↓ Skip to main content

Genetic Predisposition to In Situ and Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Genetics, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Genetic Predisposition to In Situ and Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast
Published in
PLoS Genetics, April 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004285
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elinor Sawyer, Rebecca Roylance, Christos Petridis, Mark N. Brook, Salpie Nowinski, Efterpi Papouli, Olivia Fletcher, Sarah Pinder, Andrew Hanby, Kelly Kohut, Patricia Gorman, Michele Caneppele, Julian Peto, Isabel dos Santos Silva, Nichola Johnson, Ruth Swann, Miriam Dwek, Katherine-Anne Perkins, Cheryl Gillett, Richard Houlston, Gillian Ross, Paolo De Ieso, Melissa C. Southey, John L. Hopper, Elena Provenzano, Carmel Apicella, Jelle Wesseling, Sten Cornelissen, Renske Keeman, Peter A. Fasching, Sebastian M. Jud, Arif B. Ekici, Matthias W. Beckmann, Michael J. Kerin, Federick Marme, Andreas Schneeweiss, Christof Sohn, Barbara Burwinkel, Pascal Guénel, Therese Truong, Pierre Laurent-Puig, Pierre Kerbrat, Stig E. Bojesen, Børge G. Nordestgaard, Sune F. Nielsen, Henrik Flyger, Roger L. Milne, Jose Ignacio Arias Perez, Primitiva Menéndez, Javier Benitez, Hermann Brenner, Aida Karina Dieffenbach, Volker Arndt, Christa Stegmaier, Alfons Meindl, Peter Lichtner, Rita K. Schmutzler, Magdalena Lochmann, Hiltrud Brauch, Hans-Peter Fischer, Yon-Dschun Ko, Heli Nevanlinna, Taru A. Muranen, Kristiina Aittomäki, Carl Blomqvist, Natalia V. Bogdanova, Thilo Dörk, Annika Lindblom, Sara Margolin, Arto Mannermaa, Vesa Kataja, Veli-Matti Kosma, Jaana M. Hartikainen, Georgia Chenevix-Trench, kConFab Investigators, Diether Lambrechts, Caroline Weltens, Erik Van Limbergen, Sigrid Hatse, Jenny Chang-Claude, Anja Rudolph, Petra Seibold, Dieter Flesch-Janys, Paolo Radice, Paolo Peterlongo, Bernardo Bonanni, Sara Volorio, Graham G. Giles, Gianluca Severi, Laura Baglietto, Catriona A. Mclean, Christopher A. Haiman, Brian E. Henderson, Fredrick Schumacher, Loic Le Marchand, Jacques Simard, Mark S. Goldberg, France Labrèche, Martine Dumont, Vessela Kristensen, Robert Winqvist, Katri Pylkäs, Arja Jukkola-Vuorinen, Saila Kauppila, Irene L. Andrulis, Julia A. Knight, Gord Glendon, Anna Marie Mulligan, Peter Devillee, Rob A. E. M. Tollenaar, Caroline M. Seynaeve, Mieke Kriege, Jonine Figueroa, Stephen J. Chanock, Mark E. Sherman, Maartje J. Hooning, Antoinette Hollestelle, Ans M. W. van den Ouweland, Carolien H. M. van Deurzen, Jingmei Li, Kamila Czene, Keith Humphreys, Angela Cox, Simon S. Cross, Malcolm W. R. Reed, Mitul Shah, Anna Jakubowska, Jan Lubinski, Katarzyna Jaworska-Bieniek, Katarzyna Durda, Anthony Swerdlow, Alan Ashworth, Nicholas Orr, Minouk Schoemaker, Fergus J. Couch, Emily Hallberg, Anna González-Neira, Guillermo Pita, M. Rosario Alonso, Daniel C. Tessier, Daniel Vincent, Francois Bacot, Manjeet K. Bolla, Qin Wang, Joe Dennis, Kyriaki Michailidou, Alison M. Dunning, Per Hall, Doug Easton, Paul Pharoah, Marjanka K. Schmidt, Ian Tomlinson, Montserrat Garcia-Closas

Abstract

Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) accounts for 10-15% of all invasive breast carcinomas. It is generally ER positive (ER+) and often associated with lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). Genome-wide association studies have identified more than 70 common polymorphisms that predispose to breast cancer, but these studies included predominantly ductal (IDC) carcinomas. To identify novel common polymorphisms that predispose to ILC and LCIS, we pooled data from 6,023 cases (5,622 ILC, 401 pure LCIS) and 34,271 controls from 36 studies genotyped using the iCOGS chip. Six novel SNPs most strongly associated with ILC/LCIS in the pooled analysis were genotyped in a further 516 lobular cases (482 ILC, 36 LCIS) and 1,467 controls. These analyses identified a lobular-specific SNP at 7q34 (rs11977670, OR (95%CI) for ILC = 1.13 (1.09-1.18), P = 6.0 × 10(-10); P-het for ILC vs IDC ER+ tumors = 1.8 × 10(-4)). Of the 75 known breast cancer polymorphisms that were genotyped, 56 were associated with ILC and 15 with LCIS at P<0.05. Two SNPs showed significantly stronger associations for ILC than LCIS (rs2981579/10q26/FGFR2, P-het = 0.04 and rs889312/5q11/MAP3K1, P-het = 0.03); and two showed stronger associations for LCIS than ILC (rs6678914/1q32/LGR6, P-het = 0.001 and rs1752911/6q14, P-het = 0.04). In addition, seven of the 75 known loci showed significant differences between ER+ tumors with IDC and ILC histology, three of these showing stronger associations for ILC (rs11249433/1p11, rs2981579/10q26/FGFR2 and rs10995190/10q21/ZNF365) and four associated only with IDC (5p12/rs10941679; rs2588809/14q24/RAD51L1, rs6472903/8q21 and rs1550623/2q31/CDCA7). In conclusion, we have identified one novel lobular breast cancer specific predisposition polymorphism at 7q34, and shown for the first time that common breast cancer polymorphisms predispose to LCIS. We have shown that many of the ER+ breast cancer predisposition loci also predispose to ILC, although there is some heterogeneity between ER+ lobular and ER+ IDC tumors. These data provide evidence for overlapping, but distinct etiological pathways within ER+ breast cancer between morphological subtypes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 98 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 16%
Researcher 14 14%
Professor 12 12%
Student > Master 10 10%
Other 8 8%
Other 30 29%
Unknown 12 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 18%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 15 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 31 October 2014.
All research outputs
#677,302
of 12,091,627 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Genetics
#928
of 6,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,789
of 198,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Genetics
#37
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,091,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,176 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
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 198,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.