Contributors: The George Washington University (GW); University of California San Diego (UC San Diego); University of California (UC); Mode de vie, génétique et santé : études intégratives et transgénérationnelles (U1018 (Équipe 9)); Institut Gustave Roussy (IGR)-Centre de recherche en épidémiologie et santé des populations (CESP); Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Hôpital Paul Brousse-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université Paris-Saclay-Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Hôpital Paul Brousse-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université Paris-Saclay; Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail (Irset); Université d'Angers (UA)-Université de Rennes (UR)-École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique EHESP (EHESP)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Structure Fédérative de Recherche en Biologie et Santé de Rennes ( Biosit : Biologie - Santé - Innovation Technologique ); This study was funded in part by grants from the University of California (#C21CR2060), the United States National Institute of Health/National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (#K08EB026503), the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the Research Council of Norway (#223273), KG Jebsen Stiftelsen, and South East Norway Health Authority. Funding for the PRACTICAL consortium member studies is detailed in the Supplementary Material. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of any of the funding agencies, who had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
نبذة مختصرة : International audience ; Background: Prostate cancer risk stratification using single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) demonstrates considerable promise in men of European, Asian, and African genetic ancestries, but there is still need for increased accuracy. We evaluated whether including additional SNPs in a prostate cancer polygenic hazard score (PHS) would improve associations with clinically significant prostate cancer in multi-ancestry datasets.Methods: In total, 299 SNPs previously associated with prostate cancer were evaluated for inclusion in a new PHS, using a LASSO-regularized Cox proportional hazards model in a training dataset of 72,181 men from the PRACTICAL Consortium. The PHS model was evaluated in four testing datasets: African ancestry, Asian ancestry, and two of European Ancestry-the Cohort of Swedish Men (COSM) and the ProtecT study. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated to compare men with high versus low PHS for association with clinically significant, with any, and with fatal prostate cancer. The impact of genetic risk stratification on the positive predictive value (PPV) of PSA testing for clinically significant prostate cancer was also measured.Results: The final model (PHS290) had 290 SNPs with non-zero coefficients. Comparing, for example, the highest and lowest quintiles of PHS290, the hazard ratios (HRs) for clinically significant prostate cancer were 13.73 [95% CI: 12.43-15.16] in ProtecT, 7.07 [6.58-7.60] in African ancestry, 10.31 [9.58-11.11] in Asian ancestry, and 11.18 [10.34-12.09] in COSM. Similar results were seen for association with any and fatal prostate cancer. Without PHS stratification, the PPV of PSA testing for clinically significant prostate cancer in ProtecT was 0.12 (0.11-0.14). For the top 20% and top 5% of PHS290, the PPV of PSA testing was 0.19 (0.15-0.22) and 0.26 (0.19-0.33), respectively.Conclusions: We demonstrate better genetic risk stratification for clinically significant prostate cancer than prior versions of PHS in multi-ancestry datasets. This is ...
Processing Request
No Comments.