Angela Cox
University of Sheffield
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Angela Cox.
PLOS Medicine | 2010
Fiona Blows; Kristy Driver; Marjanka K. Schmidt; Annegien Broeks; Flora E. van Leeuwen; Jelle Wesseling; Maggie Cheang; Karen A. Gelmon; Torsten O. Nielsen; Carl Blomqvist; Päivi Heikkilä; Tuomas Heikkinen; Heli Nevanlinna; Lars A. Akslen; Louis R. Bégin; William D. Foulkes; Fergus J. Couch; Xianshu Wang; Vicky Cafourek; Janet E. Olson; Laura Baglietto; Graham G. Giles; Gianluca Severi; Catriona McLean; Melissa C. Southey; Emad A. Rakha; Andrew R. Green; Ian O. Ellis; Mark E. Sherman; Jolanta Lissowska
Paul Pharoah and colleagues evaluate the prognostic significance of immunohistochemical subtype classification in more than 10,000 breast cancer cases with early disease, and examine the influence of a patients survival time on the prediction of future survival.
Nature Genetics | 2007
Angela Cox; Alison M. Dunning; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Sabapathy P. Balasubramanian; Malcolm Reed; Karen A. Pooley; Serena Scollen; Caroline Baynes; Bruce A.J. Ponder; Stephen J. Chanock; Jolanta Lissowska; Louise A. Brinton; Beata Peplonska; Melissa C. Southey; John L. Hopper; Margaret McCredie; Graham G. Giles; Olivia Fletcher; Nichola Johnson; Isabel dos Santos Silva; Lorna Gibson; Stig E. Bojesen; Børge G. Nordestgaard; Christen K. Axelsson; Diana Torres; Ute Hamann; Christina Justenhoven; Hiltrud Brauch; Jenny Chang-Claude; Silke Kropp
The Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) has been established to conduct combined case-control analyses with augmented statistical power to try to confirm putative genetic associations with breast cancer. We genotyped nine SNPs for which there was some prior evidence of an association with breast cancer: CASP8 D302H (rs1045485), IGFBP3 −202 C → A (rs2854744), SOD2 V16A (rs1799725), TGFB1 L10P (rs1982073), ATM S49C (rs1800054), ADH1B 3′ UTR A → G (rs1042026), CDKN1A S31R (rs1801270), ICAM5 V301I (rs1056538) and NUMA1 A794G (rs3750913). We included data from 9–15 studies, comprising 11,391–18,290 cases and 14,753–22,670 controls. We found evidence of an association with breast cancer for CASP8 D302H (with odds ratios (OR) of 0.89 (95% confidence interval (c.i.): 0.85–0.94) and 0.74 (95% c.i.: 0.62–0.87) for heterozygotes and rare homozygotes, respectively, compared with common homozygotes; Ptrend = 1.1 × 10−7) and weaker evidence for TGFB1 L10P (OR = 1.07 (95% c.i.: 1.02–1.13) and 1.16 (95% c.i.: 1.08–1.25), respectively; Ptrend = 2.8 × 10−5). These results demonstrate that common breast cancer susceptibility alleles with small effects on risk can be identified, given sufficiently powerful studies.NOTE: In the version of this article initially published, there was an error that affected the calculations of the odds ratios, confidence intervals, between-study heterogeneity, trend test and test for association for SNP ICAM5 V301I in Table 1 (ICAM5 V301I); genotype counts in Supplementary Table 2 (ICAM5; ICR_FBCS and Kuopio studies) and minor allele frequencies, trend test and odds ratios for heterozygotes and rare homozygotes in Supplementary Table 3 (ICAM5; ICR_FBCS and Kuopio studies). The errors in Table 1 have been corrected in the PDF version of the article. The errors in supplementary information have been corrected online.
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2015
Fergus J. Couch; Steven N. Hart; Priyanka Sharma; Amanda Ewart Toland; Xianshu Wang; Penelope Miron; Janet E. Olson; Andrew K. Godwin; V. Shane Pankratz; Curtis Olswold; Seth W. Slettedahl; Emily Hallberg; Lucia Guidugli; Jaime Davila; Matthias W. Beckmann; Wolfgang Janni; Brigitte Rack; Arif B. Ekici; Dennis J. Slamon; Irene Konstantopoulou; Florentia Fostira; Athanassios Vratimos; George Fountzilas; Liisa M. Pelttari; William Tapper; Lorraine Durcan; Simon S. Cross; Robert Pilarski; Charles L. Shapiro; Jennifer R. Klemp
PURPOSE Recent advances in DNA sequencing have led to the development of breast cancer susceptibility gene panels for germline genetic testing of patients. We assessed the frequency of mutations in 17 predisposition genes, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, in a large cohort of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) unselected for family history of breast or ovarian cancer to determine the utility of germline genetic testing for those with TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with TNBC (N = 1,824) unselected for family history of breast or ovarian cancer were recruited through 12 studies, and germline DNA was sequenced to identify mutations. RESULTS Deleterious mutations were identified in 14.6% of all patients. Of these, 11.2% had mutations in the BRCA1 (8.5%) and BRCA2 (2.7%) genes. Deleterious mutations in 15 other predisposition genes were detected in 3.7% of patients, with the majority observed in genes involved in homologous recombination, including PALB2 (1.2%) and BARD1, RAD51D, RAD51C, and BRIP1 (0.3% to 0.5%). Patients with TNBC with mutations were diagnosed at an earlier age (P < .001) and had higher-grade tumors (P = .01) than those without mutations. CONCLUSION Deleterious mutations in predisposition genes are present at high frequency in patients with TNBC unselected for family history of cancer. Mutation prevalence estimates suggest that patients with TNBC, regardless of age at diagnosis or family history of cancer, should be considered for germline genetic testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Although mutations in other predisposition genes are observed among patients with TNBC, better cancer risk estimates are needed before these mutations are used for clinical risk assessment in relatives.
Breast Cancer Research | 2013
Suzanne A. Eccles; Eric O. Aboagye; Simak Ali; Annie S. Anderson; Jo Armes; Fedor Berditchevski; Jeremy P. Blaydes; Keith Brennan; Nicola J. Brown; Helen E. Bryant; N.J. Bundred; Joy Burchell; Anna Campbell; Jason S. Carroll; Robert B. Clarke; Charlotte E. Coles; Gary Cook; Angela Cox; Nicola J. Curtin; Lodewijk V. Dekker; Isabel dos Santos Silva; Stephen W. Duffy; Douglas F. Easton; Diana Eccles; Dylan R. Edwards; Joanne Edwards; D. G. Evans; Deborah Fenlon; James M. Flanagan; Claire Foster
IntroductionBreast cancer remains a significant scientific, clinical and societal challenge. This gap analysis has reviewed and critically assessed enduring issues and new challenges emerging from recent research, and proposes strategies for translating solutions into practice.MethodsMore than 100 internationally recognised specialist breast cancer scientists, clinicians and healthcare professionals collaborated to address nine thematic areas: genetics, epigenetics and epidemiology; molecular pathology and cell biology; hormonal influences and endocrine therapy; imaging, detection and screening; current/novel therapies and biomarkers; drug resistance; metastasis, angiogenesis, circulating tumour cells, cancer ‘stem’ cells; risk and prevention; living with and managing breast cancer and its treatment. The groups developed summary papers through an iterative process which, following further appraisal from experts and patients, were melded into this summary account.ResultsThe 10 major gaps identified were: (1) understanding the functions and contextual interactions of genetic and epigenetic changes in normal breast development and during malignant transformation; (2) how to implement sustainable lifestyle changes (diet, exercise and weight) and chemopreventive strategies; (3) the need for tailored screening approaches including clinically actionable tests; (4) enhancing knowledge of molecular drivers behind breast cancer subtypes, progression and metastasis; (5) understanding the molecular mechanisms of tumour heterogeneity, dormancy, de novo or acquired resistance and how to target key nodes in these dynamic processes; (6) developing validated markers for chemosensitivity and radiosensitivity; (7) understanding the optimal duration, sequencing and rational combinations of treatment for improved personalised therapy; (8) validating multimodality imaging biomarkers for minimally invasive diagnosis and monitoring of responses in primary and metastatic disease; (9) developing interventions and support to improve the survivorship experience; (10) a continuing need for clinical material for translational research derived from normal breast, blood, primary, relapsed, metastatic and drug-resistant cancers with expert bioinformatics support to maximise its utility. The proposed infrastructural enablers include enhanced resources to support clinically relevant in vitro and in vivo tumour models; improved access to appropriate, fully annotated clinical samples; extended biomarker discovery, validation and standardisation; and facilitated cross-discipline working.ConclusionsWith resources to conduct further high-quality targeted research focusing on the gaps identified, increased knowledge translating into improved clinical care should be achievable within five years.
Human Genetics | 1996
Alexandra I. F. Blakemore; Angela Cox; Ana-Maria Gonzalez; Joanna K. Maskill; Marianne E. Hughes; R. Malcolm Wilson; John D. Ward; Gordon W. Duff
We have previously found association between an allele of the interleukin-1 (IL-1) receptor antagonist gene (ILIRN) and several inflammatory diseases, where IL-1 has been implicated in the inflammatory mechanism. We have now, therefore, tested the association of this specific allele (ILIRN*2) with complications of diabetes which have an inflammatory tissue component. We have tested the allele frequency of ILIRN*2 in 128 patients with insulin-dependent and 125 with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM). There was a significant association between carriage of ILIRN*2 and diabetic nephropathy (P < 0.0001,Pcorrected < 0.0012). The association was significant in both types of diabetes, but the observed increase was highest in NIDDM, rising to double the control levels. It appears that ILIRN*2 is a novel genetic marker of severity of inflammatory complications of diseases rather than a marker of disease susceptibility. If the DNA polymorphism is associated with altered gene function, new therapeutic interventions may be possible.
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention | 2008
Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Douglas F. Easton; Janet L. Stanford; Elaine A. Ostrander; Johanna Schleutker; Sue A. Ingles; Daniel J. Schaid; Stephen N. Thibodeau; Thilo Dörk; David E. Neal; Angela Cox; Christiane Maier; Walter Vogel; Michelle Guy; Kenneth Muir; Artitaya Lophatananon; Mary-Anne Kedda; Amanda B. Spurdle; Suzanne K. Steginga; Esther M. John; Graham G. Giles; John L. Hopper; Pierre O. Chappuis; Pierre Hutter; William D. Foulkes; Nancy Hamel; Claudia A. Salinas; Joseph S. Koopmeiners; Danielle M. Karyadi; Bo Johanneson
A recent genome-wide association study found that genetic variants on chromosomes 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 19 and X were associated with prostate cancer risk. We evaluated the most significant single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in these loci using a worldwide consortium of 13 groups (PRACTICAL). Blood DNA from 7,370 prostate cancer cases and 5,742 male controls was analyzed by genotyping assays. Odds ratios (OR) associated with each genotype were estimated using unconditional logistic regression. Six of the seven SNPs showed clear evidence of association with prostate cancer (P = 0.0007-P = 10−17). For each of these six SNPs, the estimated per-allele OR was similar to those previously reported and ranged from 1.12 to 1.29. One SNP on 3p12 (rs2660753) showed a weaker association than previously reported [per-allele OR, 1.08 (95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.16; P = 0.06) versus 1.18 (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.31)]. The combined risks associated with each pair of SNPs were consistent with a multiplicative risk model. Under this model, and in combination with previously reported SNPs on 8q and 17q, these loci explain 16% of the familial risk of the disease, and men in the top 10% of the risk distribution have a 2.1-fold increased risk relative to general population rates. This study provides strong confirmation of these susceptibility loci in multiple populations and shows that they make an important contribution to prostate cancer risk prediction. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(8):2052–61)
Human Genetics | 1996
F. E. Clay; Joanna K. Tarlow; Michael J. Cork; Angela Cox; Martin J.H. Nicklin; Gordon W. Duff
A variable number of tandem repeats (VNTR) polymorphism has been described in intron 2 of the interleukin-1 receptor antagonist gene. Allele 2 of this polymorphism is associated with many chronic inflammatory diseases. Using direct sequencing of polymerase chain reaction products from individuals of known genotype for the VNTR, we have identified four single base change polymorphisms in exons 1c and 2 and one upstream of exon 1ic all of which are probably in linkage disequilibium with the intron 2 VNTR. The exonic polymorphisms do not alter the encoded amino acid sequence. Using the exon 2 polymorphism as a marker for the intron 2 disease-associated allele, we have been able to analyse allele-specific mRNA in heterozygotic keratinocyte cell lines. The disease-associated allele shows no difference from other alleles in this cell type with respect to mRNA accumulation.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute | 2009
Roger L. Milne; Javier Benitez; Heli Nevanlinna; Tuomas Heikkinen; Kristiina Aittomäki; Carl Blomqvist; José Ignacio Arias; M. Pilar Zamora; Barbara Burwinkel; Claus R. Bartram; Alfons Meindl; Rita K. Schmutzler; Angela Cox; Ian W. Brock; Graeme Elliott; Malcolm Reed; Melissa C. Southey; Letitia Smith; Amanda B. Spurdle; John L. Hopper; Fergus J. Couch; Janet E. Olson; Xianshu Wang; Zachary S. Fredericksen; Peter Schürmann; Michael Bremer; Peter Hillemanns; Thilo Dörk; Peter Devilee; Christie J. van Asperen
BACKGROUND A recent genome-wide association study identified single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) 2q35-rs13387042 as a marker of susceptibility to estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. We attempted to confirm this association using the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. METHODS 2q35-rs13387042 SNP was genotyped for 31 510 women with invasive breast cancer, 1101 women with ductal carcinoma in situ, and 35 969 female control subjects from 25 studies. Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated by logistic regression, adjusted for study. Heterogeneity in odds ratios by each of age, ethnicity, and study was assessed by fitting interaction terms. Heterogeneity by each of invasiveness, family history, bilaterality, and hormone receptor status was assessed by subclassifying case patients and applying polytomous logistic regression. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS We found strong evidence of association between rs13387042 and breast cancer in white women of European origin (per-allele OR = 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09 to 1.15; P(trend) = 1.0 x 10(-19)). The odds ratio was lower than that previously reported (P = .02) and did not vary by age or ethnicity (all P > or = .2). However, it was higher when the analysis was restricted to case patients who were selected for a strong family history (P = .02). An association was observed for both ER-positive (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.17; P = 10(-15)) and ER-negative disease (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.15; P = .0003) and both progesterone receptor (PR)-positive (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.19; P = 5 x 10(-14)) and PR-negative disease (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.15; P = .00002). CONCLUSION The rs13387042 is associated with both ER-positive and ER-negative breast cancer in European women.
Breast Cancer Research | 2008
Alastair M. Thompson; Keith Brennan; Angela Cox; Julia Margaret Wendy Gee; Diana Harcourt; Adrian L. Harris; Michelle Harvie; Ingunn Holen; Anthony Howell; Robert Ian Nicholson; Michael Steel; Charles H. Streuli
BackgroundA gap analysis was conducted to determine which areas of breast cancer research, if targeted by researchers and funding bodies, could produce the greatest impact on patients.MethodsFifty-six Breast Cancer Campaign grant holders and prominent UK breast cancer researchers participated in a gap analysis of current breast cancer research. Before, during and following the meeting, groups in seven key research areas participated in cycles of presentation, literature review and discussion. Summary papers were prepared by each group and collated into this position paper highlighting the research gaps, with recommendations for action.ResultsGaps were identified in all seven themes. General barriers to progress were lack of financial and practical resources, and poor collaboration between disciplines. Critical gaps in each theme included: (1) genetics (knowledge of genetic changes, their effects and interactions); (2) initiation of breast cancer (how developmental signalling pathways cause ductal elongation and branching at the cellular level and influence stem cell dynamics, and how their disruption initiates tumour formation); (3) progression of breast cancer (deciphering the intracellular and extracellular regulators of early progression, tumour growth, angiogenesis and metastasis); (4) therapies and targets (understanding who develops advanced disease); (5) disease markers (incorporating intelligent trial design into all studies to ensure new treatments are tested in patient groups stratified using biomarkers); (6) prevention (strategies to prevent oestrogen-receptor negative tumours and the long-term effects of chemoprevention for oestrogen-receptor positive tumours); (7) psychosocial aspects of cancer (the use of appropriate psychosocial interventions, and the personal impact of all stages of the disease among patients from a range of ethnic and demographic backgrounds).ConclusionThrough recommendations to address these gaps with future research, the long-term benefits to patients will include: better estimation of risk in families with breast cancer and strategies to reduce risk; better prediction of drug response and patient prognosis; improved tailoring of treatments to patient subgroups and development of new therapeutic approaches; earlier initiation of treatment; more effective use of resources for screening populations; and an enhanced experience for people with or at risk of breast cancer and their families. The challenge to funding bodies and researchers in all disciplines is to focus on these gaps and to drive advances in knowledge into improvements in patient care.
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2012
Maren Weischer; Børge G. Nordestgaard; Paul Pharoah; Manjeet K. Bolla; Heli Nevanlinna; Laura J. van't Veer; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; John L. Hopper; Per Hall; Irene L. Andrulis; Peter Devilee; Peter A. Fasching; Hoda Anton-Culver; Diether Lambrechts; Maartje J. Hooning; Angela Cox; Graham G. Giles; Barbara Burwinkel; Annika Lindblom; Fergus J. Couch; Arto Mannermaa; Grethe Grenaker Alnæs; Esther M. John; Thilo Dörk; Henrik Flyger; Alison M. Dunning; Qin Wang; Taru A. Muranen; Richard van Hien; Jonine D. Figueroa
PURPOSE We tested the hypotheses that CHEK2*1100delC heterozygosity is associated with increased risk of early death, breast cancer-specific death, and risk of a second breast cancer in women with a first breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS From 22 studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium, 25,571 white women with invasive breast cancer were genotyped for CHEK2*1100delC and observed for up to 20 years (median, 6.6 years). We examined risk of early death and breast cancer-specific death by estrogen receptor status and risk of a second breast cancer after a first breast cancer in prospective studies. RESULTS CHEK2*1100delC heterozygosity was found in 459 patients (1.8%). In women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, multifactorially adjusted hazard ratios for heterozygotes versus noncarriers were 1.43 (95% CI, 1.12 to 1.82; log-rank P = .004) for early death and 1.63 (95% CI, 1.24 to 2.15; log-rank P < .001) for breast cancer-specific death. In all women, hazard ratio for a second breast cancer was 2.77 (95% CI, 2.00 to 3.83; log-rank P < .001) increasing to 3.52 (95% CI, 2.35 to 5.27; log-rank P < .001) in women with estrogen receptor-positive first breast cancer only. CONCLUSION Among women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, CHEK2*1100delC heterozygosity was associated with a 1.4-fold risk of early death, a 1.6-fold risk of breast cancer-specific death, and a 3.5-fold risk of a second breast cancer. This is one of the few examples of a genetic factor that influences long-term prognosis being documented in an extensive series of women with breast cancer.