Exome sequencing identifies HELB as a novel susceptibility gene for non-mucinous, non-high-grade-serous epithelial ovarian cancer.

Rare, germline loss-of-function variants in a handful of genes that encode DNA repair proteins have been shown to be associated with epithelial ovarian cancer with a stronger association for the high-grade serous hiostotype. The aim of this study was to collate exome sequencing data from multiple epithelial ovarian cancer case cohorts and controls in order to systematically evaluate the role of coding, loss-of-function variants across the genome in epithelial ovarian cancer risk. We assembled exome data for a total of 2,573 non-mucinous cases (1,876 high-grade serous and 697 non-high grade serous) and 13,925 controls. Harmonised variant calling and quality control filtering was applied across the different data sets. We carried out a gene-by-gene simple burden test for association of rare loss-of-function variants (minor allele frequency < 0.1%) with all non-mucinous ovarian cancer, high grade serous ovarian cancer and non-high grade serous ovarian cancer using logistic regression adjusted for the top four principal components to account for cryptic population structure and genetic ancestry. Seven of the top 10 associated genes were associations of the known ovarian cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, RAD51C, RAD51D, MSH6 and PALB2 (false discovery probability < 0.1). A further four genes (HELB, OR2T35, NBN and MYO1A) had a false discovery rate of less than 0.1. Of these, HELB was most strongly associated with the non-high grade serous histotype (P = 1.3×10-6, FDR = 9.1×10-4). Further support for this association comes from the observation that loss of function variants in this gene are also associated with age at natural menopause and Mendelian randomisation analysis shows an association between genetically predicted age at natural menopause and endometrioid ovarian cancer, but not high-grade serous ovarian cancer.

Population-based targeted sequencing of 54 candidate genes identifies PALB2 as a susceptibility gene for high-grade serous ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: The known epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) susceptibility genes account for less than 50% of the heritable risk of ovarian cancer suggesting that other susceptibility genes exist. The aim of this study was to evaluate the contribution to ovarian cancer susceptibility of rare deleterious germline variants in a set of candidate genes. METHODS: We sequenced the coding region of 54 candidate genes in 6385 invasive EOC cases and 6115 controls of broad European ancestry. Genes with an increased frequency of putative deleterious variants in cases versus controls were further examined in an independent set of 14 135 EOC cases and 28 655 controls from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank. For each gene, we estimated the EOC risks and evaluated associations between germline variant status and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: The ORs associated for high-grade serous ovarian cancer were 3.01 for PALB2 (95% CI 1.59 to 5.68; p=0.00068), 1.99 for POLK (95% CI 1.15 to 3.43; p=0.014) and 4.07 for SLX4 (95% CI 1.34 to 12.4; p=0.013). Deleterious mutations in FBXO10 were associated with a reduced risk of disease (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.00, p=0.049). However, based on the Bayes false discovery probability, only the association for PALB2 in high-grade serous ovarian cancer is likely to represent a true positive. CONCLUSIONS: We have found strong evidence that carriers of PALB2 deleterious mutations are at increased risk of high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Whether the magnitude of risk is sufficiently high to warrant the inclusion of PALB2 in cancer gene panels for ovarian cancer risk testing is unclear; much larger sample sizes will be needed to provide sufficiently precise estimates for clinical counselling.

An updated PREDICT breast cancer prognostication and treatment benefit prediction model with independent validation.

BACKGROUND: PREDICT is a breast cancer prognostic and treatment benefit model implemented online. The overall fit of the model has been good in multiple independent case series, but PREDICT has been shown to underestimate breast cancer specific mortality in women diagnosed under the age of 40. Another limitation is the use of discrete categories for tumour size and node status resulting in 'step' changes in risk estimates on moving between categories. We have refitted the PREDICT prognostic model using the original cohort of cases from East Anglia with updated survival time in order to take into account age at diagnosis and to smooth out the survival function for tumour size and node status. METHODS: Multivariable Cox regression models were used to fit separate models for ER negative and ER positive disease. Continuous variables were fitted using fractional polynomials and a smoothed baseline hazard was obtained by regressing the baseline cumulative hazard for each patients against time using fractional polynomials. The fit of the prognostic models were then tested in three independent data sets that had also been used to validate the original version of PREDICT. RESULTS: In the model fitting data, after adjusting for other prognostic variables, there is an increase in risk of breast cancer specific mortality in younger and older patients with ER positive disease, with a substantial increase in risk for women diagnosed before the age of 35. In ER negative disease the risk increases slightly with age. The association between breast cancer specific mortality and both tumour size and number of positive nodes was non-linear with a more marked increase in risk with increasing size and increasing number of nodes in ER positive disease. The overall calibration and discrimination of the new version of PREDICT (v2) was good and comparable to that of the previous version in both model development and validation data sets. However, the calibration of v2 improved over v1 in patients diagnosed under the age of 40. CONCLUSIONS: The PREDICT v2 is an improved prognostication and treatment benefit model compared with v1. The online version should continue to aid clinical decision making in women with early breast cancer.

Investigation of Exomic Variants Associated with Overall Survival in Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: While numerous susceptibility loci for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) have been identified, few associations have been reported with overall survival. In the absence of common prognostic genetic markers, we hypothesize that rare coding variants may be associated with overall EOC survival and assessed their contribution in two exome-based genotyping projects of the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC). METHODS: The primary patient set (Set 1) included 14 independent EOC studies (4,293 patients) and 227,892 variants, and a secondary patient set (Set 2) included six additional EOC studies (1,744 patients) and 114,620 variants. Because power to detect rare variants individually is reduced, gene-level tests were conducted. Sets were analyzed separately at individual variants and by gene, and then combined with meta-analyses (73,203 variants and 13,163 genes overlapped). RESULTS: No individual variant reached genome-wide statistical significance. A SNP previously implicated to be associated with EOC risk and, to a lesser extent, survival, rs8170, showed the strongest evidence of association with survival and similar effect size estimates across sets (Pmeta = 1.1E-6, HRSet1 = 1.17, HRSet2 = 1.14). Rare variants in ATG2B, an autophagy gene important for apoptosis, were significantly associated with survival after multiple testing correction (Pmeta = 1.1E-6; Pcorrected = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Common variant rs8170 and rare variants in ATG2B may be associated with EOC overall survival, although further study is needed. IMPACT: This study represents the first exome-wide association study of EOC survival to include rare variant analyses, and suggests that complementary single variant and gene-level analyses in large studies are needed to identify rare variants that warrant follow-up study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(3); 446-54. ©2016 AACR.