Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

npj Breast Cancer
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • My Account Login
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. npj breast cancer
  3. articles
  4. article
No evidence for genotype-treatment interactions with breast cancer endocrine therapy adverse effects in UK Biobank
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 26 February 2026

No evidence for genotype-treatment interactions with breast cancer endocrine therapy adverse effects in UK Biobank

  • Kinan Mokbel1,2,
  • Michael N. Weedon2,
  • Victoria Moye2,
  • Katherine S. Ruth2 &
  • …
  • Leigh Jackson2 

npj Breast Cancer , Article number:  (2026) Cite this article

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

Subjects

  • Cancer
  • Diseases
  • Genetics
  • Oncology
  • Risk factors

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide. Earlier studies have demonstrated that breast cancer patients with particular genomic variants are more susceptible to adverse drug effects (ADEs) when they are receiving endocrine therapy. However, to establish a robust body of evidence with regard to the potential utility and predictive value of these variants, findings from these reports require replication. This study aimed to validate previously reported associations between genomic variants and medically important adverse drug effects (MIADEs) using UK Biobank (UKBB). In 2729 female participants who had received endocrine therapy in the UKBB, no statistically significant genotype-treatment interactions were observed for the outcomes examined after correction for multiple testing. Power was limited for modest interactions involving low-frequency variants and less frequent outcomes, whereas power was high to detect larger interaction effects in common-variant scenarios. Accordingly, the findings do not provide robust evidence to support previously reported pharmacogenomic associations in this dataset, and current evidence does not support the use of pharmacogenomic testing for individualised endocrine therapy selection in clinical practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

Lessons learned from a candidate gene study investigating aromatase inhibitor treatment outcome in breast cancer

Article Open access 19 February 2025

Serial single-cell genomics reveals convergent subclonal evolution of resistance as patients with early-stage breast cancer progress on endocrine plus CDK4/6 therapy

Article 03 June 2021

Genomic hallmarks of endocrine therapy resistance in ER/PR+HER2- breast tumours

Article Open access 10 February 2025

Data availability

The genetic and phenotypic data from the UK Biobank can be accessed by applying through their website (www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/register-apply). We cannot directly grant access to the specific data fields used in this study. All other data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

References

  1. Sung, H. et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 71, 209–49 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Burstein, H. J., Prestrud, A. A. & Griggs, J. J. American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline: update on adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 3784–96 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Davies, C. et al. Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial. Lancet 381, 805–16 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rydén, L., Heibert Arnlind, M., Vitols, S., Höistad, M. & Ahlgren, J. Aromatase inhibitors alone or sequentially combined with tamoxifen in postmenopausal early breast cancer compared with tamoxifen or placebo - Meta-analyses on efficacy and adverse events based on randomized clinical trials. Breast 26, 106–14 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Murphy, C. C. et al. Adherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy among breast cancer survivors in clinical practice: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 134, 459–78 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Amir, E., Seruga, B., Niraula, S., Carlsson, L. & Ocaña, A. Toxicity of adjuvant endocrine therapy in postmenopausal breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 103, 1299–309 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Condorelli, R. & Vaz-Luis, I. Managing side effects in adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer. Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 18(11), 1101–12 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Westbrook, K. & Stearns, V. Pharmacogenomics of breast cancer therapy: an update. Pharm. Ther. 139, 1–11 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  9. MOKBEL, K., WEEDON, M., MOYE, V. & JACKSON, L. Pharmacogenetics of toxicities related to endocrine treatment in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Genom. Proteom. 21, 421–38 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sini V, Botticelli A, Lunardi G, Gori S, Marchetti P. Pharmacogenetics and aromatase inhibitor induced side effects in breast cancer patients. Pharmacogenomics 18, 821–830 (2017).

  11. Higgins, M. J. & Stearns, V. Pharmacogenetics of endocrine therapy for breast cancer. Annu Rev. Med. 62, 281–93 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bycroft, C., Freeman, C. & Marchini, J. The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data. Nature 562, 203 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Al-Mamun MA. Effect of SULT1A1, UGT2B7, CYP3A5 and CYP2D6 polymorphisms on tamoxifen response in breast cancer patients of Bangladesh (University of Dhaka, 2017).

  14. Argalacsova, S., Slanar, O., Bakhouche, H. & Pertuzelka, L. Impact of ABCB1 and CYP2D6 polymorphisms on tamoxifen treatment outcomes and adverse events in breast cancer patients. J. BUON 22, 1217–26 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Leyland-Jones, B., Gray, K. P. & Regan, M. M. CYP19A1 polymorphisms and clinical outcomes in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer in the BIG 1–98 trial. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 151, 373–84 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mazzuca, F. et al. CYP19A1 genetic polymorphisms rs4646 and osteoporosis in patients treated with aromatase inhibitor-based adjuvant therapy. Eurasia. J. Med. 48, 10–4 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Miranda, C. et al. Preliminary pharmacogenomic-based predictive models of tamoxifen response in hormone-dependent chilean breast cancer patients. Front. Pharm. 12, 661443 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Napoli, N. et al. Genetic polymorphism at Val80 (rs700518) of the CYP19A1 gene is associated with aromatase inhibitor associated bone loss in women with ER (+) breast cancer. Bone 55, 309–314 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ntukidem, N. I. et al. Estrogen receptor genotypes, menopausal status, and the lipid effects of tamoxifen. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 83, 702–710 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Oesterreich, S., Henry, N. L. & Flockhart, D. A. Associations between genetic variants and the effect of letrozole and exemestane on bone mass and bone turnover. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 154, 263–273 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ohnishi, T. et al. CYP17 polymorphism and tamoxifen-induced hepatic steatosis. Hepatol. Res. 33, 178–80 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Onitilo, A. A. et al. Estrogen receptor genotype is associated with risk of venous thromboembolism during tamoxifen therapy. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 115, 643–50 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rodríguez-Sanz, M. et al. CYP11A1 expression in bone is associated with aromatase inhibitor-related bone loss. J. Mol. Endocrinol. 55, 69–79 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Santa-Maria, C. A., Blackford, A. & Stearns, V. Association of variants in candidate genes with lipid profiles in women with early breast cancer on adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 22, 1395–1402 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Baatjes, K. et al. Cyp19a1 rs10046 pharmacogenetics in postmenopausal breast cancer patients treated with aromatase inhibitors: one-year follow-up. Curr. Pharm. Des. 26, 6007–12 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wang, J. et al. Indications of clinical and genetic predictors for aromatase inhibitors related musculoskeletal adverse events in Chinese Han women with breast cancer. PLoS ONE 8, e68798 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wang, J. et al. RANKL and OPG polymorphisms are associated with aromatase inhibitor-related musculoskeletal adverse events in chinese han breast cancer patients. PLoS ONE 10, e0133964 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Weng, L. et al. Genome-wide discovery of genetic variants affecting tamoxifen sensitivity and their clinical and functional validation. Ann. Oncol. 24, 1867–73 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wickramage, I., Tennekoon, K. H., Ariyaratne, M. A. Y., Hewage, A. S. & Sundralingam, T. CYP2D6 polymorphisms may predict occurrence of adverse effects to tamoxifen: a preliminary retrospective study. Breast Cancer Targets Ther. 9, 111–20 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Chu, W. et al. Association between CYP3A4 genotype and risk of endometrial cancer following tamoxifen use. Carcinogenesis 28, 2139–42 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Dieudonné, A. S. et al. The rs1800716 variant in CYP2D6 is associated with an increased double endometrial thickness in postmenopausal women on tamoxifen. Ann. Oncol. J. Eur. Soc. Med. Oncol. 25, 90–5 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Garber, J. E., Halabi, S. & Berliner, N. Factor V leiden mutation and thromboembolism risk in women receiving adjuvant tamoxifen for breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 102, 942 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hartmaier, R. J., Richter, A. S. & Oesterreich, S. A SNP in steroid receptor coactivator-1 disrupts a GSK3β phosphorylation site and is associated with altered tamoxifen response in bone. Mol. Endocrinol. 26, 220 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Koukouras, D. et al. Association of estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) gene polymorphisms with endometrial thickness and lipid profile in women with breast cancer treated with aromatase inhibitors. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 28, 859–62 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kovac, M. et al. Factor V Leiden mutation and high FVIII are associated with an increased risk of VTE in women with breast cancer during adjuvant tamoxifen — Results from a prospective, single center, case control study. Eur. J. Intern Med. 26, 63–7 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Leyland-Jones, B., Gray, K. P. & Regan, M. M. ESR1 and ESR2 polymorphisms in the BIG 1-98 trial comparing adjuvant letrozole versus tamoxifen or their sequence for early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 154, 543–55 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Abed, S. N. Genetic polymorphic impact of metabolizing enzyme (CYP3A4 and UGT1A4 genes) on anastrazole response in iraqi breast cancer women. Ann. Clin. Med. Case Rep. 8, 1–6 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Fox, P. et al. Dose escalation of tamoxifen in patients with low endoxifen level: Evidence for therapeutic drug monitoring - The TADE study. Clin. Cancer Res. 22, 3164–71 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lorizio, W. et al. Clinical and biomarker predictors of side effects from tamoxifen. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 132, 1107–18 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jansen, L. E., Teft, W. A., Rose, R. V., Lizotte, D. J. & Kim, R. B. CYP2D6 genotype and endoxifen plasma concentration do not predict hot flash severity during tamoxifen therapy. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 171, 701–8 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Zembutsu, H., Nakamura, S. & Nakamura, Y. Significant effect of polymorphisms in CYP2D6 on response to tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer: a prospective multicenter study. Clin. Cancer Res. 23, 2019–26 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Goetz, M. P. et al. Pharmacogenetics of tamoxifen biotransformation is associated with clinical outcomes of efficacy and hot flashes. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 9312–8 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sestak, I. et al. Relationships between CYP2D6 phenotype, breast cancer and hot flushes in women at high risk of breast cancer receiving prophylactic tamoxifen: results from the IBIS-I trial. Br. J. Cancer 107, 230 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Duggan, C., Marriott, K., Edwards, R. & Cuzick, J. Inherited and acquired risk factors for venous thromboembolic disease among women taking tamoxifen to prevent breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 21, 3588–93 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Liu, M. et al. Aromatase inhibitor-associated bone fractures: a case-cohort GWAS and functional genomics. Mol. Endocrinol. 28, 1740–51 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Liu L., Bai, Y.X. & Zhang, Q.Y. A Polymorphism at the 3’-UTR region of the aromatase gene is associated with the efficacy of the aromatase inhibitor, anastrozole, in metastatic breast carcinoma. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 14, 18973–88 (2013).

  47. Colomer, R., Monzo, M. & Alba, E. A single-nucleotide polymorphism in the aromatase gene is associated with the efficacy of the aromatase inhibitor letrozole in advanced breast carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 811–6 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Knight, B. The association between the UGT2B17 gene deletion and menopause-related quality of life in postmenopausal women in the CCTG MAP.3 breast cancer chemoprevention trial (Queen’s University at Kingston, 2017).

  49. Tamura, K., Imamura, C. K. & Tanigawara, Y. CYP2D6 genotype-guided tamoxifen dosing in hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (TARGET-1): a randomized, open-label, phase 2 study. J Clin Oncol. 38, 558–566 (2020).

  50. Georgopoulos, N., Adonakis, G., Fotopoulos, A., Koika, V., Spinos, N., Saltamavros, A. et al. Estrogen receptor polymorphisms in tamoxifen-treated women with breast cancer. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 22, 185–9 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Bai, S. Influence of the UGT2B17 gene on the relationship between exemestane and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women (Queen's University, 2018).

  52. Henry, N. L. et al. Lack of association between oestrogen receptor polymorphisms and change in bone mineral density with tamoxifen therapy. Br. J. Cancer 102, 294 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Okishiro, M. et al. Genetic polymorphisms of CYP2D6*10 and CYP2C19*2,*3 are not associated with prognosis, endometrial thickness, or bone mineral density in Japanese breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant tamoxifen. Cancer 115, 952–61 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Rangel-Méndez, J. A., Rubi-Castellanos, R., Sánchez-Cruz, J. F. & Moo-Puc, R. E. Tamoxifen side effects: pharmacogenetic and clinical approach in Mexican mestizos. Transl. Cancer Res. 8, 23 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Bojanic, K. et al. Representation of CYP3A4, CYP3A5 and UGT1A4 polymorphisms within Croatian breast cancer patients’ population. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, 3692 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kamdem, L. K. et al. Exemestane may be less detrimental than letrozole to bone health in women homozygous for the UGT2B17*2 gene deletion. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 175, 297–303 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Abramson, N. et al. Effect of factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210→A mutations on thromboembolic risk in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Breast Cancer Prevention Trial. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 98, 904–10 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Tucker, A. N. et al. Polymorphisms in cytochrome P4503A5 (CYP3A5) may be associated with race and tumor characteristics, but not metabolism and side effects of tamoxifen in breast cancer patients. Cancer Lett. 217(1), 61–72 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ingle, J. N., Schaid, D. J. & Weinshilboum, R. M. Genome-wide associations and functional genomic studies of musculoskeletal adverse events in women receiving aromatase inhibitors. J. Clin. Oncol. 28(31), 4674–82 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Abubakar, M. B., Lin Tan, H., Murali Krishna Bhavaraju, V. & Hua Gan, S. Impact of CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 single nucleotide polymorphisms on anastrozole-associated adverse events among Malaysian breast cancer patients. AsPac J. Mol. Biol. Biotechnol. 27, 33–42 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Irvin, W. J., Walko, C. M. & Carey, L. A. Genotype-guided tamoxifen dosing increases active metabolite exposure in women with reduced CYP2D6 metabolism: a multicenter study. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 3232 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Umamaheswaran, G. et al. Polymorphisms of T- cell leukemia 1A gene loci are not related to the development of adjuvant letrozole-induced adverse events in breast cancer. PLoS ONE 16, e0247989 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Borrie, A. E., Rose, R. V. & Kim, R. B. Letrozole concentration is associated with CYP2A6 variation but not with arthralgia in patients with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 172, 371–9 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Damodaran, S. E. et al. Genetic polymorphisms of CYP2D6 increase the risk for recurrence of breast cancer in patients receiving tamoxifen as an adjuvant therapy. Cancer Chemother. Pharm. 70, 75–81 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ramón Y Cajal, T. et al. Impact of CYP2D6 polymorphisms in tamoxifen adjuvant breast cancer treatment. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 119, 33–8 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ruddy, K. J. et al. Personalized medicine in breast cancer: Tamoxifen, endoxifen, and CYP2D6 in clinical practice. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 141, 421–7 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Jager, N. G. L. et al. Hot flashes are not predictive for serum concentrations of tamoxifen and its metabolites. BMC Cancer 13, 612 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Bonanni, B. et al. Polymorphism in the CYP2D6 tamoxifen-metabolizing gene influences clinical effect but not hot flashes: data from the Italian tamoxifen trial [1]. J. Clin. Oncol. 24, 3708–9 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Hochberg, Y. A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 75, 800 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Patel, R. S. et al. Reproducible disease phenotyping at scale: example of coronary artery disease in UK Biobank. PLoS ONE 17, e0264828 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Fry, A. et al. Comparison of sociodemographic and health-related characteristics of UK Biobank participants with those of the general population. Am. J. Epidemiol. 186, 1026 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Sudlow, C., Gallacher, J., Allen, N. & Collins, R. UK Biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS Med. 12, e1001779 (2015)

  73. Bankowski, Z. & Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. Reporting adverse drug reactions: definitions of terms and criteria for their use. 146 (CIOMS, 1999)

  74. Faich, G. A., Castle, W. & Bankowski, Z. International adverse drug reaction reporting: the Cioms Project. Drug Inf. J. 24, 419–25 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) | Protocol Development | CTEP [Internet]. Available from https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm.

  76. European Medicines Agency. Designated medical events [Internet]. Available from https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/post-authorisation/pharmacovigilance/signal-management#designated-medical-events-section.

  77. Important medical event terms list (MedDRA version 25.0) [Internet]. Available from https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/meddra-important-medical-event-terms-list-version-250_en.xlsx (2022).

  78. Ruth, K. S. et al. Events in early life are associated with female reproductive ageing: a UK Biobank study. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–9 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base (PharmGKB) [Internet]. Available from https://www.pharmgkb.org/.

  80. UK Biobank online resource centre [Internet]. Available from https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/.

  81. Holm, S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Stat. 65, 70 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Brookes, S. T., Whitley, E., Peters, T. J., Mulheran, P. A., Egger, M. & Davey, S. G. Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives. Health Technol. Assess. 5, 1–56 (2001).

  83. Demidenko, E. Sample size and optimal design for logistic regression with binary interaction. Stat. Med. 27, 36–46 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Riley, R. D., Hattle, M., Collins, G. S., Whittle, R. & Ensor, J. Calculating the power to examine treatment-covariate interactions when planning an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials with a binary outcome. Stat. Med. 41, 4822 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Schoenfeld, D. A. & Borenstein, M. Calculating the power or sample size for the logistic and proportional hazards models. J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 75, 771–85 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study received support from the University of Exeter Sanctuary Scholarship. We extend our gratitude to the UK Biobank for granting access to their data for this research. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health and Care Professions Department, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK

    Kinan Mokbel

  2. Clinical and Biomedical Sciences Department, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK

    Kinan Mokbel, Michael N. Weedon, Victoria Moye, Katherine S. Ruth & Leigh Jackson

Authors
  1. Kinan Mokbel
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael N. Weedon
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Victoria Moye
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katherine S. Ruth
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Leigh Jackson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

K.M., M.W., V.M. and L.J. were responsible for designing the research. K.M. generated the data, performed the analyses, interpreted the results, created the tables/figures, searched the literature and drafted the manuscript. L.J., M.W. and V.M. oversaw the study, provided expert interpretation of the data and contributed to the manuscript. K.R. contributed to data generation and the manuscript. All the authors contributed to the final paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kinan Mokbel.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mokbel, K., Weedon, M.N., Moye, V. et al. No evidence for genotype-treatment interactions with breast cancer endocrine therapy adverse effects in UK Biobank. npj Breast Cancer (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-026-00923-2

Download citation

  • Received: 23 November 2024

  • Accepted: 17 February 2026

  • Published: 26 February 2026

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-026-00923-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Download PDF

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • Reviews & Analysis
  • News & Comment
  • Collections
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on X
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • Aims & Scope
  • Content types
  • Journal Information
  • About the Editors
  • Open Access
  • Article Processing Charges
  • Calls for Papers
  • Contact
  • Editorial policies
  • Journal Metrics
  • About the Partner

Publish with us

  • For Authors and Referees
  • Language editing services
  • Open access funding
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

npj Breast Cancer (npj Breast Cancer)

ISSN 2374-4677 (online)

nature.com sitemap

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer