Different susceptibilities of PECAM-deficient mouse strains to spontaneous idiopathic pneumonitis.

A. Schenkel,Tina W. Chew,E. Chlipala,M. Harbord,W. Muller

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.YEXMP.2005.11.007

2006-08-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A Genetic Study and Meta-Analysis of the Genetic Predisposition of Prostate Cancer in a Chinese Population

Jacek Marzec,Xueying Mao,Meiling Li,Meilin Wang,Ninghan Feng,Xin Gou,Guomin Wang,Zan Sun,Jianfeng Xu,Hua Xu,Xiaoping Zhang,Shan-Chao Zhao,Guoping Ren,Yongwei Yu,Yudong Wu,Ji Wu,Yao Xue,Bo Zhou,Yanling Zhang,Xingxing Xu,Jie Li,Weiyang He,Sara Benlloch,Helen Ross-Adams,Li Chen,Jucong Li,Yingqia Hong,Zsofia Kote-Jarai,Xingang Cui,Jianguo Hou,Jianming Guo,Lei Xu,Changjun Yin,Yuanping Zhou,David E. Neal,Tim Oliver,Guangwen Cao,Zhengdong Zhang,Douglas F. Easton,Claude Chelala,Ali Amin Al Olama,Rosalind A. Eeles,Hongwei Zhang,Yong-Jie Lu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.7250

2016-01-01

Oncotarget

Abstract:Prostate cancer predisposition has been extensively investigated in European populations, but there have been few studies of other ethnic groups. To investigate prostate cancer susceptibility in the under-investigated Chinese population, we performed single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analysis on a cohort of Chinese cases and controls and then meta-analysis with data from the existing Chinese prostate cancer genome-wide association study (GWAS). Genotyping 211,155 SNPs in 495 cases and 640 controls of Chinese ancestry identified several new suggestive Chinese prostate cancer predisposition loci. However, none of them reached genome-wide significance level either by meta-analysis or replication study. The meta-analysis with the Chinese GWAS data revealed that four 8q24 loci are the main contributors to Chinese prostate cancer risk and the risk alleles from three of them exist at much higher frequencies in Chinese than European populations. We also found that several predisposition loci reported in Western populations have different effect on Chinese men. Therefore, this first extensive single-nucleotide polymorphism study of Chinese prostate cancer in comparison with European population indicates that four loci on 8q24 contribute to a great risk of prostate cancer in a considerable large proportion of Chinese men. Based on those four loci, the top 10% of the population have six-or two-fold prostate cancer risk compared with men of the bottom 10% or median risk respectively, which may facilitate the design of prostate cancer genetic risk screening and prevention in Chinese men. These findings also provide additional insights into the etiology and pathogenesis of prostate cancer.
Validation of a multi-ancestry polygenic risk score and age-specific risks of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis within diverse populations

Fei Chen,Burcu F Darst,Ravi K Madduri,Alex A Rodriguez,Xin Sheng,Christopher T Rentsch,Caroline Andrews,Wei Tang,Adam S Kibel,Anna Plym,Kelly Cho,Mohamed Jalloh,Serigne Magueye Gueye,Lamine Niang,Olufemi J Ogunbiyi,Olufemi Popoola,Akindele O Adebiyi,Oseremen I Aisuodionoe-Shadrach,Hafees O Ajibola,Mustapha A Jamda,Olabode P Oluwole,Maxwell Nwegbu,Ben Adusei,Sunny Mante,Afua Darkwa-Abrahams,James E Mensah,Andrew Anthony Adjei,Halimatou Diop,Joseph Lachance,Timothy R Rebbeck,Stefan Ambs,J Michael Gaziano,Amy C Justice,David V Conti,Christopher A Haiman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.78304

IF: 7.7

2022-07-09

eLife

Abstract:Background: We recently developed a multi-ancestry polygenic risk score (PRS) that effectively stratifies prostate cancer risk across populations. In this study, we validated the performance of the PRS in the multi-ancestry Million Veteran Program (MVP) and additional independent studies.

biology
Clinical features of prostate cancer by polygenic risk score

Christina Spears,Menglin Xu,Abigail Shoben,Shawn Dason,Amanda Ewart Toland,Lindsey Byrne

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-024-00369-0

2024-04-16

Familial Cancer

Abstract:Genome-wide association studies have identified more than 290 single nucleotide variants (SNVs) associated with prostate cancer. These SNVs can be combined to generate a Polygenic Risk Score (PRS), which estimates an individual's risk to develop prostate cancer. Identifying individuals at higher risk for prostate cancer using PRS could allow for personalized screening recommendations, improve current screening tools, and potentially result in improved survival rates, but more research is needed before incorporating them into clinical use. Our study aimed to investigate associations between PRS and clinical factors in affected individuals, including age of diagnosis, metastases, histology, International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group (GG) and family history of prostate cancer, while taking into account germline genetic testing in known prostate cancer related genes. To evaluate the relationship between these clinical factors and PRS, a quantitative retrospective chart review of 250 individuals of European ancestry diagnosed with prostate cancer who received genetic counseling services at The Ohio State University's Genitourinary Cancer Genetics Clinic and a 72-SNV PRS through Ambry Genetics, was performed. We found significant associations between higher PRS and younger age of diagnosis (p = 0.002), lower frequency of metastases (p = 0.006), and having a first-degree relative diagnosed with prostate cancer (p = 0.024). We did not observe significant associations between PRS and ISUP GG, histology or a having a second-degree relative with prostate cancer. These findings provide insights into features associated with higher PRS, but larger multi-ancestral studies using PRS that are informative across populations are needed to understand its clinical utility.

oncology,genetics & heredity
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.
Circuit QED: cross-Kerr effect induced by a superconducting qutrit without classical pulses

Tongqi Liu,Yang Zhang,Bao-qing Guo,Chang-shui Yu,Wei-Ning Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-017-1664-1

IF: 1.965

2016-11-21

Quantum Information Processing

Abstract:
Systematic evaluation of narrow-sense validity of polygenic risk score for prostate cancer in a Chinese prostate biopsy cohort

Yishuo Wu,Xiaohao Ruan,Peng Gao,Huang Da,Zujun Fang,Danfeng Xu,Haowen Jiang,Qiang Ding,Xiaoling Lin,Daru Lu,Rong Na

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.14315

2023-01-01

Clinical Genetics

Abstract:The aim of this study was to assess the narrow-sense validity of polygenic risk score (PRS) for prostate cancer (PCa) in a Chinese prostate biopsy cohort. We performed an observational prospective study with 2640 men who underwent prostate biopsy. Germline DNA samples were genotyped and PRS was calculated for each subject using 17 PCa risk-associated genetic variants. Additional GWAS data of the ChinaPCa dataset was also used to compliment the evaluation process. The mean PRS was 1.02 in patients with negative biopsy results, which met the baseline benchmark. The mean PRS was significantly higher in the PCa cases (1.32 vs. 1.02, p = 5.56 x 10(-17)). Significant dose-response associations between PRS values and odds ratios for PCa were observed. However, the raw calibration slope was 0.524 and the average bias score between the observed risk and uncorrected PRS value was 0.307 in the entire biopsy cohort. After applying a correction factor derived from a training set, the corrected calibration slope improved to 1.002 in a testing set. Similar and satisfied results were also seen in the ChinaPCa dataset and two datasets combined, while the calibration results were inaccurate when the calibration process were performed mutually between two different study populations. In conclusion, assessing the narrow-sense validity of PRS is necessary prior to its clinical implementation for accurate individual risk assessment.
Broad- and narrow-sense validity performance of three polygenic risk score methods for prostate cancer risk assessment

Hongjie Yu,Zhuqing Shi,Xiaoling Lin,Quanwa Bao,Haifei Jia,Jun Wei,Brian T. Helfand,Siqun. L. Zheng,David Duggan,Daru Lu,Zengnan Mo,Jianfeng Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23920

2020-01-01

Abstract:Background Several polygenic risk score (PRS) methods are available for measuring the cumulative effect of multiple risk-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Their performance in predicting risk at the individual level has not been well studied. Methods We compared the performance of three PRS methods for prostate cancer risk assessment in a clinical trial cohort, including genetic risk score (GRS), pruning and thresholding (P + T), and linkage disequilibrium prediction (LDpred). Performance was evaluated for score deciles (broad-sense validity) and score values (narrow-sense validity). Results A training process was required to identify the best P + T model (397 SNPs) and LDpred model (3 011 362 SNPs). In contrast, GRS was directly calculated based on 110 established risk-associated SNPs. For broad-sense validity in the testing population, higher deciles were significantly associated with higher observed risk;P(trend)was 7.40 x 10(-11), 7.64 x 10(-13), and 7.51 x 10(-10)for GRS, P + T, and LDpred, respectively. For narrow-sense validity, the calibration slope (1 is best) was 1.03, 0.77, and 0.87, and mean bias score (0 is best) was 0.09, 0.21, and 0.10 for GRS, P + T, and LDpred, respectively. Conclusions The performance of GRS was better than P + T and LDpred. Fewer and well-established SNPs of GRS also make it more feasible and interpretable for genetic testing at the individual level.
Trans-ancestry genome-wide association meta-analysis of prostate cancer identifies new susceptibility loci and informs genetic risk prediction

David V. Conti,Burcu F. Darst,Lilit C. Moss,Edward J. Saunders,Xin Sheng,Alisha Chou,Fredrick R. Schumacher,Ali Amin Al Olama,Sara Benlloch,Tokhir Dadaev,Mark N. Brook,Ali Sahimi,Thomas J. Hoffmann,Atushi Takahashi,Koichi Matsuda,Yukihide Momozawa,Masashi Fujita,Kenneth Muir,Artitaya Lophatananon,Peggy Wan,Loic Le Marchand,Lynne R. Wilkens,Victoria L. Stevens,Susan M. Gapstur,Brian D. Carter,Johanna Schleutker,Teuvo L. J. Tammela,Csilla Sipeky,Anssi Auvinen,Graham G. Giles,Melissa C. Southey,Robert J. MacInnis,Cezary Cybulski,Dominika Wokołorczyk,Jan Lubiński,David E. Neal,Jenny L. Donovan,Freddie C. Hamdy,Richard M. Martin,Børge G. Nordestgaard,Sune F. Nielsen,Maren Weischer,Stig E. Bojesen,Martin Andreas Røder,Peter Iversen,Jyotsna Batra,Suzanne Chambers,Leire Moya,Lisa Horvath,Judith A. Clements,Wayne Tilley,Gail P. Risbridger,Henrik Gronberg,Markus Aly,Robert Szulkin,Martin Eklund,Tobias Nordström,Nora Pashayan,Alison M. Dunning,Maya Ghoussaini,Ruth C. Travis,Tim J. Key,Elio Riboli,Jong Y. Park,Thomas A. Sellers,Hui-Yi Lin,Demetrius Albanes,Stephanie J. Weinstein,Lorelei A. Mucci,Edward Giovannucci,Sara Lindstrom,Peter Kraft,David J. Hunter,Kathryn L. Penney,Constance Turman,Catherine M. Tangen,Phyllis J. Goodman,Ian M. Thompson,Robert J. Hamilton,Neil E. Fleshner,Antonio Finelli,Marie-Élise Parent,Janet L. Stanford,Elaine A. Ostrander,Milan S. Geybels,Stella Koutros,Laura E. Beane Freeman,Meir Stampfer,Alicja Wolk,Niclas Håkansson,Gerald L. Andriole,Robert N. Hoover,Mitchell J. Machiela,Karina Dalsgaard Sørensen,Michael Borre,William J. Blot,Wei Zheng,Edward D. Yeboah,James E. Mensah,Yong-Jie Lu,Hong-Wei Zhang,Ninghan Feng,Xueying Mao,Yudong Wu,Shan-Chao Zhao,Zan Sun,Stephen N. Thibodeau,Shannon K. McDonnell,Daniel J. Schaid,Catharine M. L. West,Neil Burnet,Gill Barnett,Christiane Maier,Thomas Schnoeller,Manuel Luedeke,Adam S. Kibel,Bettina F. Drake,Olivier Cussenot,Géraldine Cancel-Tassin,Florence Menegaux,Thérèse Truong,Yves Akoli Koudou,Esther M. John,Eli Marie Grindedal,Lovise Maehle,Kay-Tee Khaw,Sue A. Ingles,Mariana C. Stern,Ana Vega,Antonio Gómez-Caamaño,Laura Fachal,Barry S. Rosenstein,Sarah L. Kerns,Harry Ostrer,Manuel R. Teixeira,Paula Paulo,Andreia Brandão,Stephen Watya,Alexander Lubwama,Jeannette T. Bensen,Elizabeth T. H. Fontham,James Mohler,Jack A. Taylor,Manolis Kogevinas,Javier Llorca,Gemma Castaño-Vinyals,Lisa Cannon-Albright,Craig C. Teerlink,Chad D. Huff,Sara S. Strom,Luc Multigner,Pascal Blanchet,Laurent Brureau,Radka Kaneva,Chavdar Slavov,Vanio Mitev,Robin J. Leach,Brandi Weaver,Hermann Brenner,Katarina Cuk,Bernd Holleczek,Kai-Uwe Saum,Eric A. Klein,Ann W. Hsing,Rick A. Kittles,Adam B. Murphy,Christopher J. Logothetis,Jeri Kim,Susan L. Neuhausen,Linda Steele,Yuan Chun Ding,William B. Isaacs,Barbara Nemesure,Anselm J. M. Hennis,John Carpten,Hardev Pandha,Agnieszka Michael,Kim De Ruyck,Gert De Meerleer,Piet Ost,Jianfeng Xu,Azad Razack,Jasmine Lim,Soo-Hwang Teo,Lisa F. Newcomb,Daniel W. Lin,Jay H. Fowke,Christine Neslund-Dudas,Benjamin A. Rybicki,Marija Gamulin,Davor Lessel,Tomislav Kulis,Nawaid Usmani,Sandeep Singhal,Matthew Parliament,Frank Claessens,Steven Joniau,Thomas Van den Broeck,Manuela Gago-Dominguez,Jose Esteban Castelao,Maria Elena Martinez,Samantha Larkin,Paul A. Townsend,Claire Aukim-Hastie,William S. Bush,Melinda C. Aldrich,Dana C. Crawford,Shiv Srivastava,Jennifer C. Cullen,Gyorgy Petrovics,Graham Casey,Monique J. Roobol,Guido Jenster,Ron H. N. van Schaik,Jennifer J. Hu,Maureen Sanderson,Rohit Varma,Roberta McKean-Cowdin,Mina Torres,Nicholas Mancuso,Sonja I. Berndt,Stephen K. Van Den Eeden,Douglas F. Easton,Stephen J. Chanock,Michael B. Cook,Fredrik Wiklund,Hidewaki Nakagawa,John S. Witte,Rosalind A. Eeles,Zsofia Kote-Jarai,Christopher A. Haiman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-020-00748-0

IF: 30.8

2021-01-01

Nature Genetics

Abstract:Prostate cancer is a highly heritable disease with large disparities in incidence rates across ancestry populations. We conducted a multiancestry meta-analysis of prostate cancer genome-wide association studies (107,247 cases and 127,006 controls) and identified 86 new genetic risk variants independently associated with prostate cancer risk, bringing the total to 269 known risk variants. The top genetic risk score (GRS) decile was associated with odds ratios that ranged from 5.06 (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.84–5.29) for men of European ancestry to 3.74 (95% CI, 3.36–4.17) for men of African ancestry. Men of African ancestry were estimated to have a mean GRS that was 2.18-times higher (95% CI, 2.14–2.22), and men of East Asian ancestry 0.73-times lower (95% CI, 0.71–0.76), than men of European ancestry. These findings support the role of germline variation contributing to population differences in prostate cancer risk, with the GRS offering an approach for personalized risk prediction.

genetics & heredity
Evidence of Novel Susceptibility Variants for Prostate Cancer and a Multiancestry Polygenic Risk Score Associated with Aggressive Disease in Men of African Ancestry

Fei Chen,Ravi K. Madduri,Alex A. Rodriguez,Burcu F. Darst,Alisha Chou,Xin Sheng,Anqi Wang,Jiayi Shen,Edward J. Saunders,Suhn K. Rhie,Jeannette T. Bensen,Sue A. Ingles,Rick A. Kittles,Sara S. Strom,Benjamin A. Rybicki,Barbara Nemesure,William B. Isaacs,Janet L. Stanford,Wei Zheng,Maureen Sanderson,Esther M. John,Jong Y. Park,Jianfeng Xu,Ying Wang,Sonja I. Berndt,Chad D. Huff,Edward D. Yeboah,Yao Tettey,Joseph Lachance,Wei Tang,Christopher T. Rentsch,Kelly Cho,Benjamin H. Mcmahon,Richard B. Biritwum,Andrew A. Adjei,Evelyn Tay,Ann Truelove,Shelley Niwa,Thomas A. Sellers,Kosj Yamoah,Adam B. Murphy,Dana C. Crawford,Alpa V. Patel,William S. Bush,Melinda C. Aldrich,Olivier Cussenot,Gyorgy Petrovics,Jennifer Cullen,Christine M. Neslund-Dudas,Mariana C. Stern,Zsofia Kote-Jarai,Koveela Govindasami,Michael B. Cook,Anand P. Chokkalingam,Ann W. Hsing,Phyllis J. Goodman,Thomas J. Hoffmann,Bettina F. Drake,Jennifer J. Hu,Jacob M. Keaton,Jacklyn N. Hellwege,Peter E. Clark,Mohamed Jalloh,Serigne M. Gueye,Lamine Niang,Olufemi Ogunbiyi,Michael O. Idowu,Olufemi Popoola,Akindele O. Adebiyi,Oseremen I. Aisuodionoe-Shadrach,Hafees O. Ajibola,Mustapha A. Jamda,Olabode P. Oluwole,Maxwell Nwegbu,Ben Adusei,Sunny Mante,Afua Darkwa-Abrahams,James E. Mensah,Halimatou Diop,Stephen K. Van Den Eeden,Pascal Blanchet,Jay H. Fowke,Graham Casey,Anselm J. Hennis,Alexander Lubwama,Ian M. Thompson,Robin Leach,Douglas F. Easton,Michael H. Preuss,Ruth J. Loos,Susan M. Gundell,Peggy Wan,James L. Mohler,Elizabeth T. Fontham,Gary J. Smith,Jack A. Taylor,Shiv Srivastava,Rosaline A. Eeles,John D. Carpten,Adam S. Kibel,Luc Multigner,Marie-Élise Parent,Florence Menegaux,Geraldine Cancel-Tassin,Eric A. Klein,Caroline Andrews,Timothy R. Rebbeck,Laurent Brureau,Stefan Ambs,Todd L. Edwards,Stephen Watya,Stephen J. Chanock,John S. Witte,William J. Blot,J. Michael Gaziano,Amy C. Justice,David V. Conti,Christopher A. Haiman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.01.022

IF: 24.267

2023-03-01

European Urology

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Genetic factors play an important role in prostate cancer (PCa) susceptibility.OBJECTIVE: To discover common genetic variants contributing to the risk of PCa in men of African ancestry.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a meta-analysis of ten genome-wide association studies consisting of 19378 cases and 61620 controls of African ancestry.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Common genotyped and imputed variants were tested for their association with PCa risk. Novel susceptibility loci were identified and incorporated into a multiancestry polygenic risk score (PRS). The PRS was evaluated for associations with PCa risk and disease aggressiveness.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Nine novel susceptibility loci for PCa were identified, of which seven were only found or substantially more common in men of African ancestry, including an African-specific stop-gain variant in the prostate-specific gene anoctamin 7 (ANO7). A multiancestry PRS of 278 risk variants conferred strong associations with PCa risk in African ancestry studies (odds ratios [ORs] >3 and >5 for men in the top PRS decile and percentile, respectively). More importantly, compared with men in the 40-60% PRS category, men in the top PRS decile had a significantly higher risk of aggressive PCa (OR = 1.23, 95% confidence interval = 1.10-1.38, p = 4.4 × 10<sup>-4</sup>).CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the importance of large-scale genetic studies in men of African ancestry for a better understanding of PCa susceptibility in this high-risk population and suggests a potential clinical utility of PRS in differentiating between the risks of developing aggressive and nonaggressive disease in men of African ancestry.PATIENT SUMMARY: In this large genetic study in men of African ancestry, we discovered nine novel prostate cancer (PCa) risk variants. We also showed that a multiancestry polygenic risk score was effective in stratifying PCa risk, and was able to differentiate risk of aggressive and nonaggressive disease.

urology & nephrology
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.
The Combined Effect of Polygenic Risk Score and Prostate Health Index in Chinese Men Undergoing Prostate Biopsy

Xiaohao Ruan,Da Huang,Jingyi Huang,Jinlun Huang,Yongle Zhan,Yishuo Wu,Qiang Ding,Danfeng Xu,Haowen Jiang,Wei Xue,Rong Na

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041343

IF: 3.9

2023-01-01

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:To date, the combined effect of polygenic risk score (PRS) and prostate health index (phi) on PCa diagnosis in men undergoing prostate biopsy has never been investigated. A total of 3166 patients who underwent initial prostate biopsy in three tertiary medical centers from August 2013 to March 2019 were included. PRS was calculated on the basis of the genotype of 102 reported East-Asian-specific risk variants. It was then evaluated in the univariable or multivariable logistic regression models that were internally validated using repeated 10-fold cross-validation. Discriminative performance was assessed by area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) and net reclassification improvement (NRI) index. Compared with men in the first quintile of age and family history adjusted PRS, those in the second, third, fourth, and fifth quintiles were 1.86 (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34-2.56), 2.07 (95%CI: 1.50-2.84), 3.26 (95%CI: 2.36-4.48), and 5.06 (95%CI: 3.68-6.97) times as likely to develop PCa (all p < 0.001). Adjustment for other clinical parameters yielded similar results. Among patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at 2-10 ng/mL or 2-20 ng/mL, PRS still had an observable ability to differentiate PCa in the group of prostate health index (phi) at 27-36 (P-trend < 0.05) or >36 (P-trend <= 0.001). Notably, men with moderate phi (27-36) but highest PRS (top 20% percentile) would have a comparable risk of PCa (positive rate: 26.7% or 31.3%) than men with high phi (>36) but lowest PRS (bottom 20% percentile positive rate: 27.4% or 34.2%). The combined model of PRS, phi, and other clinical risk factors provided significantly better performance (AUC: 0.904, 95%CI: 0.887-0.921) than models without PRS. Adding PRS to clinical risk models could provide significant net benefit (NRI, from 8.6% to 27.6%), especially in those early onset patients (NRI, from 29.2% to 44.9%). PRS may provide additional predictive value over phi for PCa. The combination of PRS and phi that effectively captured both clinical and genetic PCa risk is clinically practical, even in patients with gray-zone PSA.
Polygenic and clinical risk scores and their impact on age at onset and prediction of cardiometabolic diseases and common cancers

Aarno Palotie,Mark Daly,Howard Jacob,Athena Matakidou,Heiko Runz,Sally John,Robert Plenge,Mark McCarthy,Julie Hunkapiller,Meg Ehm,Dawn Waterworth,Caroline Fox,Anders Malarstig,Kathy Klinger,Kathy Call,Tomi Mäkelä,Jaakko Kaprio,Petri Virolainen,Kari Pulkki,Terhi Kilpi,Markus Perola,Jukka Partanen,Anne Pitkäranta,Riitta Kaarteenaho,Seppo Vainio,Kimmo Savinainen,Veli-Matti Kosma,Urho Kujala,Outi Tuovila,Minna Hendolin,Raimo Pakkanen,Jeff Waring,Bridget Riley-Gillis,Athena Matakidou,Heiko Runz,Jimmy Liu,Shameek Biswas,Julie Hunkapiller,Dawn Waterworth,Meg Ehm,Dorothee Diogo,Caroline Fox,Anders Malarstig,Catherine Marshall,Xinli Hu,Kathy Call,Kathy Klinger,Matthias Gossel,Samuli Ripatti,Johanna Schleutker,Markus Perola,Mikko Arvas,Olli Carpen,Reetta Hinttala,Johannes Kettunen,Reijo Laaksonen,Arto Mannermaa,Juha Paloneva,Urho Kujala,Outi Tuovila,Minna Hendolin,Raimo Pakkanen,Nina Mars,,Jukka T. Koskela,Pietari Ripatti,Tuomo T. J. Kiiskinen,Aki S. Havulinna,Joni V. Lindbohm,Ari Ahola-Olli,Mitja Kurki,Juha Karjalainen,Priit Palta,Benjamin M. Neale,Veikko Salomaa,Elisabeth Widén

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0800-0

IF: 82.9

2020-04-01

Nature Medicine

Abstract:Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have shown promise in predicting susceptibility to common diseases1–3. We estimated their added value in clinical risk prediction of five common diseases, using large-scale biobank data (FinnGen; n = 135,300) and the FINRISK study with clinical risk factors to test genome-wide PRSs for coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, breast cancer and prostate cancer. We evaluated the lifetime risk at different PRS levels, and the impact on disease onset and on prediction together with clinical risk scores. Compared to having an average PRS, having a high PRS contributed 21% to 38% higher lifetime risk, and 4 to 9 years earlier disease onset. PRSs improved model discrimination over age and sex in type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, breast cancer and prostate cancer, and over clinical risk in type 2 diabetes, breast cancer and prostate cancer. In all diseases, PRSs improved reclassification over clinical thresholds, with the largest net reclassification improvements for early-onset coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation and prostate cancer. This study provides evidence for the additional value of PRSs in clinical disease prediction. The practical applications of polygenic risk information for stratified screening or for guiding lifestyle and medical interventions in the clinical setting remain to be defined in further studies.

biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental
Risk assessment for colorectal cancer via polygenic risk score and lifestyle exposure: a large-scale association study of East Asian and European populations

Junyi Xin,Mulong Du,Dongying Gu,Kewei Jiang,Mengyun Wang,Mingjuan Jin,Yeting Hu,Shuai Ben,Silu Chen,Wei Shao,Shuwei Li,Haiyan Chu,Linjun Zhu,Chen Li,Kun Chen,Kefeng Ding,Zhengdong Zhang,Hongbing Shen,Meilin Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-023-01156-9

IF: 15.266

2023-01-01

Genome Medicine

Abstract:Background The genetic architectures of colorectal cancer are distinct across different populations. To date, the majority of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are derived from European (EUR) populations, which limits their accurate extrapolation to other populations. Here, we aimed to generate a PRS by incorporating East Asian (EAS) and EUR ancestry groups and validate its utility for colorectal cancer risk assessment among different populations. Methods A large-scale colorectal cancer genome-wide association study (GWAS), harboring 35,145 cases and 288,934 controls from EAS and EUR populations, was used for the EAS-EUR GWAS meta-analysis and the construction of candidate EAS-EUR PRSs via different approaches. The performance of each PRS was then validated in external GWAS datasets of EAS (727 cases and 1452 controls) and EUR (1289 cases and 1284 controls) ancestries, respectively. The optimal PRS was further tested using the UK Biobank longitudinal cohort of 355,543 individuals and ultimately applied to stratify individual risk attached by healthy lifestyle. Results In the meta-analysis across EAS and EUR populations, we identified 48 independent variants beyond genome-wide significance ( P < 5 × 10 −8 ) at previously reported loci. Among 26 candidate EAS-EUR PRSs, the PRS-CSx approach-derived PRS (defined as PRS CSx ) that harbored genome-wide variants achieved the optimal discriminatory ability in both validation datasets, as well as better performance in the EAS population compared to the PRS derived from known variants. Using the UK Biobank cohort, we further validated a significant dose-response effect of PRS CSx on incident colorectal cancer, in which the risk was 2.11- and 3.88-fold higher in individuals with intermediate and high PRS CSx than in the low score subgroup ( P trend = 8.15 × 10 −53 ). Notably, the detrimental effect of being at a high genetic risk could be largely attenuated by adherence to a favorable lifestyle, with a 0.53% reduction in 5-year absolute risk. Conclusions In summary, we systemically constructed an EAS-EUR PRS to effectively stratify colorectal cancer risk, which highlighted its clinical implication among diverse ancestries. Importantly, these findings also supported that a healthy lifestyle could reduce the genetic impact on incident colorectal cancer.
Predictive performance of prostate cancer risk in Chinese men using 33 reported prostate cancer risk-associated SNPs.

Jie Zheng,Fang Liu,Xiaoling Lin,Xiang Wang,Qiang Ding,Haowen Jiang,Hongyan Chen,Daru Lu,Guangfu Jin,Ann W Hsing,Qiang Shao,Jun Qi,Yu Ye,Zhong Wang,Xin Gao,Guozeng Wang,Lisa W Chu,Jun Ouyang,Yichen Huang,Yanbo Chen,Yutang Gao,Rong Shi,Qijun Wu,Meilin Wang,Zhengdong Zhang,Yanlin Hu,Jielin Sun,S Lilly Zheng,Xu Gao,Chuanliang Xu,Zengnan Mo,Yinghao Sun,Jianfeng Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.21462

2012-01-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 30 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that were reproducibly associated with prostate cancer (PCa) risk in populations of European descent. In aggregate, these variants have shown potential to predict risk for PCa in European men. However, their utility for PCa risk prediction in Chinese men is unknown. METHODS. We selected 33 PCa risk-related SNPs that were originally identified in populations of European descent. Genetic scores were estimated for subjects in a Chinese casecontrol study (1,108 cases and 1,525 controls) based on these SNPs. To assess the performance of the genetic score on its ability to predict risk for PCa, we calculated area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) in combination with 10-fold crossvalidation. RESULTS. The genetic score was significantly higher for cases than controls (P = 5.91 x 10(-20)), and was significantly associated with risk of PCa in a dose-dependent manner (P for trend: 4.78 x 10(-18)). The AUC of the genetic score was 0.604 for risk prediction of PCa in Chinese men. When ORs derived from this Chinese study population were used to calculate genetic score, the AUCs were 0.631 for all 33 SNPs and 0.617 when using only the 11 significant SNPs. CONCLUSION. Our results indicate that genetic variants related to PCa risk may be useful for risk prediction in Chinese men. Prospective studies are warranted to further evaluate these findings. Prostate 72: 577-583, 2012. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Predictive value of polygenic risk score for prostate cancer incidence and prognosis in the Han Chinese

Sheng-Chun Hung,Li-Wen Chang,Tzu-Hung Hsiao,Chia-Yi Wei,Shian-Shiang Wang,Jian-Ri Li,I-Chieh Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-71544-7

IF: 4.6

2024-09-04

Scientific Reports

Abstract:Although prostate cancer is a common occurrence among males, the relationship between existing risk prediction models remains unclear. The objective of this hospital-based retrospective study is to investigate the impact of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) on the incidence and prognosis of prostate cancer in the Han Chinese population. A total of 24,778 male participants including 903 patients with prostate cancer at Taichung Veterans General Hospital were enrolled in the study. PRS was calculated using 269 single nucleotide polymorphisms and their corresponding effect sizes from the polygenic score catalog. The association between PRS and the risk prostate cancer was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression model. Among the 24,778 participants, 903 were diagnosed with prostate cancer. The risk of prostate cancer was significantly higher in the highest quartile of PRS distribution compared to the lowest (hazard ratio = 4.770, 95% CI = 3.999–5.689, p < 0.0001), with statistical significance across all age groups. Patients in the highest quartile were diagnosed with prostate cancer at a younger age (66.8 ± 8.3 vs. 69.5 ± 8.8, p = 0.002). Subgroup analysis of patients with localized or stage 4 prostate cancer showed no significant differences in biochemical failure or overall survival. This hospital-based cohort study observed that a higher PRS was associated with increased susceptibility to prostate cancer and younger age of diagnosis. However, PRS was not found to be a significant predictor of disease stage and prognosis. These findings suggest that PRS could serve as a useful tool in prostate cancer risk assessment.

multidisciplinary sciences
Abstract 4801: Clinical polygenic model to stratify risk of any, metastatic, and fatal prostate cancer in a randomized controlled trial of precision screening

Anna M. Dornisch,Roshan Karunamuni,Kara N. Maxwell,Julie Lynch,Isla P. Garraway,Adam Kibel,Charles A. Brunette,Morgan E. Danowski,Kyung M. Lee,Scott L. DuVall,J M. Gaziano,Brent S. Rose,Richard L. Hauger,Jason L. Vassy,Tyler M. Seibert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-4801

IF: 11.2

2024-03-22

Cancer Research

Abstract:Abstract Introduction: Lifetime risk of prostate cancer (PCa) is strongly associated with three factors: ancestry, family history, and genetics. We previously developed a polygenic hazard score (PHS) for PCa comprised of 290 common genetic variants (PHS290). When accounting for family history and ancestry (self-reported or genetically determined), PHS290 remained a powerful independent predictor of age at PCa diagnosis, metastatic PCa diagnosis, and PCa death. Additional variants associated with PCa susceptibility or benign elevation of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) have since been published. Here, we evaluate their impact on lifetime risk predictions for metastatic and fatal PCa and develop an updated polygenic score. This score will inform the design of the Prostate Cancer, Genetic Risk, and Equitable Screening Study (ProGRESS, ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05926102), a nationwide randomized controlled trial evaluating precision PCa screening in the VA healthcare system. Methods: We utilized a machine learning approach to update the PHS. Over 450 variants associated with PCa, aggressive PCa, benign prostatic hyperplasia, or benign PSA elevation were evaluated for inclusion. First, we identified pairs of variants with highly correlated genotype (defined as R2 > 0.95) and utilized univariable Cox proportional hazards models (using age at diagnosis of PCa) to exclude one variant from each pair. We then evaluated all remaining candidate variants for inclusion in a new PHS using a LASSO-regularized Cox proportional hazards model. We combined the new PHS with clinical predictors (ancestry and family history) to create a comprehensive, quantitative polygenic score in a diverse, population-based cohort of n=590,750 (Million Veteran Program). Both self-reported and genetic ancestry (based on 2,309 ancestry informative markers) were assessed. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) to compare men with high versus low polygenic score and evaluated absolute predictions of any, metastatic, and fatal PCa. Results: The updated polygenic score included 356 variants, as well as family history and genetic ancestry. When comparing the highest to the lowest quintile of the population for polygenic score, the HRs for any PCa, metastatic PCa, and fatal PCa were 5.6, 5.8, and 5.2 respectively. These HRs are all greater than those achieved with PHS290, which yielded 5.2, 4.9, and 4.4 respectively. Risk stratification improved within each ancestry group, including within the >100,000 participants of African ancestry—a group known to have elevated risk of fatal PCa. Absolute risk prediction was accurate for both metastatic and fatal PCa. Conclusion: The polygenic score accurately predicts risk of metastatic and fatal PCa in multiple ancestry groups. A clinical polygenic model has potential utility for precision PCa screening and will now be evaluated prospectively in the ProGRESS trial. Citation Format: Anna M. Dornisch, Roshan Karunamuni, Kara N. Maxwell, Julie Lynch, Isla P. Garraway, Adam Kibel, Charles A. Brunette, Morgan E. Danowski, Kyung M. Lee, Scott L. DuVall, J M. Gaziano, Brent S. Rose, Richard L. Hauger, Jason L. Vassy, Tyler M. Seibert. Clinical polygenic model to stratify risk of any, metastatic, and fatal prostate cancer in a randomized controlled trial of precision screening [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 4801.

oncology
Impact of individual level uncertainty of lung cancer polygenic risk score (PRS) on risk stratification

Xinan Wang,Ziwei Zhang,Yi Ding,Tony Chen,Lorelei Mucci,Demetrios Albanes,Maria Teresa Landi,Neil E. Caporaso,Stephen Lam,Adonina Tardon,Chu Chen,Stig E. Bojesen,Mattias Johansson,Angela Risch,Heike Bickeböller,H-Erich Wichmann,Gadi Rennert,Susanne Arnold,Paul Brennan,James D. McKay,John K. Field,Sanjay S. Shete,Loic Le Marchand,Geoffrey Liu,Angeline S. Andrew,Lambertus A. Kiemeney,Shan Zienolddiny-Narui,Annelie Behndig,Mikael Johansson,Angie Cox,Philip Lazarus,Matthew B. Schabath,Melinda C. Aldrich,Rayjean J. Hung,Christopher I. Amos,Xihong Lin,David C. Christiani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-024-01298-4

IF: 15.266

2024-02-07

Genome Medicine

Abstract:Although polygenic risk score (PRS) has emerged as a promising tool for predicting cancer risk from genome-wide association studies (GWAS), the individual-level accuracy of lung cancer PRS and the extent to which its impact on subsequent clinical applications remains largely unexplored.

genetics & heredity
Association analyses of more than 140,000 men identify 63 new prostate cancer susceptibility loci

Fredrick R. Schumacher,Ali Amin Al Olama,Sonja I. Berndt,Sara Benlloch,Mahbubl Ahmed,Edward J. Saunders,Tokhir Dadaev,Daniel Leongamornlert,Ezequiel Anokian,Clara Cieza-Borrella,Chee Goh,Mark N. Brook,Xin Sheng,Laura Fachal,Joe Dennis,Jonathan Tyrer,Kenneth Muir,Artitaya Lophatananon,Victoria L. Stevens,Susan M. Gapstur,Brian D. Carter,Catherine M. Tangen,Phyllis J. Goodman,Ian M. Thompson,Jyotsna Batra,Suzanne Chambers,Leire Moya,Judith Clements,Lisa Horvath,Wayne Tilley,Gail P. Risbridger,Henrik Gronberg,Markus Aly,Tobias Nordström,Paul Pharoah,Nora Pashayan,Johanna Schleutker,Teuvo L. J. Tammela,Csilla Sipeky,Anssi Auvinen,Demetrius Albanes,Stephanie Weinstein,Alicja Wolk,Niclas Håkansson,Catharine M. L. West,Alison M. Dunning,Neil Burnet,Lorelei A. Mucci,Edward Giovannucci,Gerald L. Andriole,Olivier Cussenot,Géraldine Cancel-Tassin,Stella Koutros,Laura E. Beane Freeman,Karina Dalsgaard Sorensen,Torben Falck Orntoft,Michael Borre,Lovise Maehle,Eli Marie Grindedal,David E. Neal,Jenny L. Donovan,Freddie C. Hamdy,Richard M. Martin,Ruth C. Travis,Tim J. Key,Robert J. Hamilton,Neil E. Fleshner,Antonio Finelli,Sue Ann Ingles,Mariana C. Stern,Barry S. Rosenstein,Sarah L. Kerns,Harry Ostrer,Yong-Jie Lu,Hong-Wei Zhang,Ninghan Feng,Xueying Mao,Xin Guo,Guomin Wang,Zan Sun,Graham G. Giles,Melissa C. Southey,Robert J. MacInnis,Liesel M. FitzGerald,Adam S. Kibel,Bettina F. Drake,Ana Vega,Antonio Gómez-Caamaño,Robert Szulkin,Martin Eklund,Manolis Kogevinas,Javier Llorca,Gemma Castaño-Vinyals,Kathryn L. Penney,Meir Stampfer,Jong Y. Park,Thomas A. Sellers,Hui-Yi Lin,Janet L. Stanford,Cezary Cybulski,Dominika Wokolorczyk,Jan Lubinski,Elaine A. Ostrander,Milan S. Geybels,Børge G. Nordestgaard,Sune F. Nielsen,Maren Weischer,Rasmus Bisbjerg,Martin Andreas Røder,Peter Iversen,Hermann Brenner,Katarina Cuk,Bernd Holleczek,Christiane Maier,Manuel Luedeke,Thomas Schnoeller,Jeri Kim,Christopher J. Logothetis,Esther M. John,Manuel R. Teixeira,Paula Paulo,Marta Cardoso,Susan L. Neuhausen,Linda Steele,Yuan Chun Ding,Kim De Ruyck,Gert De Meerleer,Piet Ost,Azad Razack,Jasmine Lim,Soo-Hwang Teo,Daniel W. Lin,Lisa F. Newcomb,Davor Lessel,Marija Gamulin,Tomislav Kulis,Radka Kaneva,Nawaid Usmani,Sandeep Singhal,Chavdar Slavov,Vanio Mitev,Matthew Parliament,Frank Claessens,Steven Joniau,Thomas Van den Broeck,Samantha Larkin,Paul A. Townsend,Claire Aukim-Hastie,Manuela Gago-Dominguez,Jose Esteban Castelao,Maria Elena Martinez,Monique J. Roobol,Guido Jenster,Ron H. N. van Schaik,Florence Menegaux,Thérèse Truong,Yves Akoli Koudou,Jianfeng Xu,Kay-Tee Khaw,Lisa Cannon-Albright,Hardev Pandha,Agnieszka Michael,Stephen N. Thibodeau,Shannon K. McDonnell,Daniel J. Schaid,Sara Lindstrom,Constance Turman,Jing Ma,David J. Hunter,Elio Riboli,Afshan Siddiq,Federico Canzian,Laurence N. Kolonel,Loic Le Marchand,Robert N. Hoover,Mitchell J. Machiela,Zuxi Cui,Peter Kraft,Christopher I. Amos,David V. Conti,Douglas F. Easton,Fredrik Wiklund,Stephen J. Chanock,Brian E. Henderson,Zsofia Kote-Jarai,Christopher A. Haiman,Rosalind A. Eeles,,,,,,,,,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0142-8

IF: 30.8

2018-06-11

Nature Genetics

Abstract:Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and fine-mapping efforts to date have identified more than 100 prostate cancer (PrCa)-susceptibility loci. We meta-analyzed genotype data from a custom high-density array of 46,939 PrCa cases and 27,910 controls of European ancestry with previously genotyped data of 32,255 PrCa cases and 33,202 controls of European ancestry. Our analysis identified 62 novel loci associated (P < 5.0 × 10−8) with PrCa and one locus significantly associated with early-onset PrCa (≤55 years). Our findings include missense variants rs1800057 (odds ratio (OR) = 1.16; P = 8.2 × 10−9; G>C, p.Pro1054Arg) in ATM and rs2066827 (OR = 1.06; P = 2.3 × 10−9; T>G, p.Val109Gly) in CDKN1B. The combination of all loci captured 28.4% of the PrCa familial relative risk, and a polygenic risk score conferred an elevated PrCa risk for men in the ninetieth to ninety-ninth percentiles (relative risk = 2.69; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.55–2.82) and first percentile (relative risk = 5.71; 95% CI: 5.04–6.48) risk stratum compared with the population average. These findings improve risk prediction, enhance fine-mapping, and provide insight into the underlying biology of PrCa1.

genetics & heredity
Genetically adjusted PSA levels for prostate cancer screening

Linda Kachuri,Thomas J. Hoffmann,Yu Jiang,Sonja I. Berndt,John P. Shelley,Kerry R. Schaffer,Mitchell J. Machiela,Neal D. Freedman,Wen-Yi Huang,Shengchao A. Li,Ryder Easterlin,Phyllis J. Goodman,Cathee Till,Ian Thompson,Hans Lilja,Stephen K. Van Den Eeden,Stephen J. Chanock,Christopher A. Haiman,David V. Conti,Robert J. Klein,Jonathan D. Mosley,Rebecca E. Graff,John S. Witte

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02277-9

IF: 82.9

2023-06-02

Nature Medicine

Abstract:Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer remains controversial because it increases overdiagnosis and overtreatment of clinically insignificant tumors. Accounting for genetic determinants of constitutive, non-cancer-related PSA variation has potential to improve screening utility. In this study, we discovered 128 genome-wide significant associations ( P < 5 × 10 −8 ) in a multi-ancestry meta-analysis of 95,768 men and developed a PSA polygenic score (PGS PSA ) that explains 9.61% of constitutive PSA variation. We found that, in men of European ancestry, using PGS-adjusted PSA would avoid up to 31% of negative prostate biopsies but also result in 12% fewer biopsies in patients with prostate cancer, mostly with Gleason score <7 tumors. Genetically adjusted PSA was more predictive of aggressive prostate cancer (odds ratio (OR) = 3.44, P = 6.2 × 10 −14 , area under the curve (AUC) = 0.755) than unadjusted PSA (OR = 3.31, P = 1.1 × 10 −12 , AUC = 0.738) in 106 cases and 23,667 controls. Compared to a prostate cancer PGS alone (AUC = 0.712), including genetically adjusted PSA improved detection of aggressive disease (AUC = 0.786, P = 7.2 × 10 −4 ). Our findings highlight the potential utility of incorporating PGS for personalized biomarkers in prostate cancer screening.

biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental
Benchmarking multi-ancestry prostate cancer polygenic risk scores in a real-world cohort

Yajas Shah,Scott Kulm,Jones T Nauseef,Zhengming Chen,Olivier Elemento,Kevin H Kensler,Ravi N Sharaf,Jones T. Nauseef,Kevin H. Kensler,Ravi N. Sharaf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011990

2024-04-11

PLoS Computational Biology

Abstract:Prostate cancer is a heritable disease with ancestry-biased incidence and mortality. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) offer promising advancements in predicting disease risk, including prostate cancer. While their accuracy continues to improve, research aimed at enhancing their effectiveness within African and Asian populations remains key for equitable use. Recent algorithmic developments for PRS derivation have resulted in improved pan-ancestral risk prediction for several diseases. In this study, we benchmark the predictive power of six widely used PRS derivation algorithms, including four of which adjust for ancestry, against prostate cancer cases and controls from the UK Biobank and All of Us cohorts. We find modest improvement in discriminatory ability when compared with a simple method that prioritizes variants, clumping, and published polygenic risk scores. Our findings underscore the importance of improving upon risk prediction algorithms and the sampling of diverse cohorts. Prostate cancer incidence is disproportionally higher in men of African ancestry when compared to Caucasian counterparts. However, disease risk prediction in these individuals remains poor. Algorithmic development has yielded improved risk prediction in diverse populations for select diseases. We benchmark the most commonly used algorithms and find modest improvements for prostate cancer prediction in men of African ancestry.

biochemical research methods,mathematical & computational biology

Different susceptibilities of PECAM-deficient mouse strains to spontaneous idiopathic pneumonitis.

A Genetic Study and Meta-Analysis of the Genetic Predisposition of Prostate Cancer in a Chinese Population

Validation of a multi-ancestry polygenic risk score and age-specific risks of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis within diverse populations

Clinical features of prostate cancer by polygenic risk score

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

Circuit QED: cross-Kerr effect induced by a superconducting qutrit without classical pulses

Systematic evaluation of narrow-sense validity of polygenic risk score for prostate cancer in a Chinese prostate biopsy cohort

Broad- and narrow-sense validity performance of three polygenic risk score methods for prostate cancer risk assessment

Trans-ancestry genome-wide association meta-analysis of prostate cancer identifies new susceptibility loci and informs genetic risk prediction

Evidence of Novel Susceptibility Variants for Prostate Cancer and a Multiancestry Polygenic Risk Score Associated with Aggressive Disease in Men of African Ancestry

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

The Combined Effect of Polygenic Risk Score and Prostate Health Index in Chinese Men Undergoing Prostate Biopsy

Polygenic and clinical risk scores and their impact on age at onset and prediction of cardiometabolic diseases and common cancers

Risk assessment for colorectal cancer via polygenic risk score and lifestyle exposure: a large-scale association study of East Asian and European populations

Predictive performance of prostate cancer risk in Chinese men using 33 reported prostate cancer risk-associated SNPs.

Predictive value of polygenic risk score for prostate cancer incidence and prognosis in the Han Chinese

Abstract 4801: Clinical polygenic model to stratify risk of any, metastatic, and fatal prostate cancer in a randomized controlled trial of precision screening

Impact of individual level uncertainty of lung cancer polygenic risk score (PRS) on risk stratification

Association analyses of more than 140,000 men identify 63 new prostate cancer susceptibility loci

Genetically adjusted PSA levels for prostate cancer screening

Benchmarking multi-ancestry prostate cancer polygenic risk scores in a real-world cohort