4.5 Article

Breast cancer risk assessment using genetic variants and risk factors in a Singapore Chinese population

期刊

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/bcr3678

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA [R01 CA55069, R35 CA53890, R01 CA80205, R01 CA144034]
  2. NUS Graduate School for Integrative Sciences and Engineering (NGS) Scholarship
  3. A*STAR Singapore International Graduate Award (SINGA)
  4. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA080205, R01CA055069, R35CA053890, R01CA144034] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Genetic variants for breast cancer risk identified in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in Western populations require further testing in Asian populations. A risk assessment model incorporating both validated genetic variants and established risk factors may improve its performance in risk prediction of Asian women. Methods: A nested case-control study of female breast cancer (411 cases and 1,212 controls) within the Singapore Chinese Health Study was conducted to investigate the effects of 51 genetic variants identified in previous GWAS on breast cancer risk. The independent effect of these genetic variants was assessed by creating a summed genetic risk score (GRS) after adjustment for body mass index and the Gail model risk factors for breast cancer. Results: The GRS was an independent predictor of breast cancer risk in Chinese women. The multivariate-adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of breast cancer for the second, third, and fourth quartiles of the GRS were 1.26 (0.90 to 1.76), 1.47 (1.06 to 2.04) and 1.75 (1.27 to 2.41) respectively (P for trend <0.001). In addition to established risk factors, the GRS improved the classification of 6.2% of women for their absolute risk of breast cancer in the next five years. Conclusions: Genetic variants on top of conventional risk factors can improve the risk prediction of breast cancer in Chinese women.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据