Displaying all 7 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Allen NE, Travis RC, Appleby PN, Albanes D, Barnett MJ, Black A, et al.
    J Natl Cancer Inst, 2016 11;108(11).
    PMID: 27385803 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djw153
    BACKGROUND: Some observational studies suggest that a higher selenium status is associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer but have been generally too small to provide precise estimates of associations, particularly by disease stage and grade.

    METHODS: Collaborating investigators from 15 prospective studies provided individual-participant records (from predominantly men of white European ancestry) on blood or toenail selenium concentrations and prostate cancer risk. Odds ratios of prostate cancer by selenium concentration were estimated using multivariable-adjusted conditional logistic regression. All statistical tests were two-sided.

    RESULTS: Blood selenium was not associated with the risk of total prostate cancer (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio [OR] per 80 percentile increase = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83 to 1.23, based on 4527 case patients and 6021 control subjects). However, there was heterogeneity by disease aggressiveness (ie, advanced stage and/or prostate cancer death, Pheterogeneity = .01), with high blood selenium associated with a lower risk of aggressive disease (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.87) but not with nonaggressive disease. Nail selenium was inversely associated with total prostate cancer (OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.40, Ptrend < .001, based on 1970 case patients and 2086 control subjects), including both nonaggressive (OR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.50) and aggressive disease (OR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.11 to 0.31, Pheterogeneity = .08).

    CONCLUSIONS: Nail, but not blood, selenium concentration is inversely associated with risk of total prostate cancer, possibly because nails are a more reliable marker of long-term selenium exposure. Both blood and nail selenium concentrations are associated with a reduced risk of aggressive disease, which warrants further investigation.

  2. Watts EL, Appleby PN, Perez-Cornago A, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Chan JM, Chen C, et al.
    Eur Urol, 2018 Nov;74(5):585-594.
    PMID: 30077399 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.07.024
    BACKGROUND: Experimental and clinical evidence implicates testosterone in the aetiology of prostate cancer. Variation across the normal range of circulating free testosterone concentrations may not lead to changes in prostate biology, unless circulating concentrations are low. This may also apply to prostate cancer risk, but this has not been investigated in an epidemiological setting.

    OBJECTIVE: To examine whether men with low concentrations of circulating free testosterone have a reduced risk of prostate cancer.

    DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Analysis of individual participant data from 20 prospective studies including 6933 prostate cancer cases, diagnosed on average 6.8 yr after blood collection, and 12 088 controls in the Endogenous Hormones, Nutritional Biomarkers and Prostate Cancer Collaborative Group.

    OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Odds ratios (ORs) of incident overall prostate cancer and subtypes by stage and grade, using conditional logistic regression, based on study-specific tenths of calculated free testosterone concentration.

    RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Men in the lowest tenth of free testosterone concentration had a lower risk of overall prostate cancer (OR=0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.86; p<0.001) compared with men with higher concentrations (2nd-10th tenths of the distribution). Heterogeneity was present by tumour grade (phet=0.01), with a lower risk of low-grade disease (OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.88) and a nonsignificantly higher risk of high-grade disease (OR=1.56, 95% CI 0.95-2.57). There was no evidence of heterogeneity by tumour stage. The observational design is a limitation.

    CONCLUSIONS: Men with low circulating free testosterone may have a lower risk of overall prostate cancer; this may be due to a direct biological effect, or detection bias. Further research is needed to explore the apparent differential association by tumour grade.

    PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we looked at circulating testosterone levels and risk of developing prostate cancer, finding that men with low testosterone had a lower risk of prostate cancer.

  3. Zhang M, Wang Z, Obazee O, Jia J, Childs EJ, Hoskins J, et al.
    Oncotarget, 2016 Oct 11;7(41):66328-66343.
    PMID: 27579533 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.11041
    Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified common pancreatic cancer susceptibility variants at 13 chromosomal loci in individuals of European descent. To identify new susceptibility variants, we performed imputation based on 1000 Genomes (1000G) Project data and association analysis using 5,107 case and 8,845 control subjects from 27 cohort and case-control studies that participated in the PanScan I-III GWAS. This analysis, in combination with a two-staged replication in an additional 6,076 case and 7,555 control subjects from the PANcreatic Disease ReseArch (PANDoRA) and Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control (PanC4) Consortia uncovered 3 new pancreatic cancer risk signals marked by single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) rs2816938 at chromosome 1q32.1 (per allele odds ratio (OR) = 1.20, P = 4.88x10 -15), rs10094872 at 8q24.21 (OR = 1.15, P = 3.22x10 -9) and rs35226131 at 5p15.33 (OR = 0.71, P = 1.70x10 -8). These SNPs represent independent risk variants at previously identified pancreatic cancer risk loci on chr1q32.1 ( NR5A2), chr8q24.21 ( MYC) and chr5p15.33 ( CLPTM1L- TERT) as per analyses conditioned on previously reported susceptibility variants. We assessed expression of candidate genes at the three risk loci in histologically normal ( n = 10) and tumor ( n = 8) derived pancreatic tissue samples and observed a marked reduction of NR5A2 expression (chr1q32.1) in the tumors (fold change -7.6, P = 5.7x10 -8). This finding was validated in a second set of paired ( n = 20) histologically normal and tumor derived pancreatic tissue samples (average fold change for three NR5A2 isoforms -31.3 to -95.7, P = 7.5x10 -4-2.0x10 -3). Our study has identified new susceptibility variants independently conferring pancreatic cancer risk that merit functional follow-up to identify target genes and explain the underlying biology.
  4. Machiela MJ, Zhou W, Karlins E, Sampson JN, Freedman ND, Yang Q, et al.
    Nat Commun, 2016 06 13;7:11843.
    PMID: 27291797 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms11843
    To investigate large structural clonal mosaicism of chromosome X, we analysed the SNP microarray intensity data of 38,303 women from cancer genome-wide association studies (20,878 cases and 17,425 controls) and detected 124 mosaic X events >2 Mb in 97 (0.25%) women. Here we show rates for X-chromosome mosaicism are four times higher than mean autosomal rates; X mosaic events more often include the entire chromosome and participants with X events more likely harbour autosomal mosaic events. X mosaicism frequency increases with age (0.11% in 50-year olds; 0.45% in 75-year olds), as reported for Y and autosomes. Methylation array analyses of 33 women with X mosaicism indicate events preferentially involve the inactive X chromosome. Our results provide further evidence that the sex chromosomes undergo mosaic events more frequently than autosomes, which could have implications for understanding the underlying mechanisms of mosaic events and their possible contribution to risk for chronic diseases.
  5. Dadaev T, Saunders EJ, Newcombe PJ, Anokian E, Leongamornlert DA, Brook MN, et al.
    Nat Commun, 2018 06 11;9(1):2256.
    PMID: 29892050 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-04109-8
    Prostate cancer is a polygenic disease with a large heritable component. A number of common, low-penetrance prostate cancer risk loci have been identified through GWAS. Here we apply the Bayesian multivariate variable selection algorithm JAM to fine-map 84 prostate cancer susceptibility loci, using summary data from a large European ancestry meta-analysis. We observe evidence for multiple independent signals at 12 regions and 99 risk signals overall. Only 15 original GWAS tag SNPs remain among the catalogue of candidate variants identified; the remainder are replaced by more likely candidates. Biological annotation of our credible set of variants indicates significant enrichment within promoter and enhancer elements, and transcription factor-binding sites, including AR, ERG and FOXA1. In 40 regions at least one variant is colocalised with an eQTL in prostate cancer tissue. The refined set of candidate variants substantially increase the proportion of familial relative risk explained by these known susceptibility regions, which highlights the importance of fine-mapping studies and has implications for clinical risk profiling.
  6. Schumacher FR, Al Olama AA, Berndt SI, Benlloch S, Ahmed M, Saunders EJ, et al.
    Nat Genet, 2018 07;50(7):928-936.
    PMID: 29892016 DOI: 10.1038/s41588-018-0142-8
    Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and fine-mapping efforts to date have identified more than 100 prostate cancer (PrCa)-susceptibility loci. We meta-analyzed genotype data from a custom high-density array of 46,939 PrCa cases and 27,910 controls of European ancestry with previously genotyped data of 32,255 PrCa cases and 33,202 controls of European ancestry. Our analysis identified 62 novel loci associated (P C, p.Pro1054Arg) in ATM and rs2066827 (OR = 1.06; P = 2.3 × 10-9; T>G, p.Val109Gly) in CDKN1B. The combination of all loci captured 28.4% of the PrCa familial relative risk, and a polygenic risk score conferred an elevated PrCa risk for men in the ninetieth to ninety-ninth percentiles (relative risk = 2.69; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.55-2.82) and first percentile (relative risk = 5.71; 95% CI: 5.04-6.48) risk stratum compared with the population average. These findings improve risk prediction, enhance fine-mapping, and provide insight into the underlying biology of PrCa1.
  7. Schumacher FR, Olama AAA, Berndt SI, Benlloch S, Ahmed M, Saunders EJ, et al.
    Nat Genet, 2019 02;51(2):363.
    PMID: 30622367 DOI: 10.1038/s41588-018-0330-6
    In the version of this article initially published, the name of author Manuela Gago-Dominguez was misspelled as Manuela Gago Dominguez. The error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF version of the article.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links