METHODS: The case-control portion of the study was conducted in nine UK centers with men ages 50-69 years who underwent prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer within the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial. Two data sources were used to appraise causality: a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of metabolites in 24,925 participants and a GWAS of prostate cancer in 44,825 cases and 27,904 controls within the Association Group to Investigate Cancer Associated Alterations in the Genome (PRACTICAL) consortium.

RESULTS: Thirty-five metabolites were strongly associated with prostate cancer (P < 0.0014, multiple-testing threshold). These fell into four classes: (i) lipids and lipoprotein subclass characteristics (total cholesterol and ratios, cholesterol esters and ratios, free cholesterol and ratios, phospholipids and ratios, and triglyceride ratios); (ii) fatty acids and ratios; (iii) amino acids; (iv) and fluid balance. Fourteen top metabolites were proxied by genetic variables, but MR indicated these were not causal.

CONCLUSIONS: We identified 35 circulating metabolites associated with prostate cancer presence, but found no evidence of causality for those 14 testable with MR. Thus, the 14 MR-tested metabolites are unlikely to be mechanistically important in prostate cancer risk.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: A nested case-control study was conducted with the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) with 1871 cases and 1871 matched controls. Conditional logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the association of pre-diagnostic circulating MSP with risk of incident prostate cancer overall and by tumour subtype. EPIC-derived estimates were combined with published data to calculate an MR estimate using two-sample inverse-variance method.

RESULTS: Plasma MSP concentrations were inversely associated with prostate cancer risk after adjusting for total prostate-specific antigen concentration [odds ratio (OR) highest versus lowest fourth of MSP = 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51-0.84, Ptrend = 0.001]. No heterogeneity in this association was observed by tumour stage or histological grade. Plasma MSP concentrations were 66% lower in rs10993994 TT compared with CC homozygotes (per allele difference in MSP: 6.09 ng/ml, 95% CI 5.56-6.61, r2=0.42). MR analyses supported a potentially causal protective association of MSP with prostate cancer risk (OR per 1 ng/ml increase in MSP for MR: 0.96, 95% CI 0.95-0.97 versus EPIC observational: 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99). Limitations include lack of complete tumour subtype information and more complete information on the biological function of MSP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cross sectional study looked at prostate cancer patients seen in the Urology Departments in 2 tertiary centres over the 11 year period starting from January 2000 to May 2011. Patient demographic data, levels of PSA at diagnosis, Gleason score for the biopsy core, T-staging as well as the lymph node status were recorded and analysed.

RESULTS: 258 men were included. The mean age of those 90 men (34.9%) with bone metastasis was 69.2 ± 7.3 years. Logistic regression found that PSA level (P=0.000) at diagnosis and patient's nodal-stage (P=0.02) were the only two independent variables able to predict the probability of bone metastasis among the newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients. Among those with a low PSA level less than 20 ng/ml, and less than 10 ng/ml, bone metastasis were detected in 10.3% (12 out of 117) and 9.7% (7 out of 72), respectively. However, by combining PSA level of 10 ng/ml or lower, and nodal negative as the two criteria to predict negative bone scan, a relatively high negative predictive value of 93.8% was obtained. The probability of bone metastasis in prostate cancer can be calculated with this formula: -1.069+0.007(PSA value, ng/ml) +1.021(Nodal status, 0 or 1)=x Probability of bone metastasis=2.718 x/1+2.718 x.

METHODS: Patients confirmed by transrectal-ultrasonographic-guided-biopsy performed from 2002 to 2008 were enrolled and analysed according to ethnicity, age, PSA level, Gleason score, stage of disease and survival.

RESULTS: Among 83 patients, there were 38 Malay, 40 Chinese, 3 Indians and 2 others. Median age at diagnosis was 69.9 (range: 59-93), 43 patients (51.8%) being diagnosed before the age of 70. The median PSA level upon diagnosis was 574 ng/ml (range: 1-8632) and the median Gleason score was 7 (range: 2-10). Over half were already in Stage 4 when diagnosed. The most common site of metastasis was the bone. As a result the commonest prescribed treatment was hormonal manipulation. Five patients underwent radical prostatectomy and a further thirteen patients had radical radiotherapy (stage I: 1 patient, stage II: 7 patients and stage III: 5 patients). Ten patients defaulted follow-up. The median disease-specific survival was 21.9 months (range: 1-53).

OBJECTIVE: To report the utility of PSA screening, PrCa incidence, positive predictive value of PSA, biopsy, and tumour characteristics after 3 yr of screening, by BRCA status.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men aged 40-69 yr with a germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation and male controls testing negative for a familial BRCA1/2 mutation were recruited. Participants underwent PSA screening for 3 yr, and if PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, men were offered prostate biopsy.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: PSA levels, PrCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. Statistical analyses included Poisson regression offset by person-year follow-up, chi-square tests for proportion t tests for means, and Kruskal-Wallis for medians.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 3027 patients (2932 unique individuals) were recruited (919 BRCA1 carriers, 709 BRCA1 noncarriers, 902 BRCA2 carriers, and 497 BRCA2 noncarriers). After 3 yr of screening, 527 men had PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, 357 biopsies were performed, and 112 PrCa cases were diagnosed (31 BRCA1 carriers, 19 BRCA1 noncarriers, 47 BRCA2 carriers, and 15 BRCA2 noncarriers). Higher compliance with biopsy was observed in BRCA2 carriers compared with noncarriers (73% vs 60%). Cancer incidence rate per 1000 person years was higher in BRCA2 carriers than in noncarriers (19.4 vs 12.0; p =  0.03); BRCA2 carriers were diagnosed at a younger age (61 vs 64 yr; p =  0.04) and were more likely to have clinically significant disease than BRCA2 noncarriers (77% vs 40%; p =  0.01). No differences in age or tumour characteristics were detected between BRCA1 carriers and BRCA1 noncarriers. The 4 kallikrein marker model discriminated better (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.73) for clinically significant cancer at biopsy than PSA alone (AUC = 0.65).

CONCLUSIONS: After 3 yr of screening, compared with noncarriers, BRCA2 mutation carriers were associated with a higher incidence of PrCa, younger age of diagnosis, and clinically significant tumours. Therefore, systematic PSA screening is indicated for men with a BRCA2 mutation. Further follow-up is required to assess the role of screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers.

OBJECTIVE: To report the first year's screening results for all men at enrollment in the study.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited men aged 40-69 yr with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and a control group of men who have tested negative for a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation known to be present in their families. All men underwent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing at enrollment, and those men with PSA >3 ng/ml were offered prostate biopsy.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: PSA levels, PCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the number of PCa cases among groups and the differences among disease types.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We recruited 2481 men (791 BRCA1 carriers, 531 BRCA1 controls; 731 BRCA2 carriers, 428 BRCA2 controls). A total of 199 men (8%) presented with PSA >3.0 ng/ml, 162 biopsies were performed, and 59 PCas were diagnosed (18 BRCA1 carriers, 10 BRCA1 controls; 24 BRCA2 carriers, 7 BRCA2 controls); 66% of the tumours were classified as intermediate- or high-risk disease. The positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3.0 ng/ml in BRCA2 mutation carriers was 48%-double the PPV reported in population screening studies. A significant difference in detecting intermediate- or high-risk disease was observed in BRCA2 carriers. Ninety-five percent of the men were white, thus the results cannot be generalised to all ethnic groups.

CONCLUSIONS: The IMPACT screening network will be useful for targeted PCa screening studies in men with germline genetic risk variants as they are discovered. These preliminary results support the use of targeted PSA screening based on BRCA genotype and show that this screening yields a high proportion of aggressive disease.

DISCUSSION: Several treatment options are available for different stages of prostate cancer. Hormone therapy known as androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the first line treatment used to treat advanced prostate cancer. Chemical castration by gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists suppresses lutenizing hormone production, which in turn inhibits the production of testosterone and dihydrotestosterone. This will prevent the growth of prostate cancer cells. However, ADT causes deleterious effects on bone health because the androgens are essential in preserving optimal bone health in men.