Late presentation for care is a major impediment to the prevention and effective treatment of HIV infection. Older individuals are at increased risk of late presentation, represent a growing proportion of people with late presentation, and might require interventions tailored to their age group. We provide a summary of the literature published globally between 2016-21 (reporting data from 1984-2018) and quantify the association of age with delayed presentation. Using the most common definitions of late presentation and older age from these earlier studies, we update this work with data from the International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium, focusing on data from 2000-19, encompassing four continents. Finally, we consider how late presentation among older individuals might be more effectively addressed as electronic medical records become widely adopted.
Genome-wide polygenic risk scores (GW-PRSs) have been reported to have better predictive ability than PRSs based on genome-wide significance thresholds across numerous traits. We compared the predictive ability of several GW-PRS approaches to a recently developed PRS of 269 established prostate cancer-risk variants from multi-ancestry GWASs and fine-mapping studies (PRS269). GW-PRS models were trained with a large and diverse prostate cancer GWAS of 107,247 cases and 127,006 controls that we previously used to develop the multi-ancestry PRS269. Resulting models were independently tested in 1,586 cases and 1,047 controls of African ancestry from the California Uganda Study and 8,046 cases and 191,825 controls of European ancestry from the UK Biobank and further validated in 13,643 cases and 210,214 controls of European ancestry and 6,353 cases and 53,362 controls of African ancestry from the Million Veteran Program. In the testing data, the best performing GW-PRS approach had AUCs of 0.656 (95% CI = 0.635-0.677) in African and 0.844 (95% CI = 0.840-0.848) in European ancestry men and corresponding prostate cancer ORs of 1.83 (95% CI = 1.67-2.00) and 2.19 (95% CI = 2.14-2.25), respectively, for each SD unit increase in the GW-PRS. Compared to the GW-PRS, in African and European ancestry men, the PRS269 had larger or similar AUCs (AUC = 0.679, 95% CI = 0.659-0.700 and AUC = 0.845, 95% CI = 0.841-0.849, respectively) and comparable prostate cancer ORs (OR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.87-2.26 and OR = 2.21, 95% CI = 2.16-2.26, respectively). Findings were similar in the validation studies. This investigation suggests that current GW-PRS approaches may not improve the ability to predict prostate cancer risk compared to the PRS269 developed from multi-ancestry GWASs and fine-mapping.
Genome-wide polygenic risk scores (GW-PRS) have been reported to have better predictive ability than PRS based on genome-wide significance thresholds across numerous traits. We compared the predictive ability of several GW-PRS approaches to a recently developed PRS of 269 established prostate cancer risk variants from multi-ancestry GWAS and fine-mapping studies (PRS 269 ). GW-PRS models were trained using a large and diverse prostate cancer GWAS of 107,247 cases and 127,006 controls used to develop the multi-ancestry PRS 269 . Resulting models were independently tested in 1,586 cases and 1,047 controls of African ancestry from the California/Uganda Study and 8,046 cases and 191,825 controls of European ancestry from the UK Biobank and further validated in 13,643 cases and 210,214 controls of European ancestry and 6,353 cases and 53,362 controls of African ancestry from the Million Veteran Program. In the testing data, the best performing GW-PRS approach had AUCs of 0.656 (95% CI=0.635-0.677) in African and 0.844 (95% CI=0.840-0.848) in European ancestry men and corresponding prostate cancer OR of 1.83 (95% CI=1.67-2.00) and 2.19 (95% CI=2.14-2.25), respectively, for each SD unit increase in the GW-PRS. However, compared to the GW-PRS, in African and European ancestry men, the PRS 269 had larger or similar AUCs (AUC=0.679, 95% CI=0.659-0.700 and AUC=0.845, 95% CI=0.841-0.849, respectively) and comparable prostate cancer OR (OR=2.05, 95% CI=1.87-2.26 and OR=2.21, 95% CI=2.16-2.26, respectively). Findings were similar in the validation data. This investigation suggests that current GW-PRS approaches may not improve the ability to predict prostate cancer risk compared to the multi-ancestry PRS 269 constructed with fine-mapping.
The transferability and clinical value of genetic risk scores (GRSs) across populations remain limited due to an imbalance in genetic studies across ancestrally diverse populations. Here we conducted a multi-ancestry genome-wide association study of 156,319 prostate cancer cases and 788,443 controls of European, African, Asian and Hispanic men, reflecting a 57% increase in the number of non-European cases over previous prostate cancer genome-wide association studies. We identified 187 novel risk variants for prostate cancer, increasing the total number of risk variants to 451. An externally replicated multi-ancestry GRS was associated with risk that ranged from 1.8 (per standard deviation) in African ancestry men to 2.2 in European ancestry men. The GRS was associated with a greater risk of aggressive versus non-aggressive disease in men of African ancestry (P = 0.03). Our study presents novel prostate cancer susceptibility loci and a GRS with effective risk stratification across ancestry groups.