Gene–environment interactions in 7610 women with breast cancer: prospective evidence from the Million Women Study

Abstract

SummaryBackgroundInformation is scarce about the combined effects on breast cancer incidence of low-penetrance genetic susceptibility polymorphisms and environmental factors (reproductive, behavioural, and anthropometric risk factors for breast cancer). To test for evidence of gene–environment interactions, we compared genotypic relative risks for breast cancer across the other risk factors in a large UK prospective study.MethodsWe tested gene–environment interactions in 7610 women who developed breast cancer and 10 196 controls without the disease, studying the effects of 12 polymorphisms (FGFR2-rs2981582, TNRC9-rs3803662, 2q35-rs13387042, MAP3K1-rs889312, 8q24-rs13281615, 2p-rs4666451, 5p12-rs981782, CASP8-rs1045485, LSP1-rs3817198, 5q-rs30099, TGFB1-rs1982073, and ATM-rs1800054) in relation to prospectively collected information about ten established environmental risk factors (age at menarche, parity, age at first birth, breastfeeding, menopausal status, age at menopause, use of hormone replacement therapy, body-mass index, height, and alcohol consumption).FindingsAfter allowance for multiple testing none of the 120 comparisons yielded significant evidence of a gene–environment interaction. By contrast with previous suggestions, there was little evidence that the genotypic relative risks were affected by use of hormone replacement therapy, either overall or for oestrogen-receptor-positive disease. Only one of the 12 polymorphisms was correlated with any of the ten other risk factors: carriers of the high-risk C allele of MAP3K1-rs889312 were significantly shorter than non-carriers (mean height 162·4 cm [95% CI 162·1–162·7] vs 163·1 cm [162·9–163·2]; p=0·01 after allowance for multiple testing).InterpretationRisks of breast cancer associated with low-penetrance susceptibility polymorphisms do not vary significantly with these ten established environmental risk factors.FundingCancer Research UK and the UK Medical Research Council.

RETRACTED ARTICLE: TGF-β Regulates Survivin to Affect Cell Cycle and the Expression of EGFR and MMP9 in Glioblastoma

“…The prominent mechanisms of TGF-β on tumor progression are epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, tumor-stroma interaction, and microenvironment [18], and TGF-β was suggested as a tumor promoter [19]. In this work, we investigated whether TGF-β promoted cell cycle via survivin.…”

Association between polymorphisms of the renin–angiotensin system genes and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis

“…The following information was extracted from each study: (1) name of the first author; (2) year of publication;…”

“…Breast cancer has led to serious mortality, and is one of the main causes of global health burden. Although environmental factors, such as reproductive (e.g., age at first birth and breastfeeding), behavioral (e.g., hormonereplacement therapy and alcohol consumption), and anthropometric risk factors (e.g., body mass index), could contribute to the increased risk of breast cancer, and genetic factors are also implicated in the pathogenesis of the disease [2,3]. Up to now, a great number of genetic variants have been identified to be potentially associated with breast cancer risk [4,5].…”

Missing Heritability, Next-Generation Genome-Wide Association Studies and Primary Cancer Prevention: An Atlantean Illusion?

“…In a recent pooled analysis from several published GWAS, it was calculated that 201 SNPs associated with height could explain approximately 16% of the genetic variance, 142 SNPs that are associated with Crohn's disease could explain approximately 20% and 67 SNPs could explain approximately 17% of the genetic variance in each of three common cancers [14]. In the clinic, the first efforts to improve risk prediction by adding the new genetic variants to established conventional breast cancer risk factors have recently failed [15][16][17]. It is estimated that among persons with a significant family history of breast cancer, only 20-25% of familial cancer risk can be explained by candidate cancer genes [7,16].…”