Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jan 8.
Published in final edited form as: Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Jan 23;155(3):531–540. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-3681-7

Interactions between breast cancer susceptibility loci and menopausal hormone therapy in relationship to breast cancer in the Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium

Mia M Gaudet 1,†, Myrto Barrdahl 2,†, Sara Lindström 3, Ruth C Travis 4, Paul L Auer 5,6, Julie E Buring 7,19, Stephen J Chanock 9,10, A Heather Eliassen 11,12, Susan M Gapstur 1, Graham G Giles 13,14,15, Marc Gunter 16, Christopher Haiman 17, David J Hunter 3, Amit D Joshi 3, Rudolf Kaaks 2, Kay-Tee Khaw 18, I-Min Lee 7,19, Loic Le Marchand 20, Roger L Milne 13,14, Petra H M Peeters 21,22, Malin Sund 23, Rulla Tamimi 11,12,19, Antonia Trichopoulou 24, Elisabete Weiderpass 25,26,27,28, Xiaohong R Yang 29, Ross L Prentice 30,31, Heather Spencer Feigelson 32, Federico Canzian 33, Peter Kraft 3
PMCID: PMC5757510  NIHMSID: NIHMS916442  PMID: 26802016

Abstract

Purpose

Current use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) has important implications for postmenopausal breast cancer risk, and observed associations might be modified by known breast cancer susceptibility loci. To provide the most comprehensive assessment of interactions of prospectively-collected data on MHT and 17 confirmed susceptibility loci with invasive breast cancer risk, a nested case-control design among eight cohorts within the NCI Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium was used.

Methods

Based on data from 13,304 cases and 15,622 controls, multivariable-adjusted logistic regression analyses were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Effect modification of current and past use was evaluated on the multiplicative scale. P-values <1.5×10−3 were considered statistically significant.

Results

The strongest evidence of effect modification was observed for current MHT by 9q31-rs865686. Compared to never users of MHT with the rs865686 GG genotype, the association between current MHT use and breast cancer risk for the TT genotype (OR=1.79, 95% CI 1.43 – 2.24; Pinteraction=1.2×10−4) was less than expected on the multiplicative scale. There are no biological implications of the sub-multiplicative interaction between MHT and rs865686.

Conclusions

Menopausal hormone therapy is unlikely to have a strong interaction with the common genetic variants associated with invasive breast cancer.

Keywords: Breast cancer, menopausal hormone therapy, genetic variation

INTRODUCTION

Current use of combined menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) has important implications for breast cancer risk due to altered exposure to sex steroid hormones during and after the menopausal transition [1–4]. In observational studies, the increased risk associated with MHT use dissipates within two years of cessation [1, 2, 4, 5], whereas some longer-term risk elevation was observed in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) randomized, placebo controlled trial [6]. Timing of initial use of MHT relative to the menopausal transition (“gap time”) also appears to modify the association with risk; women who start using MHT within 5 years of menopause were at higher risk of developing breast cancer than those who started using MHT after 5 years or more since menopause [7]. The association between use of estrogen only therapy and breast cancer risk is unclear. In U.S. observational studies, estrogen-only therapy was not associated with risk of breast cancer [4] and, in fact, the WHI trial found suggestive evidence of a decreased risk of breast cancer among women in the estrogen only arm during the intervention phase of the trial [8], which became significant with additional follow-up [6]. However, results from the Million Women Study in the U.K. showed a positive association between current users of estrogen alone and risk of breast cancer [1]. Higher prevalence of obesity in the U.S. compared to the U.K. might partially explain the differences in associations with MHT, because associations of both combined and estrogen-alone MHT are stronger in leaner women compared to obese women [1, 2].

Although there have been significant declines in use of MHT therapy since the publication of the WHI combined MHT trial results in 2002 [9], women in the U.S. and Europe continue to use MHT [10]. Given its effectiveness in controlling menopausal symptoms, it would be helpful to identify characteristics of women that have an elevated breast cancer risk due to their MHT use. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) [11–17] have led to the identification and confirmation of a number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer risk. The interaction of these variants with MHT has been examined in a few large studies [18–25]; however, no SNP-MHT interactions have been verified for breast cancer.

We aimed to evaluate interactions of MHT use and breast cancer susceptibility loci in relation to risk of breast cancer among eight cohorts within the NCI Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium (BPC3) using a nested case-control design. Previous efforts to examine interactions in the BPC3 have included MHT use at the time of the baseline questionnaire [22]. Because breast cancer risk is elevated primarily among women currently using combined MHT, in the present analysis we evaluated MHT use reported in the questionnaire just prior to diagnosis for the cases and just prior to a matched reference date for the controls, when possible, and controlled for the time interval between the date the questionnaire was completed and the reference date.

METHODS

Study population

The BPC3 consists of eight prospective cohorts from Europe, Australia, and the U.S. that have DNA samples and extensive questionnaire information collected from study participants before breast cancer diagnoses [26]. The BPC3 studies include the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) [27], the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) [28], the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS) [29], the Nurses’ Health Study I (NHSI) [30], the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII) [31], the Women’s Health Study (WHS) [32], the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort (CPS-II NC) [33], the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) [34], and the Multi-Ethnic Cohort (MEC) [35] (Supplemental Table 1). Each cohort provided DNA samples and survey-based data from study participants using a nested case-control design. Cases were study participants who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer during the study follow-up. Cancer diagnoses were confirmed by medical records and/or cancer registries (the exact method varied among cohorts). Study participants were considered eligible controls if they were free of breast cancer until the follow-up time for the matched case subject. Matching criteria varied between studies, but age at baseline and menopausal status at baseline were common for all. Relevant institutional review boards for each cohort approved the project and informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

Genotyping, SNP selection, and genotype variables

Genotyping was performed using TaqMan assays (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) as specified by the manufacturer. Genotyping of the breast cancer cases and controls was performed in four laboratories (German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), University of Southern California, U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI), and Harvard School of Public Health). Laboratory personnel were blinded to whether samples were duplicates or from cases or controls. The concordance of duplicate (~8%) was greater than 99.9%.

The SNPs selected for these analyses (Supplemental Table 2) were associated with breast cancer risk at the threshold of genome-wide statistical significance (per allele p-values <5×10−8) and had a nominal level of statistical significance (per allele p-values <0.05) in our study (17 of 31 available genotyped SNPs met these criteria). For two loci, data for the original top SNP were not available and data from a surrogate SNP in complete linkage disequilibrium (r2=1 in HapMap CEU) with the published SNP were used; these were rs4415084 (surrogate rs920329) and rs999737 (surrogate rs10483813) (Supplemental Table 2). In all analyses, the SNPs were modelled as counts of minor alleles.

MHT variables

Data on MHT use from the questionnaires just prior to diagnosis for cases and to the matched reference date for controls were harmonized centrally across the cohorts (median time between questionnaire and reference date is provided in Supplemental Table 1). We collected information on status (current, former, never), duration (≤2 years and >2 years), and time between menopause and first use of hormones (≤5years and >5years) for any hormone therapy, combined estrogen plus progesterone therapy, and estrogen-only therapy. For PLCO and EPIC, information on MHT status (current, former, never) was available only at baseline, and the questionnaires for these studies did not distinguish between combined and estrogen only therapies. Similarly, for MCCS, MHT use was not collected by type of therapy in the baseline or follow-up surveys (Supplemental Table 1).

Data filtering and statistical analysis

Study participants were excluded from the analytical dataset if they were premenopausal at reference date, or self-described as non-white. We also excluded subjects for which less than 90% of the SNPs had been successfully genotyped. The allele distribution of each SNP was tested for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium among the controls of each study; SNPs with distributions out of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (p<0.001) were excluded from analysis.

We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for genotypes, MHT, and their combinations using unconditional logistic regression models. Since the unconditional models have better power than the conditional ones we decided to break the matching and include the matching factors as adjustment variables instead. Hence, the main effects analyses of MHT were minimally adjusted for age at reference, time interval between date of questionnaire and date at reference, cohort and country within EPIC. They were also multiple variable-adjusted. The multiple variable-adjusted models included age at menarche, number of full-term pregnancies, BMI, height, first-degree family history of breast cancer, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and age at menopause. The main effects analyses of genotypes were minimally-adjusted as indicated above and the interaction models were all multiple variable-adjusted. Possible interactions between MHT use and genotypes in relation to breast cancer risk were evaluated on the multiplicative scale. Deviations were assessed by comparing a logistic regression model with and without a product interaction term for MHT use and genotype. In the interaction analyses, the genotypes were modelled as counts of minor alleles, the MHT variables were categorized, and the reference group consisted of never users or low duration users with the minor allele genotype.

Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated first for all risk factors by testing the study*risk factor interaction term [36]. Risk factors whose associations varied by study were then added to the multiple variable-adjusted model as an interaction term with study. Using this multiple variable-adjusted model, we then applied the likelihood ratio test to assess between-study heterogeneity for MHT use. MHT associations that varied by study were addressed by including a study*MHT*SNP variable in all subsequent models.

In sensitivity analyses, we also examined the interactions between MHT and SNPs using the baseline exposure assessment for MHT (similar to previously performed BPC3 interaction analyses [22]). As a comparison, we also provided multiple variable-adjusted ORs and 95% CIs among the women who had MHT use information captured five years or less from date at reference. Because there is some evidence that the association between MHT and breast cancer risk might be limited to women with a low BMI [1, 2], we also conducted a sensitivity analysis in which we restricted the interaction analyses to women with a BMI of 22.4 kg/m2 or lower.

We computed the P-value threshold for statistical significance (P<1.5×10−3) based on 34 comparisons based on 17 SNPs and 2 non-genetic factors (combined estrogen and progesterone therapy and estrogen only therapy, ever-use and duration of use were not considered as independent tests) [37]. All statistical tests were two-sided and all statistical analyses were performed with SAS version 9.2.

RESULTS

The full BPC3 pooled dataset included 45,570 women; after exclusions, data were available on 28,926 postmenopausal participants, including 13,304 invasive breast cancer cases and 15,622 controls. Among these women, 19% were currently using combined MHT at reference and 16% were using estrogen only therapy, although there was substantial variation across studies (Supplemental Table 1). The mean BMI was 27 kg/m2 (standard deviation=5), 10% had a first-degree family history of breast cancer, and 51% went through menopause at age 50 years or older (Supplemental Table 1).

The associations of SNPs with breast cancer risk were consistent in their direction and magnitude with previous reports (Supplemental Table 2, the reference genotype varies from that in Table 2).

Table 2.

Multivariable-adjusted1 odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations of the menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) with breast cancer risk by breast cancer susceptibility locus, rs865686, in a subset of the NCI Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium

MHT Variables Cases2
No. (%)		 Controls2
No. (%)		 Multivariable-adjusted1 OR (95% CI) by Genotype p-value for interaction
GG TG TT
Use of any MHT prior to reference
 Never 1790 (34%) 2102 (41%) 1.00 1.48 (1.20–1.83) 1.26 (1.03–1.55)
 Former 1674 (32%) 1626 (32%) 1.33 (1.00–1.76) 1.65 (1.34–2.04) 1.80 (1.45–2.23)
 Current 1730 (33%) 1387 (27%) 2.15 (1.58–2.91) 1.90 (1.53–2.37) 1.79 (1.43–2.24) 1.2×10−4
Use of combined MHT prior to reference
 Never 2211 (61%) 2669 (74%) 1.00 1.26 (1.05–1.52) 1.22 (1.01–1.46)
 Former 716 (20%) 559 (15%) 1.54 (1.07–2.20) 1.70 (1.35–2.16) 2.12 (1.65–2.72)
 Current 726 (20%) 393 (11%) 1.95 (1.30–2.93) 2.26 (1.73–2.97) 2.46 (1.85–3.26) 0.25
Use of estrogen only MHT prior to reference
 Never 1815 (52%) 1935 (54%) 1.00 1.49 (1.20–1.85) 1.26 (1.02–1.56)
 Former 967 (28%) 1005 (28%) 1.23 (0.89–1.70) 1.51 (1.20–1.90) 1.49 (1.17–1.88)
 Current 717 (20%) 652 (18%) 1.74 (1.17–2.57) 1.66 (1.28–2.15) 1.40 (1.07–1.83) 0.05
Duration of use of any MHT use prior to reference
 ≤2 years 1599 (47%) 1597 (53%) 1.00 1.11 (0.81–1.53) 1.12 (0.82–1.54)
 >2 years 1805 (53%) 1416 (47%) 1.10 (0.76–1.61) 1.28 (0.94–1.74) 1.29 (0.95–1.76) 0.023
Duration of use of combined MHT use prior to reference
 ≤2 years 1038 (72%) 790 (83%) 1.00 1.63 (0.95–2.82) 1.56 (0.91–2.69)
 >2 years 404 (28%) 162 (17%) 2.16 (1.17–4.00) 1.81 (1.08–3.04) 2.28 (1.35–3.85) 0.77
Duration of use of estrogen only MHT use prior to reference
 ≤2 years 1111 (66%) 1094 (66%) 1.00 1.35 (0.86–2.11) 1.33 (0.86–2.07)
 >2 years 573 (34%) 563 (34%) 1.16 (0.70–1.94) 1.28 (0.84–1.95) 1.17 (0.77–1.80) 0.50
Years between menopause and first use of any MHT
 >5 years 210 (43%) 247 (55%) 1.00 1.47 (0.82–2.65) 1.12 (0.62–1.99)
 ≤5 years 277 (57%) 200 (45%) 2.25 (0.96–5.27) 1.93 (1.07–3.47) 2.13 (1.17–3.87) 0.68
Open in a new tab
1

Multiple variable adjusted models included age, cohort/sub-cohort, time interval between date of questionnaire and date at reference, full-term pregnancy, body mass index, height, first-degree family history, active smoking status, alcohol consumption, age at menopause, and cohort*exposure variables as needed.

2

The total number of subjects includes only those with non-missing values for the adjustment variables.

The ORs from the minimally-adjusted and the multiple variable-adjusted main effect models for any and combined MHT use in relation to breast cancer risk differed by more than 10%, thus estimates mentioned below and those of the interaction analyses are fully adjusted (Table 1). Statistically significant between-study heterogeneity (p-values for interaction terms for individual studies <0.005) was detected for several of the MHT use variables. By removing individual studies, we identified WHS, EPIC and PLCO as the source of heterogeneity for any MHT use. WHS influenced the heterogeneity for use of combined and estrogen only therapy, and EPIC together with PLCO strongly affected duration of any MHT use. Therefore, in the SNP*MHT interaction models using data from all cohorts, we added interaction variables for these individual cohorts and MHT use.

Table 1.

Minimally-adjusted and multiple variable-adjusted1 odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) with breast cancer risk in the NCI Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium

MHT Variables Cases2
No. (%)		 Controls2
No. (%)		 Minimally-adjusted OR (95% CI) p-value Multivariable-adjusted OR (95% CI) p-value
Use of any MHT prior to reference
Never 1924 (36%) 2508 (45%) 1.00 1.00
Former 1700 (31%) 1670 (30%) 1.25 (1.17–1.34) 7.8×10−10 1.30 (1.18–1.43) 1.9×10−7
Current 1778 (33%) 1452 (26%) 1.37 (1.27–1.47) 2.5×10−17 1.45 (1.30–1.61) 5.3×10−12
Use of combined MHT prior to reference
Never 2215 (60%) 2686 (74%) 1.00 1.00
Former   720 (20%)   568 (16%) 1.43 (1.31–1.57) 2.4×10−14 1.57 (1.38–1.79) 1.9×10−11
Current   729 (20%)   395 (11%) 1.81 (1.63–2.02) 5.4×10−27 2.00 (1.71–2.34) 4.0×10−18
Use of estrogen only MHT prior to reference
Never 1819 (52%) 1954 (54%) 1.00 1.00
Former   973 (28%) 1009 (28%) 1.09 (1.00–1.19) 0.94 1.13 (1.01–1.27) 0.04
Current   717 (20%)   654 (18%) 1.17 (1.06–1.30) 0.02 1.20 (1.04–1.38) 0.01
Duration of use of any MHT use prior to reference
≤2 years 1565 (45%) 1686 (54%) 1.00 1.00
>2 years 1913 (55%) 1436 (46%) 1.37 (1.27–1.48) 1.0×10−16 1.15 (1.01–1.32) 0.037
Duration of use of combined MHT use prior to reference
≤2 years 1029 (71%)   799 (83%) 1.00 1.00
>2 years   420 (29%)   164 (17%) 1.84 (1.66–2.04) 1.0×10−31 1.48 (1.19–1.84) 3.7×10−4
Duration of use of estrogen only MHT use prior to reference
≤2 years 1099 (65%) 1114 (67%) 1.00 1.00
>2 years   591 (35%)   549 (33%) 1.13 (1.03–1.25) 9.5×10−3 1.00 (0.83–1.20) 0.99
Years between menopause and first use of any MHT
≤5 years   279 (57%)   204 (45%) 1.00 1.00
>5 years   212 (43%)   252 (55%) 0.73 (0.62–0.86) 2×10−4 0.61 (0.47–0.81) 4.5×10−4
Open in a new tab
1

Multiple variable adjusted models included age, cohort/sub-cohort, time interval between date of questionnaire and date at reference, full-term pregnancy, body mass index, height, first-degree family history, active smoking status, alcohol consumption, age at menopause, and cohort*exposure variables as needed.

2

The total number of subjects includes only those with non-missing values for the adjustment variables.

Current use of any type of MHT was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer compared to women who never took MHT (Table 1). This increased risk appeared to be driven by current use of combined MHT (OR=2.00, 95% CI 1.71 – 2.34), although there was also a slightly higher risk for use of estrogen-only therapy (OR=1.20, 95% CI 1.04 – 1.38). Among MHT users, compared to less than 2 years of use, use of MHT for >2 or more years was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer. Use of any type of MHT initiated more than 5 years after the onset of menopause was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer, compared to use that commenced within 5 years of menopause among users (Table 1).

We examined interaction of 17 breast cancer SNPs and MHT use in relation to breast cancer risk (Supplemental Table 3). Interaction between rs865686 and use of any type of MHT had the lowest p-value (Table 2). Compared to never users of MHT with the rs865686 GG genotype, current MHT users with the TT genotype had a 79% higher risk of developing breast cancer (OR=1.79, 95% CI 1.43– 2.24); and this was less than expected assuming the MHT and SNP ORs multiply (p-value for interaction=1.2×10−4). There was no between-study heterogeneity for this finding (p=0.02; based on the threshold 0.05/8 studies). Among women with a BMI between 18.1 and 22.4 kg/m2, the interaction between MHT status and rs865686 was similar (p-value for interaction=2.2×10−5; data not otherwise shown). The interaction between any type of MHT and rs865686 was limited to risk of ER+ breast cancer (ER+ cases=3,695) (Table 3), but not risk of ER-breast cancer (ER-cases=472).

The interaction between use of any MHT and rs865686 was similar (p-value for interaction=1.6×10−4) after exclusion of data from PLCO, EPIC, and MCCS, studies that did not have complete information on type of MHT use. Because we were concerned about misclassification of current use of MHT over the follow-up period, we examined more closely the influence of baseline data, data collected just before reference date, and controlling for the difference between date of questionnaire and reference among the six studies (CPS-II NC, MCCS, MEC, NHS, WHI, and WHS) that had both baseline and follow-up data (Supplemental Table 4). There was no evidence of interaction between use of any type of MHT and rs865686 when only baseline MHT data were used. Interaction ORs based on MHT data queried on follow-up questionnaires and specifically limited to five or fewer years prior to the reference date (Supplemental Table 4) were statistically significant and similar to those that were based on all available data including a combination of both baseline and follow-up data and controlled for the elapsed time between questionnaire and reference date (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

In a pooled analysis of 13,304 invasive breast cancer cases and 15,622 controls, we found suggestive evidence that the joint association of current use of any MHT and rs865686 with breast cancer risk was less than expected on the multiplicative scale. Although the main effect results for MHT duration were influenced by between-study heterogeneity, the interaction results were consistent across the eight cohorts.

The SNP, rs865686, located in an intragenic region at 9q31.2, was reported initially to be associated with a lower breast cancer risk overall (ORper-allele=0.89, 95% CI 0.85 – 0.92) [38] and confirmed subsequently by the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) as an ER+ susceptibility SNP (ORper-allele=0.90, 95% CI 0.88 – 0.91) [39] in women of European ancestry. In our study of women with data on MHT, the main effect of rs865686 was consistent with these original results (ORper-allele=0.91, 95% CI 0.88 – 0.94). The region immediately surrounding the SNP is a gene desert and the nearest annotated genes are KLF4 and RP11-505C13.1, located at least 600kb from rs865686. There is no published functional information about the surrounding region tagged by rs865686.

Although other studies have examined interactions of other breast cancer susceptibility SNPs with other breast cancer risk factors [20, 21, 40–42], only BCAC examined interactions between MHT and 9q31-rs865686 [21, 40]. Using both a traditional analytical approach of interactions of known susceptibility loci on the multiplicative scale [40] and a genome-wide examination of novel loci based on gene-environment interactions [21], these studies did not find evidence of interactions between MHT and 9q31-rs865686 (p≥10−3) among approximately 70,000 study participants from 21 case-control studies and 2 prospective cohort studies. It should be pointed out that the MCCS cohort was included both in the present study as well as in the BCAC, giving rise to a slight overlap of the samples. However, with the exclusion of MCCS from this study our results changed only marginally. Differences in results might be due to chance or differences in exposure assessment. 9q31-rs865686 did not interact with other breast cancer risk factors in previous cohort or case-control studies [20, 21, 40–42], other than perhaps mammographic density, but results across studies were inconsistent [43–45]. Previous studies have reported interactions between MHT and other breast cancer susceptibility SNPs, including 2q35-rs13387042, NRIP1-rs2823093, RAD51L1-rs999737, and FGFR2 SNPs [20, 40–42]; however, these results might have been spurious because they were not replicated in our study or any other published studies.

As gene-environment interactions are expected to be moderate, large sample sizes are needed to detect them [46]. However, pooling data can be a trade-off between data quantity and the specificity of the exposure information. Not all studies in the present analysis distinguished between type of MHT use, and our strongest finding was an interaction with use of any type of MHT, which might suggest it is artifactual. However, the interaction between any type of MHT and 9q31-rs865686 was similar for all studies and for studies with complete information on type, and we observed a borderline statistically significant interaction between estrogen only therapy and 9q31-rs865686. The BPC3 has been one of the largest efforts up to date using data only from prospective studies. Still, one of its weaknesses is limited power to detect interactions, due to insufficient sample size, especially after multivariable adjustment. We chose to investigate the possible interactions between breast cancer susceptibility SNPs and MHT use using a common reference group to elucidate any effect modification on the multiplicative scale after accounting for possible confounders. In particular, it should be noted that, given that the association of MHT use with breast cancer risk diminishes quickly after MHT cessation, accounting for time between questionnaire and reference date was of major importance in our analyses.

Our study summarizes the work on interaction of MHT use and breast cancer SNPs carried out within the framework of the BPC3. As mentioned above, sample size is crucial when investigating gene-environment interactions and our results need to be replicated in an independent sample. However, it appears unlikely that there is substantial variation in the breast cancer risk associated with MHT by the common breast cancer susceptibility SNPs. Therefore, it is unlikely that these SNPs would be clinically useful in delineating MHT users at high risk of breast cancer.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments

This work was supported, in part, by US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (cooperative agreements U01-CA98233-07 to D.J.H., U01-CA98710-06 to M.J.T., U01-CA98216-06 to E.R. and R.K., and U01-CA98758-07 to B.E.H.) and Intramural Research Program of National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics.

The American Cancer Society funds Drs. Gaudet and Gapstur as well as the creation, maintenance, and updating of the Cancer Prevention Study-II (CPS-II) cohort.

The Nurses’ Health Study (UM1 186107, R01 CA49449), the Nurses’ Health Study-II (UM1 176726, R01 CA67262), and the Women’s Health Study (CA047988, HL043851 and HL080467) are supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health.

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through contracts HHSN268201100046C, HHSN268201100001C, HHSN268201100002C, HHSN268201100003C, HHSN268201100004C, and HHSN271201100004C.” The authors thank the WHI investigators and staff for their dedication, and the study participants for making the program possible. A full listing of WHI investigators can be found at: http://www.whi.org/researchers/Documents%20%20Write%20a%20Paper/WHI%20Investigator%20Short%20List.pdf

Ruth C Travis is supported by Cancer Research UK grants (C570/A11691 and C8221/A19170). The Multiethnic Cohort was supported by grant U01 CA164973.

Footnotes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

References

  • 1.Beral V. Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the million women study. Lancet. 2003;362:419–427. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14065-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy: Collaborative reanalysis of data from 51 epidemiological studies of 52,705 women with breast cancer and 108,411 women without breast cancer. Collaborative group on hormonal factors in breast cancer. Lancet. 1997;350:1047–1059. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, Lacroix AZ, Kooperberg C, Stefanick ML, Jackson RD, Beresford SA, Howard BV, Johnson KC, Kotchen JM, Ockene J. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: Principal results from the women’s health initiative randomized controlled trial. Jama. 2002;288:321–333. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.3.321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Calle EE, Feigelson HS, Hildebrand JS, Teras LR, Thun MJ, Rodriguez C. Postmenopausal hormone use and breast cancer associations differ by hormone regimen and histologic subtype. Cancer. 2009;115:936–945. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chlebowski RT, Anderson GL, Gass M, Lane DS, Aragaki AK, Kuller LH, Manson JE, Stefanick ML, Ockene J, Sarto GE, Johnson KC, Wactawski-Wende J, Ravdin PM, Schenken R, Hendrix SL, Rajkovic A, Rohan TE, Yasmeen S, Prentice RL, Investigators, WHI Estrogen plus progestin and breast cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. JAMA. 2010;304:1684–1692. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Manson JE, Chlebowski RT, Stefanick ML, Aragaki AK, Rossouw JE, Prentice RL, Anderson G, Howard BV, Thomson CA, Lacroix AZ, Wactawski-Wende J, Jackson RD, Limacher M, Margolis KL, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Beresford SA, Cauley JA, Eaton CB, Gass M, Hsia J, Johnson KC, Kooperberg C, Kuller LH, Lewis CE, Liu S, Martin LW, Ockene JK, O’sullivan MJ, Powell LH, Simon MS, Van Horn L, Vitolins MZ, Wallace RB. Menopausal hormone therapy and health outcomes during the intervention and extended poststopping phases of the women’s health initiative randomized trials. JAMA. 2013;310:1353–1368. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.278040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Prentice RL, Chlebowski RT, Stefanick ML, Manson JE, Langer RD, Pettinger M, Hendrix SL, Hubbell FA, Kooperberg C, Kuller LH, Lane DS, Mctiernan A, O’sullivan MJ, Rossouw JE, Anderson GL. Conjugated equine estrogens and breast cancer risk in the women’s health initiative clinical trial and observational study. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167:1407–1415. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwn090. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Anderson GL, Limacher M, Assaf AR, Bassford T, Beresford SA, Black H, Bonds D, Brunner R, Brzyski R, Caan B, Chlebowski R, Curb D, Gass M, Hays J, Heiss G, Hendrix S, Howard BV, Hsia J, Hubbell A, Jackson R, Johnson KC, Judd H, Kotchen JM, Kuller L, Lacroix AZ, Lane D, Langer RD, Lasser N, Lewis CE, Manson J, Margolis K, Ockene J, O’sullivan MJ, Phillips L, Prentice RL, Ritenbaugh C, Robbins J, Rossouw JE, Sarto G, Stefanick ML, Van Horn L, Wactawski-Wende J, Wallace R, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Women’s Health Initiative Steering, C Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: The women’s health initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;291:1701–1712. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.14.1701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chlebowski RT, Anderson GL. Changing concepts: Menopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104:517–527. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sprague BL, Trentham-Dietz A, Cronin KA. A sustained decline in postmenopausal hormone use: Results from the national health and nutrition examination survey, 1999–2010. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:595–603. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318265df42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Easton DF, Pooley KA, Dunning AM, Pharoah PD, Thompson D, Ballinger DG, Struewing JP, Morrison J, Field H, Luben R, Wareham N, Ahmed S, Healey CS, Bowman R, Meyer KB, Haiman CA, Kolonel LK, Henderson BE, Le Marchand L, Brennan P, Sangrajrang S, Gaborieau V, Odefrey F, Shen CY, Wu PE, Wang HC, Eccles D, Evans DG, Peto J, Fletcher O, Johnson N, Seal S, Stratton MR, Rahman N, Chenevix-Trench G, Bojesen SE, Nordestgaard BG, Axelsson CK, Garcia-Closas M, Brinton L, Chanock S, Lissowska J, Peplonska B, Nevanlinna H, Fagerholm R, Eerola H, Kang D, Yoo KY, Noh DY, Ahn SH, Hunter DJ, Hankinson SE, Cox DG, Hall P, Wedren S, Liu J, Low YL, Bogdanova N, Schurmann P, Dork T, Tollenaar RA, Jacobi CE, Devilee P, Klijn JG, Sigurdson AJ, Doody MM, Alexander BH, Zhang J, Cox A, Brock IW, Macpherson G, Reed MW, Couch FJ, Goode EL, Olson JE, Meijers-Heijboer H, Van Den Ouweland A, Uitterlinden A, Rivadeneira F, Milne RL, Ribas G, Gonzalez-Neira A, Benitez J, Hopper JL, Mccredie M, Southey M, Giles GG, Schroen C, Justenhoven C, Brauch H, Hamann U, Ko YD, Spurdle AB, Beesley J, Chen X, Mannermaa A, Kosma VM, Kataja V, Hartikainen J, Day NE, Cox DR, Ponder BA. Genome-wide association study identifies novel breast cancer susceptibility loci. Nature. 2007;447:1087–1093. doi: 10.1038/nature05887. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hunter DJ, Kraft P, Jacobs KB, Cox DG, Yeager M, Hankinson SE, Wacholder S, Wang Z, Welch R, Hutchinson A, Wang J, Yu K, Chatterjee N, Orr N, Willett WC, Colditz GA, Ziegler RG, Berg CD, Buys SS, Mccarty CA, Feigelson HS, Calle EE, Thun MJ, Hayes RB, Tucker M, Gerhard DS, Fraumeni JF, Jr, Hoover RN, Thomas G, Chanock SJ. A genome-wide association study identifies alleles in fgfr2 associated with risk of sporadic postmenopausal breast cancer. Nat Genet. 2007 doi: 10.1038/ng2075. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Stacey SN, Manolescu A, Sulem P, Rafnar T, Gudmundsson J, Gudjonsson SA, Masson G, Jakobsdottir M, Thorlacius S, Helgason A, Aben KK, Strobbe LJ, Albers-Akkers MT, Swinkels DW, Henderson BE, Kolonel LN, Le Marchand L, Millastre E, Andres R, Godino J, Garcia-Prats MD, Polo E, Tres A, Mouy M, Saemundsdottir J, Backman VM, Gudmundsson L, Kristjansson K, Bergthorsson JT, Kostic J, Frigge ML, Geller F, Gudbjartsson D, Sigurdsson H, Jonsdottir T, Hrafnkelsson J, Johannsson J, Sveinsson T, Myrdal G, Grimsson HN, Jonsson T, Von Holst S, Werelius B, Margolin S, Lindblom A, Mayordomo JI, Haiman CA, Kiemeney LA, Johannsson OT, Gulcher JR, Thorsteinsdottir U, Kong A, Stefansson K. Common variants on chromosomes 2q35 and 16q12 confer susceptibility to estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Nat Genet. 2007;39:865–869. doi: 10.1038/ng2064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Thomas G, Jacobs KB, Kraft P, Yeager M, Wacholder S, Cox DG, Hankinson SE, Hutchinson A, Wang Z, Yu K, Chatterjee N, Garcia-Closas M, Gonzalez-Bosquet J, Prokunina-Olsson L, Orr N, Willett WC, Colditz GA, Ziegler RG, Berg CD, Buys SS, Mccarty CA, Feigelson HS, Calle EE, Thun MJ, Diver R, Prentice R, Jackson R, Kooperberg C, Chlebowski R, Lissowska J, Peplonska B, Brinton LA, Sigurdson A, Doody M, Bhatti P, Alexander BH, Buring J, Lee IM, Vatten LJ, Hveem K, Kumle M, Hayes RB, Tucker M, Gerhard DS, Fraumeni JF, Jr, Hoover RN, Chanock SJ, Hunter DJ. A multistage genome-wide association study in breast cancer identifies two new risk alleles at 1p11.2 and 14q24.1 (rad51l1) Nat Genet. 2009;41:579–584. doi: 10.1038/ng.353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ahmed S, Thomas G, Ghoussaini M, Healey CS, Humphreys MK, Platte R, Morrison J, Maranian M, Pooley KA, Luben R, Eccles D, Evans DG, Fletcher O, Johnson N, Dos Santos Silva I, Peto J, Stratton MR, Rahman N, Jacobs K, Prentice R, Anderson GL, Rajkovic A, Curb JD, Ziegler RG, Berg CD, Buys SS, Mccarty CA, Feigelson HS, Calle EE, Thun MJ, Diver WR, Bojesen S, Nordestgaard BG, Flyger H, Dork T, Schurmann P, Hillemanns P, Karstens JH, Bogdanova NV, Antonenkova NN, Zalutsky IV, Bermisheva M, Fedorova S, Khusnutdinova E, Kang D, Yoo KY, Noh DY, Ahn SH, Devilee P, Van Asperen CJ, Tollenaar RA, Seynaeve C, Garcia-Closas M, Lissowska J, Brinton L, Peplonska B, Nevanlinna H, Heikkinen T, Aittomaki K, Blomqvist C, Hopper JL, Southey MC, Smith L, Spurdle AB, Schmidt MK, Broeks A, Van Hien RR, Cornelissen S, Milne RL, Ribas G, Gonzalez-Neira A, Benitez J, Schmutzler RK, Burwinkel B, Bartram CR, Meindl A, Brauch H, Justenhoven C, Hamann U, Chang-Claude J, Hein R, Wang-Gohrke S, Lindblom A, Margolin S, Mannermaa A, Kosma VM, Kataja V, Olson JE, Wang X, Fredericksen Z, Giles GG, Severi G, Baglietto L, English DR, Hankinson SE, Cox DG, Kraft P, Vatten LJ, Hveem K, Kumle M, Sigurdson A, Doody M, Bhatti P, Alexander BH, Hooning MJ, Van Den Ouweland AM, Oldenburg RA, Schutte M, Hall P, Czene K, Liu J, Li Y, Cox A, Elliott G, Brock I, Reed MW, Shen CY, Yu JC, Hsu GC, Chen ST, Anton-Culver H, Ziogas A, Andrulis IL, Knight JA, Beesley J, Goode EL, Couch F, Chenevix-Trench G, Hoover RN, Ponder BA, Hunter DJ, Pharoah PD, Dunning AM, Chanock SJ, Easton DF. Newly discovered breast cancer susceptibility loci on 3p24 and 17q23.2. Nat Genet. 2009;41:585–590. doi: 10.1038/ng.354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zheng W, Long J, Gao YT, Li C, Zheng Y, Xiang YB, Wen W, Levy S, Deming SL, Haines JL, Gu K, Fair AM, Cai Q, Lu W, Shu XO. Genome-wide association study identifies a new breast cancer susceptibility locus at 6q25.1. Nat Genet. 2009;41:324–328. doi: 10.1038/ng.318. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Turnbull C, Ahmed S, Morrison J, Pernet D, Renwick A, Maranian M, Seal S, Ghoussaini M, Hines S, Healey CS, Hughes D, Warren-Perry M, Tapper W, Eccles D, Evans DG, Hooning M, Schutte M, Van Den Ouweland A, Houlston R, Ross G, Langford C, Pharoah PD, Stratton MR, Dunning AM, Rahman N, Easton DF. Genome-wide association study identifies five new breast cancer susceptibility loci. Nat Genet. 2010;42:504–507. doi: 10.1038/ng.586. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Travis RC, Reeves GK, Green J, Bull D, Tipper SJ, Baker K, Beral V, Peto R, Bell J, Zelenika D, Lathrop M. Gene-environment interactions in 7610 women with breast cancer: Prospective evidence from the million women study. Lancet. 2010;375:2143–2151. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60636-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Milne RL, Gaudet MM, Spurdle AB, Fasching PA, Couch FJ, Benitez J, Arias Perez JI, Zamora MP, Malats N, Dos Santos Silva I, Gibson LJ, Fletcher O, Johnson N, Anton-Culver H, Ziogas A, Figueroa J, Brinton L, Sherman ME, Lissowska J, Hopper JL, Dite GS, Apicella C, Southey MC, Sigurdson AJ, Linet MS, Schonfeld SJ, Freedman DM, Mannermaa A, Kosma VM, Kataja V, Auvinen P, Andrulis IL, Glendon G, Knight JA, Weerasooriya N, Cox A, Reed MW, Cross SS, Dunning AM, Ahmed S, Shah M, Brauch H, Ko YD, Bruning T, Genica Network T, Lambrechts D, Reumers J, Smeets A, Wang-Gohrke S, Hall P, Czene K, Liu J, Irwanto AK, Chenevix-Trench G, Holland H, Kconfab Investigators, T, Aocs Investigators, T. Giles GG, Severi G, Baglietto L, Bojesen SE, Nordestgaard BG, Flyger H, John EM, West DW, Whittemore AS, Vachon C, Olson JE, Fredericksen Z, Kosel M, Hein R, Vrieling A, Flesch-Janys D, Heinz J, Beckmann M, Heusinger K, Ekici AB, Haeberle L, Easton DF, Humphreys MK, Morrison J, Pharoah PD, Garcia-Closas M, Goode EL, Chang-Claude J. Assessing interactions between the associations of common genetic susceptibility variants, reproductive history and body mass index with breast cancer risk in the breast cancer association consortium: A combined case-control study. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12:R110. doi: 10.1186/bcr2797. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Prentice RL, Huang Y, Hinds DA, Peters U, Pettinger M, Cox DR, Beilharz E, Chlebowski RT, Rossouw JE, Caan B, Ballinger DG. Variation in the fgfr2 gene and the effects of postmenopausal hormone therapy on invasive breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:3079–3085. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Schoeps A, Rudolph A, Seibold P, Dunning AM, Milne RL, Bojesen SE, Swerdlow A, Andrulis I, Brenner H, Behrens S, Orr N, Jones M, Ashworth A, Li J, Cramp H, Connley D, Czene K, Darabi H, Chanock SJ, Lissowska J, Figueroa JD, Knight J, Glendon G, Mulligan AM, Dumont M, Severi G, Baglietto L, Olson J, Vachon C, Purrington K, Moisse M, Neven P, Wildiers H, Spurdle A, Kosma VM, Kataja V, Hartikainen JM, Hamann U, Ko YD, Dieffenbach AK, Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Malats N, Arias Perez JI, Benitez J, Flyger H, Nordestgaard BG, Truong T, Cordina-Duverger E, Menegaux F, Dos Santos Silva I, Fletcher O, Johnson N, Haberle L, Beckmann MW, Ekici AB, Braaf L, Atsma F, Van Den Broek AJ, Makalic E, Schmidt DF, Southey MC, Cox A, Simard J, Giles GG, Lambrechts D, Mannermaa A, Brauch H, Guenel P, Peto J, Fasching PA, Hopper J, Flesch-Janys D, Couch F, Chenevix-Trench G, Pharoah PD, Garcia-Closas M, Schmidt MK, Hall P, Easton DF, Chang-Claude J. Identification of new genetic susceptibility loci for breast cancer through consideration of gene-environment interactions. Genet Epidemiol. 2014;38:84–93. doi: 10.1002/gepi.21771. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Campa D, Kaaks R, Le Marchand L, Haiman CA, Travis RC, Berg CD, Buring JE, Chanock SJ, Diver WR, Dostal L, Fournier A, Hankinson SE, Henderson BE, Hoover RN, Isaacs C, Johansson M, Kolonel LN, Kraft P, Lee IM, Mccarty CA, Overvad K, Panico S, Peeters PH, Riboli E, Sanchez MJ, Schumacher FR, Skeie G, Stram DO, Thun MJ, Trichopoulos D, Zhang S, Ziegler RG, Hunter DJ, Lindstrom S, Canzian F. Interactions between genetic variants and breast cancer risk factors in the breast and prostate cancer cohort consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Milne RL, Gaudet MM, Spurdle AB, Fasching PA, Couch FJ, Benitez J, Arias Perez JI, Zamora MP, Malats N, Dos Santos Silva I, Gibson LJ, Fletcher O, Johnson N, Anton-Culver H, Ziogas A, Figueroa J, Brinton L, Sherman ME, Lissowska J, Hopper JL, Dite GS, Apicella C, Southey MC, Sigurdson AJ, Linet MS, Schonfeld SJ, Freedman DM, Mannermaa A, Kosma VM, Kataja V, Auvinen P, Andrulis IL, Glendon G, Knight JA, Weerasooriya N, Cox A, Reed MW, Cross SS, Dunning AM, Ahmed S, Shah M, Brauch H, Ko YD, Bruning T, Lambrechts D, Reumers J, Smeets A, Wang-Gohrke S, Hall P, Czene K, Liu J, Irwanto AK, Chenevix-Trench G, Holland H, Giles GG, Baglietto L, Severi G, Bojensen SE, Nordestgaard BG, Flyger H, John EM, West DW, Whittemore AS, Vachon C, Olson JE, Fredericksen Z, Kosel M, Hein R, Vrieling A, Flesch-Janys D, Heinz J, Beckmann MW, Heusinger K, Ekici AB, Haeberle L, Humphreys MK, Morrison J, Easton DF, Pharoah PD, Garcia-Closas M, Goode EL, Chang-Claude J. Assessing interactions between the associations of common genetic susceptibility variants, reproductive history and body mass index with breast cancer risk in the breast cancer association consortium: A combined case-control study. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12:R110. doi: 10.1186/bcr2797. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rudolph A, Hein R, Lindstrom S, Beckmann L, Behrens S, Liu J, Aschard H, Bolla MK, Wang J, Truong T, Cordina-Duverger E, Menegaux F, Bruning T, Harth V, Network, G. Severi G, Baglietto L, Southey M, Chanock SJ, Lissowska J, Figueroa JD, Eriksson M, Humpreys K, Darabi H, Olson JE, Stevens KN, Vachon CM, Knight JA, Glendon G, Mulligan AM, Ashworth A, Orr N, Schoemaker M, Webb PM, Kconfab I, Group, AM. Guenel P, Brauch H, Giles G, Garcia-Closas M, Czene K, Chenevix-Trench G, Couch FJ, Andrulis IL, Swerdlow A, Hunter DJ, Flesch-Janys D, Easton DF, Hall P, Nevanlinna H, Kraft P, Chang-Claude J, Breast Cancer Association, C Genetic modifiers of menopausal hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer risk: A genome-wide interaction study. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2013;20:875–887. doi: 10.1530/ERC-13-0349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hein R, Flesch-Janys D, Dahmen N, Beckmann L, Lindstrom S, Schoof N, Czene K, Mittelstrass K, Illig T, Seibold P, Behrens S, Humphreys K, Li J, Liu J, Olson JE, Wang X, Hankinson SE, Truong T, Menegaux F, Dos Santos Silva I, Johnson N, Network, G. Chen ST, Yu JC, Ziogas A, Kataja V, Kosma VM, Mannermaa A, Anton-Culver H, Shen CY, Brauch H, Peto J, Guenel P, Kraft P, Couch FJ, Easton DF, Hall P, Chang-Claude J. A genome-wide association study to identify genetic susceptibility loci that modify ductal and lobular postmenopausal breast cancer risk associated with menopausal hormone therapy use: A two-stage design with replication. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;138:529–542. doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2443-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hunter DJ, Riboli E, Haiman CA, Albanes D, Altshuler D, Chanock SJ, Haynes RB, Henderson BE, Kaaks R, Stram DO, Thomas G, Thun MJ, Blanché H, Buring JE, Burtt NP, Calle EE, Cann H, Canzian F, Chen YC, G.A., C. Cox DG, Dunning AM, Feigelson HS, Freedman ML, Gaziano JM, Giovannucci E, Hankinson SE, Hirschhorn JN, Hoover RN, Key T, Kolonel LN, Kraft P, Le Marchand L, Liu S, Ma J, Melnick S, Pharaoh P, Pike MC, Rodriguez C, Setiawan VW, Stampfer MJ, Trapido E, Travis R, Virtamo J, Wacholder S, Willett WC, Consortium., NCIBaPCC A candidate gene approach to searching for low-penetrance breast and prostate cancer genes. Nature reviews. 2005;5:977–985. doi: 10.1038/nrc1754. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Riboli E, Hunt KJ, Slimani N, Ferrari P, Norat T, Fahey M, Charrondiere UR, Hemon B, Casagrande C, Vignat J, Overvad K, Tjonneland A, Clavel-Chapelon F, Thiebaut A, Wahrendorf J, Boeing H, Trichopoulos D, Trichopoulou A, Vineis P, Palli D, Bueno-De-Mesquita HB, Peeters PH, Lund E, Engeset D, Gonzalez CA, Barricarte A, Berglund G, Hallmans G, Day NE, Key TJ, Kaaks R, Saracci R. European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition (epic): Study populations and data collection. Public Health Nutr. 2002;5:1113–1124. doi: 10.1079/PHN2002394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Anderson GCS, Freedman LS, Furberg C, Henderson M, Johnson SR, Kuller L, Manson J, Oberman A, Prentice RL, Rossouw JE. Design of the women’s health initiative clinical trial and observational study. Controlled Clinical Trials. 1998;19:61–109. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(97)00078-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Giles Gg ED. The melbourne collaborative cohort study. IARC Sci Publ. 2002:69–70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Colditz GA, Hankinson SE. The nurses’ health study: Lifestyle and health among women. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5:388–396. doi: 10.1038/nrc1608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Tworoger SS, Sluss P, Hankinson SE. Association between plasma prolactin concentrations and risk of breast cancer among predominately premenopausal women. Cancer Res. 2006;66:2476–2482. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-3369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Rexrode K, Lee I, Cook N, Hennekens CH, Burning JE. Baseline characteristics of participants in the women’s health study. Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2000;9:19–27. doi: 10.1089/152460900318911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Calle EE, Rodriguez C, Jacobs EJ, Almon ML, Chao A, Mccullough ML, Feigelson HS, Thun MJ. The american cancer society cancer prevention study ii nutrition cohort: Rationale, study design, and baseline characteristics. Cancer. 2002;94:2490–2501. doi: 10.1002/cncr.101970. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hayes RB, Reding D, Kopp W, Subar AF, Bhat N, Rothman N, Caporaso N, Ziegler RG, Johnson CC, Weissfeld JL, Hoover RN, Hartge P, Palace C, Gohagan JK. Etiologic and early marker studies in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (plco) cancer screening trial. Controlled Clinical Trials. 2000;21:349–355. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(00)00101-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kolonel LN, Henderson BE, Hankin JH, Nomura AMY, Wilkens LR, Pike MC, Stram DO, Monroe KR, Earle ME, Nagamine FS. A multiethnic cohort in hawaii and los angeles: Baseline characteristics. American journal of epidemiology. 2000;151:346–357. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Smith-Warner SA, Spiegelman D, Yaun SS, Adami HO, Beeson WL, Van Den Brandt PA, Folsom AR, Fraser GE, Freudenheim JL, Goldbohm RA, Graham S, Miller AB, Potter JD, Rohan TE, Speizer FE, Toniolo P, Willett WC, Wolk A, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, Hunter DJ. Intake of fruits and vegetables and risk of breast cancer: A pooled analysis of cohort studies. Jama. 2001;285:769–776. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.6.769. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Gao X, Starmer J, Martin ER. A multiple testing correction method for genetic association studies using correlated single nucleotide polymorphisms. Genet Epidemiol. 2008;32:361–369. doi: 10.1002/gepi.20310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Fletcher O, Johnson N, Orr N, Hosking FJ, Gibson LJ, Walker K, Zelenika D, Gut I, Heath S, Palles C, Coupland B, Broderick P, Schoemaker M, Jones M, Williamson J, Chilcott-Burns S, Tomczyk K, Simpson G, Jacobs KB, Chanock SJ, Hunter DJ, Tomlinson IP, Swerdlow A, Ashworth A, Ross G, Dos Santos Silva I, Lathrop M, Houlston RS, Peto J. Novel breast cancer susceptibility locus at 9q31.2: Results of a genome-wide association study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:425–435. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djq563. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Warren H, Dudbridge F, Fletcher O, Orr N, Johnson N, Hopper JL, Apicella C, Southey MC, Mahmoodi M, Schmidt MK, Broeks A, Cornelissen S, Braaf LM, Muir KR, Lophatananon A, Chaiwerawattana A, Wiangnon S, Fasching PA, Beckmann MW, Ekici AB, Schulz-Wendtland R, Sawyer EJ, Tomlinson I, Kerin M, Burwinkel B, Marme F, Schneeweiss A, Sohn C, Guenel P, Truong T, Laurent-Puig P, Mulot C, Bojesen SE, Nielsen SF, Flyger H, Nordestgaard BG, Milne RL, Benitez J, Arias-Perez JI, Zamora MP, Anton-Culver H, Ziogas A, Bernstein L, Dur CC, Brenner H, Muller H, Arndt V, Langheinz A, Meindl A, Golatta M, Bartram CR, Schmutzler RK, Brauch H, Justenhoven C, Bruning T, Network, G. Chang-Claude J, Wang-Gohrke S, Eilber U, Dork T, Schurmann P, Bremer M, Hillemanns P, Nevanlinna H, Muranen TA, Aittomaki K, Blomqvist C, Bogdanova N, Antonenkova N, Rogov Y, Bermisheva M, Prokofyeva D, Zinnatullina G, Khusnutdinova E, Lindblom A, Margolin S, Mannermaa A, Kosma VM, Hartikainen JM, Kataja V, Chenevix-Trench G, Beesley J, Chen X, Kconfab I, Australian Ovarian Cancer Study, G. Lambrechts D, Smeets A, Paridaens R, Weltens C, Flesch-Janys D, Buck K, Behrens S, Peterlongo P, Bernard L, Manoukian S, Radice P, Couch FJ, Vachon C, Wang X, Olson J, Giles G, Baglietto L, Mclean CA, Severi G, John EM, Miron A, Winqvist R, Pylkas K, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Grip M, Andrulis IL, Knight JA, Mulligan AM, Weerasooriya N, Devilee P, Tollenaar RA, Martens JW, Seynaeve CM, Hooning MJ, Hollestelle A, Jager A, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Hall P, Czene K, Liu J, Li J, Cox A, Cross SS, Brock IW, Reed MW, Pharoah P, Blows FM, Dunning AM, Ghoussaini M, Ashworth A, Swerdlow A, Jones M, Schoemaker M, Easton DF, Humphreys M, Wang Q, Peto J, Dos-Santos-Silva I. 9q31.2-rs865686 as a susceptibility locus for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: Evidence from the breast cancer association consortium Cancer. Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21:1783–1791. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0526. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Nickels S, Truong T, Hein R, Stevens K, Buck K, Behrens S, Eilber U, Schmidt M, Haberle L, Vrieling A, Gaudet M, Figueroa J, Schoof N, Spurdle AB, Rudolph A, Fasching PA, Hopper JL, Makalic E, Schmidt DF, Southey MC, Beckmann MW, Ekici AB, Fletcher O, Gibson L, Silva Idos S, Peto J, Humphreys MK, Wang J, Cordina-Duverger E, Menegaux F, Nordestgaard BG, Bojesen SE, Lanng C, Anton-Culver H, Ziogas A, Bernstein L, Clarke CA, Brenner H, Muller H, Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Brauch H, Bruning T, Harth V, Genica N, Mannermaa A, Kataja V, Kosma VM, Hartikainen JM, Kconfab Group, AM. Lambrechts D, Smeets D, Neven P, Paridaens R, Flesch-Janys D, Obi N, Wang-Gohrke S, Couch FJ, Olson JE, Vachon CM, Giles GG, Severi G, Baglietto L, Offit K, John EM, Miron A, Andrulis IL, Knight JA, Glendon G, Mulligan AM, Chanock SJ, Lissowska J, Liu J, Cox A, Cramp H, Connley D, Balasubramanian S, Dunning AM, Shah M, Trentham-Dietz A, Newcomb P, Titus L, Egan K, Cahoon EK, Rajaraman P, Sigurdson AJ, Doody MM, Guenel P, Pharoah PD, Schmidt MK, Hall P, Easton DF, Garcia-Closas M, Milne RL, Chang-Claude J. Evidence of gene-environment interactions between common breast cancer susceptibility loci and established environmental risk factors. PLoS Genet. 2013;9:e1003284. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Rebbeck TR, Demichele A, Tran TV, Panossian S, Bunin GR, Troxel AB, Strom BL. Hormone-dependent effects of fgfr2 and map3k1 in breast cancer susceptibility in a population-based sample of post-menopausal african-american and european-american women. Carcinogenesis. 2009;30:269–274. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgn247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kawase T, Matsuo K, Suzuki T, Hiraki A, Watanabe M, Iwata H, Tanaka H, Tajima K. Fgfr2 intronic polymorphisms interact with reproductive risk factors of breast cancer: Results of a case control study in japan. Int J Cancer. 2009;125:1946–1952. doi: 10.1002/ijc.24505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Brand JS, Humphreys K, Thompson DJ, Li J, Eriksson M, Hall P, Czene K. Volumetric mammographic density: Heritability and association with breast cancer susceptibility loci. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106 doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Lindstrom S, Thompson DJ, Paterson AD, Li J, Gierach GL, Scott C, Stone J, Douglas JA, Dos-Santos-Silva I, Fernandez-Navarro P, Verghase J, Smith P, Brown J, Luben R, Wareham NJ, Loos RJ, Heit JA, Shane Pankratz V, Norman A, Goode EL, Cunningham JM, Deandrade M, Vierkant RA, Czene K, Fasching PA, Baglietto L, Southey MC, Giles GG, Shah KP, Chan HP, Helvie MA, Beck AH, Knoblauch NW, Hazra A, Hunter DJ, Kraft P, Pollan M, Figueroa JD, Couch FJ, Hopper JL, Hall P, Easton DF, Boyd NF, Vachon CM, Tamimi RM. Genome-wide association study identifies multiple loci associated with both mammographic density and breast cancer risk. Nat Commun. 2014;5:5303. doi: 10.1038/ncomms6303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ellingjord-Dale M, Grotmol T, Lee E, Van Den Berg DJ, Hofvind S, Couto E, Sovio U, Dos-Santos-Silva I, Ursin G. Breast cancer susceptibility variants and mammographic density phenotypes in norwegian postmenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23:1752–1763. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Dempfle A, Scherag A, Hein R, Beckmann L, Chang-Claude J, Schafer H. Gene-environment interactions for complex traits: Definitions, methodological requirements and challenges. Eur J Hum Genet. 2008;16:1164–1172. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2008.106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Figueroa JD, Garcia-Closas M, Humphreys M, Platte R, Hopper JL, Southey MC, Apicella C, Hammet F, Schmidt MK, Broeks A, Tollenaar RA, Van’t Veer LJ, Fasching PA, Beckmann MW, Ekici AB, Strick R, Peto J, Dos Santos Silva I, Fletcher O, Johnson N, Sawyer E, Tomlinson I, Kerin M, Burwinkel B, Marme F, Schneeweiss A, Sohn C, Bojesen S, Flyger H, Nordestgaard BG, Benitez J, Milne RL, Ignacio Arias J, Zamora MP, Brenner H, Muller H, Arndt V, Rahman N, Turnbull C, Seal S, Renwick A, Brauch H, Justenhoven C, Bruning T, Chang-Claude J, Hein R, Wang-Gohrke S, Dork T, Schurmann P, Bremer M, Hillemanns P, Nevanlinna H, Heikkinen T, Aittomaki K, Blomqvist C, Bogdanova N, Antonenkova N, Rogov YI, Karstens JH, Bermisheva M, Prokofieva D, Hanafievich Gantcev S, Khusnutdinova E, Lindblom A, Margolin S, Chenevix-Trench G, Beesley J, Chen X, Mannermaa A, Kosma VM, Soini Y, Kataja V, Lambrechts D, Yesilyurt BT, Chrisiaens MR, Peeters S, Radice P, Peterlongo P, Manoukian S, Barile M, Couch F, Lee AM, Diasio R, Wang X, Giles GG, Severi G, Baglietto L, Maclean C, Offit K, Robson M, Joseph V, Gaudet M, John EM, Winqvist R, Pylkas K, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Grip M, Andrulis I, Knight JA, Marie Mulligan A, O’malley FP, Brinton LA, Sherman ME, Lissowska J, Chanock SJ, Hooning M, Martens JW, Van Den Ouweland AM, Collee JM, Hall P, Czene K, Cox A, Brock IW, Reed MW, Cross SS, Pharoah P, Dunning AM, Kang D, Yoo KY, Noh DY, Ahn SH, Jakubowska A, Lubinski J, Jaworska K, Durda K, Sangrajrang S, Gaborieau V, Brennan P, Mckay J, Shen CY, Ding SL, Hsu HM, Yu JC, Anton-Culver H, Ziogas A, Ashworth A, Swerdlow A, Jones M, Orr N, Trentham-Dietz A, Egan K, Newcomb P, Titus-Ernstoff L, Easton D, Spurdle AB. Associations of common variants at 1p11.2 and 14q24.1 (rad51l1) with breast cancer risk and heterogeneity by tumor subtype: Findings from the breast cancer association consortium. Hum Mol Genet. 2011 doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddr368. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Stacey SN, Gudbjartsson DF, Sulem P, Bergthorsson JT, Kumar R, Thorleifsson G, Sigurdsson A, Jakobsdottir M, Sigurgeirsson B, Benediktsdottir KR, Thorisdottir K, Ragnarsson R, Scherer D, Rudnai P, Gurzau E, Koppova K, Hoiom V, Botella-Estrada R, Soriano V, Juberias P, Grasa M, Carapeto FJ, Tabuenca P, Gilaberte Y, Gudmundsson J, Thorlacius S, Helgason A, Thorlacius T, Jonasdottir A, Blondal T, Gudjonsson SA, Jonsson GF, Saemundsdottir J, Kristjansson K, Bjornsdottir G, Sveinsdottir SG, Mouy M, Geller F, Nagore E, Mayordomo JI, Hansson J, Rafnar T, Kong A, Olafsson JH, Thorsteinsdottir U, Stefansson K. Common variants on 1p36 and 1q42 are associated with cutaneous basal cell carcinoma but not with melanoma or pigmentation traits. Nat Genet. 2008;40:1313–1318. doi: 10.1038/ng.234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Bojesen SE, Pooley KA, Johnatty SE, Beesley J, Michailidou K, Tyrer JP, Edwards SL, Pickett HA, Shen HC, Smart CE, Hillman KM, Mai PL, Lawrenson K, Stutz MD, Lu Y, Karevan R, Woods N, Johnston RL, French JD, Chen X, Weischer M, Nielsen SF, Maranian MJ, Ghoussaini M, Ahmed S, Baynes C, Bolla MK, Wang Q, Dennis J, Mcguffog L, Barrowdale D, Lee A, Healey S, Lush M, Tessier DC, Vincent D, Bacot F, Australian Cancer, S. Australian Ovarian Cancer, S. Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast, C. Gene Environment, I. Breast, C. Swedish Breast Cancer, S. Hereditary B, Ovarian Cancer Research Group, N. Epidemiological Study Of, B. Carriers BM, Genetic Modifiers of Cancer Risk In, BMC. Vergote I, Lambrechts S, Despierre E, Risch HA, Gonzalez-Neira A, Rossing MA, Pita G, Doherty JA, Alvarez N, Larson MC, Fridley BL, Schoof N, Chang-Claude J, Cicek MS, Peto J, Kalli KR, Broeks A, Armasu SM, Schmidt MK, Braaf LM, Winterhoff B, Nevanlinna H, Konecny GE, Lambrechts D, Rogmann L, Guenel P, Teoman A, Milne RL, Garcia JJ, Cox A, Shridhar V, Burwinkel B, Marme F, Hein R, Sawyer EJ, Haiman CA, Wang-Gohrke S, Andrulis IL, Moysich KB, Hopper JL, Odunsi K, Lindblom A, Giles GG, Brenner H, Simard J, Lurie G, Fasching PA, Carney ME, Radice P, Wilkens LR, Swerdlow A, Goodman MT, Brauch H, Garcia-Closas M, Hillemanns P, Winqvist R, Durst M, Devilee P, Runnebaum I, Jakubowska A, Lubinski J, Mannermaa A, Butzow R, Bogdanova NV, Dork T, Pelttari LM, Zheng W, Leminen A, Anton-Culver H, Bunker CH, Kristensen V, Ness RB, Muir K, Edwards R, Meindl A, Heitz F, Matsuo K, Du Bois A, Wu AH, Harter P, Teo SH, Schwaab I, Shu XO, Blot W, Hosono S, Kang D, Nakanishi T, Hartman M, Yatabe Y, Hamann U, Karlan BY, Sangrajrang S, Kjaer SK, Gaborieau V, Jensen A, Eccles D, Hogdall E, Shen CY, Brown J, Woo YL, Shah M, Azmi MA, Luben R, Omar SZ, Czene K, Vierkant RA, Nordestgaard BG, Flyger H, Vachon C, Olson JE, Wang X, Levine DA, Rudolph A, Weber RP, Flesch-Janys D, Iversen E, Nickels S, Schildkraut JM, Silva Idos S, Cramer DW, Gibson L, Terry KL, Fletcher O, Vitonis AF, Van Der Schoot CE, Poole EM, Hogervorst FB, Tworoger SS, Liu J, Bandera EV, Li J, Olson SH, Humphreys K, Orlow I, Blomqvist C, Rodriguez-Rodriguez L, Aittomaki K, Salvesen HB, Muranen TA, Wik E, Brouwers B, Krakstad C, Wauters E, Halle MK, Wildiers H, Kiemeney LA, Mulot C, Aben KK, Laurent-Puig P, Altena AM, Truong T, Massuger LF, Benitez J, Pejovic T, Perez JI, Hoatlin M, Zamora MP, Cook LS, Balasubramanian SP, Kelemen LE, Schneeweiss A, Le ND, Sohn C, Brooks-Wilson A, Tomlinson I, Kerin MJ, Miller N, Cybulski C, Henderson BE, Menkiszak J, Schumacher F, Wentzensen N, Le Marchand L, Yang HP, Mulligan AM, Glendon G, Engelholm SA, Knight JA, Hogdall CK, Apicella C, Gore M, Tsimiklis H, Song H, Southey MC, Jager A, Den Ouweland AM, Brown R, Martens JW, Flanagan JM, Kriege M, Paul J, Margolin S, Siddiqui N, Severi G, Whittemore AS, Baglietto L, Mcguire V, Stegmaier C, Sieh W, Muller H, Arndt V, Labreche F, Gao YT, Goldberg MS, Yang G, Dumont M, Mclaughlin JR, Hartmann A, Ekici AB, Beckmann MW, Phelan CM, Lux MP, Permuth-Wey J, Peissel B, Sellers TA, Ficarazzi F, Barile M, Ziogas A, Ashworth A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Jones M, Ramus SJ, Orr N, Menon U, Pearce CL, Bruning T, Pike MC, Ko YD, Lissowska J, Figueroa J, Kupryjanczyk J, Chanock SJ, Dansonka-Mieszkowska A, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Rzepecka IK, Pylkas K, Bidzinski M, Kauppila S, Hollestelle A, Seynaeve C, Tollenaar RA, Durda K, Jaworska K, Hartikainen JM, Kosma VM, Kataja V, Antonenkova NN, Long J, Shrubsole M, Deming-Halverson S, Lophatananon A, Siriwanarangsan P, Stewart-Brown S, Ditsch N, Lichtner P, Schmutzler RK, Ito H, Iwata H, Tajima K, Tseng CC, Stram DO, Van Den Berg D, Yip CH, Ikram MK, Teh YC, Cai H, Lu W, Signorello LB, Cai Q, Noh DY, Yoo KY, Miao H, Iau PT, Teo YY, Mckay J, Shapiro C, Ademuyiwa F, Fountzilas G, Hsiung CN, Yu JC, Hou MF, Healey CS, Luccarini C, Peock S, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Peterlongo P, Rebbeck TR, Piedmonte M, Singer CF, Friedman E, Thomassen M, Offit K, Hansen TV, Neuhausen SL, Szabo CI, Blanco I, Garber J, Narod SA, Weitzel JN, Montagna M, Olah E, Godwin AK, Yannoukakos D, Goldgar DE, Caldes T, Imyanitov EN, Tihomirova L, Arun BK, Campbell I, Mensenkamp AR, Van Asperen CJ, Van Roozendaal KE, Meijers-Heijboer H, Collee JM, Oosterwijk JC, Hooning MJ, Rookus MA, Van Der Luijt RB, Os TA, Evans DG, Frost D, Fineberg E, Barwell J, Walker L, Kennedy MJ, Platte R, Davidson R, Ellis SD, Cole T, Bressac-De Paillerets B, Buecher B, Damiola F, Faivre L, Frenay M, Sinilnikova OM, Caron O, Giraud S, Mazoyer S, Bonadona V, Caux-Moncoutier V, Toloczko-Grabarek A, Gronwald J, Byrski T, Spurdle AB, Bonanni B, Zaffaroni D, Giannini G, Bernard L, Dolcetti R, Manoukian S, Arnold N, Engel C, Deissler H, Rhiem K, Niederacher D, Plendl H, Sutter C, Wappenschmidt B, Borg A, Melin B, Rantala J, Soller M, Nathanson KL, Domchek SM, Rodriguez GC, Salani R, Kaulich DG, Tea MK, Paluch SS, Laitman Y, Skytte AB, Kruse TA, Jensen UB, Robson M, Gerdes AM, Ejlertsen B, Foretova L, Savage SA, Lester J, Soucy P, Kuchenbaecker KB, Olswold C, Cunningham JM, Slager S, Pankratz VS, Dicks E, Lakhani SR, Couch FJ, Hall P, Monteiro AN, Gayther SA, Pharoah PD, Reddel RR, Goode EL, Greene MH, Easton DF, Berchuck A, Antoniou AC, Chenevix-Trench G, Dunning AM. Multiple independent variants at the tert locus are associated with telomere length and risks of breast and ovarian cancer. Nat Genet. 2013;45:371–384. 384e371–372. doi: 10.1038/ng.2566. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

NIHMS916442-supplement-supplement_1.pdf (141.2KB, pdf)

RESOURCES