Background:

Gonadotoxic treatment-related infertility has a significant impact on quality of life in childhood cancer survivors. Genome-wide association analyses to delineate the risk of infertility in childhood cancer survivors have not been previously reported.

Methods:

Leveraging genotype data from a large survivor cohort, the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS), we investigated the role of SNPs on future pregnancy or siring a pregnancy in survivors without pelvic, testicular, or brain radiation who had ever been married. We calculated sex-stratified hazard ratios, using Cox proportional hazards modeling, adjusting for birth cohort (before 1965 vs. 1965 or later) and doses of relevant chemotherapies; replication was attempted in the independent St. Jude Lifetime Cohort study (SJLIFE).

Results:

In the CCSS cohort, nine SNPs were found to be suggestive (P < 10–7) or statistically significantly (P < 5 × 10–8) associated with pregnancy, however, none of the SNPs were replicated in SJLIFE. Cohorts differed based on the overall pregnancy rate, frequency of sterilizing procedures, and birth cohort.

Conclusions:

We were not able to replicate our findings of SNPs associated with pregnancy in childhood cancer survivors.

Impact:

Future attempts at replication should be considered in cohorts treated in a comparable era. In addition, understanding the role of genetics in fertility in childhood cancer survivors may be better approached using more advanced sequencing techniques.

Infertility concerns have a significant impact on quality of life in survivors of childhood cancer (1). Emerging technologies and greater awareness are expanding the pool of childhood cancer patients who may be able to preserve fertility despite intensive therapy, though predicting risk of infertility remains challenging (1). Previous studies have found clear associations between gonadotoxic therapeutic exposures and subsequent risk of infertility (2). In addition, methods such as the cyclophosphamide equivalent dose (CED) for quantifying exposure to alkylating agents allow comparison of infertility risk across different treatment regimens, independent of primary cancer type (3). In the general population, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have explored the individual risk of infertility (4). However, genome-wide association analysis to delineate the likelihood of future pregnancy in childhood cancer survivors has not been previously attempted.

We performed a GWAS utilizing the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS), to examine the association between SNPs and pregnancy or siring a pregnancy. The CCSS is a multi-center, retrospective cohort of 25,665 5-year survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1970 and 1999, who are followed prospectively for the development of late-effects (2). We attempted replication for SNPs with a P < 10–7, utilizing the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort (SJLIFE) that includes individuals treated for childhood cancer at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (Memphis, TN) who had survived ≥5 years after diagnosis between 1962 and 2012 (5). Participants were excluded if they received radiation to the pelvis, testes, or brain, had a sterilizing surgical procedure prior to 5-year survival, were missing a CED, or were survivors of non-European genetic ancestry (Supplementary Fig. S1; refs. 2, 3). If patients had a sterilizing procedure after 5-year survival, analysis was censored at the time of the sterilizing procedure.

The CCSS conducted genotyping and imputation on 4.1 million loci (Illumina; Infinium Human Omni5 Exome-4 v1.0 array with imputation using the 1000 Genomes Phase 3 data as reference; ref. 6). SNPs passing quality control steps were included for analysis; SNPs were excluded if the minor allele frequency (MAF) was less than 0.05, were missing from more than 20% of subjects, or showed extreme deviation from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (P < 10–6). For imputed SNPs the INFO score needed to be ≥0.5 and the certainty core ≥0.95. For the SJLIFE cohort, whole-genome sequencing and quality control was performed as previously described (7).

We created sex-specific multivariable Cox proportional hazard models to relate SNPs with pregnancy using attained age as the time axis, starting the at-risk time from 5 years postdiagnosis or at age 15 years, whichever was later, and ending at the earliest of pregnancy, death last survey, or age 44. The models included CED (0; >0), birth year (<1965; ≥1965), and the first three principle coordinates of genotypes. Due to the association of marital status on pregnancy we restricted the analysis to married subjects. Power analyses were conducted using the R package (survSNP) for the CCSS cohort (8).

The data analyzed in this study were obtained from the CCSS (https://ccss.stjude.org/develop-a-study/gwa-data-resource.html). Clinical Data is maintained in a database managed by the CCSS and GWAS data was downloaded from dbGaP (https://dbgap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/aa/wga.cgi?page=login). CCSS dbGaP Study Accession: phs001327.v2.p1 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/gap/cgi-bin/study.cgi?study_id=phs001327.v2.p1). SJLIFE data including genotype data are available through: https://www.stjude.cloud/research-domains/cancer-survivorship.

The demographic and clinical characteristics of the two cohorts were generally similar with a few notable exceptions. CCSS participants were more likely to be born prior to 1965, less likely to have a sterilizing surgical procedure subsequent to 5-year survival, and had a higher rate of pregnancy/siring a pregnancy (Table 1). For male CCSS participants, our study had a power of 81% to detect a HR = 1.61 for MAF = 0.2 at a genome wide significance level of 5 × 10–8, assuming an additive model; the power was >90% for MAF > 0.3. For female CCSS participants, our study had 81% power to detect a HR = 1.52 for MAF = 0.2.

Table 1.

GWAS cohort stratified by sex and pregnancy/sired a pregnancy.

CCSS cohortSJLIFE cohort
FemaleMaleFemaleMale
VariableNever pregnant (N = 192)Any pregnant (N = 719)PNever sired pregnancy (N = 262)Any sired pregnancy (N = 536)PNever pregnant (N = 142)Any pregnancy (N = 347)PNever sired pregnancy (N = 256)Any sired pregnancy (N = 267)P
Age at primary cancer diagnosis (years), median (min, max) 7.0 (0, 20) 8.0 (0, 20) 0.99b 10 (0, 20) 8.0 (0, 20) 0.50b 9.5 (0.0, 21) 7.5 (0.0, 19.5) 0.11b 8.1 (0, 24) 9.4 (0, 20) 0.14b 
Age at last follow-up (years), median (min, max) 38 (21, 60) 40 (19, 62) 0.039b 42 (22, 62) 42 (22, 64) 0.56b 30.9 (19, 58) 36.8 (19, 64) <0.001b 34.8 (20, 61) 38.7 (19, 69) <0.001b 
Birth year prior to 1965, n (%) 41 (21%) 169 (24%) 0.53a 62 (24%) 122 (23%) 0.78a 5 (3.5%) 17 (4.9%) 0.50a 14 (5.5%) 18 (6.7%) 0.54a 
Hispanic, n (%)* 8 (4.2%) 32 (4.7%) 0.80a 6 (2.4%) 19 (3.7%) 0.31a 0 (0%) 0 (0%)  0 (0%) 0 (0%)  
Diagnosis, n (%)   0.23a   <0.001a   0.089a   0.16a 
 Leukemia 47 (24%) 216 (30%)  47 (18%) 119 (22%)  51 (36%) 114 (33%)  71 (28%) 63 (24%)  
 CNS tumor 21 (11%) 57 (7.9%)  9 (3.4%) 48 (9.0%)  4 (2.8%) 16 (4.6%)  7 (2.7%) 9 (3.4%)  
 Hodgkin disease 27 (14%) 77 (11%)  52 (20%) 52 (9.7%)  24 (17%) 41 (12%)  40 (16%) 43 (16%)  
 Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 14 (7.3%) 45 (6.3%)  27 (10%) 95 (18%)  8 (6%) 25 (7.2%)  25 (10%) 42 (16%)  
 Renal tumors 11 (5.7%) 55 (7.6%)  18 (6.9%) 35 (6.5%)  6 (4.2%) 29 (8.4%)  10 (3.9%) 19 (7.1%)  
 Neuroblastoma 26 (14%) 71 (9.9%)  23 (8.8%) 39 (7.3%)  12 (8.5%) 29 (8.4%)  18 (7.0%) 14 (5.2%)  
 Soft-tissue sarcoma 14 (7.3%) 76 (11%)  30 (11%) 66 (12%)  5 (3.5%) 23 (6.6%)  7 (2.7%) 11 (4.1%)  
 Bone tumors 32 (17%) 122 (17%)  56 (21%) 82 (15%)  20 (14%) 26 (7.5%)  39 (15%) 26 (10%)  
 Other tumors 0 (0) 0 (0)  0 (0) 0 (0)  12 (8.5%) 44 (13%)  39 (15%) 40 (15%)  
CED, n (%)   0.31b   <0.001b   0.90b   <0.001b 
 <1 mg/m2 102 (53%) 413 (57%)  109 (42%) 294 (55%)  77 (54%) 195 (56%)  102 (40%) 135 (51%)  
 1–3,999 mg/m2 19 (9.9%) 80 (11%)  16 (6.1%) 64 (12%)  13 (9.2%) 27 (7.8%)  28 (11%) 36 (14%)  
 4,000–7,999 mg/m2 33 (17%) 79 (11%)  40 (15%) 78 (15%)  30 (21%) 62 (18%)  48 (19%) 52 (20%)  
 8,000–11,999 mg/m2 14 (7.3%) 67 (9.3%)  32 (12%) 51 (9.5%)  20 (14%) 51 (15%)  51 (20%) 30 (11%)  
 ≥12,0000 mg/m2 24 (13%) 80 (11%)  65 (25%) 49 (9.1%)  2 (1.4%) 12 (3.5%)  27 (11%) 14 (5.2%)  
Sterilizing procedure, n (%)* 16 (8.4%) 101 (14%) 0.038a 4 (1.5%) 25 (4.7%) 0.027a 16 (11%) 94 (27%) <0.001a 20 (7.8%) 34 (13%) 0.06a 
CCSS cohortSJLIFE cohort
FemaleMaleFemaleMale
VariableNever pregnant (N = 192)Any pregnant (N = 719)PNever sired pregnancy (N = 262)Any sired pregnancy (N = 536)PNever pregnant (N = 142)Any pregnancy (N = 347)PNever sired pregnancy (N = 256)Any sired pregnancy (N = 267)P
Age at primary cancer diagnosis (years), median (min, max) 7.0 (0, 20) 8.0 (0, 20) 0.99b 10 (0, 20) 8.0 (0, 20) 0.50b 9.5 (0.0, 21) 7.5 (0.0, 19.5) 0.11b 8.1 (0, 24) 9.4 (0, 20) 0.14b 
Age at last follow-up (years), median (min, max) 38 (21, 60) 40 (19, 62) 0.039b 42 (22, 62) 42 (22, 64) 0.56b 30.9 (19, 58) 36.8 (19, 64) <0.001b 34.8 (20, 61) 38.7 (19, 69) <0.001b 
Birth year prior to 1965, n (%) 41 (21%) 169 (24%) 0.53a 62 (24%) 122 (23%) 0.78a 5 (3.5%) 17 (4.9%) 0.50a 14 (5.5%) 18 (6.7%) 0.54a 
Hispanic, n (%)* 8 (4.2%) 32 (4.7%) 0.80a 6 (2.4%) 19 (3.7%) 0.31a 0 (0%) 0 (0%)  0 (0%) 0 (0%)  
Diagnosis, n (%)   0.23a   <0.001a   0.089a   0.16a 
 Leukemia 47 (24%) 216 (30%)  47 (18%) 119 (22%)  51 (36%) 114 (33%)  71 (28%) 63 (24%)  
 CNS tumor 21 (11%) 57 (7.9%)  9 (3.4%) 48 (9.0%)  4 (2.8%) 16 (4.6%)  7 (2.7%) 9 (3.4%)  
 Hodgkin disease 27 (14%) 77 (11%)  52 (20%) 52 (9.7%)  24 (17%) 41 (12%)  40 (16%) 43 (16%)  
 Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 14 (7.3%) 45 (6.3%)  27 (10%) 95 (18%)  8 (6%) 25 (7.2%)  25 (10%) 42 (16%)  
 Renal tumors 11 (5.7%) 55 (7.6%)  18 (6.9%) 35 (6.5%)  6 (4.2%) 29 (8.4%)  10 (3.9%) 19 (7.1%)  
 Neuroblastoma 26 (14%) 71 (9.9%)  23 (8.8%) 39 (7.3%)  12 (8.5%) 29 (8.4%)  18 (7.0%) 14 (5.2%)  
 Soft-tissue sarcoma 14 (7.3%) 76 (11%)  30 (11%) 66 (12%)  5 (3.5%) 23 (6.6%)  7 (2.7%) 11 (4.1%)  
 Bone tumors 32 (17%) 122 (17%)  56 (21%) 82 (15%)  20 (14%) 26 (7.5%)  39 (15%) 26 (10%)  
 Other tumors 0 (0) 0 (0)  0 (0) 0 (0)  12 (8.5%) 44 (13%)  39 (15%) 40 (15%)  
CED, n (%)   0.31b   <0.001b   0.90b   <0.001b 
 <1 mg/m2 102 (53%) 413 (57%)  109 (42%) 294 (55%)  77 (54%) 195 (56%)  102 (40%) 135 (51%)  
 1–3,999 mg/m2 19 (9.9%) 80 (11%)  16 (6.1%) 64 (12%)  13 (9.2%) 27 (7.8%)  28 (11%) 36 (14%)  
 4,000–7,999 mg/m2 33 (17%) 79 (11%)  40 (15%) 78 (15%)  30 (21%) 62 (18%)  48 (19%) 52 (20%)  
 8,000–11,999 mg/m2 14 (7.3%) 67 (9.3%)  32 (12%) 51 (9.5%)  20 (14%) 51 (15%)  51 (20%) 30 (11%)  
 ≥12,0000 mg/m2 24 (13%) 80 (11%)  65 (25%) 49 (9.1%)  2 (1.4%) 12 (3.5%)  27 (11%) 14 (5.2%)  
Sterilizing procedure, n (%)* 16 (8.4%) 101 (14%) 0.038a 4 (1.5%) 25 (4.7%) 0.027a 16 (11%) 94 (27%) <0.001a 20 (7.8%) 34 (13%) 0.06a 

Note: P values: a, Pearson's χ2 test; b, Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

Abbreviations: min, minimum; max, maximum; CNS, central nervous system; CED, cyclophosphamide equivalent dose.

*Data not available for all subjects. Missing values in CCSS males: Hispanic = 37; sterilizing procedure = 6. Missing values in CCSS females: Hispanic = 36; sterilizing procedure = 5. Missing values in SJLIFE males: sterilizing procedure = 6. Missing values in SJLIFE females: sterilizing procedure = 6.

In the CCSS cohort, using our GWAS model, one SNP had a P < 5.0 × 10–8 and eight SNPs were in the range of P < 10–7 with HRs ranging from 1.35 to 1.84 (Table 2). None of the nine SNPs was associated with a statistically significant impact on pregnancy/siring a pregnancy in the replication cohort.

Table 2.

Suggestive and significant GWAS SNPs.

CCSS CohortSJLIFE Cohort
#Pregnancy/sired a pregnancyrsIDChrPositionRisk alleleLocationNearest geneNearest gene functionPotential role in fertility/pregnancyRAFHRPRAFHRPPower (α = 0.05)Power (α = 0.05/9)
Pregnancy rs61784815 77166140 Intergenic ST6GALNAC3 Transfer sialic acids to terminal positions of carbohydrate groups in glycoproteins and glycolipids Unclear 0.117 1.48 5.3E-07 0.123 1.21 0.111 0.87 0.62 
Pregnancy rs6773487 93640771 Intronic PROS1 Protein S: vitamin K-dependent plasma protein that functions as a cofactor for the anticoagulant protease, activated protein C Venous thromboembolism risk during pregnancy 0.195 1.38 7.7E-07 0.180 1.09 0.374 0.80 0.51 
Pregnancy rs4857343 93645047 Intronic    0.195 1.38 7.7E-07 0.180 1.09 0.374 0.80 0.51 
Pregnancy rs6866644 118619993 Intronic TNFAIP8 Negative mediator of apoptosis. Suppresses the TNF-mediated apoptosis by inhibiting caspase-8 activity Upregulated in endometrial tissue 0.163 1.48 2.2E-08 0.155 1.00 0.960 0.91 0.71 
Pregnancy rs62375089 118633916 Intronic    0.165 1.40 6.3E-07 
Pregnancy rs62375091 118637291 Intronic    0.169 1.40 7.4E-07 0.174 1.02 0.884 0.83 0.56 
Pregnancy rs6595183 118649282 Intronic    0.254 1.35 3.6E-07 0.246 0.98 0.811 0.79 0.50 
Siring pregnancy rs2405853 51733627 Intergenic PELO Encodes a protein which contains a conserved nuclear localization signal Role in spermatogenesis, cell cycle control, and in meiotic cell division 0.061 1.84 3.6E-07 0.075 1.19 0.296 0.94 0.77 
Siring pregnancy rs2405832 51737908 Intergenic    0.060 1.82 5.6E-07 0.074 1.17 0.350 0.93 0.75 
CCSS CohortSJLIFE Cohort
#Pregnancy/sired a pregnancyrsIDChrPositionRisk alleleLocationNearest geneNearest gene functionPotential role in fertility/pregnancyRAFHRPRAFHRPPower (α = 0.05)Power (α = 0.05/9)
Pregnancy rs61784815 77166140 Intergenic ST6GALNAC3 Transfer sialic acids to terminal positions of carbohydrate groups in glycoproteins and glycolipids Unclear 0.117 1.48 5.3E-07 0.123 1.21 0.111 0.87 0.62 
Pregnancy rs6773487 93640771 Intronic PROS1 Protein S: vitamin K-dependent plasma protein that functions as a cofactor for the anticoagulant protease, activated protein C Venous thromboembolism risk during pregnancy 0.195 1.38 7.7E-07 0.180 1.09 0.374 0.80 0.51 
Pregnancy rs4857343 93645047 Intronic    0.195 1.38 7.7E-07 0.180 1.09 0.374 0.80 0.51 
Pregnancy rs6866644 118619993 Intronic TNFAIP8 Negative mediator of apoptosis. Suppresses the TNF-mediated apoptosis by inhibiting caspase-8 activity Upregulated in endometrial tissue 0.163 1.48 2.2E-08 0.155 1.00 0.960 0.91 0.71 
Pregnancy rs62375089 118633916 Intronic    0.165 1.40 6.3E-07 
Pregnancy rs62375091 118637291 Intronic    0.169 1.40 7.4E-07 0.174 1.02 0.884 0.83 0.56 
Pregnancy rs6595183 118649282 Intronic    0.254 1.35 3.6E-07 0.246 0.98 0.811 0.79 0.50 
Siring pregnancy rs2405853 51733627 Intergenic PELO Encodes a protein which contains a conserved nuclear localization signal Role in spermatogenesis, cell cycle control, and in meiotic cell division 0.061 1.84 3.6E-07 0.075 1.19 0.296 0.94 0.77 
Siring pregnancy rs2405832 51737908 Intergenic    0.060 1.82 5.6E-07 0.074 1.17 0.350 0.93 0.75 

Note: Suggestive (P < 10–7) and significant (P < 5 × 10–8) GWAS SNPs from CCSS cohort with attempted replication in the SJLife cohort; P calculated by multivariable Cox regression adjusting for cyclophosphamide equivalent dose, birth year, and three principle coordinates.

Abbreviations: rsID, reference SNP identification; Chr, chromosome number; GRCh37, Genome Reference Consortium Human Build 37; RAF, Risk Allele Frequency.

*SNP no. 5 did not pass quality control in the SJLife cohort for analysis.

We performed a GWAS to determine the association of SNPs with the likelihood of pregnancy or siring a pregnancy in a large cohort of childhood cancer survivors. Although several SNPs were potentially associated with pregnancy in the discovery cohort, none was replicated in an independent cohort. We were unable to examine the risk of clinical infertility or biochemical markers of subfertility. Infertility is multifactorial, and our study may not have been able to incorporate all pertinent factors. Indeed the ability to conceive (if desired by the patient) is the outcome with the greatest clinical relevance; however, data on patient desires or clinical infertility were not available for analysis. Likewise, another limitation of the study was that the questionnaire asked participants if they had ever been married, but did not specify whether the marriage was heterosexual. Although models in both cohorts made adjustments for birth cohort and CED, the two cohorts differed in regards to birth cohort, sterilizing procedures and overall rate of pregnancy. We did not include factors such as “desire to become pregnant” or use of assisted reproductive technology; these could have differed by birth cohorts. Overall, the SJLIFE cohort was born more recently and may have had greater access to assisted reproductive techniques compared with the CCSS cohort. Together these differences might explain why the findings in the CCSS cohort did not replicate. These limitations notwithstanding, our study demonstrates a need to continue to explore the role of genetic susceptibility in determining the risk of infertility among childhood cancer survivors.

S.J. Rotz reports grants from National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Resource for Clinical Investigation in Blood and Marrow Transplantation (RCI BMT) outside the submitted work. M.M. Hudson reports grants from NCI U01 CA195547 during the conduct of the study. K.C. Oeffinger reports other support from GRAIL, LLC outside the submitted work. L.L. Robison reports grants from NCI during the conduct of the study. D. Sahoo reports other support from Shanvi outside the submitted work. G.T. Armstrong reports grants from St. Jude Children's Research Hospital during the conduct of the study. No disclosures were reported by the other authors.

S.J. Rotz: Conceptualization, resources, data curation, formal analysis, supervision, investigation, writing–original draft, project administration, writing–review and editing. S. Worley: Data curation, software, formal analysis, investigation, writing–review and editing. B. Hu: Software, formal analysis, investigation, visualization, methodology, writing–review and editing. P. Bazeley: Data curation, software, formal analysis, methodology, writing–review and editing. J.L. Baedke: Data curation, software, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, writing–review and editing. M.M. Hudson: Conceptualization, resources, supervision, funding acquisition, validation, writing–review and editing. D.J. Kuo: Conceptualization, validation, investigation, methodology, writing–review and editing. K.C. Oeffinger: Conceptualization, resources, methodology, writing–review and editing. L.L. Robison: Conceptualization, resources, funding acquisition, methodology, writing–review and editing. D. Sahoo: Conceptualization, data curation, software, methodology, writing–review and editing. F. Wang: Data curation, software, formal analysis, investigation, writing–review and editing. Y. Yasui: Conceptualization, resources, data curation, formal analysis, supervision, validation, methodology, writing–review and editing. G.T. Armstrong: Conceptualization, resources, data curation, formal analysis, supervision, investigation, methodology, project administration, writing–review and editing. S. Bhatia: Conceptualization, resources, validation, investigation, methodology, project administration, writing–review and editing.

This work was supported by the NCI (grant no. CA55727 to G.T. Armstrong, principal investigator). Support to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital was also provided by the NCI (grant no. NCI U01 CA195547 to M.M. Hudson, principal investigator), Cancer Center Support (CORE) grant (grant no. CA21765 to C. Roberts, principal investigator) and the American Lebanese-Syrian Associated Charities (ALSAC). Support to Seth Rotz was provided from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (2KL2TR002547, Raed Dweik, principal investigator).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention Online (http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/).

1.
Moravek
MB
,
Appiah
LC
,
Anazodo
A
,
Burns
KC
,
Gomez-Lobo
V
,
Hoefgen
HR
, et al
.
Development of a pediatric fertility preservation program: a report from the pediatric initiative network of the oncofertility consortium
.
J Adolesc Health
2019
;
64
:
563
73
.
2.
Chow
EJ
,
Stratton
KL
,
Leisenring
WM
,
Oeffinger
KC
,
Sklar
CA
,
Donaldson
SS
, et al
.
Pregnancy after chemotherapy in male and female survivors of childhood cancer treated between 1970 and 1999: a report from the childhood cancer survivor study cohort
.
Lancet Oncol
2016
;
17
:
567
76
.
3.
Green
DM
,
Nolan
VG
,
Goodman
PJ
,
Whitton
JA
,
Srivastava
D
,
Leisenring
WM
, et al
.
The cyclophosphamide equivalent dose as an approach for quantifying alkylating agent exposure: a report from the childhood cancer survivor study
.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2014
;
61
:
53
67
.
4.
Aston
KI
.
Genetic susceptibility to male infertility: news from genome-wide association studies
.
androl
2014
;
2
:
315
21
.
5.
Hudson
MM
,
Ness
KK
,
Gurney
JG
,
Mulrooney
DA
,
Chemaitilly
W
,
Krull
KR
, et al
.
Clinical ascertainment of health outcomes among adults treated for childhood cancer
.
JAMA
2013
;
309
:
2371
81
.
6.
Morton
LM
,
Sampson
JN
,
Armstrong
GT
,
Chen
T-H
,
Hudson
MM
,
Karlins
E
, et al
.
Genome-wide association study to identify susceptibility loci that modify radiation-related risk for breast cancer after childhood cancer
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2017
;
109
:
djx058
.
7.
Sapkota
Y
,
Cheung
YT
,
Moon
W
,
Shelton
K
,
Wilson
CL
,
Wang
Z
, et al
.
Whole–genome sequencing of childhood cancer survivors treated with cranial radiation therapy identifies 5p15. 33 locus for stroke: A report from the St. Jude lifetime cohort study
.
Clin Cancer Res
2019
;
25
:
6700
8
.
8.
Owzar
K
,
Li
Z
,
Cox
N
,
Jung
SH
.
Power and sample size calculations for SNP association studies with censored time-to-event outcomes
.
Genet Epidemiol
2012
;
36
:
538
48
.

Supplementary data