Background Data on patients with COVID-19 who have cancer are lacking. Here we characterise the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer and COVID-19 and identify potential prognostic factors for mortality and severe illness.Methods In this cohort study, we collected de-identified data on patients with active or previous malignancy, aged 18 years and older, with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from the USA, Canada, and Spain from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) database for whom baseline data were added between March 17 and April 16, 2020. We collected data on baseline clinical conditions, medications, cancer diagnosis and treatment, and COVID-19 disease course. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 30 days of diagnosis of COVID-19. We assessed the association between the outcome and potential prognostic variables using logistic regression analyses, partially adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and obesity. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701, and is ongoing. FindingsOf 1035 records entered into the CCC19 database during the study period, 928 patients met inclusion criteria for our analysis. Median age was 66 years (IQR 57-76), 279 (30%) were aged 75 years or older, and 468 (50%) patients were male. The most prevalent malignancies were breast (191 [21%]) and prostate (152 [16%]). 366 (39%) patients were on active anticancer treatment, and 396 (43%) had active (measurable) cancer. At analysis (May 7, 2020), 121 (13%) patients had died. In logistic regression analysis, independent factors associated with increased 30-day mortality, after partial adjustment, were: increased age (per 10 years; partially adjusted odds ratio 1•84, 95% CI 1•53-2•21), male sex (1•63, 1•07-2•48), smoking status (former smoker vs never smoked: 1•60, 1•03-2•47), number of comorbidities (two vs none: 4•50, 1•33-15•28), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher (status of 2 vs 0 or 1: 3•89, 2•11-7•18), active cancer (progressing vs remission: 5•20, 2•77-9•77), and receipt of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine (vs treatment with neither: 2•93, 1•79-4•79; confounding by indication cannot be excluded). Compared with residence in the US-Northeast, residence in Canada (0•24, 0•07-0•84) or the US-Midwest (0•50, 0•28-0•90) were associated with decreased 30-day all-cause mortality. Race and ethnicity, obesity status, cancer type, type of anticancer therapy, and recent surgery were not associated with mortality. Interpretation Among patients with cancer and COVID-19, 30-day all-cause mortality was high and associated with general risk factors and risk factors unique to patients with cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to better understand the effect of COVID-19 on outcomes in patients with cancer, including the ability to continue specific cancer treatments.

Breast cancer risk is influenced by rare coding variants in susceptibility genes such as BRCA1 and many common, mainly non-coding variants. However, much of the genetic contribution to breast cancer risk remains unknown. We report results from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of breast cancer in 122,977 cases and 105,974 controls of European ancestry and 14,068 cases and 13,104 controls of East Asian ancestry1. We identified 65 new loci associated with overall breast cancer at p<5x10-8. The majority of credible risk SNPs in the new loci fall in distal regulatory elements, and by integrating in-silico data to predict target genes in breast cells at each locus, we demonstrate a strong overlap between candidate target genes and somatic driver genes in breast tumours. We also find that heritability of breast cancer due to all SNPs in regulatory features was 2-5-fold enriched relative to the genome-wide average, with strong enrichment for particular transcription factor binding sites. These results provide further insight into genetic susceptibility to breast cancer and will improve the utility of genetic risk scores for individualized screening and prevention.

Polygenic risk scores have shown great promise in predicting complex disease risk and will become more accurate as training sample sizes increase. The standard approach for calculating risk scores involves linkage disequilibrium (LD)-based marker pruning and applying a p value threshold to association statistics, but this discards information and can reduce predictive accuracy. We introduce LDpred, a method that infers the posterior mean effect size of each marker by using a prior on effect sizes and LD information from an external reference panel. Theory and simulations show that LDpred outperforms the approach of pruning followed by thresholding, particularly at large sample sizes. Accordingly, predicted R(2) increased from 20.1% to 25.3% in a large schizophrenia dataset and from 9.8% to 12.0% in a large multiple sclerosis dataset. A similar relative improvement in accuracy was observed for three additional large disease datasets and for non-European schizophrenia samples. The advantage of LDpred over existing methods will grow as sample sizes increase.

Stratification of women according to their risk of breast cancer based on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) could improve screening and prevention strategies. Our aim was to develop PRSs, optimized for prediction of estrogen receptor (ER)-specific disease, from the largest available genome-wide association dataset and to empirically validate the PRSs in prospective studies. The development dataset comprised 94,075 case subjects and 75,017 control subjects of European ancestry from 69 studies, divided into training and validation sets. Samples were genotyped using genome-wide arrays, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected by stepwise regression or lasso penalized regression. The best performing PRSs were validated in an independent test set comprising 11,428 case subjects and 18,323 control subjects from 10 prospective studies and 190,040 women from UK Biobank (3,215 incident breast cancers). For the best PRSs (313 SNPs), the odds ratio for overall disease per 1 standard deviation in ten prospective studies was 1.61 (95%CI: 1.57–1.65) with area under receiver-operator curve (AUC) = 0.630 (95%CI: 0.628–0.651). The lifetime risk of overall breast cancer in the top centile of the PRSs was 32.6%. Compared with women in the middle quintile, those in the highest 1% of risk had 4.37- and 2.78-fold risks, and those in the lowest 1% of risk had 0.16- and 0.27-fold risks, of developing ER-positive and ER-negative disease, respectively. Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that this PRS was well calibrated and predicts disease risk accurately in the tails of the distribution. This PRS is a powerful and reliable predictor of breast cancer risk that may improve breast cancer prevention programs.

SUMMARY Heat-Shock Factor 1 (HSF1), master regulator of the heat-shock response, facilitates malignant transformation, cancer cell survival and proliferation in model systems. The common assumption is that these effects are mediated through regulation of heat-shock protein (HSP) expression. However, the transcriptional network that HSF1 coordinates directly in malignancy and its relationship to the heat-shock response have never been defined. By comparing cells with high and low malignant potential alongside their non-transformed counterparts, we identify an HSF1-regulated transcriptional program specific to highly malignant cells and distinct from heat shock. Cancer-specific genes in this program support oncogenic processes: cell-cycle regulation, signaling, metabolism, adhesion and translation. HSP genes are integral to this program, however, many are uniquely regulated in malignancy. This HSF1 cancer program is active in breast, colon and lung tumors isolated directly from human patients and is strongly associated with metastasis and death. Thus, HSF1 rewires the transcriptome in tumorigenesis, with prognostic and therapeutic implications.