Objectives Physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour are associated with higher breast cancer risk in observational studies, but ascribing causality is difficult. Mendelian randomisation (MR)... Show moreObjectives Physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour are associated with higher breast cancer risk in observational studies, but ascribing causality is difficult. Mendelian randomisation (MR) assesses causality by simulating randomised trial groups using genotype. We assessed whether lifelong physical activity or sedentary time, assessed using genotype, may be causally associated with breast cancer risk overall, pre/post-menopause, and by case-groups defined by tumour characteristics.Methods We performed two-sample inverse-variance-weighted MR using individual-level Breast Cancer Association Consortium case-control data from 130 957 European-ancestry women (69 838 invasive cases), and published UK Biobank data (n=91 105-377 234). Genetic instruments were single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated in UK Biobank with wrist-worn accelerometer-measured overall physical activity (n(snps)=5) or sedentary time (n(snps)=6), or accelerometer-measured (n(snps)=1) or self-reported (n(snps)=5) vigorous physical activity.Results Greater genetically-predicted overall activity was associated with lower breast cancer overall risk (OR=0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.83 per-standard deviation (SD;similar to 8 milligravities acceleration)) and for most case-groups. Genetically-predicted vigorous activity was associated with lower risk of pre/perimenopausal breast cancer (OR=0.62; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.87,>= 3 vs. 0 self-reported days/week), with consistent estimates for most case-groups. Greater genetically-predicted sedentary time was associated with higher hormone-receptor-negative tumour risk (OR=1.77; 95% CI 1.07 to 2.92 per-SD (similar to 7% time spent sedentary)), with elevated estimates for most case-groups. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses examining pleiotropy (including weighted-median-MR, MR-Egger).Conclusion Our study provides strong evidence that greater overall physical activity, greater vigorous activity, and lower sedentary time are likely to reduce breast cancer risk. More widespread adoption of active lifestyles may reduce the burden from the most common cancer in women. Show less
Background Previous studies have suggested that breast cancer risk factors are associated with estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) expression status of the tumors. Methods We... Show moreBackground Previous studies have suggested that breast cancer risk factors are associated with estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) expression status of the tumors. Methods We pooled tumor marker and epidemiological risk factor data from 35 568 invasive breast cancer case patients from 34 studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Logistic regression models were used in case-case analyses to estimate associations between epidemiological risk factors and tumor subtypes, and case-control analyses to estimate associations between epidemiological risk factors and the risk of developing specific tumor subtypes in 12 population-based studies. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results In case-case analyses, of the epidemiological risk factors examined, early age at menarche (≤12 years) was less frequent in case patients with PR(-) than PR(+) tumors (P = .001). Nulliparity (P = 3 × 10(-6)) and increasing age at first birth (P = 2 × 10(-9)) were less frequent in ER(-) than in ER(+) tumors. Obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) in younger women (≤50 years) was more frequent in ER(-)/PR(-) than in ER(+)/PR(+) tumors (P = 1 × 10(-7)), whereas obesity in older women (>50 years) was less frequent in PR(-) than in PR(+) tumors (P = 6 × 10(-4)). The triple-negative (ER(-)/PR(-)/HER2(-)) or core basal phenotype (CBP; triple-negative and cytokeratins [CK]5/6(+) and/or epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR](+)) accounted for much of the heterogeneity in parity-related variables and BMI in younger women. Case-control analyses showed that nulliparity, increasing age at first birth, and obesity in younger women showed the expected associations with the risk of ER(+) or PR(+) tumors but not triple-negative (nulliparity vs parity, odds ratio [OR] = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75 to 1.19, P = .61; 5-year increase in age at first full-term birth, OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.86 to 1.05, P = .34; obesity in younger women, OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.94, P = .09) or CBP tumors. Conclusions This study shows that reproductive factors and BMI are most clearly associated with hormone receptor-positive tumors and suggest that triple-negative or CBP tumors may have distinct etiology. Show less
Background: Truncating mutations in ATM have been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer but the effect of missense variants remains contentious. Methods: We have genotyped five polymorphic ... Show moreBackground: Truncating mutations in ATM have been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer but the effect of missense variants remains contentious. Methods: We have genotyped five polymorphic (minor allele frequency, 0.9-2.6%) missense single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in ATM (S49C, S707P, F858L, P1054R, and L1420F) in 26,101 breast cancer cases and 29,842 controls from 23 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Results: Combining the data from all five SNPs, the odds ratio (OR) was 1.05 for being a heterozygote for any of the SNPs and 1.51 for being a rare homozygote for any of the SNPs with an overall trend OR of 1.06 (P-trend = 0.04). The trend OR among bilateral and familial cases was 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.23; P-trend = 0.02). Conclusions: In this large combined analysis, these five missense ATM SNPs were associated with a small increased risk of breast cancer, explaining an estimated 0.03% of the excess familial risk of breast cancer. Impact: Testing the combined effects of rare missense variants in known breast cancer genes in large collaborative studies should clarify their overall contribution to breast cancer susceptibility. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 19(9); 2143-51. (C) 2010 AACR. Show less
