BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies have identified multiple genetic variants associated with prostate cancer (PrCa) risk which explain a substantial proportion of familial relative risk.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
These variants can be used to stratify individuals by their risk of PrCa.
METHODS: We genotyped 25 PrCa susceptibility loci in 40,414 individuals and derived a polygenic risk score (PRS). We estimated empirical Odds Ratios for PrCa associated with different risk strata defined by PRS and derived age-specific absolute risks of developing PrCa by PRS stratum and family history.
RESULTS: The PrCa risk for men in the top 1% of the PRS distribution was 30.6 (95% CI 16.4-57.3) fold compared with men in the bottom 1%, and 4.2 (95% CI 3.2-5.5) fold compared with the median risk. The absolute risk of PrCa by age 85 was 65.8% for a man with family history in the top 1% of the PRS distribution, compared with 3.7% for a man in the bottom 1%. The PRS was only weakly correlated with serum PSA level (correlation=0.09).
CONCLUSIONS: Risk profiling can identify men at substantially increased or reduced risk of PrCa. The effect size, measured by OR per unit PRS, was higher in men at younger ages and in men with family history of PrCa. Incorporating additional newly identified loci into a PRS should improve the predictive value of risk profiles.
IMPACT: We demonstrate that the risk profiling based on SNPs can identify men at substantially increased or reduced risk that could have useful implications for targeted prevention and screening programs.
Amin Al Olama A, Benlloch S, Antoniou AC, Giles GG, Severi G, Neal D, Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Muir K, Schleutker J, Henderson BE, Haiman C, Schumacher FR, Pashayan N, Pharoah PD, Ostrander EA, Stanford JL, Batra J, Clements JA, Chambers SK, Weischer M, Nordestgaard BG, Ingles SA, Sorensen KD, Orntoft TF, Park JY, Cybulski C, Maier C, Doerk T, Dickinson JL, Cannon-Albright L, Brenner H, Rebbeck TR, Zeigler-Johnson C, Habuchi T, Thibodeau SN, Cooney K, Chappuis PO, Hutter P, Kaneva RP, Foulkes WD, Zeegers MP, Lu YJ, Zhang HW, Stephenson R, Cox A, Southey MC, Spurdle AB, FitzGerald L, Leongamornlert D, Saunders E, Tymrakiewicz M, Guy M, Dadaev T, Little SJ, Govindasami K, Sawyer E, Wilkinson R, Herkommer K, Hopper JL, Lophatonanon A, Rinckleb AE, Kote-Jarai Z, Eeles RA, Easton DF Are you the author?
Institution(s): See publishing journal.
Reference: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015 Apr 2. pii: cebp.0317.2014.