Relationship of self-reported body size and shape with risk for prostate cancer: A UK case-control study

Introduction Previous evidence has suggested a relationship between male self-reported body size and the risk of developing prostate cancer. In this UK-wide case-control study, we have explored the possible association of prostate cancer risk with male self-reported body size. We also investigated body shape as a surrogate marker for fat deposition around the body. As obesity and excessive adiposity have been linked with increased risk for developing a number of different cancers, further investigation of self-reported body size and shape and their potential relationship with prostate cancer was considered to be appropriate. Objective The study objective was to investigate whether underlying associations exist between prostate cancer risk and male self-reported body size and shape. Methods Data were collected from a large case-control study of men (1928 cases and 2043 controls) using self-administered questionnaires. Data from self-reported pictograms of perceived body size relating to three decades of life (20’s, 30’s and 40’s) were recorded and analysed, including the pattern of change. The associations of self-identified body shape with prostate cancer risk were also explored

Risk Analysis of Prostate Cancer in PRACTICAL, a Multinational Consortium, Using 25 Known Prostate Cancer Susceptibility Loci.

BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies have identified multiple genetic variants associated with prostate cancer risk which explain a substantial proportion of familial relative risk. These variants can be used to stratify individuals by their risk of prostate cancer. METHODS: We genotyped 25 prostate cancer susceptibility loci in 40,414 individuals and derived a polygenic risk score (PRS). We estimated empirical odds ratios (OR) for prostate cancer associated with different risk strata defined by PRS and derived age-specific absolute risks of developing prostate cancer by PRS stratum and family history. RESULTS: The prostate cancer 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 prostate cancer by age of 85 years 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 prostate cancer. The effect size, measured by OR per unit PRS, was higher in men at younger ages and in men with family history of prostate cancer. 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.D F. Easton was recipient of the CR-UK grant C1287/A10118. R A. Eeles was recipient of the CR-UK grant C5047/A10692 and B E. Henderson was recipient of the NIH grant 1U19CA148537-01This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available via AACR at http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2015/04/02/1055-9965.EPI-14-0317.long

Identification of new genetic risk factors for prostate cancer.

There is evidence that a substantial part of genetic predisposition to prostate cancer (PCa) may be due to lower penetrance genes which are found by genome-wide association studies. We have recently conducted such a study and seven new regions of the genome linked to PCa risk have been identified. Three of these loci contain candidate susceptibility genes: MSMB, LMTK2 and KLK2/3. The MSMB and KLK2/3 genes may be useful for PCa screening, and the LMTK2 gene might provide a potential therapeutic target. Together with results from other groups, there are now 23 germline genetic variants which have been reported. These results have the potential to be developed into a genetic test. However, we consider that marketing of tests to the public is premature, as PCa risk can not be evaluated fully at this stage and the appropriate screening protocols need to be developed. Follow-up validation studies, as well as studies to explore the psychological implications of genetic profile testing, will be vital prior to roll out into healthcare