Article

Discriminatory accuracy from single-nucleotide polymorphisms in models to predict breast cancer risk.

Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6120 Executive Blvd, Rm 8032, Bethesda, MD 20892-7244, USA.
CancerSpectrum Knowledge Environment (Impact Factor: 15.16). 08/2008; 100(14):1037-41. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djn180
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT One purpose for seeking common alleles that are associated with disease is to use them to improve models for projecting individualized disease risk. Two genome-wide association studies and a study of candidate genes recently identified seven common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that were associated with breast cancer risk in independent samples. These seven SNPs were located in FGFR2, TNRC9 (now known as TOX3), MAP3K1, LSP1, CASP8, chromosomal region 8q, and chromosomal region 2q35. I used estimates of relative risks and allele frequencies from these studies to estimate how much these SNPs could improve discriminatory accuracy measured as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). A model with these seven SNPs (AUC = 0.574) and a hypothetical model with 14 such SNPs (AUC = 0.604) have less discriminatory accuracy than a model, the National Cancer Institute's Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT), that is based on ages at menarche and at first live birth, family history of breast cancer, and history of breast biopsy examinations (AUC = 0.607). Adding the seven SNPs to BCRAT improved discriminatory accuracy to an AUC of 0.632, which was, however, less than the improvement from adding mammographic density. Thus, these seven common alleles provide less discriminatory accuracy than BCRAT but have the potential to improve the discriminatory accuracy of BCRAT modestly. Experience to date and quantitative arguments indicate that a huge increase in the numbers of case patients with breast cancer and control subjects would be required in genome-wide association studies to find enough SNPs to achieve high discriminatory accuracy.

1 Follower
 · 
84 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified a number of new genetic variants associated with breast cancer. However, the degree to which these genetic variants improve breast cancer diagnosis in concert with mammography remains unknown. We conducted a case-control study and collected mammography features and 77 genetic variants which reflect the state of the art GWAS findings on breast cancer. A naïve Bayes model was developed on the mammography features and these genetic variants. We observed that the incorporation of the genetic variants significantly improved breast cancer diagnosis based on mammographic findings.
    04/2014; 2014:83-9.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI), with its broad coverage of bench research, epidemiologic studies, and clinical trials, has a long history of publishing practice-changing studies in cancer prevention and public health. These include studies of tobacco cessation, chemoprevention, and nutrition. The landmark Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (BCPT)-the first large trial to prove efficacy of a preventive medication for a major malignancy-was published in the Journal, as were key ancillary papers to the BCPT. Even when JNCI was not the publication venue for the main trial outcomes, conceptual and design discussions leading to the trial as well as critical follow-up analyses based on trial data from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) and the Selenium and Vitamin E Chemoprevention Trial (SELECT) were published in the Journal. The Journal has also published important evidence on very charged topics, such as the purported link between abortion and breast cancer risk. In summary, JNCI has been at the forefront of numerous major publications related to cancer prevention. © Published by Oxford University Press 2015.
    JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 03/2015; 107(3). DOI:10.1093/jnci/djv021 · 15.16 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breast density and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have both been associated with breast cancer risk. To determine the extent to which these two breast cancer risk factors are associated, we investigate the association between a panel of validated SNPs related to breast cancer and quantitative measures of mammographic density in a cohort of Caucasian and African-American women. In this IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, we analyzed a screening population of 639 women (250 African American and 389 Caucasian) who were tested with a validated panel assay of 12 SNPs previously associated to breast cancer risk. Each woman underwent digital mammography as part of routine screening and all were interpreted as negative. Both absolute and percent estimates of area and volumetric density were quantified on a per-woman basis using validated software. Associations between the number of risk alleles in each SNP and the density measures were assessed through a race-stratified linear regression analysis, adjusted for age, BMI, and Gail lifetime risk. The majority of SNPs were not found to be associated with any measure of breast density. SNP rs3817198 (in LSP1) was significantly associated with both absolute area (p = 0.004) and volumetric (p = 0.019) breast density in Caucasian women. In African-American women, SNPs rs3803662 (in TNRC9/TOX3) and rs4973768 (in NEK10) were significantly associated with absolute (p = 0.042) and percent (p = 0.028) volume density respectively. The majority of SNPs investigated in our study were not found to be significantly associated with breast density, even when accounting for age, BMI, and Gail risk, suggesting that these two different risk factors contain potentially independent information regarding a woman's risk to develop breast cancer. Additionally, the few statistically significant associations between breast density and SNPs were different for Caucasian versus African American women. Larger prospective studies are warranted to validate our findings and determine potential implications for breast cancer risk assessment.
    BMC Cancer 12/2015; 15(1):1159. DOI:10.1186/s12885-015-1159-3 · 3.32 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
1 Download
Available from