Olama, Ali Amin Al

Circulating insulin‐like growth factors (IGFs) and their binding proteins (IGFBPs) are associated with prostate cancer. Using genetic variants as instruments for IGF peptides, we investigated whether these associations are likely to be causal. We identified from the literature 56 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the IGF axis previously associated with biomarker levels (8 from a genome‐wide association study [GWAS] and 48 in reported candidate genes). In ∼700 men without prostate cancer and two replication cohorts (N ∼ 900 and ∼9,000), we examined the properties of these SNPS as instrumental variables (IVs) for IGF‐I, IGF‐II, IGFBP‐2 and IGFBP‐3. Those confirmed as strong IVs were tested for association with prostate cancer risk, low (< 7) vs. high (≥ 7) Gleason grade, localised vs. advanced stage, and mortality, in 22,936 controls and 22,992 cases. IV analysis was used in an attempt to estimate the causal effect of circulating IGF peptides on prostate cancer. Published SNPs in the IGFBP1/IGFBP3 gene region, particularly rs11977526, were strong instruments for IGF‐II and IGFBP‐3, less so for IGF‐I. Rs11977526 was associated with high (vs. low) Gleason grade (OR per IGF‐II/IGFBP‐3 level‐raising allele 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.10). Using rs11977526 as an IV we estimated the causal effect of a one SD increase in IGF‐II (∼265 ng/mL) on risk of high vs. low grade disease as 1.14 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.31). Because of the potential for pleiotropy of the genetic instruments, these findings can only causally implicate the IGF pathway in general, not any one specific biomarker.

Abstract Identifying genetic variants with pleiotropic associations can uncover common pathways influencing multiple cancers. We took a two-stage approach to conduct genome-wide association studies for lung, ovary, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer from the GAME-ON/GECCO Network (61,851 cases, 61,820 controls) to identify pleiotropic loci. Findings were replicated in independent association studies (55,789 cases, 330,490 controls). We identified a novel pleiotropic association at 1q22 involving breast and lung squamous cell carcinoma, with eQTL analysis showing an association with ADAM15/THBS3 gene expression in lung. We also identified a known breast cancer locus CASP8/ALS2CR12 associated with prostate cancer, a known cancer locus at CDKN2B-AS1 with different variants associated with lung adenocarcinoma and prostate cancer, and confirmed the associations of a breast BRCA2 locus with lung and serous ovarian cancer. This is the largest study to date examining pleiotropy across multiple cancer-associated loci, identifying common mechanisms of cancer development and progression. Cancer Res; 76(17); 5103–14. ©2016 AACR.

AbstractGenetic risk scores were used as unconfounded instruments for specific lipid traits (Mendelian randomization) to assess whether circulating lipids causally influence prostate cancer risk. Data from 22,249 prostate cancer cases and 22,133 controls from 22 studies within the international PRACTICAL consortium were analyzed. Allele scores based on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) previously reported to be uniquely associated with each of low‐density lipoprotein (LDL), high‐density lipoprotein (HDL), and triglyceride (TG) levels, were first validated in an independent dataset, and then entered into logistic regression models to estimate the presence (and direction) of any causal effect of each lipid trait on prostate cancer risk. There was weak evidence for an association between the LDL genetic score and cancer grade: the odds ratio (OR) per genetically instrumented standard deviation (SD) in LDL, comparing high‐ (≥7 Gleason score) versus low‐grade (<7 Gleason score) cancers was 1.50 (95% CI: 0.92, 2.46; P = 0.11). A genetically instrumented SD increase in TGs was weakly associated with stage: the OR for advanced versus localized cancer per unit increase in genetic risk score was 1.68 (95% CI: 0.95, 3.00; P = 0.08). The rs12916‐T variant in 3‐hydroxy‐3‐methylglutaryl‐CoA reductase (HMGCR) was inversely associated with prostate cancer (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.00; P = 0.03). In conclusion, circulating lipids, instrumented by our genetic risk scores, did not appear to alter prostate cancer risk. We found weak evidence that higher LDL and TG levels increase aggressive prostate cancer risk, and that a variant in HMGCR (that mimics the LDL lowering effect of statin drugs) reduces risk. However, inferences are limited by sample size and evidence of pleiotropy.

Abstract Background: Unnecessary intervention and overtreatment of indolent disease are common challenges in clinical management of prostate cancer. Improved tools to distinguish lethal from indolent disease are critical. Methods: We performed a genome-wide survival analysis of cause-specific death in 24,023 prostate cancer patients (3,513 disease-specific deaths) from the PRACTICAL and BPC3 consortia. Top findings were assessed for replication in a Norwegian cohort (CONOR). Results: We observed no significant association between genetic variants and prostate cancer survival. Conclusions: Common genetic variants with large impact on prostate cancer survival were not observed in this study. Impact: Future studies should be designed for identification of rare variants with large effect sizes or common variants with small effect sizes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(11); 1796–800. ©2015 AACR.

Abstract Background: Genome-wide association studies have identified multiple genetic variants associated with prostate cancer risk which explain a substantial proportion of familial relative risk. These variants can be used to stratify individuals by their risk of prostate cancer. Methods: We genotyped 25 prostate cancer susceptibility loci in 40,414 individuals and derived a polygenic risk score (PRS). We estimated empirical odds ratios (OR) for prostate cancer associated with different risk strata defined by PRS and derived age-specific absolute risks of developing prostate cancer by PRS stratum and family history. Results: The prostate cancer risk for men in the top 1% of the PRS distribution was 30.6 (95% CI, 16.4–57.3) fold compared with men in the bottom 1%, and 4.2 (95% CI, 3.2–5.5) fold compared with the median risk. The absolute risk of prostate cancer by age of 85 years was 65.8% for a man with family history in the top 1% of the PRS distribution, compared with 3.7% for a man in the bottom 1%. The PRS was only weakly correlated with serum PSA level (correlation = 0.09). Conclusions: Risk profiling can identify men at substantially increased or reduced risk of prostate cancer. The effect size, measured by OR per unit PRS, was higher in men at younger ages and in men with family history of prostate cancer. Incorporating additional newly identified loci into a PRS should improve the predictive value of risk profiles. Impact: We demonstrate that the risk profiling based on SNPs can identify men at substantially increased or reduced risk that could have useful implications for targeted prevention and screening programs. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(7); 1121–9. ©2015 AACR.

Abstract Prostate cancer is the second most common malignancy among men worldwide. Genome-wide association studies have identified 100 risk variants for prostate cancer, which can explain approximately 33% of the familial risk of the disease. We hypothesized that a comprehensive analysis of genetic variations found within the 3′ untranslated region of genes predicted to affect miRNA binding (miRSNP) can identify additional prostate cancer risk variants. We investigated the association between 2,169 miRSNPs and prostate cancer risk in a large-scale analysis of 22,301 cases and 22,320 controls of European ancestry from 23 participating studies. Twenty-two miRSNPs were associated (P &lt; 2.3 × 10−5) with risk of prostate cancer, 10 of which were within 7 genes previously not mapped by GWAS studies. Further, using miRNA mimics and reporter gene assays, we showed that miR-3162-5p has specific affinity for the KLK3 rs1058205 miRSNP T-allele, whereas miR-370 has greater affinity for the VAMP8 rs1010 miRSNP A-allele, validating their functional role. Significance: Findings from this large association study suggest that a focus on miRSNPs, including functional evaluation, can identify candidate risk loci below currently accepted statistical levels of genome-wide significance. Studies of miRNAs and their interactions with SNPs could provide further insights into the mechanisms of prostate cancer risk. Cancer Discov; 5(4); 368–79. ©2015 AACR. See related commentary by Yousef, p. 351 This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 333

Abstract A recent genome-wide association study found that genetic variants on chromosomes 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 19 and X were associated with prostate cancer risk. We evaluated the most significant single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in these loci using a worldwide consortium of 13 groups (PRACTICAL). Blood DNA from 7,370 prostate cancer cases and 5,742 male controls was analyzed by genotyping assays. Odds ratios (OR) associated with each genotype were estimated using unconditional logistic regression. Six of the seven SNPs showed clear evidence of association with prostate cancer (P = 0.0007-P = 10−17). For each of these six SNPs, the estimated per-allele OR was similar to those previously reported and ranged from 1.12 to 1.29. One SNP on 3p12 (rs2660753) showed a weaker association than previously reported [per-allele OR, 1.08 (95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.16; P = 0.06) versus 1.18 (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.31)]. The combined risks associated with each pair of SNPs were consistent with a multiplicative risk model. Under this model, and in combination with previously reported SNPs on 8q and 17q, these loci explain 16% of the familial risk of the disease, and men in the top 10% of the risk distribution have a 2.1-fold increased risk relative to general population rates. This study provides strong confirmation of these susceptibility loci in multiple populations and shows that they make an important contribution to prostate cancer risk prediction. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(8):2052–61)