morphology
SubtypeSampleSNPLocusPosition bNearby geneRef cEff dReported ePresentOtherUnknownNumber unaffected (MAF)HR (95% CI)P -valueHR (95% CI)P -valueP het-value f
DuctalBRCA1 carriersrs100696905p15.331332790 TERT GAYes3,155 (0.29)847 (0.30)3,783 (0.30)7,449 (0.26)1.23 (1.11 to 1.36)7.3 × 10−51.20 (1.14 to 1.26)2.0 × 10−110.67
rs111558036q25.1151987362 C6orf97 AGYes3,159 (0.36)848 (0.35)3,786 (0.36)7,452 (0.32)1.13 (1.03 to 1.25)0.011.17 (1.11 to 1.23)4.6 × 10−100.58
rs102529397q36155587448AGNo3,159 (0.28)849 (0.33)3,789 (0.29)7,455 (0.32)1.08 (0.98 to 1.19)0.140.87 (0.82 to 0.91)1.0 × 10−72.7 × 10−4
rs810024119p13.1117253894 ANKLE1 GAYes3,137 (0.48)844 (0.49)3,777 (0.47)7,420 (0.52)0.87 (0.79 to 0.95)2.8 × 10−30.84 (0.8 to 0.88)1.5 × 10−130.51
BRCA2 carriersrs216254010q26123342126 FGFR2 AGYes1,728 (0.45)458 (0.44)2,038 (0.44)3,783 (0.38)1.24 (1.08 to 1.42)1.8 × 10−31.30 (1.21 to 1.39)3.1 × 10−140.55
rs136254816q12.151121452 TOX3 CGYes1,770 (0.3)473 (0.32)2,087 (0.31)3,881 (0.26)1.32 (1.15 to 1.51)4.8 × 10−51.23 (1.15 to 1.32)7.3 × 10−90.36
LobularBRCA2 carriersrs218670311q23.3115265717 RPL15P15 ACNo188 (0.07)2,055 (0.03)2,087 (0.04)3,881 (0.03)1.09 (0.93 to 1.27)0.292.54 (1.78 to 3.62)2.8 × 10−71.5 × 10−5
rs55998524Xp11.2351082075 NUDT10 CGNo188 (0.11)2,054 (0.05)2,086 (0.06)3,880 (0.05)0.96 (0.83 to 1.1)0.542.42 (1.77 to 3.32)3.6 × 10−87.0 × 10−8

aCI, Confidence interval; HR, Hazard ratio; MAF, Mean allele frequency. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated at P <10−6 with ductal carcinomas and, for BRCA2 mutation carriers, lobular carcinomas are shown. The most strongly associated SNP from each locus is reported. bPosition in build 36. cReference allele. dEffect allele. eVariant located in previously reported breast cancer susceptibility locus. fP-value for the difference in SNP association between ductal breast tumors and non-ductal breast tumors and for lobular breast tumors and non-lobular breast tumors.

Associations with ductal and lobular breast cancer aCI, Confidence interval; HR, Hazard ratio; MAF, Mean allele frequency. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated at P <10−6 with ductal carcinomas and, for BRCA2 mutation carriers, lobular carcinomas are shown. The most strongly associated SNP from each locus is reported. bPosition in build 36. cReference allele. dEffect allele. eVariant located in previously reported breast cancer susceptibility locus. fP-value for the difference in SNP association between ductal breast tumors and non-ductal breast tumors and for lobular breast tumors and non-lobular breast tumors. There was one novel association with high-grade tumors in BRCA1 carriers (Table 6). Three previously unreported variants were associated with breast cancer nodal status in BRCA1 carriers: SNPs at 4q24 in the TET2 gene, at 5q32 in the SH3RF2 gene and at 7p22 in an intron of NXPH1. For BRCA2 carriers, only SNPs in FGFR2 and TOX3 exhibited associations at P <10−6 with breast cancer nodal status or histological grade.
Table 6

Associations with grade and lymph node status

Affected by subtype, n (MAF)Low-grade/no nodal involvementHigh grade/nodal involvement
SubtypeSampleSNPLocusPosition bNearby geneRef cEff dReported eHigh-grade/node-positiveLow-grade/node-negativeUnknownNumber unaffected (MAF)HR (95% CI)P -valueHR (95% CI)P -valueP het-value f
Grade 3BRCA1 carriersrs176514132q33.1202677054 KIAA2012 AGNo2,495 (0.12)655 (0.11)4,644 (0.13)7,454 (0.11)1.01 (0.86 to 1.2)0.861.20 (1.12 to 1.29)8.4 × 10−70.08
rs100696905p15.331332790 TERT GAYes2,493 (0.3)654 (0.29)4,638 (0.3)7,449 (0.26)1.15 (1.02 to 1.29)0.021.22 (1.16 to 1.29)2.4 × 10−130.39
c6_pos1519894506q25.1151989450 C6orf97 GAYes2,497 (0.11)655 (0.08)4,645 (0.1)7,455 (0.08)1.01 (0.83 to 1.24)0.911.31 (1.21 to 1.42)2.2 × 10−110.02
rs810024119p13.1117253894 ANKLE1 GAYes2,483 (0.48)653 (0.52)4,622 (0.48)7,420 (0.52)0.95 (0.86 to 1.05)0.360.82 (0.78 to 0.86)2.2 × 10−160.01
BRCA2 carriersrs4563158810q26123341292 FGFR2 AGYes839 (0.44)813 (0.48)2,678 (0.44)3,881 (0.39)1.36 (1.24 to 1.49)7.4 × 10−111.19 (1.09 to 1.3)1.7 × 10−40.06
rs3585069516q12.151131844 TOX3 GAYes839 (0.32)813 (0.3)2,678 (0.3)3,881 (0.26)1.2 (1.09 to 1.33)3.0 × 10−41.31 (1.19 to 1.44)4.0 × 10−80.26
NodesBRCA1 carriersrs14981254q24106412012 TET2 AGNo1,103 (0.2)2,274 (0.23)4,419 (0.22)7,455 (0.2)1.18 (1.1 to 1.25)4.4 × 10−70.98 (0.89 to 1.09)0.745.7 × 10−3
rs100696905p15.331332790 TERT GAYes1,100 (0.3)2,271 (0.29)4,414 (0.3)7,449 (0.26)1.19 (1.12 to 1.26)6.2 × 10−91.24 (1.13 to 1.35)2.0 × 10−60.5
rs117436325q32145389263 SH3RF2 GANo1,103 (0.31)2,274 (0.37)4,418 (0.36)7,453 (0.37)1.05 (0.99 to 1.11)0.10.8 (0.74 to 0.87)2.3 × 10−76.9 × 10−7
rs93839366q25.1151986307 C6orf97 GAYes1,103 (0.11)2,274 (0.09)4,420 (0.1)7,455 (0.08)1.16 (1.06 to 1.28)1.3 × 10−31.41 (1.24 to 1.6)1.3 × 10−70.03
rs23494857p228517481 NXPH1 ACNo1,091 (0.37)2,249 (0.34)4,374 (0.34)7,398 (0.37)0.87 (0.82 to 0.92)8.5 × 10−70.97 (0.90 to 1.06)0.530.03
rs1166905919p13.1117261453 ANKLE1 AGYes1,103 (0.41)2,273 (0.4)4,418 (0.39)7,452 (0.43)0.85 (0.81 to 0.9)2.9 × 10−90.86 (0.80 to 0.93)2.6 × 10−40.81
BRCA2 carriersrs298157810q26123330301 FGFR2 AGYes795 (0.44)1,047 (0.48)2,428 (0.47)3,819 (0.52)0.87 (0.8 to 0.94)7.4 × 10−40.75 (0.68 to 0.82)1.0 × 10−90.02
rs3585069516q12.151131844 TOX3 GAYes804 (0.31)1,068 (0.3)2,458 (0.3)3,881 (0.26)1.22 (1.12 to 1.33)8.5 × 10−61.30 (1.18 to 1.44)2.6 × 10−70.36

aCI, Confidence interval; HR, Hazard ratio; MAF, Mean allele frequency. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated at P <10−6 with high- or low-grade breast tumors and lymph node–positive or lymph node–negative breast cancer are shown. The most strongly associated SNPs from each locus are reported. bPosition in build 36. cReference allele. dEffect allele. eVariant located in previously reported breast cancer susceptibility locus. fP-value for the difference in association between high-grade breast cancer and low-grade breast cancer for grade 3 and for the association with lymph node–positive breast cancer and lymph node–negative breast cancer.

Associations with grade and lymph node status aCI, Confidence interval; HR, Hazard ratio; MAF, Mean allele frequency. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated at P <10−6 with high- or low-grade breast tumors and lymph node–positive or lymph node–negative breast cancer are shown. The most strongly associated SNPs from each locus are reported. bPosition in build 36. cReference allele. dEffect allele. eVariant located in previously reported breast cancer susceptibility locus. fP-value for the difference in association between high-grade breast cancer and low-grade breast cancer for grade 3 and for the association with lymph node–positive breast cancer and lymph node–negative breast cancer.

Discussion

This is the first comprehensive report, to our knowledge, of the associations of genetic variants with risk of developing breast cancer by tumor subtypes in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. We evaluated the associations with ER, PR and HER2 status; morphologic subtype (ductal or lobular); histological grade; and lymph node status. Prior to this study, variants at five loci (5p15.33, 6q25.1, 11p15.5, 12p11.22 and 16q12.1) had been shown to be associated with breast cancer risk for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers; variants at four additional loci were known to be associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 carriers only (1q32.1, 10q25.2, 14q24.1 and 19p13.11); and variants at six additional loci were known to be associated with risk for BRCA2 carriers (3p24.1, 5p12, 6p24.3, 10q26.12, 11q13 and 12q24.21) [6],[7],[10]. Among the 43 breast cancer susceptibility variants that had not previously been evaluated in mutation carriers, we observed six associations with breast cancer at P <0.05 in BRCA1 carriers (5p33.3, 8q24.21, 11q24.3, 12q22, 16q12.1b and 22q13.1) and three in BRCA2 carriers (6p23, 11q24.3 and 16q12.1b). After stratifying by ER status, we observed additional associations that were not seen for overall breast cancer. Among the 43 susceptibility variants that were evaluated in mutation carriers for the first time, we identified two additional associations in BRCA1 carriers when stratifying by ER status (3q26.1, 6p25.3) and four in BRCA2 carriers (2q24, 14q13.3, 19q13.3, 22q12.2). Population-based studies have shown that seven of the 74 breast cancer susceptibility variants display stronger associations with ER-negative disease in the general population [9]. Consistent with these findings, SNPs at 1q32.1 (MDM4), 5p15.33, 6q25.1 and 19p13 were associated with ER-negative breast cancer in BRCA1 carriers and SNPs at 2p24.1, 5p15.33 and 6q25.1 in BRCA2 carriers. No data were available for the SNP at 20q11. We were able to confirm most of the associations with ER and PR subtypes of the 12 SNPs reported in the previous smaller CIMBA study [15]. In addition, two variants from that analysis now displayed evidence at P <0.05: rs13387042 at 2q35 with ER-positive breast cancer in BRCA1 carriers and rs2046210 at 6q25.1 with ER-negative breast cancer in BRCA2 carriers. We also evaluated the associations of the 74 previously reported breast cancer susceptibility loci with other breast cancer subtypes. Variants at 5p15.33 (TERT), 6q25.1 (ESR1) and 19p13.11 showed associations in all subtype analyses for BRCA1 carriers. These are the most strongly associated loci for overall breast cancer in BRCA1 carriers, but they had not previously been investigated for their roles in subtypes other than ER. Variants at these three loci were associated with ER-, PR- and HER2-negative and TN subtypes. These variants were also associated with risk of high-grade tumors, with some suggestive evidence that this association was different from the association with grades 1 and 2 tumors for SNPs at ESR1 and 19p13. The three loci were associated with ductal as well as non-ductal subtypes and node-positive as well as node-negative breast cancer. For BRCA2 carriers, SNPs at loci 10q26 (FGFR2) and 16q12.1 (TOX3) were associated with all subtypes of breast cancer. SNPs at FGFR2 and TOX3 have consistently been associated with overall and with ER-positive breast cancer in population-based cases [25] as well as in BRCA1/2 carriers [15]. Furthermore, SNPs at these two loci were associated with PR-positive and HER2-negative disease. There was no evidence for a difference in HR estimates by tumor grade, nodal involvement or morphologic subtype (ductal). It is important to note that for each of the 74 known loci considered, we evaluated only the associations for the specific SNPs that have been reported by the BCAC. We have not considered all genetic variants within a given region. Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility that more strongly associated variants exist at these loci than the SNPs reported here. Future fine-mapping efforts in conjunction with BCAC analyses should clarify this. Such studies may also identify the causal variant and together with subsequent functional studies gather insights about the functional mechanisms causing these association signals. This in turn may yield insights about the etiology of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. We compared HRs for the association with overall breast cancer and ER-positive and ER-negative breast cancer for all the 74 known breast cancer susceptibility variants between BRCA1 carriers, BRCA2 carriers and population-based studies using published data from BCAC. Although only some of these variants were associated at P <0.05 with breast cancer in mutation carriers as outlined above, there was nevertheless strong correlation between the HRs for overall breast cancer from the general population and those from BRCA2 carriers, and moderate correlation between the HRs from BRCA1 carriers and from BCAC. These results suggest that many of these variants may also be associated with breast cancer risk for mutation carriers, but the power to detect statistically significant associations in mutation carriers is low. These variants could be employed in risk prediction models for mutation carriers. Future studies should be aimed at assessing the associations of the combined effects of the SNPs in mutation carriers in terms of polygenic risk scores. We used these comparisons to assess the hypothesis that observed differences in the associations between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers and the general population are mediated by ER status. The smaller correlation between the association estimates for BRCA1 carriers and both BCAC and BRCA2 carriers compared with those between BCAC and BRCA2 carriers is consistent with this hypothesis. Moreover, we found stronger correlations between the HRs for ER-positive disease in all three two-way comparisons (ICC = 0.61 to 0.69). The correlation between ORs for ER-negative disease from BCAC and HRs for ER-negative disease from BRCA1 carriers was also strong (ICC = 0.59). Correlations diminished when comparing HR estimates for ER-positive with estimates for ER-negative breast cancer; most of them were not significantly different from zero. This finding suggests that, to a large extent, the difference in SNP association patterns is due to mediating effects of tumor ER status. Under such a model, the effects of common breast cancer susceptibility variants and of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations on breast cancer risk would be multiplicative, after taking into account tumor ER status. As BRCA1 carriers are more likely to develop ER-negative disease, SNPs associated with this subtype will be more informative in models to predict overall breast cancer risk in these women, whereas SNPs associated with ER-positive disease will be more useful in BRCA2 carriers. Furthermore, ER-specific SNP associations could be used to provide separate estimates of ER-negative and ER-positive breast cancer risk for mutation carriers. This understanding allows the development of more refined models and is critical to the provision of accurate information to women considering more targeted preventive options. However, the fact that the correlations between the HR estimates matched for ER status were smaller than 1 implies that there were still some differences in the associations after accounting for ER status. This could be due to sampling error or to real differences in genetic associations between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers and the general population. There are examples for such differences: BRCA1 and BRCA2 carrier-specific modifiers, such as the recently identified variant at 6p24, which was associated with breast cancer risk only in BRCA2 carriers [6], and the ovarian cancer susceptibility locus 4q32, which appeared to modify ovarian cancer risk only for BRCA1 carriers [7]. In addition, an ovarian cancer susceptibility locus 17q11.2 identified through population-based data has been shown to display a consistent association in BRCA2 carriers, whereas an association of similar magnitude has been ruled out in BRCA1 carriers [26]. The extent to which genetic susceptibility to breast cancer in mutation carriers and in the general population is shared, as well as the extent to which it is mediated by ER status, need to be quantified systematically by future studies. We also assessed the associations of over 200,000 SNPs on the iCOGS array. We identified several variants not previously reported that were associated with breast cancer at P <10−6 in the analyses by PR status, HER status, TN phenotype, histological grade, nodal involvement, ductal and lobular morphologic subtypes. In the absence of P-values at genome-wide significance levels for these associations to account for multiple testing, these associations require confirmation through by gathering additional data. Although this is the largest study of its kind, the statistical power to detect associations of variants conferring small effects with specific tumor characteristics may be low, owing to the limited data available. Future studies of additional BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers with detailed tumor pathology information on new and previously recruited mutation carriers are needed. In this study, tumor pathology information was retrieved primarily from medical records. Despite extensive efforts, it is difficult to control the quality of these data. If there is low reproducibility in the classification of tumor characteristics for some samples, this could potentially add to the sampling error and make it more difficult to detect subtype-specific associations.

Conclusions

We have identified additional genetic modifiers of breast cancer risk for mutation carriers among reported breast cancer susceptibility loci. Large differences in absolute risk are expected between mutation carriers who carry many and mutation carriers who carry few risk alleles of modifying variants [6],[7]. Therefore, in combination with previously identified modifiers, these variants may be of value for cancer risk prediction. Moreover, our results show that, to a large extent, the differences in breast cancer associations of known breast cancer susceptibility loci between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers and the general population are due to differences in the prevalence of tumor subtypes in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Estimates of the risks associated with these genetic variants based on large population-based association studies are likely to be applicable also to mutation carriers after taking ER status into account. Our results thus have implications for developing risk prediction models for breast cancer subtype-specific risks in mutation carriers that incorporate the effects of these SNPs. Additional file 1: Table S1.: Ethics committees that granted approval for the access and use of the data for this study. Table S2. Hormone receptor definitions used by the studies. Table S3. Associations of breast cancer susceptibility variants with breast cancer by tumor ER status after excluding prevalent cases. Table S4. Associations of breast cancer susceptibility variants with breast cancer by tumor PR status. Table S5. Associations of breast cancer susceptibility variants with breast cancer by tumor HER2 status. Table S6. Associations of breast cancer susceptibility variants with breast cancer by tumor triple-negative status. Table S7. Associations of breast cancer susceptibility variants with ductal breast cancer. Table S8. Associations of breast cancer susceptibility variants with lobular breast cancer. Table S9. Associations of breast cancer susceptibility variants with breast cancer by tumor grade. Table S10. Associations of breast cancer susceptibility variants with breast cancer by nodal involvement. Figure S1. QQ plots for SNP associations with ER-positive and -negative breast cancer in BRCA1 carriers. Figure S2. QQ plots for SNP associations with ER-positive and -negative breast cancer in BRCA2 carriers. Figure S3. Comparison of the breast cancer associations of breast cancer susceptibility loci in BCAC and in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Figure S4. Comparison of the associations of breast cancer susceptibility loci by ER status in BRCA1 and in BRCA2 carriers. Figure S5. Comparison of the associations of breast cancer susceptibility loci by ER status in population-based studies (BCAC) and in BRCA1 carriers. Figure S6. Comparison of the associations of breast cancer susceptibility loci by ER status in population-based studies (BCAC) and in BRCA2 carriers. (PDF 750 KB) Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images. Authors’ original file for figure 1
  25 in total

1.  RAD51 135G-->C modifies breast cancer risk among BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from a combined analysis of 19 studies.

Authors:  Antonis C Antoniou; Olga M Sinilnikova; Jacques Simard; Mélanie Léoné; Martine Dumont; Susan L Neuhausen; Jeffery P Struewing; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Laure Barjhoux; David J Hughes; Isabelle Coupier; Muriel Belotti; Christine Lasset; Valérie Bonadona; Yves-Jean Bignon; Timothy R Rebbeck; Theresa Wagner; Henry T Lynch; Susan M Domchek; Katherine L Nathanson; Judy E Garber; Jeffrey Weitzel; Steven A Narod; Gail Tomlinson; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Andrew Godwin; Claudine Isaacs; Anna Jakubowska; Jan Lubinski; Jacek Gronwald; Bohdan Górski; Tomasz Byrski; Tomasz Huzarski; Susan Peock; Margaret Cook; Caroline Baynes; Alexandra Murray; Mark Rogers; Peter A Daly; Huw Dorkins; Rita K Schmutzler; Beatrix Versmold; Christoph Engel; Alfons Meindl; Norbert Arnold; Dieter Niederacher; Helmut Deissler; Amanda B Spurdle; Xiaoqing Chen; Nicola Waddell; Nicole Cloonan; Tomas Kirchhoff; Kenneth Offit; Eitan Friedman; Bella Kaufmann; Yael Laitman; Gilli Galore; Gad Rennert; Flavio Lejbkowicz; Leon Raskin; Irene L Andrulis; Eduard Ilyushik; Hilmi Ozcelik; Peter Devilee; Maaike P G Vreeswijk; Mark H Greene; Sheila A Prindiville; Ana Osorio; Javier Benitez; Michal Zikan; Csilla I Szabo; Outi Kilpivaara; Heli Nevanlinna; Ute Hamann; Francine Durocher; Adalgeir Arason; Fergus J Couch; Douglas F Easton; Georgia Chenevix-Trench
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2007-10-16       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  Programs for Pedigree Analysis: MENDEL, FISHER, and dGENE.

Authors:  K Lange; D Weeks; M Boehnke
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.135

3.  BRCA2 mutation-associated breast cancers exhibit a distinguishing phenotype based on morphology and molecular profiles from tissue microarrays.

Authors:  Anita L Bane; Jeanne C Beck; Ira Bleiweiss; Saundra S Buys; Edison Catalano; Mary B Daly; Graham Giles; Andy K Godwin; Hanina Hibshoosh; John L Hopper; Esther M John; Lester Layfield; Teri Longacre; Alexander Miron; Rubie Senie; Melissa C Southey; Dee W West; Alice S Whittemore; Hong Wu; Irene L Andrulis; Frances P O'Malley
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 6.394

4.  Multifactorial analysis of differences between sporadic breast cancers and cancers involving BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.

Authors:  S R Lakhani; J Jacquemier; J P Sloane; B A Gusterson; T J Anderson; M J van de Vijver; L M Farid; D Venter; A Antoniou; A Storfer-Isser; E Smyth; C M Steel; N Haites; R J Scott; D Goldgar; S Neuhausen; P A Daly; W Ormiston; R McManus; S Scherneck; B A Ponder; D Ford; J Peto; D Stoppa-Lyonnet; Y J Bignon; J P Struewing; N K Spurr; D T Bishop; J G Klijn; P Devilee; C J Cornelisse; C Lasset; G Lenoir; R B Barkardottir; V Egilsson; U Hamann; J Chang-Claude; H Sobol; B Weber; M R Stratton; D F Easton
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1998-08-05       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Medullary carcinoma of the breast. A multicenter study of its diagnostic consistency.

Authors:  C Rigaud; S Theobald; P Noël; J Badreddine; C Barlier; A Delobelle; A Gentile; J Jacquemier; V Maisongrosse; M Peffault de Latour
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 5.534

6.  Medullary carcinoma of the breast: interobserver variability in histopathologic diagnosis.

Authors:  M J Gaffey; S E Mills; H F Frierson; R J Zarbo; J C Boyd; J F Simpson; L M Weiss
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 7.842

7.  Prediction of BRCA1 status in patients with breast cancer using estrogen receptor and basal phenotype.

Authors:  Sunil R Lakhani; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Laura Fulford; Frederique Penault-Llorca; Marc van der Vijver; Suzanne Parry; Timothy Bishop; Javier Benitez; Carmen Rivas; Yves-Jean Bignon; Jenny Chang-Claude; Ute Hamann; Cees J Cornelisse; Peter Devilee; Matthias W Beckmann; Carolin Nestle-Krämling; Peter A Daly; Neva Haites; Jenny Varley; Fiona Lalloo; Gareth Evans; Christine Maugard; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Jan G M Klijn; Edith Olah; Barry A Gusterson; Silvana Pilotti; Paolo Radice; Siegfried Scherneck; Hagay Sobol; Jocelyne Jacquemier; Teresa Wagner; Julian Peto; Michael R Stratton; Lesley McGuffog; Douglas F Easton
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2005-07-15       Impact factor: 12.531

8.  Functional variants at the 11q13 risk locus for breast cancer regulate cyclin D1 expression through long-range enhancers.

Authors:  Juliet D French; Maya Ghoussaini; Stacey L Edwards; Kerstin B Meyer; Kyriaki Michailidou; Shahana Ahmed; Sofia Khan; Mel J Maranian; Martin O'Reilly; Kristine M Hillman; Joshua A Betts; Thomas Carroll; Peter J Bailey; Ed Dicks; Jonathan Beesley; Jonathan Tyrer; Ana-Teresa Maia; Andrew Beck; Nicholas W Knoblauch; Constance Chen; Peter Kraft; Daniel Barnes; Anna González-Neira; M Rosario Alonso; Daniel Herrero; Daniel C Tessier; Daniel Vincent; Francois Bacot; Craig Luccarini; Caroline Baynes; Don Conroy; Joe Dennis; Manjeet K Bolla; Qin Wang; John L Hopper; Melissa C Southey; Marjanka K Schmidt; Annegien Broeks; Senno Verhoef; Sten Cornelissen; Kenneth Muir; Artitaya Lophatananon; Sarah Stewart-Brown; Pornthep Siriwanarangsan; Peter A Fasching; Christian R Loehberg; Arif B Ekici; Matthias W Beckmann; Julian Peto; Isabel dos Santos Silva; Nichola Johnson; Zoe Aitken; Elinor J Sawyer; Ian Tomlinson; Michael J Kerin; Nicola Miller; Frederik Marme; Andreas Schneeweiss; Christof Sohn; Barbara Burwinkel; Pascal Guénel; Thérèse Truong; Pierre Laurent-Puig; Florence Menegaux; Stig E Bojesen; Børge G Nordestgaard; Sune F Nielsen; Henrik Flyger; Roger L Milne; M Pilar Zamora; Jose Ignacio Arias Perez; Javier Benitez; Hoda Anton-Culver; Hermann Brenner; Heiko Müller; Volker Arndt; Christa Stegmaier; Alfons Meindl; Peter Lichtner; Rita K Schmutzler; Christoph Engel; Hiltrud Brauch; Ute Hamann; Christina Justenhoven; Kirsimari Aaltonen; Päivi Heikkilä; Kristiina Aittomäki; Carl Blomqvist; Keitaro Matsuo; Hidemi Ito; Hiroji Iwata; Aiko Sueta; Natalia V Bogdanova; Natalia N Antonenkova; Thilo Dörk; Annika Lindblom; Sara Margolin; Arto Mannermaa; Vesa Kataja; Veli-Matti Kosma; Jaana M Hartikainen; Anna H Wu; Chiu-chen Tseng; David Van Den Berg; Daniel O Stram; Diether Lambrechts; Stephanie Peeters; Ann Smeets; Giuseppe Floris; Jenny Chang-Claude; Anja Rudolph; Stefan Nickels; Dieter Flesch-Janys; Paolo Radice; Paolo Peterlongo; Bernardo Bonanni; Domenico Sardella; Fergus J Couch; Xianshu Wang; Vernon S Pankratz; Adam Lee; Graham G Giles; Gianluca Severi; Laura Baglietto; Christopher A Haiman; Brian E Henderson; Fredrick Schumacher; Loic Le Marchand; Jacques Simard; Mark S Goldberg; France Labrèche; Martine Dumont; Soo Hwang Teo; Cheng Har Yip; Char-Hong Ng; Eranga Nishanthie Vithana; Vessela Kristensen; Wei Zheng; Sandra Deming-Halverson; Martha Shrubsole; Jirong Long; Robert Winqvist; Katri Pylkäs; Arja Jukkola-Vuorinen; Mervi Grip; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Gord Glendon; Anna Marie Mulligan; Peter Devilee; Caroline Seynaeve; Montserrat García-Closas; Jonine Figueroa; Stephen J Chanock; Jolanta Lissowska; Kamila Czene; Daniel Klevebring; Nils Schoof; Maartje J Hooning; John W M Martens; J Margriet Collée; Madeleine Tilanus-Linthorst; Per Hall; Jingmei Li; Jianjun Liu; Keith Humphreys; Xiao-Ou Shu; Wei Lu; Yu-Tang Gao; Hui Cai; Angela Cox; Sabapathy P Balasubramanian; William Blot; Lisa B Signorello; Qiuyin Cai; Paul D P Pharoah; Catherine S Healey; Mitul Shah; Karen A Pooley; Daehee Kang; Keun-Young Yoo; Dong-Young Noh; Mikael Hartman; Hui Miao; Jen-Hwei Sng; Xueling Sim; Anna Jakubowska; Jan Lubinski; Katarzyna Jaworska-Bieniek; Katarzyna Durda; Suleeporn Sangrajrang; Valerie Gaborieau; James McKay; Amanda E Toland; Christine B Ambrosone; Drakoulis Yannoukakos; Andrew K Godwin; Chen-Yang Shen; Chia-Ni Hsiung; Pei-Ei Wu; Shou-Tung Chen; Anthony Swerdlow; Alan Ashworth; Nick Orr; Minouk J Schoemaker; Bruce A J Ponder; Heli Nevanlinna; Melissa A Brown; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Douglas F Easton; Alison M Dunning
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 11.025

9.  Identification of six new susceptibility loci for invasive epithelial ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Karoline B Kuchenbaecker; Susan J Ramus; Jonathan Tyrer; Andrew Lee; Howard C Shen; Jonathan Beesley; Kate Lawrenson; Lesley McGuffog; Sue Healey; Janet M Lee; Tassja J Spindler; Yvonne G Lin; Tanja Pejovic; Yukie Bean; Qiyuan Li; Simon Coetzee; Dennis Hazelett; Alexander Miron; Melissa Southey; Mary Beth Terry; David E Goldgar; Saundra S Buys; Ramunas Janavicius; Cecilia M Dorfling; Elizabeth J van Rensburg; Susan L Neuhausen; Yuan Chun Ding; Thomas V O Hansen; Lars Jønson; Anne-Marie Gerdes; Bent Ejlertsen; Daniel Barrowdale; Joe Dennis; Javier Benitez; Ana Osorio; Maria Jose Garcia; Ian Komenaka; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Pamela Ganschow; Paolo Peterlongo; Loris Bernard; Alessandra Viel; Bernardo Bonanni; Bernard Peissel; Siranoush Manoukian; Paolo Radice; Laura Papi; Laura Ottini; Florentia Fostira; Irene Konstantopoulou; Judy Garber; Debra Frost; Jo Perkins; Radka Platte; Steve Ellis; Andrew K Godwin; Rita Katharina Schmutzler; Alfons Meindl; Christoph Engel; Christian Sutter; Olga M Sinilnikova; Francesca Damiola; Sylvie Mazoyer; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Kathleen Claes; Kim De Leeneer; Judy Kirk; Gustavo C Rodriguez; Marion Piedmonte; David M O'Malley; Miguel de la Hoya; Trinidad Caldes; Kristiina Aittomäki; Heli Nevanlinna; J Margriet Collée; Matti A Rookus; Jan C Oosterwijk; Laima Tihomirova; Nadine Tung; Ute Hamann; Claudine Isaccs; Marc Tischkowitz; Evgeny N Imyanitov; Maria A Caligo; Ian G Campbell; Frans B L Hogervorst; Edith Olah; Orland Diez; Ignacio Blanco; Joan Brunet; Conxi Lazaro; Miquel Angel Pujana; Anna Jakubowska; Jacek Gronwald; Jan Lubinski; Grzegorz Sukiennicki; Rosa B Barkardottir; Marie Plante; Jacques Simard; Penny Soucy; Marco Montagna; Silvia Tognazzo; Manuel R Teixeira; Vernon S Pankratz; Xianshu Wang; Noralane Lindor; Csilla I Szabo; Noah Kauff; Joseph Vijai; Carol A Aghajanian; Georg Pfeiler; Andreas Berger; Christian F Singer; Muy-Kheng Tea; Catherine M Phelan; Mark H Greene; Phuong L Mai; Gad Rennert; Anna Marie Mulligan; Sandrine Tchatchou; Irene L Andrulis; Gord Glendon; Amanda Ewart Toland; Uffe Birk Jensen; Torben A Kruse; Mads Thomassen; Anders Bojesen; Jamal Zidan; Eitan Friedman; Yael Laitman; Maria Soller; Annelie Liljegren; Brita Arver; Zakaria Einbeigi; Marie Stenmark-Askmalm; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Robert L Nussbaum; Timothy R Rebbeck; Katherine L Nathanson; Susan M Domchek; Karen H Lu; Beth Y Karlan; Christine Walsh; Jenny Lester; Alexander Hein; Arif B Ekici; Matthias W Beckmann; Peter A Fasching; Diether Lambrechts; Els Van Nieuwenhuysen; Ignace Vergote; Sandrina Lambrechts; Ed Dicks; Jennifer A Doherty; Kristine G Wicklund; Mary Anne Rossing; Anja Rudolph; Jenny Chang-Claude; Shan Wang-Gohrke; Ursula Eilber; Kirsten B Moysich; Kunle Odunsi; Lara Sucheston; Shashi Lele; Lynne R Wilkens; Marc T Goodman; Pamela J Thompson; Yurii B Shvetsov; Ingo B Runnebaum; Matthias Dürst; Peter Hillemanns; Thilo Dörk; Natalia Antonenkova; Natalia Bogdanova; Arto Leminen; Liisa M Pelttari; Ralf Butzow; Francesmary Modugno; Joseph L Kelley; Robert P Edwards; Roberta B Ness; Andreas du Bois; Florian Heitz; Ira Schwaab; Philipp Harter; Keitaro Matsuo; Satoyo Hosono; Sandra Orsulic; Allan Jensen; Susanne Kruger Kjaer; Estrid Hogdall; Hanis Nazihah Hasmad; Mat Adenan Noor Azmi; Soo-Hwang Teo; Yin-Ling Woo; Brooke L Fridley; Ellen L Goode; Julie M Cunningham; Robert A Vierkant; Fiona Bruinsma; Graham G Giles; Dong Liang; Michelle A T Hildebrandt; Xifeng Wu; Douglas A Levine; Maria Bisogna; Andrew Berchuck; Edwin S Iversen; Joellen M Schildkraut; Patrick Concannon; Rachel Palmieri Weber; Daniel W Cramer; Kathryn L Terry; Elizabeth M Poole; Shelley S Tworoger; Elisa V Bandera; Irene Orlow; Sara H Olson; Camilla Krakstad; Helga B Salvesen; Ingvild L Tangen; Line Bjorge; Anne M van Altena; Katja K H Aben; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Leon F A G Massuger; Melissa Kellar; Angela Brooks-Wilson; Linda E Kelemen; Linda S Cook; Nhu D Le; Cezary Cybulski; Hannah Yang; Jolanta Lissowska; Louise A Brinton; Nicolas Wentzensen; Claus Hogdall; Lene Lundvall; Lotte Nedergaard; Helen Baker; Honglin Song; Diana Eccles; Ian McNeish; James Paul; Karen Carty; Nadeem Siddiqui; Rosalind Glasspool; Alice S Whittemore; Joseph H Rothstein; Valerie McGuire; Weiva Sieh; Bu-Tian Ji; Wei Zheng; Xiao-Ou Shu; Yu-Tang Gao; Barry Rosen; Harvey A Risch; John R McLaughlin; Steven A Narod; Alvaro N Monteiro; Ann Chen; Hui-Yi Lin; Jenny Permuth-Wey; Thomas A Sellers; Ya-Yu Tsai; Zhihua Chen; Argyrios Ziogas; Hoda Anton-Culver; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Usha Menon; Patricia Harrington; Alice W Lee; Anna H Wu; Celeste L Pearce; Gerry Coetzee; Malcolm C Pike; Agnieszka Dansonka-Mieszkowska; Agnieszka Timorek; Iwona K Rzepecka; Jolanta Kupryjanczyk; Matt Freedman; Houtan Noushmehr; Douglas F Easton; Kenneth Offit; Fergus J Couch; Simon Gayther; Paul P Pharoah; Antonis C Antoniou; Georgia Chenevix-Trench
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2015-01-12       Impact factor: 38.330

10.  An international initiative to identify genetic modifiers of cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (CIMBA).

Authors:  Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Roger L Milne; Antonis C Antoniou; Fergus J Couch; Douglas F Easton; David E Goldgar
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  26 in total

1.  Long-term survival of a BRCA2 mutation carrier following second ovarian cancer relapse using PARPi therapy: A case report.

Authors:  Kathrin Bredow; Britta Blümcke; Stephanie Schneider; Michael Püsken; Rita Schmutzler; Kerstin Rhiem
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2022-07-21

Review 2.  Common Genetic Variation and Breast Cancer Risk-Past, Present, and Future.

Authors:  Jenna Lilyquist; Kathryn J Ruddy; Celine M Vachon; Fergus J Couch
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 3.  Key steps for effective breast cancer prevention.

Authors:  Kara L Britt; Jack Cuzick; Kelly-Anne Phillips
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 60.716

4.  Obesity, Dietary Factors, Nutrition, and Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Annina Seiler; Michelle A Chen; Ryan L Brown; Christopher P Fagundes
Journal:  Curr Breast Cancer Rep       Date:  2018-01-19

5.  Evaluation of Polygenic Risk Scores for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Prediction in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers.

Authors:  Karoline B Kuchenbaecker; Lesley McGuffog; Daniel Barrowdale; Andrew Lee; Penny Soucy; Joe Dennis; Susan M Domchek; Mark Robson; Amanda B Spurdle; Susan J Ramus; Nasim Mavaddat; Mary Beth Terry; Susan L Neuhausen; Rita Katharina Schmutzler; Jacques Simard; Paul D P Pharoah; Kenneth Offit; Fergus J Couch; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Douglas F Easton; Antonis C Antoniou
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  A search for modifying genetic factors in CHEK2:c.1100delC breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Camilla Wendt; Taru A Muranen; Lotta Mielikäinen; Jessada Thutkawkorapin; Carl Blomqvist; Xiang Jiao; Hans Ehrencrona; Emma Tham; Brita Arver; Beatrice Melin; Ekaterina Kuchinskaya; Marie Stenmark Askmalm; Ylva Paulsson-Karlsson; Zakaria Einbeigi; Anna von Wachenfeldt Väppling; Eija Kalso; Tiina Tasmuth; Anne Kallioniemi; Kristiina Aittomäki; Heli Nevanlinna; Åke Borg; Annika Lindblom
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-20       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Risk of Breast Cancer Among Carriers of Pathogenic Variants in Breast Cancer Predisposition Genes Varies by Polygenic Risk Score.

Authors:  Chi Gao; Eric C Polley; Steven N Hart; Hongyan Huang; Chunling Hu; Rohan Gnanaolivu; Jenna Lilyquist; Nicholas J Boddicker; Jie Na; Christine B Ambrosone; Paul L Auer; Leslie Bernstein; Elizabeth S Burnside; A Heather Eliassen; Mia M Gaudet; Christopher Haiman; David J Hunter; Eric J Jacobs; Esther M John; Sara Lindström; Huiyan Ma; Susan L Neuhausen; Polly A Newcomb; Katie M O'Brien; Janet E Olson; Irene M Ong; Alpa V Patel; Julie R Palmer; Dale P Sandler; Rulla Tamimi; Jack A Taylor; Lauren R Teras; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Celine M Vachon; Clarice R Weinberg; Song Yao; Jeffrey N Weitzel; David E Goldgar; Susan M Domchek; Katherine L Nathanson; Fergus J Couch; Peter Kraft
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 50.717

8.  RAD51B in Familial Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Liisa M Pelttari; Sofia Khan; Mikko Vuorela; Johanna I Kiiski; Sara Vilske; Viivi Nevanlinna; Salla Ranta; Johanna Schleutker; Robert Winqvist; Anne Kallioniemi; Thilo Dörk; Natalia V Bogdanova; Jonine Figueroa; Paul D P Pharoah; Marjanka K Schmidt; Alison M Dunning; Montserrat García-Closas; Manjeet K Bolla; Joe Dennis; Kyriaki Michailidou; Qin Wang; John L Hopper; Melissa C Southey; Efraim H Rosenberg; Peter A Fasching; Matthias W Beckmann; Julian Peto; Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva; Elinor J Sawyer; Ian Tomlinson; Barbara Burwinkel; Harald Surowy; Pascal Guénel; Thérèse Truong; Stig E Bojesen; Børge G Nordestgaard; Javier Benitez; Anna González-Neira; Susan L Neuhausen; Hoda Anton-Culver; Hermann Brenner; Volker Arndt; Alfons Meindl; Rita K Schmutzler; Hiltrud Brauch; Thomas Brüning; Annika Lindblom; Sara Margolin; Arto Mannermaa; Jaana M Hartikainen; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Laurien Van Dyck; Hilde Janssen; Jenny Chang-Claude; Anja Rudolph; Paolo Radice; Paolo Peterlongo; Emily Hallberg; Janet E Olson; Graham G Giles; Roger L Milne; Christopher A Haiman; Fredrick Schumacher; Jacques Simard; Martine Dumont; Vessela Kristensen; Anne-Lise Borresen-Dale; Wei Zheng; Alicia Beeghly-Fadiel; Mervi Grip; Irene L Andrulis; Gord Glendon; Peter Devilee; Caroline Seynaeve; Maartje J Hooning; Margriet Collée; Angela Cox; Simon S Cross; Mitul Shah; Robert N Luben; Ute Hamann; Diana Torres; Anna Jakubowska; Jan Lubinski; Fergus J Couch; Drakoulis Yannoukakos; Nick Orr; Anthony Swerdlow; Hatef Darabi; Jingmei Li; Kamila Czene; Per Hall; Douglas F Easton; Johanna Mattson; Carl Blomqvist; Kristiina Aittomäki; Heli Nevanlinna
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Identification of four novel susceptibility loci for oestrogen receptor negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Fergus J Couch; Karoline B Kuchenbaecker; Kyriaki Michailidou; Gustavo A Mendoza-Fandino; Silje Nord; Janna Lilyquist; Curtis Olswold; Emily Hallberg; Simona Agata; Habibul Ahsan; Kristiina Aittomäki; Christine Ambrosone; Irene L Andrulis; Hoda Anton-Culver; Volker Arndt; Banu K Arun; Brita Arver; Monica Barile; Rosa B Barkardottir; Daniel Barrowdale; Lars Beckmann; Matthias W Beckmann; Javier Benitez; Stephanie V Blank; Carl Blomqvist; Natalia V Bogdanova; Stig E Bojesen; Manjeet K Bolla; Bernardo Bonanni; Hiltrud Brauch; Hermann Brenner; Barbara Burwinkel; Saundra S Buys; Trinidad Caldes; Maria A Caligo; Federico Canzian; Jane Carpenter; Jenny Chang-Claude; Stephen J Chanock; Wendy K Chung; Kathleen B M Claes; Angela Cox; Simon S Cross; Julie M Cunningham; Kamila Czene; Mary B Daly; Francesca Damiola; Hatef Darabi; Miguel de la Hoya; Peter Devilee; Orland Diez; Yuan C Ding; Riccardo Dolcetti; Susan M Domchek; Cecilia M Dorfling; Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva; Martine Dumont; Alison M Dunning; Diana M Eccles; Hans Ehrencrona; Arif B Ekici; Heather Eliassen; Steve Ellis; Peter A Fasching; Jonine Figueroa; Dieter Flesch-Janys; Asta Försti; Florentia Fostira; William D Foulkes; Tara Friebel; Eitan Friedman; Debra Frost; Marike Gabrielson; Marilie D Gammon; Patricia A Ganz; Susan M Gapstur; Judy Garber; Mia M Gaudet; Simon A Gayther; Anne-Marie Gerdes; Maya Ghoussaini; Graham G Giles; Gord Glendon; Andrew K Godwin; Mark S Goldberg; David E Goldgar; Anna González-Neira; Mark H Greene; Jacek Gronwald; Pascal Guénel; Marc Gunter; Lothar Haeberle; Christopher A Haiman; Ute Hamann; Thomas V O Hansen; Steven Hart; Sue Healey; Tuomas Heikkinen; Brian E Henderson; Josef Herzog; Frans B L Hogervorst; Antoinette Hollestelle; Maartje J Hooning; Robert N Hoover; John L Hopper; Keith Humphreys; David J Hunter; Tomasz Huzarski; Evgeny N Imyanitov; Claudine Isaacs; Anna Jakubowska; Paul James; Ramunas Janavicius; Uffe Birk Jensen; Esther M John; Michael Jones; Maria Kabisch; Siddhartha Kar; Beth Y Karlan; Sofia Khan; Kay-Tee Khaw; Muhammad G Kibriya; Julia A Knight; Yon-Dschun Ko; Irene Konstantopoulou; Veli-Matti Kosma; Vessela Kristensen; Ava Kwong; Yael Laitman; Diether Lambrechts; Conxi Lazaro; Eunjung Lee; Loic Le Marchand; Jenny Lester; Annika Lindblom; Noralane Lindor; Sara Lindstrom; Jianjun Liu; Jirong Long; Jan Lubinski; Phuong L Mai; Enes Makalic; Kathleen E Malone; Arto Mannermaa; Siranoush Manoukian; Sara Margolin; Frederik Marme; John W M Martens; Lesley McGuffog; Alfons Meindl; Austin Miller; Roger L Milne; Penelope Miron; Marco Montagna; Sylvie Mazoyer; Anna M Mulligan; Taru A Muranen; Katherine L Nathanson; Susan L Neuhausen; Heli Nevanlinna; Børge G Nordestgaard; Robert L Nussbaum; Kenneth Offit; Edith Olah; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Janet E Olson; Ana Osorio; Sue K Park; Petra H Peeters; Bernard Peissel; Paolo Peterlongo; Julian Peto; Catherine M Phelan; Robert Pilarski; Bruce Poppe; Katri Pylkäs; Paolo Radice; Nazneen Rahman; Johanna Rantala; Christine Rappaport; Gad Rennert; Andrea Richardson; Mark Robson; Isabelle Romieu; Anja Rudolph; Emiel J Rutgers; Maria-Jose Sanchez; Regina M Santella; Elinor J Sawyer; Daniel F Schmidt; Marjanka K Schmidt; Rita K Schmutzler; Fredrick Schumacher; Rodney Scott; Leigha Senter; Priyanka Sharma; Jacques Simard; Christian F Singer; Olga M Sinilnikova; Penny Soucy; Melissa Southey; Doris Steinemann; Marie Stenmark-Askmalm; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Anthony Swerdlow; Csilla I Szabo; Rulla Tamimi; William Tapper; Manuel R Teixeira; Soo-Hwang Teo; Mary B Terry; Mads Thomassen; Deborah Thompson; Laima Tihomirova; Amanda E Toland; Robert A E M Tollenaar; Ian Tomlinson; Thérèse Truong; Helen Tsimiklis; Alex Teulé; Rosario Tumino; Nadine Tung; Clare Turnbull; Giski Ursin; Carolien H M van Deurzen; Elizabeth J van Rensburg; Raymonda Varon-Mateeva; Zhaoming Wang; Shan Wang-Gohrke; Elisabete Weiderpass; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Alice Whittemore; Hans Wildiers; Robert Winqvist; Xiaohong R Yang; Drakoulis Yannoukakos; Song Yao; M Pilar Zamora; Wei Zheng; Per Hall; Peter Kraft; Celine Vachon; Susan Slager; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Paul D P Pharoah; Alvaro A N Monteiro; Montserrat García-Closas; Douglas F Easton; Antonis C Antoniou
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 14.919

10.  Identification of independent association signals and putative functional variants for breast cancer risk through fine-scale mapping of the 12p11 locus.

Authors:  Chenjie Zeng; Xingyi Guo; Jirong Long; Karoline B Kuchenbaecker; Arnaud Droit; Kyriaki Michailidou; Maya Ghoussaini; Siddhartha Kar; Adam Freeman; John L Hopper; Roger L Milne; Manjeet K Bolla; Qin Wang; Joe Dennis; Simona Agata; Shahana Ahmed; Kristiina Aittomäki; Irene L Andrulis; Hoda Anton-Culver; Natalia N Antonenkova; Adalgeir Arason; Volker Arndt; Banu K Arun; Brita Arver; Francois Bacot; Daniel Barrowdale; Caroline Baynes; Alicia Beeghly-Fadiel; Javier Benitez; Marina Bermisheva; Carl Blomqvist; William J Blot; Natalia V Bogdanova; Stig E Bojesen; Bernardo Bonanni; Anne-Lise Borresen-Dale; Judith S Brand; Hiltrud Brauch; Paul Brennan; Hermann Brenner; Annegien Broeks; Thomas Brüning; Barbara Burwinkel; Saundra S Buys; Qiuyin Cai; Trinidad Caldes; Ian Campbell; Jane Carpenter; Jenny Chang-Claude; Ji-Yeob Choi; Kathleen B M Claes; Christine Clarke; Angela Cox; Simon S Cross; Kamila Czene; Mary B Daly; Miguel de la Hoya; Kim De Leeneer; Peter Devilee; Orland Diez; Susan M Domchek; Michele Doody; Cecilia M Dorfling; Thilo Dörk; Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva; Martine Dumont; Miriam Dwek; Bernd Dworniczak; Kathleen Egan; Ursula Eilber; Zakaria Einbeigi; Bent Ejlertsen; Steve Ellis; Debra Frost; Fiona Lalloo; Peter A Fasching; Jonine Figueroa; Henrik Flyger; Michael Friedlander; Eitan Friedman; Gaetana Gambino; Yu-Tang Gao; Judy Garber; Montserrat García-Closas; Andrea Gehrig; Francesca Damiola; Fabienne Lesueur; Sylvie Mazoyer; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Graham G Giles; Andrew K Godwin; David E Goldgar; Anna González-Neira; Mark H Greene; Pascal Guénel; Lothar Haeberle; Christopher A Haiman; Emily Hallberg; Ute Hamann; Thomas V O Hansen; Steven Hart; Jaana M Hartikainen; Mikael Hartman; Norhashimah Hassan; Sue Healey; Frans B L Hogervorst; Senno Verhoef; Carolyn B Hendricks; Peter Hillemanns; Antoinette Hollestelle; Peter J Hulick; David J Hunter; Evgeny N Imyanitov; Claudine Isaacs; Hidemi Ito; Anna Jakubowska; Ramunas Janavicius; Katarzyna Jaworska-Bieniek; Uffe Birk Jensen; Esther M John; Charles Joly Beauparlant; Michael Jones; Maria Kabisch; Daehee Kang; Beth Y Karlan; Saila Kauppila; Michael J Kerin; Sofia Khan; Elza Khusnutdinova; Julia A Knight; Irene Konstantopoulou; Peter Kraft; Ava Kwong; Yael Laitman; Diether Lambrechts; Conxi Lazaro; Loic Le Marchand; Chuen Neng Lee; Min Hyuk Lee; Jenny Lester; Jingmei Li; Annelie Liljegren; Annika Lindblom; Artitaya Lophatananon; Jan Lubinski; Phuong L Mai; Arto Mannermaa; Siranoush Manoukian; Sara Margolin; Frederik Marme; Keitaro Matsuo; Lesley McGuffog; Alfons Meindl; Florence Menegaux; Marco Montagna; Kenneth Muir; Anna Marie Mulligan; Katherine L Nathanson; Susan L Neuhausen; Heli Nevanlinna; Polly A Newcomb; Silje Nord; Robert L Nussbaum; Kenneth Offit; Edith Olah; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Curtis Olswold; Ana Osorio; Laura Papi; Tjoung-Won Park-Simon; Ylva Paulsson-Karlsson; Stephanie Peeters; Bernard Peissel; Paolo Peterlongo; Julian Peto; Georg Pfeiler; Catherine M Phelan; Nadege Presneau; Paolo Radice; Nazneen Rahman; Susan J Ramus; Muhammad Usman Rashid; Gad Rennert; Kerstin Rhiem; Anja Rudolph; Ritu Salani; Suleeporn Sangrajrang; Elinor J Sawyer; Marjanka K Schmidt; Rita K Schmutzler; Minouk J Schoemaker; Peter Schürmann; Caroline Seynaeve; Chen-Yang Shen; Martha J Shrubsole; Xiao-Ou Shu; Alice Sigurdson; Christian F Singer; Susan Slager; Penny Soucy; Melissa Southey; Doris Steinemann; Anthony Swerdlow; Csilla I Szabo; Sandrine Tchatchou; Manuel R Teixeira; Soo H Teo; Mary Beth Terry; Daniel C Tessier; Alex Teulé; Mads Thomassen; Laima Tihomirova; Marc Tischkowitz; Amanda E Toland; Nadine Tung; Clare Turnbull; Ans M W van den Ouweland; Elizabeth J van Rensburg; David Ven den Berg; Joseph Vijai; Shan Wang-Gohrke; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Alice S Whittemore; Robert Winqvist; Tien Y Wong; Anna H Wu; Drakoulis Yannoukakos; Jyh-Cherng Yu; Paul D P Pharoah; Per Hall; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Alison M Dunning; Jacques Simard; Fergus J Couch; Antonis C Antoniou; Douglas F Easton; Wei Zheng
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.