Impact of a Panel of 88 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms on the Risk of Breast Cancer in High-Risk Women: Results From Two Randomized Tamoxifen Prevention Trials

PURPOSE: At least 94 common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are associated with breast cancer. The extent to which an SNP panel can refine risk in women who receive preventive therapy has not been directly assessed previously. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A risk score on the basis of 88 SNPs (SNP88...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cuzick, Jack, Brentnall, Adam R., Segal, Corrinne, Byers, Helen, Reuter, Caroline, Detre, Simone, Lopez-Knowles, Elena, Sestak, Ivana, Howell, Anthony, Powles, Trevor J., Newman, William G., Dowsett, Mitchell
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Society of Clinical Oncology 2017
Materias:
ORIGINAL REPORTS
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5455424/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28029312
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.69.8944
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: At least 94 common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are associated with breast cancer. The extent to which an SNP panel can refine risk in women who receive preventive therapy has not been directly assessed previously. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A risk score on the basis of 88 SNPs (SNP88) was investigated in a nested case-control study of women enrolled in the International Breast Intervention Study (IBIS-I) or the Royal Marsden study. A total of 359 women who developed cancer were matched to 636 controls by age, trial, follow-up time, and treatment arm. Genotyping was done using the OncoArray. Conditional logistic regression and matched concordance indices (mC) were used to measure the performance of SNP88 alone and with other breast cancer risk factors assessed using the Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) model. RESULTS: SNP88 was predictive of breast cancer risk overall (interquartile range odds ratio [IQ-OR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.66; mC, 0.55), but mainly for estrogen receptor–positive disease (IQ-OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.79; P for heterogeneity = .10) versus estrogen receptor–negative disease. However, the observed risk of SNP88 was only 46% (95% CI, 19% to 74%) of expected. No significant interaction was observed with treatment arm (placebo IQ-OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.87; tamoxifen IQ-OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.64; P for heterogeneity = .5). The predictive power was similar to the TC model (IQ-OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.73; mC, 0.55), but SNP88 was independent of TC (Spearman rank-order correlation, 0.012; P = .7), and when combined multiplicatively, a substantial improvement was seen (IQ-OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.36 to 1.97; mC, 0.60). CONCLUSION: A polygenic risk score may be used to refine risk from the TC or similar models in women who are at an elevated risk of breast cancer and considering preventive therapy. Recalibration may be necessary for accurate risk assessment.

Ejemplares similares