Association of germline rare pathogenic mutations in guideline-recommended genes with prostate cancer progression: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Germline mutations in several genes, mainly DNA repair genes, have been associated with prostate cancer (PCa) progression. However, primarily due to the rarity of mutations, statistical evidence for these associations is not consistently established. The objective of this study is to synthesize evidence from multiple studies using a meta-analysis. METHODS: Genes analyzed were chosen based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommendations (10 genes) and a commonly reported gene (NBN). PCa progression in this analysis was defined as either having metastases or PCa-specific mortality. We searched PubMed for papers published before April 26, 2021, using selected keywords. Pooled odds ratio (OR) was estimated in all races and Caucasians-only using both fixed- and random-effect models. RESULTS: The search identified 1028 papers and an additional five from a manual review of references. After a manual process that excluded noneligible studies, 11 papers remained, including a total of 3944 progressors and 20,054 nonprogressors. Combining results from these eligible studies, mutation carrier rates were significantly higher in progressors than nonprogressors for NBN, BRCA2, ATM (under both fixed- and random-effect models), for CHEK2 (under fixed-effect model only), and for PALB2 (under random-effect model only), p < 0.05. Pooled OR (95% confidence interval) was 6.38 (2.25-18.05), 3.41 (2.31; 5.03), 1.93 (1.17-3.20), and 1.53 (1.00-2.33) for NBN, BRCA2, ATM, and CHEK2, respectively, under fixed-effect model and 2.63 (1.12-6.13) for PALB2 under random-effect model. No significant association was found for the six remaining genes. Certainty of evidence was low for many genes due primarily to the limited number of eligible studies and mutation carriers. CONCLUSIONS: Statistical evidence for five genes was obtained in this first meta-analysis of germline mutations and PCa progression. While these results may help urologists and genetic counselors interpret germline testing results for PCa progression, more original studies are needed.

Assessing the clinical utility of genetic risk scores for targeted cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies have identified thousands of disease-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). A subset of these SNPs may be additively combined to generate genetic risk scores (GRSs) that confer risk for a specific disease. Although the clinical validity of GRSs to predict risk of specific diseases has been well established, there is still a great need to determine their clinical utility by applying GRSs in primary care for cancer risk assessment and targeted intervention. METHODS: This clinical study involved 281 primary care patients without a personal history of breast, prostate or colorectal cancer who were 40-70 years old. DNA was obtained from a pre-existing biobank at NorthShore University HealthSystem. GRSs for colorectal cancer and breast or prostate cancer were calculated and shared with participants through their primary care provider. Additional data was gathered using questionnaires as well as electronic medical record information. A t-test or Chi-square test was applied for comparison of demographic and key clinical variables among different groups. RESULTS: The median age of the 281 participants was 58 years and the majority were female (66.6%). One hundred one (36.9%) participants received 2 low risk scores, 99 (35.2%) received 1 low risk and 1 average risk score, 37 (13.2%) received 1 low risk and 1 high risk score, 23 (8.2%) received 2 average risk scores, 21 (7.5%) received 1 average risk and 1 high risk score, and no one received 2 high risk scores. Before receiving GRSs, younger patients and women reported significantly more worry about risk of developing cancer. After receiving GRSs, those who received at least one high GRS reported significantly more worry about developing cancer. There were no significant differences found between gender, age, or GRS with regards to participants' reported optimism about their future health neither before nor after receiving GRS results. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic risk scores that quantify an individual's risk of developing breast, prostate and colorectal cancers as compared with a race-defined population average risk have potential clinical utility as a tool for risk stratification and to guide cancer screening in a primary care setting.