Richard J Fantus1, Brian T Helfand2. 1. Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL. 2. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, IL. bhelfand@northshore.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) remains the most common solid malignancy in men, and its prevalence makes understanding its heritability of paramount importance. To date, the most common factors used to estimate a man's risk of developing PCa are age, race, and family history. Despite recent advances in its utility in multiple malignancies (e.g., breast and colon cancer), genetic testing is still relatively underutilized in PCa. CONTENT: Multiple highly penetrant genes (HPGs) and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been show to increase a patient's risk of developing PCa. Mutations in the former, like DNA damage repair genes, can confer a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of developing PCa and can increase the risk of aggressive disease. Similarly, PCa-risk SNPs can be used to create risk scores (e.g., genetic or polygenic risk scores) that can be used to further stratify an individual's disease susceptibility. Specifically, these genetic risk scores can provide more specific estimates of a man's lifetime risk ranging up to >6-fold higher risk of PCa. SUMMARY: It is becoming increasingly evident that in addition to the standard family history and race information, it is necessary to obtain genetic testing (including an assessment of HPG mutation status and genetic risk score) to provide a full risk assessment. The additional information derived thereby will improve current practices in PCa screening by risk-stratifying patients before initial prostate-specific antigen testing, determining a patient's frequency of visits, and even help identify potentially at-risk family members.
BACKGROUND:Prostate cancer (PCa) remains the most common solid malignancy in men, and its prevalence makes understanding its heritability of paramount importance. To date, the most common factors used to estimate a man's risk of developing PCa are age, race, and family history. Despite recent advances in its utility in multiple malignancies (e.g., breast and colon cancer), genetic testing is still relatively underutilized in PCa. CONTENT: Multiple highly penetrant genes (HPGs) and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been show to increase a patient's risk of developing PCa. Mutations in the former, like DNA damage repair genes, can confer a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of developing PCa and can increase the risk of aggressive disease. Similarly, PCa-risk SNPs can be used to create risk scores (e.g., genetic or polygenic risk scores) that can be used to further stratify an individual's disease susceptibility. Specifically, these genetic risk scores can provide more specific estimates of a man's lifetime risk ranging up to >6-fold higher risk of PCa. SUMMARY: It is becoming increasingly evident that in addition to the standard family history and race information, it is necessary to obtain genetic testing (including an assessment of HPG mutation status and genetic risk score) to provide a full risk assessment. The additional information derived thereby will improve current practices in PCa screening by risk-stratifying patients before initial prostate-specific antigen testing, determining a patient's frequency of visits, and even help identify potentially at-risk family members.
Authors: Carly A Conran; Zhuqing Shi; William Kyle Resurreccion; Rong Na; Brian T Helfand; Elena Genova; Siqun Lilly Zheng; Charles B Brendler; Jianfeng Xu Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Minh-Phuong Huynh-Le; Chun Chieh Fan; Roshan Karunamuni; Wesley K Thompson; Maria Elena Martinez; Rosalind A Eeles; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Kenneth Muir; Johanna Schleutker; Nora Pashayan; Jyotsna Batra; Henrik Grönberg; David E Neal; Jenny L Donovan; Freddie C Hamdy; Richard M Martin; Sune F Nielsen; Børge G Nordestgaard; Fredrik Wiklund; Catherine M Tangen; Graham G Giles; Alicja Wolk; Demetrius Albanes; Ruth C Travis; William J Blot; Wei Zheng; Maureen Sanderson; Janet L Stanford; Lorelei A Mucci; Catharine M L West; Adam S Kibel; Olivier Cussenot; Sonja I Berndt; Stella Koutros; Karina Dalsgaard Sørensen; Cezary Cybulski; Eli Marie Grindedal; Florence Menegaux; Kay-Tee Khaw; Jong Y Park; Sue A Ingles; Christiane Maier; Robert J Hamilton; Stephen N Thibodeau; Barry S Rosenstein; Yong-Jie Lu; Stephen Watya; Ana Vega; Manolis Kogevinas; Kathryn L Penney; Chad Huff; Manuel R Teixeira; Luc Multigner; Robin J Leach; Lisa Cannon-Albright; Hermann Brenner; Esther M John; Radka Kaneva; Christopher J Logothetis; Susan L Neuhausen; Kim De Ruyck; Hardev Pandha; Azad Razack; Lisa F Newcomb; Jay H Fowke; Marija Gamulin; Nawaid Usmani; Frank Claessens; Manuela Gago-Dominguez; Paul A Townsend; William S Bush; Monique J Roobol; Marie-Élise Parent; Jennifer J Hu; Ian G Mills; Ole A Andreassen; Anders M Dale; Tyler M Seibert Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Harry D Green; Samuel W D Merriel; Richard A Oram; Katherine S Ruth; Jessica Tyrrell; Samuel E Jones; Chrissie Thirlwell; Michael N Weedon; Sarah E R Bailey Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 9.075
Authors: Qianxi Feng; Eric Nickels; Ivo S Muskens; Adam J de Smith; W James Gauderman; Amy C Yee; Charite Ricker; Thomas Mack; Andrew D Leavitt; Lucy A Godley; Joseph L Wiemels Journal: Elife Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Ying-Erh Chou; Po-Jen Yang; Chia-Yen Lin; Yen-Yu Chen; Whei-Ling Chiang; Pei-Xuan Lin; Zih-Yun Huang; Matthew Huang; Yung-Chuan Ho; Shun-Fa Yang Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-03 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Anna Plym; Kathryn L Penney; Sarah Kalia; Peter Kraft; David V Conti; Christopher Haiman; Lorelei A Mucci; Adam S Kibel Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-05-09 Impact factor: 11.816