Cargando…
Segregation analysis of 17,425 population-based breast cancer families: Evidence for genetic susceptibility and risk prediction
Rare pathogenic variants in known breast cancer-susceptibility genes and known common susceptibility variants do not fully explain the familial aggregation of breast cancer. To investigate plausible genetic models for the residual familial aggregation, we studied 17,425 families ascertained through...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9606477/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36206742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2022.09.006 |
_version_ | 1784818306588344320 |
---|---|
author | Li, Shuai MacInnis, Robert J. Lee, Andrew Nguyen-Dumont, Tu Dorling, Leila Carvalho, Sara Dite, Gillian S. Shah, Mitul Luccarini, Craig Wang, Qin Milne, Roger L. Jenkins, Mark A. Giles, Graham G. Dunning, Alison M. Pharoah, Paul D.P. Southey, Melissa C. Easton, Douglas F. Hopper, John L. Antoniou, Antonis C. |
author_facet | Li, Shuai MacInnis, Robert J. Lee, Andrew Nguyen-Dumont, Tu Dorling, Leila Carvalho, Sara Dite, Gillian S. Shah, Mitul Luccarini, Craig Wang, Qin Milne, Roger L. Jenkins, Mark A. Giles, Graham G. Dunning, Alison M. Pharoah, Paul D.P. Southey, Melissa C. Easton, Douglas F. Hopper, John L. Antoniou, Antonis C. |
author_sort | Li, Shuai |
collection | PubMed |
description | Rare pathogenic variants in known breast cancer-susceptibility genes and known common susceptibility variants do not fully explain the familial aggregation of breast cancer. To investigate plausible genetic models for the residual familial aggregation, we studied 17,425 families ascertained through population-based probands, 86% of whom were screened for pathogenic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2, ATM, and TP53 via gene-panel sequencing. We conducted complex segregation analyses and fitted genetic models in which breast cancer incidence depended on the effects of known susceptibility genes and other unidentified major genes and a normally distributed polygenic component. The proportion of familial variance explained by the six genes was 46% at age 20–29 years and decreased steadily with age thereafter. After allowing for these genes, the best fitting model for the residual familial variance included a recessive risk component with a combined genotype frequency of 1.7% (95% CI: 0.3%–5.4%) and a penetrance to age 80 years of 69% (95% CI: 38%–95%) for homozygotes, which may reflect the combined effects of multiple variants acting in a recessive manner, and a polygenic variance of 1.27 (95% CI: 0.94%–1.65), which did not vary with age. The proportion of the residual familial variance explained by the recessive risk component was 40% at age 20–29 years and decreased with age thereafter. The model predicted age-specific familial relative risks consistent with those observed by large epidemiological studies. The findings have implications for strategies to identify new breast cancer-susceptibility genes and improve disease-risk prediction, especially at a young age. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9606477 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96064772022-10-28 Segregation analysis of 17,425 population-based breast cancer families: Evidence for genetic susceptibility and risk prediction Li, Shuai MacInnis, Robert J. Lee, Andrew Nguyen-Dumont, Tu Dorling, Leila Carvalho, Sara Dite, Gillian S. Shah, Mitul Luccarini, Craig Wang, Qin Milne, Roger L. Jenkins, Mark A. Giles, Graham G. Dunning, Alison M. Pharoah, Paul D.P. Southey, Melissa C. Easton, Douglas F. Hopper, John L. Antoniou, Antonis C. Am J Hum Genet Article Rare pathogenic variants in known breast cancer-susceptibility genes and known common susceptibility variants do not fully explain the familial aggregation of breast cancer. To investigate plausible genetic models for the residual familial aggregation, we studied 17,425 families ascertained through population-based probands, 86% of whom were screened for pathogenic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2, ATM, and TP53 via gene-panel sequencing. We conducted complex segregation analyses and fitted genetic models in which breast cancer incidence depended on the effects of known susceptibility genes and other unidentified major genes and a normally distributed polygenic component. The proportion of familial variance explained by the six genes was 46% at age 20–29 years and decreased steadily with age thereafter. After allowing for these genes, the best fitting model for the residual familial variance included a recessive risk component with a combined genotype frequency of 1.7% (95% CI: 0.3%–5.4%) and a penetrance to age 80 years of 69% (95% CI: 38%–95%) for homozygotes, which may reflect the combined effects of multiple variants acting in a recessive manner, and a polygenic variance of 1.27 (95% CI: 0.94%–1.65), which did not vary with age. The proportion of the residual familial variance explained by the recessive risk component was 40% at age 20–29 years and decreased with age thereafter. The model predicted age-specific familial relative risks consistent with those observed by large epidemiological studies. The findings have implications for strategies to identify new breast cancer-susceptibility genes and improve disease-risk prediction, especially at a young age. Elsevier 2022-10-06 2022-10-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9606477/ /pubmed/36206742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2022.09.006 Text en © 2022 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Li, Shuai MacInnis, Robert J. Lee, Andrew Nguyen-Dumont, Tu Dorling, Leila Carvalho, Sara Dite, Gillian S. Shah, Mitul Luccarini, Craig Wang, Qin Milne, Roger L. Jenkins, Mark A. Giles, Graham G. Dunning, Alison M. Pharoah, Paul D.P. Southey, Melissa C. Easton, Douglas F. Hopper, John L. Antoniou, Antonis C. Segregation analysis of 17,425 population-based breast cancer families: Evidence for genetic susceptibility and risk prediction |
title | Segregation analysis of 17,425 population-based breast cancer families: Evidence for genetic susceptibility and risk prediction |
title_full | Segregation analysis of 17,425 population-based breast cancer families: Evidence for genetic susceptibility and risk prediction |
title_fullStr | Segregation analysis of 17,425 population-based breast cancer families: Evidence for genetic susceptibility and risk prediction |
title_full_unstemmed | Segregation analysis of 17,425 population-based breast cancer families: Evidence for genetic susceptibility and risk prediction |
title_short | Segregation analysis of 17,425 population-based breast cancer families: Evidence for genetic susceptibility and risk prediction |
title_sort | segregation analysis of 17,425 population-based breast cancer families: evidence for genetic susceptibility and risk prediction |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9606477/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36206742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2022.09.006 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lishuai segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction AT macinnisrobertj segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction AT leeandrew segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction AT nguyendumonttu segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction AT dorlingleila segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction AT carvalhosara segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction AT ditegillians segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction AT shahmitul segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction AT luccarinicraig segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction AT wangqin segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction AT milnerogerl segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction AT jenkinsmarka segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction AT gilesgrahamg segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction AT dunningalisonm segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction AT pharoahpauldp segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction AT southeymelissac segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction AT eastondouglasf segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction AT hopperjohnl segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction AT antoniouantonisc segregationanalysisof17425populationbasedbreastcancerfamiliesevidenceforgeneticsusceptibilityandriskprediction |