Literature DB >> 26848776

A targeted genetic association study of epithelial ovarian cancer susceptibility.

Madalene Earp1, Stacey J Winham2, Nicholas Larson2, Jennifer B Permuth3, Hugues Sicotte2, Jeremy Chien4, Hoda Anton-Culver5, Elisa V Bandera6, Andrew Berchuck7, Linda S Cook8, Daniel Cramer9,10, Jennifer A Doherty11, Marc T Goodman12, Douglas A Levine13, Alvaro N A Monteiro3, Roberta B Ness14, Celeste L Pearce15, Mary Anne Rossing16,17, Shelley S Tworoger10,18, Nicolas Wentzensen19, Maria Bisogna13, Louise Brinton19, Angela Brooks-Wilson20,21, Michael E Carney22, Julie M Cunningham23, Robert P Edwards24, Zachary C Fogarty2, Edwin S Iversen25, Peter Kraft26, Melissa C Larson2, Nhu D Le27, Hui-Yi Lin3, Jolanta Lissowska28, Francesmary Modugno24,29,30, Kirsten B Moysich31, Sara H Olson32, Malcolm C Pike15,31, Elizabeth M Poole18, David N Rider2, Kathryn L Terry9,10, Pamela J Thompson12, David van den Berg15, Robert A Vierkant2, Allison F Vitonis9, Lynne R Wilkens33, Anna H Wu15, Hannah P Yang19, Argyrios Ziogas34, Catherine M Phelan3, Joellen M Schildkraut35,36, Yian Ann Chen3, Thomas A Sellers3, Brooke L Fridley37, Ellen L Goode1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies have identified several common susceptibility alleles for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). To further understand EOC susceptibility, we examined previously ungenotyped candidate variants, including uncommon variants and those residing within known susceptibility loci.
RESULTS: At nine of eleven previously published EOC susceptibility regions (2q31, 3q25, 5p15, 8q21, 8q24, 10p12, 17q12, 17q21.31, and 19p13), novel variants were identified that were more strongly associated with risk than previously reported variants. Beyond known susceptibility regions, no variants were found to be associated with EOC risk at genome-wide statistical significance (p <5x10(-8)), nor were any significant after Bonferroni correction for 17,000 variants (p< 3x10-6).
METHODS: A customized genotyping array was used to assess over 17,000 variants in coding, non-coding, regulatory, and known susceptibility regions in 4,973 EOC cases and 5,640 controls from 13 independent studies. Susceptibility for EOC overall and for select histotypes was evaluated using logistic regression adjusted for age, study site, and population substructure.
CONCLUSION: Given the novel variants identified within the 2q31, 3q25, 5p15, 8q21, 8q24, 10p12, 17q12, 17q21.31, and 19p13 regions, larger follow-up genotyping studies, using imputation where necessary, are needed for fine-mapping and confirmation of low frequency variants that fall below statistical significance.

Entities:  

Keywords:  NF-κB; genetic association; high-grade serous carcinoma; ovarian cancer; susceptibility loci

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26848776      PMCID: PMC4884925          DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.7121

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncotarget        ISSN: 1949-2553


INTRODUCTION

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the second most common gynecologic cancer in the US, but it leads in deaths owing to its tendency to be diagnosed in the late stages of disease [1]. EOC is composed of five major histologic types [2]: high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC), accounting for most cases (∼70%); and the rarer clear cell, endometrioid, mucinous, and low-grade serous carcinomas (LGSC). Known rare mutations in DNA repair and mismatch repair genes are thought to account for 10%-15% of all EOCs [3-9]. Common alleles identified by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are thought to account for an additional 3%-4% of EOC risk [10-17]. Still, much of about the heritability of EOC remains unaccounted for. Here, we sought to identify additional EOC susceptibility variants through direct genotyping and analysis of EOC cases and controls from 13 independent studies. We targeted variants based on innovative pilot studies, hypothesizing that previously ungenotyped variants may be responsible for a proportion of the unexplained EOC susceptibility.

RESULTS

Known EOC susceptibility regions

One goal of this project was to compare the relative strength of the associations between known and novel variants within the first eleven published EOC risk loci [10-12, 14, 18] (Supplemental Table 1). The variants most strongly associated with EOC risk in this study (all histology or HGSC) are given in Table 1 and plotted regionally in Figure 1, Figure 2, and Supplemental Figure 1. Compared to published variants, novel variants were more strongly associated with susceptibility of all histologies of EOC at nine loci (2q31, 3q25, 5p15, 8q21, 8q24, 10p12, 17q12, 17q21.31, and 19p13) (Table 1); all but three (8q21, 17q21.31, and 19p13) are in moderate LD (r2> 0.4) with known variants (Supplemental Figure 1). At the 3q25 locus variant rs62273902 (pall-histology= 2 × 10−8) was the most strongly associated variant (Figure 1), and at the 17q21.31 locus variant rs2532240 (pall-histology= 3 × 10−7) was the most strongly associated variant (Figure 2). In the HGSC only analysis, novel variants were more strongly associated with susceptibility at seven loci (2q31, 3q25, 8q24, 10p12, 17q12, 17q21.31, and 19p13; Table 1); all but two (2q31, 17q21.31) are in moderate LD (r2> 0.4) with known variants (Supplemental Figure 1). With two exceptions (noted below), novel variants were common (minor allele frequency (MAF)>0.05), in the intron of genes or intergenic, in moderate-to-strong LD with known variants, and conferred modest effects on susceptibility. One exception was the association of rare intergenic variant rs74955251 at 8q21 (MAFoverall= 0.00028, OR= 3.9 × 10−6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.4 × 10−118-4.6 × 10106, pall-histology= 4 × 10−3). Given its rarity, rs74955251 requires assessment in a much larger sample of cases and controls. A second exception was the association of common (MAFoverall= 0.50) missense variant rs2363956 in the gene ANKLE1 at 19p13 (OR= 0.91, 95% CI: 0.87-0.97, pall-histology = 2 × 10−3, protein change Leu184Trp).
Table 1

Most significant associations within eleven known EOC susceptibility regions

All histologies (4,973 cases, 5,640 controls)High grade serous (3,573 cases, 5,640 controls)
RegionVariantPosition (hg19)Nearest GeneMAF overallOR (95% CI)P valueVariantPosition (hg19)Nearest GeneMAF overallOR (95% CI)P value
2q31rs7118301770373113′ UTR of HOXD30.331.12 (1.05-1.18)2.05 × 10−4rs1374325177043971Intron of HOXD1-AS0.320.89 (0.83-0.96)1.37 × 10−3
3q25rs622739021565444885′ UTR of LEKR10.061.40 (1.25-1.57)1.52 × 10−8rs62275810156647851Intron of LEKR10.051.46 (1.27-1.68)2.58 × 10−7
5p15rs49755381280830Intron of TERT0.351.13 (1.06-1.20)8.24 × 10−5rs100696901279790Intron of TERT0.261.14 (1.06-1.22)6.28 × 10−4
8q21rs749552518223064334kb 3′ of FABP52.8 × 10−43.94 × 10−6 (3.4 × 10−118-4.6 × 10106)5.71 × 10−3rs1178265282653644Intron of CHMP4C0.071.23 (1.09-1.39)6.49 × 10−4
8q24rs1400482129541931Intron of LINC008240.120.82 (0.75-0.89)2.57 × 10−6rs1400482129541931Intron of LINC008240.130.80 (0.73-0.89)1.71 × 10−5
9p22rs38141131691502144kb 5′ of BNC20.320.81 (0.76-0.86)7.96 × 10−13rs38141131691502144kb 5′ of BNC20.320.75 (0.70-0.81)3.20 × 10−5
10p12rs436495922285371Intron of DNAJC10.301.15 (1.08-1.22)9.66 × 10−6rs997121021879084Intron of MLLT100.491.11 (1.04-1.19)1.21 × 10−3
17q12rs740577636093022Intron of HNF1B0.381.18 (1.11-1.24)1.12 × 10−8rs740577636093022Inton of HNF1B0.371.25 (1.17-1.34)2.23 × 10−11
17q21.31rs253224044265839Intron of KANSL10.411.16 (1.10-1.23)2.99 × 10−7rs378588043993376Intron of MAPT0.450.87 (0.82-0.93)4.95 × 10−5
17q21.32rs930354246411500Intron of SKAP10.291.15 (1.08-1.23)8.39 × 10−6rs930354246411500Intron of SKAP10.271.16 (1.08-1.25)4.88 × 10−5
19p13rs236395617394124Missense mutation (L184W) in ANKLE10.500.91 (0.87-0.97)1.57 × 10−3rs5606943917393925Intron of ANKLE10.301.15 (1.07-1.23)1.82 × 10−4

Bolded variants were previously reported as the most strongly associated variants in these susceptibility regions (Supplemental Table 1). MAF, minor allele frequency; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; UTR, untranslated region. Associations adjust for age, site, and three European principal components.

Figure 1

Novel variant rs62273902 in the 5′-untranslated region of LEKR1 has the strongest association signal at 3q25

Regional association plot for variants genotyped at 3q25 in all EOC histologies cases (N = 4,973) and controls (N = 5,640). Linkage disequilibrium between rs62273902 and each variant is estimated using data from 5,640 controls and indicated by the color scheme. The previously reported risk variant rs2665390 in this region {Goode, 2010 #23} was not genotyped; rs344008 (p = 5×10−6) is indicated in its place to allow comparison of the novel (rs62273902) and known (rs2665390) most associated variants (r2 = 1 for rs344008 and rs2665390 in 1000 Genomes Project phase 1 European data).

Figure 2

Novel variant rs2532240 has the strongest association signal at 17q21.31

Regional association plot for variants genotyped at 17q21.31 in all EOC histologies cases (N = 4,973) and controls (N = 5,640). The most associated variant was rs2532240 (p = 3 × 10−7). Linkage disequilibrium between rs2532240 and each variant is estimated using data from 5,640 controls and indicated by the color scheme. The previously reported risk variant rs12942666 in this region {Permuth-Wey, 2013 #28} was not genotyped, but rs117169618 (p = 5 × 10−4) is indicated in its place to allow comparison of the novel (rs2532240) and known (rs12942666) most variants (r2 = 0.8 for rs117169618 and rs12942666 in 1000 Genomes Project phase 1 European data).

Bolded variants were previously reported as the most strongly associated variants in these susceptibility regions (Supplemental Table 1). MAF, minor allele frequency; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; UTR, untranslated region. Associations adjust for age, site, and three European principal components.

Novel variant rs62273902 in the 5′-untranslated region of LEKR1 has the strongest association signal at 3q25

Regional association plot for variants genotyped at 3q25 in all EOC histologies cases (N = 4,973) and controls (N = 5,640). Linkage disequilibrium between rs62273902 and each variant is estimated using data from 5,640 controls and indicated by the color scheme. The previously reported risk variant rs2665390 in this region {Goode, 2010 #23} was not genotyped; rs344008 (p = 5×10−6) is indicated in its place to allow comparison of the novel (rs62273902) and known (rs2665390) most associated variants (r2 = 1 for rs344008 and rs2665390 in 1000 Genomes Project phase 1 European data).

Novel variant rs2532240 has the strongest association signal at 17q21.31

Regional association plot for variants genotyped at 17q21.31 in all EOC histologies cases (N = 4,973) and controls (N = 5,640). The most associated variant was rs2532240 (p = 3 × 10−7). Linkage disequilibrium between rs2532240 and each variant is estimated using data from 5,640 controls and indicated by the color scheme. The previously reported risk variant rs12942666 in this region {Permuth-Wey, 2013 #28} was not genotyped, but rs117169618 (p = 5 × 10−4) is indicated in its place to allow comparison of the novel (rs2532240) and known (rs12942666) most variants (r2 = 0.8 for rs117169618 and rs12942666 in 1000 Genomes Project phase 1 European data).

Beyond known EOC susceptibility regions

We targeted 5,320 variants which showed suggestive association with susceptibility in a pilot-scale whole genome sequence analysis that compared germline sequence of EOC patients (N= 19) to 1000 GP participants (N= 174). No novel variants reached genome-wide significance for association with EOC risk overall or HGSC (p≤ 5×10−8), nor were significant after Bonferroni correction (p≤ 9×10−6). Nonetheless, the risk estimates generally were in the expected direction based on pilot data, and several variants merit investigation in larger case-control collections (Table 2). For example, among variants targeted because they were present only in EOC germline sequence data (WGS EOC+ in Table 2), the most strongly associated risk variant was rs138643956 (OR= 3.68; pHGSC= 2 × 10−4). For variants selected because they were absent from whole genome sequenced EOC cases (WGS EOC- in Table 2), the most associated variant was rs9380516 (OR= 0.83; pHGSC= 6 × 10−5); in the current study this variant showed a case MAF of 0.15, suggesting that this was a missed variant in the pilot sequencing study. For variants targeted which were present in whole genome sequenced EOC cases and in 1000 GP data, but differed in MAF (WGS EOC↑ and WGS EOC↓ in Table 2), the current analyses were generally consistent, including rs117841616 on chromosome 20 (pall histology= 2 × 10−4) and rs240783 (pHGSC= 8 × 10−4) on chromosome 6. In general, very few variants targeted based on suggestive association in pilot sequence study had appreciable MAF differences (case vs. control) in the current genotyping study. As expected due to small sample size, we observed that case MAF estimates in our pilot whole genome sequencing study were both inflated and deflated compared to the current study.
Table 2

Most significant EOC risk associations by selection criteria outside of eleven known susceptibility regions

Pilot WGS StudyCase-control study data (13 sites)
Selection CriteriaVariantChr.Position (hg19)LocationEOC MAF1000 GP MAFHistologyCase MAFControl MAFN case, N controlOR (95%CI)P value
WGS EOC+rs1386439561079367857Intron of KCNMA10.0530.000HGSC0.0040.0013035, 56373.68 (1.79 - 7.55)1.85 × 10−4
WGS EOC↑rs117841616205785521120kb 5′ of EDN30.0790.006All0.0080.0054973, 56341.93 (1.36 - 2.74)2.06 × 10−4
WGS EOC↓rs2407836100968737Intron of ASCC30.1840.494HGSC0.4000.4282956, 55180.89 (0.84 - 0.95)7.90 × 10−4
WGS EOC−rs938051663550220210kb 5′ of RP3-340B19.30.0000.155HGSC0.1470.1713027, 56330.83 (0.76 - 0.91)6.44 × 10−5
NF-κBrs10143322149155657724kb 5′ of C14orf159n.a.n.a.All0.2200.2464562, 56340.87 (0.82 - 0.93)2.99 × 10−5
NF-κBrs6092485205604501426kb 3′ of CTCFLn.a.n.a.HGSC0.3350.3113019, 56251.13 (1.05 - 1.21)6.77 × 10−4
Endometrioid GWASrs926404263119680125kb 3′ of HCG27n.a.n.a.All0.1250.1074440, 55051.17 (1.07 - 1.28)4.71 × 10−4
Endometrioid GWASrs2638653818666210Intron of PSD3n.a.n.a.EC0.4090.362832, 56191.23 (1.11 - 1.37)1.28 × 10−4

WGS, whole-genome sequencing; EOC, epithelial ovarian cancer; 1000 GP, 1000 Genomes Project; GWAS, genome wide association study; Chr, chromosome; MAF, minor allele frequency; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; HGSC, high grade serous carcinoma; n.a., not applicable. WGS EOC+ variant selection criteria: MAF> 0% in serous EOC cases, monomorphic in 1000 GP European individuals; WGS EOC↑ variant selection criteria: polymorphic in cases and 1000 GP, MAF greater in WGS patients; WGS EOC↓ variant selection criteria: polymorphic in cases and 1000 GP, MAF greater in 1000 GP; WGS 1000 EOC− variant selection criteria: monomorphic in cases, MAF> 0% in 1000 GP.

WGS, whole-genome sequencing; EOC, epithelial ovarian cancer; 1000 GP, 1000 Genomes Project; GWAS, genome wide association study; Chr, chromosome; MAF, minor allele frequency; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; HGSC, high grade serous carcinoma; n.a., not applicable. WGS EOC+ variant selection criteria: MAF> 0% in serous EOC cases, monomorphic in 1000 GP European individuals; WGS EOC↑ variant selection criteria: polymorphic in cases and 1000 GP, MAF greater in WGS patients; WGS EOC↓ variant selection criteria: polymorphic in cases and 1000 GP, MAF greater in 1000 GP; WGS 1000 EOC− variant selection criteria: monomorphic in cases, MAF> 0% in 1000 GP. Finally, among NF-κB-related variants and those hypothesized to associate with endometrioid EOC risk, the most suggestive results for variants which disrupt NF-κB binding [19, 20] were intergenic variants rs10143322 on chromosome 14 (pall-histology= 3 × 10−5) and rs6092485 on chromosome 20 (pHGSC= 7×10−4) (Table 2). If Bonferroni correction for the number NF-κB binding site variants tested is applied, the threshold for statistical significance is p<4 × 10−5 (p= 0.05/1,302), and this single variant, rs10143322, is declared significant; using experiment-wide and certainly genome-wide multiple testing corrections, it is not significant. Among variants previously identified in a pilot GWAS of endometrioid EOC, the most significant variants were intronic variant rs2638653 (pendometrioid= 1 × 10−4) on chromosome 8 (Table 2), and intergenic rs9264042 on chromosome 6 (pall-histology= 5 × 10−4). These modest associations may also warrant follow-up in larger studies.

DISCUSSION

The objective of this study was to test whether novel variants identified through a combination of approaches were associated with EOC susceptibility. We took an innovative approach to the selection of variants, including the use of whole genome sequencing data to target novel variants correlated with known GWAS risk variants, comparison of sequencing EOC cases to 1000 GP participants beyond these regions, NF-κB functional data, and GWAS analysis of EOC cases with endometrioid histology. In nine of the eleven susceptibility regions investigated, novel variants were more highly associated with all histology EOC risk than previously reported variants, and, in the HGSC only analysis, novel variants were more strongly associated with susceptibility at seven loci. Further work on thesevariant may provide more biological insight. For example, at the 3q25 locus, the novel variant rs62273902 (all histology) coincides with a genomic sequence that appears functionally active in a range of cell lines and tissues relevant to EOC, including ovary, as assayed by the Roadmap Epigenomics Mapping Consortium (REMC), http://www.epigenomebrowser.org/. rs62273902 resides within a DNase peak, an active transcription start site (TSS), and multiple proteins across diverse tissues bind the sequence spanning this variant. rs62273902 is therefore a good functional candidate variant at this locus. As well, at 17q21.31, the novel variants (rs2532240 in all histologies and rs3785880 in HGSC-only analysis) are separated by 272 kb and not correlated with each other or the previously reported variant rs1294266. rs2532240 coincides with a chromatin region marked as a weak/poised enhancer in several tissues, including ovary (REMC [21]); however, it does not overlap transcription factor binding sites (TFBS) or DNase peaks. rs12942666 does not coincide with promoter or enhancer regions in tissues relevant to EOC in the REMC data, suggesting it is unlikely to be functionally relevant. The 17q21.31 variants are located in a large region of strong LD previously identified as the “17q21.31 inversion” (∼900kb long), which exists either as a direct (H1) or inverted (H2) haplotype in the European population [14, 15, 22]. Further investigation of how these variants might impact EOC risk is needed. Of critical note, a large EOC meta-GWAS with imputation to revised Phase I 1000 GP data was recently completed with over 23,000 cases and 35,000 controls of the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium, including many of the participants in the current analysis. We inspected our most associated variants from the 11 known susceptibility regions in in an online look-up of results based on these data (http://apps.ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/consortia/ocac/contact/contact.html). In general, the variants reported here were highly ranked in the EOC meta-GWAS data (i.e., in the top 50 most associated variants in the regions we defined). At 8q24, the novel directly genotyped variant presented here (rs1400482) was the most associated variant in the larger imputation-based study. At 3q25, 10p12, 17q21.31, and 17q21.32, the most significant variant in the current study was not among the most significant in the imputation-based study. Nonetheless, novel variants at 3q25 and 17q21.32 remained highly significant (rs62273902 at 3q25 pmeta= 2 × 10−28, and rs9303542 at 17q21.32 pmeta= 3 × 10−12). Although novel variants at 3q25 and 17q21.32 remained highly significant (rs62273902 at 3q25 pmeta= 2 × 10−28, and rs9303542 at 17q21.32 pmeta= 3 × 10−12), at these two regions as well as at 10p12 and 17q21.31, the imputation-based study revealed stronger associations with other variants. Among variants genotyped based on our pilot study comparing whole genomes of EOC cases and 1000 GP participants, none were significant after multiple testing correction for 5,320 variants. Despite our sample size (4,973 cases and 5,640 controls), power to detect associations with low MAF variants was limited. Variants in NF-κB binding sites were also not associated with EOC risk at genome-wide significance. Noting the debate regarding the use of p<5 × 10−8 as the threshold for statistical significance when evaluating potentially functional variants with presumed higher prior probability [23], Bonferroni correction for the number of NF-κB binding site variants yields one statistically significant variant (rs10143322, p= 3×10−5). rs2638653, a variant selected based on an unpublished GWAS of endometrioid EOC, and found here to be the variant most associated with endometrioid EOC risk (p= 1 × 10−4), coincides with chromatin marked as being an active promoter in ovary tissues (of PSD3), but not an enhancer or DNase site. Interestingly, loss of heterozygosity on chromosome 8p22, where this variant is located, is common in EOC tumors, and reduced expression of genes in this region has been found to negatively impact survival in EOC [24]. In summary, we developed a diverse panel of previously ungenotyped variants to directly test for association with EOC susceptibility in 4,973 EOC cases and 5,640 controls from 13 independent studies. Our innovative approach to variant selection included the first use of whole-genome sequencing data from EOC cases in novel variant discovery. At several EOC susceptibility regions, we report novel risk variants for further association and functional investigation. Beyond known regions, this first pass at using whole genome sequencing pilot analyses, although underpowered, also yielded variants of potential interest (rs138643956 and rs117841616). The key strength of this report is the use of direct genotyping of novel variants, some rare, while its key limitation is an inability to more comprehensively examine rare variation. Larger scale genotyping and/or improved genotype imputation accuracy will facilitate further scrutiny of the variants highlighted here.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study participants

Study participants were drawn from 13 independent EOC case-control studies of the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium and were restricted to women of European ancestry. Characteristics of the contributing studies are given in Supplemental Table 2 and have been described previously [18]. Cases (N=4,973) consisted of women aged 18 and older with a pathologically confirmed primary invasive EOC, fallopian tube cancer, or primary peritoneal cancer; controls (N=5,640) were matched by age and region.

Genotyping array

A total of 17,439 germline DNA variants were genotyped using a customized Affymetrix Axiom Exome array (Affymetrix Corporation, Santa Clara, CA). These variants were drawn from four discovery categories: 1) from eleven known EOC susceptibility regions (N =6,948; Supplemental Table 3) [10-14, 18], identified by in silico fine-mapping and a small germline whole genome sequencing study of EOC cases, 2) variants outside these eleven regions which showed suggestive association in pilot whole genome sequencing of serous EOC cases (compared to 1000 Genomes Project [GP] data)(N = 7,189), 3) variants with a hypothesized role in disrupted binding of NF-κB transcription factors, which are known to have central roles in immune and inflammatory responses and cancer [19, 20, 25, 26](N = 1,302), and 4) the top associated variants from a pilot GWAS of endometrioid EOC (N = 2,000). See the Supplemental Methods for more detail on the selection of these variants.

Quality control

Germline DNA was genotyped at the Affymetrix Research Services Laboratory (Santa Clara, CA) using default quality control (QC) and genotype calling criteria. Variants failed QC if: (1) the call rate was < 95%; (2) p-values of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in controls were < 10−7; or (3) there was > 2% discordance in duplicate pairs. Further, monomorphic variants were removed. Of 6,948 variants genotyped within 11 known EOC risk regions, 4,919 (71%) met these QC criteria and were polymorphic. Outside of these regions, of 7,189 variants selected based on whole-genome sequencing data, 5,286 (74%) met QC criteria and were polymorphic. Of 1,302 variants associated with NF-κB binding, 980 (75%) met QC criteria and were polymorphic, and, of 2,000 variants selected from a GWAS of endometrioid EOC, 1,826 (91%) met QC criteria and were polymorphic. Most variants were excluded for being monomorphic. Thus, a total of 13,011 genotyped variants remained for analysis.

Association analysis

All cases were included in the overall EOC risk association analyses (N=4,973). Subset analyses were performed on histologic subsets based on a priori selection; HGSC (N=3,573) and endometrioid EOC (N=835). For each analysis, 5,640 controls were used. Associations were estimated using logistic regression assuming an additive genetic model, adjusting for age, study site, and population substructure by including the first three eigenvalues from principal components analysis [18]. All analyses were conducted in R version 3.0.2 (http://www.R-project.org/).
  25 in total

1.  Biomarker-based ovarian carcinoma typing: a histologic investigation in the ovarian tumor tissue analysis consortium.

Authors:  Martin Köbel; Steve E Kalloger; Sandra Lee; Máire A Duggan; Linda E Kelemen; Leah Prentice; Kimberly R Kalli; Brooke L Fridley; Daniel W Visscher; Gary L Keeney; Robert A Vierkant; Julie M Cunningham; Christine Chow; Roberta B Ness; Kirsten Moysich; Robert Edwards; Francesmary Modugno; Clareann Bunker; Eva L Wozniak; Elizabeth Benjamin; Simon A Gayther; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Usha Menon; C Blake Gilks; David G Huntsman; Susan J Ramus; Ellen L Goode
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 2.  Hereditary ovarian cancer: molecular genetics and clinical implications.

Authors:  J Boyd; S C Rubin
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Cooperative transcription factor associations discovered using regulatory variation.

Authors:  Konrad J Karczewski; Nicholas P Tatonetti; Stephen G Landt; Xinqiong Yang; Teri Slifer; Russ B Altman; Michael Snyder
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-07-26       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  A genome-wide association study identifies susceptibility loci for ovarian cancer at 2q31 and 8q24.

Authors:  Ellen L Goode; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Honglin Song; Susan J Ramus; Maria Notaridou; Kate Lawrenson; Martin Widschwendter; Robert A Vierkant; Melissa C Larson; Susanne K Kjaer; Michael J Birrer; Andrew Berchuck; Joellen Schildkraut; Ian Tomlinson; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Linda S Cook; Jacek Gronwald; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Martin E Gore; Ian Campbell; Alice S Whittemore; Rebecca Sutphen; Catherine Phelan; Hoda Anton-Culver; Celeste Leigh Pearce; Diether Lambrechts; Mary Anne Rossing; Jenny Chang-Claude; Kirsten B Moysich; Marc T Goodman; Thilo Dörk; Heli Nevanlinna; Roberta B Ness; Thorunn Rafnar; Claus Hogdall; Estrid Hogdall; Brooke L Fridley; Julie M Cunningham; Weiva Sieh; Valerie McGuire; Andrew K Godwin; Daniel W Cramer; Dena Hernandez; Douglas Levine; Karen Lu; Edwin S Iversen; Rachel T Palmieri; Richard Houlston; Anne M van Altena; Katja K H Aben; Leon F A G Massuger; Angela Brooks-Wilson; Linda E Kelemen; Nhu D Le; Anna Jakubowska; Jan Lubinski; Krzysztof Medrek; Anne Stafford; Douglas F Easton; Jonathan Tyrer; Kelly L Bolton; Patricia Harrington; Diana Eccles; Ann Chen; Ashley N Molina; Barbara N Davila; Hector Arango; Ya-Yu Tsai; Zhihua Chen; Harvey A Risch; John McLaughlin; Steven A Narod; Argyrios Ziogas; Wendy Brewster; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Usha Menon; Anna H Wu; Daniel O Stram; Malcolm C Pike; Jonathan Beesley; Penelope M Webb; Xiaoqing Chen; Arif B Ekici; Falk C Thiel; Matthias W Beckmann; Hannah Yang; Nicolas Wentzensen; Jolanta Lissowska; Peter A Fasching; Evelyn Despierre; Frederic Amant; Ignace Vergote; Jennifer Doherty; Rebecca Hein; Shan Wang-Gohrke; Galina Lurie; Michael E Carney; Pamela J Thompson; Ingo Runnebaum; Peter Hillemanns; Matthias Dürst; Natalia Antonenkova; Natalia Bogdanova; Arto Leminen; Ralf Butzow; Tuomas Heikkinen; Kari Stefansson; Patrick Sulem; Sören Besenbacher; Thomas A Sellers; Simon A Gayther; Paul D P Pharoah
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2010-09-19       Impact factor: 38.330

5.  Hereditary and familial ovarian cancer in southern Ontario.

Authors:  S A Narod; L Madlensky; L Bradley; D Cole; P Tonin; B Rosen; H A Risch
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1994-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  A genome-wide association study identifies a new ovarian cancer susceptibility locus on 9p22.2.

Authors:  Honglin Song; Susan J Ramus; Jonathan Tyrer; Kelly L Bolton; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Eva Wozniak; Hoda Anton-Culver; Jenny Chang-Claude; Daniel W Cramer; Richard DiCioccio; Thilo Dörk; Ellen L Goode; Marc T Goodman; Joellen M Schildkraut; Thomas Sellers; Laura Baglietto; Matthias W Beckmann; Jonathan Beesley; Jan Blaakaer; Michael E Carney; Stephen Chanock; Zhihua Chen; Julie M Cunningham; Ed Dicks; Jennifer A Doherty; Matthias Dürst; Arif B Ekici; David Fenstermacher; Brooke L Fridley; Graham Giles; Martin E Gore; Immaculata De Vivo; Peter Hillemanns; Claus Hogdall; Estrid Hogdall; Edwin S Iversen; Ian J Jacobs; Anna Jakubowska; Dong Li; Jolanta Lissowska; Jan Lubiński; Galina Lurie; Valerie McGuire; John McLaughlin; Krzysztof Medrek; Patricia G Moorman; Kirsten Moysich; Steven Narod; Catherine Phelan; Carole Pye; Harvey Risch; Ingo B Runnebaum; Gianluca Severi; Melissa Southey; Daniel O Stram; Falk C Thiel; Kathryn L Terry; Ya-Yu Tsai; Shelley S Tworoger; David J Van Den Berg; Robert A Vierkant; Shan Wang-Gohrke; Penelope M Webb; Lynne R Wilkens; Anna H Wu; Hannah Yang; Wendy Brewster; Argyrios Ziogas; Richard Houlston; Ian Tomlinson; Alice S Whittemore; Mary Anne Rossing; Bruce A J Ponder; Celeste Leigh Pearce; Roberta B Ness; Usha Menon; Susanne Krüger Kjaer; Jacek Gronwald; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Peter A Fasching; Douglas F Easton; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Andrew Berchuck; Paul D P Pharoah; Simon A Gayther
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2009-08-02       Impact factor: 38.330

7.  Structural diversity and African origin of the 17q21.31 inversion polymorphism.

Authors:  Karyn Meltz Steinberg; Francesca Antonacci; Peter H Sudmant; Jeffrey M Kidd; Catarina D Campbell; Laura Vives; Maika Malig; Laura Scheinfeldt; William Beggs; Muntaser Ibrahim; Godfrey Lema; Thomas B Nyambo; Sabah A Omar; Jean-Marie Bodo; Alain Froment; Michael P Donnelly; Kenneth K Kidd; Sarah A Tishkoff; Evan E Eichler
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2012-07-01       Impact factor: 38.330

8.  Genome-wide association study in BRCA1 mutation carriers identifies novel loci associated with breast and ovarian cancer risk.

Authors:  Fergus J Couch; Xianshu Wang; Lesley McGuffog; Andrew Lee; Curtis Olswold; Karoline B Kuchenbaecker; Penny Soucy; Zachary Fredericksen; Daniel Barrowdale; Joe Dennis; Mia M Gaudet; Ed Dicks; Matthew Kosel; Sue Healey; Olga M Sinilnikova; Adam Lee; François Bacot; Daniel Vincent; Frans B L Hogervorst; Susan Peock; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Anna Jakubowska; Paolo Radice; Rita Katharina Schmutzler; Susan M Domchek; Marion Piedmonte; Christian F Singer; Eitan Friedman; Mads Thomassen; Thomas V O Hansen; Susan L Neuhausen; Csilla I Szabo; Ignacio Blanco; Mark H Greene; Beth Y Karlan; Judy Garber; Catherine M Phelan; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Marco Montagna; Edith Olah; Irene L Andrulis; Andrew K Godwin; Drakoulis Yannoukakos; David E Goldgar; Trinidad Caldes; Heli Nevanlinna; Ana Osorio; Mary Beth Terry; Mary B Daly; Elizabeth J van Rensburg; Ute Hamann; Susan J Ramus; Amanda Ewart Toland; Maria A Caligo; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Nadine Tung; Kathleen Claes; Mary S Beattie; Melissa C Southey; Evgeny N Imyanitov; Marc Tischkowitz; Ramunas Janavicius; Esther M John; Ava Kwong; Orland Diez; Judith Balmaña; Rosa B Barkardottir; Banu K Arun; Gad Rennert; Soo-Hwang Teo; Patricia A Ganz; Ian Campbell; Annemarie H van der Hout; Carolien H M van Deurzen; Caroline Seynaeve; Encarna B Gómez Garcia; Flora E van Leeuwen; Hanne E J Meijers-Heijboer; Johannes J P Gille; Margreet G E M Ausems; Marinus J Blok; Marjolijn J L Ligtenberg; Matti A Rookus; Peter Devilee; Senno Verhoef; Theo A M van Os; Juul T Wijnen; Debra Frost; Steve Ellis; Elena Fineberg; Radka Platte; D Gareth Evans; Louise Izatt; Rosalind A Eeles; Julian Adlard; Diana M Eccles; Jackie Cook; Carole Brewer; Fiona Douglas; Shirley Hodgson; Patrick J Morrison; Lucy E Side; Alan Donaldson; Catherine Houghton; Mark T Rogers; Huw Dorkins; Jacqueline Eason; Helen Gregory; Emma McCann; Alex Murray; Alain Calender; Agnès Hardouin; Pascaline Berthet; Capucine Delnatte; Catherine Nogues; Christine Lasset; Claude Houdayer; Dominique Leroux; Etienne Rouleau; Fabienne Prieur; Francesca Damiola; Hagay Sobol; Isabelle Coupier; Laurence Venat-Bouvet; Laurent Castera; Marion Gauthier-Villars; Mélanie Léoné; Pascal Pujol; Sylvie Mazoyer; Yves-Jean Bignon; Elżbieta Złowocka-Perłowska; Jacek Gronwald; Jan Lubinski; Katarzyna Durda; Katarzyna Jaworska; Tomasz Huzarski; Amanda B Spurdle; Alessandra Viel; Bernard Peissel; Bernardo Bonanni; Giulia Melloni; Laura Ottini; Laura Papi; Liliana Varesco; Maria Grazia Tibiletti; Paolo Peterlongo; Sara Volorio; Siranoush Manoukian; Valeria Pensotti; Norbert Arnold; Christoph Engel; Helmut Deissler; Dorothea Gadzicki; Andrea Gehrig; Karin Kast; Kerstin Rhiem; Alfons Meindl; Dieter Niederacher; Nina Ditsch; Hansjoerg Plendl; Sabine Preisler-Adams; Stefanie Engert; Christian Sutter; Raymonda Varon-Mateeva; Barbara Wappenschmidt; Bernhard H F Weber; Brita Arver; Marie Stenmark-Askmalm; Niklas Loman; Richard Rosenquist; Zakaria Einbeigi; Katherine L Nathanson; Timothy R Rebbeck; Stephanie V Blank; David E Cohn; Gustavo C Rodriguez; Laurie Small; Michael Friedlander; Victoria L Bae-Jump; Anneliese Fink-Retter; Christine Rappaport; Daphne Gschwantler-Kaulich; Georg Pfeiler; Muy-Kheng Tea; Noralane M Lindor; Bella Kaufman; Shani Shimon Paluch; Yael Laitman; Anne-Bine Skytte; Anne-Marie Gerdes; Inge Sokilde Pedersen; Sanne Traasdahl Moeller; Torben A Kruse; Uffe Birk Jensen; Joseph Vijai; Kara Sarrel; Mark Robson; Noah Kauff; Anna Marie Mulligan; Gord Glendon; Hilmi Ozcelik; Bent Ejlertsen; Finn C Nielsen; Lars Jønson; Mette K Andersen; Yuan Chun Ding; Linda Steele; Lenka Foretova; Alex Teulé; Conxi Lazaro; Joan Brunet; Miquel Angel Pujana; Phuong L Mai; Jennifer T Loud; Christine Walsh; Jenny Lester; Sandra Orsulic; Steven A Narod; Josef Herzog; Sharon R Sand; Silvia Tognazzo; Simona Agata; Tibor Vaszko; Joellen Weaver; Alexandra V Stavropoulou; Saundra S Buys; Atocha Romero; Miguel de la Hoya; Kristiina Aittomäki; Taru A Muranen; Mercedes Duran; Wendy K Chung; Adriana Lasa; Cecilia M Dorfling; Alexander Miron; Javier Benitez; Leigha Senter; Dezheng Huo; Salina B Chan; Anna P Sokolenko; Jocelyne Chiquette; Laima Tihomirova; Tara M Friebel; Bjarni A Agnarsson; Karen H Lu; Flavio Lejbkowicz; Paul A James; Per Hall; Alison M Dunning; Daniel Tessier; Julie Cunningham; Susan L Slager; Chen Wang; Steven Hart; Kristen Stevens; Jacques Simard; Tomi Pastinen; Vernon S Pankratz; Kenneth Offit; Douglas F Easton; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Antonis C Antoniou
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 5.917

9.  Common variants at 19p13 are associated with susceptibility to ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Kelly L Bolton; Jonathan Tyrer; Honglin Song; Susan J Ramus; Maria Notaridou; Chris Jones; Tanya Sher; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Eva Wozniak; Ya-Yu Tsai; Joanne Weidhaas; Daniel Paik; David J Van Den Berg; Daniel O Stram; Celeste Leigh Pearce; Anna H Wu; Wendy Brewster; Hoda Anton-Culver; Argyrios Ziogas; Steven A Narod; Douglas A Levine; Stanley B Kaye; Robert Brown; Jim Paul; James Flanagan; Weiva Sieh; Valerie McGuire; Alice S Whittemore; Ian Campbell; Martin E Gore; Jolanta Lissowska; Hanna P Yang; Krzysztof Medrek; Jacek Gronwald; Jan Lubinski; Anna Jakubowska; Nhu D Le; Linda S Cook; Linda E Kelemen; Angela Brooks-Wilson; Angela Brook-Wilson; Leon F A G Massuger; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Katja K H Aben; Anne M van Altena; Richard Houlston; Ian Tomlinson; Rachel T Palmieri; Patricia G Moorman; Joellen Schildkraut; Edwin S Iversen; Catherine Phelan; Robert A Vierkant; Julie M Cunningham; Ellen L Goode; Brooke L Fridley; Susan Kruger-Kjaer; Jan Blaeker; Estrid Hogdall; Claus Hogdall; Jenny Gross; Beth Y Karlan; Roberta B Ness; Robert P Edwards; Kunle Odunsi; Kirsten B Moyisch; Julie A Baker; Francesmary Modugno; Tuomas Heikkinenen; Ralf Butzow; Heli Nevanlinna; Arto Leminen; Natalia Bogdanova; Natalia Antonenkova; Thilo Doerk; Peter Hillemanns; Matthias Dürst; Ingo Runnebaum; Pamela J Thompson; Michael E Carney; Marc T Goodman; Galina Lurie; Shan Wang-Gohrke; Rebecca Hein; Jenny Chang-Claude; Mary Anne Rossing; Kara L Cushing-Haugen; Jennifer Doherty; Chu Chen; Thorunn Rafnar; Soren Besenbacher; Patrick Sulem; Kari Stefansson; Michael J Birrer; Kathryn L Terry; Dena Hernandez; Daniel W Cramer; Ignace Vergote; Frederic Amant; Diether Lambrechts; Evelyn Despierre; Peter A Fasching; Matthias W Beckmann; Falk C Thiel; Arif B Ekici; Xiaoqing Chen; Sharon E Johnatty; Penelope M Webb; Jonathan Beesley; Stephen Chanock; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Tom Sellers; Douglas F Easton; Andrew Berchuck; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Paul D P Pharoah; Simon A Gayther
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2010-09-19       Impact factor: 41.307

10.  Variation in NF-κB signaling pathways and survival in invasive epithelial ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Matthew S Block; Bridget Charbonneau; Robert A Vierkant; Zachary Fogarty; William R Bamlet; Paul D P Pharoah; Mary Anne Rossing; Daniel Cramer; Celeste Leigh Pearce; Joellen Schildkraut; Usha Menon; Susanne K Kjaer; Douglas A Levine; Jacek Gronwald; Hoda Anton Culver; Alice S Whittemore; Beth Y Karlan; Diether Lambrechts; Nicolas Wentzensen; Jolanta Kupryjanczyk; Jenny Chang-Claude; Elisa V Bandera; Estrid Hogdall; Florian Heitz; Stanley B Kaye; Peter A Fasching; Ian Campbell; Marc T Goodman; Tanja Pejovic; Yukie T Bean; Laura E Hays; Galina Lurie; Diana Eccles; Alexander Hein; Matthias W Beckmann; Arif B Ekici; James Paul; Robert Brown; James M Flanagan; Philipp Harter; Andreas du Bois; Ira Schwaab; Claus K Hogdall; Lene Lundvall; Sara H Olson; Irene Orlow; Lisa E Paddock; Anja Rudolph; Ursula Eilber; Agnieszka Dansonka-Mieszkowska; Iwona K Rzepecka; Izabela Ziolkowska-Seta; Louise A Brinton; Hannah Yang; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Evelyn Despierre; Sandrina Lambrechts; Ignace Vergote; Christine S Walsh; Jenny Lester; Weiva Sieh; Valerie McGuire; Joseph H Rothstein; Argyrios Ziogas; Jan Lubiński; Cezary Cybulski; Janusz Menkiszak; Allan Jensen; Simon A Gayther; Susan J Ramus; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Andrew Berchuck; Anna H Wu; Malcolm C Pike; David Van Den Berg; Kathryn L Terry; Allison F Vitonis; Starr M Ramirez; David N Rider; Keith L Knutson; Thomas A Sellers; Catherine M Phelan; Jennifer A Doherty; Sharon E Johnatty; Anna deFazio; Honglin Song; Jonathan Tyrer; Kimberly R Kalli; Brooke L Fridley; Julie M Cunningham; Ellen L Goode
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 4.254

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Genomic/Epigenomic Alterations in Ovarian Carcinoma: Translational Insight into Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Anliang Dong; Yan Lu; Bingjian Lu
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 4.207

2.  Association between 8q24 Gene Polymorphisms and the Risk of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ran Li; Zhiqiang Qin; Jingyuan Tang; Peng Han; Qianwei Xing; Feng Wang; Shuhui Si; Xiaolu Wu; Min Tang; Wei Wang; Wei Zhang
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 4.207

3.  TERT rs10069690 polymorphism and cancers risk: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Guisheng He; Tao Song; Yazhen Zhang; Xiuxiu Chen; Wei Xiong; Huamin Chen; Chuanwei Sun; Chaoyang Zhao; Yunjing Chen; Huangfu Wu
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 2.183

Review 4.  The OncoArray Consortium: A Network for Understanding the Genetic Architecture of Common Cancers.

Authors:  Christopher I Amos; Joe Dennis; Zhaoming Wang; Jinyoung Byun; Fredrick R Schumacher; Simon A Gayther; Graham Casey; David J Hunter; Thomas A Sellers; Stephen B Gruber; Alison M Dunning; Kyriaki Michailidou; Laura Fachal; Kimberly Doheny; Amanda B Spurdle; Yafang Li; Xiangjun Xiao; Jane Romm; Elizabeth Pugh; Gerhard A Coetzee; Dennis J Hazelett; Stig E Bojesen; Charlisse Caga-Anan; Christopher A Haiman; Ahsan Kamal; Craig Luccarini; Daniel Tessier; Daniel Vincent; François Bacot; David J Van Den Berg; Stefanie Nelson; Stephen Demetriades; David E Goldgar; Fergus J Couch; Judith L Forman; Graham G Giles; David V Conti; Heike Bickeböller; Angela Risch; Melanie Waldenberger; Irene Brüske-Hohlfeld; Belynda D Hicks; Hua Ling; Lesley McGuffog; Andrew Lee; Karoline Kuchenbaecker; Penny Soucy; Judith Manz; Julie M Cunningham; Katja Butterbach; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Peter Kraft; Liesel FitzGerald; Sara Lindström; Marcia Adams; James D McKay; Catherine M Phelan; Sara Benlloch; Linda E Kelemen; Paul Brennan; Marjorie Riggan; Tracy A O'Mara; Hongbing Shen; Yongyong Shi; Deborah J Thompson; Marc T Goodman; Sune F Nielsen; Andrew Berchuck; Sylvie Laboissiere; Stephanie L Schmit; Tameka Shelford; Christopher K Edlund; Jack A Taylor; John K Field; Sue K Park; Kenneth Offit; Mads Thomassen; Rita Schmutzler; Laura Ottini; Rayjean J Hung; Jonathan Marchini; Ali Amin Al Olama; Ulrike Peters; Rosalind A Eeles; Michael F Seldin; Elizabeth Gillanders; Daniela Seminara; Antonis C Antoniou; Paul D P Pharoah; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Stephen J Chanock; Jacques Simard; Douglas F Easton
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 4.254

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.