Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci, predicts target genes for known risk loci and demonstrates a strong overlap with somatic driver genes in breast tumours. Genome-wide association studies for breast cancer have identified common genetic variation that influences susceptibility to this disease, but much of the genetic risk remains unexplained. Doug Easton and colleagues report a genome-wide association study for breast cancer in more than 122,000 cases and 105,000 controls. The authors genotyped a subset of these cases using OncoArray, a new, custom genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array for cancer genomics. Overall, they identify 65 loci newly associated with breast cancer susceptibility, and estimate that, together with 107 previously identified breast cancer susceptibility loci, these explain about 18 per cent of the familial relative risk of breast cancer. Polygenic risk scores may be used in risk prediction models and may improve early detection and targeted prevention of the disease. Breast cancer risk is influenced by rare coding variants in susceptibility genes, such as BRCA1, and many common, mostly non-coding variants. However, much of the genetic contribution to breast cancer risk remains unknown. Here we report the results of a genome-wide association study 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 that are associated with overall breast cancer risk at P < 5 × 10−8. The majority of credible risk single-nucleotide polymorphisms in these 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 single-nucleotide polymorphisms 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 use of genetic risk scores for individualized screening and prevention.

Doug Easton and colleagues report the results of a large-scale genome-wide association study of breast cancer. They discover 15 new susceptibility loci and highlight likely target genes in several of the newly associated regions. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and large-scale replication studies have identified common variants in 79 loci associated with breast cancer, explaining ∼14% of the familial risk of the disease. To identify new susceptibility loci, we performed a meta-analysis of 11 GWAS, comprising 15,748 breast cancer cases and 18,084 controls together with 46,785 cases and 42,892 controls from 41 studies genotyped on a 211,155-marker custom array (iCOGS). Analyses were restricted to women of European ancestry. We generated genotypes for more than 11 million SNPs by imputation using the 1000 Genomes Project reference panel, and we identified 15 new loci associated with breast cancer at P < 5 × 10−8. Combining association analysis with ChIP-seq chromatin binding data in mammary cell lines and ChIA-PET chromatin interaction data from ENCODE, we identified likely target genes in two regions: SETBP1 at 18q12.3 and RNF115 and PDZK1 at 1q21.1. One association appears to be driven by an amino acid substitution encoded in EXO1.

Introduction: Although reproductive factors have been known for decades to be associated with breast cancer risk, it is unclear to what extent these associations differ by estrogen and progesterone receptor (ER/PR) status. This report presents the first meta-analysis of results from epidemiological studies that have investigated parity, age at first birth, breastfeeding, and age at menarche in relation to ER⁺PR⁺ and ER^-PR^- cancer risk. Materials and methods: We calculated summary relative risks (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a fixed effects model. Results: Each birth reduced the risk of ER⁺PR⁺ cancer by 11% (RR per birth = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.84–0.94), and women who were in the highest age at first birth category had, on average, 27% higher risk of ER⁺PR⁺ cancer compared with women who were in the youngest age at first birth category (RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.07–1.50). Neither parity nor age at first birth was associated with the risk of ER^-PR^- cancer (RR per birth = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.94–1.05; RR of oldest versus youngest age at first birth category = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.85–1.20). Breastfeeding and late age at menarche decreased the risk of both receptor subtypes of breast cancer. The protective effect of late age at menarche was statistically significantly greater for ER⁺PR⁺ than ER^-PR^- cancer (RR = 0.72 for ER⁺PR⁺ cancer; RR = 0.84 for ER^-PR^- cancer, p for homogeneity = 0.006). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that breastfeeding (and age at menarche) may act through different hormonal mechanisms than do parity and age at first birth.

Fibroglandular breast tissue appears dense on mammogram, whereas fat appears nondense. It is unclear whether absolute or percentage dense area more strongly predicts breast cancer risk and whether absolute nondense area is independently associated with risk. We conducted a meta-analysis of 13 case–control studies providing results from logistic regressions for associations between one standard deviation (SD) increments in mammographic density phenotypes and breast cancer risk. We used random-effects models to calculate pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All tests were two-sided with P less than .05 considered to be statistically significant. Among premenopausal women (n = 1776 case patients; n = 2834 control subjects), summary odds ratios were 1.37 (95% CI = 1.29 to 1.47) for absolute dense area, 0.78 (95% CI = 0.71 to 0.86) for absolute nondense area, and 1.52 (95% CI = 1.39 to 1.66) for percentage dense area when pooling estimates adjusted for age, body mass index, and parity. Corresponding odds ratios among postmenopausal women (n = 6643 case patients; n = 11187 control subjects) were 1.38 (95% CI = 1.31 to 1.44), 0.79 (95% CI = 0.73 to 0.85), and 1.53 (95% CI = 1.44 to 1.64). After additional adjustment for absolute dense area, associations between absolute nondense area and breast cancer became attenuated or null in several studies and summary odds ratios became 0.82 (95% CI = 0.71 to 0.94; P_{heterogeneity} = .02) for premenopausal and 0.85 (95% CI = 0.75 to 0.96; P_{heterogeneity} < .01) for postmenopausal women. The results suggest that percentage dense area is a stronger breast cancer risk factor than absolute dense area. Absolute nondense area was inversely associated with breast cancer risk, but it is unclear whether the association is independent of absolute dense area.

The etiology of male breast cancer is poorly understood, partly because of its relative rarity. Although genetic factors are involved, less is known regarding the role of anthropometric and hormonally related risk factors. In the Male Breast Cancer Pooling Project, a consortium of 11 case–control and 10 cohort investigations involving 2405 case patients (n = 1190 from case–control and n = 1215 from cohort studies) and 52013 control subjects, individual participant data were harmonized and pooled. Unconditional logistic regression generated study design–specific (case–control/cohort) odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with exposure estimates combined using fixed effects meta-analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. Risk was statistically significantly associated with weight (highest/lowest tertile: OR = 1.36; 95% CI = 1.18 to 1.57), height (OR = 1.18; 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.38), and body mass index (BMI; OR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.51), with evidence that recent rather than distant BMI was the strongest predictor. Klinefelter syndrome (OR = 24.7; 95% CI = 8.94 to 68.4) and gynecomastia (OR = 9.78; 95% CI = 7.52 to 12.7) were also statistically significantly associated with risk, relations that were independent of BMI. Diabetes also emerged as an independent risk factor (OR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.37). There were also suggestive relations with cryptorchidism (OR = 2.18; 95% CI = 0.96 to 4.94) and orchitis (OR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.99). Although age at onset of puberty and histories of infertility were unrelated to risk, never having had children was statistically significantly related (OR = 1.29; 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.66). Among individuals diagnosed at older ages, a history of fractures was statistically significantly related (OR = 1.41; 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.86). Consistent findings across case–control and cohort investigations, complemented by pooled analyses, indicated important roles for anthropometric and hormonal risk factors in the etiology of male breast cancer. Further investigation should focus on potential roles of endogenous hormones.

Epidemiological studies have reported inconsistent associations between telomere length (TL) and risk for various cancers. These inconsistencies are likely attributable, in part, to biases that arise due to post-diagnostic and post-treatment TL measurement. To avoid such biases, we used a Mendelian randomization approach and estimated associations between nine TL-associated SNPs and risk for five common cancer types (breast, lung, colorectal, ovarian and prostate cancer, including subtypes) using data on 51 725 cases and 62 035 controls. We then used an inverse-variance weighted average of the SNP-specific associations to estimate the association between a genetic score representing long TL and cancer risk. The long TL genetic score was significantly associated with increased risk of lung adenocarcinoma (P = 6.3 × 10⁻¹⁵), even after exclusion of a SNP residing in a known lung cancer susceptibility region (TERT-CLPTM1L) P = 6.6 × 10⁻⁶). Under Mendelian randomization assumptions, the association estimate [odds ratio (OR) = 2.78] is interpreted as the OR for lung adenocarcinoma corresponding to a 1000 bp increase in TL. The weighted TL SNP score was not associated with other cancer types or subtypes. Our finding that genetic determinants of long TL increase lung adenocarcinoma risk avoids issues with reverse causality and residual confounding that arise in observational studies of TL and disease risk. Under Mendelian randomization assumptions, our finding suggests that longer TL increases lung adenocarcinoma risk. However, caution regarding this causal interpretation is warranted in light of the potential issue of pleiotropy, and a more general interpretation is that SNPs influencing telomere biology are also implicated in lung adenocarcinoma risk.