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

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

Mechanisms by which the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator may influence SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease severity

Patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) exhibit pronounced respiratory damage and were initially considered among those at highest risk for serious harm from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Numerous clinical studies have subsequently reported that individuals with CF in North America and Europe—while susceptible to severe COVID-19—are often spared from the highest levels of virus-associated mortality. To understand features that might influence COVID-19 among patients with cystic fibrosis, we studied relationships between SARS-CoV-2 and the gene responsible for CF (i.e., the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator, CFTR). In contrast to previous reports, we found no association between CFTR carrier status (mutation heterozygosity) and more severe COVID-19 clinical outcomes. We did observe an unexpected trend toward higher mortality among control individuals compared with silent carriers of the common F508del CFTR variant—a finding that will require further study. We next performed experiments to test the influence of homozygous CFTR deficiency on viral propagation and showed that SARS-CoV-2 production in primary airway cells was not altered by the absence of functional CFTR using two independent protocols. On the contrary, experiments performed in vitro strongly indicated that virus proliferation depended on features of the mucosal fluid layer known to be disrupted by absent CFTR in patients with CF, including both low pH and increased viscosity. These results point to the acidic, viscous, and mucus-obstructed airways in patients with cystic fibrosis as unfavorable for the establishment of coronaviral infection. Our findings provide new and important information concerning relationships between the CF clinical phenotype and severity of COVID-19.This work was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health (Ministero della Salute) [Ricerca Finalizzata RF-2016-02364358]; Fondazione IRCCS Ca′ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Ricerca corrente; Fondazione IRCCS Ca′ Granda core COVID-19 Biobank [RC100017A]; “Liver BIBLE” [PR-0391]; and Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 joint undertaking of the European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations Programme Horizon 2020 [under grant agreement No. 777377] for the project LITMUS and the European Union, programme “Photonics” [under grant agreement 101016726] to LV. JCH was funded by the Research Council of Norway [grant no 312780] and a philanthropic donation from Vivaldi Invest A/S owned by Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. AF was supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [01KI20197]. This work was also funded by a generous philanthropic donation from Banca Intesa San Paolo to RA. This study makes use of data generated by the GCATI Genomes for Life. Cohort study of the Genomes of Catalonia from Institut Germans Trias I Pujol (IGTP); IGTP is part of the CERCA Program/Generalitat de Catalunya. GCAT is supported by Acción de Dinamización del ISCIII-MINECO and the Ministry of Health of the Generalitat of Catalunya [ADE 10/00026], with additional support by the Agència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca (AGAUR) [2017-SGR 529], National Grant [PI18/01512], and VEIS project [001-P-001647], co-funded by European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), “A way to build Europe.” EdW and BNW were supported by the Intramural Research Program, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH). PRT and SGS received funding from NIH NIAID [R01 AI167356].Peer reviewe

Non-invasive diagnostic tests for Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) infection has been implicated in a number of malignancies and non-malignant conditions including peptic ulcers, non-ulcer dyspepsia, recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding, unexplained iron deficiency anaemia, idiopathic thrombocytopaenia purpura, and colorectal adenomas. The confirmatory diagnosis of H pylori is by endoscopic biopsy, followed by histopathological examination using haemotoxylin and eosin (H & E) stain or special stains such as Giemsa stain and Warthin-Starry stain. Special stains are more accurate than H & E stain. There is significant uncertainty about the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive tests for diagnosis of H pylori. OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of urea breath test, serology, and stool antigen test, used alone or in combination, for diagnosis of H pylori infection in symptomatic and asymptomatic people, so that eradication therapy for H pylori can be started. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Science Citation Index and the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Database on 4 March 2016. We screened references in the included studies to identify additional studies. We also conducted citation searches of relevant studies, most recently on 4 December 2016. We did not restrict studies by language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated at least one of the index tests (urea breath test using isotopes such as13C or14C, serology and stool antigen test) against the reference standard (histopathological examination using H & E stain, special stains or immunohistochemical stain) in people suspected of having H pylori infection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the references to identify relevant studies and independently extracted data. We assessed the methodological quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed meta-analysis by using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model to estimate and compare SROC curves. Where appropriate, we used bivariate or univariate logistic regression models to estimate summary sensitivities and specificities. MAIN RESULTS: We included 101 studies involving 11,003 participants, of which 5839 participants (53.1%) had H pylori infection. The prevalence of H pylori infection in the studies ranged from 15.2% to 94.7%, with a median prevalence of 53.7% (interquartile range 42.0% to 66.5%). Most of the studies (57%) included participants with dyspepsia and 53 studies excluded participants who recently had proton pump inhibitors or antibiotics.There was at least an unclear risk of bias or unclear applicability concern for each study.Of the 101 studies, 15 compared the accuracy of two index tests and two studies compared the accuracy of three index tests. Thirty-four studies (4242 participants) evaluated serology; 29 studies (2988 participants) evaluated stool antigen test; 34 studies (3139 participants) evaluated urea breath test-13C; 21 studies (1810 participants) evaluated urea breath test-14C; and two studies (127 participants) evaluated urea breath test but did not report the isotope used. The thresholds used to define test positivity and the staining techniques used for histopathological examination (reference standard) varied between studies. Due to sparse data for each threshold reported, it was not possible to identify the best threshold for each test.Using data from 99 studies in an indirect test comparison, there was statistical evidence of a difference in diagnostic accuracy between urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology and stool antigen test (P = 0.024). The diagnostic odds ratios for urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology, and stool antigen test were 153 (95% confidence interval (CI) 73.7 to 316), 105 (95% CI 74.0 to 150), 47.4 (95% CI 25.5 to 88.1) and 45.1 (95% CI 24.2 to 84.1). The sensitivity (95% CI) estimated at a fixed specificity of 0.90 (median from studies across the four tests), was 0.94 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.97) for urea breath test-13C, 0.92 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.94) for urea breath test-14C, 0.84 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.91) for serology, and 0.83 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.90) for stool antigen test. This implies that on average, given a specificity of 0.90 and prevalence of 53.7% (median specificity and prevalence in the studies), out of 1000 people tested for H pylori infection, there will be 46 false positives (people without H pylori infection who will be diagnosed as having H pylori infection). In this hypothetical cohort, urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology, and stool antigen test will give 30 (95% CI 15 to 58), 42 (95% CI 30 to 58), 86 (95% CI 50 to 140), and 89 (95% CI 52 to 146) false negatives respectively (people with H pylori infection for whom the diagnosis of H pylori will be missed).Direct comparisons were based on few head-to-head studies. The ratios of diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) were 0.68 (95% CI 0.12 to 3.70; P = 0.56) for urea breath test-13C versus serology (seven studies), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.14 to 5.56; P = 0.84) for urea breath test-13C versus stool antigen test (seven studies). The 95% CIs of these estimates overlap with those of the ratios of DORs from the indirect comparison. Data were limited or unavailable for meta-analysis of other direct comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people without a history of gastrectomy and those who have not recently had antibiotics or proton ,pump inhibitors, urea breath tests had high diagnostic accuracy while serology and stool antigen tests were less accurate for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection.This is based on an indirect test comparison (with potential for bias due to confounding), as evidence from direct comparisons was limited or unavailable. The thresholds used for these tests were highly variable and we were unable to identify specific thresholds that might be useful in clinical practice.We need further comparative studies of high methodological quality to obtain more reliable evidence of relative accuracy between the tests. Such studies should be conducted prospectively in a representative spectrum of participants and clearly reported to ensure low risk of bias. Most importantly, studies should prespecify and clearly report thresholds used, and should avoid inappropriate exclusions

Publisher Correction: Trans-ancestry genome-wide association meta-analysis of prostate cancer identifies new susceptibility loci and informs genetic risk prediction (Nature Genetics, (2021), 53, 1, (65-75), 10.1038/s41588-020-00748-0):Trans-ancestry genome-wide association meta-analysis of prostate cancer identifies new susceptibility loci and informs genetic risk prediction (Nature Genetics, (2021), 53, 1, (65-75), 10.1038/s41588-020-00748-0)

Correction to: Nature Genetics https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-020-00748-0, published online 4 January 2021.In the version of this article originally published, the names of the equally contributing authors and jointly supervising authors were switched. The correct affiliations are: “These authors contributed equally: David V. Conti, Burcu F. Darst. These authors jointly supervised this work: David V. Conti, Rosalind A. Eeles, Zsofia Kote-Jarai, Christopher A. Haiman.” The error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article