Height, selected genetic markers and prostate cancer risk:Results from the PRACTICAL consortium

Background: Evidence on height and prostate cancer risk is mixed, however, recent studies with large data sets support a possible role for its association with the risk of aggressive prostate cancer. Methods: We analysed data from the PRACTICAL consortium consisting of 6207 prostate cancer cases and 6016 controls and a subset of high grade cases (2480 cases). We explored height, polymorphisms in genes related to growth processes as main effects and their possible interactions. Results: The results suggest that height is associated with high-grade prostate cancer risk. Men with height 4180cm are at a 22% increased risk as compared to men with height o173cm (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01–1.48). Genetic variants in the growth pathway gene showed an association with prostate cancer risk. The aggregate scores of the selected variants identified a significantly increased risk of overall prostate cancer and high-grade prostate cancer by 13% and 15%, respectively, in the highest score group as compared to lowest score group. Conclusions: There was no evidence of gene-environment interaction between height and the selected candidate SNPs. Our findings suggest a role of height in high-grade prostate cancer. The effect of genetic variants in the genes related to growth is seen in all cases and high-grade prostate cancer. There is no interaction between these two exposures.</p

Multiple novel prostate cancer susceptibility signals identified by fine-mapping of known risk loci among Europeans

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous common prostate cancer (PrCa) susceptibility loci. We have fine-mapped 64 GWAS regions known at the conclusion of the iCOGS study using large-scale genotyping and imputation in 25 723 PrCa cases and 26 274 controls of European ancestry. We detected evidence for multiple independent signals at 16 regions, 12 of which contained additional newly identified significant associations. A single signal comprising a spectrum of correlated variation was observed at 39 regions; 35 of which are now described by a novel more significantly associated lead SNP, while the originally reported variant remained as the lead SNP only in 4 regions. We also confirmed two association signals in Europeans that had been previously reported only in East-Asian GWAS. Based on statistical evidence and linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure, we have curated and narrowed down the list of the most likely candidate causal variants for each region. Functional annotation using data from ENCODE filtered for PrCa cell lines and eQTL analysis demonstrated significant enrichment for overlap with bio-features within this set. By incorporating the novel risk variants identified here alongside the refined data for existing association signals, we estimate that these loci now explain ∼38.9% of the familial relative risk of PrCa, an 8.9% improvement over the previously reported GWAS tag SNPs. This suggests that a significant fraction of the heritability of PrCa may have been hidden during the discovery phase of GWAS, in particular due to the presence of multiple independent signals within the same regio

Atlas of prostate cancer heritability in European and African-American men pinpoints tissue-specific regulation

Although genome-wide association studies have identified over 100 risk loci that explain ∼33% of familial risk for prostate cancer (PrCa), their functional effects on risk remain largely unknown. Here we use genotype data from 59,089 men of European and African American ancestries combined with cell-type-specific epigenetic data to build a genomic atlas of single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) heritability in PrCa. We find significant differences in heritability between variants in prostate-relevant epigenetic marks defined in normal versus tumour tissue as well as between tissue and cell lines. The majority of SNP heritability lies in regions marked by H3k27 acetylation in prostate adenoc7arcinoma cell line (LNCaP) or by DNaseI hypersensitive sites in cancer cell lines. We find a high degree of similarity between European and African American ancestries suggesting a similar genetic architecture from common variation underlying PrCa risk. Our findings showcase the power of integrating functional annotation with genetic data to understand the genetic basis of PrCa

Height, selected genetic markers and prostate cancer risk: results from the PRACTICAL consortium

Background: Evidence on height and prostate cancer risk is mixed, however, recent studies with large data sets support a possible role for its association with the risk of aggressive prostate cancer. Methods: We analysed data from the PRACTICAL consortium consisting of 6207 prostate cancer cases and 6016 controls and a subset of high grade cases (2480 cases). We explored height, polymorphisms in genes related to growth processes as main effects and their possible interactions. Results: The results suggest that height is associated with high-grade prostate cancer risk. Men with height 4180cm are at a 22% increased risk as compared to men with height o173cm (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01–1.48). Genetic variants in the growth pathway gene showed an association with prostate cancer risk. The aggregate scores of the selected variants identified a significantly increased risk of overall prostate cancer and high-grade prostate cancer by 13% and 15%, respectively, in the highest score group as compared to lowest score group. Conclusions: There was no evidence of gene-environment interaction between height and the selected candidate SNPs. Our findings suggest a role of height in high-grade prostate cancer. The effect of genetic variants in the genes related to growth is seen in all cases and high-grade prostate cancer. There is no interaction between these two exposures.</p

Radiotherapy for prostate cancer: is it ‘what you do’ or ‘the way that you do it’? A UK perspective on technique and quality assurance

Aims: The treatment of prostate cancer has evolved markedly over the last 40 years, including radiotherapy, notably with escalated dose and targeting. However, the optimal treatment for localised disease has not been established in comparative randomised trials. The aim of this article is to describe the history of prostate radiotherapy trials, including their quality assurance processes, and to compare these with the ProtecT trial. Materials and methods: The UK ProtecT randomised trial compares external beam conformal radiotherapy, surgery and active monitoring for clinically localised prostate cancer and will report on the primary outcome (disease-specific mortality) in 2016 following recruitment between 1999 and 2009. The embedded quality assurance programme consists of on-site machine dosimetry at the nine trial centres, a retrospective review of outlining and adherence to dose constraints based on the trial protocol in 54 participants (randomly selected, around 10% of the total randomised to radiotherapy, n = 545). These quality assurance processes and results were compared with prostate radiotherapy trials of a comparable era. Results: There has been an increasingly sophisticated quality assurance programme in UK prostate radiotherapy trials over the last 15 years, reflecting dose escalation and treatment complexity. In ProtecT, machine dosimetry results were comparable between trial centres and with the UK RT01 trial. The outlining review showed that most deviations were clinically acceptable, although three (1.4%) may have been of clinical significance and were related to outlining of the prostate. Seminal vesicle outlining varied, possibly due to several prostate trials running concurrently with different protocols. Adherence to dose constraints in ProtecT was considered acceptable, with 80% of randomised participants having two or less deviations and planning target volume coverage was excellent. Conclusion: The ProtecT trial quality assurance results were satisfactory and comparable with trials of its era. Future trials should aim to standardise treatment protocols and quality assurance programmes where possible to reduce complexities for centres involved in multiple trials