Leila Dorling, Siddhartha Kar, Kyriaki Michailidou, Louise Hiller, Anne-Laure Vallier, Susan Ingle, Richard Hardy, Sarah J. Bowden, Janet A. Dunn, Chris Twelves, Christopher J. Poole, Carlos Caldas, Helena M. Earl, Paul D. P. Pharoah, Jean E. Abraham
Abstract
Ninety-four common genetic variants are confirmed to be associated with breast cancer. This study tested the hypothesis that breast cancer susceptibility variants may also be associated with chemotherapy-induced toxicity through shared mechanistic pathways such as DNA damage response, an association that, to our knowledge, has not been previously investigated. The study included breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy from the Pharmacogenetic SNPs (PGSNPS) study. For each patient, a breast cancer polygenic risk score was created from the 94 breast cancer risk variants, all of which were genotyped or successfully imputed in PGSNPS. Logistic regression was performed to test the association with two clinically important toxicities: taxane- related neuropathy (n = 1279) and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (n = 1676). This study was well powered (≥96%) to detect associations between polygenic risk score and chemotherapy toxicity. Patients with high breast cancer risk scores experienced less neutropenia compared to those with low risk scores (adjusted p-value = 0.06). Exploratory functional pathway analysis was performed and no functional pathways driving this trend were identified. Polygenic risk was not associated with taxane neuropathy (adjusted p-value = 0.48). These results suggest that breast cancer patients with high genetic risk of breast cancer, conferred by common variants, can safely receive standard chemotherapy without increased risk of taxane-related sensory neuropathy or chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and may experience less neutropenia. As neutropenia has previously been associated with improved survival and may reflect drug efficacy, these patients may be less likely to benefit from standard chemotherapy treatment.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,174,305
of 25,390,692 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#132,535
of 220,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,407
of 370,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,228
of 4,439 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,390,692 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 220,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 370,636 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,439 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
