The BARCODE1 Pilot: a feasibility study of using germline single nucleotide polymorphisms to target prostate cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility and uptake of a community-based prostate cancer (PCa) screening programme selecting men according to their genetic risk of PCa. To assess the uptake of PCa screening investigations by men invited for screening. The uptake of the pilot study would guide the opening of the larger BARCODE1 study recruiting 5000 men. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Healthy males aged 55-69 years were invited to participate via their general practitioners (GPs). Saliva samples were collected via mailed collection kits. After DNA extraction, genotyping was conducted using a study specific assay. Genetic risk was based on genotyping 130 germline PCa risk single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). A polygenic risk score (PRS) was calculated for each participant using the sum of weighted alleles for 130 SNPs. Study participants with a PRS lying above the 90th centile value were invited for PCa screening by prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biopsy. RESULTS: Invitation letters were sent to 1434 men. The overall study uptake was 26% (375/1436) and 87% of responders were eligible for study entry. DNA genotyping data were available for 297 men and 25 were invited for screening. After exclusions due to medical comorbidity/invitations declined, 18 of 25 men (72%) underwent MRI and biopsy of the prostate. There were seven diagnoses of PCa (38.9%). All cancers were low-risk and were managed with active surveillance. CONCLUSION: The BARCODE1 Pilot has shown this community study in the UK to be feasible, with an overall uptake of 26%. The main BARCODE1 study is now open and will recruit 5000 men. The results of BARCODE1 will be important in defining the role of genetic profiling in targeted PCa population screening. Patient Summary What is the paper about? Very few prostate cancer screening programmes currently exist anywhere in the world. Our pilot study investigated if men in the UK would find it acceptable to have a genetic test based on a saliva sample to examine their risk of prostate cancer development. This test would guide whether men are offered prostate cancer screening tests. What does it mean for patients? We found that the study design was acceptable: 26% of men invited to take part agreed to have the test. The majority of men who were found to have an increased genetic risk of prostate cancer underwent further tests offered (prostate MRI scan and biopsy). We have now expanded the study to enrol 5000 men. The BARCODE1 study will be important in examining whether this approach could be used for large-scale population prostate cancer screening.

Identification of Genes with Rare Loss of Function Variants Associated with Aggressive Prostate Cancer and Survival.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PrCa) is a substantial cause of mortality among men globally. Rare germline mutations in BRCA2 have been validated robustly as increasing risk of aggressive forms with a poorer prognosis; however, evidence remains less definitive for other genes. OBJECTIVE: To detect genes associated with PrCa aggressiveness, through a pooled analysis of rare variant sequencing data from six previously reported studies in the UK Genetic Prostate Cancer Study (UKGPCS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We accumulated a cohort of 6805 PrCa cases, in which a set of ten candidate genes had been sequenced in all samples. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We examined the association between rare putative loss of function (pLOF) variants in each gene and aggressive classification (defined as any of death from PrCa, metastatic disease, stage T4, or both stage T3 and Gleason score ≥8). Secondary analyses examined staging phenotypes individually. Cox proportional hazards modelling and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to further examine the relationship between mutation status and survival. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We observed associations between PrCa aggressiveness and pLOF mutations in ATM, BRCA2, MSH2, and NBN (odds ratio = 2.67-18.9). These four genes and MLH1 were additionally associated with one or more secondary analysis phenotype. Carriers of germline mutations in these genes experienced shorter PrCa-specific survival (hazard ratio = 2.15, 95% confidence interval 1.79-2.59, p = 4 × 10-16) than noncarriers. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides further support that rare pLOF variants in specific genes are likely to increase aggressive PrCa risk and may help define the panel of informative genes for screening and treatment considerations. PATIENT SUMMARY: By combining data from several previous studies, we have been able to enhance knowledge regarding genes in which inherited mutations would be expected to increase the risk of more aggressive PrCa. This may, in the future, aid in the identification of men at an elevated risk of dying from PrCa.

Family History of Prostate Cancer and Survival Outcomes in the UK Genetic Prostate Cancer Study.

BACKGROUND: A family history (FH) of prostate cancer (PrCa) is associated with an increased likelihood of PrCa diagnosis. Conflicting evidence exists regarding familial PrCa and clinical outcomes among PrCa patients, including all-cause mortality/overall survival (OS), PrCa-specific survival (PCSS), aggressive histology, and stage at diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To determine how the number, degree, and age of a PrCa patient's affected relatives are associated with OS and PCSS of those already diagnosed with PrCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The UK Genetic Prostate Cancer Study is a longitudinal, multi-institutional, observational study collecting baseline and follow-up clinical data since 1992. We examined OS and PCSS in 16340 men by degree and number of relatives with prostate and genetically related cancers (breast, ovarian, and colorectal). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality among PrCa patients. The risk of death with respect to FH was assessed by calculating hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazard regression models, adjusting for relevant factors. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A stronger FH was inversely associated with the risk of all-cause and PrCa-specific mortality. This association was greater in those with an increasing number (p-trend < 0.001) and increasing closeness (p-trend < 0.001) of the diagnosed relatives. Patients with at least one first-degree relative were at a lower risk of all-cause mortality than those with no FH (hazard ratio = 0.82 [95% confidence interval 0.75-0.89]). The population is largely of European ancestry, and this may cause an issue with representation and generalisation. Data are missing on epidemiological risk factors for death such as smoking and on comorbidities. Recall of family members' diagnoses may affect the classification of FH in unconfirmed cases. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the investigation of the type and timing of relatives' cancers, it is likely that reductions in mortality are due almost completely to a greater awareness of the disease. This study provides information for clinicians guiding patients and their relatives based on their familial risk. It shows the importance of screening and awareness programmes, which are likely to improve survival among men with an FH. PATIENT SUMMARY: We were interested in how a family history of prostate cancer affects survival in prostate cancer patients. We studied 16340 patients, categorised them according to the strength of their family history, and found that the stronger their family history, the better they did in terms of overall survival. We looked at the type and timing of patients' diagnoses compared with those of their relatives and found that this effect is likely to be explained by awareness, which indicates the importance of screening and awareness programmes.

Impact of germline DNA repair gene variants on prognosis and treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer.

The clinical importance of germline variants in DNA repair genes (DRGs) is becoming increasingly recognized, but their impact on advanced prostate cancer prognosis remains unclear. A cohort of 221 newly diagnosed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients were screened for pathogenic germline variants in 114 DRGs. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) on first-line androgen signaling inhibitor (ARSI) treatment for mCRPC. Secondary endpoints were time to mCRPC progression on initial androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and overall survival (OS). Twenty-seven patients (12.2%) carried a germline DRG variant. DRG carrier status was independently associated with shorter PFS on first-line ARSI [HR 1.72 (1.06-2.81), P = 0.029]. At initiation of ADT, DRG carrier status was independently associated with shorter progression time to mCRPC [HR 1.56, (1.02-2.39), P = 0.04] and shorter OS [HR 1.99, (1.12-3.52), P = 0.02]. Investigating the contributions of individual germline DRG variants on PFS and OS revealed CHEK2 variants to have little effect. Furthermore, prior taxane treatment was associated with worse PFS on first-line ARSI for DRG carriers excluding CHEK2 (P = 0.0001), but not for noncarriers. In conclusion, germline DRG carrier status holds independent prognostic value for predicting advanced prostate cancer patient outcomes and may potentially inform on optimal treatment sequencing already at the hormone-sensitive stage.

Relationship of self-reported body size and shape with risk for prostate cancer: A UK case-control study.

INTRODUCTION: Previous evidence has suggested a relationship between male self-reported body size and the risk of developing prostate cancer. In this UK-wide case-control study, we have explored the possible association of prostate cancer risk with male self-reported body size. We also investigated body shape as a surrogate marker for fat deposition around the body. As obesity and excessive adiposity have been linked with increased risk for developing a number of different cancers, further investigation of self-reported body size and shape and their potential relationship with prostate cancer was considered to be appropriate. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to investigate whether underlying associations exist between prostate cancer risk and male self-reported body size and shape. METHODS: Data were collected from a large case-control study of men (1928 cases and 2043 controls) using self-administered questionnaires. Data from self-reported pictograms of perceived body size relating to three decades of life (20's, 30's and 40's) were recorded and analysed, including the pattern of change. The associations of self-identified body shape with prostate cancer risk were also explored. RESULTS: Self-reported body size for men in their 20's, 30's and 40's did not appear to be associated with prostate cancer risk. More than half of the subjects reported an increase in self-reported body size throughout these three decades of life. Furthermore, no association was observed between self-reported body size changes and prostate cancer risk. Using 'symmetrical' body shape as a reference group, subjects with an 'apple' shape showed a significant 27% reduction in risk (Odds ratio = 0.73, 95% C.I. 0.57-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Change in self-reported body size throughout early to mid-adulthood in males is not a significant risk factor for the development of prostate cancer. Body shape indicative of body fat distribution suggested that an 'apple' body shape was protective and inversely associated with prostate cancer risk when compared with 'symmetrical' shape. Further studies which investigate prostate cancer risk and possible relationships with genetic factors known to influence body shape may shed further light on any underlying associations.

Homeobox B13 G84E Mutation and Prostate Cancer Risk.

BACKGROUND: The homeobox B13 (HOXB13) G84E mutation has been recommended for use in genetic counselling for prostate cancer (PCa), but the magnitude of PCa risk conferred by this mutation is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To obtain precise risk estimates for mutation carriers and information on how these vary by family history and other factors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two-fold: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published risk estimates, and a kin-cohort study comprising pedigree data on 11983 PCa patients enrolled during 1993-2014 from 189 UK hospitals and who had been genotyped for HOXB13 G84E. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Relative and absolute PCa risks. Complex segregation analysis with ascertainment adjustment to derive age-specific risks applicable to the population, and to investigate how these vary by family history and birth cohort. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A meta-analysis of case-control studies revealed significant heterogeneity between reported relative risks (RRs; range: 0.95-33.0, p<0.001) and differences by case selection (p=0.007). Based on case-control studies unselected for PCa family history, the pooled RR estimate was 3.43 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.78-4.23). In the kin-cohort study, PCa risk for mutation carriers varied by family history (p<0.001). There was a suggestion that RRs decrease with age, but this was not significant (p=0.068). We found higher RR estimates for men from more recent birth cohorts (p=0.004): 3.09 (95% CI 2.03-4.71) for men born in 1929 or earlier and 5.96 (95% CI 4.01-8.88) for men born in 1930 or later. The absolute PCa risk by age 85 for a male HOXB13 G84E carrier varied from 60% for those with no PCa family history to 98% for those with two relatives diagnosed at young ages, compared with an average risk of 15% for noncarriers. Limitations include the reliance on self-reported cancer family history. CONCLUSIONS: PCa risks for HOXB13 G84E mutation carriers are heterogeneous. Counselling should not be based on average risk estimates but on age-specific absolute risk estimates tailored to individual mutation carriers' family history and birth cohort. PATIENT SUMMARY: Men who carry a hereditary mutation in the homeobox B13 (HOXB13) gene have a higher than average risk for developing prostate cancer. In our study, we examined a large number of families of men with prostate cancer recruited across UK hospitals, to assess what other factors may contribute to this risk and to assess whether we could create a precise model to help in predicting a man's prostate cancer risk. We found that the risk of developing prostate cancer in men who carry this genetic mutation is also affected by a family history of prostate cancer and their year of birth. This information can be used to assess more personalised prostate cancer risks to men who carry HOXB13 mutations and hence better counsel them on more personalised risk management options, such as tailoring prostate cancer screening frequency.