Accrual Quality Improvement Program for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The Early Phase Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials Program (Consortia), led by the Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, supports and conducts trials assessing safety, tolerability, and cancer preventive potential of a variety of interventions. Accrual to cancer prevention trials includes the recruitment of unaffected populations, posing unique challenges related to minimizing participant burden and risk, given the less evident or measurable benefits to individual participants. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program was developed to address these challenges and better understand the multiple determinants of accrual activity throughout the life of the trial. Through continuous monitoring of accrual data, Accrual Quality Improvement Program identifies positive and negative factors in real-time to optimize enrollment rates for ongoing and future trials. METHODS: The Accrual Quality Improvement Program provides a web-based centralized infrastructure for collecting, analyzing, visualizing, and storing qualitative and quantitative participant-, site-, and study-level data. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program approaches cancer prevention clinical trial accrual as multi-factorial, recognizing protocol design, potential participants' characteristics, and individual site as well as study-wide implementation issues. RESULTS: The Accrual Quality Improvement Program was used across 39 Consortia trials from 2014 to 2022 to collect comprehensive trial information. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program captures data at the participant level, including number of charts reviewed, potential participants contacted and reasons why participants were not eligible for contact or did not consent to the trial or start intervention. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program also captures site-level (e.g. staffing issues) and study-level (e.g. when protocol amendments are made) data at each step of the recruitment/enrollment process, from potential participant identification to contact, consent, intervention, and study completion using a Recruitment Journal. Accrual Quality Improvement Program's functionality also includes tracking and visualization of a trial's cumulative accrual rate compared to the projected accrual rate, including a zone-based performance rating with corresponding quality improvement intervention recommendations. CONCLUSION: The challenges associated with recruitment and timely completion of early phase cancer prevention clinical trials necessitate a data collection program capable of continuous collection and quality improvement. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program collects cumulative data across National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Prevention early phase clinical trials, providing the opportunity for real-time review of participant-, site-, and study-level data and thereby enables responsive recruitment strategy and protocol modifications for improved recruitment rates to ongoing trials. Of note, Accrual Quality Improvement Program data collected from ongoing trials will inform future trials to optimize protocol design and maximize accrual efficiency.

Water Insecurity, Water Borrowing, and Psychosocial Stress Among Daasanach Pastoralists in Northern Kenya.

This article quantifies Daasanach water insecurity experiences in Northern Kenya, examines how water insecurity is associated with water borrowing and psychosocial stress, and evaluates if water borrowing mitigates the stress from water insecurity. Of 133 households interviewed in 7 communities, 94% were water insecure and 74.4% borrowed water three or more times in the prior month. Regression analyses demonstrate water borrowing frequency moderates the relationship between water insecurity and psychosocial stress. Only those who rarely or never borrowed water reported greater stress with higher water insecurity. The coping mechanism of water borrowing may help blunt water insecurity-related stress.

Standardization of lower extremity quantitative lymphedema measurements and associated patient-reported outcomes in gynecologic cancers.

Practice changing standardization of lower extremity lymphedema quantitative measurements with integrated patient reported outcomes will likely refine and redefine the optimal risk-reduction strategies to diminish the devastating limb-related dysfunction and morbidity associated with treatment of gynecologic cancers. The National Cancer Institute (NCI), Division of Cancer Prevention brought together a diverse group of cancer treatment, therapy and patient reported outcomes experts to discuss the current state-of-the-science in lymphedema evaluation with the potential goal of incorporating new strategies for optimal evaluation of lymphedema in future developing gynecologic clinical trials.

Adherence with protocol medication use and mortality from unrelated causes in a prevention trial.

Several studies have shown that non-adherence to medication use is associated with lower use of preventive services and increased mortality. We aimed to study the relationship between initial adherence to medication use and mortality in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT). The PCPT randomized men age 55 and over to a finasteride or placebo arm. Duration of treatment was seven years, followed by end-of-study prostate biopsy. Extended follow-up for mortality was performed by linkage to the National Death Index. Non-adherence was defined as taking under 80% of required pills during the first or second 6-month trial period. Proportional hazards models were used to assess the relationship between adherence and all-cause mortality (excluding prostate cancer deaths). Three models were developed as follows: Model I (controlling for demographics and trial arm), Model II (Model I factors plus specific medical conditions), Model III (Model II factors plus lifestyle factors). Of 18,667 men included in the analysis, 3082 (16.5%) were non-adherent. The most common reasons for non-adherence were side effects (33.9%) and forgetting to take pills (22%). Through 5 and 10 years of follow-up, 178 (5.9%) and 483 (15.7%) non-adherent men died versus 581 (3.7%) and 1887 (12.1%) adherent men. Hazard ratios (HRs) at 5 years were 1.62 (95% CI: 1.37-1.91), 1.55 (95% CI: 1.30-1.83) and 1.49 (95% CI: 1.25-1.76) for Models I-III. HRs at ten years were lower but still statistically significant. Non-adherence to taking protocol medications was associated with increased mortality from unrelated conditions.

Repurposing metformin for the prevention of cancer and cancer recurrence.

Multiple epidemiological studies have documented an association between metformin, used for treatment of type 2 diabetes, and reduced cancer incidence and mortality. Cell line models may not accurately reflect the effects of metformin in the clinical setting. Moreover, findings from animal model studies have been inconsistent, whilst those from more recent epidemiological studies have tempered the overall effect size. The purpose of this review is to examine metformin's chemopreventive potential by outlining relevant mechanisms of action, the most recent epidemiologic evidence, and recently completed and ongoing clinical trials. Although repurposing drugs with excellent safety profiles is an appealing strategy for cancer prevention and treatment in the adjuvant setting, there is no substitute for well-executed, large randomised clinical trials to define efficacy and determine the populations that are most likely to benefit from an intervention. Thus, enthusiasm remains for understanding the role of metformin in cancer through ongoing clinical research.

Long-term survival of participants in the prostate cancer prevention trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT), finasteride significantly reduced the risk of prostate cancer but was associated with an increased risk of high-grade disease. With up to 18 years of follow-up, we analyzed rates of survival among all study participants and among those with prostate cancer. METHODS: We collected data on the incidence of prostate cancer among PCPT participants for an additional year after our first report was published in 2003 and searched the Social Security Death Index to assess survival status through October 31, 2011. RESULTS: Among 18,880 eligible men who underwent randomization, prostate cancer was diagnosed in 989 of 9423 (10.5%) in the finasteride group and 1412 of 9457 (14.9%) in the placebo group (relative risk in the finasteride group, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.76; P<0.001). Of the men who were evaluated, 333 (3.5%) in the finasteride group and 286 (3.0%) in the placebo group had high-grade cancer (Gleason score, 7 to 10) (relative risk, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.37; P=0.05). Of the men who died, 2538 were in the finasteride group and 2496 were in the placebo group, for 15-year survival rates of 78.0% and 78.2%, respectively. The unadjusted hazard ratio for death in the finasteride group was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.97 to 1.08; P=0.46). Ten-year survival rates were 83.0% in the finasteride group and 80.9% in the placebo group for men with low-grade prostate cancer and 73.0% and 73.6%, respectively, for those with high-grade prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Finasteride reduced the risk of prostate cancer by about one third. High-grade prostate cancer was more common in the finasteride group than in the placebo group, but after 18 years of follow-up, there was no significant between-group difference in the rates of overall survival or survival after the diagnosis of prostate cancer. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute.).

Prevention and early detection of prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is a common malignancy in men and the worldwide burden of this disease is rising. Lifestyle modifications such as smoking cessation, exercise, and weight control offer opportunities to reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Early detection of prostate cancer by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is controversial, but changes in the PSA threshold, frequency of screening, and the use of other biomarkers have the potential to minimise the overdiagnosis associated with PSA screening. Several new biomarkers for individuals with raised PSA concentrations or those diagnosed with prostate cancer are likely to identify individuals who can be spared aggressive treatment. Several pharmacological agents such as 5α-reductase inhibitors and aspirin could prevent development of prostate cancer. In this Review, we discuss the present evidence and research questions regarding prevention, early detection of prostate cancer, and management of men either at high risk of prostate cancer or diagnosed with low-grade prostate cancer.

Selective oestrogen receptor modulators in prevention of breast cancer: an updated meta-analysis of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Tamoxifen and raloxifene reduce the risk of breast cancer in women at elevated risk of disease, but the duration of the effect is unknown. We assessed the effectiveness of selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) on breast cancer incidence. METHODS: We did a meta-analysis with individual participant data from nine prevention trials comparing four selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs; tamoxifen, raloxifene, arzoxifene, and lasofoxifene) with placebo, or in one study with tamoxifen. Our primary endpoint was incidence of all breast cancer (including ductal carcinoma in situ) during a 10 year follow-up period. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: We analysed data for 83,399 women with 306,617 women-years of follow-up. Median follow-up was 65 months (IQR 54-93). Overall, we noted a 38% reduction (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62, 95% CI 0·56-0·69) in breast cancer incidence, and 42 women would need to be treated to prevent one breast cancer event in the first 10 years of follow-up. The reduction was larger in the first 5 years of follow-up than in years 5-10 (42%, HR 0·58, 0·51-0·66; p<0·0001 vs 25%, 0·75, 0·61-0·93; p=0·007), but we noted no heterogeneity between time periods. Thromboembolic events were significantly increased with all SERMs (odds ratio 1·73, 95% CI 1·47-2·05; p<0·0001). We recorded a significant reduction of 34% in vertebral fractures (0·66, 0·59-0·73), but only a small effect for non-vertebral fractures (0·93, 0·87-0·99). INTERPRETATION: For all SERMs, incidence of invasive oestrogen (ER)-positive breast cancer was reduced both during treatment and for at least 5 years after completion. Similar to other preventive interventions, careful consideration of risks and benefits is needed to identify women who are most likely to benefit from these drugs. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Phase III prostate cancer chemoprevention trials.

Chemoprevention refers to the use of pharmacologic interventions to delay, prevent, or reverse carcinogenesis with the ultimate goal of reducing cancer incidence. Two large, population-based, phase 3 prostate cancer prevention trials reported that 5-alpha reductase inhibitors significantly reduce prostate cancer risk. However, this class of agents were also associated with increased detection of high-grade prostate cancer. Another large, phase 3 prostate cancer prevention clinical trial showed no benefit for long-term supplementation with the trace element Se, given in the form of selenomethionine, or vitamin E, either individually or in combination. Paradoxically, a significant increase in prostate cancer was observed among men randomized to receive vitamin E alone. A great deal of progress had been made in the field of prostate cancer prevention over the past decade. Future studies will focus on prevention of disease progression in men on Active Surveillance, immunotherapy, mechanistically based drug combinations, and novel biomarkers of risk and benefit.

Effects of vitamin D supplementation on a deep learning-based mammographic evaluation in SWOG S0812.

Deep learning-based mammographic evaluations could noninvasively assess response to breast cancer chemoprevention. We evaluated change in a convolutional neural network-based breast cancer risk model applied to mammograms among women enrolled in SWOG S0812, which randomly assigned 208 premenopausal high-risk women to receive oral vitamin D3 20 000 IU weekly or placebo for 12 months. We applied the convolutional neural network model to mammograms collected at baseline (n = 109), 12 months (n = 97), and 24 months (n = 67) and compared changes in convolutional neural network-based risk score between treatment groups. Change in convolutional neural network-based risk score was not statistically significantly different between vitamin D and placebo groups at 12 months (0.005 vs 0.002, P = .875) or at 24 months (0.020 vs 0.001, P = .563). The findings are consistent with the primary analysis of S0812, which did not demonstrate statistically significant changes in mammographic density with vitamin D supplementation compared with placebo. There is an ongoing need to evaluate biomarkers of response to novel breast cancer chemopreventive agents.

A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Hypothesized versus Observed Effect Sizes in Early Phase Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials.

Early phase cancer prevention trials are designed to demonstrate safety, tolerability, feasibility, and signals of efficacy of preventive agents. Yet it is often observed that many trials fail to detect intervention effects. We conducted a systematic review and pooled analyses of recently completed early phase chemoprevention trials to gain in depth insight on the failure of detecting efficacy signals by comparing hypothesized effect sizes to the corresponding observed effect sizes.Single- or multi-arm efficacy chemoprevention trials conducted under the phase 0/I/II Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials Program of the Division of Cancer Prevention, NCI between 2003 and 2019 were evaluated. A total of 59 chemoprevention trials were reviewed. Twenty-four studies were efficacy or biomarker trials with complete information on hypothesized and observed effect sizes and included in this analysis. The majority of the trials (n = 18) were multi-arm randomized studies of which 15 trials were blinded. The pooled estimate of the observed to hypothesized effect size ratio was 0.57 (95% confidence interval: 0.42-0.73, P < 0.001) based on a random-effects model. There were no significant differences detected in the ratio of observed to hypothesized effect sizes when conducting various subgroup analyses.The results demonstrate that the majority of early phase cancer chemoprevention trials have substantially smaller observed effect sizes than hypothesized effect sizes. Sample size calculations for early phase chemoprevention trials need to balance the potential detectable effect sizes with realistic and cost-effective accrual of study populations, thereby, detecting only intervention effects large enough to justify subsequent large-scale confirmatory trials. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: The results of this systematic review and pooled analyses demonstrate that for early chemoprevention trials, there are substantial differences between hypothesized and observed effect sizes, regardless of study characteristics. The conduct of early phase chemoprevention trial requires careful planning of study design, primary endpoint, and sample size determination.

Report from an NCI Roundtable: Cancer Prevention in Primary Care.

The Division of Cancer Prevention in the NCI sponsored a Roundtable with primary care providers (PCP) to determine barriers for integrating cancer prevention within primary care and discuss potential opportunities to overcome these barriers. The goals were to: (i) assess the cancer risk assessment tools available to PCPs; (ii) gather information on use of cancer prevention resources; and (iii) understand the needs of PCPs to facilitate the implementation of cancer prevention interventions beyond routine screening and interventions. The Roundtable discussion focused on challenges and potential research opportunities related to: (i) cancer risk assessment and management of high-risk individuals; (ii) cancer prevention interventions for risk reduction; (iii) electronic health records/electronic medical records; and (iv) patient engagement and information dissemination. Time constraints and inconsistent/evolving clinical guidelines are major barriers to effective implementation of cancer prevention within primary care. Social determinants of health are important factors that influence patients' adoption of recommended preventive interventions. Research is needed to determine the best means for implementation of cancer prevention across various communities and clinical settings. Additional studies are needed to develop tools that can help providers collect clinical data that can enable them to assess patients' cancer risk and implement appropriate preventive interventions.

Lessons Learned from the Impact of COVID-19 on NCI-sponsored Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials: Moving Toward Participant-centric Study Designs.

The COVID-19 pandemic overloaded health care systems around the globe and brought travel restrictions and other mandates. These effects critically impacted cancer care and conduct of clinical trials, and required medical and research communities to incorporate changes and novel flexible workflows within clinical trials and regulations to improve efficiency. We report the impact of the pandemic on cancer prevention clinical trials managed by the Division of Cancer Prevention within the NCI, focusing on participant-centric, study staff-centric and regulatory elements. Learning lessons from this challenging period, the cancer prevention community has the opportunity to incorporate many of these necessitated novel approaches to future design of clinical trials, to streamline and improve clinical trial efficiency and impact.

Gynecologic conditions in participants in the NSABP breast cancer prevention study of tamoxifen and raloxifene (STAR).

OBJECTIVE: This study reports the gynecologic conditions in postmenopausal women (intact uterus on enrollment) in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) study of tamoxifen and raloxifene (STAR)/P-2 trial. STUDY DESIGN: This study, with a median follow-up period of 81 months, evaluated the incidence rates/risks of gynecologic conditions among women who were treated with tamoxifen and raloxifene. RESULTS: Compared with women who received tamoxifen therapy, women who received raloxifene therapy had a lower incidence of uterine cancer (relative risk, 0.55)/endometrial hyperplasia (relative risk, 0.19), leiomyomas (relative risk, 0.55), ovarian cysts (relative risk, 0.60), and endometrial polyps (relative risk, 0.30) and had fewer procedures performed. Women receiving tamoxifen therapy had more hot flashes (P < .0001), vaginal discharge (P < .0001), and vaginal bleeding (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that tamoxifen has more of an estrogenic effect on the gynecologic reproductive organs. These effects should be considered in counseling women on options for breast cancer prevention.

Vitamin E and the risk of prostate cancer: the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT).

CONTEXT: The initial report of the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) found no reduction in risk of prostate cancer with either selenium or vitamin E supplements but a statistically nonsignificant increase in prostate cancer risk with vitamin E. Longer follow-up and more prostate cancer events provide further insight into the relationship of vitamin E and prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine the long-term effect of vitamin E and selenium on risk of prostate cancer in relatively healthy men. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 35,533 men from 427 study sites in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico were randomized between August 22, 2001, and June 24, 2004. Eligibility criteria included a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 4.0 ng/mL or less, a digital rectal examination not suspicious for prostate cancer, and age 50 years or older for black men and 55 years or older for all others. The primary analysis included 34,887 men who were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: 8752 to receive selenium; 8737, vitamin E; 8702, both agents, and 8696, placebo. Analysis reflect the final data collected by the study sites on their participants through July 5, 2011. INTERVENTIONS: Oral selenium (200 µg/d from L-selenomethionine) with matched vitamin E placebo, vitamin E (400 IU/d of all rac-α-tocopheryl acetate) with matched selenium placebo, both agents, or both matched placebos for a planned follow-up of a minimum of 7 and maximum of 12 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prostate cancer incidence. RESULTS: This report includes 54,464 additional person-years of follow-up and 521 additional cases of prostate cancer since the primary report. Compared with the placebo (referent group) in which 529 men developed prostate cancer, 620 men in the vitamin E group developed prostate cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 99% CI, 1.004-1.36, P = .008); as did 575 in the selenium group (HR, 1.09; 99% CI, 0.93-1.27; P = .18), and 555 in the selenium plus vitamin E group (HR, 1.05; 99% CI, 0.89-1.22, P = .46). Compared with placebo, the absolute increase in risk of prostate cancer per 1000 person-years was 1.6 for vitamin E, 0.8 for selenium, and 0.4 for the combination. CONCLUSION: Dietary supplementation with vitamin E significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer among healthy men. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00006392.

Effect of Metformin and Lifestyle Interventions on Mortality in the Diabetes Prevention Program and Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether metformin or lifestyle modification can lower rates of all-cause and cause-specific mortality in the Diabetes Prevention Program and Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: From 1996 to 1999, 3,234 adults at high risk for type 2 diabetes were randomized to an intensive lifestyle intervention, masked metformin, or placebo. Placebo and lifestyle interventions stopped in 2001, and a modified lifestyle program was offered to everyone, but unmasked study metformin continued in those originally randomized. Causes of deaths through 31 December 2018 were adjudicated by blinded reviews. All-cause and cause-specific mortality hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated from Cox proportional hazards regression models and Fine-Gray models, respectively. RESULTS: Over a median of 21 years (interquartile range 20-21), 453 participants died. Cancer was the leading cause of death (n = 170), followed by cardiovascular disease (n = 131). Compared with placebo, metformin did not influence mortality from all causes (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.79, 1.25]), cancer (HR 1.04 [95% CI 0.72, 1.52]), or cardiovascular disease (HR 1.08 [95% CI 0.70, 1.66]). Similarly, lifestyle modification did not impact all-cause (HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.81, 1.28]), cancer (HR 1.07 [95% CI 0.74, 1.55]), or cardiovascular disease (HR 1.18 [95% CI 0.77, 1.81]) mortality. Analyses adjusted for diabetes status and duration, BMI, cumulative glycemic exposure, and cardiovascular risks yielded results similar to those for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer was the leading cause of mortality among adults at high risk for type 2 diabetes. Although metformin and lifestyle modification prevented diabetes, neither strategy reduced all-cause, cancer, or cardiovascular mortality rates.

Establishing a Primary Care Alliance for Conducting Cancer Prevention Clinical Research at Community Sites.

In September 2020, the National Cancer Institute convened the first PARTNRS Workshop as an initiative to forge partnerships between oncologists, primary care professionals, and non-oncology specialists for promoting patient accrual into cancer prevention trials. This effort is aimed at bringing about more effective accrual methods to generate decisive outcomes in cancer prevention research. The workshop convened to inspire solutions to challenges encountered during the development and implementation of cancer prevention trials. Ultimately, strategies suggested for protocol development might enhance integration of these trials into community settings where a diversity of patients might be accrued. Research Bases (cancer research organizations that develop protocols) could encourage more involvement of primary care professionals, relevant prevention specialists, and patient representatives with protocol development beginning at the concept level to improve adoptability of the trials within community facilities, and consider various incentives to primary care professionals (i.e., remuneration). Principal investigators serving as liaisons for the NCORP affiliates and sub-affiliates, might produce and maintain "Prevention Research Champions" lists of PCPs and non-oncology specialists relevant in prevention research who can attract health professionals to consider incorporating prevention research into their practices. Finally, patient advocates and community health providers might convince patients of the benefits of trial-participation and encourage "shared-decision making."

Assessment of and Interventions for Women at High Risk for Breast or Ovarian Cancer: A Survey of Primary Care Physicians.

As clinical guidelines for cancer prevention refer individuals to primary care physicians (PCP) for risk assessment and clinical management, PCPs may be expected to play an increasing role in cancer prevention. It is crucial that PCPs are adequately supported to assess an individual's cancer risk and make appropriate recommendations. The objective of this study is to assess use, familiarity, attitude, and behaviors of PCPs regarding breast and ovarian cancer risk and prevention, to better understand the factors that influence their prescribing behaviors. We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of PCPs in the United States, recruited from an opt-in healthcare provider panel. Invitations were sent in batches until the target sample size of 750 respondents (250 each for obstetrics/gynecology, internal medicine, and family medicine) was met. Self-reported use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessments was low (34.7%-59.2%) compared with discussion of cancer family history (96.9%), breast exams (87.1%), and mammograms (92.8%). Although most respondents (48.0%-66.8%) were familiar with cancer prevention interventions, respondents who reported to be less familiar were more likely to report cautious attitudes. When presented with hypothetical cases depicting patients at different breast/ovarian cancer risks, up to 34.0% of respondents did not select any of the clinically recommended course(s) of action. This survey suggests that PCP use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessment tools and ability to translate the perceived risks to clinical actions is variable. Improving implementation of cancer risk assessment and clinical management guidelines within primary care may be necessary to improve the appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions.Prevention Relevance: Primary care physicians are becoming more involved in cancer prevention management, so it is important that cancer risk assessment and medical society guideline recommendations for cancer prevention are better integrated into primary care to improve appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions and help reduce cancer risk.

A Polygenic Risk Score Predicts Incident Prostate Cancer Risk in Older Men but Does Not Select for Clinically Significant Disease.

Despite the high prevalence of prostate cancer in older men, the predictive value of a polygenic risk score (PRS) remains uncertain in men aged ≥70 years. We used a 6.6 million-variant PRS to predict the risk of incident prostate cancer in a prospective study of 5701 men of European descent aged ≥70 years (mean age 75 years) enrolled in the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial. The study endpoint was prostate cancer, including metastatic or non-metastatic disease, confirmed by an expert panel. After excluding participants with a history of prostate cancer at enrolment, we used a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model to assess the association between the PRS and incident prostate cancer risk, adjusting for covariates. Additionally, we examined the distribution of Gleason grade groups by PRS group to determine if a higher PRS was associated with higher grade disease. We tested for interaction between the PRS and aspirin treatment. Logistic regression was used to independently assess the association of the PRS with prevalent (pre-trial) prostate cancer, reported in medical histories. During a median follow-up time of 4.6 years, 218 of the 5701 participants (3.8%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer. The PRS predicted incident risk with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.52 per standard deviation (SD) (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33-1.74, p < 0.001). Men in the top quintile of the PRS distribution had an almost three times higher risk of prostate cancer than men in the lowest quintile (HR = 2.99 (95% CI 1.90-4.27), p < 0.001). However, a higher PRS was not associated with a higher Gleason grade groups. We found no interaction between aspirin treatment and the PRS for prostate cancer risk. The PRS was also associated with prevalent prostate cancer (odds ratio = 1.80 per SD (95% CI 1.65-1.96), p < 0.001).While a PRS for prostate cancer is strongly associated with incident risk in men aged ≥70 years, the clinical utility of the PRS as a biomarker is currently limited by its inability to select for clinically significant disease.