PURPOSE: Several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) have been associated with the risk of prostate cancer. The clinical utility of using SNPs in the early detection of prostate cancer has not been evaluated. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We examined a panel of 25 SNPs from candidate genes and chromosomal regions in 3,004 unselected men who were screened for prostate cancer using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination. All underwent a prostate biopsy. We evaluated the ability of these SNPs to help predict the presence of prostate cancer at biopsy. RESULTS: Of the 3,004 patients, 1,389 (46.2%) were found to have prostate cancer. Fifteen of the 25 SNPs studied were significantly associated with prostate cancer (P=0.02-7x10(-8)). We selected a combination of 4 SNPs with the best predictive value for further study. After adjusting for other predictive factors, the odds ratio for patients with all four of the variant genotypes compared with men with no variant genotype was 5.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.6-16.5; P=0.006). When incorporated into a nomogram, genotype status contributed more significantly than PSA, family history, ethnicity, urinary symptoms, and digital rectal examination (area under the curve=0.74). The positive predictive value of the PSA test ranged from 42% to 94% depending on the number of variant genotypes carried (P=1x10(-15)). CONCLUSIONS: SNP genotyping can be used in a clinical setting for the early detection of prostate cancer in a nomogram approach and by improving the positive predictive value of the PSA test.
PURPOSE: Several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) have been associated with the risk of prostate cancer. The clinical utility of using SNPs in the early detection of prostate cancer has not been evaluated. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We examined a panel of 25 SNPs from candidate genes and chromosomal regions in 3,004 unselected men who were screened for prostate cancer using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination. All underwent a prostate biopsy. We evaluated the ability of these SNPs to help predict the presence of prostate cancer at biopsy. RESULTS: Of the 3,004 patients, 1,389 (46.2%) were found to have prostate cancer. Fifteen of the 25 SNPs studied were significantly associated with prostate cancer (P=0.02-7x10(-8)). We selected a combination of 4 SNPs with the best predictive value for further study. After adjusting for other predictive factors, the odds ratio for patients with all four of the variant genotypes compared with men with no variant genotype was 5.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.6-16.5; P=0.006). When incorporated into a nomogram, genotype status contributed more significantly than PSA, family history, ethnicity, urinary symptoms, and digital rectal examination (area under the curve=0.74). The positive predictive value of the PSA test ranged from 42% to 94% depending on the number of variant genotypes carried (P=1x10(-15)). CONCLUSIONS: SNP genotyping can be used in a clinical setting for the early detection of prostate cancer in a nomogram approach and by improving the positive predictive value of the PSA test.
Authors: Jonathan I Izawa; Laurence Klotz; D Robert Siemens; Wassim Kassouf; Alan So; John Jordan; Michael Chetner; Alla E Iansavichene Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Sandya Liyanarachchi; Anna Wojcicka; Wei Li; Malgorzata Czetwertynska; Elzbieta Stachlewska; Rebecca Nagy; Kevin Hoag; Bernard Wen; Rafal Ploski; Matthew D Ringel; Izabella Kozłowicz-Gudzinska; Wojciech Gierlikowski; Krystian Jazdzewski; Huiling He; Albert de la Chapelle Journal: Thyroid Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Robert J Klein; Christer Hallden; Amit Gupta; Caroline J Savage; Anders Dahlin; Anders Bjartell; Jonas Manjer; Peter T Scardino; David Ulmert; Peter Wallström; Andrew J Vickers; Hans Lilja Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Robert K Nam; William Zhang; Katherine Siminovitch; Adam Shlien; Michael W Kattan; Laurence H Klotz; John Trachtenberg; Yan Lu; Jinyi Zhang; Changhong Yu; Ants Toi; D Andrew Loblaw; Vasundara Venkateswaran; Aleksandra Stanimirovic; Linda Sugar; David Malkin; Arun Seth; Steven A Narod Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2011-12-01 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Julius Gudmundsson; Soren Besenbacher; Patrick Sulem; Daniel F Gudbjartsson; Isleifur Olafsson; Sturla Arinbjarnarson; Bjarni A Agnarsson; Kristrun R Benediktsdottir; Helgi J Isaksson; Jelena P Kostic; Sigurjon A Gudjonsson; Simon N Stacey; Arnaldur Gylfason; Asgeir Sigurdsson; Hilma Holm; Unnur S Bjornsdottir; Gudmundur I Eyjolfsson; Sebastian Navarrete; Fernando Fuertes; Maria D Garcia-Prats; Eduardo Polo; Ionel A Checherita; Mariana Jinga; Paula Badea; Katja K Aben; Jack A Schalken; Inge M van Oort; Fred C Sweep; Brian T Helfand; Michael Davis; Jenny L Donovan; Freddie C Hamdy; Kristleifur Kristjansson; Jeffrey R Gulcher; Gisli Masson; Augustine Kong; William J Catalona; Jose I Mayordomo; Gudmundur Geirsson; Gudmundur V Einarsson; Rosa B Barkardottir; Eirikur Jonsson; Viorel Jinga; Dana Mates; Lambertus A Kiemeney; David E Neal; Unnur Thorsteinsdottir; Thorunn Rafnar; Kari Stefansson Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Jean-Nicolas Cornu; Sarah Drouin; Géraldine Cancel-Tassin; Pierre Bigot; Abdel-Rahmène Azzouzi; Nicolas Koutlidis; Luc Cormier; Cécile Gaffory; Morgan Rouprêt; Philippe Sèbe; Marc-Olivier Bitker; François Haab; Olivier Cussenot Journal: Mol Med Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 6.354
Authors: Julian Little; Brenda Wilson; Ron Carter; Kate Walker; Pasqualina Santaguida; Eva Tomiak; Joseph Beyene; Muhammad Usman Ali; Parminder Raina Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 8.822