Gayther Simon A, Song Honglin, Ramus Susan J, Kjaer Susan Krüger, Whittemore Alice S, Quaye Lydia, Tyrer Jonathan, Shadforth Danielle, Hogdall Estrid, Hogdall Claus, Blaeker Jan, DiCioccio Richard, McGuire Valerie, Webb Penelope M, Beesley Jonathan, Green Adele C, Whiteman David C, Goodman Marc T, Lurie Galina, Carney Michael E, Modugno Francesmary, Ness Roberta B, Edwards Robert P, Moysich Kirsten B, Goode Ellen L, Couch Fergus J, Cunningham Julie M, Sellers Thomas A, Wu Anna H, Pike Malcolm C, Iversen Edwin S, Marks Jeffrey R, Garcia-Closas Montserrat, Brinton Louise, Lissowska Jolanta, Peplonska Beata, Easton Douglas F, Jacobs Ian, Ponder Bruce A J, Schildkraut Joellen, Pearce C Leigh, Chenevix-Trench Georgia, Berchuck Andrew, Pharoah Paul D P
Translational Research Laboratories, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Cancer Res. 2007 Apr 1;67(7):3027-35. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-3261.
High-risk susceptibility genes explain <40% of the excess risk of familial ovarian cancer. Therefore, other ovarian cancer susceptibility genes are likely to exist. We have used a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-tagging approach to evaluate common variants in 13 genes involved in cell cycle control-CCND1, CCND2, CCND3, CCNE1, CDK2, CDK4, CDK6, CDKN1A, CDKN1B, CDKN2A, CDKN2B, CDKN2C, and CDKN2D-and risk of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. We used a two-stage, multicenter, case-control study. In stage 1, 88 SNPs that tag common variation in these genes were genotyped in three studies from the United Kingdom, United States, and Denmark ( approximately 1,500 cases and 2,500 controls). Genotype frequencies in cases and controls were compared using logistic regression. In stage 2, eight other studies from Australia, Poland, and the United States ( approximately 2,000 cases and approximately 3,200 controls) were genotyped for the five most significant SNPs from stage 1. No SNP was significant in the stage 2 data alone. Using the combined stages 1 and 2 data set, CDKN2A rs3731257 and CDKN1B rs2066827 were associated with disease risk (unadjusted P trend = 0.008 and 0.036, respectively), but these were not significant after adjusting for multiple testing. Carrying the minor allele of these SNPs was found to be associated with reduced risk [OR, 0.91 (0.85-0.98) for rs3731257; and OR, 0.93 (0.87-0.995) for rs2066827]. In conclusion, we have found evidence that a single tagged SNP in both the CDKN2A and CDKN1B genes may be associated with reduced ovarian cancer risk. This study highlights the need for multicenter collaborations for genetic association studies.
高危易感性基因仅解释了不到40%的家族性卵巢癌额外风险。因此,可能存在其他卵巢癌易感基因。我们采用单核苷酸多态性(SNP)标签法评估了13个参与细胞周期调控的基因(CCND1、CCND2、CCND3、CCNE1、CDK2、CDK4、CDK6、CDKN1A、CDKN1B、CDKN2A、CDKN2B、CDKN2C和CDKN2D)中的常见变异与侵袭性上皮性卵巢癌风险的关系。我们进行了一项两阶段、多中心的病例对照研究。在第一阶段,对来自英国、美国和丹麦的三项研究中的88个标签这些基因常见变异的SNP进行基因分型(约1500例病例和2500例对照)。使用逻辑回归比较病例组和对照组的基因型频率。在第二阶段,对来自澳大利亚、波兰和美国的其他八项研究(约2000例病例和约3200例对照)进行第一阶段中五个最显著SNP的基因分型。仅在第二阶段数据中没有SNP具有显著性。使用合并的第一阶段和第二阶段数据集,CDKN2A基因的rs3731257和CDKN1B基因的rs2066827与疾病风险相关(未校正的P趋势分别为0.008和0.036),但在进行多重检验校正后这些结果并不显著。发现携带这些SNP的次要等位基因与风险降低相关[rs3731257的OR为0.91(0.85 - 0.98);rs2066827的OR为0.93(0.87 - 0.995)]。总之,我们发现证据表明CDKN2A和CDKN1B基因中的单个标签SNP可能与卵巢癌风险降低相关。这项研究突出了基因关联研究中多中心合作的必要性。