Prostate-specific antigen velocity in a prospective prostate cancer screening study of men with genetic predisposition.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.429.

Prostate-specific antigen velocity in a prospective prostate cancer screening study of men with genetic predisposition.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and PSA-velocity (PSAV) have been used to identify men at risk of prostate cancer (PrCa). The IMPACT study is evaluating PSA screening in men with a known genetic predisposition to PrCa due to BRCA1/2 mutations. This analysis evaluates the utility of PSA and PSAV for identifying PrCa and high-grade disease in this cohort. METHODS: PSAV was calculated using logistic regression to determine if PSA or PSAV predicted the result of prostate biopsy (PB) in men with elevated PSA values. Cox regression was used to determine whether PSA or PSAV predicted PSA elevation in men with low PSAs. Interaction terms were included in the models to determine whether BRCA status influenced the predictiveness of PSA or PSAV. RESULTS: 1634 participants had ⩾3 PSA readings of whom 174 underwent PB and 45 PrCas diagnosed. In men with PSA >3.0 ng ml-l, PSAV was not significantly associated with presence of cancer or high-grade disease. PSAV did not add to PSA for predicting time to an elevated PSA. When comparing BRCA1/2 carriers to non-carriers, we found a significant interaction between BRCA status and last PSA before biopsy (P=0.031) and BRCA2 status and PSAV (P=0.024). However, PSAV was not predictive of biopsy outcome in BRCA2 carriers. CONCLUSIONS: PSA is more strongly predictive of PrCa in BRCA carriers than non-carriers. We did not find evidence that PSAV aids decision-making for BRCA carriers over absolute PSA value alone.

The clinical phenotype of hereditary versus sporadic prostate cancer: HPC definition revisited.

BACKGROUND: The definition of hereditary prostate cancer (HPC) is based on family history and age at onset. Intuitively, HPC is a serious subtype of prostate cancer but there are only limited data on the clinical phenotype of HPC. Here, we aimed to compare the prognosis of HPC to the sporadic form of prostate cancer (SPC). METHODS: HPC patients were identified through a national registry of HPC families in the Netherlands, selecting patients diagnosed from the year 2000 onward (n = 324). SPC patients were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) between 2003 and 2006 for a population-based study into the genetic susceptibility of PC (n = 1,664). Detailed clinical data were collected by NCR-registrars, using a standardized registration form. Follow-up extended up to the end of 2013. Differences between the groups were evaluated by cross-tabulations and tested for statistical significance while accounting for familial dependency of observations by GEE. Differences in progression-free and overall survival were evaluated using χ(2) testing with GEE in a proportional-hazards model. RESULTS: HPC patients were on average 3 years younger at diagnosis, had lower PSA values, lower Gleason scores, and more often locally confined disease. Of the HPC patients, 35% had high-risk disease (NICE-criteria) versus 51% of the SPC patients. HPC patients were less often treated with active surveillance. Kaplan-Meier 5-year progression-free survival after radical prostatectomy was comparable for HPC (78%) and SPC (74%; P = 0.30). The 5-year overall survival was 85% (95%CI 81-89%) for HPC versus 80% (95%CI 78-82%) for SPC (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: HPC has a favorable clinical phenotype but patients more often underwent radical treatment. The major limitation of HPC is the absence of a genetics-based definition of HPC, which may lead to over-diagnosis of PC in men with a family history of prostate cancer. The HPC definition should, therefore, be re-evaluated, aiming at a reduction of over-diagnosis and overtreatment among men with multiple relatives diagnosed with PC. Prostate 76:897-904, 2016. © 2016 The Authors. The Prostate published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Insertion of an SVA-E retrotransposon into the CASP8 gene is associated with protection against prostate cancer.

Transcriptional and splicing anomalies have been observed in intron 8 of the CASP8 gene (encoding procaspase-8) in association with cutaneous basal-cell carcinoma (BCC) and linked to a germline SNP rs700635. Here, we show that the rs700635[C] allele, which is associated with increased risk of BCC and breast cancer, is protective against prostate cancer [odds ratio (OR) = 0.91, P = 1.0 × 10(-6)]. rs700635[C] is also associated with failures to correctly splice out CASP8 intron 8 in breast and prostate tumours and in corresponding normal tissues. Investigation of rs700635[C] carriers revealed that they have a human-specific short interspersed element-variable number of tandem repeat-Alu (SINE-VNTR-Alu), subfamily-E retrotransposon (SVA-E) inserted into CASP8 intron 8. The SVA-E shows evidence of prior activity, because it has transduced some CASP8 sequences during subsequent retrotransposition events. Whole-genome sequence (WGS) data were used to tag the SVA-E with a surrogate SNP rs1035142[T] (r(2) = 0.999), which showed associations with both the splicing anomalies (P = 6.5 × 10(-32)) and with protection against prostate cancer (OR = 0.91, P = 3.8 × 10(-7)).

The role of the prostate cancer gene 3 urine test in addition to serum prostate-specific antigen level in prostate cancer screening among breast cancer, early-onset gene mutation carriers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the additive value of the prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) urine test to serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in prostate cancer (PC) screening among breast cancer, early-onset gene (BRCA) mutation carriers. This study was performed among the Dutch participants of IMPACT, a large international study on the effectiveness of PSA screening among BRCA mutation carriers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Urinary PCA3 was measured in 191 BRCA1 mutation carriers, 75 BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 308 noncarriers. The physicians and participants were blinded for the results. Serum PSA level ≥ 3.0 ng/ml was used to indicate prostate biopsies. PCA3 was evaluated (1) as an independent indicator for prostate b iopsies and (2) as an indicator for prostate biopsies among men with an elevated PSA level. PC detected up to the 2-year screening was used as gold standard as end-of-study biopsies were not performed. RESULTS: Overall, 23 PCs were diagnosed, 20 of which were in men who had an elevated PSA level in the initial screening round. (1) PCA3, successfully determined in 552 participants, was elevated in 188 (cutoff ≥ 25; 34%) or 134 (cutoff ≥ 35; 24%) participants, including 2 of the 3 PCs missed by PSA. PCA3 would have added 157 (≥ 25; 28%) or 109 (≥ 35; 20%) biopsy sessions to screening with PSA only. (2) Elevated PCA3 as a requirement for biopsies in addition to PSA would have saved 37 (cutoff ≥ 25) or 43 (cutoff ≥ 35) of the 68 biopsy sessions, and 7 or 11 PCs would have been missed, respectively, including multiple high-risk PCs. So far, PCA3 performed best among BRCA2 mutation carriers, but the numbers are still small. Because PCA3 was not used to indicate prostate biopsies, its true diagnostic value cannot be calculated. CONCLUSIONS: The results do not provide evidence for PCA3 as a useful additional indicator of prostate biopsies in BRCA mutation carriers, as many participants had an elevated PCA3 in the absence of PC. This must be interpreted with caution because PCA3 was not used to indicate biopsies. Many participants diagnosed with PC had low PCA3, making it invalid as a restrictive marker for prostate biopsies in men with elevated PSA levels.

Known susceptibility SNPs for sporadic prostate cancer show a similar association with "hereditary" prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: More than 70 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been reported to be associated with prostate cancer (PC) risk; these were mainly identified in the general population with predominantly sporadic PC (SPC). Previous studies have suggested similar associations between a selection of these SNPs and hereditary PC (HPC). Our aim was to evaluate the effect of all known PC risk SNPs and their discriminative value for SPC and HPC. METHODS: Seventy-four PC susceptibility SNPs (reported in literature up to June 2014) were genotyped in a population-based series of 620 SPC patients, 312 HPC patients from the national Dutch registry and 1819 population-based referents. Association analyses were performed using logistic regression, focusing on directional consistency of the odds ratios (ORs) with those in the original reports, that is, whether the OR was in the same direction as in the original report. Discriminative performance was evaluated by a genetic risk score used in logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses. RESULTS: Directional consistency was seen for 62 SNPs in SPC and 64 SNPs in HPC, 56 of which overlapped. ORs were mostly higher for HPC with 22 ORs >1.25 versus 5 for SPC. Discriminative performance was better for HPC with an area under the ROC curve of 0.73 versus 0.64 for SPC. CONCLUSIONS: A large overlap was found for the associations between low-penetrance susceptibility SNPs and SPC and HPC, suggesting a similarity in genetic etiology. This warrants a reconsideration of "HPC" and a restrictive policy toward prostate-specific antigen testing in men with a positive family history. Genetic risk scores might be used for PC risk stratification on the population level.

Self-reported acne is not associated with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Some studies have suggested an inverse association between acne vulgaris and the acne-related bacterium Propionibacterium acnes and prostate cancer (PCa). Self-reported acne might be an easily obtainable marker to identify men at relatively low risk of PCa and might be incorporated into PCa risk calculators. This study aimed to evaluate the association between self-reported acne and PCa in a large case-referent study. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The case group comprised 942 patients with PCa recruited from a population-based cancer registry in 2003 to 2006, 647 of whom met the criteria for aggressive PCa. The referents (n = 2,062) were a random sample of the male general population. All subjects completed a questionnaire on risk factors for cancer, including questions about acne. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using multivariable logistic regression for PCa and aggressive PCa as separate end points, while adjusting for age and family history of PCa. RESULTS: A history of acne was reported by 320 cases (33.9%) and 739 referents (35.8%). Self-reported acne was significantly associated neither with PCa (adjusted OR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.80-1.12) nor with aggressive PCa (adjusted OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.80-1.18). CONCLUSION: Self-reported acne is not suitable as a marker to identify men at low risk of aggressive PCa.

Targeted prostate cancer screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the initial screening round of the IMPACT study.

BACKGROUND: Men with germline breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1) or breast cancer 2, early onset (BRCA2) gene mutations have a higher risk of developing prostate cancer (PCa) than noncarriers. IMPACT (Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and controls) is an international consortium of 62 centres in 20 countries evaluating the use of targeted PCa screening in men with BRCA1/2 mutations. OBJECTIVE: To report the first year's screening results for all men at enrollment in the study. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited men aged 40-69 yr with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and a control group of men who have tested negative for a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation known to be present in their families. All men underwent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing at enrollment, and those men with PSA >3 ng/ml were offered prostate biopsy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: PSA levels, PCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the number of PCa cases among groups and the differences among disease types. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We recruited 2481 men (791 BRCA1 carriers, 531 BRCA1 controls; 731 BRCA2 carriers, 428 BRCA2 controls). A total of 199 men (8%) presented with PSA >3.0 ng/ml, 162 biopsies were performed, and 59 PCas were diagnosed (18 BRCA1 carriers, 10 BRCA1 controls; 24 BRCA2 carriers, 7 BRCA2 controls); 66% of the tumours were classified as intermediate- or high-risk disease. The positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3.0 ng/ml in BRCA2 mutation carriers was 48%-double the PPV reported in population screening studies. A significant difference in detecting intermediate- or high-risk disease was observed in BRCA2 carriers. Ninety-five percent of the men were white, thus the results cannot be generalised to all ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: The IMPACT screening network will be useful for targeted PCa screening studies in men with germline genetic risk variants as they are discovered. These preliminary results support the use of targeted PSA screening based on BRCA genotype and show that this screening yields a high proportion of aggressive disease. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we demonstrate that germline genetic markers can be used to identify men at higher risk of prostate cancer. Targeting screening at these men resulted in the identification of tumours that were more likely to require treatment.

Rational basis for the combination of PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion for prostate cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: The prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) and TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion are promising prostate cancer (PCa) specific biomarkers. Our aim was to simultaneously quantify the expression levels of PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG in a panel of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), normal prostate adjacent to PCa (NP) and PCa tissue samples, to provide a rational basis for the understanding of the false-positive and false-negative results of the urine assays. METHODS: The tissue samples were carefully histopathologically characterized to obtain homogeneous groups. The mRNA was isolated, transcribed into cDNA and the relative expressions of PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG were measured using a quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. The expression levels of PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG were compared between the different groups. RESULTS: We included 48 BPH, 32 NP, and 48 PCa. The PCA3 expression levels progressively increased from BPH to NP (3 times) and finally to PCa (30 times). There were one false-positive sample and seven false-negative samples. The TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion was found in 8.3% of the BPH, 15.6% of the NP, and 50% of the PCa samples. The use of TMPRSS2:ERG in the PCA3 negative cases allowed diagnosis of four of the seven false-negative samples and added one false-positive, but we had to define a cut-off value to avoid eight false-positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Considering tissue expression of the markers, most of the false-negative results of the PCA3 test were corrected by TMPRSS2:ERG (57%) and the combination of both had a higher sensitivity for PCa diagnosis. Some of the control samples did express TMPRSS2:ERG and a cut-off value had to be defined to avoid false-positive results.

Urologists' and GPs' knowledge of hereditary prostate cancer is suboptimal for prostate cancer counseling: a nation-wide survey in The Netherlands.

A family history of prostate cancer (PCa) is an established risk factor for PCa. In case of a positive family history, the balance between positive and adverse effects of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing might be different from the general population, for which the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) showed a beneficial effect on mortality. This, however, went at the cost of considerable overtreatment. This study assessed Dutch physicians' knowledge of heredity and PCa and their 'post-ERSPC' attitude towards PCa testing, including consideration of family history. In January 2010, all Dutch urologists and clinical geneticists (CGs) and 300 general practitioners (GPs) were invited by email to complete an anonymous online survey, which contained questions about hereditary PCa and their attitudes towards PCa case-finding and screening. 109 urologists (31%), 69 GPs (23%) and 46 CGs (31%) completed the survey. CGs had the most accurate knowledge of hereditary PCa. All but 1 CG mentioned at least one inherited trait with PCa, compared to only 25% of urologists and 9% of GPs. CGs hardly ever counseled men about PCa testing. Most urologists and GPs discuss possible risks and benefits before testing for PCa with PSA. Remarkably, 35-40% of them do not take family history into consideration. Knowledge of urologists and GPs about heredity and PCa is suboptimal. Hence, PCa counseling might not be optimal for men with a positive family history. Multidisciplinary guidelines on this topic should be developed to optimize personalized counseling.

A germline variant in the TP53 polyadenylation signal confers cancer susceptibility.

To identify new risk variants for cutaneous basal cell carcinoma, we performed a genome-wide association study of 16 million SNPs identified through whole-genome sequencing of 457 Icelanders. We imputed genotypes for 41,675 Illumina SNP chip-typed Icelanders and their relatives. In the discovery phase, the strongest signal came from rs78378222[C] (odds ratio (OR) = 2.36, P = 5.2 × 10(-17)), which has a frequency of 0.0192 in the Icelandic population. We then confirmed this association in non-Icelandic samples (OR = 1.75, P = 0.0060; overall OR = 2.16, P = 2.2 × 10(-20)). rs78378222 is in the 3' untranslated region of TP53 and changes the AATAAA polyadenylation signal to AATACA, resulting in impaired 3'-end processing of TP53 mRNA. Investigation of other tumor types identified associations of this SNP with prostate cancer (OR = 1.44, P = 2.4 × 10(-6)), glioma (OR = 2.35, P = 1.0 × 10(-5)) and colorectal adenoma (OR = 1.39, P = 1.6 × 10(-4)). However, we observed no effect for breast cancer, a common Li-Fraumeni syndrome tumor (OR = 1.06, P = 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.88-1.27).

Efficacy and tolerance of salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy, with emphasis on high-risk patients suited for adjuvant radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Goals of this study are to report the outcomes and tolerance of salvage radiotherapy (SRT) after prostatectomy, to identify risk factors for failure after SRT and to evaluate how these results compare with published results of immediate post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy (ART). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Men receiving SRT for elevated PSA levels after radical prostatectomy (RP) were included. Biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were estimated. Risk factors for biochemical failure and death were evaluated. Late toxicity and quality of life were evaluated. Secondary bPFS (defined as bPFS from prostatectomy until progression after radiotherapy) was calculated for high-risk patients (pT3 and/or positive surgical margins) in order to compare SRT outcomes with ART. RESULTS: 197 Men were included. Five-year bPFS after SRT was 59% (95% CI 49-69%). Five-year OS and DSS were 90% (85-96%) and 97% (93-100%), respectively. Capsular perforation (pT≥T3), negative surgical margins and serum PSA>1 ng/ml at the start of RT were significant predictors of lower bPFS. Patients without any negative factors had a 5-year bPFS of 89%. No severe late toxicity was reported. Five-year secondary bPFS for SRT in high-risk patients was 78% and comparable with published results for ART. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage radiotherapy for patients with organ-confined prostate cancer was effective and well tolerated. SRT outcomes were comparable with published ART results for high-risk patients. Initially monitoring serum PSA and considering early SRT for these patients are not harmful and might be a valuable alternative for immediate ART.

Androgenic alopecia is not useful as an indicator of men at high risk of prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Androgens are assumed to play a central role in the pathophysiology of both prostate cancer (PC) and androgenic alopecia (AA). A correlation between the two phenotypes may be relevant for identification of men at high risk of PC. We evaluated the association between AA at different ages and PC in a large case-control study. METHODS: The case group comprised 938 PC patients recruited from a population-based cancer registry. The controls (n = 2160) were a random sample of the male general population. All subjects completed a questionnaire on risk factors for cancer, including questions on hair pattern at different ages using an adapted version of the Hamilton-Norwood scale, race and family history of PC. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Baldness at early age appeared to be associated with a lower risk of PC (baldness at age 20: OR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.69-1.07 and baldness at age 40: OR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.70-0.96). Baldness at completion of the questionnaire was not associated with PC: OR = 1.10; 95% CI 0.89-1.34. An isolated 'frontal baldness' or 'vertex baldness' pattern was not significantly associated with PC at any age. Presence of a combined 'frontal and vertex' baldness pattern at age 40 was associated with a decreased risk of PC (OR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.45-0.86). There were no significant associations between AA and aggressive PC. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find consistent positive associations between AA at different ages and PC. Surprisingly, if anything, baldness at early age is inversely related to PC in this study. Androgenic alopecia is not useful as an indicator of men at high risk of PC.