Large-scale genome-wide association study of 398,238 women unveils seven novel loci associated with high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer risk
Barnes, D. R.; Tyrer, J. P.; Dennis, J.; Leslie, G.; Bolla, M. K.; Lush, M.; Aeilts, A. M.; Aittomaki, K.; Andrieu, N.; Andrulis, I. L.; Anton-Culver, H.; Arason, A.; Arun, B. K.; Balmana, J.; Bandera, E. V.; Barkardottir, R. B.; Berger, L. P. V.; Berrington de Gonzalez, A.; Berthet, P.; Bialkowska, K.; Bjorge, L.; Blanco, A. M.; Blok, M. J.; Bobolis, K. A.; Bogdanova, N. V.; Brenton, J. D.; Butz, H.; Buys, S. S.; Caligo, M. A.; Campbell, I.; Castillo, C.; Claes, K. B. M.; GEMO Study Collaborators, ; EMBRACE Collaborators, ; Colonna, S. V.; Cook, L. S.; Daly, M. B.; Dansonka-Mieszkowska, A.;
Show abstract
BackgroundNineteen genomic regions have been associated with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). We used data from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC), Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/BRCA2 (CIMBA), UK Biobank (UKBB), and FinnGen to identify novel HGSOC susceptibility loci and develop polygenic scores (PGS). MethodsWe analyzed >22 million variants for 398,238 women. Associations were assessed separately by consortium and meta-analysed. OCAC and CIMBA data were used to develop PGS which were trained on FinnGen data and validated in UKBB and BioBank Japan ResultsEight novel variants were associated with HGSOC risk. An interesting discovery biologically was finding that TP53 3-UTR SNP rs78378222 was associated with HGSOC (per T allele relative risk (RR)=1.44, 95%CI:1.28-1.62, P=1.76x10-9). The optimal PGS included 64,518 variants and was associated with an odds ratio of 1.46 (95%CI:1.37-1.54) per standard deviation in the UKBB validation (AUROC curve=0.61, 95%CI:0.59-0.62). ConclusionsThis study represents the largest GWAS for HGSOC to date. The results highlight that improvements in imputation reference panels and increased sample sizes can identify HGSOC associated variants that previously went undetected, resulting in improved PGS. The use of updated PGS in cancer risk prediction algorithms will then improve personalized risk prediction for HGSOC.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A polygenic score-based approach to identify gene-drug interactions stratifying breast cancer risk 96%
- The contribution of coding variants to the heritability of multiple cancer types using UK Biobank whole-exome sequencing data 96%
- A joint transcriptome-wide association study across multiple tissues identifies new candidate susceptibility genes for breast cancer 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Risk factors for eight common cancers revealed from a phenome-wide Mendelian randomisation analysis of 378,142 cases and 485,715 controls 96%
- Pan-cancer analysis demonstrates that integrating polygenic risk scores with modifiable risk factors improves risk prediction 95%
- Whole-genome analysis of Nigerian patients with breast cancer reveals ethnic-driven somatic evolution and distinct genomic subtypes 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Genome-wide association study identifies 32 novel breast cancer susceptibility loci from overall and subtype-specific analyses 96%
- Genome-wide analysis in 756,646 individuals provides first genetic evidence that ACE2 expression influences COVID-19 risk and yields genetic risk scores predictive of severe disease 94%
- Central role of glycosylation processes in human genetic susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infections with Omicron variants 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance of polygenic risk scores for cancer prediction in a racially diverse academic biobank 95%
- Impact of genetic counselling strategy on diagnostic yield and workload for whole genome sequencing-based tumour diagnostics 92%
- Rare variants found in clinical gene panels illuminate the genetic and allelic architecture of orofacial clefting 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.