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.

Stratification of women according to their risk of breast cancer based on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) could improve screening and prevention strategies. Our aim was to develop PRSs, optimized for prediction of estrogen receptor (ER)-specific disease, from the largest available genome-wide association dataset and to empirically validate the PRSs in prospective studies. The development dataset comprised 94,075 case subjects and 75,017 control subjects of European ancestry from 69 studies, divided into training and validation sets. Samples were genotyped using genome-wide arrays, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected by stepwise regression or lasso penalized regression. The best performing PRSs were validated in an independent test set comprising 11,428 case subjects and 18,323 control subjects from 10 prospective studies and 190,040 women from UK Biobank (3,215 incident breast cancers). For the best PRSs (313 SNPs), the odds ratio for overall disease per 1 standard deviation in ten prospective studies was 1.61 (95%CI: 1.57-1.65) with area under receiver-operator curve (AUC) = 0.630 (95%CI: 0.628-0.651). The lifetime risk of overall breast cancer in the top centile of the PRSs was 32.6%. Compared with women in the middle quintile, those in the highest 1% of risk had 4.37- and 2.78-fold risks, and those in the lowest 1% of risk had 0.16- and 0.27-fold risks, of developing ER-positive and ER-negative disease, respectively. Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that this PRS was well calibrated and predicts disease risk accurately in the tails of the distribution. This PRS is a powerful and reliable predictor of breast cancer risk that may improve breast cancer prevention programs.

Roger Milne and colleagues conduct a genome-wide association study for estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer combined with BRCA1 mutation carriers in a large cohort. They identify ten new risk variants and find high genetic correlation between breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers and risk of ER-negative breast cancer in the general population. Most common breast cancer susceptibility variants have been identified through genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of predominantly estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease1. We conducted a GWAS using 21,468 ER-negative cases and 100,594 controls combined with 18,908 BRCA1 mutation carriers (9,414 with breast cancer), all of European origin. We identified independent associations at P < 5 × 10−8 with ten variants at nine new loci. At P < 0.05, we replicated associations with 10 of 11 variants previously reported in ER-negative disease or BRCA1 mutation carrier GWAS and observed consistent associations with ER-negative disease for 105 susceptibility variants identified by other studies. These 125 variants explain approximately 16% of the familial risk of this breast cancer subtype. There was high genetic correlation (0.72) between risk of ER-negative breast cancer and breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers. These findings may lead to improved risk prediction and inform further fine-mapping and functional work to better understand the biological basis of ER-negative breast cancer.

Based on the idea that electric light at night might account for a portion of the high and rising risk of breast cancer worldwide, it was predicted long ago that women working a non-day shift would be at higher risk compared with day-working women. This hypothesis has been extended more recently to prostate cancer. On the basis of limited human evidence and sufficient evidence in experimental animals, in 2007 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified ‘shift work that involves circadian disruption’ as a probable human carcinogen, group 2A. A limitation of the epidemiological studies carried out to date is in the definition of ‘shift work.’ IARC convened a workshop in April 2009 to consider how ‘shift work’ should be assessed and what domains of occupational history need to be quantified for more valid studies of shift work and cancer in the future. The working group identified several major domains of non-day shifts and shift schedules that should be captured in future studies: (1) shift system (start time of shift, number of hours per day, rotating or permanent, speed and direction of a rotating system, regular or irregular); (2) years on a particular non-day shift schedule (and cumulative exposure to the shift system over the subject's working life); and (3) shift intensity (time off between successive work days on the shift schedule). The group also recognised that for further domains to be identified, more research needs to be conducted on the impact of various shift schedules and routines on physiological and circadian rhythms of workers in real-world environments.

Japan's largest platform for academic e-journals: J-STAGE is a full text database for reviewed academic papers published by Japanese societies

Although there is convincing epidemiological evidence that physical activity is associated with a reduced risk of colon cancer, it is unclear whether physical activity is differentially associated with the risks of proximal colon and distal colon cancers. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate this issue. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for English-language cohort and case–control studies that examined associations between physical activity and the risks of proximal colon and distal colon cancers. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the summary relative risks (RRs) for the associations between physical activity and the risks of the two cancers. All statistical tests were two-sided. A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. The summary relative risk of the main results from these studies indicated that the risk of proximal colon cancer was 27% lower among the most physically active people compared with the least active people (RR = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 0.81). An almost identical result was found for distal colon cancer (RR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.80). The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that physical activity is associated with a reduced risk of both proximal colon and distal colon cancers, and that the magnitude of the association does not differ by subsite. Given this finding, future research on physical activity and colon cancer should focus on other aspects of the association that remain unclear, such as whether sedentary behavior and nonaerobic physical activity are associated with the risk of colon cancer.