4.6 Article

Exome-Wide Association Study of Endometrial Cancer in a Multiethnic Population

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 9, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097045

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCI, NIH [1R01 CA134958, 2R01 CA082838, P01 CA087969, R01 CA49449, CA54281, CA128008, R01CA83918, P30-CA008748]
  2. NCI [5T32CA009001-38]
  3. Spanish Ministry of Health, Carlos III Health Institute
  4. NIH [RO1 CA105212, RO1 CA 87538, RO1 CA75977, RO3 CA80636, NO1 HD23166, R35 CA39779, KO5 CA92002]
  5. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
  6. National Cancer Institute of Canada
  7. Canadian Cancer Society
  8. Canadian Institute for Health Research
  9. Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions
  10. Alberta Cancer Foundation through the Weekend to End Women's Cancers Breast Cancer Chair
  11. Canada Research Chairs program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Endometrial cancer (EC) contributes substantially to total burden of cancer morbidity and mortality in the United States. Family history is a known risk factor for EC, thus genetic factors may play a role in EC pathogenesis. Three previous genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have found only one locus associated with EC, suggesting that common variants with large effects may not contribute greatly to EC risk. Alternatively, we hypothesize that rare variants may contribute to EC risk. We conducted an exome-wide association study (EXWAS) of EC using the Infinium HumanExome BeadChip in order to identify rare variants associated with EC risk. We successfully genotyped 177,139 variants in a multiethnic population of 1,055 cases and 1,778 controls from four studies that were part of the Epidemiology of Endometrial Cancer Consortium (E2C2). No variants reached global significance in the study, suggesting that more power is needed to detect modest associations between rare genetic variants and risk of EC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available