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.

Background Most studies that have evaluated the association between the body-mass index (BMI) and the risks of death from any cause and from specific causes have been conducted in populations of European origin. Methods We performed pooled analyses to evaluate the association between BMI and the risk of death among more than 1.1 million persons recruited in 19 cohorts in Asia. The analyses included approximately 120,700 deaths that occurred during a mean follow-up period of 9.2 years. Cox regression models were used to adjust for confounding factors. Results In the cohorts of East Asians, including Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans, the lowest risk of death was seen among persons with a BMI (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) in the range of 22.6 to 27.5. The risk was elevated among persons with BMI levels either higher or lower than that range — by a factor of up to 1.5 among those with a BMI of more than 35.0 and by a factor of 2.8 among those with a BMI of 15.0 or less. A similar U-shaped association was seen between BMI and the risks of death from cancer, from cardiovascular diseases, and from other causes. In the cohorts comprising Indians and Bangladeshis, the risks of death from any cause and from causes other than cancer or cardiovascular disease were increased among persons with a BMI of 20.0 or less, as compared with those with a BMI of 22.6 to 25.0, whereas there was no excess risk of either death from any cause or cause-specific death associated with a high BMI. Conclusions Underweight was associated with a substantially increased risk of death in all Asian populations. The excess risk of death associated with a high BMI, however, was seen among East Asians but not among Indians and Bangladeshis.

Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in males in developed countries. To identify common prostate cancer susceptibility alleles, we genotyped 211,155 SNPs on a custom Illumina array (iCOGS) in blood DNA from 25,074 prostate cancer cases and 24,272 controls from the international PRACTICAL Consortium. Twenty-three new prostate cancer susceptibility loci were identified at genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10−8). More than 70 prostate cancer susceptibility loci, explaining ~30% of the familial risk for this disease, have now been identified. On the basis of combined risks conferred by the new and previously known risk loci, the top 1% of the risk distribution has a 4.7-fold higher risk than the average of the population being profiled. These results will facilitate population risk stratification for clinical studies.

Background:Data for multiple common susceptibility alleles for breast cancer may be combined to identify women at different levels of breast cancer risk. Such stratification could guide preventive and screening strategies. However, empirical evidence for genetic risk stratification is lacking.Methods:We investigated the value of using 77 breast cancer-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for risk stratification, in a study of 33 673 breast cancer cases and 33 381 control women of European origin. We tested all possible pair-wise multiplicative interactions and constructed a 77-SNP polygenic risk score (PRS) for breast cancer overall and by estrogen receptor (ER) status. Absolute risks of breast cancer by PRS were derived from relative risk estimates and UK incidence and mortality rates.Results:There was no strong evidence for departure from a multiplicative model for any SNP pair. Women in the highest 1% of the PRS had a three-fold increased risk of developing breast cancer compared with women in the middle quintile (odds ratio [OR] = 3.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.95 to 3.83). The ORs for ER-positive and ER-negative disease were 3.73 (95% CI = 3.24 to 4.30) and 2.80 (95% CI = 2.26 to 3.46), respectively. Lifetime risk of breast cancer for women in the lowest and highest quintiles of the PRS were 5.2% and 16.6% for a woman without family history, and 8.6% and 24.4% for a woman with a first-degree family history of breast cancer.Conclusions:The PRS stratifies breast cancer risk in women both with and without a family history of breast cancer. The observed level of risk discrimination could inform targeted screening and prevention strategies. Further discrimination may be achievable through combining the PRS with lifestyle/environmental factors, although these were not considered in this report.