Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Novel polymorphisms in caspase-8 are associated with breast cancer risk in the California Teachers Study

  • Hannah Lui Park1Email author,
  • Argyrios Ziogas1,
  • Jenny Chang1,
  • Bhumi Desai1,
  • Leona Bessonova1,
  • Chad Garner1,
  • Eunjung Lee2,
  • Susan L. Neuhausen3,
  • Sophia S. Wang3,
  • Huiyan Ma3,
  • Jessica Clague3,
  • Peggy Reynolds4,
  • James V. LaceyJr3,
  • Leslie Bernstein3 and
  • Hoda Anton-Culver1
BMC Cancer201616:14

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-2036-9

Received: 22 March 2015

Accepted: 20 December 2015

Published: 12 January 2016

Abstract

Background

The ability of tamoxifen and raloxifene to decrease breast cancer risk varies among different breast cancer subtypes. It is important to determine one’s subtype-specific breast cancer risk when considering chemoprevention. A number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), including one in caspase-8 (CASP8), have been previously associated with risk of developing breast cancer. Because caspase-8 is an important protein involved in receptor-mediated apoptosis whose activity is affected by estrogen, we hypothesized that additional SNPs in CASP8 could be associated with breast cancer risk, perhaps in a subtype-specific manner.

Methods

Twelve tagging SNPs of CASP8 were analyzed in a nested case control study (1,353 cases and 1,384 controls) of non-Hispanic white women participating in the California Teachers Study. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each SNP using all, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, ER-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive, and HER2-negative breast cancers as separate outcomes.

Results

Several SNPs were associated with all, ER-positive, and HER2-positive breast cancers; however, after correcting for multiple comparisons (i.e., p < 0.0008), only rs2293554 was statistically significantly associated with HER2-positive breast cancer (OR = 1.98, 95 % CI 1.34-2.92, uncorrected p = 0.0005).

Conclusions

While our results for CASP8 SNPs should be validated in other cohorts with subtype-specific information, we conclude that some SNPs in CASP8 are associated with subtype-specific breast cancer risk. This study contributes to our understanding of CASP8 SNPs and breast cancer risk by subtype.

Keywords

Breast cancer Single nucleotide polymorphism Caspase-8

Background

Breast cancer risk factors include a woman’s age, family history, reproductive and gynecologic factors, and lifestyle factors including alcohol consumption and lack of physical activity [1]. When treating women at high risk for breast cancer, clinicians may recommend that women undergo increased screening, genetic testing, or chemoprevention [24]. Phase III breast cancer chemoprevention trials have now demonstrated the efficacy of selective estrogen receptor (ER) modulators (SERMs) (e.g., tamoxifen and raloxifene) and aromatase inhibitors in reducing the incidence of breast cancer. However, these drugs were significantly more effective at reducing the incidence of ER-positive breast cancer than ER-negative breast cancer [513]. ER-positivity is also associated with better prognosis after breast cancer diagnosis than ER-negativity [14, 15], while human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positivity [16] and triple negativity (ER-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative) [17] are each associated with worse prognosis. Drugs to target prevention of HER2-positive breast cancer and triple-negative breast cancers are also currently being studied [18]. With known undesirable side effects associated with chemopreventive medications that have been developed thus far, knowledge of one’s risk not only for any breast cancer but for specific subtypes of breast cancer would be helpful for a woman and her physician when considering chemopreventive therapy options.

Breast cancer risk models currently used by clinicians to identify women at high risk of developing breast cancer exhibit limited sensitivities and specificities [1]; and many studies have focused on identifying genetic variation associated with breast cancer risk with the hope that single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping can be used to better stratify breast cancer risk and inform clinical management. While it is known that mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 markedly increase one’s risk of developing breast cancer [19, 20], a number of additional low and moderate-risk susceptibility variants have been identified, including one for caspase-8 (CASP8), an enzyme involved in apoptosis [21].

Caspase-8 is activated in response to extrinsic apoptotic signals, including chemotherapy agents [22]. In vitro, estrogen inhibits caspase-8 activity and activity of other caspases [23]. The Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) has identified 3 SNPs in CASP8, namely rs1045485, rs17468277, and rs1830298, which are associated with breast cancer risk [2426]. Other CASP8 SNPs have shown to be associated with increased breast cancer risk [2729]. Besides two BCAC studies, which found that rs1045485 was associated with a lower risk of PR-positive breast cancer [25], rs1830298 was associated with higher risk of ER-positive and triple-negative breast cancer [26], and rs36043647 was associated with lower risk of overall, ER-positive, ER-negative, and triple negative breast cancer [26], few studies have described associations between CASP8 polymorphisms and subtype-specific breast cancer risk. Given the important role of caspase-8 in apoptosis, we hypothesized that additional CASP8 polymorphisms would be associated with breast cancer risk and that the associations might be specific to some breast cancer subtypes. The aim of this study was to examine potential associations between 12 CASP8 polymorphisms and breast cancer risk, overall and by subtype, using case and control samples nested within the California Teachers Study (CTS).

Methods

Ethics statement

This study was carried out in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration and approved by the Institutional Review Boards at each study center, namely, the City of Hope (COH), the University of Southern California (USC), the Cancer Prevention Institute of California (CPIC), the University of California at Irvine (UCI), and by the California State Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects, in accordance with assurances filed with and approved by the US Department of Health and Human Services. All study participants provided written informed consent to participate in the study.

Participants

The CTS is a well-established prospective cohort study of 133,479 female California public school teachers and administrators who were enrolled in the California State Teachers Retirement System. A detailed account of the methods employed by the CTS has been published previously [30]. Briefly, participants completed a baseline questionnaire and returned it by mail in 1995–1996. The baseline survey, which collected information on demographics, personal and family cancer history, height, weight, history of hormone use, and behavioral factors including physical activity and alcohol consumption, is available on the CTS website (www.calteachersstudy.org). New diagnoses of first primary invasive breast cancer among cohort members were identified through annual linkages with California Cancer Registry (CCR), a legally mandated statewide population-based cancer reporting system in which cancer data are obtained from cancer patients’ pathology reports at the hospital in which the patient was initially diagnosed. CCR ascertainment of newly diagnosed cancers is estimated to be 99 % complete [31].

For this nested, breast cancer case control study, biospecimens were collected between 2005-2009 from breast cancer cases diagnosed under age 80 years and unaffected controls in the cohort, all of whom had continued residence in California during the study period (1995 to time of blood draw). Cases were women who had a histologically confirmed invasive first primary carcinoma of the breast (International Classification of Disease for Oncology code C50 restricted to morphology codes under 8590) after 1998. Unaffected control participants were selected from the cohort and frequency matched to the cases based on age at baseline (within 5-year age groups), self-reported race/ethnicity (white, African American, Latina, Asian, and other), and three broad geographic regions in California (surrounding the three CTS specimen collection centers: CPIC, USC/COH, and UCI).

Collection of biological specimens and DNA extraction

The collection of specimens has been described previously [32]. Briefly, cases and controls provided a blood sample and completed a brief questionnaire at the time of blood draw, which updated breast and reproductive and gynecologic history and several lifestyle factors. Women who declined providing blood provided saliva in Oragene DNA self-collection kits (DNA Genotek, Kanata, ON, Canada). All biological specimens were sent overnight to the UCI laboratory. DNA was extracted from blood clots using Qiagen Clotspin Baskets and DNA QIAmp DNA Blood Maxi Kits (Qiagen, Inc., Valencia, CA, USA) in accordance with Qiagen protocols. DNA was extracted from saliva samples using the Oragene protocol (DNA Genotek).

Genotyping

The 12 tagging SNPs included in this analysis were selected to capture all common linkage disequilibrium tagging SNPs [minor allele frequency (MAF) of at least 5 %], 20 kb upstream of the 5' untranslated region (UTR) and 10 kb downstream of the 3' UTR, in individuals of European ancestry with minimum pairwise r 2 of at least 0.80, using data from the International HapMap Project for the white CEPH (Utah residents with ancestry from northern and western Europe) population [HapMap release 21, July 2006, genotype build 36 (http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)] [32].

DNA samples from 1,751 cases and 1,697 controls were plated for genotyping. A random sample of 193 duplicates (105 cases and 88 controls) was included for quality control. The samples were genotyped using the Illumina Golden Gate Assay (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA USA) at the University of Southern California Core Facility. Twelve haplotype-tagging SNPs in CASP8 were included and genotyped. Samples with genotype call rates <90 % were excluded. Among the remaining samples, 160 randomly selected duplicates exhibited a genotype concordance rate of 99.9 %. Additional details were described previously [32]. Because the majority of participants were non-Hispanic whites, we restricted analyses to 2,737 non-Hispanic white women (1,353 cases and 1,384 controls).

Statistical analyses

All statistical tests were two-sided. We used unconditional logistic regression models to estimate the odds ratios (ORs), 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values for the association of invasive breast cancer and each SNP, using log-additive models. Allele frequencies are shown in Additional file 1: Table S1. We adjusted for potential confounding by study center and other known risk factors, namely, age at baseline, family history (having a first-degree relative with history of breast cancer), body mass index (<25, 25.0-29.9, ≥30 kg/m2), alcohol consumption in the past year (none, <20 g/day, ≥20 g/day), physical activity in the past 3 years (0-0.5 hrs/wk/yr, 0.51–4.0 hr/wk/yr, >4.0 hr/wk/yr), and menopausal and hormone therapy (HT) status (premenopausal, postmenopausal and never used HT, postmenopausal and used HT in the past, postmenopausal and using estrogen only at baseline, postmenopausal and using estrogen and progesterone at baseline, and unknown) at baseline. To potentially improve power by increasing subgroup homogeneity, we stratified our analysis by estrogen receptor (ER) and human epidermal receptor (HER2) status of breast cancer. We evaluated the association for ER-positive (n = 1,046), ER-negative (n = 155), HER2-positive (n = 159), and HER2-negative (n = 662) subtype. Some breast cancers were not included in any specific receptor (ER or HER2) subtype analysis because they were missing either ER or HER2 status. PR status was not included since PR expression usually follows ER expression [33] and the clinical rationale to determine associations with PR-specific breast cancer risk was lacking since no chemotherapies or preventive therapies are being studied for PR status-specific subtypes. While therapies targeting triple-negative breast cancer are being considered, the number of triple-negative cancers in our subset of cases and controls was too small for analysis (n = 60). We used the conservative Bonferroni correction to correct for multiple testing (n = 60, 12 SNPs x 5 outcomes). Statistical significance was set to p < 0.0008. All analyses were done using SAS software version 9.2.

Recombination rates and linkage disequilibrium across the CASP8 gene was evaluated using the HapMap database (http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and r2 values were computed from the pairwise SNP genotype counts of the generated genotype data.

Results

Baseline characteristics of the cases and controls are provided in Table 1. Consistent with other studies, family history of breast cancer, menopause and hormone therapy (HT) use, physical inactivity, and alcohol use were associated with breast cancer risk. Genotype distributions are provided in Additional file 1: Table S1.
Table 1

Selected baseline characteristics of study participants by case (invasive breast cancer) and control status

Variables

Cases (n = 1353)

%

Controls (n = 1384)

%

Chi square p-value

Age, years (mean ± SD)

55.0 ± 9.4

 

56.1 ± 9.5

  

First-degree family history of breast cancer

    

0.0046

ᅟNo

1086

80.3

1158

83.7

 

ᅟYes

237

17.5

187

13.5

 

Body mass index, kg/m2

    

0.21

ᅟ < 25

779

57.6

759

54.8

 

ᅟ25 to 29.9

384

28.4

385

27.8

 

ᅟ ≥ 30

160

11.8

192

13.9

 

Age at menarche, years

    

0.45

ᅟ < 13

700

51.7

695

50.2

 

ᅟ ≥ 13

638

47.2

671

48.5

 

Parity

    

0.12

ᅟ0

289

21.4

280

20.2

 

ᅟ1

173

12.8

165

11.9

 

ᅟ2

481

35.6

476

34.4

 

ᅟ3

275

20.3

277

20.0

 

ᅟ ≥ 4

120

8.9

165

11.9

 

Age at first full-term pregnancy, years

   

0.38

ᅟ < 21

89

8.5

96

8.9

 

ᅟ21-24

325

31.0

343

31.7

 

ᅟ25-29

415

39.6

451

41.6

 

ᅟ30-34

169

16.1

155

14.3

 

ᅟ ≥ 35

51

4.9

38

3.5

 

Hormone therapy (HT) at baseline

    

0.0001

ᅟPremenopausal

364

26.9

346

25.0

 

ᅟPostmenopausal - never used HT

113

8.4

150

10.8

 

ᅟPostmenopausal - past use HT

76

5.6

115

8.3

 

ᅟPostmenopausal - current estrogen use

200

14.8

249

18.0

 

ᅟPostmenopausal - current estrogen + progestin use

402

29.7

335

24.2

 

ᅟUnknown

198

14.6

189

13.7

 

Strenuous or moderate physical activity, during 3 years before baseline

   

0.0035

ᅟ0-0.50 hrs/week/year

290

21.4

289

20.9

 

ᅟ0.51-4.00 hrs/week/year

632

46.7

572

41.3

 

ᅟ4.01-24 hrs/week/year

424

31.3

514

37.1

 

Grams per day of alcohol, during year before baseline

    

0.0006

ᅟNondrinkers

334

24.7

379

27.4

 

ᅟ < 20 g/d

806

59.6

836

60.4

 

ᅟ > =20 g/d

165

12.2

109

7.9

 

Table does not list small percentages of missing values for some factors

CASP8 polymorphisms and invasive breast cancer risk

The adjusted ORs and 95 % CIs of overall invasive breast cancer with CASP8 polymorphisms are shown in Table 2. Four SNPs had a p-value < 0.05 for positive associations with overall breast cancer (rs11899004, rs3769825, rs6723097 and rs6736233). The SNP most strongly associated with overall breast cancer risk was rs6736233, which conferred an OR of 1.38 (95 % CI 1.12-1.71, p = 0.0028) (Table 2). After correcting for multiple comparisons, none of the SNPs tested remained statistically significant at p < 0.0008.
Table 2

Multivariate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) of overall invasive breast cancer associated with caspase-8 polymorphisms

SNP

Position on Chr. 2

Major allele

Minor allele

MAF (controls)

Overall

Unadjusted

Adjusteda

OR

95 % CI

p**

OR

95 % CI

p**

rs12693932

202093395

C

T

0.47

1.042

0.936

1.160

 

1.050

0.950

1.180

 

rs6745051

202108741

C

A

0.48

1.039

0.933

1.156

 

1.050

0.940

1.170

 

rs3769825

202111380

G

A

0.45

1.097

0.986

1.219

 

1.120

1.010

1.250

0.034

rs11899004

202114026

G

A

0.14

1.162

1.002

1.348

0.048

1.170

1.010

1.360

0.041

rs6736233

202118974

G

C

0.06

1.367

1.111

1.682

0.003

1.380

1.120

1.710

0.003

rs1861270

202126615

G

A

0.27

1.036

0.921

1.164

 

1.070

0.950

1.200

 

rs6723097

202128618

C

A

0.38

1.131

1.015

1.259

0.026

1.170

1.050

1.310

0.005

rs2293554

202131587

T

G

0.07

1.164

0.950

1.427

 

1.190

0.970

1.470

 

rs1045485

202149589

G

C

0.11

1.036

0.875

1.226

 

1.020

0.860

1.210

 

rs1035140

202152491

A

T

0.46

1.030

0.927

1.143

 

1.050

0.940

1.170

 

rs700636

202153252

C

A

0.43

1.051

0.944

1.169

 

1.080

0.970

1.210

 

rs11679181

202162338

C

T

0.44

0.944

0.848

1.050

 

0.920

0.830

1.030

 

a Per-allele ORs. Models were adjusted for center, age, family history, BMI, recent physical activity, alcohol consumption, and menopause/HT status

**Only uncorrected p values <0.05 are listed

When ER-positive and ER-negative breast cancer outcomes were analyzed separately, the trends of increased risk with rs3769825, rs6723097 and rs6736233 as seen for overall breast cancer remained for ER-positive breast cancers (Table 3). However, after correcting for multiple comparisons, none of the associations remained statistically significant. None of the SNPs tested were associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk.
Table 3

Multivariate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) of ER-positive and ER-negative invasive breast cancer associated with caspase-8 polymorphisms

SNP

ER-positive

ER-negative

Unadjusted

Adjusteda

Unadjusted

Adjusteda

OR

95 % CI

p**

OR a

95 % CI

p**

OR

95 % CI

p**

OR a

95 % CI

p**

rs12693932

1.075

0.957

1.207

 

1.090

0.970

1.220

 

1.013

0.800

1.282

 

1.010

0.800

1.290

 

rs6745051

1.072

0.955

1.203

 

1.080

0.960

1.220

 

0.994

0.784

1.259

 

0.990

0.780

1.260

 

rs3769825

1.108

0.989

1.242

 

1.130

1.010

1.270

0.035

1.107

0.876

1.398

 

1.140

0.900

1.440

 

rs11899004

1.160

0.990

1.358

 

1.170

1.000

1.380

 

1.029

0.734

1.443

 

1.030

0.730

1.460

 

rs6736233

1.364

1.096

1.697

0.005

1.360

1.090

1.710

0.006

1.180

0.740

1.882

 

1.260

0.780

2.020

 

rs1861270

1.038

0.914

1.178

 

1.070

0.940

1.210

 

1.066

0.824

1.379

 

1.110

0.860

1.450

 

rs6723097

1.123

0.999

1.262

 

1.160

1.030

1.310

0.014

1.089

0.859

1.381

 

1.150

0.900

1.460

 

rs2293554

1.137

0.915

1.413

 

1.170

0.930

1.460

 

1.162

0.747

1.806

 

1.210

0.770

1.900

 

rs1045485

1.088

0.911

1.300

 

1.060

0.890

1.270

 

0.942

0.638

1.391

 

0.940

0.630

1.400

 

rs1035140

1.025

0.916

1.147

 

1.040

0.930

1.170

 

1.028

0.815

1.297

 

1.080

0.860

1.370

 

rs700636

1.021

0.910

1.144

 

1.050

0.940

1.180

 

1.046

0.828

1.322

 

1.100

0.870

1.400

 

rs11679181

0.955

0.851

1.071

 

0.940

0.840

1.060

 

0.978

0.772

1.238

 

0.920

0.720

1.170

 

a Per-allele ORs. Models were adjusted for center, age, family history, BMI, recent physical activity, alcohol consumption, and menopause/HT status

**Only uncorrected p values <0.05 are listed

Three of the four SNPs that were associated with overall invasive breast cancer (p value < 0.05) were associated with HER2-positive invasive breast cancer (rs11899004, rs6723097, and rs6736233). rs2293554 was also associated with HER2-positive invasive breast cancer (OR = 1.98, 95 % CI 1.34-2.92, uncorrected p = 0.0005). After correcting for multiple comparisons, rs2293554 was the only SNP that remained statistically significant. Two of the four SNPs that were associated with overall invasive breast cancer (p value < 0.05) were associated with HER2-negative invasive breast cancer (rs3769825 and rs6723097). However, after correcting for multiple comparisons, neither remained statistically significant (Table 4)
Table 4

Multivariate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) of HER2-positive and HER2-negative invasive cancer associated with caspase-8 polymorphisms

SNP

HER2-positive

HER2-negative

Unadjusted

Adjusteda

Unadjusted

Adjusteda

OR

95 % CI

p**

OR*

95 % CI

p**

OR

95 % CI

p**

OR*

95 % CI

p**

rs12693932

1.111

0.879

1.404

 

1.110

0.870

1.410

 

1.123

0.983

1.281

 

1.150

1.000

1.320

 

rs6745051

1.148

0.908

1.450

 

1.150

0.900

1.460

 

1.095

0.959

1.249

 

1.120

0.980

1.280

 

rs3769825

1.153

0.915

1.455

 

1.180

0.930

1.490

 

1.164

1.020

1.327

0.024

1.200

1.050

1.370

0.008

rs11899004

1.680

1.259

2.241

0.0004

1.620

1.210

2.180

0.0014

1.118

0.930

1.344

 

1.130

0.940

1.360

 

rs6736233

1.959

1.332

2.881

0.001

1.890

1.270

2.810

0.0017

1.283

0.995

1.655

 

1.290

0.990

1.670

 

rs1861270

0.983

0.758

1.275

 

1.050

0.800

1.370

 

1.098

0.952

1.268

 

1.150

0.990

1.330

 

rs6723097

1.336

1.057

1.688

0.015

1.410

1.110

1.800

0.0055

1.170

1.025

1.337

0.020

1.220

1.070

1.400

0.004

rs2293554

1.945

1.341

2.822

0.001

1.980

1.340

2.920

0.0005

1.165

0.910

1.490

 

1.200

0.930

1.550

 

rs1045485

0.852

0.572

1.268

 

0.810

0.540

1.220

 

1.072

0.872

1.317

 

1.030

0.830

1.270

 

rs1035140

0.958

0.760

1.207

 

1.000

0.790

1.270

 

1.081

0.950

1.231

 

1.100

0.970

1.260

 

rs700636

1.012

0.802

1.276

 

1.080

0.850

1.380

 

1.076

0.944

1.226

 

1.110

0.970

1.270

 

rs1679181

1.048

0.831

1.323

 

0.990

0.780

1.260

 

0.910

0.798

1.039

 

0.890

0.780

1.020

 

a Per-allele ORs. Models were adjusted for center, age, family history, BMI, recent physical activity, alcohol consumption, and menopause/HT status

**Only uncorrected p values <0.05 are listed; after correcting for multiple comparisons, only rs2293554 was statistically significantly associated with HER2-positive breast cancer risk

.

In summary, after correction for multiple testing, one of the twelve CASP8 SNPs tested in our study remained nominally statistically significantly associated with invasive breast cancer, specifically, HER2-positive breast cancer.

Linkage disequilibrium

An analysis of data from the HapMap database indicated that very low historical genetic recombination exists across the entire CASP8 gene in individuals of European descent, with pairwise D’ values near 1.0 for all SNP pairs spanning the gene in the database. The alleles at the five markers that were associated with breast cancer risk in this study before correcting for multiple comparisons were not strongly correlated, as measured by the linkage disequilibrium measure r 2 . This low correlation (r 2 ) in the context of high linkage disequilibrium (D’) was expected given that the SNPs were selected as tagging markers. Three pairs of SNPs showed r 2 values greater than 0.4: r 2  = 0.44 for rs11899004 and rs2293554; r 2  = 0.52 for rs11899004 and rs6736233; and r 2  = 0.45 for rs3769825 and rs6723097. The remaining pairwise r 2 values were all less than 0.2. rs6723097 and rs6736233 were the two SNPs most significantly associated with breast cancer risk overall, with uncorrected p-values of 0.0053 and 0.0028, respectively. These two SNPs are uncorrelated (r 2  = 0.07) and likely represent independent associations.

Discussion

This study is the first to identify the CASP8 SNP, rs2293554, to be statistically significantly associated with HER2-positive breast cancer risk in non-Hispanic white women. In our study, the observed OR of 1.98 with 95 % confidence interval of 1.34–2.92 for HER2-positive breast cancer risk was surprisingly high, especially given the small number of HER2-positive breast cancers in our study. It is possible that the observation may have been due to chance. A previous study reported that rs2293554 was not associated with breast cancer risk overall [34], similar to what we observed here; however, subtype-specific breast cancers were not evaluated in that study.

The most recent BCAC paper on CASP8 [26] covered the analysis of 501 typed and 1232 imputed SNPs, and, while some CTS samples were included in the BCAC study, there was only overlap of 57 triple-negative and 49 controls between the BCAC study and our present analysis. rs2293554 was not included on the panel of CASP8 SNPs analyzed in the BCAC paper [26]; however, using the SNP lookup function on the BCAC website (http://apps.ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/consortia/bcac), we found that rs2293554 was not associated with overall, ER+, or ER- breast cancer risk. Data for HER2-specific breast cancer risk were not available on the website, but through personal email communication with the BCAC Data Manager, we learned that the BCAC data indicated that there was not an association between rs2293554 and HER2-positive breast cancer risk. rs2293554 was in strong LD with 16 of the 109 SNPs identified in the BCAC paper to be associated with overall breast cancer risk with FDR < 0.05 [26], with r2 > 0.50, according to the Linkage Disequilibrium Calculator (https://caprica.genetics.kcl.ac.uk/~ilori/ld_calculator.php), using the European panel in the 1000 genomes project; however, their effects were in the opposite direction (Additional file 2: Table S2). While our observation was not consistent with those in the BCAC study, our data demonstrates that SNPs can have different associations with breast cancer risk according to subtype and that rs2293554, with its nominally significant association with HER2-positive breast cancer risk in the CTS cohort, warrants further investigation.

Our study confirmed results from a meta-analysis, in which rs6723097 was associated with increased breast cancer risk [OR = 1.16 (95 % CI 1.07–1.25)] [34], and from a separate study [OR = 1.15 (95 % CI 1.01–1.30)] [27]. Here, the observed OR was 1.17 (95 % CI 1.05–1.31). Also consistent with previous studies, no associations with breast cancer risk were found for rs1035140 [34] and rs1861270 [27]. Eleven of the 12 SNPs analyzed in our study were included in a recent fine-mapping analysis by the BCAC [26]. Their findings were consistent with ours in that the 11 SNPs were not statistically significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons, or, in the case of the other paper, genome-wide significance of P = 5 x 10-8. The results for these SNPs were not shown by receptor subtype. To correct for multiple testing, we used Bonferroni adjustment, which is very conservative, since the SNPs and phenotypes we tested were somewhat correlated. Given the importance of replicating genetic associations [35], our study, conducted in a well-established, well-characterized prospective cohort [30] contributes important information on the relationship between CASP8 polymorphisms and breast cancer risk.

Our results for rs1045485 were not consistent with those from two meta-analyses, which reported inverse associations with breast cancer, with pooled ORs of 0.87 (95 % CI 0.83-0.92) [28] and 0.79 (95 % CI 0.69-0.92) [29]. Our findings are consistent with a number of independent studies on the same SNP, some of which were included in the meta-analyses [28, 29] and a separate study [34] in which no association was found between this SNP and breast cancer risk. The MAF (10.5 % ) we observed in this study (all non-Hispanic Whites) is similar to that seen in the women of European ancestry [10, 35]. One of the BCAC studies on CASP8, which involved >30,000 invasive breast tumors, showed that rs1045485 was most strongly related with the risk of PR-negative tumors [25], but an association was not replicated in a later BCAC study [26]. Because no reports of development of PR status-specific chemoprevention were found at the time of the study, PR-specific subtypes were not included as outcomes in this study.

While the polymorphic CASP8 sites identified in this study are all intronic, it is possible that they may affect expression of the protein or RNA splicing, which may affect protein-protein interactions and other functions. rs6723097 and rs6736233 were found to have features consistent with involvement in gene transcription regulation according to the Variant Effect Predictor (VEP) on the Ensembl website (http://uswest.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Tools/VEP) [36]. The other SNPs we found to be associated with breast cancer risk did not have such features. However, rs12693932 and rs6745051 are in strong LD with each other, and they are also in strong LD with the SNP rs13006529, which is a missense, according to the University of Washington Genome Variation Server (http://gvs.gs.washington.edu/GVS144/). Also, rs1861270 is in strong LD with the SNP rs3769823, which is also a missense. Neither rs13006529 nor rs3769823 have been reported to be associated with breast cancer risk. The remaining SNPs on our panel are not in LD with other SNPs with known functions.

Conclusions

We conclude that the CASP8 SNP, rs2293554, is nominally statistically significantly associated with HER2-positive breast cancer risk in non-Hispanic white women, even after stringent correction for multiple comparisons. Other CASP8 SNPs were also associated with overall, ER-positive, and HER2-negative breast cancer risk but the associations were not statistically significant after correction. While our results should be validated in other cohorts with subtype-specific information, this study contributes to our understanding of CASP8 SNPs and subtype-specific breast cancer risk. The mechanistic and functional consequences of CASP8 SNPs in breast cancer development and their relevance in women of other racial/ethnic groups remain to be investigated.

Abbreviations

SNP: 

Single nucleotide polymorphism

CASP8

caspase-8

ER: 

Estrogen receptor

HER2: 

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

CTS: 

California Teachers Study

HT: 

Hormone therapy

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grant R01 CA77398 from the National Cancer Institute. The collection of cancer incidence data used in this study was supported by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885; the NCI’s SEER program under contract HHSN261201000140C awarded to the Cancer Prevention Institute of California, contract HHSN261201000035C awarded to the University of Southern California, and contract HHSN261201000034C awarded to the Public Health Institute; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDCP) National Program of Cancer Registries, under agreement U58DP003862-01 awarded to the CDPH. The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s), and endorsement by the CDPH, NCI, and CDCP or their contractors and subcontractors is not intended nor should be inferred. The CDPH, NCI, and CDCP had no role in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The authors thank the CTS Steering Committee for their support, BCAC for sharing their data on rs2293554 and HER2-positive breast cancer risk, Karen Edwards for assistance navigating through the University of Washington Genome Variation Server, and Stacey Lee for her assistance with the formatting of the manuscript.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Epidemiology, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine
(2)
Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California
(3)
Division of Cancer Etiology, Department of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope
(4)
Cancer Prevention Institute of California

References

  1. Amir E, Freedman OC, Seruga B, Evans DG. Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(10):680–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Theriault RL, Carlson RW, Allred C, et al. Breast cancer, version 3.2013: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013;11(7):753–60.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bevers TB, Anderson BO, Bonaccio E, Buys S, Daly MB, Dempsey PJ, et al. National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009;7(10):1060–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Moyer VA. Medications for Risk Reduction of Primary Breast Cancer in Women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(10):698–708.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Powles TJ, Ashley S, Tidy A, Smith IE, Dowsett M. Twenty-year follow-up of the Royal Marsden randomized, double-blinded tamoxifen breast cancer prevention trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:283–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Cecchini RS, Cronin WM, Robidoux A, et al. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1652–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Veronesi U, Maisonneuve P, Rotmensz N, Bonanni B, Boyle P, Viale G, et al. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: late results of the Italian randomized tamoxifen prevention trial among women with hysterectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:727–37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cuzick J, Forbes JF, Sestak I, Cawthorn S, Hamed H, Holli K, et al. Long-term results of tamoxifen prophylaxis for breast cancer – 96-month follow-up of the randomized IBIS-I trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:272–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cummings SR, Eckert S, Krueger KA, Grady D, Powles TJ, Cauley JA, et al. The effect of raloxifene on risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: results from the MORE randomized trial. Multiple outcomes of raloxifene evaluation. JAMA. 1999;281:2189–97.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Martino S, Cauley JA, Barrett-Connor E, Powles TJ, Mershon J, Disch D, et al. Continuing outcomes relevant to Evista: breast cancer incidence in postmenopausal osteoporotic women in a randomized trial of raloxifene. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1751–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Barrett-Connor E, Mosca L, Collins P, Geiger MJ, Grady D, Kornitzer M, et al. Effects of raloxifene on cardiovascular events and breast cancer in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:125–37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cuzick J, Sestak I, Forbes JF, Dowsett M, Knox J, Cawthorn S, et al. Anastrozole for prevention of breast cancer in high-risk postmenopausal women (IBIS-II): an international, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9922):1041–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cuzick J, Sestak I, Bonanni B, Costantino JP, Cummings S, DeCensi A, et al. Selective oestrogen receptor modulators in prevention of breast cancer: an updated meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet. 2013;381(9880):1827–34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Barnes DM, Harris WH, Smith P, Millis RR, Rubens RD. Immunohistochemical determination of oestrogen receptor: Comparison of different methods of assessment of staining and correlation with clinical outcome of breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 1996;74:1445–51.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Allred DC. Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1474–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Borg A, Tandon AK, Sigurdsson H, Clark GM, Fernö M, Fuqua SA, et al. HER-2/neu amplification predicts poor survival in node-positive breast cancer. Cancer Res. 1990;50(14):4332–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Foulkes WD, Smith IE, Reis-Filho JS. Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(20):1938–48.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. den Hollander P, Savage MI, Brown PH. Targeted therapy for breast cancer prevention. Front Oncol. 2013;3:250.Google Scholar
  19. Nagy R, Sweet K, Eng C. Highly penetrant hereditary cancer syndromes. Oncogene. 2004;23(38):6445–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Antoniou AC, Pharoah PD, Narod S, Risch HA, Eyfjord JE, Hopper JL, et al. Breast and ovarian cancer risks to carriers of the BRCA1 5382insC and 185delAG and BRCA2 6174delT mutations: a combined analysis of 22 population based studies. J Med Genet. 2005;42(7):602–3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Maxwell KN, Nathanson KL. Common breast cancer risk variants in the post-COGS era: a comprehensive review. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(6):212.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Peták I, Houghton JA. Shared pathways: death receptors and cytotoxic drugs in cancer therapy. Pathol Oncol Res. 2001;7(2):95–106.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Zhang Y, Tounekti O, Akerman B, Goodyer CG, LeBlanc A. 17-beta-estradiol induces an inhibitor of active caspases. J Neurosci. 2001;21(20):RC176.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Cox A, Dunning AM, Garcia-Closas M, Balasubramanian S, Reed MW, Pooley KA, et al. A common coding variant in CASP8 is associated with breast cancer risk. Nat Genet. 2007;39(3):352–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Broeks A, Schmidt MK, Sherman ME, Couch FJ, Hopper JL, Dite GS, et al. Low penetrance breast cancer susceptibility loci are associated with specific breast tumor subtypes: findings from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Hum Mol Genet. 2011;20(16):3289–303.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Lin WY, Camp NJ, Ghoussaini M, Beesley J, Michailidou K, Hopper JL, et al. Identification and characterization of novel associations in the CASP8/ALS2CR12 region on chromosome 2 with breast cancer risk. Hum Mol Genet. 2015;1;24(1):285–98.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Shephard ND, Abo R, Rigas SH, Frank B, Lin WY, Brock IW, et al. A breast cancer risk haplotype in the caspase-8 gene. Cancer Res. 2009;69:2724–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Sergentanis TN, Economopoulos KP. Association of two CASP8 polymorphisms with breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;120:229–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Yin M, Yan J, Wei S, Wei Q. CASP8 polymorphisms contribute to cancer susceptibility: evidence from a meta-analysis of 23 publications with 55 individual studies. Carcinogenesis. 2010;31:850–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Bernstein L, Allen M, Anton-Culver H, Deapen D, Horn-Ross PL, Peel D, et al. High breast cancer incidence rates among California teachers: results from the California Teachers Study (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2002;13(7):625–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kwong S, Perkin C, Morris C, Cohen R, Alen M, Wright W. Cancer in California: 1988-1999. California Department of Health Services, Cancer Surveillance Section: Sacramento, CA; 2001.Google Scholar
  32. Lee E, Schumacher F, Lewinger JP, Neuhausen SL, Anton-Culver H, Horn-Ross PL, et al. The association of polymorphisms in hormone metabolism pathway genes, menopausal hormone therapy, and breast cancer risk: a nested case-control study in the California Teachers Study cohort. Breast Cancer Res. 2011;13(2):R37.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. De Maeyer L, Van Limbergen E, De Nys K, Moerman P, Pochet N, Hendrickx W, et al. Does estrogen receptor negative/progesterone receptor positive breast carcinoma exist? Clin Oncol. 2008;10;26(2):335–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Camp NJ, Parry M, Knight S, Abo R, Elliott G, Rigas SH, et al. Fine-mapping CASP8 risk variants in breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21(1):176–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhang B, Beeghly-Fadiel A, Long J, Zheng W. Genetic variants associated with breast-cancer risk: comprehensive research synopsis, meta-analysis, and epidemiological evidence. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(5):477–88.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Ioannidis JP, Thomas G, Daly MJ. Validating, augmenting and refining genome-wide association signals. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10(5):318–29.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Park et al. 2016

Advertisement