L E Johns1, R S Houlston. 1. Section of Cancer Genetics, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify published studies quantifying familial prostate cancer risks in relatives of prostate cancer cases and, by meta-analysis, obtain more precise estimates of familial risk according to the family history. METHODS: Thirteen case-control and cohort studies were identified which have reported risks of prostate cancer in relatives of prostate cancer cases. Pooled estimates of risk for various categories of family history were obtained by calculating the weighted average of the log relative risk (RR) estimates from studies. RESULTS: The pooled RR (95% confidence interval) in first-degree relatives was 2.5 (2.2-2.8). There was evidence that this was highest in relatives of cases diagnosed before age 60 years and that RRs declined with age. The risk for the few men with two affected relatives was increased 3.5-fold (2.6-4.8). RRs to sons of cases appeared to be lower than in brothers; a complete explanation of this observation is uncertain. CONCLUSION: Men with a family history of prostate cancer have a significantly greater risk of developing prostate cancer than those with no such history. Risks are greatest for relatives of cases diagnosed when young and those with more than one relative affected.
OBJECTIVE: To identify published studies quantifying familial prostate cancer risks in relatives of prostate cancer cases and, by meta-analysis, obtain more precise estimates of familial risk according to the family history. METHODS: Thirteen case-control and cohort studies were identified which have reported risks of prostate cancer in relatives of prostate cancer cases. Pooled estimates of risk for various categories of family history were obtained by calculating the weighted average of the log relative risk (RR) estimates from studies. RESULTS: The pooled RR (95% confidence interval) in first-degree relatives was 2.5 (2.2-2.8). There was evidence that this was highest in relatives of cases diagnosed before age 60 years and that RRs declined with age. The risk for the few men with two affected relatives was increased 3.5-fold (2.6-4.8). RRs to sons of cases appeared to be lower than in brothers; a complete explanation of this observation is uncertain. CONCLUSION:Men with a family history of prostate cancer have a significantly greater risk of developing prostate cancer than those with no such history. Risks are greatest for relatives of cases diagnosed when young and those with more than one relative affected.
Authors: J-A Thomas; L Gerber; D M Moreira; R J Hamilton; L L Bañez; R Castro-Santamaria; G L Andriole; W B Isaacs; J Xu; S J Freedland Journal: J Intern Med Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Florian R Schroeck; Kimberly A Zuhlke; Javed Siddiqui; Rabia Siddiqui; Kathleen A Cooney; John T Wei Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Mary E Westerman; Boris Gershman; R Jeffrey Karnes; R Houston Thompson; Laureano Rangel; Stephen A Boorjian Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Hong Lou; Meredith Yeager; Hongchuan Li; Jesus Gonzalez Bosquet; Richard B Hayes; Nick Orr; Kai Yu; Amy Hutchinson; Kevin B Jacobs; Peter Kraft; Sholom Wacholder; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Michael J Thun; W Ryan Diver; Demetrius Albanes; Jarmo Virtamo; Stephanie Weinstein; Jing Ma; J Michael Gaziano; Meir Stampfer; Fredrick R Schumacher; Edward Giovannucci; Geraldine Cancel-Tassin; Olivier Cussenot; Antoine Valeri; Gerald L Andriole; E David Crawford; Stephen K Anderson; Margaret Tucker; Robert N Hoover; Joseph F Fraumeni; Gilles Thomas; David J Hunter; Michael Dean; Stephen J Chanock Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-04-21 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Meredith Yeager; Zuoming Deng; Joseph Boland; Casey Matthews; Jennifer Bacior; Victor Lonsberry; Amy Hutchinson; Laura A Burdett; Liqun Qi; Kevin B Jacobs; Jesus Gonzalez-Bosquet; Sonja I Berndt; Richard B Hayes; Robert N Hoover; Gilles Thomas; David J Hunter; Michael Dean; Stephen J Chanock Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.132