Highly effective adenoviral mediated gene transfer to porcine endothelial cells in vitro.

Y. Obuchi,M. Shiraishi,H. Tomori,S. Hiroyasu,M. Nagahama,K. Taira,Y. Muto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0041-1345(98)00868-9

IF: 1.014

1998-11-01

Transplantation Proceedings

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Prostate screening for men with inherited risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer: The PATROL study.

Heather H. Cheng,Kristin Follmer,Claire Marie de la Calle,Chenee Holcomb,Daniel Lee,Michael A. Liss,Kara Noelle Maxwell,Lisa F Newcomb,Yaw A. Nyame,Sarah P. Psutka,Alexandra Sokolova,Erika Wolff,Jonathan L. Wright,Daniel W. Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.4_suppl.tps357

IF: 45.3

2024-02-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:TPS357 Background: Inherited (germline) pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (gPV) in key genes associated with increased risk of prostate cancer (PrCa) now warrant more attentive prostate cancer screening in NCCN guidelines—e.g., BRCA2, HOXB13, ATM, BRCA1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, CHEK2 and TP53. In the case of BRCA2 and others, there is association with more aggressive PrCa. Despite this, early detection guidelines lack specific recommendations for carriers of these risk genes. Data from the international IMPACT study of a targeted PrCa screening program used a PSA threshold to biopsy of >3.0ng/mL and supports initiating screening at the age of 40y. However, questions remain, such as optimal PSA threshold for biopsy and management of suspected cancer risk genes. In the PATROL study, we offer a prospective early detection study for people at risk for PrCa due to known or suspected cancer risk genes, which also serves as infrastructure for engaging people at-risk for PrCa wishing to be proactive and as a framework to investigate novel biomarkers of early detection. Methods: PATROL is a multicenter, prospective study for people who are at known or suspected increased risk for PrCa due to carrying a gPV (e.g., BRCA2) to participate in a PrCa early detection study. The primary endpoint is to determine the positive predictive value of predefined age-directed PSA thresholds and prostate-specific imaging for biopsy. Other exploratory endpoints include characterizing clinico-pathologic characteristics of diagnosed PrCa, and understanding the impact of screening on patient-reported outcomes (e.g., anxiety and decisional regret). Biospecimens to be collected include germline DNA, urine, and tumor tissue to evaluate emerging clinical and research biomarkers. Key eligibility includes: people ≥40y who carry a gPV in an eligible gene, who have no prior diagnosis of PrCa, who do not have another active malignancy, and who provide informed consent. Study procedures include annual physical exam, PSA, and imaging per treating physician. In addition, study will collect annual clinical data, blood and urine, archival biopsy tissue, biomarkers (e.g., SelectMDx). Participants will undergo prostate biopsy per protocol recommendations: for any clinical concern, PSA >1.0 ng/mL if 1.5 ng/mL if 50-59y; PSA >2.0 ng/mL if =/>60y). If PrCa is diagnosed, clinical care will be determined by the participant and their treating physician. If opting for active surveillance, study procedures will continue to be collected annually for 10 yrs or until definitive treatment. If/when opting for definitive treatment, study procedures will continue to be collected for one additional year. Long-term clinical PrCa outcomes will be collected annually until the study closes. Clinical trial information: NCT04472338 .

oncology
The psychosocial impact of prostate cancer screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers

Elizabeth K. Bancroft,Elizabeth C. Page,Mark N. Brook,Jennifer Pope,Sarah Thomas,Kathryn Myhill,Brian T. Helfand,Pooja Talaty,Kai‐Ren Ong,Emma Douglas,Jackie Cook,Derek J. Rosario,Monica Salinas,Saundra S. Buys,Jo Anson,Rosemarie Davidson,Mark Longmuir,Lucy Side,Diana M. Eccles,Marc Tischkowitz,Amy Taylor,Mara Cruellas,Eduard Perez Ballestero,Ruth Cleaver,Mohini Varughese,Julian Barwell,Mandy LeButt,Lynn Greenhalgh,Rachel Hart,Ashraf Azzabi,Irene Jobson,Lynn Cogley,D. Gareth Evans,Jeanette Rothwell,Natalie Taylor,Matthew Hogben,Sibel Saya,IMPACT Study Steering Committee; IMPACT Collaborators,Zsofia Kote‐Jarai,Audrey Ardern‐Jones,Chris Bangma,Elena Castro,David Dearnaley,Jorunn Eyfjord,Alison Falconer,Christopher Foster,Henrik Grönberg,Freddie C. Hamdy,Óskar Þór Jóhannsson,Vincent Khoo,Hans Lilja,Geoffrey Lindeman,Jan Lubinski,Lovise Maehle,Alan Millner,Christos Mikropoulos,Anita Mitra,Clare Moynihan,Judith Offman,Gad Rennert,Mohnish Suri,Penny Wilson,Jane Melia,Gillian Mitchell,Sue Moss,Fritz Schroder,Doug Easton,Susan Peock,Paul Sibley,Reza Sharifi,Paul James,Sue Shanley,Kate Richardson,Joanne McKinley,Lara Petelin,Morgan Murphy,Lyon Mascarenhas,Katrina Reeve,Declan Murphy,Jimmy Lam,Michael Chong,Graeme Suthers,Nicola Poplawski,Robyn Ward,Katherine Tucker,Lesley Andrews,Rachel Williams,Jessica Duffy,Richard Millard,Tom Jarvis,Phillip Stricker,Judy Kirk,Michelle Bowman,Manish Patel,Marion Harris,Shona O'Connell,Clare Hunt,Courtney Smyth,Mark Frydenberg,Catherine Morton,Kylie Shackleton,Rachel Susman,Julie McGaughran,Melanie Boon,Sharron Townshend,Lyn Schofield,Nicholas Pachter,Allan Spigelman,Margaret Gleeson,Rodney Scott,David Amor,Jo Burke,Briony Patterson,Peter Swindle,William Foulkes,Zoulikha Rezoug,Leila Feng,Talia Boshari,Nassim Taherian,Armen Aprikian,Marie Jeanjean,Thomas Dyrsø Jensen,Karina Rønlund,Palle Osther,Majbritt Kure Tondering,Anne‐Marie Gerdes,Rita Schmutzler,Kerstin Rhiem,Kerstin Luedtke‐Heckenkamp,Petra Wihler,Nicole Ochsendorf,Kerstin Fiddike,Natalie Herold,K. Kast,S. Zastrow,C. Griebsch,Oskar Johannsson,Vigdis Stefansdottir,Vedang Murthy,Rajiv Sarin,Pradnya Kowtal,David Gallagher,Richard Bambury,Michael Farrell,Fergal Gallagher Ingrid Kiernan,Martina Smith,Siobhan Warren,Aisling Cahill,Verena Murphy,Catherine Fleming,Elizabeth Morrin,Rakefet Chen‐Shtoyerman,Alon Basevitch,Dan Leibovici,Ehud Melzer,Sagi Josefsberg Ben‐Yehoshua,Eitan Friedman,Nicola Nicolai,Paolo Radice,Riccardo Valdagni,Tiziana Magnani,Fabiana Zollo,Mario Catanzaro,Margherita Sorrentino,Simona Gay,Marco Vitellaro,Hui Meng Tan,Sook‐Yee Yoon,Soo Hwang Teo,Meow Keong Thong,Hans Vasen,Christi van Asperen,Janneke Ringelberg‐Borsboom,Helen van Randeraad,Wendy van Zelst‐Stams,Margreet G.E.M. Ausems,Rob B. Van der Luijt,Theo van Os,Mariëlle W.G. Ruijs,Muriel A. Adank,Rogier A. Oldenburg,Jan C. Oosterwijk,Lovise Mæhle,Eli Marie Grindedal,Eldbjørg Hanslien,Karol Axcrona,Cezary Cybulski,Dominika Wokolorczyk,Manuel Teixeira,Sofia Maia,Marta Cardoso,Ana Peixoto,Rui Henrique,Jorge Oliveira,Nuno Gonçalves,Luís Araújo,João Paulo Souto,Pedro Nogueira,Denisa Ilencikova,Lucia Copakova,Janez Zgajnar,Mateja Krajc,Alenka Vrecar,Gabriel Capella,Teresa Ramón y Cajal,Nuria Calvo Verges,Josefina Mora,Joan Palou,Consol López,David Fisas,Alexandra Gisbert,Judith Balmaña,Neus Gadea,Juan Morote,Annelie Liljegren,Marie Hjälm‐Eriksson,Karl‐Johan Ekdahl,Stefan Carlsson,Angela George,Zoe Kemp,Jennifer Wiggins,Cathryn Moss,Lizzie Verdon,Nicholas Van As,Alan Thompson,Chris Ogden,Christopher Woodhouse,Pardeep Kumar,Declan Cahill,Karen Tricker,Barbara Bulman,Tessy Thomas,April Ruiz,Darran Ball,Oliver Jones,Catherine Mercer,Donna McBride,Philandra Costello Gillian Wise,Allison Pearce,Victoria Sands,Audrey Torokwa,Vincent Gnanapragasam,Lisa Walker,Dorothy Halliday,Emma Stobie,Helen Purnell,Barbara Stayner,Freddie Hamdy,Heather Chalinor,Venessa Miller,Kathryn Saunders,Helen Hanson,Merrie Manalo,Darshna Dudakia,Audrey Dearing,Shirley Hodgson,Glen Brice,Tessa Homfray,Carrie Hammond,Elizabeth Winchester,Mark Mencias,Carole Brewer,Linda Park,Joanna Ireland,Alison Potter,Caroline Renton,Anne Searle,Kathryn Hill,Selina Goodman,Lynda Garcia,Gemma Devlin,Sarah Everest,Maria Nadolski,Debbie Fuller,Catherine Grey,Melanie Hutchings,Karin Gupwell,Maggie Thomas,Matilda Bradford,Sandra Cookson,Lisa Adams,Hannah Wannell,Sophie Ashman,Rachel Kelland,Edgar Paez,Alex Henderson,Fiona Douglas,Alan Donaldson,Amy Watford,Sue Tomkins,Louise Izatt,Vishakha Tripathi,Michelle Weston,Kathrine Hilario,Gabriella Pichert,Chris Jacobs,Caroline Langman Mark Mencias,Anjana Kulkarni,Bianca De Souza,Clare Turnbull,Alice Youngs,Cecilia Compton,Angela Brady,Virginia Clowes,Huw Dorkins,Falak Arshad,Athalie Melville,Monika Kosicka‐Slawinska,Carole Cummings,Vicki Kiesel,Marion Bartlett,Kashmir Randhawa,Natalie Ellery,Cheryl Sequeira,Samia Sakuma,Demetra Georgiou,Toyin Adeoye,Munaza Ahmed,Alison Male,Jana Gurasashvili,Kate Simon,Katie Rees,Lizzie Tidey,Laura Coulier,Camila Gabriel,Ellen Quinn,Nita Solanky,Jennifer Davies,Pauline Bayliss,Louise Patterson,Stuart Ingram,Kelsey Armitage,Alice Howell,Clare Ward,James Catto,Joanne Howson,Jonathan Hoffman,Camilla Huber,Madhura Chandrashekara,Wayne Glover,Farah Islam,Saira Ali,Lucy Burgess,Cyril Chapman,Tricia Heaton,Trevor Cole,Cathy Watt,Alexis Duncan,Nicola Bradshaw,Lesley Snadden,Jennifer Gorrie,Roger Kockelbergh,Shumi Mzazi,Charlotte Poile,Ayisha Sattar,Beckie Kaemba,Zahirah Sidat,Nafisa Patel,Kas Siguake,Amy Branson,Angela Birt,Una Poultney,Nkem Umez‐Eronini,Jaswant Mom,Beverley Wilkinson,Michaela Davies,Rachael O'Keefe,Anne Johnstone,Gillian Roberts,Anthony Woodward,Vivienne Sutton,Queenstone Baker,Philip Cornford,Nicola Bermingham Katy Treherne,Julie Griffiths,Pembe Yesildag,Hannah Gott,Maria Brennan,Natale Salvatore,Sue Freemantle,Christina Selkirk,Peter Hulick,Wendy Rubinstein,Charles Brendler,Karen Kaul,Daniel Shevrin,Scott Weissman,Anna Newlin,Kristen Vogel,Shelly Weiss,Karen O'Toole,Tom Conner,Vickie Venne,Robert Stephenson,Christopher Dechet,Susan Domchek,Jacquelyn Powers,Banu Arun,Sara Strom,John W. Davis,Yuko Yamamura,Elias Obeid,Lisa Bealin,Loretta Bagden,Sue Montgomery,Veda Giri,Laura Gross,Kathy Cooney,Elena Stoffel,Linda Okoth,M. Asselman,H.P. Beerlage,W. Blitz,E.R. Boevé,C.A. Bout,G. Commelin,E.B. Cornel,R.J.A.M. Davits,J.A.P.M. de Hond,G.A. Dijkman,J.G. Fernandes,K.B.J. Fransis,A.D.H. Geboers,R. Gilhuis,J.J.P. Jaspars,I.J. Jong,M.M.G.J. Jongen‐Huinink,H.F.M. Karthaus,P.J.M. Kil,P.E. Kleingeld,W.J. Kniestedt,B.C. Knipscheer,R.F. Kropman,M.I. Lampe,S.I. Langbein,J.W.H.M. Langeveld,J.A.F. Leenarts,M.R. Leter,M.T.W.T. Lock,A.H.P. Meier,B. Meijer,G.J. Molijn,P.F.A. Mulders,N. Naderi,M.A. Noordzij,J.W. Noordzij,F.P.P.M. Pernet,E.P.M. Roos,M.J. Schaaf,R.J.H. Schaafsma,G.A.H.J. Smits,S. Smorenburg,J.R. Spermon,G. van Andel,E. van Boven,C. van de Beek,I.W. van der Cruijsen‐Koeter,H.G. van der Poel,O.B. van Vierssen Trip,P.D.J. Vegt,A.P.M. Verhulst,J. Verlind,P. Vijverberg,P.A. Wertheimer,B.P. Wijsman,J.V. Zambon,Rosalind A. Eeles,Neil K. Aaronson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16432

2024-06-06

BJU International

Abstract:Objectives To report the long‐term outcomes from a longitudinal psychosocial study that forms part of the 'Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted Screening in men at higher genetic risk and controls' (IMPACT) study. The IMPACT study is a multi‐national study of targeted prostate cancer (PrCa) screening in individuals with a known germline pathogenic variant (GPV) in either the BReast CAncer gene 1 (BRCA1) or the BReast CAncer gene 2 (BRCA2). Subjects and Methods Participants enrolled in the IMPACT study were invited to complete a psychosocial questionnaire prior to each annual screening visit for a minimum of 5 years. The questionnaire included questions on sociodemographics and the following measures: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Impact of Event Scale, 36‐item Short‐Form Health Survey, Memorial Anxiety Scale for PrCa, Cancer Worry Scale, risk perception and knowledge. Results A total of 760 participants completed questionnaires: 207 participants with GPV in BRCA1, 265 with GPV in BRCA2 and 288 controls (non‐carriers from families with a known GPV). We found no evidence of clinically concerning levels of general or cancer‐specific distress or poor health‐related quality of life in the cohort as a whole. Individuals in the control group had significantly less worry about PrCa compared with the carriers; however, all mean scores were low and within reported general population norms, where available. BRCA2 carriers with previously high prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) levels experience a small but significant increase in PrCa anxiety (P = 0.01) and PSA‐specific anxiety (P

urology & nephrology
MicroRNA miR-24 inhibits erythropoiesis by targeting activin type I receptor ALK4.

Qiang Wang,Zheng Huang,Huiling Xue,C. Jin,X. Ju,J. Han,Ye-Guang Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1182/BLOOD-2007-05-092718

IF: 20.3

2008-01-15

Blood

Abstract:MicroRNAs have been suggested to modulate a variety of cellular events. Here we report that miR-24 regulates erythroid differentiation by influencing the expression of human activin type I receptor ALK4 (hALK4). Ectopic expression of miR-24 reduces the mRNA and protein levels of hALK4 by targeting the 3'-untranslated region of hALK4 mRNA and interferes with activin-induced Smad2 phosphorylation and reporter expression. Furthermore, miR-24 represses the activin-mediated accumulation of hemoglobin, an erythroid differentiation marker, in erythroleukemic K562 cells and decreases erythroid colony-forming and burst-forming units of CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cells. ALK4 expression is inversely correlated with miR-24 expression during the early stages of erythroid differentiation, and the forced expression of miR-24 leads to a delay of activin-induced maturation of hematopoietic progenitor cells in liquid culture. Thus, our findings define a regulation mode of miR-24 on erythropoiesis by impeding ALK4 expression.
Breast and Prostate Cancer Risks for Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers Using Polygenic Risk Scores

Daniel R Barnes,Valentina Silvestri,Goska Leslie,Lesley McGuffog,Joe Dennis,Xin Yang,Julian Adlard,Bjarni A Agnarsson,Munaza Ahmed,Kristiina Aittomäki,Irene L Andrulis,Adalgeir Arason,Norbert Arnold,Bernd Auber,Jacopo Azzollini,Judith Balmaña,Rosa B Barkardottir,Daniel Barrowdale,Julian Barwell,Muriel Belotti,Javier Benitez,Pascaline Berthet,Susanne E Boonen,Åke Borg,Aniko Bozsik,Angela F Brady,Paul Brennan,Carole Brewer,Joan Brunet,Agostino Bucalo,Saundra S Buys,Trinidad Caldés,Maria A Caligo,Ian Campbell,Hayley Cassingham,Lise Lotte Christensen,Giulia Cini,Kathleen B M Claes,GEMO Study Collaborators,EMBRACE Collaborators,Jackie Cook,Anna Coppa,Laura Cortesi,Giuseppe Damante,Esther Darder,Rosemarie Davidson,Miguel de la Hoya,Kim De Leeneer,Robin de Putter,Jesús Del Valle,Orland Diez,Yuan Chun Ding,Susan M Domchek,Alan Donaldson,Jacqueline Eason,Ros Eeles,Christoph Engel,D Gareth Evans,Lidia Feliubadaló,Florentia Fostira,Megan Frone,Debra Frost,David Gallagher,Andrea Gehrig,Sophie Giraud,Gord Glendon,Andrew K Godwin,David E Goldgar,Mark H Greene,Helen Gregory,Eva Gross,Eric Hahnen,Ute Hamann,Thomas V O Hansen,Helen Hanson,Julia Hentschel,Judit Horvath,KConFab Investigators,HEBON Investigators,Louise Izatt,Angel Izquierdo,Paul A James,Ramunas Janavicius,Uffe Birk Jensen,Oskar Th Johannsson,Esther M John,Gero Kramer,Lone Kroeldrup,Torben A Kruse,Charlotte Lautrup,Conxi Lazaro,Fabienne Lesueur,Adria Lopez-Fernández,Phuong L Mai,Siranoush Manoukian,Zoltan Matrai,Laura Matricardi,Kara N Maxwell,Noura Mebirouk,Alfons Meindl,Marco Montagna,Alvaro N Monteiro,Patrick J Morrison,Taru A Muranen,Alex Murray,Katherine L Nathanson,Susan L Neuhausen,Heli Nevanlinna,Tu Nguyen-Dumont,Dieter Niederacher,Edith Olah,Olufunmilayo I Olopade,Domenico Palli,Michael T Parsons,Inge Sokilde Pedersen,Bernard Peissel,Pedro Perez-Segura,Paolo Peterlongo,Annabeth H Petersen,Pedro Pinto,Mary E Porteous,Caroline Pottinger,Miquel Angel Pujana,Paolo Radice,Juliane Ramser,Johanna Rantala,Mark Robson,Mark T Rogers,Karina Rønlund,Andreas Rump,Ana María Sánchez de Abajo,Payal D Shah,Saba Sharif,Lucy E Side,Christian F Singer,Zsofia Stadler,Linda Steele,Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet,Christian Sutter,Yen Yen Tan,Manuel R Teixeira,Alex Teulé,Darcy L Thull,Marc Tischkowitz,Amanda E Toland,Stefania Tommasi,Angela Toss,Alison H Trainer,Vishakha Tripathi,Virginia Valentini,Christi J van Asperen,Marta Venturelli,Alessandra Viel,Joseph Vijai,Lisa Walker,Shan Wang-Gohrke,Barbara Wappenschmidt,Anna Whaite,Ines Zanna,Kenneth Offit,Mads Thomassen,Fergus J Couch,Rita K Schmutzler,Jacques Simard,Douglas F Easton,Georgia Chenevix-Trench,Antonis C Antoniou,Laura Ottini,Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djab147

2022-01-11

Abstract:Background: Recent population-based female breast cancer and prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed. We assessed the associations of these PRS with breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Methods: 483 BRCA1 and 1318 BRCA2 European ancestry male carriers were available from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). A 147-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) prostate cancer PRS (PRSPC) and a 313-SNP breast cancer PRS were evaluated. There were 3 versions of the breast cancer PRS, optimized to predict overall (PRSBC), estrogen receptor (ER)-negative (PRSER-), or ER-positive (PRSER+) breast cancer risk. Results: PRSER+ yielded the strongest association with breast cancer risk. The odds ratios (ORs) per PRSER+ standard deviation estimates were 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.07 to 1.83) for BRCA1 and 1.33 (95% CI = 1.16 to 1.52) for BRCA2 carriers. PRSPC was associated with prostate cancer risk for BRCA1 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.33) and BRCA2 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.91) carriers. The estimated breast cancer odds ratios were larger after adjusting for female relative breast cancer family history. By age 85 years, for BRCA2 carriers, the breast cancer risk varied from 7.7% to 18.4% and prostate cancer risk from 34.1% to 87.6% between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS distributions. Conclusions: Population-based prostate and female breast cancer PRS are associated with a wide range of absolute breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These findings warrant further investigation aimed at providing personalized cancer risks for male carriers and informing clinical management.
Assessing the mid-term impact of enhanced prostate cancer screening in Caucasian men with germline DNA repair pathogenic variants.

Massimo Lazzeri,Vittorio Fasulo,Nicolò Maria Buffi,Paolo Casale,Rodolfo Hurle,Alberto Saita,Marco Paciotti,Alessio Finocchiaro,Muhannad Aljoulani,Rosanna Asselta,Giulia Soldà,Ilaria De Simone,Piergiuseppe Colombo,Miriam Cieri,Federica Maura,Pietro Cavalli,Giovanni Lughezzani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.4_suppl.278

IF: 45.3

2024-02-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:278 Background: Family history is a major prostate cancer (PCa) risk factor. Pathogenic gene variants (e.g., BRCA1/BRCA2) greatly increase PCa risk (2.5 to 8.6-fold for <65-year-olds) and affect outcomes. This study assesses an enhanced screening protocol's effectiveness and participant compliance. It combines PHI for familial cases and multiparametric MRI for those with pathogenic DNA repair gene (DRG) variants. Methods: This non-profit charity-funded study (AIRC - Fondazione AIRC project IG 2020 ID 25027) evaluates targeted screening for men at higher genetic risk of PCa due to PVs in a specific gene region (DRG). Conducted at a tertiary Hospital with collaboration from departments of Oncology, Breast Unit, Urology, Pathology, Radiology, Laboratory and Medical Genetics. It includes men aged 35-69 with documented deleterious DRG mutations who consent to planned screening. Exclusion criteria are prior prostate surgery, prostate cancer diagnosis, MRI contraindications, or variants of unknown significance (VUS). Results: Between 2020 and 2023, a total of 90 patients participated in this study. Their median age was 51.5 years (IQR 46.0-60.2). The median total PSA level was 0.9 (IQR 0.5-1.63), and the median PHI was 17 (IQR 12.3-23.8). Notably, 20.1% of patients had a family history of breast/ovarian cancer, while 79.9% had a family history of PCA. Most participants hailed from Northern Italy (69.4%). PVs were identified as follows: BRCA2 (55.7%), BRCA1 (17.8%), ATM (4.44%), PMS2 (3.33%), BRCA (3.33%), MSH2 (2.22%), TMPRSS2-ERG (2.22%), BRIP1 (1.11%), MLH1 (1.11%), MSH6 (1.11%), BRCA3 (1.11%), and 6.67% of patients reported mutations without specific details. In terms of screening compliance, 36 patients completed 1 visit, 31 completed 2 visits, 1 completed 3 visits, and 22 scheduled their first follow-up. Regarding PHI levels, 62.8% had PHI levels below 20, 33.5% fell in the 20-40 range, and 3.70% exceeded 40. For patients with PSA levels below 3 and PHI above 20 (n=17), only one exhibited a positive mpMRI result and is scheduled for a biopsy. Conversely, among patients with PSA levels above 3 and PHI below 20 (n=2), one underwent mpMRI, which yielded a negative result. Among the patients who underwent mpMRI, six underwent biopsy, and all resulted negatives. Conclusions: In summary, this study achieved high participant compliance with the screening method and underscores the importance of using PHI and multiparametric MRI, especially in those with genetic predispositions. These tools hold potential for enhancing prostate cancer detection accuracy and merit further exploration for early diagnosis in at-risk populations.

oncology
Perl Simulation of a Job Shop Type Problem

J. Mosterín,D. Fuente,M. Monterrey

Abstract:
Male breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: pathology data from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2

Valentina Silvestri,Daniel Barrowdale,Anna Marie Mulligan,Susan L. Neuhausen,Stephen Fox,Beth Y. Karlan,Gillian Mitchell,Paul James,Darcy L. Thull,Kristin K. Zorn,Natalie J. Carter,Katherine L. Nathanson,Susan M. Domchek,Timothy R. Rebbeck,Susan J. Ramus,Robert L. Nussbaum,Olufunmilayo I. Olopade,Johanna Rantala,Sook-Yee Yoon,Maria A. Caligo,Laura Spugnesi,Anders Bojesen,Inge Sokilde Pedersen,Mads Thomassen,Uffe Birk Jensen,Amanda Ewart Toland,Leigha Senter,Irene L. Andrulis,Gord Glendon,Peter J. Hulick,Evgeny N. Imyanitov,Mark H. Greene,Phuong L. Mai,Christian F. Singer,Christine Rappaport-Fuerhauser,Gero Kramer,Joseph Vijai,Kenneth Offit,Mark Robson,Anne Lincoln,Lauren Jacobs,Eva Machackova,Lenka Foretova,Marie Navratilova,Petra Vasickova,Fergus J. Couch,Emily Hallberg,Kathryn J. Ruddy,Priyanka Sharma,Sung-Won Kim,kConFab Investigators,Manuel R. Teixeira,Pedro Pinto,Marco Montagna,Laura Matricardi,Adalgeir Arason,Oskar Th Johannsson,Rosa B. Barkardottir,Anna Jakubowska,Jan Lubinski,Angel Izquierdo,Miguel Angel Pujana,Judith Balmaña,Orland Diez,Gabriella Ivady,Janos Papp,Edith Olah,Ava Kwong,Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Research Group Netherlands (HEBON),Heli Nevanlinna,Kristiina Aittomäki,Pedro Perez Segura,Trinidad Caldes,Tom Van Maerken,Bruce Poppe,Kathleen B. M. Claes,Claudine Isaacs,Camille Elan,Christine Lasset,Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet,Laure Barjhoux,Muriel Belotti,Alfons Meindl,Andrea Gehrig,Christian Sutter,Christoph Engel,Dieter Niederacher,Doris Steinemann,Eric Hahnen,Karin Kast,Norbert Arnold,Raymonda Varon-Mateeva,Dorothea Wand,Andrew K. Godwin,D. Gareth Evans,Debra Frost,Jo Perkins,Julian Adlard,Louise Izatt,Radka Platte,Ros Eeles,Steve Ellis,EMBRACE,Ute Hamann,Judy Garber,Florentia Fostira,George Fountzilas,Barbara Pasini,Giuseppe Giannini,Piera Rizzolo,Antonio Russo,Laura Cortesi,Laura Papi,Liliana Varesco,Domenico Palli,Ines Zanna,Antonella Savarese,Paolo Radice,Siranoush Manoukian,Bernard Peissel,Monica Barile,Bernardo Bonanni,Alessandra Viel,Valeria Pensotti,Stefania Tommasi,Paolo Peterlongo,Jeffrey N. Weitzel,Ana Osorio,Javier Benitez,Lesley McGuffog,Sue Healey,Anne-Marie Gerdes,Bent Ejlertsen,Thomas V. O. Hansen,Linda Steele,Yuan Chun Ding,Nadine Tung,Ramunas Janavicius,David E. Goldgar,Saundra S. Buys,Mary B. Daly,Anita Bane,Mary Beth Terry,Esther M. John,Melissa Southey,Douglas F. Easton,Georgia Chenevix-Trench,Antonis C. Antoniou,Laura Ottini,,,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0671-y

2016-02-09

Breast Cancer Research

Abstract:BackgroundBRCA1 and, more commonly, BRCA2 mutations are associated with increased risk of male breast cancer (MBC). However, only a paucity of data exists on the pathology of breast cancers (BCs) in men with BRCA1/2 mutations. Using the largest available dataset, we determined whether MBCs arising in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers display specific pathologic features and whether these features differ from those of BRCA1/2 female BCs (FBCs).MethodsWe characterised the pathologic features of 419 BRCA1/2 MBCs and, using logistic regression analysis, contrasted those with data from 9675 BRCA1/2 FBCs and with population-based data from 6351 MBCs in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.ResultsAmong BRCA2 MBCs, grade significantly decreased with increasing age at diagnosis (P = 0.005). Compared with BRCA2 FBCs, BRCA2 MBCs were of significantly higher stage (P for trend = 2 × 10−5) and higher grade (P for trend = 0.005) and were more likely to be oestrogen receptor–positive [odds ratio (OR) 10.59; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 5.15–21.80] and progesterone receptor–positive (OR 5.04; 95 % CI 3.17–8.04). With the exception of grade, similar patterns of associations emerged when we compared BRCA1 MBCs and FBCs. BRCA2 MBCs also presented with higher grade than MBCs from the SEER database (P for trend = 4 × 10−12).ConclusionsOn the basis of the largest series analysed to date, our results show that BRCA1/2 MBCs display distinct pathologic characteristics compared with BRCA1/2 FBCs, and we identified a specific BRCA2-associated MBC phenotype characterised by a variable suggesting greater biological aggressiveness (i.e., high histologic grade). These findings could lead to the development of gender-specific risk prediction models and guide clinical strategies appropriate for MBC management.

oncology
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing of men in UK general practice: a 10-year longitudinal cohort study

Grace J Young,Sean Harrison,Emma L Turner,Eleanor I Walsh,Steven E Oliver,Yoav Ben-Shlomo,Simon Evans,J Athene Lane,David E Neal,Freddie C Hamdy,Jenny L Donovan,Richard M Martin,Chris Metcalfe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017729

IF: 3.006

2017-10-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives Cross-sectional studies suggest that around 6% of men undergo prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing each year in UK general practice (GP). This longitudinal study aims to determine the cumulative testing pattern of men over a 10-year period and whether this testing can be considered equivalent to screening for prostate cancer (PCa). Setting, participants and outcome measures Patient-level data on PSA tests, biopsies and PCa diagnoses were obtained from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) for the years 2002 to 2011. The cumulative risks of PSA testing and of being diagnosed with PCa were estimated for the 10-year study period. Associations of a man’s age, region and index of multiple deprivation with the cumulative risk of PSA testing and PCa diagnosis were investigated. Rates of biopsy and diagnosis, following a high test result, were compared with those from the programme of PSA testing in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study. Results The 10-year risk of exposure to at least one PSA test in men aged 45 to 69 years in UK GP was 39.2% (95% CI 39.0 to 39.4%). The age-specific risks ranged from 25.2% for men aged 45–49 years to 53.0% for men aged 65–69 years (p for trend <0.001). For those with a PSA level ≥3, a test in UK GP was less likely to result in a biopsy (6%) and/or diagnosis of PCa (15%) compared with ProtecT study participants (85% and 34%, respectively). Conclusion A high proportion of men aged 45–69 years undergo PSA tests in UK GP: 39% over a 10-year period. A high proportion of these tests appear to be for the investigation of lower urinary tract symptoms and not screening for PCa. Trial registration number ISRCTN20141297 , NCT02044172 .

medicine, general & internal
Outcomes of 10 years of PSA screening for prostate cancer in Norwegian men with Lynch syndrome

Eli Marie Grindedal,Manuela Zucknick,Astrid Stormorken,Elin Rønne,Nora M. Tandstad,William B. Isaacs,Karol Axcrona,Lovise Mæhle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24711

2024-04-18

The Prostate

Abstract:Background Pathogenic germline variants in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes are associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer (PCa). Since 2010 we have recommended MMR carriers annual PSA testing from the age of 40. Prospective studies of the outcome of long‐term PSA screening are lacking. This study aimed to investigate the incidence and characteristics of PCa in Norwegian MMR carriers attending annual PSA screening (PSA threshold >3.0 ng/mL) to evaluate whether our recommendations should be continued. Methods This is a prospective observational study of 225 male MMR carriers who were recommended annual PSA screening by the Section of Inherited Cancer, Oslo University Hospital from 2010 and onwards. Incidence and tumor characteristics (age, PSA at diagnosis, Gleason score, TNM score) were described. IHC and MSI‐analyses were done on available tumors. Standardized incidence ratio (SIR) was calculated based on data from the Cancer Registry of Norway. Results Twenty‐two of 225 (9.8%) had been diagnosed with PCa, including 10/69 (14.5%) MSH2 carriers and 8/61 (13.1%) MSH6 carriers. Ten of 20 (50%) tumors had Gleason score ≥4 + 3 on biopsy and 6/11 (54.5%) had a pathological T3a/b stage. Eight of 17 (47.1%) tumors showed abnormal staining on IHC and 3/13 (23.1%) were MSI‐high. SIR was 9.54 (95% CI 5.98–14.45) for all MMR genes, 13.0 (95% CI 6.23–23.9) for MSH2 and 13.74 for MSH6 (95% CI 5.93–27.08). Conclusions Our results indicate that the MMR genes, and especially MSH2 and MSH6, are associated with a significant risk of PCa, and a high number of tumors show aggressive characteristics. While the impact of screening on patient outcomes remains to be more firmly established, the high SIR values we observe provide support for continued PSA screening of MSH2 and MSH6 carriers. Studies are needed to provide optimal recommendations for PSA‐threshold and to evaluate whether MLH1 and PMS2 carriers should not be recommended screening.

endocrinology & metabolism,urology & nephrology
Polygenic risk scores and breast and epithelial ovarian cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants

Daniel R Barnes,Matti A Rookus,Lesley McGuffog,Goska Leslie,Thea M Mooij,Joe Dennis,Nasim Mavaddat,Julian Adlard,Munaza Ahmed,Kristiina Aittomäki,Nadine Andrieu,Irene L Andrulis,Norbert Arnold,Banu K Arun,Jacopo Azzollini,Judith Balmaña,Rosa B Barkardottir,Daniel Barrowdale,Javier Benitez,Pascaline Berthet,Katarzyna Białkowska,Amie M Blanco,Marinus J Blok,Bernardo Bonanni,Susanne E Boonen,Åke Borg,Aniko Bozsik,Angela R Bradbury,Paul Brennan,Carole Brewer,Joan Brunet,Saundra S Buys,Trinidad Caldés,Maria A Caligo,Ian Campbell,Lise Lotte Christensen,Wendy K Chung,Kathleen B M Claes,Chrystelle Colas,GEMO Study Collaborators,EMBRACE Collaborators,Marie-Agnès Collonge-Rame,Jackie Cook,Mary B Daly,Rosemarie Davidson,Miguel de la Hoya,Robin de Putter,Capucine Delnatte,Peter Devilee,Orland Diez,Yuan Chun Ding,Susan M Domchek,Cecilia M Dorfling,Martine Dumont,Ros Eeles,Bent Ejlertsen,Christoph Engel,D Gareth Evans,Laurence Faivre,Lenka Foretova,Florentia Fostira,Michael Friedlander,Eitan Friedman,Debra Frost,Patricia A Ganz,Judy Garber,Andrea Gehrig,Anne-Marie Gerdes,Paul Gesta,Sophie Giraud,Gord Glendon,Andrew K Godwin,David E Goldgar,Anna González-Neira,Mark H Greene,Daphne Gschwantler-Kaulich,Eric Hahnen,Ute Hamann,Helen Hanson,Julia Hentschel,Frans B L Hogervorst,Maartje J Hooning,Judit Horvath,Chunling Hu,Peter J Hulick,Evgeny N Imyanitov,kConFab Investigators,HEBON Investigators,GENEPSO Investigators,Claudine Isaacs,Louise Izatt,Angel Izquierdo,Anna Jakubowska,Paul A James,Ramunas Janavicius,Esther M John,Vijai Joseph,Beth Y Karlan,Karin Kast,Marco Koudijs,Torben A Kruse,Ava Kwong,Yael Laitman,Christine Lasset,Conxi Lazaro,Jenny Lester,Fabienne Lesueur,Annelie Liljegren,Jennifer T Loud,Jan Lubiński,Phuong L Mai,Siranoush Manoukian,Véronique Mari,Noura Mebirouk,Hanne E J Meijers-Heijboer,Alfons Meindl,Arjen R Mensenkamp,Austin Miller,Marco Montagna,Emmanuelle Mouret-Fourme,Semanti Mukherjee,Anna Marie Mulligan,Katherine L Nathanson,Susan L Neuhausen,Heli Nevanlinna,Dieter Niederacher,Finn Cilius Nielsen,Liene Nikitina-Zake,Catherine Noguès,Edith Olah,Olufunmilayo I Olopade,Kai-Ren Ong,Aoife O'Shaughnessy-Kirwan,Ana Osorio,Claus-Eric Ott,Laura Papi,Sue K Park,Michael T Parsons,Inge Sokilde Pedersen,Bernard Peissel,Ana Peixoto,Paolo Peterlongo,Georg Pfeiler,Kelly-Anne Phillips,Karolina Prajzendanc,Miquel Angel Pujana,Paolo Radice,Juliane Ramser,Susan J Ramus,Johanna Rantala,Gad Rennert,Harvey A Risch,Mark Robson,Karina Rønlund,Ritu Salani,Hélène Schuster,Leigha Senter,Payal D Shah,Priyanka Sharma,Lucy E Side,Christian F Singer,Thomas P Slavin,Penny Soucy,Melissa C Southey,Amanda B Spurdle,Doris Steinemann,Zoe Steinsnyder,Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet,Christian Sutter,Yen Yen Tan,Manuel R Teixeira,Soo Hwang Teo,Darcy L Thull,Marc Tischkowitz,Silvia Tognazzo,Amanda E Toland,Alison H Trainer,Nadine Tung,Klaartje van Engelen,Elizabeth J van Rensburg,Ana Vega,Jeroen Vierstraete,Gabriel Wagner,Lisa Walker,Shan Wang-Gohrke,Barbara Wappenschmidt,Jeffrey N Weitzel,Siddhartha Yadav,Xin Yang,Drakoulis Yannoukakos,Dario Zimbalatti,Kenneth Offit,Mads Thomassen,Fergus J Couch,Rita K Schmutzler,Jacques Simard,Douglas F Easton,Georgia Chenevix-Trench,Antonis C Antoniou,Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA and BRCA2,Antonis Antoniou,Douglas Easton,Lucy Side,Amanda Spurdle,Marinus Blok,Frans Hogervorst,Maartje Hooning,Arjen Mensenkamp,Hanne Meijers-Heijboer,Matti Rookus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-020-0862-x

Abstract:Purpose: We assessed the associations between population-based polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Methods: Retrospective cohort data on 18,935 BRCA1 and 12,339 BRCA2 female pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestry were available. Three versions of a 313 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) BC PRS were evaluated based on whether they predict overall, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, or ER-positive BC, and two PRS for overall or high-grade serous EOC. Associations were validated in a prospective cohort. Results: The ER-negative PRS showed the strongest association with BC risk for BRCA1 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] per standard deviation = 1.29 [95% CI 1.25-1.33], P = 3×10-72). For BRCA2, the strongest association was with overall BC PRS (HR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.27-1.36], P = 7×10-50). HR estimates decreased significantly with age and there was evidence for differences in associations by predicted variant effects on protein expression. The HR estimates were smaller than general population estimates. The high-grade serous PRS yielded the strongest associations with EOC risk for BRCA1 (HR = 1.32 [95% CI 1.25-1.40], P = 3×10-22) and BRCA2 (HR = 1.44 [95% CI 1.30-1.60], P = 4×10-12) carriers. The associations in the prospective cohort were similar. Conclusion: Population-based PRS are strongly associated with BC and EOC risks for BRCA1/2 carriers and predict substantial absolute risk differences for women at PRS distribution extremes.
BRCA2 mutations should be screened early and routinely as markers of poor prognosis: evidence from 8,988 patients with prostate cancer

Ming Cui,X.S. Gao,Xiaobin Gu,Wei Guo,Xiaoying Li,M. Ma,Shangbin Qin,Xin Qi,Mu Xie,Chuan Peng,Yun Bai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.16712

2017-01-01

Oncotarget

Abstract:The aim of this study was to focus on clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis in men with prostate cancer (PCa) harboring a breast cancer 2 (BRCA2) gene mutation and to offer convincing evidence to consider BRCA2 mutation as a marker of poor prognosis in the molecular classification of PCa. We searched relevant articles from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases to evaluate the differences in the overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) between BRCA2 mutation carriers and non-carriers in patients with PCa. We included 525 BRCA2 mutation-carriers and 8,463 non-carriers in total from 10 studies in our meta-analysis. The results showed that carrying a BRCA2 mutation was correlated with a reduced CSS and OS when compared with that of non-carriers, with pooled Hazard Ratios (HRs) of 2.53 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.10-3.06, P < 0.001) and 2.21 (95% CI: 1.64-2.99, P < 0.001), respectively. The results also demonstrated that BRCA2 mutation-carriers harbored a higher Gleason Score (GS) (> 7), TNM stage (> T3, N1, M1), and risk level than non-carriers. Our meta-analysis showed that a BRCA2 mutation predicted poor survival outcomes in patients with prostate cancer, especially in those undergoing treatments with radiotherapy. Therefore, the use of BRCA2 mutation as a clinical prognostic factor could help stratify the high-risk patients and provide clinical strategies for more effective targeted treatments for patients with prostate cancer.
The efficacy of prostate-specific antigen screening: Impact of key components in the ERSPC and PLCO trials

Harry J de Koning,Roman Gulati,Sue M Moss,Jonas Hugosson,Paul F Pinsky,Christine D Berg,Anssi Auvinen,Gerald L Andriole,Monique J Roobol,E David Crawford,Vera Nelen,Maciej Kwiatkowski,Marco Zappa,Marcos Luján,Arnauld Villers,Tiago M de Carvalho,Eric J Feuer,Alex Tsodikov,Angela B Mariotto,Eveline A M Heijnsdijk,Ruth Etzioni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31178

IF: 6.9209

2018-03-15

Cancer

Abstract:Background: The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) demonstrated that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.91). The US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) trial indicated no such reduction but had a wide 95% CI (rate ratio for prostate cancer mortality, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.87-1.36). Standard meta-analyses are unable to account for key differences between the trials that can impact the estimated effects of screening and the trials' point estimates. Methods: The authors calibrated 2 microsimulation models to individual-level incidence and mortality data from 238,936 men participating in the ERSPC and PLCO trials. A cure parameter for the underlying efficacy of screening was estimated by the models separately for each trial. The authors changed step-by-step major known differences in trial settings, including enrollment and attendance patterns, screening intervals, PSA thresholds, biopsy receipt, control arm contamination, and primary treatment, to reflect a more ideal protocol situation and differences between the trials. Results: Using the cure parameter estimated for the ERSPC, the models projected 19% to 21% and 6% to 8%, respectively, prostate cancer mortality reductions in the ERSPC and PLCO settings. Using this cure parameter, the models projected a reduction of 37% to 43% under annual screening with 100% attendance and biopsy compliance and no contamination. The cure parameter estimated for the PLCO trial was 0. Conclusions: The observed cancer mortality reduction in screening trials appears to be highly sensitive to trial protocol and practice settings. Accounting for these differences, the efficacy of PSA screening in the PLCO setting is not necessarily inconsistent with ERSPC results. Cancer 2018;124:1197-206. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
Benefits and harms of prostate specific antigen testing according to Australian guidelines

Michael Caruana,Roman Gulati,Ruth Etzioni,Alexandra Barratt,Bruce K Armstrong,Karen Chiam,Visalini Nair-Shalliker,Qingwei Luo,Albert Bang,Paul Grogan,David P Smith,Dianne L O'Connell,Karen Canfell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.34731

2024-02-15

Abstract:Guidelines for prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing in Australia recommend that men at average risk of prostate cancer who have been informed of the benefits and harms, and who decide to undergo regular testing, should be offered testing every 2 years from 50 to 69 years. This study aimed to estimate the benefits and harms of regular testing in this context. We constructed Policy1-Prostate, a discrete event microsimulation platform of the natural history of prostate cancer and prostate cancer survival, and PSA testing patterns and subsequent management in Australia. The model was calibrated to pre-PSA (before 1985) prostate cancer incidence and mortality and validated against incidence and mortality trends from 1985 to 2011 and international trials. The model predictions were concordant with trials and Australian observed incidence and mortality data from 1985 to 2011. Out of 1000 men who choose to test according to the guidelines, 36 [21-41] men will die from prostate cancer and 126 [119-133] men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, compared with 50 [47-54] and 94 [90-98] men who do not test, respectively. During the 20 years of active PSA testing, 32.3% [25.6%-38.8%] of all PSA-test detected cancers are overdiagnosed cases that is, 30 [21-42] out of 94 [83-107] PSA-test detected cancers. Australian men choosing to test with PSA every two years from 50 to 69 will reduce their risk of ever dying from prostate cancer and incur a risk of overdiagnosis: for every man who avoids dying from prostate cancer, two will be overdiagnosed with prostate cancer between 50 and 69 years of age. Australian men, with health professionals, can use these results to inform decision-making about PSA testing.
Brca2 Mutation Should Be Screened Routinely And Early As A Poor Prognostic Biomarker In Prostate Cancer Patients With A Family History Of Cancer

M. Cui,X. S. Gao,X. Gu,M. Ma,X. Y. Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.06.1142

2017-01-01

Abstract:To focus on clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis in men with prostate cancer (PCa) with Breast Cancer 2 (BRCA2) mutation and offer some convincing evidence for BRCA2 mutation should be screened early and routinely for patients with family history of cancer, especially when their female relatives have a history of breast and ovarian cancer or male relatives have a history of PCa. We searched relevant articles from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases to evaluate the overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) difference between BRCA2 mutation and non-carriers in patients with prostate cancer. We totally incorporated 525 BRCA2 mutations versus 8,463 non-carriers from 10 studies in our meta-analysis. The results showed that BRCA2 mutation carriers was correlated with worse CSS and OS than non-carriers, with pooled Hazard Ratios (HRs) of 2.53 [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.10-3.06, P<0.001] and 2.21 (95%CI: 1.64-2.99, P<0.001) respectively. The results also demonstrated that BRCA2 mutation carriers also harboring higher Gleason Score (>7), TNM stage (>T3, N1, M1) and risk level than non-carriers. Our meta-analysis showed that BRCA2 mutation predicted poor survival outcomes in patients with PCa especially treatments with radiotherapy. Therefore, BRCA2 mutation as a helpful clinical prognostic factor could stratify the high risk patients and provide clinical strategies for more effective targeted treatments for patients with prostate cancer.
Prospective evaluation of the Kaiser Permanente prostate cancer risk calculator in biopsy-naïve men with mild PSA elevations.

Joseph Presti,Brandon Horton,Stacey Alexeeff,Stephanie Prausnitz,Andrew Avins

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.4_suppl.290

IF: 45.3

2024-02-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:290 Background: To assess the impact on biopsy outcomes in biopsy-naïve men with mild PSA elevations (<10 ng/ml) when provided risk estimates using a novel prostate cancer risk calculator. Methods: This prospective study was conducted in urology departments in Kaiser Permanente Northern California in men with PSA elevations that were <10 ng/ml between March 2021 and March 2023. Patient variables (age, race, family history of prostate cancer, body mass index, and PSA level) were entered into our validated calculator. Risk estimates for high-grade cancer (Gleason score ≥7) and overall cancer were shared with the patient who accepted or declined the biopsy. We compared age, race, family history for prostate cancer, BMI, PSA level, predicted high-grade and overall cancer risks between those that accepted and those that declined biopsy. The outcomes of those who underwent biopsy were compared to historical data of biopsy-naïve men with PSA elevations <10 ng/ml who underwent biopsy in the three years prior to the Covid pandemic between January 2016 and December 2019 (n=5141). Results: After 24 months, the calculator was used to estimate risk for 1962 biopsy-naïve men with mild PSA elevations. 1455 (74%) accepted the biopsy. Those with a family history for prostate cancer were slightly more likely to accept biopsy. Age (continuous and categorical), and BMI (continuous and categorical) were not associated with decision for biopsy. Similarly, race/ethnicity when analyzed as four categories (White, Black, Asian, Hispanic) or as two categories (Black vs. all others) was not associated with decision for biopsy. The men who accepted the biopsy had higher predicted median high-grade cancer risks (24% [IQR 17-31%] vs. 20% [IQR 14-29%]; p<0.0001) and higher predicted median overall cancer risks (48% [IQR 40-56%] vs 45% [IQR 37-53%], respectively; p<0.0001) than those who declined the biopsy. Compared to the historical group, use of the risk calculator resulted in a biopsy population enriched with high-grade cancer: 29% vs 25%; similar rates of low-grade cancer: 24% vs 24%; and fewer negative biopsies: 47% vs. 51%, respectively; overall p=0.013. Conclusions: In biopsy-naïve men with mild PSA elevations, use of our risk calculator resulted in a biopsy population that had more high-grade cancer and fewer negative biopsies compared to a historical group. Only family history and higher predicted cancer risks by the calculator were associated with biopsy acceptance.

oncology
Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Dragan Ilic,Mia Djulbegovic,Jae Hung Jung,Eu Chang Hwang,Qi Zhou,Anne Cleves,Thomas Agoritsas,Philipp Dahm

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3519

2018-09-05

BMJ

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to screen for prostate cancer.DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.DATA SOURCES: Electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, OpenGrey, LILACS, and Medline, and search of scientific meeting abstracts and trial registers to April 2018.ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials comparing PSA screening with usual care in men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer.DATA EXTRACTION: At least two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of eligible studies. A parallel guideline committee <i>(BMJ</i> Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. We used a random effects model to obtain pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) and, when feasible, conducted subgroup analyses (defined a priori) based on age, frequency of screening, family history, ethnicity, and socioeconomic level, as well as a sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach.RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials, enrolling 721 718 men, were included. Studies varied with respect to screening frequency and intervals, PSA thresholds for biopsy, and risk of bias. When considering the whole body of evidence, screening probably has no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.96, 0.85 to 1.08; low certainty). Sensitivity analysis of studies at lower risk of bias (n=1) also demonstrates that screening seems to have no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 1.0, 0.98 to 1.02; moderate certainty) but may have a small effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.79, 0.69 to 0.91; moderate certainty). This corresponds to one less death from prostate cancer per 1000 men screened over 10 years. Direct comparative data on biopsy and treatment related complications from the included trials were limited. Using modelling, we estimated that for every 1000 men screened, approximately 1, 3, and 25 more men would be hospitalised for sepsis, require pads for urinary incontinence, and report erectile dysfunction, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: At best, screening for prostate cancer leads to a small reduction in disease-specific mortality over 10 years but has does not affect overall mortality. Clinicians and patients considering PSA based screening need to weigh these benefits against the potential short and long term harms of screening, including complications from biopsies and subsequent treatment, as well as the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42016042347.
Risks of Breast, Ovarian, and Contralateral Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers

Karoline B. Kuchenbaecker,John L. Hopper,Daniel R. Barnes,Kelly-Anne Phillips,Thea M. Mooij,Marie-José Roos-Blom,Sarah Jervis,Flora E. van Leeuwen,Roger L. Milne,Nadine Andrieu,David E. Goldgar,Mary Beth Terry,Matti A. Rookus,Douglas F. Easton,Antonis C. Antoniou,Lesley McGuffog,D. Gareth Evans,Daniel Barrowdale,Debra Frost,Julian Adlard,Kai-ren Ong,Louise Izatt,Marc Tischkowitz,Ros Eeles,Rosemarie Davidson,Shirley Hodgson,Steve Ellis,Catherine Nogues,Christine Lasset,Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet,Jean-Pierre Fricker,Laurence Faivre,Pascaline Berthet,Maartje J. Hooning,Lizet E. van der Kolk,Carolien M. Kets,Muriel A. Adank,Esther M. John,Wendy K. Chung,Irene L. Andrulis,Melissa Southey,Mary B. Daly,Saundra S. Buys,Ana Osorio,Christoph Engel,Karin Kast,Rita K. Schmutzler,Trinidad Caldes,Anna Jakubowska,Jacques Simard,Michael L. Friedlander,Sue-Anne McLachlan,Eva Machackova,Lenka Foretova,Yen Y. Tan,Christian F. Singer,Edith Olah,Anne-Marie Gerdes,Brita Arver,Håkan Olsson,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.7112

IF: 11.816

2017-06-20

JAMA

Abstract:Importance: The clinical management of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers requires accurate, prospective cancer risk estimates.Objectives: To estimate age-specific risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for mutation carriers and to evaluate risk modification by family cancer history and mutation location.Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of 6036 BRCA1 and 3820 BRCA2 female carriers (5046 unaffected and 4810 with breast or ovarian cancer or both at baseline) recruited in 1997-2011 through the International BRCA1/2 Carrier Cohort Study, the Breast Cancer Family Registry and the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer, with ascertainment through family clinics (94%) and population-based studies (6%). The majority were from large national studies in the United Kingdom (EMBRACE), the Netherlands (HEBON), and France (GENEPSO). Follow-up ended December 2013; median follow-up was 5 years.Exposures: BRCA1/2 mutations, family cancer history, and mutation location.Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual incidences, standardized incidence ratios, and cumulative risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer.Results: Among 3886 women (median age, 38 years; interquartile range [IQR], 30-46 years) eligible for the breast cancer analysis, 5066 women (median age, 38 years; IQR, 31-47 years) eligible for the ovarian cancer analysis, and 2213 women (median age, 47 years; IQR, 40-55 years) eligible for the contralateral breast cancer analysis, 426 were diagnosed with breast cancer, 109 with ovarian cancer, and 245 with contralateral breast cancer during follow-up. The cumulative breast cancer risk to age 80 years was 72% (95% CI, 65%-79%) for BRCA1 and 69% (95% CI, 61%-77%) for BRCA2 carriers. Breast cancer incidences increased rapidly in early adulthood until ages 30 to 40 years for BRCA1 and until ages 40 to 50 years for BRCA2 carriers, then remained at a similar, constant incidence (20-30 per 1000 person-years) until age 80 years. The cumulative ovarian cancer risk to age 80 years was 44% (95% CI, 36%-53%) for BRCA1 and 17% (95% CI, 11%-25%) for BRCA2 carriers. For contralateral breast cancer, the cumulative risk 20 years after breast cancer diagnosis was 40% (95% CI, 35%-45%) for BRCA1 and 26% (95% CI, 20%-33%) for BRCA2 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] for comparing BRCA2 vs BRCA1, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.82; P=.001 for difference). Breast cancer risk increased with increasing number of first- and second-degree relatives diagnosed as having breast cancer for both BRCA1 (HR for ≥2 vs 0 affected relatives, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.41-2.82; P<.001 for trend) and BRCA2 carriers (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.08-3.37; P=.02 for trend). Breast cancer risk was higher if mutations were located outside vs within the regions bounded by positions c.2282-c.4071 in BRCA1 (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.11-1.93; P=.007) and c.2831-c.6401 in BRCA2 (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.36-2.74; P<.001).Conclusions and Relevance: These findings provide estimates of cancer risk based on BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carrier status using prospective data collection and demonstrate the potential importance of family history and mutation location in risk assessment.
Association of type and location of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with risk of breast and ovarian cancer

Timothy R Rebbeck,Nandita Mitra,Fei Wan,Olga M Sinilnikova,Sue Healey,Lesley McGuffog,Sylvie Mazoyer,Georgia Chenevix-Trench,Douglas F Easton,Antonis C Antoniou,Katherine L Nathanson,CIMBA Consortium,Yael Laitman,Anya Kushnir,Shani Paluch-Shimon,Raanan Berger,Jamal Zidan,Eitan Friedman,Hans Ehrencrona,Marie Stenmark-Askmalm,Zakaria Einbeigi,Niklas Loman,Katja Harbst,Johanna Rantala,Beatrice Melin,Dezheng Huo,Olufunmilayo I Olopade,Joyce Seldon,Patricia A Ganz,Robert L Nussbaum,Salina B Chan,Kunle Odunsi,Simon A Gayther,Susan M Domchek,Banu K Arun,Karen H Lu,Gillian Mitchell,Beth Y Karlan,Christine Walsh,Jenny Lester,Andrew K Godwin,Harsh Pathak,Eric Ross,Mary B Daly,Alice S Whittemore,Esther M John,Alexander Miron,Mary Beth Terry,Wendy K Chung,David E Goldgar,Saundra S Buys,Ramunas Janavicius,Laima Tihomirova,Nadine Tung,Cecilia M Dorfling,Elizabeth J van Rensburg,Linda Steele,Susan L Neuhausen,Yuan Chun Ding,Bent Ejlertsen,Anne-Marie Gerdes,Thomas v O Hansen,Teresa Ramón y Cajal,Ana Osorio,Javier Benitez,Javier Godino,Maria-Isabel Tejada,Mercedes Duran,Jeffrey N Weitzel,Kristie A Bobolis,Sharon R Sand,Annette Fontaine,Antonella Savarese,Barbara Pasini,Bernard Peissel,Bernardo Bonanni,Daniela Zaffaroni,Francesca Vignolo-Lutati,Giulietta Scuvera,Giuseppe Giannini,Loris Bernard,Maurizio Genuardi,Paolo Radice,Riccardo Dolcetti,Siranoush Manoukian,Valeria Pensotti,Viviana Gismondi,Drakoulis Yannoukakos,Florentia Fostira,Judy Garber,Diana Torres,Muhammad Usman Rashid,Ute Hamann,Susan Peock,Debra Frost,Radka Platte,D Gareth Evans,Rosalind Eeles,Rosemarie Davidson,Diana Eccles,Trevor Cole,Jackie Cook,Carole Brewer,Shirley Hodgson,Patrick J Morrison,Lisa Walker,Mary E Porteous,M John Kennedy,Louise Izatt,Julian Adlard,Alan Donaldson,Steve Ellis,Priyanka Sharma,Rita Katharina Schmutzler,Barbara Wappenschmidt,Alexandra Becker,Kerstin Rhiem,Eric Hahnen,Christoph Engel,Alfons Meindl,Stefanie Engert,Nina Ditsch,Norbert Arnold,Hans Jörg Plendl,Christoph Mundhenke,Dieter Niederacher,Markus Fleisch,Christian Sutter,C R Bartram,Nicola Dikow,Shan Wang-Gohrke,Dorothea Gadzicki,Doris Steinemann,Karin Kast,Marit Beer,Raymonda Varon-Mateeva,Andrea Gehrig,Bernhard H Weber,Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet,Claude Houdayer,Muriel Belotti,Marion Gauthier-Villars,Francesca Damiola,Nadia Boutry-Kryza,Christine Lasset,Hagay Sobol,Jean-Philippe Peyrat,Danièle Muller,Jean-Pierre Fricker,Marie-Agnès Collonge-Rame,Isabelle Mortemousque,Catherine Nogues,Etienne Rouleau,Claudine Isaacs,Anne De Paepe,Bruce Poppe,Kathleen Claes,Kim De Leeneer,Marion Piedmonte,Gustavo Rodriguez,Katie Wakely,John Boggess,Stephanie V Blank,Jack Basil,Masoud Azodi,Kelly-Anne Phillips,Trinidad Caldes,Miguel de la Hoya,Atocha Romero,Heli Nevanlinna,Kristiina Aittomäki,Annemarie H van der Hout,Frans B L Hogervorst,Senno Verhoef,J Margriet Collée,Caroline Seynaeve,Jan C Oosterwijk,Johannes J P Gille,Juul T Wijnen,Encarna B Gómez Garcia,Carolien M Kets,Margreet G E M Ausems,Cora M Aalfs,Peter Devilee,Arjen R Mensenkamp,Ava Kwong,Edith Olah,Janos Papp,Orland Diez,Conxi Lazaro,Esther Darder,Ignacio Blanco,Mónica Salinas,Anna Jakubowska,Jan Lubinski,Jacek Gronwald,Katarzyna Jaworska-Bieniek,Katarzyna Durda,Grzegorz Sukiennicki,Tomasz Huzarski,Tomasz Byrski,Cezary Cybulski,Aleksandra Toloczko-Grabarek,Elżbieta Złowocka-Perłowska,Janusz Menkiszak,Adalgeir Arason,Rosa B Barkardottir,Jacques Simard,Rachel Laframboise,Marco Montagna,Simona Agata,Elisa Alducci,Ana Peixoto,Manuel R Teixeira,Amanda B Spurdle,Min Hyuk Lee,Sue K Park,Sung-Won Kim,Tara M Friebel,Fergus J Couch,Noralane M Lindor,Vernon S Pankratz,Lucia Guidugli,Xianshu Wang,Marc Tischkowitz,Lenka Foretova,Joseph Vijai,Kenneth Offit,Mark Robson,Rohini Rau-Murthy,Noah Kauff,Anneliese Fink-Retter,Christian F Singer,Christine Rappaport,Daphne Gschwantler-Kaulich,Georg Pfeiler,Muy-Kheng Tea,Andreas Berger,Mark H Greene,Phuong L Mai,Evgeny N Imyanitov,Amanda Ewart Toland,Leigha Senter,Anders Bojesen,Inge Sokilde Pedersen,Anne-Bine Skytte,Lone Sunde,Mads Thomassen,Sanne Traasdahl Moeller,Torben A Kruse,Uffe Birk Jensen,Maria Adelaide Caligo,Paolo Aretini,Soo-Hwang Teo,Christina G Selkirk,Peter J Hulick,Irene Andrulis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.5985

IF: 11.816

2015-04-07

JAMA

Abstract:Importance: Limited information about the relationship between specific mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) and cancer risk exists. Objective: To identify mutation-specific cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1/2. Design, setting, and participants: Observational study of women who were ascertained between 1937 and 2011 (median, 1999) and found to carry disease-associated BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The international sample comprised 19,581 carriers of BRCA1 mutations and 11,900 carriers of BRCA2 mutations from 55 centers in 33 countries on 6 continents. We estimated hazard ratios for breast and ovarian cancer based on mutation type, function, and nucleotide position. We also estimated RHR, the ratio of breast vs ovarian cancer hazard ratios. A value of RHR greater than 1 indicated elevated breast cancer risk; a value of RHR less than 1 indicated elevated ovarian cancer risk. Exposures: Mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2. Main outcomes and measures: Breast and ovarian cancer risks. Results: Among BRCA1 mutation carriers, 9052 women (46%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 2317 (12%) with ovarian cancer, 1041 (5%) with breast and ovarian cancer, and 7171 (37%) without cancer. Among BRCA2 mutation carriers, 6180 women (52%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 682 (6%) with ovarian cancer, 272 (2%) with breast and ovarian cancer, and 4766 (40%) without cancer. In BRCA1, we identified 3 breast cancer cluster regions (BCCRs) located at c.179 to c.505 (BCCR1; RHR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.22-1.74; P = 2 × 10(-6)), c.4328 to c.4945 (BCCR2; RHR = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.78; P = .04), and c. 5261 to c.5563 (BCCR2', RHR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.55; P = 6 × 10(-9)). We also identified an ovarian cancer cluster region (OCCR) from c.1380 to c.4062 (approximately exon 11) with RHR = 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.70; P = 9 × 10(-17)). In BRCA2, we observed multiple BCCRs spanning c.1 to c.596 (BCCR1; RHR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.06-2.78; P = .03), c.772 to c.1806 (BCCR1'; RHR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.10-2.40; P = .01), and c.7394 to c.8904 (BCCR2; RHR = 2.31; 95% CI, 1.69-3.16; P = .00002). We also identified 3 OCCRs: the first (OCCR1) spanned c.3249 to c.5681 that was adjacent to c.5946delT (6174delT; RHR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.44-0.60; P = 6 × 10(-17)). The second OCCR spanned c.6645 to c.7471 (OCCR2; RHR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.80; P = .001). Mutations conferring nonsense-mediated decay were associated with differential breast or ovarian cancer risks and an earlier age of breast cancer diagnosis for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Conclusions and relevance: Breast and ovarian cancer risks varied by type and location of BRCA1/2 mutations. With appropriate validation, these data may have implications for risk assessment and cancer prevention decision making for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.
Prostate cancer risk stratification improvement across multiple ancestries with new polygenic hazard score

Minh-Phuong Huynh-Le,Roshan Karunamuni,Chun Chieh Fan,Lui Asona,Wesley K Thompson,Maria Elena Martinez,Rosalind A Eeles,Zsofia Kote-Jarai,Kenneth R Muir,Artitaya Lophatananon,Johanna Schleutker,Nora Pashayan,Jyotsna Batra,Henrik Grönberg,David E Neal,Børge G Nordestgaard,Catherine M Tangen,Robert J MacInnis,Alicja Wolk,Demetrius Albanes,Christopher A Haiman,Ruth C Travis,William J Blot,Janet L Stanford,Lorelei A Mucci,Catharine M L West,Sune F Nielsen,Adam S Kibel,Olivier Cussenot,Sonja I Berndt,Stella Koutros,Karina Dalsgaard Sørensen,Cezary Cybulski,Eli Marie Grindedal,Florence Menegaux,Jong Y Park,Sue A Ingles,Christiane Maier,Robert J Hamilton,Barry S Rosenstein,Yong-Jie Lu,Stephen Watya,Ana Vega,Manolis Kogevinas,Fredrik Wiklund,Kathryn L Penney,Chad D Huff,Manuel R Teixeira,Luc Multigner,Robin J Leach,Hermann Brenner,Esther M John,Radka Kaneva,Christopher J Logothetis,Susan L Neuhausen,Kim De Ruyck,Piet Ost,Azad Razack,Lisa F Newcomb,Jay H Fowke,Marija Gamulin,Aswin Abraham,Frank Claessens,Jose Esteban Castelao,Paul A Townsend,Dana C Crawford,Gyorgy Petrovics,Ron H N van Schaik,Marie-Élise Parent,Jennifer J Hu,Wei Zheng,UKGPCS collaborators,APCB (Australian Prostate Cancer BioResource),NC-LA PCaP Investigators,IMPACT Study Steering Committee and Collaborators,Canary PASS Investigators,Profile Study Steering Committee,PRACTICAL Consortium,Ian G Mills,Ole A Andreassen,Anders M Dale,Tyler M Seibert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-022-00497-7

Abstract:Background: Prostate cancer risk stratification using single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) demonstrates considerable promise in men of European, Asian, and African genetic ancestries, but there is still need for increased accuracy. We evaluated whether including additional SNPs in a prostate cancer polygenic hazard score (PHS) would improve associations with clinically significant prostate cancer in multi-ancestry datasets. Methods: In total, 299 SNPs previously associated with prostate cancer were evaluated for inclusion in a new PHS, using a LASSO-regularized Cox proportional hazards model in a training dataset of 72,181 men from the PRACTICAL Consortium. The PHS model was evaluated in four testing datasets: African ancestry, Asian ancestry, and two of European Ancestry-the Cohort of Swedish Men (COSM) and the ProtecT study. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated to compare men with high versus low PHS for association with clinically significant, with any, and with fatal prostate cancer. The impact of genetic risk stratification on the positive predictive value (PPV) of PSA testing for clinically significant prostate cancer was also measured. Results: The final model (PHS290) had 290 SNPs with non-zero coefficients. Comparing, for example, the highest and lowest quintiles of PHS290, the hazard ratios (HRs) for clinically significant prostate cancer were 13.73 [95% CI: 12.43-15.16] in ProtecT, 7.07 [6.58-7.60] in African ancestry, 10.31 [9.58-11.11] in Asian ancestry, and 11.18 [10.34-12.09] in COSM. Similar results were seen for association with any and fatal prostate cancer. Without PHS stratification, the PPV of PSA testing for clinically significant prostate cancer in ProtecT was 0.12 (0.11-0.14). For the top 20% and top 5% of PHS290, the PPV of PSA testing was 0.19 (0.15-0.22) and 0.26 (0.19-0.33), respectively. Conclusions: We demonstrate better genetic risk stratification for clinically significant prostate cancer than prior versions of PHS in multi-ancestry datasets. This is promising for implementing precision-medicine approaches to prostate cancer screening decisions in diverse populations.
BRCA1, BRCA2, and Associated Cancer Risks and Management for Male Patients: A Review

Heather H Cheng,Jeffrey W Shevach,Elena Castro,Fergus J Couch,Susan M Domchek,Rosalind A Eeles,Veda N Giri,Michael J Hall,Mary-Claire King,Daniel W Lin,Stacy Loeb,Todd M Morgan,Kenneth Offit,Colin C Pritchard,Edward M Schaeffer,Brittany M Szymaniak,Jason L Vassy,Bryson W Katona,Kara N Maxwell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.2185

2024-07-25

Abstract:Importance: Half of all carriers of inherited cancer-predisposing variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are male, but the implications for their health are underrecognized compared to female individuals. Germline variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (also known as pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, referred to here as BRCA1/2 PVs) are well known to significantly increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancers in female carriers, and knowledge of BRCA1/2 PVs informs established cancer screening and options for risk reduction. While risks to male carriers of BRCA1/2 PVs are less characterized, there is convincing evidence of increased risk for prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and breast cancer in males. There has also been a rapid expansion of US Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted cancer therapies, including poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, for breast, pancreatic, and prostate cancers associated with BRCA1/2 PVs. Observations: This narrative review summarized the data that inform cancer risks, targeted cancer therapy options, and guidelines for early cancer detection. It also highlighted areas of emerging research and clinical trial opportunities for male BRCA1/2 PV carriers. These developments, along with the continued relevance to family cancer risk and reproductive options, have informed changes to guideline recommendations for genetic testing and strengthened the case for increased genetic testing for males. Conclusions and relevance: Despite increasing clinical actionability for male carriers of BRCA1/2 PVs, far fewer males than female individuals undergo cancer genetic testing. Oncologists, internists, and primary care clinicians should be vigilant about offering appropriate genetic testing to males. Identifying more male carriers of BRCA1/2 PVs will maximize opportunities for cancer early detection, targeted risk management, and cancer treatment for males, along with facilitating opportunities for risk reduction and prevention in their family members, thereby decreasing the burden of hereditary cancer.

Highly effective adenoviral mediated gene transfer to porcine endothelial cells in vitro.

Prostate screening for men with inherited risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer: The PATROL study.

The psychosocial impact of prostate cancer screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers

MicroRNA miR-24 inhibits erythropoiesis by targeting activin type I receptor ALK4.

Breast and Prostate Cancer Risks for Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers Using Polygenic Risk Scores

Assessing the mid-term impact of enhanced prostate cancer screening in Caucasian men with germline DNA repair pathogenic variants.

Perl Simulation of a Job Shop Type Problem

Male breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: pathology data from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing of men in UK general practice: a 10-year longitudinal cohort study

Outcomes of 10 years of PSA screening for prostate cancer in Norwegian men with Lynch syndrome

Polygenic risk scores and breast and epithelial ovarian cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants

BRCA2 mutations should be screened early and routinely as markers of poor prognosis: evidence from 8,988 patients with prostate cancer

The efficacy of prostate-specific antigen screening: Impact of key components in the ERSPC and PLCO trials

Benefits and harms of prostate specific antigen testing according to Australian guidelines

Brca2 Mutation Should Be Screened Routinely And Early As A Poor Prognostic Biomarker In Prostate Cancer Patients With A Family History Of Cancer

Prospective evaluation of the Kaiser Permanente prostate cancer risk calculator in biopsy-naïve men with mild PSA elevations.

Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Risks of Breast, Ovarian, and Contralateral Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers

Association of type and location of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with risk of breast and ovarian cancer

Prostate cancer risk stratification improvement across multiple ancestries with new polygenic hazard score

BRCA1, BRCA2, and Associated Cancer Risks and Management for Male Patients: A Review