Tobias Nordström1,2,3, Erin L Van Blarigan1,2, Vy Ngo1, Ritu Roy4, Vivian Weinberg5, Xiaoling Song6, Jeffry Simko1,7, Peter R Carroll1, June M Chan1,2, Pamela L Paris1. 1. Department of Urology, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Research Center, University of California, San Francisco, California. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, California. 3. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Computational Biology Core, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California. 5. Biostatistics Core, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California. 6. Cancer Prevention Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 7. Department of Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carotenoids are a class of nutrients with antioxidant properties that have been purported to protect against cancer. However, the reported associations between carotenoids and prostate cancer have been heterogeneous and lacking data on interactions with nucleotide sequence variations and genomic biomarkers. OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations between carotenoid levels and the risk of high-grade prostate cancer, also considering antioxidant-related genes and tumor instability. METHODS: We measured plasma levels of carotenoids and genotyped 20 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in SOD1, SOD2, SOD3, XRCC1, and OGG1 among 559 men with non-metastatic prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. We performed copy number analysis in a subset of these men (n = 67) to study tumor instability assessed as Fraction of the Genome Altered (FGA). We examined associations between carotenoids, genotypes, tumor instability and risk of high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason grade ≥ 4 + 3) using logistic and linear regression. RESULTS: Circulating carotenoid levels were inversely associated with the risk of high-grade prostate cancer; odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing highest versus lowest quartiles were: 0.34 (95% CI: 0.18-0.66) for α-carotene, 0.31 (95% CI: 0.15-0.63) for β-carotene, 0.55 (0.28-1.08) for lycopene and 0.37 (0.18-0.75) for total carotenoids. SNPs rs25489 in XRCC1, rs699473 in SOD3 and rs1052133 in OGG1 modified these associations for α-carotene, β-carotene and lycopene, respectively (P ≤ 0.05). The proportion of men with a high degree of FGA increased with Gleason Score (P < 0.001). Among men with Gleason score ≤ 3 + 4, higher lycopene levels were associated with lower FGA (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Circulating carotenoids at diagnosis, particularly among men carrying specific somatic variations, were inversely associated with risk of high-grade prostate cancer. In exploratory analyses, higher lycopene level was associated with less genomic instability among men with low-grade disease which is novel and supports the hypothesis that lycopene may inhibit progression of prostate cancer early in its natural history.
BACKGROUND:Carotenoids are a class of nutrients with antioxidant properties that have been purported to protect against cancer. However, the reported associations between carotenoids and prostate cancer have been heterogeneous and lacking data on interactions with nucleotide sequence variations and genomic biomarkers. OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations between carotenoid levels and the risk of high-grade prostate cancer, also considering antioxidant-related genes and tumor instability. METHODS: We measured plasma levels of carotenoids and genotyped 20 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in SOD1, SOD2, SOD3, XRCC1, and OGG1 among 559 men with non-metastatic prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. We performed copy number analysis in a subset of these men (n = 67) to study tumor instability assessed as Fraction of the Genome Altered (FGA). We examined associations between carotenoids, genotypes, tumor instability and risk of high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason grade ≥ 4 + 3) using logistic and linear regression. RESULTS: Circulating carotenoid levels were inversely associated with the risk of high-grade prostate cancer; odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing highest versus lowest quartiles were: 0.34 (95% CI: 0.18-0.66) for α-carotene, 0.31 (95% CI: 0.15-0.63) for β-carotene, 0.55 (0.28-1.08) for lycopene and 0.37 (0.18-0.75) for total carotenoids. SNPs rs25489 in XRCC1, rs699473 in SOD3 and rs1052133 in OGG1 modified these associations for α-carotene, β-carotene and lycopene, respectively (P ≤ 0.05). The proportion of men with a high degree of FGA increased with Gleason Score (P < 0.001). Among men with Gleason score ≤ 3 + 4, higher lycopene levels were associated with lower FGA (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Circulating carotenoids at diagnosis, particularly among men carrying specific somatic variations, were inversely associated with risk of high-grade prostate cancer. In exploratory analyses, higher lycopene level was associated with less genomic instability among men with low-grade disease which is novel and supports the hypothesis that lycopene may inhibit progression of prostate cancer early in its natural history.
Authors: Miyako Abe; Wanling Xie; Meredith M Regan; Irena B King; Meir J Stampfer; Philip W Kantoff; William K Oh; June M Chan Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Haojie Li; Philip W Kantoff; Edward Giovannucci; Michael F Leitzmann; J Michael Gaziano; Meir J Stampfer; Jing Ma Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Alan R Kristal; Cathee Till; Elizabeth A Platz; Xiaoling Song; Irena B King; Marian L Neuhouser; Christine B Ambrosone; Ian M Thompson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-02-18 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: E Giovannucci; A Ascherio; E B Rimm; M J Stampfer; G A Colditz; W C Willett Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1995-12-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jasmeet K Gill; Adrian A Franke; J Steven Morris; Robert V Cooney; Lynne R Wilkens; Loic Le Marchand; Marc T Goodman; Brian E Henderson; Laurence N Kolonel Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2009-02-11 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Pamela L Paris; Armann Andaya; Jane Fridlyand; Ajay N Jain; Vivian Weinberg; David Kowbel; John H Brebner; Jeff Simko; J E Vivienne Watson; Stas Volik; Donna G Albertson; Daniel Pinkel; Janneke C Alers; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Kees J Vissers; Fritz H Schroder; Mark F Wildhagen; Phillip G Febbo; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Kenneth J Pienta; Peter R Carroll; Mark A Rubin; Colin Collins; Herman van Dekken Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2004-05-11 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: John P Gerstenberger; Scott R Bauer; Erin L Van Blarigan; Eduardo Sosa; Xiaoling Song; John S Witte; Peter R Carroll; June M Chan Journal: Prostate Date: 2014-10-04 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Weixiong Zhong; Heidi L Weiss; Rani D Jayswal; Patrick J Hensley; Laura M Downes; Daret K St Clair; Luksana Chaiswing Journal: Free Radic Biol Med Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 7.376
Authors: J Kellogg Parsons; David Zahrieh; James L Mohler; Electra Paskett; Donna E Hansel; Adam S Kibel; Heshan Liu; Drew K Seisler; Loki Natarajan; Martha White; Olwen Hahn; John Taylor; Sheri J Hartman; Sean P Stroup; Peter Van Veldhuizen; Lannis Hall; Eric J Small; Michael J Morris; John P Pierce; James Marshall Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J Kellogg Parsons; John P Pierce; James Mohler; Electra Paskett; Sin-Ho Jung; Michael J Morris; Eric Small; Olwen Hahn; Peter Humphrey; John Taylor; James Marshall Journal: BJU Int Date: 2017-05-21 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Javier Ávila-Román; Sara García-Gil; Azahara Rodríguez-Luna; Virginia Motilva; Elena Talero Journal: Mar Drugs Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 5.118