Haitao Chen1,2, Xu Liu1, Charles B Brendler3, Donna P Ankerst4,5, Robin J Leach4, Phyllis J Goodman6, M Scott Lucia7, Catherine M Tangen6, Li Wang2, Fang-Chi Hsu2, Jielin Sun2, A Karim Kader8, William B Isaacs9,10, Brian T Helfand3, S Lilly Zheng2, Ian M Thompson4, Elizabeth A Platz9,10,11, Jianfeng Xu1,2,3. 1. State Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering, School of Life Science, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 2. Center for Cancer Genomics, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 3. Department of Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Illinois. 4. Department of Urology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas. 5. Departments of Mathematics and Life Sciences, Technical University Munich, Garching, Germany. 6. Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 7. University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. 8. Department of Urology, UC San Diego Health System, San Diego, California. 9. Department of Urology and the James Buchanan Brady Urologic Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 10. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland. 11. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While family history (FH) has been widely used to provide risk information, it captures only a small proportion of subjects with higher genetic susceptibility. Our objective is to assess whether a genetic risk score (GRS) calculated from prostate cancer (PCa) risk-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) can supplement FH for more effective risk stratification for PCa screening decision-making. METHODS: A GRS was calculated based on 29 PCa risk-associated SNPs for 4,528 men of European descent in theplacebo arm of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT). At study entry, participants were free of PCa diagnosis. Performance of FH and GRS were measured by observed detection rate of PCa and high-grade PCa (Gleason score ≥7) during the 7-year study. RESULTS: GRS was a significant predictor of PCa in men with or without a positive FH (P = 1.18 × 10(-4) and P = 4.50 × 10(-16) , respectively). Using FH alone, as expected, the 17% of men who were FH+ had a PCa detection rate that was significantly higher (29.02%) than FH- men (23.43%, P = 0.001). When both FH+ or GRS >1.4 are considered, more than twice as many men (36%) can be classified as higher risk, as evidenced by a significantly higher PCa detection rate (30.98%) than in the remaining men (20.61%, P = 5.30× 10(-15) ). If targeting only FH+ men, four out of five PCa cases would go undetected, as would a similarly large fraction (∼80%) of high-grade PCa cases. In comparison, if targeting FH+ or GRS >1.4 men, almost half of all PCa cases would be detected, including 45% of high-grade PCa cases. CONCLUSIONS: A prostate cancer GRS can supplement family history to better identify higher risk men for targeted intervention. Prostate 76:1120-1129, 2016.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: While family history (FH) has been widely used to provide risk information, it captures only a small proportion of subjects with higher genetic susceptibility. Our objective is to assess whether a genetic risk score (GRS) calculated from prostate cancer (PCa) risk-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) can supplement FH for more effective risk stratification for PCa screening decision-making. METHODS: A GRS was calculated based on 29 PCa risk-associated SNPs for 4,528 men of European descent in the placebo arm of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT). At study entry, participants were free of PCa diagnosis. Performance of FH and GRS were measured by observed detection rate of PCa and high-grade PCa (Gleason score ≥7) during the 7-year study. RESULTS: GRS was a significant predictor of PCa in men with or without a positive FH (P = 1.18 × 10(-4) and P = 4.50 × 10(-16) , respectively). Using FH alone, as expected, the 17% of men who were FH+ had a PCa detection rate that was significantly higher (29.02%) than FH- men (23.43%, P = 0.001). When both FH+ or GRS >1.4 are considered, more than twice as many men (36%) can be classified as higher risk, as evidenced by a significantly higher PCa detection rate (30.98%) than in the remaining men (20.61%, P = 5.30 × 10(-15) ). If targeting only FH+ men, four out of five PCa cases would go undetected, as would a similarly large fraction (∼80%) of high-grade PCa cases. In comparison, if targeting FH+ or GRS >1.4 men, almost half of all PCa cases would be detected, including 45% of high-grade PCa cases. CONCLUSIONS:A prostate cancer GRS can supplement family history to better identify higher risk men for targeted intervention. Prostate 76:1120-1129, 2016.
Authors: Jielin Sun; A Karim Kader; Fang-Chi Hsu; Seong-Tae Kim; Yi Zhu; Aubrey R Turner; Tao Jin; Zheng Zhang; Jan Adolfsson; Fredrik Wiklund; S Lilly Zheng; William B Isaacs; Henrik Grönberg; Jianfeng Xu Journal: Prostate Date: 2010-09-28 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: H Ballentine Carter; Peter C Albertsen; Michael J Barry; Ruth Etzioni; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Lynn Greene; Lars Holmberg; Philip Kantoff; Badrinath R Konety; Mohammad Hassan Murad; David F Penson; Anthony L Zietman Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Thomas J Hoffmann; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Lori C Sakoda; Eric Jorgenson; Laurel A Habel; Rebecca E Graff; Michael N Passarelli; Clinton L Cario; Nima C Emami; Chun R Chao; Nirupa R Ghai; Jun Shan; Dilrini K Ranatunga; Charles P Quesenberry; David Aaronson; Joseph Presti; Zhaoming Wang; Sonja I Berndt; Stephen J Chanock; Shannon K McDonnell; Amy J French; Daniel J Schaid; Stephen N Thibodeau; Qiyuan Li; Matthew L Freedman; Kathryn L Penney; Lorelei A Mucci; Christopher A Haiman; Brian E Henderson; Daniela Seminara; Mark N Kvale; Pui-Yan Kwok; Catherine Schaefer; Neil Risch; John S Witte Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Markus Aly; Fredrik Wiklund; Jianfeng Xu; William B Isaacs; Martin Eklund; Mauro D'Amato; Jan Adolfsson; Henrik Grönberg Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-01-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Hans Lilja; Marco Zappa; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Páez; Liisa Määttänen; Chris H Bangma; Gunnar Aus; Sigrid Carlsson; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Theodorus van der Kwast; Paula M Kujala; Bert G Blijenberg; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Andreas Huber; Kimmo Taari; Matti Hakama; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning; Anssi Auvinen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; Howard L Parnes; Lori M Minasian; Paul A Godley; M Scott Lucia; Leslie G Ford Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James Y Dai; Michael LeBlanc; Phyllis J Goodman; M Scott Lucia; Ian M Thompson; Catherine M Tangen Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2018-12-11
Authors: Jianfeng Xu; W Kyle Resurreccion; Zhuqing Shi; Jun Wei; Chi-Hsiung Wang; S Lilly Zheng; Peter J Hulick; Ashley E Ross; Christian P Pavlovich; Brian T Helfand; William B Isaacs Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 5.455
Authors: Robert K Nam; Raj Satkunavisam; Joseph L Chin; Jonathan Izawa; John Trachtenberg; Ricardo Rendon; David Bell; Rajiv Singal; Christopher Sherman; Linda Sugar; Kevin Chagin; Michael W Kattan Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Minh-Phuong Huynh-Le; Chun Chieh Fan; Roshan Karunamuni; Eleanor I Walsh; Emma L Turner; J Athene Lane; Richard M Martin; David E Neal; Jenny L Donovan; Freddie C Hamdy; J Kellogg Parsons; Rosalind A Eeles; Douglas F Easton; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Ali Amin Al Olama; Sara Benlloch Garcia; Kenneth Muir; Henrik Grönberg; Fredrik Wiklund; Markus Aly; Johanna Schleutker; Csilla Sipeky; Teuvo Lj Tammela; Børge Grønne Nordestgaard; Timothy J Key; Ruth C Travis; Paul D P Pharoah; Nora Pashayan; Kay-Tee Khaw; Stephen N Thibodeau; Shannon K McDonnell; Daniel J Schaid; Christiane Maier; Walther Vogel; Manuel Luedeke; Kathleen Herkommer; Adam S Kibel; Cezary Cybulski; Dominika Wokolorczyk; Wojciech Kluzniak; Lisa A Cannon-Albright; Hermann Brenner; Ben Schöttker; Bernd Holleczek; Jong Y Park; Thomas A Sellers; Hui-Yi Lin; Chavdar Kroumov Slavov; Radka P Kaneva; Vanio I Mitev; Jyotsna Batra; Judith A Clements; Amanda B Spurdle; Manuel R Teixeira; Paula Paulo; Sofia Maia; Hardev Pandha; Agnieszka Michael; Ian G Mills; Ole A Andreassen; Anders M Dale; Tyler M Seibert Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Nathaniel Hendrix; Roman Gulati; Boshen Jiao; A Karim Kader; Stephen T Ryan; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Jing Dong; Matthew F Buas; Puya Gharahkhani; Bradley J Kendall; Lynn Onstad; Shanshan Zhao; Lesley A Anderson; Anna H Wu; Weimin Ye; Nigel C Bird; Leslie Bernstein; Wong-Ho Chow; Marilie D Gammon; Geoffrey Liu; Carlos Caldas; Paul D Pharoah; Harvey A Risch; Prasad G Iyer; Brian J Reid; Laura J Hardie; Jesper Lagergren; Nicholas J Shaheen; Douglas A Corley; Rebecca C Fitzgerald; David C Whiteman; Thomas L Vaughan; Aaron P Thrift Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 22.682