Discussion
Our approach is supported by the agreement of OR
Crude and OR
Adj with previously reported ORs for
BRCA1,
BRCA2,
RAD51C, and
RAD51D, genes with clearly established OC associations. The other HR pathway genes have been reported with conflicting evidence for association with OC [
10,
14,
23‐
25]. Association of PVs in each these genes with OC are in agreement with at least one of these studies by either OR
Crude or OR
Adj. While this validates that our methodology is comparable, it also highlights the disparity of concordance among these studies.
To check for potential ascertainment bias, PV prevalence in cases and controls was compared to those previously reported by Lilyquist et al. [
26] Given the similar ascertainment of cases and robustness of the estimates from the ExAC non-Finnish European control population, this data serves as a germane baseline for comparison. The prevalence of PV was not significantly different in any gene (Additional file
6: Table S5). Small differences in PV counts due to differences in variant classification between studies can have a significant impact on effect size, especially for genes where PVs are rare. For example, Weber-Lassalle et al. reported 9 of 7,325 (0.12%) European PV carriers from the FLOSSIES database; however, our variant classification system would have reported 14 of 7,325 (0.19%), on the basis of including 5 European carriers of
BRIP1 c.139C > A (ClinVar: SCV000210833.12) (Fig.
1) [
13].
Genes in which PVs are rare in one cohort (four or less PVs),
BARD1,
BRCA1,
NBN,
RAD51C and
RAD51D, result in wide confidence intervals for the ORs. For example,
RAD51C appears to confer greater risk than
BRCA2, a gene whose association with OC has been well-established. However, with the exception of
CHEK2, confidence intervals for ORs in all HR genes overlapped with those previously published, indicating the true effect size falls somewhere in the overlapping range [
10]. Results from the power analysis can be interpreted that genes with moderate effect sizes are adequately powered to detect significant association but the result also supports the argument in favor of performing studies on genotyped cohorts large enough to sufficiently detect genetic associations in genes where PVs rare and the effect sizes are small.
No significant association with OC were consistently observed with PVs in
BARD1, NBN, and PALB2. The reported low frequency of PVs in
BARD1, similar to other studies, will require still larger sample sizes to detect a significant effect [
10,
23,
24]. Association of
NBN with OC is the low to moderate risk HR pathway gene with the most concordant results. It is widely regarded as not significantly associated with OC, with the exception of Lilyquist, et al. who reported that its association was “marginally significant” [
23]. Additionally, Lilyquist et al. initially reported a significant association of
PALB2 with OC, but the association was lost upon removal of women with a personal or family history of breast cancer [
23]. We also report no significant association of
PALB2 with OC.
Multiple studies have reported
ATM as a moderate risk OC gene [
14,
23]. The observed significance by OR
Crude is concordant with these results. In controls,
ATM PV carriers had the highest median age (47 years, time of testing) of any HR pathway genes. Given that PVs in
ATM were only moderately associated with OC by OR
Crude, the median age of PV carriers was high enough compared to the median age of non-carriers to decrease the OR
Adj below the significance threshold. Notably, an insignificant z-test result indicates that the true effect size is likely to overlap the two reported CIs. The presence of undiagnosed cancer patients in the control cohort could falsely lower the calculated ORs, a similar effect was previously described in a study which used the ExAC controls with cancer samples included [
10].
A well-known breast cancer risk gene,
CHEK2, has been consistently reported to have no significant association with OC [
10,
14,
23]. Similar to reported associations from
ATM, the observed significance by OR
Crude is concordant with previously reported associations. In contrast, however,
CHEK2 PV carriers in cases had the lowest median age (52 years, time of OC diagnosis) of any of the HR pathway genes, which increased the OR
Adj enough to reach the level of significant association with OC. Again, similar to
ATM, the z-test comparing the two effect sizes was insignificant, indicating that the true effect size is likely in the overlapping range of the CIs (Table
1). When limiting cases to women with serous OC pathology, association of OC with PVs in
CHEK2 disappears and the median age of OC diagnosis in PV carriers increases from 52 years to 63.5 years (Additional file
5: Table S4). None of the 12
CHEK2 PV carriers with serous OC subtype were also diagnosed with breast cancer (not shown), suggesting that the significant OR
Adj result from the larger case cohort was a direct effect from the bias introduced by the younger
CHEK2 PV carriers who were also diagnosed with breast cancer.
Multiple publications have concluded that
BRIP1 is significantly associated with OC [
10,
13,
23,
24]. While OR
Crude in
BRIP1 was significantly associated with OC, the OR
Adj showed no OC association. The significantly decreased effect size in
BRIP1 can be attributed to PV carriers displaying the oldest median age at time of OC diagnosis and the second oldest median age at time of testing among all of the genes (67y case PV carriers, 46y control PV carriers; Table). Advanced age of PV carriers in
BRIP1 is not a novel observation [
10,
13,
23,
24].
BRIP1 was the only gene in which OR
Adj was significantly different than OR
Crude, which, given PV carriers are older compared to non-carriers, suggests that
BRIP1 PV carriers are more likely to be diagnosed with late-onset OC. Recent updates to National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN) guidelines for
BRIP1 PV carriers include consideration of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy at 45–50 years of age [
26]. The consistently reported older age at time of diagnosis and the observed lack of association by OR
Adj suggests caution before surgical intervention and the need for further studies of larger cohorts of older controls, as previously recommended [
27].
A recent study reported no significant association of
BRIP1 with OC, but our results reveal a clinically relevant factor that offers insight which may have contributed to the observed lack of association. Age (mean [SD]) at time of OC diagnosis in cases (55.7y [14.1]) and age at time of testing in controls (39.7y [14.7]) were both younger than our cohorts, which could lead to under-counting
BRIP1 PV carriers. Finally, it has been suggested that
BRIP1’s OC association may be restricted to high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer, but when cases were restricted to women diagnosed with high-grade serous OC histologic subtype, the OC association was consistent (Additional file
5: Table S4) [
7].
By presenting OR
Adj in addition to OR
Crude this study allows for comparison of the two effect sizes. This comparison provides insight into the age difference between PV carriers and non-carriers and enables inference of early/late onset OC. Genes with PV carriers who are older than non-carriers demonstrate decreased OR
Adj compared to OR
Crude and conversely, genes with PV carriers who are younger than non-carriers have increased OR
Adj compared to OR
Crude. Comparing the two effect sizes for each gene using a z-test revealed that controlling for age did not significantly change the OR, except in
BRIP1. A significant z-test result suggests that
BRIP1 PV carriers are more likely to be diagnosed with late-onset OC (Table
1).
As a referral laboratory, clinical information was limited to that provided by ordering providers with submitted samples. With ES, the referrals are not routinely submitted for cancer-related testing and, therefore, cancer history may not have been included in the clinical histories by the ordering physician. In addition, because the mean age of controls was lower than the mean age of OC diagnosis, it cannot be ruled out that some of these women will ultimately be diagnosed with OC. The OC referral cases could be biased toward a higher risk than the general ovarian cancer population. Variant detection sensitivity filters for controls were conservatively chosen which may lead to under-reporting of PVs and thus overestimation of ORs. Another source of possible under-reporting of PVs in controls is due to the incomplete gene coverage in controls, although the minor difference would have negligible effect (Additional file
2: Additional Sequencing Methods and Table S2). Copy number variants would have likely contributed a small number of PVs to cases and controls. But since this type of variant was not evaluated it acts as a source of bias toward under-reporting PVs. As not all PVs in controls were orthogonally confirmed as they were in cases, it is possible that a small number of control PVs were sequencing artifacts. Targeted
BRCA1 and
BRCA2 testing tends to have a lower positive yield compared to panel testing with other HR genes, as previously described [
28]. The overall pathogenic variant rate in OC (9.5%) is lower than published rates from other studies [
10,
23]. This can be attributed 873 women in the case cohort who underwent testing for
BRCA1 and/or
BRCA2 only.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.