Comparison of systematic and combined biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT: Systematic prostate biopsy has limitations, such as overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer and underdiagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy, a promising alternative, might improve diagnostic accuracy. To compare the cancer detection rates of systematic biopsy and combined biopsy (systematic biopsy plus MRI-targeted biopsy) in Asian men, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of men who underwent either systematic biopsy or combined biopsy at two medical centers (Queen Mary Hospital and Tung Wah Hospital, Hong Kong, China) from July 2015 to December 2022. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. The primary and secondary outcomes were prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer. A total of 1391 participants were enrolled. The overall prostate cancer detection rates did not significantly differ between the two groups (36.3% vs 36.6%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81-1.26, P = 0.92). However, combined biopsy showed a significant advantage in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥ 3+4) in patients with a total serum prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) concentration of 2-10 ng ml-1 (systematic vs combined: 11.9% vs 17.5%, OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.08-2.31, P = 0.02). Specifically, in the transperineal biopsy subgroup, combined biopsy significantly outperformed systematic biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (systematic vs combined: 12.6% vs 24.0%, OR = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.21-3.97, P = 0.01). These findings suggest that in patients with a tPSA concentration of 2-10 ng ml-1, MRI-targeted biopsy may be of greater predictive value than systematic biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

The Impact of Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening on Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality in China: 13-Year Prospective Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The status of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is unclear in China. Evidence regarding the optimal frequency and interval of serial screening for prostate cancer (PCa) is disputable. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to depict the status of PSA screening and to explore the optimal screening frequency for PCa in China. METHODS: A 13-year prospective cohort study was conducted using the Chinese Electronic Health Records Research in Yinzhou study's data set. A total of 420,941 male participants aged ≥45 years were included between January 2009 and June 2022. Diagnosis of PCa, cancer-specific death, and all-cause death were obtained from the electronic health records and vital statistic system. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were estimated using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The cumulative rate of ever PSA testing was 17.9% with an average annual percent change (AAPC) of 8.7% (95% CI 3.6%-14.0%) in the past decade in China. People with an older age, a higher BMI, higher waist circumference, tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking behaviors, higher level of physical activity, medication use, and comorbidities were more likely to receive PSA screening, whereas those with a lower education level and a widowed status were less likely to receive the test. People receiving serial screening ≥3 times were at a 67% higher risk of PCa detection (HR 1.67; 95% CI 1.48-1.88) but a 64% lower risk of PCa-specific mortality (HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.18-0.70) and a 28% lower risk of overall mortality (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.67-0.77). People following a serial screening strategy at least once every 4 years were at a 25% higher risk of PCa detection (HR 1.25; 95% CI 1.13-1.36) but 70% (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.16-0.57) and 23% (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.73-0.82) lower risks of PCa-specific and all-cause mortality, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals a low coverage of PSA screening in China and provides the first evidence of its benefits in the general Chinese population. The findings of this study indicate that receiving serial screening at least once every 4 years is beneficial for overall and PCa-specific survival. Further studies based on a nationwide population and with long-term follow-up are warranted to identify the optimal screening interval in China.

Risk of second primary cancers after a diagnosis of first primary cancer: A pan-cancer analysis and Mendelian randomization study.

Background: The risk of second primary cancers (SPC) is increasing after the first primary cancers (FPC) are diagnosed and treated. The underlying causal relationship remains unclear. Methods: We conducted a pan-cancer association (26 cancers) study in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (non-Hispanic whites). The standardized incidence ratio (SIR) was estimated as the risk of SPCs in cancer survivors based on the incidence in the general population. Furthermore, the causal effect was evaluated by two-sample Mendelian Randomization (MR, 13 FPCs) in the UK Biobank (UKB, n=459,136,, European whites) and robust analysis (radial MR and Causal Analysis Using Summary Effect estimates, CAUSE). Results: We found 11 significant cross-correlations among different cancers after harmonizing SIR and MR results. Whereas only 4 of them were confirmed by MR to have a robust causal relationship. In particular, patients initially diagnosed with oral pharyngeal cancer would have an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (SIRSEER = 1.18, 95%Confidence Interval [CI]:1.05-1.31, ORradial-MR=1.21, 95% CI:1.13-1.30, p=6.00 × 10-3; ORcause = 1.17, 95% CI:1.05-1.31, p=8.90 × 10-3). Meanwhile, ovary cancer was identified to be a risk factor for soft tissue cancer (SIRSEER = 1.72, 95%Confidence Interval [CI]:1.08-2.60, ORradial-MR=1.39, 95% CI:1.22-1.58, p=1.07 × 10-3; ORcause = 1.36, 95% CI:1.16-1.58, p=0.01). And kidney cancer was likely to cause the development of lung cancer (SIRSEER = 1.28, 95%Confidence Interval [CI]:1.22-1.35, ORradial-MR=1.17, 95% CI:1.08-1.27, p=6.60 × 10-3; ORcause = 1.16, 95% CI:1.02-1.31, p=0.05) and myeloma (SIRSEER = 1.54, 95%Confidence Interval [CI]:1.33-1.78, ORradial-MR=1.72, 95% CI:1.21-2.45, p=0.02; ORcause = 1.49, 95% CI:1.04-2.34, p=0.02). Conclusions: A certain type of primary cancer may cause another second primary cancer, and the profound mechanisms need to be studied in the future. Funding: This work was in supported by grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81972645), Innovative research team of high-level local universities in Shanghai, Shanghai Youth Talent Support Program, intramural grant of The University of Hong Kong to Dr. Rong Na, and Shanghai Sailing Program (22YF1440500) to Dr. Da Huang.

Better cancer treatment and early detection have increased survival rates among patients with cancer. But some cancer survivors can develop a second cancer called a second primary cancer. Second primary cancers may occur months or years after successful treatment of the primary cancer. They are not caused by the spread of the original tumor like a cancer metastasis. Instead, they appear to occur independently in another location or tissue. Scientists are trying to understand what causes second primary cancers. Genetics, lifestyle, the environment, treatments used for the initial tumor, or other factors may all contribute to individuals developing a second cancer. Learning more about who is at risk of developing a second cancer and why, may lead to new prevention, treatment or screening strategies. Ruan, Huang et al. found that people with some primary cancers have an increased risk of secondary primary cancers in specific tissues. The researchers first looked at the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database that tracks US cancer patients to see if different types of cancers were more likely to lead to a second primary cancer. Then, the team conducted a comprehensive analysis for a causal relationship in a second extensive health database, the UK Biobank, to determine if the primary cancers may have caused the second primary cancer. The study showed that patients diagnosed with mouth or throat cancers were at increased risk of later developing a lymph node cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer were at increased risk of later developing cancer in one of the body's soft tissues. Kidney cancer is likely the cause of later lung cancers and a type of blood cancer called myeloma. Understanding the relationships between an initial and later cancer diagnosis is essential to improve cancer survivors' care. It is especially important for patients diagnosed early in life. More studies are needed to confirm the links Ruan, Huang et al. identified and to understand the mechanism. If more studies confirm the associations, physicians may want to screen survivors for specific cancers. Scientists may also be able to use the information to develop new strategies to help prevent or treat secondary primary cancers.

Genetic Polymorphisms of the Telomerase Reverse Transcriptase Gene in Relation to Prostate Tumorigenesis, Aggressiveness and Mortality: A Cross-Ancestry Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) has been consistently associated with prostate cancer (PCa) risk. However, few studies have explored the association between TERT variants and PCa aggressiveness. METHODS: Individual and genetic data were obtained from UK Biobank and a Chinese PCa cohort (Chinese Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics). RESULTS: A total of 209,694 Europeans (14,550 PCa cases/195,144 controls) and 8873 Chinese (4438 cases/4435 controls) were involved. Nineteen susceptibility loci with five novel ones (rs144704378, rs35311994, rs34194491, rs144020096, and rs7710703) were detected in Europeans, whereas seven loci with two novel ones (rs7710703 and rs11291391) were discovered in the Chinese cohort. The index SNP for the two ancestries was rs2242652 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.12-1.20, p = 4.12 × 10-16) and rs11291391 (OR = 1.73, 95%CI:1.34-2.25, p = 3.04 × 10-5), respectively. SNPs rs2736100 (OR = 1.49, 95%CI:1.31-1.71, p = 2.91 × 10-9) and rs2853677 (OR = 1.74, 95%CI:1.52-1.98, p = 3.52 × 10-16) were found significantly associated with aggressive PCa, while rs35812074 was marginally related to PCa death (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.61, 95%CI:1.04-2.49, p = 0.034). Gene-based analysis showed a significant association of TERT with PCa (European: p = 3.66 × 10-15, Chinese: p = 0.043) and PCa severity (p = 0.006) but not with PCa death (p = 0.171). CONCLUSION: TERT polymorphisms were associated with prostate tumorigenesis and severity, and the genetic architectures of PCa susceptibility loci were heterogeneous among distinct ancestries.

Causal Effects of Modifiable Behaviors on Prostate Cancer in Europeans and East Asians: A Comprehensive Mendelian Randomization Study.

OBJECTIVE: Early evidence is disputable for the effects of modifiable lifestyle behaviors on prostate cancer (PCa) risk. No research has yet appraised such causality in different ancestries using a Mendelian randomization (MR) approach. METHODS: A two-sample univariable and multivariable MR analysis was performed. Genetic instruments associated with lifestyle behaviors were selected based on genome-wide association studies. Summary-level data for PCa were obtained from PRACTICAL and GAME-ON/ELLIPSE consortia for Europeans (79,148 PCa cases and 61,106 controls), and ChinaPCa consortium for East Asians (3343 cases and 3315 controls). Replication was performed using FinnGen (6311 cases and 88,902 controls) and BioBank Japan data (5408 cases and 103,939 controls). RESULTS: Tobacco smoking was identified as increasing PCa risks in Europeans (odds ratio [OR]: 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-3.50, p = 0.027 per standard deviation increase in the lifetime smoking index). For East Asians, alcohol drinking (OR: 1.05, 95%CI: 1.01-1.09, p = 0.011) and delayed sexual initiation (OR: 1.04, 95%CI: 1.00-1.08, p = 0.029) were identified as risk factors, while cooked vegetable consumption (OR: 0.92, 95%CI: 0.88-0.96, p = 0.001) was a protective factor for PCa. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings broaden the evidence base for the spectrum of PCa risk factors in different ethnicities, and provide insights into behavioral interventions for prostate cancer.

The Combined Effect of Polygenic Risk Score and Prostate Health Index in Chinese Men Undergoing Prostate Biopsy.

To date, the combined effect of polygenic risk score (PRS) and prostate health index (phi) on PCa diagnosis in men undergoing prostate biopsy has never been investigated. A total of 3166 patients who underwent initial prostate biopsy in three tertiary medical centers from August 2013 to March 2019 were included. PRS was calculated on the basis of the genotype of 102 reported East-Asian-specific risk variants. It was then evaluated in the univariable or multivariable logistic regression models that were internally validated using repeated 10-fold cross-validation. Discriminative performance was assessed by area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) and net reclassification improvement (NRI) index. Compared with men in the first quintile of age and family history adjusted PRS, those in the second, third, fourth, and fifth quintiles were 1.86 (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34-2.56), 2.07 (95%CI: 1.50-2.84), 3.26 (95%CI: 2.36-4.48), and 5.06 (95%CI: 3.68-6.97) times as likely to develop PCa (all p < 0.001). Adjustment for other clinical parameters yielded similar results. Among patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at 2-10 ng/mL or 2-20 ng/mL, PRS still had an observable ability to differentiate PCa in the group of prostate health index (phi) at 27-36 (Ptrend < 0.05) or >36 (Ptrend ≤ 0.001). Notably, men with moderate phi (27-36) but highest PRS (top 20% percentile) would have a comparable risk of PCa (positive rate: 26.7% or 31.3%) than men with high phi (>36) but lowest PRS (bottom 20% percentile positive rate: 27.4% or 34.2%). The combined model of PRS, phi, and other clinical risk factors provided significantly better performance (AUC: 0.904, 95%CI: 0.887-0.921) than models without PRS. Adding PRS to clinical risk models could provide significant net benefit (NRI, from 8.6% to 27.6%), especially in those early onset patients (NRI, from 29.2% to 44.9%). PRS may provide additional predictive value over phi for PCa. The combination of PRS and phi that effectively captured both clinical and genetic PCa risk is clinically practical, even in patients with gray-zone PSA.

Association between cannabis use with urological cancers: A population-based cohort study and a mendelian randomization study in the UK biobank.

BACKGROUND: Legislation of cannabis use has been approved in many European and North American countries. Its impact on urological cancers is unclear. This study was conducted to explore the association between cannabis use and the risk of urological cancers. METHODS: We identified 151,945 individuals with information on cannabis use in the UK Biobank from 2006 to 2010. Crude and age-standardized incidence ratios of different urological cancers were evaluated in the entire cohort and subgroups. Cox regression was performed for survival analysis. RESULTS: Previous use of cannabis was a significant protective factor for renal cell carcinoma (HR = 0.61, 95%CI:0.40-0.93, p = 0.021) and prostate cancer (HR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.73-0.93, p = 0.002) in multivariable analysis. The association between previous cannabis use and both renal cell carcinoma and bladder cancer was only observed in females (HRRCC  = 0.42, 95%CI:0.19-0.94, p = 0.034; HRBCa  = 0.43, 95%CI:0.21-0.86, p = 0.018) but not in men. There was no significant association between cannabis use and testicular cancer incidence. Mendelian randomization demonstrated a potential causal effect of cannabis use on a lower incidence of renal cell carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: Previous use of cannabis was associated with a lower risk of bladder cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and prostate cancer. The inverse association between cannabis and both renal cell carcinoma and bladder cancer was only found in females but not in males.

Family History of Cancers Increases Risk of Renal Cell Carcinoma in a Chinese Population.

Purpose: To explore the impact of family history (FH) on renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and its pathological subtype clear cell RCC (ccRCC) in a Chinese population; a significant association has previously been determined not only in familial cancer syndrome but also in sporadic cases in western populations. Methods: Consecutive patients with kidney tumors from October 2017 to May 2021 at a tertiary hospital in Shanghai were enrolled in the study. Demographic and clinical information was collected, including age, gender, FH (positive or negative, types of cancers, degree of relatives, etc.), pathological diagnosis, and Fuhrman grades. Results: A positive FH of any cancer was observed in 26.5% of the RCC patients, while only 16.8% patients with benign kidney tumor were found to have a positive FH. A strong correlation was observed between FH of any cancers in first-degree relatives and RCC (odds ratio [OR]=4.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.95-10.85, P=5.50×10-5) or ccRCC (OR=4.63, 95% CI: 1.95-11.02, P=9.63×10-5). In subgroup analysis, FH of digestive cancers was significantly associated with RCC (OR=4.42, 95% CI: 1.35-14.51, P=0.005) or ccRCC (OR=4.14, 95% CI: 1.25-13.75, P=6.84×10-4). Similar results were found in multivariate analyses. However, no significant association was observed between FH and age at onset. Conclusion: FH was an independent risk factor for RCC and ccRCC in this Chinese population. FH of any cancer in first-degree relatives and FH of digestive cancers were found to be the most significant risk factors for kidney cancers.