Fasting blood glucose, glycaemic control and prostate cancer risk in the Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND: Diabetic men have lowered overall risk of prostate cancer (PCa), but the role of hyperglycaemia is unclear. In this cohort study, we estimated PCa risk among men with diabetic fasting blood glucose level. METHODS: Participants of the Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC) were linked to laboratory database for information on glucose measurements since 1978. The data were available for 17,860 men. Based on the average yearly level, the men were categorised as normoglycaemic, prediabetic, or diabetic. Median follow-up was 14.7 years. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for prostate cancer overall and separately by Gleason grade and metastatic stage. RESULTS: In total 1,663 PCa cases were diagnosed. Compared to normoglycaemic men, those men with diabetic blood glucose level had increased risk of PCa (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.31-1.75). The risk increase was observed for all tumour grades, and persisted for a decade afterwards. Antidiabetic drug use removed the risk association. Limitations include absence of information on lifestyle factors and limited information on BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Untreated diabetic fasting blood glucose level may be a prostate cancer risk factor.Peer reviewe

Reducing overdiagnosis by polygenic risk-stratified screening: findings from the Finnish section of the ERSPC.

background: We derived estimates of overdiagnosis by polygenic risk groups and examined whether polygenic risk-stratified screening for prostate cancer reduces overdiagnosis. methods: We calculated the polygenic risk score based on genotypes of 66 known prostate cancer loci for 4967 men from the Finnish section of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. We stratified the 72 072 men in the trial into those with polygenic risk below and above the median. Using a maximum likelihood method based on interval cancers, we estimated the mean sojourn time (MST) and episode sensitivity. For each polygenic risk group, we estimated the proportion of screen-detected cancers that are likely to be overdiagnosed from the difference between the observed and expected number of screen-detected cancers. results: Of the prostate cancers, 74% occurred among men with polygenic risk above population median. The sensitivity was 0.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45–0.65) and MST 6.3 (95% CI 4.2–8.3) years. The overall overdiagnosis was 42% (95% CI 37–52) of the screen-detected cancers, with 58% (95% CI 54–65) in men with the lower and 37% (95% CI 31–47) in those with higher polygenic risk. conclusion: Targeting screening to men at higher polygenic risk could reduce the proportion of cancers overdiagnosed

Polygenic hazard score to guide screening for aggressive prostate cancer: development and validation in large scale cohorts.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a genetic tool to predict age of onset of aggressive prostate cancer (PCa) and to guide decisions of who to screen and at what age. DESIGN: Analysis of genotype, PCa status, and age to select single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with diagnosis. These polymorphisms were incorporated into a survival analysis to estimate their effects on age at diagnosis of aggressive PCa (that is, not eligible for surveillance according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines; any of Gleason score ≥7, stage T3-T4, PSA (prostate specific antigen) concentration ≥10 ng/L, nodal metastasis, distant metastasis). The resulting polygenic hazard score is an assessment of individual genetic risk. The final model was applied to an independent dataset containing genotype and PSA screening data. The hazard score was calculated for these men to test prediction of survival free from PCa. SETTING: Multiple institutions that were members of international PRACTICAL consortium. PARTICIPANTS: All consortium participants of European ancestry with known age, PCa status, and quality assured custom (iCOGS) array genotype data. The development dataset comprised 31 747 men; the validation dataset comprised 6411 men. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prediction with hazard score of age of onset of aggressive cancer in validation set. RESULTS: In the independent validation set, the hazard score calculated from 54 single nucleotide polymorphisms was a highly significant predictor of age at diagnosis of aggressive cancer (z=11.2, P98th centile) were compared with those with average scores (30th-70th centile), the hazard ratio for aggressive cancer was 2.9 (95% confidence interval 2.4 to 3.4). Inclusion of family history in a combined model did not improve prediction of onset of aggressive PCa (P=0.59), and polygenic hazard score performance remained high when family history was accounted for. Additionally, the positive predictive value of PSA screening for aggressive PCa was increased with increasing polygenic hazard score. CONCLUSIONS: Polygenic hazard scores can be used for personalised genetic risk estimates that can predict for age at onset of aggressive PCa

Analysis of Xq27-28 linkage in the international consortium for prostate cancer genetics (ICPCG) families.

BACKGROUND: Genetic variants are likely to contribute to a portion of prostate cancer risk. Full elucidation of the genetic etiology of prostate cancer is difficult because of incomplete penetrance and genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity. Current evidence suggests that genetic linkage to prostate cancer has been found on several chromosomes including the X; however, identification of causative genes has been elusive. METHODS: Parametric and non-parametric linkage analyses were performed using 26 microsatellite markers in each of 11 groups of multiple-case prostate cancer families from the International Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics (ICPCG). Meta-analyses of the resultant family-specific linkage statistics across the entire 1,323 families and in several predefined subsets were then performed. RESULTS: Meta-analyses of linkage statistics resulted in a maximum parametric heterogeneity lod score (HLOD) of 1.28, and an allele-sharing lod score (LOD) of 2.0 in favor of linkage to Xq27-q28 at 138 cM. In subset analyses, families with average age at onset less than 65 years exhibited a maximum HLOD of 1.8 (at 138 cM) versus a maximum regional HLOD of only 0.32 in families with average age at onset of 65 years or older. Surprisingly, the subset of families with only 2-3 affected men and some evidence of male-to-male transmission of prostate cancer gave the strongest evidence of linkage to the region (HLOD = 3.24, 134 cM). For this subset, the HLOD was slightly increased (HLOD = 3.47 at 134 cM) when families used in the original published report of linkage to Xq27-28 were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was not strong support for linkage to the Xq27-28 region in the complete set of families, the subset of families with earlier age at onset exhibited more evidence of linkage than families with later onset of disease. A subset of families with 2-3 affected individuals and with some evidence of male to male disease transmission showed stronger linkage signals. Our results suggest that the genetic basis for prostate cancer in our families is much more complex than a single susceptibility locus on the X chromosome, and that future explorations of the Xq27-28 region should focus on the subset of families identified here with the strongest evidence of linkage to this region.RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are

Fast and efficient QTL mapper for thousands of molecular phenotypes

In order to discover quantitative trait loci, multi-dimensional genomic datasets combining DNA-seq and ChiP-/RNA-seq require methods that rapidly correlate tens of thousands of molecular phenotypes with millions of genetic variants while appropriately controlling for multiple testing

Prostate cancer risk regions at 8q24 and 17q24 are differentially associated with somatic TMPRSS2:ERG fusion status.

Molecular and epidemiological differences have been described between TMPRSS2:ERG fusion-positive and fusion-negative prostate cancer (PrCa). Assuming two molecularly distinct subtypes, we have examined 27 common PrCa risk variants, previously identified in genome-wide association studies, for subtype specific associations in a total of 1221 TMPRSS2:ERG phenotyped PrCa cases. In meta-analyses of a discovery set of 552 cases with TMPRSS2:ERG data and 7650 unaffected men from five centers we have found support for the hypothesis that several common risk variants are associated with one particular subtype rather than with PrCa in general. Risk variants were analyzed in case-case comparisons (296 TMPRSS2:ERG fusion-positive versus 256 fusion-negative cases) and an independent set of 669 cases with TMPRSS2:ERG data was established to replicate the top five candidates. Significant differences (P < 0.00185) between the two subtypes were observed for rs16901979 (8q24) and rs1859962 (17q24), which were enriched in TMPRSS2:ERG fusion-negative (OR = 0.53, P = 0.0007) and TMPRSS2:ERG fusion-positive PrCa (OR = 1.30, P = 0.0016), respectively. Expression quantitative trait locus analysis was performed to investigate mechanistic links between risk variants, fusion status and target gene mRNA levels. For rs1859962 at 17q24, genotype dependent expression was observed for the candidate target gene SOX9 in TMPRSS2:ERG fusion-positive PrCa, which was not evident in TMPRSS2:ERG negative tumors. The present study established evidence for the first two common PrCa risk variants differentially associated with TMPRSS2:ERG fusion status. TMPRSS2:ERG phenotyping of larger studies is required to determine comprehensive sets of variants with subtype-specific roles in PrCa.RAE acknowledges support from the NIHR to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. ML was a fellow of the International Graduate School in Molecular Medicine, Ulm. AER was a fellow of the Heinrich Warner Foundation. The GTEx Consortium is acknowledged for the GTEx data (the full acknowledgement is available in the Supplementary Materials). This work was supported by the following grants for the iCOGS infrastructure: European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n° 223175 [HEALTHF2-2009-223175]; Cancer Research UK [C1287/A10118, C1287/A10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692]; the National Institutes of Health [CA128978] and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative [1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065, 1U19 CA148112 - the GAME-ON initiative]; the Department of Defence [W81XWH-10-1-0341]; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer; Komen Foundation for the Cure; the Breast Cancer Research Foundation; and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. The FHCRC, Tampere, UKGPCS and Ulm groups are part of the ICPCG, supported by the National Institutes of Health [U01 CA089600]. The Molecular Prostate Cancer project of Ulm was funded by the Deutsche Krebshilfe. The Berlin and Ulm collaboration was supported by the Berliner Krebsgesellschaft. The FHCRC studies were supported by the U.S. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health [RO1 CA056678, RO1 CA082664, RO1 CA092579]; with additional support from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Genotyping was supported by the Intramural Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health. The Tampere (Finland) study was supported by the Academy of Finland [116437, 251074, 126714]; the Finnish Cancer Organisations; Sigrid Juselius Foundation; and The Medical Research Fund of Tampere University Hospital [# 9L091]. The PSA screening samples were collected by the Finnish part of ERSPC (European Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer)

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.This work was supported by NIH fellowship F32 GM106584 (AG), NIH grants R01 MH101244(A.G.), R01 CA188392 (B.P.), U01 CA194393(B.P.), R01 GM107427 (M.L.F.), R01 CA193910 (M.L.F./M.P.) and Prostate Cancer Foundation Challenge Award (M.L.F./M.P.). This study makes use of data generated by the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium and the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. A full list of the investigators who contributed to the generation of the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium data is available on www.wtccc.org.uk. Funding for the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium project was provided by the Wellcome Trust under award 076113. This study makes use of data generated by the UK10K Consortium. A full list of the investigators who contributed to the generation of the data is available online (http://www.UK10K.org). The PRACTICAL consortium was supported by the following grants: European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175), Cancer Research UK Grants C5047/A7357, C1287/A10118, C5047/A3354, C5047/A10692, C16913/A6135 and The National Institute of Health (NIH) Cancer Post-Cancer GWAS initiative Grant: no. 1 U19 CA 148537-01 (the GAME-ON initiative); Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007 and C5047/A10692), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112—the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defense (W81XWH-10-1-0341), A Linneus Centre (Contract ID 70867902), Swedish Research Council (grant no K2010-70X-20430-04-3), the Swedish Cancer Foundation (grant no 09-0677), grants RO1CA056678, RO1CA082664 and RO1CA092579 from the US National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health; US National Cancer Institute (R01CA72818); support from The National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (126402, 209057, 251533, 396414, 450104, 504700, 504702, 504715, 623204, 940394 and 614296); NIH grants CA63464, CA54281 and CA098758; US National Cancer Institute (R01CA128813, PI: J.Y. Park); Bulgarian National Science Fund, Ministry of Education and Science (contract DOO-119/2009; DUNK01/2–2009; DFNI-B01/28/2012); Cancer Research UK grants [C8197/A10123] and [C8197/A10865]; grant code G0500966/75466; NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (projects 96/20/06 and 96/20/99); Cancer Research UK grant number C522/A8649, Medical Research Council of England grant number G0500966, ID 75466 and The NCRI, UK; The US Dept of Defense award W81XWH-04-1-0280; Australia Project Grant [390130, 1009458] and Enabling Grant [614296 to APCB]; the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia (Project Grant [PG7] and Research infrastructure grant [to APCB]); NIH grant R01 CA092447; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (P30 CA68485); Cancer Research UK [C490/A10124] and supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Cambridge; Competitive Research Funding of the Tampere University Hospital (9N069 and X51003); Award Number P30CA042014 from the National Cancer Institute.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Nature Publishing Group via http://dx.doi.org/0.1038/ncomms1097

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

Polygenic hazard score to guide screening for aggressive - prostate cancer: development and validation in large scale - cohorts

OBJECTIVESTo develop and validate a genetic tool to predict age of onset of aggressive prostate cancer (PCa) and to guide decisions of who to screen and at what age.DESIGNAnalysis of genotype, PCa status, and age to select single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with diagnosis. These polymorphisms were incorporated into a survival analysis to estimate their effects on age at diagnosis of aggressive PCa (that is, not eligible for surveillance according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines; any of Gleason score >= 7, stage T3-T4, PSA (prostate specific antigen) concentration >= 10 ng/L, nodal metastasis, distant metastasis). The resulting polygenic hazard score is an assessment of individual genetic risk. The final model was applied to an independent dataset containing genotype and PSA screening data. The hazard score was calculated for these men to test prediction of survival free from PCa.SETTINGMultiple institutions that were members of international PRACTICAL consortium.PARTICIPANTSAll consortium participants of European ancestry with known age, PCa status, and quality assured custom (iCOGS) array genotype data. The development dataset comprised 31 747 men; the validation dataset comprised 6411 men.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURESPrediction with hazard score of age of onset of aggressive cancer in validation set.RESULTSIn the independent validation set, the hazard score calculated from 54 single nucleotide polymorphisms was a highly significant predictor of age at diagnosis of aggressive cancer (z= 11.2, P98th centile) were compared with those with average scores (30th-70th centile), the hazard ratio for aggressive cancer was 2.9 (95% confidence interval 2.4 to 3.4). Inclusion of family history in a combined model did not improve prediction of onset of aggressive PCa (P= 0.59), and polygenic hazard score performance remained high when family history was accounted for. Additionally, the positive predictive value of PSA screening for aggressive PCa was increased with increasing polygenic hazard score.CONCLUSIONSPolygenic hazard scores can be used for personalised genetic risk estimates that can predict for age at onset of aggressive PCa