Genetic polymorphism and prostate cancer aggressiveness: A case-only study of 1,536 GWAS and candidate SNPs in African-Americans and European-Americans

Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
The Prostate (Impact Factor: 3.57). 01/2013; 73(1). DOI: 10.1002/pros.22532
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies have established a number of replicated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for susceptibility to prostate cancer (CaP), but it is unclear whether these susceptibility SNPs are also associated with disease aggressiveness. This study evaluates whether such replication SNPs or other candidate SNPs are associated with CaP aggressiveness in African-American (AA) and European-American (EA) men. METHODS: A 1,536 SNP panel which included 34 genome-wide association study (GWAS) replication SNPs, 38 flanking SNPs, a set of ancestry informative markers, and SNPs in candidate genes and other areas was genotyped in 1,060 AA and 1,087 EA men with incident CaP from the North Carolina-Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP). Tests for association were conducted using ordinal logistic regression with a log-additive genotype model and a 3-category CaP aggressiveness variable. RESULTS: Four GWAS replication SNPs (rs2660753, rs13254738, rs10090154, rs2735839) and seven flanking SNPs were associated with CaP aggressiveness (P < 0.05) in three genomic regions: One at 3p12 (EA), seven at 8q24 (5 AA, 2 EA), and three at 19q13 at the kallilkrein-related peptidase 3 (KLK3) locus (two AA, one AA and EA). The KLK3 SNPs also were associated with serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels in AA (P < 0.001) but not in EA. A number of the other SNPs showed some evidence of association but none met study-wide significance levels after adjusting for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Some replicated GWAS susceptibility SNPs may play a role in CaP aggressiveness. However, like susceptibility, these associations are not consistent between racial groups. Prostate © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Most men diagnosed with prostate cancer will experience indolent disease; hence, discovering genetic variants that distinguish aggressive from nonaggressive prostate cancer is of critical clinical importance for disease prevention and treatment. In a multistage, case-only genome-wide association study of 12,518 prostate cancer cases, we identify two loci associated with Gleason score, a pathological measure of disease aggressiveness: rs35148638 at 5q14.3 (RASA1, P=6.49 × 10(-9)) and rs78943174 at 3q26.31 (NAALADL2, P=4.18 × 10(-8)). In a stratified case-control analysis, the SNP at 5q14.3 appears specific for aggressive prostate cancer (P=8.85 × 10(-5)) with no association for nonaggressive prostate cancer compared with controls (P=0.57). The proximity of these loci to genes involved in vascular disease suggests potential biological mechanisms worthy of further investigation.
    Nature Communications 05/2015; 6:6889. DOI:10.1038/ncomms7889 · 10.74 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent advances in sequencing technologies have allowed for the identification of genetic variants within germline DNA that can explain a significant portion of the genetic underpinnings of prostate cancer. Despite evidence suggesting that these genetic variants can be used for improved risk stratification, they have not yet been routinely incorporated into routine clinical practice. This review highlights their potential utility in prostate cancer screening. There are now almost 100 genetic variants, called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that have been recently found to be associated with the risk of developing prostate cancer. In addition, some of these prostate cancer risk SNPs have also been found to influence prostate specific antigen (PSA) expression levels and potentially aggressive disease. Incorporation of panels of prostate cancer risk SNPs into clinical practice offers potential to provide improvements in patient selection for prostate cancer screening; PSA interpretation (e.g. by correcting for the presence of SNPs that influence PSA expression levels; decision for biopsy (using prostate cancer risk SNPs); and possibly the decision for treatment. A proposed clinical algorithm incorporating these prostate cancer risk SNPs is discussed.
    Current Opinion in Urology 01/2015; 25(1):53-8. DOI:10.1097/MOU.0000000000000130 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To explore several serum and genetic-based biomarkers that may prove useful in following men being managed with active surveillance for localized prostate cancer by predicting those that either have the potential to develop, or already harbor occult high grade disease. RECENT FINDINGS: There is increasing evidence that serum biomarkers human Kallikrein 2, early prostate cancer antigen, urokinase-type plasminogen activator/urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor, transforming growth factor-β1 and interleukin-6/interleukin-6 receptor and genetic biomarkers BRCA1 and BRCA2, Phosphatase and tensin homolog, cellular myelocytomatosis oncogene and NKX3.1 may predict for aggressive high grade disease and are identifiable early in prostate carcinogenesis. SUMMARY: One of the barriers of widespread adoption of active surveillance for low risk, localized prostate cancer is the concern that some patients may harbor occult high-risk disease at diagnosis, or develop more aggressive/noncurable disease not detected by our current well established prognostic factors. This review examines several serum and genetic-based biomarkers that appear to be of value in localized prostate cancer, unlike the vast majority of more established prostate cancer biomarkers that have been validated in far more advanced disease. Although the biomarkers discussed show exciting promise, their clinical utility is unknown, and their role in the active surveillance scenario needs further study.
    Current opinion in urology 02/2013; 23(3). DOI:10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835f89b8 · 2.12 Impact Factor