Validation of a prostate cancer polygenic risk score

Background Genome‐wide association studies have identified over 100 single‐nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with prostate cancer (PrCa), and polygenic risk scores (PRS) based on their combined genotypes have been developed for risk stratification. We aimed to assess the contribution of PRS...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Prostate 2020-11, Vol.80 (15), p.1314-1321
Hauptverfasser: Black, Mary H., Li, Shuwei, LaDuca, Holly, Lo, Min‐Tzu, Chen, Jefferey, Hoiness, Robert, Gutierrez, Stephanie, Tippin‐Davis, Brigette, Lu, Hsiao‐Mei, Gielzak, Marta, Wiley, Kathleen, Shi, Zhuqing, Wei, Jun, Zheng, Siqun Lilly, Helfand, Brian T., Isaacs, William, Xu, Jianfeng
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Genome‐wide association studies have identified over 100 single‐nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with prostate cancer (PrCa), and polygenic risk scores (PRS) based on their combined genotypes have been developed for risk stratification. We aimed to assess the contribution of PRS to PrCa risk in a large multisite study. Methods The sample included 1972 PrCa cases and 1919 unaffected controls. Next‐generation sequencing was used to assess pathogenic variants in 14 PrCa‐susceptibility genes and 72 validated PrCa‐associated SNPs. We constructed a population‐standardized PRS and tested its association with PrCa using logistic regression adjusted for age and family history of PrCa. Results The mean age of PrCa cases at diagnosis and age of controls at testing/last clinic visit was 59.5 ± 7.2 and 57.2 ± 13.0 years, respectively. Among 1740 cases with pathology data, 57.4% had Gleason score ≤ 6, while 42.6% had Gleason score ≥ 8. In addition, 39.6% cases and 20.1% controls had a family history of PrCa. The PRS was significantly higher in cases than controls (mean ± SD: 1.42 ± 1.11 vs 1.02 ± 0.76; P 
ISSN:0270-4137
1097-0045
DOI:10.1002/pros.24058