The DOI matches its Crossref record; 92 of the 92 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Commonly Studied Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms and Breast Cancer: Results From the Breast Cancer Association Consortium
Abstract
Background: The Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) is an international collaboration that was established to provide large sample sizes for examining genetic associations. We conducted combined analyses on all single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) whose associations with breast cancer have been investigated by at least three participating groups. Methods: Data from up to 12 studies were pooled for each SNP ( ADH1C I350V, AURKA F31I, BRCA2 N372H, CASP8 D302H, ERCC2 D312N, IGFBP3 −202 c > a , LIG4 D501D, PGR V660L, SOD2 V16A, TGFB1 L10P, TP53 R72P, XRCC1 R399Q, XRCC2 R188H, XRCC3 T241M, XRCC3 5′ UTR, and XRCC3 IVS7-14). Genotype frequencies in case and control subjects were compared, and genotype-specific odds ratios for the risk of breast cancer in heterozygotes and homozygotes for the rare allele compared with homozygotes for the common allele were estimated with logistic regression. Statistical tests were two-sided. Results: The total number of subjects for analysis of each SNP ranged from 12 013 to 31 595. For five SNPs— CASP8 D302H, IGFBP3 −202 c > a , PGR V660L, SOD2 V16A, and TGFB1 L10P—the associations with breast cancer were of borderline statistical significance ( P = .016, .060, .047, .056, and .0088 respectively). The remaining 11 SNPs were not associated with breast cancer risk; genotype-specific odds ratios were close to unity. There was some evidence for between-study heterogeneity ( P <.05) for four of the 11 SNPs ( ADH1C I350V, ERCC2 D312N, XRCC1 R399Q, and XRCC3 IVS5-14). Conclusion: Pooling data within a large consortium has helped to clarify associations of SNPs with breast cancer. In the future, consortia such as the BCAC will be important in the analysis of rare polymorphisms and gene × gene or gene × environment interactions, for which individual studies have low power to identify associations, and in the validation of associations identified from genome-wide association studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Lichtenstein, P., Holm, N. V., Verkasalo, P. K., Iliadou, A., Kaprio, J., Koskenvuo, M., Pukkala, E., Skytthe, A., & Hemminki, K. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200007133430201 · Cited by 4,114
Lohmueller, K. E., Pearce, C. L., Pike, M., Lander, E. S., & Hirschhorn, J. N. (2003) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1071 · Cited by 1,900
Replication validity of genetic association studies
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Ntzani, E. E., Trikalinos, T. A., & Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G. (2001) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng749 · Cited by 1,832
Renehan, A. G., Zwahlen, M., Minder, C., O'Dwyer, S. T., Shalet, S. M., & Egger, M. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)16044-3 · Cited by 1,697
Problems of reporting genetic associations with complex outcomes
Colhoun, H. M., McKeigue, P. M., & Smith, G. D. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)12715-8 · Cited by 1,204
Candidate-gene approaches for studying complex genetic traits: practical considerations
Tabor, H. K., Risch, N. J., & Myers, R. M. (2002) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg796 · Cited by 1,076
Aldehydes: occurrence, carcinogenic potential, mechanism of action and risk assessment
Feron, V. J., Til, H. P., de Vrijer, F., Woutersen, R. A., Cassee, F. R., & van Bladeren, P. J. (1991) · Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology · doi:10.1016/0165-1218(91)90128-9 · Cited by 501
Piegorsch, W. W., Weinberg, C. R., & Taylor, J. A. (1994) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780130206 · Cited by 479
Identification of a novel p53 functional domain that is necessary for efficient growth suppression
Walker, K. K., & Levine, A. J. (1996) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.93.26.15335 · Cited by 471
Cited by
Genome-wide association study identifies novel breast cancer susceptibility loci
Easton, D. F., Pooley, K. A., Dunning, A. M., Pharoah, P. D. P., Thompson, D., Ballinger, D. G., Struewing, J. P., Morrison, J., Field, H., Luben, R., et al. (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05887 · Cited by 2,319
Blows, F. M., Driver, K. E., Schmidt, M. K., Broeks, A., van Leeuwen, F. E., Wesseling, J., Cheang, M. C., Gelmon, K., Nielsen, T. O., Blomqvist, C., et al. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000279 · Cited by 1,116
Stacey, S. N., Manolescu, A., Sulem, P., Rafnar, T., Gudmundsson, J., Gudjonsson, S. A., Masson, G., Jakobsdottir, M., Thorlacius, S., Helgason, A., et al. (2007) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng2064 · Cited by 786
p53 polymorphisms: cancer implications
Whibley, C., Pharoah, P. D. P., & Hollstein, M. (2009) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc2584 · Cited by 665
The emerging landscape of breast cancer susceptibility
Stratton, M. R., & Rahman, N. (2008) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.2007.53 · Cited by 487
Metadata
- Authors
- The Breast Cancer Association Consortium
- Venue
- JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-10-04
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 1382-1396
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2988844429
- Cited by
- 258
- References
- 92
- FWCI
- 16.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Commonly Studied Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms and Breast Cancer: Results From the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djj374
- The paper
- The Breast Cancer Association Consortium. (2006). Commonly Studied Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms and Breast Cancer: Results From the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj374
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
