Previous studies have suggested that breast cancer risk factors are associated with estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) expression status of the tumors. We pooled tumor marker and epidemiological risk factor data from 35,568 invasive breast cancer case patients from 34 studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Logistic regression models were used in case-case analyses to estimate associations between epidemiological risk factors and tumor subtypes, and case-control analyses to estimate associations between epidemiological risk factors and the risk of developing specific tumor subtypes in 12 population-based studies. All statistical tests were two-sided. In case-case analyses, of the epidemiological risk factors examined, early age at menarche (≤12 years) was less frequent in case patients with PR(-) than PR(+) tumors (P = .001). Nulliparity (P = 3 × 10(-6)) and increasing age at first birth (P = 2 × 10(-9)) were less frequent in ER(-) than in ER(+) tumors. Obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) in younger women (≤50 years) was more frequent in ER(-)/PR(-) than in ER(+)/PR(+) tumors (P = 1 × 10(-7)), whereas obesity in older women (>50 years) was less frequent in PR(-) than in PR(+) tumors (P = 6 × 10(-4)). The triple-negative (ER(-)/PR(-)/HER2(-)) or core basal phenotype (CBP; triple-negative and cytokeratins [CK]5/6(+) and/or epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR](+)) accounted for much of the heterogeneity in parity-related variables and BMI in younger women. Case-control analyses showed that nulliparity, increasing age at first birth, and obesity in younger women showed the expected associations with the risk of ER(+) or PR(+) tumors but not triple-negative (nulliparity vs parity, odds ratio [OR] = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75 to 1.19, P = .61; 5-year increase in age at first full-term birth, OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.86 to 1.05, P = .34; obesity in younger women, OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.94, P = .09) or CBP tumors. This study shows that reproductive factors and BMI are most clearly associated with hormone receptor-positive tumors and suggest that triple-negative or CBP tumors may have distinct etiology.

Stig Bojesen, Georgia Chenevix-Trench, Alison Dunning and colleagues report common variants at the TERT-CLPTM1L locus associated with mean telomere length measured in whole blood. They also identify associations at this locus to breast or ovarian cancer susceptibility and report functional studies in breast and ovarian cancer tissue and cell lines. TERT-locus SNPs and leukocyte telomere measures are reportedly associated with risks of multiple cancers. Using the Illumina custom genotyping array iCOGs, we analyzed ∼480 SNPs at the TERT locus in breast (n = 103,991), ovarian (n = 39,774) and BRCA1 mutation carrier (n = 11,705) cancer cases and controls. Leukocyte telomere measurements were also available for 53,724 participants. Most associations cluster into three independent peaks. The minor allele at the peak 1 SNP rs2736108 associates with longer telomeres (P = 5.8 × 10−7), lower risks for estrogen receptor (ER)-negative (P = 1.0 × 10−8) and BRCA1 mutation carrier (P = 1.1 × 10−5) breast cancers and altered promoter assay signal. The minor allele at the peak 2 SNP rs7705526 associates with longer telomeres (P = 2.3 × 10−14), higher risk of low-malignant-potential ovarian cancer (P = 1.3 × 10−15) and greater promoter activity. The minor alleles at the peak 3 SNPs rs10069690 and rs2242652 increase ER-negative (P = 1.2 × 10−12) and BRCA1 mutation carrier (P = 1.6 × 10−14) breast and invasive ovarian (P = 1.3 × 10−11) cancer risks but not via altered telomere length. The cancer risk alleles of rs2242652 and rs10069690, respectively, increase silencing and generate a truncated TERT splice variant.

Women who have inherited mutations in BRCA1 (17q21, chromosome 17: base pairs 43,044,294 to 43,125,482) or BRCA2 (13q12.3, chromosome 13: base pairs 32,315,479 to 32,399,671) have an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancers.^1,2 Little is known about how cancer risks differ by BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation type. An “ovarian cancer cluster region” (OCCR) has been reported in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 using small sample sets. For BRCA1, initially mutations after exon 11 were associated with a 20% lower ovarian cancer risk than mutations in exons 1 through 11.³ Following that observation, Thompson et al⁴ reported an increased risk of ovarian vs breast cancer specifically was associated with mutations in the central portion of exon 11. This association was attributed to both a decrease in breast cancer risk and an increase in ovarian cancer risk in this region. Mutations in exon 11 of BRCA2 also have been associated with higher ovarian vs breast cancer risk than in other regions of the gene.⁵ It was hypothesized that this risk variation might be explained by the failure of BRCA1/2 exon 11 truncating mutations to trigger nonsense-mediated messenger RNA (mRNA) decay (NMD) because of their extremely large size, contrary to truncating mutations in smaller exons. However, this postulate was not supported by the measures of the relative amounts of mRNA transcript encoded by BRCA1/2 alleles.^6,7 Murine models of different mutations in BRCA1/2 also suggest that genotype-phenotype correlations exist.^8,9 Quiz Ref ID To our knowledge, no study has reported whether BRCA1/2 mutation type is associated with differences in breast and ovarian cancer risk. Thus, we evaluated whether BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation type or location is associated with variation in breast and ovarian cancer risk.

Purpose: To estimate the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in BRCA1 mutation carriers according to chemotherapy regimen. Patients and Methods: From a registry of 6,903 patients, we identified 102 women who carried a BRCA1 founder mutation and who had been treated for breast cancer with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Pathologic complete response was evaluated using standard criteria. Results: Twenty-four (24%) of the 102 BRCA1 mutation carriers experienced a pCR. The response rate varied widely with treatment: a pCR was observed in one (7%) of 14 women treated with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF); in two (8%) of 25 women treated with doxorubicin and docetaxel (AT); in 11 (22%) of 51 women treated with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) or fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC), and in 10 (83%) of 12 women treated with cisplatin. Conclusion: A low rate of pCR was observed in women with breast cancer and a BRCA1 mutation who were treated with AT or CMF. A high rate of pCR was seen after treatment with cisplatin. An intermediate rate of PCR was associated with AC or FAC. The relative benefits of AC and platinum therapy need to be confirmed through follow-up of this and other cohorts.