Dataset Information

Genetically adjusted PSA levels for prostate cancer screening.

ABSTRACT: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer remains controversial because it increases overdiagnosis and overtreatment of clinically insignificant tumors. Accounting for genetic determinants of constitutive, non-cancer-related PSA variation has potential to improve screening utility. In this study, we discovered 128 genome-wide significant associations (P < 5 × 10^-8) in a multi-ancestry meta-analysis of 95,768 men and developed a PSA polygenic score (PGS_PSA) that explains 9.61% of constitutive PSA variation. We found that, in men of European ancestry, using PGS-adjusted PSA would avoid up to 31% of negative prostate biopsies but also result in 12% fewer biopsies in patients with prostate cancer, mostly with Gleason score <7 tumors. Genetically adjusted PSA was more predictive of aggressive prostate cancer (odds ratio (OR) = 3.44, P = 6.2 × 10^-14, area under the curve (AUC) = 0.755) than unadjusted PSA (OR = 3.31, P = 1.1 × 10^-12, AUC = 0.738) in 106 cases and 23,667 controls. Compared to a prostate cancer PGS alone (AUC = 0.712), including genetically adjusted PSA improved detection of aggressive disease (AUC = 0.786, P = 7.2 × 10^-4). Our findings highlight the potential utility of incorporating PGS for personalized biomarkers in prostate cancer screening.

SUBMITTER: Kachuri L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10287565 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Genetically adjusted PSA levels for prostate cancer screening.

Kachuri Linda L Hoffmann Thomas J TJ Jiang Yu Y Berndt Sonja I SI Shelley John P JP Schaffer Kerry R KR Machiela Mitchell J MJ Freedman Neal D ND Huang Wen-Yi WY Li Shengchao A SA Easterlin Ryder R Goodman Phyllis J PJ Till Cathee C Thompson Ian I Lilja Hans H Van Den Eeden Stephen K SK Chanock Stephen J SJ Haiman Christopher A CA Conti David V DV Klein Robert J RJ Mosley Jonathan D JD Graff Rebecca E RE Witte John S JS

Nature medicine 20230601 6

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer remains controversial because it increases overdiagnosis and overtreatment of clinically insignificant tumors. Accounting for genetic determinants of constitutive, non-cancer-related PSA variation has potential to improve screening utility. In this study, we discovered 128 genome-wide significant associations (P < 5 × 10<sup>-8</sup>) in a multi-ancestry meta-analysis of 95,768 men and developed a PSA polygenic score (PGS<sub>PSA</sub ...[more]

PMID: 37264206

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundScreening for prostate cancer is burdened by a high rate of overdiagnosis. The most appropriate algorithm for population-based screening is unknown.MethodsWe invited 37,887 men who were 50 to 60 years of age to undergo regular prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. Participants with a PSA level of 3 ng per milliliter or higher underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate; one third of the participants were randomly assigned to a reference group that underwent systematic biopsy as well as targeted biopsy of suspicious lesions shown on MRI. The remaining participants were assigned to the experimental group and underwent MRI-targeted biopsy only. The primary outcome was clinically insignificant prostate cancer, defined as a Gleason score of 3+3. The secondary outcome was clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as a Gleason score of at least 3+4. Safety was also assessed.ResultsOf the men who were invited to undergo screening, 17,980 (47%) participated in the trial. A total of 66 of the 11,986 participants in the experimental group (0.6%) received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer, as compared with 72 of 5994 participants (1.2%) in the reference group, a difference of -0.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.0 to -0.4; relative risk, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.64; P<0.001). The relative risk of clinically significant prostate cancer in the experimental group as compared with the reference group was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.1). Clinically significant cancer that was detected only by systematic biopsy was diagnosed in 10 participants in the reference group; all cases were of intermediate risk and involved mainly low-volume disease that was managed with active surveillance. Serious adverse events were rare (<0.1%) in the two groups.ConclusionsThe avoidance of systematic biopsy in favor of MRI-directed targeted biopsy for screening and early detection in persons with elevated PSA levels reduced the risk of overdiagnosis by half at the cost of delaying detection of intermediate-risk tumors in a small proportion of patients. (Funded by Karin and Christer Johansson's Foundation and others; GÖTEBORG-2 ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN94604465.).

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to screen for prostate cancer.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesElectronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, OpenGrey, LILACS, and Medline, and search of scientific meeting abstracts and trial registers to April 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials comparing PSA screening with usual care in men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer.Data extractionAt least two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of eligible studies. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. We used a random effects model to obtain pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) and, when feasible, conducted subgroup analyses (defined a priori) based on age, frequency of screening, family history, ethnicity, and socioeconomic level, as well as a sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach.ResultsFive randomised controlled trials, enrolling 721 718 men, were included. Studies varied with respect to screening frequency and intervals, PSA thresholds for biopsy, and risk of bias. When considering the whole body of evidence, screening probably has no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.96, 0.85 to 1.08; low certainty). Sensitivity analysis of studies at lower risk of bias (n=1) also demonstrates that screening seems to have no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 1.0, 0.98 to 1.02; moderate certainty) but may have a small effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.79, 0.69 to 0.91; moderate certainty). This corresponds to one less death from prostate cancer per 1000 men screened over 10 years. Direct comparative data on biopsy and treatment related complications from the included trials were limited. Using modelling, we estimated that for every 1000 men screened, approximately 1, 3, and 25 more men would be hospitalised for sepsis, require pads for urinary incontinence, and report erectile dysfunction, respectively.ConclusionsAt best, screening for prostate cancer leads to a small reduction in disease-specific mortality over 10 years but has does not affect overall mortality. Clinicians and patients considering PSA based screening need to weigh these benefits against the potential short and long term harms of screening, including complications from biopsies and subsequent treatment, as well as the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42016042347.

Project description:ObjectivesOur objective was to compare prostate cancer detection rates between patients undergoing serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) vs magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer screening.DesignPhase III open-label randomised controlled trial.SettingSingle tertiary cancer centre in Toronto, Canada.ParticipantsMen 50 years of age and older with no history of PSA screening for ≥3 years, a negative digital rectal exam and no prior prostate biopsy.InterventionsPatients were recommended to undergo a prostate biopsy if their PSA was ≥2.6 ng/mL (PSA arm) or if they had a PIRADS score of 4 or 5 (MRI arm). Patients underwent an end-of-study PSA in the MRI arm.Primary and secondary outcome measuresAdenocarcinoma on prostate biopsy. Prostate biopsy rates and the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer were also compared.ResultsA total of 525 patients were randomised, with 266 in the PSA arm and 248 in the MRI arm. Due to challenges with accrual and study execution during the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was terminated early. In the PSA arm, 48 patients had an abnormal PSA and 28 (58%) agreed to undergo a prostate biopsy. In the MRI arm, 25 patients had a PIRADS score of 4 or 5 and 24 (96%) agreed to undergo a biopsy. The relative risk for MRI to recommend a prostate biopsy was 0.52 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.82, p=0.005), compared with PSA. The cancer detection rate for patients in the PSA arm was 29% (8 of 28) vs 63% (15 of 24, p=0.019) in the MRI arm, with a higher proportion of clinically significant cancer detected in the MRI arm (73% vs 50%). The relative risk for detecting cancer and clinically significant with MRI compared with PSA was 1.89 (95% CI 0.82 to 4.38, p=0.14) and 2.77 (95% CI 0.89 to 8.59, p=0.07), respectively.ConclusionsProstate MRI as a stand-alone screening test reduced the rate of prostate biopsy. The number of clinically significant cancers detected was higher in the MRI arm, but this did not reach statistical significance. Due to early termination, the study was underpowered. More patients were willing to follow recommendations for prostate biopsy based on MRI results.Trial registration numberNCT02799303.

Dataset Information

Genetically adjusted PSA levels for prostate cancer screening.

Publications

Genetically adjusted PSA levels for prostate cancer screening.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets