Literature DB >> 26758508

Novel polymorphisms in caspase-8 are associated with breast cancer risk in the California Teachers Study.

Hannah Lui Park1, Argyrios Ziogas2, Jenny Chang3, Bhumi Desai4, Leona Bessonova5, Chad Garner6, Eunjung Lee7, Susan L Neuhausen8, Sophia S Wang9, Huiyan Ma10, Jessica Clague11, Peggy Reynolds12, James V Lacey13, Leslie Bernstein14, Hoda Anton-Culver15.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The ability of tamoxifen and raloxifene to decrease breast cancer risk varies among different breast cancer subtypes. It is important to determine one's subtype-specific breast cancer risk when considering chemoprevention. A number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), including one in caspase-8 (CASP8), have been previously associated with risk of developing breast cancer. Because caspase-8 is an important protein involved in receptor-mediated apoptosis whose activity is affected by estrogen, we hypothesized that additional SNPs in CASP8 could be associated with breast cancer risk, perhaps in a subtype-specific manner.
METHODS: Twelve tagging SNPs of CASP8 were analyzed in a nested case control study (1,353 cases and 1,384 controls) of non-Hispanic white women participating in the California Teachers Study. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each SNP using all, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, ER-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive, and HER2-negative breast cancers as separate outcomes.
RESULTS: Several SNPs were associated with all, ER-positive, and HER2-positive breast cancers; however, after correcting for multiple comparisons (i.e., p < 0.0008), only rs2293554 was statistically significantly associated with HER2-positive breast cancer (OR = 1.98, 95% CI 1.34-2.92, uncorrected p = 0.0005).
CONCLUSIONS: While our results for CASP8 SNPs should be validated in other cohorts with subtype-specific information, we conclude that some SNPs in CASP8 are associated with subtype-specific breast cancer risk. This study contributes to our understanding of CASP8 SNPs and breast cancer risk by subtype.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26758508      PMCID: PMC4711015          DOI: 10.1186/s12885-015-2036-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Cancer        ISSN: 1471-2407            Impact factor:   4.638


Background

Breast cancer risk factors include a woman’s age, family history, reproductive and gynecologic factors, and lifestyle factors including alcohol consumption and lack of physical activity [1]. When treating women at high risk for breast cancer, clinicians may recommend that women undergo increased screening, genetic testing, or chemoprevention [2-4]. Phase III breast cancer chemoprevention trials have now demonstrated the efficacy of selective estrogen receptor (ER) modulators (SERMs) (e.g., tamoxifen and raloxifene) and aromatase inhibitors in reducing the incidence of breast cancer. However, these drugs were significantly more effective at reducing the incidence of ER-positive breast cancer than ER-negative breast cancer [5-13]. ER-positivity is also associated with better prognosis after breast cancer diagnosis than ER-negativity [14, 15], while human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positivity [16] and triple negativity (ER-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative) [17] are each associated with worse prognosis. Drugs to target prevention of HER2-positive breast cancer and triple-negative breast cancers are also currently being studied [18]. With known undesirable side effects associated with chemopreventive medications that have been developed thus far, knowledge of one’s risk not only for any breast cancer but for specific subtypes of breast cancer would be helpful for a woman and her physician when considering chemopreventive therapy options. Breast cancer risk models currently used by clinicians to identify women at high risk of developing breast cancer exhibit limited sensitivities and specificities [1]; and many studies have focused on identifying genetic variation associated with breast cancer risk with the hope that single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping can be used to better stratify breast cancer risk and inform clinical management. While it is known that mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 markedly increase one’s risk of developing breast cancer [19, 20], a number of additional low and moderate-risk susceptibility variants have been identified, including one for caspase-8 (CASP8), an enzyme involved in apoptosis [21]. Caspase-8 is activated in response to extrinsic apoptotic signals, including chemotherapy agents [22]. In vitro, estrogen inhibits caspase-8 activity and activity of other caspases [23]. The Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) has identified 3 SNPs in CASP8, namely rs1045485, rs17468277, and rs1830298, which are associated with breast cancer risk [24-26]. Other CASP8 SNPs have shown to be associated with increased breast cancer risk [27-29]. Besides two BCAC studies, which found that rs1045485 was associated with a lower risk of PR-positive breast cancer [25], rs1830298 was associated with higher risk of ER-positive and triple-negative breast cancer [26], and rs36043647 was associated with lower risk of overall, ER-positive, ER-negative, and triple negative breast cancer [26], few studies have described associations between CASP8 polymorphisms and subtype-specific breast cancer risk. Given the important role of caspase-8 in apoptosis, we hypothesized that additional CASP8 polymorphisms would be associated with breast cancer risk and that the associations might be specific to some breast cancer subtypes. The aim of this study was to examine potential associations between 12 CASP8 polymorphisms and breast cancer risk, overall and by subtype, using case and control samples nested within the California Teachers Study (CTS).

Methods

Ethics statement

This study was carried out in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration and approved by the Institutional Review Boards at each study center, namely, the City of Hope (COH), the University of Southern California (USC), the Cancer Prevention Institute of California (CPIC), the University of California at Irvine (UCI), and by the California State Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects, in accordance with assurances filed with and approved by the US Department of Health and Human Services. All study participants provided written informed consent to participate in the study.

Participants

The CTS is a well-established prospective cohort study of 133,479 female California public school teachers and administrators who were enrolled in the California State Teachers Retirement System. A detailed account of the methods employed by the CTS has been published previously [30]. Briefly, participants completed a baseline questionnaire and returned it by mail in 1995–1996. The baseline survey, which collected information on demographics, personal and family cancer history, height, weight, history of hormone use, and behavioral factors including physical activity and alcohol consumption, is available on the CTS website (www.calteachersstudy.org). New diagnoses of first primary invasive breast cancer among cohort members were identified through annual linkages with California Cancer Registry (CCR), a legally mandated statewide population-based cancer reporting system in which cancer data are obtained from cancer patients’ pathology reports at the hospital in which the patient was initially diagnosed. CCR ascertainment of newly diagnosed cancers is estimated to be 99 % complete [31]. For this nested, breast cancer case control study, biospecimens were collected between 2005-2009 from breast cancer cases diagnosed under age 80 years and unaffected controls in the cohort, all of whom had continued residence in California during the study period (1995 to time of blood draw). Cases were women who had a histologically confirmed invasive first primary carcinoma of the breast (International Classification of Disease for Oncology code C50 restricted to morphology codes under 8590) after 1998. Unaffected control participants were selected from the cohort and frequency matched to the cases based on age at baseline (within 5-year age groups), self-reported race/ethnicity (white, African American, Latina, Asian, and other), and three broad geographic regions in California (surrounding the three CTS specimen collection centers: CPIC, USC/COH, and UCI).

Collection of biological specimens and DNA extraction

The collection of specimens has been described previously [32]. Briefly, cases and controls provided a blood sample and completed a brief questionnaire at the time of blood draw, which updated breast and reproductive and gynecologic history and several lifestyle factors. Women who declined providing blood provided saliva in Oragene DNA self-collection kits (DNA Genotek, Kanata, ON, Canada). All biological specimens were sent overnight to the UCI laboratory. DNA was extracted from blood clots using Qiagen Clotspin Baskets and DNA QIAmp DNA Blood Maxi Kits (Qiagen, Inc., Valencia, CA, USA) in accordance with Qiagen protocols. DNA was extracted from saliva samples using the Oragene protocol (DNA Genotek).

Genotyping

The 12 tagging SNPs included in this analysis were selected to capture all common linkage disequilibrium tagging SNPs [minor allele frequency (MAF) of at least 5 %], 20 kb upstream of the 5' untranslated region (UTR) and 10 kb downstream of the 3' UTR, in individuals of European ancestry with minimum pairwise r of at least 0.80, using data from the International HapMap Project for the white CEPH (Utah residents with ancestry from northern and western Europe) population [HapMap release 21, July 2006, genotype build 36 (http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)] [32]. DNA samples from 1,751 cases and 1,697 controls were plated for genotyping. A random sample of 193 duplicates (105 cases and 88 controls) was included for quality control. The samples were genotyped using the Illumina Golden Gate Assay (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA USA) at the University of Southern California Core Facility. Twelve haplotype-tagging SNPs in CASP8 were included and genotyped. Samples with genotype call rates <90 % were excluded. Among the remaining samples, 160 randomly selected duplicates exhibited a genotype concordance rate of 99.9 %. Additional details were described previously [32]. Because the majority of participants were non-Hispanic whites, we restricted analyses to 2,737 non-Hispanic white women (1,353 cases and 1,384 controls).

Statistical analyses

All statistical tests were two-sided. We used unconditional logistic regression models to estimate the odds ratios (ORs), 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values for the association of invasive breast cancer and each SNP, using log-additive models. Allele frequencies are shown in Additional file 1: Table S1. We adjusted for potential confounding by study center and other known risk factors, namely, age at baseline, family history (having a first-degree relative with history of breast cancer), body mass index (<25, 25.0-29.9, ≥30 kg/m2), alcohol consumption in the past year (none, <20 g/day, ≥20 g/day), physical activity in the past 3 years (0-0.5 hrs/wk/yr, 0.51–4.0 hr/wk/yr, >4.0 hr/wk/yr), and menopausal and hormone therapy (HT) status (premenopausal, postmenopausal and never used HT, postmenopausal and used HT in the past, postmenopausal and using estrogen only at baseline, postmenopausal and using estrogen and progesterone at baseline, and unknown) at baseline. To potentially improve power by increasing subgroup homogeneity, we stratified our analysis by estrogen receptor (ER) and human epidermal receptor (HER2) status of breast cancer. We evaluated the association for ER-positive (n = 1,046), ER-negative (n = 155), HER2-positive (n = 159), and HER2-negative (n = 662) subtype. Some breast cancers were not included in any specific receptor (ER or HER2) subtype analysis because they were missing either ER or HER2 status. PR status was not included since PR expression usually follows ER expression [33] and the clinical rationale to determine associations with PR-specific breast cancer risk was lacking since no chemotherapies or preventive therapies are being studied for PR status-specific subtypes. While therapies targeting triple-negative breast cancer are being considered, the number of triple-negative cancers in our subset of cases and controls was too small for analysis (n = 60). We used the conservative Bonferroni correction to correct for multiple testing (n = 60, 12 SNPs x 5 outcomes). Statistical significance was set to p < 0.0008. All analyses were done using SAS software version 9.2. Recombination rates and linkage disequilibrium across the CASP8 gene was evaluated using the HapMap database (http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and r2 values were computed from the pairwise SNP genotype counts of the generated genotype data.

Results

Baseline characteristics of the cases and controls are provided in Table 1. Consistent with other studies, family history of breast cancer, menopause and hormone therapy (HT) use, physical inactivity, and alcohol use were associated with breast cancer risk. Genotype distributions are provided in Additional file 1: Table S1.
Table 1

Selected baseline characteristics of study participants by case (invasive breast cancer) and control status

VariablesCases (n = 1353)%Controls (n = 1384)%Chi square p-value
Age, years (mean ± SD)55.0 ± 9.456.1 ± 9.5
First-degree family history of breast cancer0.0046
ᅟNo108680.3115883.7
ᅟYes23717.518713.5
Body mass index, kg/m2 0.21
ᅟ < 2577957.675954.8
ᅟ25 to 29.938428.438527.8
ᅟ ≥ 3016011.819213.9
Age at menarche, years0.45
ᅟ < 1370051.769550.2
ᅟ ≥ 1363847.267148.5
Parity0.12
ᅟ028921.428020.2
ᅟ117312.816511.9
ᅟ248135.647634.4
ᅟ327520.327720.0
ᅟ ≥ 41208.916511.9
Age at first full-term pregnancy, years0.38
ᅟ < 21898.5968.9
ᅟ21-2432531.034331.7
ᅟ25-2941539.645141.6
ᅟ30-3416916.115514.3
ᅟ ≥ 35514.9383.5
Hormone therapy (HT) at baseline0.0001
ᅟPremenopausal36426.934625.0
ᅟPostmenopausal - never used HT1138.415010.8
ᅟPostmenopausal - past use HT765.61158.3
ᅟPostmenopausal - current estrogen use20014.824918.0
ᅟPostmenopausal - current estrogen + progestin use40229.733524.2
ᅟUnknown19814.618913.7
Strenuous or moderate physical activity, during 3 years before baseline0.0035
ᅟ0-0.50 hrs/week/year29021.428920.9
ᅟ0.51-4.00 hrs/week/year63246.757241.3
ᅟ4.01-24 hrs/week/year42431.351437.1
Grams per day of alcohol, during year before baseline0.0006
ᅟNondrinkers33424.737927.4
ᅟ < 20 g/d80659.683660.4
ᅟ > =20 g/d16512.21097.9

Table does not list small percentages of missing values for some factors

Selected baseline characteristics of study participants by case (invasive breast cancer) and control status Table does not list small percentages of missing values for some factors

CASP8 polymorphisms and invasive breast cancer risk

The adjusted ORs and 95 % CIs of overall invasive breast cancer with CASP8 polymorphisms are shown in Table 2. Four SNPs had a p-value < 0.05 for positive associations with overall breast cancer (rs11899004, rs3769825, rs6723097 and rs6736233). The SNP most strongly associated with overall breast cancer risk was rs6736233, which conferred an OR of 1.38 (95 % CI 1.12-1.71, p = 0.0028) (Table 2). After correcting for multiple comparisons, none of the SNPs tested remained statistically significant at p < 0.0008.
Table 2

Multivariate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) of overall invasive breast cancer associated with caspase-8 polymorphisms

SNPPosition on Chr. 2Major alleleMinor alleleMAF (controls)Overall
UnadjustedAdjusteda
OR95 % CI p**OR95 % CI p**
rs12693932202093395CT0.471.0420.9361.1601.0500.9501.180
rs6745051202108741CA0.481.0390.9331.1561.0500.9401.170
rs3769825202111380GA0.451.0970.9861.2191.1201.0101.2500.034
rs11899004202114026GA0.141.1621.0021.3480.0481.1701.0101.3600.041
rs6736233202118974GC0.061.3671.1111.6820.0031.3801.1201.7100.003
rs1861270202126615GA0.271.0360.9211.1641.0700.9501.200
rs6723097202128618CA0.381.1311.0151.2590.0261.1701.0501.3100.005
rs2293554202131587TG0.071.1640.9501.4271.1900.9701.470
rs1045485202149589GC0.111.0360.8751.2261.0200.8601.210
rs1035140202152491AT0.461.0300.9271.1431.0500.9401.170
rs700636202153252CA0.431.0510.9441.1691.0800.9701.210
rs11679181202162338CT0.440.9440.8481.0500.9200.8301.030

Per-allele ORs. Models were adjusted for center, age, family history, BMI, recent physical activity, alcohol consumption, and menopause/HT status

**Only uncorrected p values <0.05 are listed

Multivariate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) of overall invasive breast cancer associated with caspase-8 polymorphisms Per-allele ORs. Models were adjusted for center, age, family history, BMI, recent physical activity, alcohol consumption, and menopause/HT status **Only uncorrected p values <0.05 are listed When ER-positive and ER-negative breast cancer outcomes were analyzed separately, the trends of increased risk with rs3769825, rs6723097 and rs6736233 as seen for overall breast cancer remained for ER-positive breast cancers (Table 3). However, after correcting for multiple comparisons, none of the associations remained statistically significant. None of the SNPs tested were associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk.
Table 3

Multivariate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) of ER-positive and ER-negative invasive breast cancer associated with caspase-8 polymorphisms

SNPER-positiveER-negative
UnadjustedAdjusteda UnadjustedAdjusteda
OR95 % CI p**ORa 95 % CI p**OR95 % CI p**ORa 95 % CI p**
rs126939321.0750.9571.2071.0900.9701.2201.0130.8001.2821.0100.8001.290
rs67450511.0720.9551.2031.0800.9601.2200.9940.7841.2590.9900.7801.260
rs37698251.1080.9891.2421.1301.0101.2700.0351.1070.8761.3981.1400.9001.440
rs118990041.1600.9901.3581.1701.0001.3801.0290.7341.4431.0300.7301.460
rs67362331.3641.0961.6970.0051.3601.0901.7100.0061.1800.7401.8821.2600.7802.020
rs18612701.0380.9141.1781.0700.9401.2101.0660.8241.3791.1100.8601.450
rs67230971.1230.9991.2621.1601.0301.3100.0141.0890.8591.3811.1500.9001.460
rs22935541.1370.9151.4131.1700.9301.4601.1620.7471.8061.2100.7701.900
rs10454851.0880.9111.3001.0600.8901.2700.9420.6381.3910.9400.6301.400
rs10351401.0250.9161.1471.0400.9301.1701.0280.8151.2971.0800.8601.370
rs7006361.0210.9101.1441.0500.9401.1801.0460.8281.3221.1000.8701.400
rs116791810.9550.8511.0710.9400.8401.0600.9780.7721.2380.9200.7201.170

Per-allele ORs. Models were adjusted for center, age, family history, BMI, recent physical activity, alcohol consumption, and menopause/HT status

**Only uncorrected p values <0.05 are listed

Multivariate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) of ER-positive and ER-negative invasive breast cancer associated with caspase-8 polymorphisms Per-allele ORs. Models were adjusted for center, age, family history, BMI, recent physical activity, alcohol consumption, and menopause/HT status **Only uncorrected p values <0.05 are listed Three of the four SNPs that were associated with overall invasive breast cancer (p value < 0.05) were associated with HER2-positive invasive breast cancer (rs11899004, rs6723097, and rs6736233). rs2293554 was also associated with HER2-positive invasive breast cancer (OR = 1.98, 95 % CI 1.34-2.92, uncorrected p = 0.0005). After correcting for multiple comparisons, rs2293554 was the only SNP that remained statistically significant. Two of the four SNPs that were associated with overall invasive breast cancer (p value < 0.05) were associated with HER2-negative invasive breast cancer (rs3769825 and rs6723097). However, after correcting for multiple comparisons, neither remained statistically significant (Table 4).
Table 4

Multivariate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) of HER2-positive and HER2-negative invasive cancer associated with caspase-8 polymorphisms

SNPHER2-positiveHER2-negative
UnadjustedAdjusteda UnadjustedAdjusteda
OR95 % CI p**OR*95 % CI p**OR95 % CI p**OR*95 % CI p**
rs126939321.1110.8791.4041.1100.8701.4101.1230.9831.2811.1501.0001.320
rs67450511.1480.9081.4501.1500.9001.4601.0950.9591.2491.1200.9801.280
rs37698251.1530.9151.4551.1800.9301.4901.1641.0201.3270.0241.2001.0501.3700.008
rs118990041.6801.2592.2410.00041.6201.2102.1800.00141.1180.9301.3441.1300.9401.360
rs67362331.9591.3322.8810.0011.8901.2702.8100.00171.2830.9951.6551.2900.9901.670
rs18612700.9830.7581.2751.0500.8001.3701.0980.9521.2681.1500.9901.330
rs67230971.3361.0571.6880.0151.4101.1101.8000.00551.1701.0251.3370.0201.2201.0701.4000.004
rs22935541.9451.3412.8220.0011.9801.3402.920 0.0005 1.1650.9101.4901.2000.9301.550
rs10454850.8520.5721.2680.8100.5401.2201.0720.8721.3171.0300.8301.270
rs10351400.9580.7601.2071.0000.7901.2701.0810.9501.2311.1000.9701.260
rs7006361.0120.8021.2761.0800.8501.3801.0760.9441.2261.1100.9701.270
rs16791811.0480.8311.3230.9900.7801.2600.9100.7981.0390.8900.7801.020

Per-allele ORs. Models were adjusted for center, age, family history, BMI, recent physical activity, alcohol consumption, and menopause/HT status

**Only uncorrected p values <0.05 are listed; after correcting for multiple comparisons, only rs2293554 was statistically significantly associated with HER2-positive breast cancer risk

Multivariate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) of HER2-positive and HER2-negative invasive cancer associated with caspase-8 polymorphisms Per-allele ORs. Models were adjusted for center, age, family history, BMI, recent physical activity, alcohol consumption, and menopause/HT status **Only uncorrected p values <0.05 are listed; after correcting for multiple comparisons, only rs2293554 was statistically significantly associated with HER2-positive breast cancer risk In summary, after correction for multiple testing, one of the twelve CASP8 SNPs tested in our study remained nominally statistically significantly associated with invasive breast cancer, specifically, HER2-positive breast cancer.

Linkage disequilibrium

An analysis of data from the HapMap database indicated that very low historical genetic recombination exists across the entire CASP8 gene in individuals of European descent, with pairwise D’ values near 1.0 for all SNP pairs spanning the gene in the database. The alleles at the five markers that were associated with breast cancer risk in this study before correcting for multiple comparisons were not strongly correlated, as measured by the linkage disequilibrium measure r. This low correlation (r) in the context of high linkage disequilibrium (D’) was expected given that the SNPs were selected as tagging markers. Three pairs of SNPs showed rvalues greater than 0.4: r = 0.44 for rs11899004 and rs2293554; r = 0.52 for rs11899004 and rs6736233; and r = 0.45 for rs3769825 and rs6723097. The remaining pairwise r values were all less than 0.2. rs6723097 and rs6736233 were the two SNPs most significantly associated with breast cancer risk overall, with uncorrected p-values of 0.0053 and 0.0028, respectively. These two SNPs are uncorrelated (r = 0.07) and likely represent independent associations.

Discussion

This study is the first to identify the CASP8 SNP, rs2293554, to be statistically significantly associated with HER2-positive breast cancer risk in non-Hispanic white women. In our study, the observed OR of 1.98 with 95 % confidence interval of 1.34–2.92 for HER2-positive breast cancer risk was surprisingly high, especially given the small number of HER2-positive breast cancers in our study. It is possible that the observation may have been due to chance. A previous study reported that rs2293554 was not associated with breast cancer risk overall [34], similar to what we observed here; however, subtype-specific breast cancers were not evaluated in that study. The most recent BCAC paper on CASP8 [26] covered the analysis of 501 typed and 1232 imputed SNPs, and, while some CTS samples were included in the BCAC study, there was only overlap of 57 triple-negative and 49 controls between the BCAC study and our present analysis. rs2293554 was not included on the panel of CASP8 SNPs analyzed in the BCAC paper [26]; however, using the SNP lookup function on the BCAC website (http://apps.ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/consortia/bcac), we found that rs2293554 was not associated with overall, ER+, or ER- breast cancer risk. Data for HER2-specific breast cancer risk were not available on the website, but through personal email communication with the BCAC Data Manager, we learned that the BCAC data indicated that there was not an association between rs2293554 and HER2-positive breast cancer risk. rs2293554 was in strong LD with 16 of the 109 SNPs identified in the BCAC paper to be associated with overall breast cancer risk with FDR < 0.05 [26], with r2 > 0.50, according to the Linkage Disequilibrium Calculator (https://caprica.genetics.kcl.ac.uk/~ilori/ld_calculator.php), using the European panel in the 1000 genomes project; however, their effects were in the opposite direction (Additional file 2: Table S2). While our observation was not consistent with those in the BCAC study, our data demonstrates that SNPs can have different associations with breast cancer risk according to subtype and that rs2293554, with its nominally significant association with HER2-positive breast cancer risk in the CTS cohort, warrants further investigation. Our study confirmed results from a meta-analysis, in which rs6723097 was associated with increased breast cancer risk [OR = 1.16 (95 % CI 1.07–1.25)] [34], and from a separate study [OR = 1.15 (95 % CI 1.01–1.30)] [27]. Here, the observed OR was 1.17 (95 % CI 1.05–1.31). Also consistent with previous studies, no associations with breast cancer risk were found for rs1035140 [34] and rs1861270 [27]. Eleven of the 12 SNPs analyzed in our study were included in a recent fine-mapping analysis by the BCAC [26]. Their findings were consistent with ours in that the 11 SNPs were not statistically significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons, or, in the case of the other paper, genome-wide significance of P = 5 x 10-8. The results for these SNPs were not shown by receptor subtype. To correct for multiple testing, we used Bonferroni adjustment, which is very conservative, since the SNPs and phenotypes we tested were somewhat correlated. Given the importance of replicating genetic associations [35], our study, conducted in a well-established, well-characterized prospective cohort [30] contributes important information on the relationship between CASP8 polymorphisms and breast cancer risk. Our results for rs1045485 were not consistent with those from two meta-analyses, which reported inverse associations with breast cancer, with pooled ORs of 0.87 (95 % CI 0.83-0.92) [28] and 0.79 (95 % CI 0.69-0.92) [29]. Our findings are consistent with a number of independent studies on the same SNP, some of which were included in the meta-analyses [28, 29] and a separate study [34] in which no association was found between this SNP and breast cancer risk. The MAF (10.5 % ) we observed in this study (all non-Hispanic Whites) is similar to that seen in the women of European ancestry [10, 35]. One of the BCAC studies on CASP8, which involved >30,000 invasive breast tumors, showed that rs1045485 was most strongly related with the risk of PR-negative tumors [25], but an association was not replicated in a later BCAC study [26]. Because no reports of development of PR status-specific chemoprevention were found at the time of the study, PR-specific subtypes were not included as outcomes in this study. While the polymorphic CASP8 sites identified in this study are all intronic, it is possible that they may affect expression of the protein or RNA splicing, which may affect protein-protein interactions and other functions. rs6723097 and rs6736233 were found to have features consistent with involvement in gene transcription regulation according to the Variant Effect Predictor (VEP) on the Ensembl website (http://uswest.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Tools/VEP) [36]. The other SNPs we found to be associated with breast cancer risk did not have such features. However, rs12693932 and rs6745051 are in strong LD with each other, and they are also in strong LD with the SNP rs13006529, which is a missense, according to the University of Washington Genome Variation Server (http://gvs.gs.washington.edu/GVS144/). Also, rs1861270 is in strong LD with the SNP rs3769823, which is also a missense. Neither rs13006529 nor rs3769823 have been reported to be associated with breast cancer risk. The remaining SNPs on our panel are not in LD with other SNPs with known functions.

Conclusions

We conclude that the CASP8 SNP, rs2293554, is nominally statistically significantly associated with HER2-positive breast cancer risk in non-Hispanic white women, even after stringent correction for multiple comparisons. Other CASP8 SNPs were also associated with overall, ER-positive, and HER2-negative breast cancer risk but the associations were not statistically significant after correction. While our results should be validated in other cohorts with subtype-specific information, this study contributes to our understanding of CASP8 SNPs and subtype-specific breast cancer risk. The mechanistic and functional consequences of CASP8 SNPs in breast cancer development and their relevance in women of other racial/ethnic groups remain to be investigated.
  35 in total

Review 1.  Triple-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  William D Foulkes; Ian E Smith; Jorge S Reis-Filho
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-11-11       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  High breast cancer incidence rates among California teachers: results from the California Teachers Study (United States).

Authors:  Leslie Bernstein; Mark Allen; Hoda Anton-Culver; Dennis Deapen; Pamela L Horn-Ross; David Peel; Richard Pinder; Peggy Reynolds; Jane Sullivan-Halley; Dee West; William Wright; Al Ziogas; Ronald K Ross
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.506

3.  Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study.

Authors:  Bernard Fisher; Joseph P Costantino; D Lawrence Wickerham; Reena S Cecchini; Walter M Cronin; Andre Robidoux; Therese B Bevers; Maureen T Kavanah; James N Atkins; Richard G Margolese; Carolyn D Runowicz; Joan M James; Leslie G Ford; Norman Wolmark
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-11-16       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer.

Authors:  J M Harvey; G M Clark; C K Osborne; D C Allred
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 5.  Shared pathways: death receptors and cytotoxic drugs in cancer therapy.

Authors:  I Peták; J A Houghton
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 3.201

6.  Twenty-year follow-up of the Royal Marsden randomized, double-blinded tamoxifen breast cancer prevention trial.

Authors:  Trevor J Powles; Sue Ashley; Alwynne Tidy; Ian E Smith; Mitch Dowsett
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-02-21       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Continuing outcomes relevant to Evista: breast cancer incidence in postmenopausal osteoporotic women in a randomized trial of raloxifene.

Authors:  Silvana Martino; Jane A Cauley; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Trevor J Powles; John Mershon; Damon Disch; Roberta J Secrest; Steven R Cummings
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-12-01       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: late results of the Italian Randomized Tamoxifen Prevention Trial among women with hysterectomy.

Authors:  Umberto Veronesi; Patrick Maisonneuve; Nicole Rotmensz; Bernardo Bonanni; Peter Boyle; Giuseppe Viale; Alberto Costa; Virgilio Sacchini; Roberto Travaglini; Giuseppe D'Aiuto; Pasquale Oliviero; Francesco Lovison; Giacomo Gucciardo; Marco Rosselli del Turco; Maria Grazia Muraca; Maria Antonietta Pizzichetta; Serafino Conforti; Andrea Decensi
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-05-02       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 9.  Highly penetrant hereditary cancer syndromes.

Authors:  Rebecca Nagy; Kevin Sweet; Charis Eng
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2004-08-23       Impact factor: 9.867

10.  Identification and characterization of novel associations in the CASP8/ALS2CR12 region on chromosome 2 with breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Wei-Yu Lin; Nicola J Camp; Maya Ghoussaini; Jonathan Beesley; Kyriaki Michailidou; John L Hopper; Carmel Apicella; Melissa C Southey; Jennifer Stone; Marjanka K Schmidt; Annegien Broeks; Laura J Van't Veer; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Kenneth Muir; Artitaya Lophatananon; Sarah Stewart-Brown; Pornthep Siriwanarangsan; Peter A Fasching; Lothar Haeberle; Arif B Ekici; Matthias W Beckmann; Julian Peto; Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva; Olivia Fletcher; Nichola Johnson; Manjeet K Bolla; Qin Wang; Joe Dennis; Elinor J Sawyer; Timothy Cheng; Ian Tomlinson; Michael J Kerin; Nicola Miller; Frederik Marmé; Harald M Surowy; Barbara Burwinkel; Pascal Guénel; Thérèse Truong; Florence Menegaux; Claire Mulot; Stig E Bojesen; Børge G Nordestgaard; Sune F Nielsen; Henrik Flyger; Javier Benitez; M Pilar Zamora; Jose Ignacio Arias Perez; Primitiva Menéndez; Anna González-Neira; Guillermo Pita; M Rosario Alonso; Nuria Alvarez; Daniel Herrero; Hoda Anton-Culver; Hermann Brenner; Aida Karina Dieffenbach; Volker Arndt; Christa Stegmaier; Alfons Meindl; Peter Lichtner; Rita K Schmutzler; Bertram Müller-Myhsok; Hiltrud Brauch; Thomas Brüning; Yon-Dschun Ko; Daniel C Tessier; Daniel Vincent; Francois Bacot; Heli Nevanlinna; Kristiina Aittomäki; Carl Blomqvist; Sofia Khan; Keitaro Matsuo; Hidemi Ito; Hiroji Iwata; Akiyo Horio; 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; Patrick Neven; Els Wauters; Hans Wildiers; Diether Lambrechts; Jenny Chang-Claude; Anja Rudolph; Petra Seibold; Dieter Flesch-Janys; Paolo Radice; Paolo Peterlongo; Siranoush Manoukian; Bernardo Bonanni; Fergus J Couch; Xianshu Wang; Celine Vachon; Kristen Purrington; Graham G Giles; Roger L Milne; Catriona Mclean; 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; Norhashimah Hassan; Eranga Nishanthie Vithana; Vessela Kristensen; Wei Zheng; Sandra Deming-Halverson; Martha J Shrubsole; Jirong Long; Robert Winqvist; Katri Pylkäs; Arja Jukkola-Vuorinen; Saila Kauppila; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Gord Glendon; Sandrine Tchatchou; Peter Devilee; Robert A E M Tollenaar; Caroline Seynaeve; Christi J Van Asperen; Montserrat García-Closas; Jonine Figueroa; Jolanta Lissowska; Louise Brinton; Kamila Czene; Hatef Darabi; Mikael Eriksson; Judith S Brand; Maartje J Hooning; Antoinette Hollestelle; Ans M W Van Den Ouweland; Agnes Jager; Jingmei Li; Jianjun Liu; Keith Humphreys; Xiao-Ou Shu; Wei Lu; Yu-Tang Gao; Hui Cai; Simon S Cross; Malcolm W R Reed; William Blot; Lisa B Signorello; Qiuyin Cai; Paul D P Pharoah; Barbara Perkins; Mitul Shah; Fiona M Blows; Daehee Kang; Keun-Young Yoo; Dong-Young Noh; Mikael Hartman; Hui Miao; Kee Seng Chia; Thomas Choudary Putti; Ute Hamann; Craig Luccarini; Caroline Baynes; Shahana Ahmed; Mel Maranian; Catherine S Healey; Anna Jakubowska; Jan Lubinski; Katarzyna Jaworska-Bieniek; Katarzyna Durda; Suleeporn Sangrajrang; Valerie Gaborieau; Paul Brennan; James Mckay; Susan Slager; Amanda E Toland; Drakoulis Yannoukakos; Chen-Yang Shen; Chia-Ni Hsiung; Pei-Ei Wu; Shian-Ling Ding; Alan Ashworth; Michael Jones; Nick Orr; Anthony J Swerdlow; Helen Tsimiklis; Enes Makalic; Daniel F Schmidt; Quang M Bui; Stephen J Chanock; David J Hunter; Rebecca Hein; Norbert Dahmen; Lars Beckmann; Kirsimari Aaltonen; Taru A Muranen; Tuomas Heikkinen; Astrid Irwanto; Nazneen Rahman; Clare A Turnbull; Quinten Waisfisz; Hanne E J Meijers-Heijboer; Muriel A Adank; Rob B Van Der Luijt; Per Hall; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Alison Dunning; Douglas F Easton; Angela Cox
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 6.150

View more
  8 in total

1.  Discovery of cancer common and specific driver gene sets.

Authors:  Junhua Zhang; Shihua Zhang
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2017-06-02       Impact factor: 16.971

2.  Tumor-Associated Mutations in Caspase-6 Negatively Impact Catalytic Efficiency.

Authors:  Kevin B Dagbay; Maureen E Hill; Elizabeth Barrett; Jeanne A Hardy
Journal:  Biochemistry       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 3.162

Review 3.  Cell-Cycle Cross Talk with Caspases and Their Substrates.

Authors:  Patrick Connolly; Irmina Garcia-Carpio; Andreas Villunger
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 9.708

4.  Novel biomarkers and prediction model for the pathological complete response to neoadjuvant treatment of triple-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Yiqun Han; Jiayu Wang; Binghe Xu
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 4.207

5.  FSCN1 gene polymorphisms: biomarkers for the development and progression of breast cancer.

Authors:  Chao-Qun Wang; Chih-Hsin Tang; Yan Wang; Lulu Jin; Qian Wang; Xiaoni Li; Gui-Nv Hu; Bi-Fei Huang; Yong-Ming Zhao; Chen-Ming Su
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-11-21       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  HMGB1 genetic polymorphisms are biomarkers for the development and progression of breast cancer.

Authors:  Bi-Fei Huang; Huey-En Tzeng; Po-Chun Chen; Chao-Qun Wang; Chen-Ming Su; Yan Wang; Gui-Nv Hu; Yong-Ming Zhao; Qian Wang; Chih-Hsin Tang
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 3.738

7.  The Associations of Common Genetic Susceptibility Variants with Breast Cancer in Jordanian Arabs: A Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Laith N Al-Eitan; Doaa M Rababa'h; Hatem A Aman
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2020-10-01

Review 8.  Making Sense of Genetic Information: The Promising Evolution of Clinical Stratification and Precision Oncology Using Machine Learning.

Authors:  Mahaly Baptiste; Sarah Shireen Moinuddeen; Courtney Lace Soliz; Hashimul Ehsan; Gen Kaneko
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 4.096

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.