Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Articles

Common Genetic Variants in Prostate Cancer Risk Prediction—Results from the NCI Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium (BPC3)

Sara Lindström, Fredrick R. Schumacher, David Cox, Ruth C. Travis, Demetrius Albanes, Naomi E. Allen, Gerald Andriole, Sonja I. Berndt, Heiner Boeing, H. Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita, E. David Crawford, W. Ryan Diver, J. Michael Gaziano, Graham G. Giles, Edward Giovannucci, Carlos A. Gonzalez, Brian Henderson, David J. Hunter, Mattias Johansson, Laurence N. Kolonel, Jing Ma, Loïc Le Marchand, Valeria Pala, Meir Stampfer, Daniel O. Stram, Michael J. Thun, Anne Tjonneland, Dimitrios Trichopoulos, Jarmo Virtamo, Stephanie J. Weinstein, Walter C. Willett, Meredith Yeager, Richard B. Hayes, Gianluca Severi, Christopher A. Haiman, Stephen J. Chanock and Peter Kraft
Sara Lindström
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fredrick R. Schumacher
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Cox
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ruth C. Travis
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Demetrius Albanes
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Naomi E. Allen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gerald Andriole
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sonja I. Berndt
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Heiner Boeing
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
H. Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
E. David Crawford
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
W. Ryan Diver
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Michael Gaziano
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Graham G. Giles
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Edward Giovannucci
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carlos A. Gonzalez
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brian Henderson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David J. Hunter
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mattias Johansson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laurence N. Kolonel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jing Ma
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Loïc Le Marchand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Valeria Pala
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Meir Stampfer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel O. Stram
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael J. Thun
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anne Tjonneland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dimitrios Trichopoulos
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jarmo Virtamo
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephanie J. Weinstein
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Walter C. Willett
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Meredith Yeager
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard B. Hayes
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gianluca Severi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher A. Haiman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen J. Chanock
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Kraft
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-1038 Published March 2012
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: One of the goals of personalized medicine is to generate individual risk profiles that could identify individuals in the population that exhibit high risk. The discovery of more than two-dozen independent single-nucleotide polymorphism markers in prostate cancer has raised the possibility for such risk stratification. In this study, we evaluated the discriminative and predictive ability for prostate cancer risk models incorporating 25 common prostate cancer genetic markers, family history of prostate cancer, and age.

Methods: We fit a series of risk models and estimated their performance in 7,509 prostate cancer cases and 7,652 controls within the National Cancer Institute Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium (BPC3). We also calculated absolute risks based on SEER incidence data.

Results: The best risk model (C-statistic = 0.642) included individual genetic markers and family history of prostate cancer. We observed a decreasing trend in discriminative ability with advancing age (P = 0.009), with highest accuracy in men younger than 60 years (C-statistic = 0.679). The absolute ten-year risk for 50-year-old men with a family history ranged from 1.6% (10th percentile of genetic risk) to 6.7% (90th percentile of genetic risk). For men without family history, the risk ranged from 0.8% (10th percentile) to 3.4% (90th percentile).

Conclusions: Our results indicate that incorporating genetic information and family history in prostate cancer risk models can be particularly useful for identifying younger men that might benefit from prostate-specific antigen screening.

Impact: Although adding genetic risk markers improves model performance, the clinical utility of these genetic risk models is limited. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(3); 437–44. ©2012 AACR.

This article is featured in Highlights of This Issue, p. 389

Introduction

Prostate cancer is estimated to account for a quarter of all new cancer diagnoses and is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men in the United States during 2010 (1). Despite the high prevalence, the etiology of prostate cancer is largely unknown and risk assessment to date has only been based on age, ethnicity, and family history of prostate cancer. One of the main goals of personalized medicine is to generate individual risk profiles that would identify individuals in the population that exhibit high risk (c.f. the Gail model in breast cancer). It has been suggested that high-risk groups could be identified on the basis of a profile of genetic predisposition (2). Already, we know that men with a family history of prostate cancer have a 2-fold risk of developing prostate cancer and develop prostate cancer at an earlier age of onset (3).

The discovery of more than 2-dozen independent single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of prostate cancer has raised the possibility that such genetic profiles could be generated. A recent study suggested that compared with age threshold screening programs, personalized screening based on genetic risk profiling would improve efficiency by reducing number of individuals eligible for screening while detecting the majority of cancers. For prostate cancer, they estimated that compared with screening men based on age alone, personalized screening at the same risk threshold would result in 16% fewer men being eligible for screening at a cost of 3% fewer screen-detectable cases (4).

In this study, we investigate the discriminative ability of common low-penetrant SNPs that have been associated with prostate cancer risk in 7,509 prostate cancer cases and 7,652 controls. We generated a series of statistical models including an aggregated genetic risk score, family history of prostate cancer, and interaction effects. We estimated age-specific discriminative performance by calculating C-statistics for the best-fitting models. Previous reports have not estimated stratum-specific discriminative performance and have only included subsets of the genetic variants associated with prostate cancer risk (5, 6). Finally, we calculated age-specific absolute risks based on SEER incidence data.

Methods

Study population

The National Cancer Institute Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium (BPC3) has been described previously (7). In brief, the consortium combines resources from 8 well-established cohort studies: the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention (ATBC) Study (8), American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II; ref. 9), the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition Cohort (EPIC-–composed of cohorts from Denmark, Great Britain, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden; ref. 10), the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS; ref. 11), the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS; ref. 12), the Multi-Ethnic Cohort (MEC; ref. 13), the Physicians' Health Study (PHS; ref. 14), and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial (15). Together, these 8 cohorts collectively include more than 265,000 men who provided a biospecimen sample. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects, and each study was approved by the local Institutional Review Board.

Prostate cancer cases were identified through population-based cancer registries, death certificates, or self-reports confirmed by medical records, including pathology reports. Except for the MCCS study, the BPC3 consists of a series of matched nested case–control studies within each cohort; controls were matched to cases on a number of potential confounding factors, such as age, ethnicity, and region of recruitment, depending on the cohort. MCCS used a case-cohort design, with a randomly sampled subcohort serving as controls. The current study was restricted to self-reported European ancestry men. We had genotype data for a total of 10,501 prostate cancer cases and 10,831 controls. Data on disease stage and grade at time of diagnosis were collected from each cohort, wherever possible. A total of 2,641 cases were classified as either high-stage (stage C or D at diagnosis) or high-grade (Gleason grade ≥ 8 or equivalent, i.e., coded as poorly differentiated or undifferentiated). For 15% of the cases, we did not have information about tumor stage or Gleason grade. Family history, which was defined as having at least one first-degree family member diagnosed with prostate cancer, was available for all but 2 cohort studies (PHS and EPIC). Subject characteristics are displayed in Supplementary Table S1.

Marker selection

We initially genotyped 39 SNPs associated with prostate cancer risk as previously described (16). For this study, we chose 25 of the initial 39 SNPs to obtain a set of independent markers (Supplementary Table S2). To obtain a set of independent markers for this analysis, we selected 25 SNPs based on the following criteria: (i) Significant association with prostate cancer risk (P < 0.001; 5 SNPs removed). (ii) A pairwise r2 < 0.2 with any of the other SNPs as measured in HapMap CEU individuals. If 2 or more SNPs had a pairwise r2 > 0.2, the one with strongest association with prostate cancer risk was selected (6 SNPs). (iii) A significant association with prostate cancer risk (P < 0.001) after adjusting for other risk SNPs at the same locus within a region of 500 kb (3 SNPs). To address the potential for overfitting due to our SNP selection strategy, we recalculated all analyses while randomly replacing the “best” SNPs with other associated SNPs in the same region. This did not appreciably change our results (data not shown).

Genotyping

Genotyping was conducted by the TaqMan assay (Applied Biosystems) in 6 different genotyping laboratories: Core Genotyping Facility at National Cancer Institute (Bethesda, MD), Harvard School of Public Health (Boston, MA), University of South California (Los Angeles, CA), Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (Potsdam-Rehbrücke, Germany), Cancer Research UK (UK), and the Genetic Epidemiology Laboratory of the University of Melbourne (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia). Blinded duplicated samples indicated high quality genotyping (100% concordance). All autosomal SNPs were consistent with Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium in the controls (P > 0.01).

Imputation

We excluded 42 cases and 41 controls with 20% or more missing genotypes across the 25 selected SNPs, leaving 10,459 cases and 10,790 controls for analysis. We imputed missing genotypes and family history information (yes/no) independently by sampling from the observed distribution of the missing factor conditional on age (in 5-year categories) and case–control status. We conducted single SNP imputation by sampling from the observed genotype frequency distribution in all men with nonmissing genotype data in the same age category and case–control status (“single conditional draw imputation;” ref. 17). For example, assume that the genotype frequencies of SNP 1 in cases between 60 and 65 years are 0.49 (AA), 0.42 (Aa), and 0.09 (aa), respectively, (corresponding to a minor allele frequency of 0.30). To impute a missing genotype for SNP 1 in a case of age 63, we randomly generated a genotype with probabilities 0.49 (AA), 0.42 (Aa), and 0.09 (aa). Genotypes in ATBC, a cohort in Finland, were imputed separately. For family history, we imputed each cohort separately (as prevalence of family history differed across studies, Supplementary Tables S1 and S3). We did not impute family history for EPIC and PHS as this information was completely missing for both. Risk allele frequencies and family history prevalence before and after imputation are displayed in Supplementary Tables S3 and S4.

Variable construction and model selection

First, we calculated the number of risk alleles carried by each individual using genotyped and imputed SNP data from all cohorts (10,459 cases and 10,790 controls). We categorized the number of risk alleles in each carrier by deciles according to the distribution in the controls and calculated decile-specific ORs. We compared the goodness-of-fit of various unconditional logistic regression models using Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC). We constructed various risk models based on 7,509 prostate cancer cases and 7,652 controls from the imputed data set including all cohorts where family history was available (i.e., excluding EPIC and PHS). Joint effects of the 25 SNPs were incorporated in different ways by including individual SNPs in an additive main effects model with mutually adjusted log ORs estimated for each marker (IndSNP), a simple count of risk alleles as an ordinal (GC) or categorical (GCAT) variable, and a sum of risk alleles weighted by their marginal log ORs (GW) estimated from the data. We also evaluated risk modification by age and family history by including product terms between the risk allele count (GC), a binary indicator of family history (yes/no), and an ordinal coding of age in 5-year categories. We did not include SNP–SNP interaction terms as the chosen SNPs have not shown evidence of nonadditive joint effects (16). All analyses were adjusted for matching factors study and age at diagnosis/selection as control. The qualitative results did not change when we calculated AICs for the complete case data sets (no missing or imputed genotypes).

Discrimination ability and absolute risk estimation

For selected models, we calculated C-statistics and 95% confidence intervals (CI) stratified by study and age intervals (≤60, 61–65, 66–70, 71–75, and ≥75 years) using estimated linear predictors from each model. The C-statistic [equivalent to the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve] measures the discriminative ability of a model; C = 1 indicates perfect discrimination whereas C = 0.5 indicates no discrimination. Summary C-statistics across studies were calculated using fixed effects meta-analysis. CIs were calculated using the “rcorr.cens” command in the “Hmisc” package in R (18). We tested for trends in C-statistics as a function of age using linear regression, treating estimated C-statistics as the dependent variable and age in 5-year interval as the independent variable.

We calculated mortality-adjusted absolute risks based on the distribution of genotypes and family history in controls, the regression parameters from the best-fitting models, 5-year average incidence rates for white men based on SEER data for years 1992–2007 (19), and the life tables for U.S. men from 2007 (20, 21). All analyses were conducted in R (22).

Results

Associations between number of risk alleles carried and prostate cancer risk

The average number of risk alleles carried (maximum: 49) was 23.4 (range: 12–35) in cases and 22.0 (range: 11–34) in controls (Supplementary Fig. S1). Compared with men in the lowest 10th percentile of a simple count of risk alleles, men in the highest 10th percentile had more than 5-fold risk (OR, 5.55; 95% CI, 4.85–6.36) of developing prostate cancer (Table 1). Decile-specific ORs stratified on disease severity and age of onset (<65 and ≥65 years) are presented in Fig. 1. We observed slightly higher decile-specific ORs for localized disease than aggressive disease. Compared with men in the lowest 10th percentile, men in the highest 10th percentile had a 7-fold risk to develop prostate cancer at age 65 or younger (OR, 7.21; 95% CI, 5.66–9.18). Corresponding risk comparison among men older than 65 was somewhat lower (OR, 4.56; 95% CI, 3.86–5.39). We observed a significant interaction effect between age and number of risk alleles carried (ORInt, 0.982; 95% CI, 0.976–0.989; P = 1.2 × 10−7).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Association between decile categories for number of risk alleles carried and prostate cancer risk stratified by disease aggressiveness and age of onset. Decile-specific ORs were estimated on the basis of the imputed data set (10,459 cases and 10,790 controls). All analyses were adjusted for age and cohort. A, localized cases (5,721 cases). B, aggressive cases (2,641 cases). C, ≤65 years (3,315 cases and 4,214 controls). D, >65 years (7,144 cases and 6,576 controls).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Association between decile categories for number of risk alleles carried and prostate cancer risk

Discriminative ability of genetic risk models

We incorporated SNP information, age, and family history in various models and calculated goodness-of-fit using imputed genotype and family history data from all cohorts where family history was available (7,509 cases and 7,652 controls, Supplementary Table S5). We chose models that best fit the data from each of 3 classes: models that used information on family history of prostate cancer and age, models that used information on SNPs and age, and finally models that used information on SNPs, age, and family history. The best model from the first class (model 1) included family history of prostate cancer and an interaction term between family history and age. The best model from the second class (model 2) included individual SNPs and an interaction term between the sum of risk alleles and age. The best model from the third class (model 3) included individual SNPs, family history, an interaction term of age and family history, and an interaction term between the sum of risk alleles and age. Regression parameters for each chosen model can be found in Supplementary Table S6. We used the regression parameters from each of the 3 models to estimate linear predictors and calculate C-statistics (Table 2). The inclusion of individual SNPs (average C over all ages = 0.634) had much higher discriminatory power than family history only (average C over all ages = 0.526). Adding SNP information to family history increased the discriminatory ability (average C over all ages = 0.642). For all 3 models, the discriminative ability decreased with advancing age (model 1, P = 0.03; model 2, P = 0.009; and model 3, P = 0.009). Stratifying on aggressive cases did not alter the results (Supplementary Table S7). Figure 2 displays the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for model 2 (dashed) and model 3 (solid) for men younger than 65 years and men older than 75 years. We note that both models have higher discriminative probability in younger men. We also calculated cohort-specific C-statistics recognizing our limited power (Supplementary Table S8) across various age ranges. We observe that the cohort-specific estimates are relatively homogenous indicating that this model can be useful for all patients with European ancestry.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

ROC curve for genetics (G) only and genetics plus family history (FHx).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

C-statistics for 3 selected models (see Methods) stratified by age

Estimated absolute risks based on a genetic risk model

We calculated mortality-adjusted 10-year absolute risks based on the estimated regression parameters from model 2 and age-specific incidence rates from SEER (Table 3). Overall, absolute risks differed widely as a function of genetic risk. For example, the absolute 10-year risk for a 60-year-old man with a family history of prostate cancer ranges from 0.06 (10th percentile) to 0.23 (90th percentile) depending on the genetic burden. Of note, a man without a family history of prostate cancer but with high genetic risk (90th percentile), has lower 10-year risk than a man with a family history belonging to the 50th percentile (e.g., 0.033 vs. 0.038 at 50 years).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Age-specific mortality-adjusted 10-year absolute risks of prostate cancer among white U.S. men as a function of family history of prostate cancer and genetic risk (as estimated by model 2)

The potential utility of incorporating genetic information in a clinical setting can be illustrated by the following example. A 50-year-old white man without a family history of prostate cancer sees his physician and wants to know his 10-year risk of developing prostate cancer. By using the information available (family history of prostate cancer, ethnicity, and age), the physician will estimate his absolute 10-year risk to be approximately 2%. Incorporating individual-specific genetic information would shift this risk to between 0.8% (10th percentile) and 3.4% (90th percentile) depending on number or risk alleles carried. The mortality-adjusted 10-year risk of developing prostate cancer as a function of the genetic risk burden for a 50-year-old man is illustrated in Fig. 3.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Estimated distribution of 10-year absolute risks of prostate cancer among 50-year-old U.S. white men as a function of genetic risk.

Discussion

In this study, we tested the performance of 25 independent SNPs in prostate cancer risk models. We evaluated different models in a series of large prospective nested case–control studies comprising a total of 7,509 prostate cancer cases and 7,652 controls with European ancestry. Our large sample size enabled us to calculate age-specific C-statistics to investigate the performance across age categories. In a model including family history and genetics, the C-statistic shifted from 0.68 for men younger than 60 years to 0.60 for the subgroup of men older than 75 years. We also observed a statistically significant interaction between number of risk alleles carried and age at diagnosis.

Higher discrimination among younger men has important implications. First, much of the ongoing debate about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening focuses on the age for recommended screening and our results suggest that genetic risk prediction models might have higher clinical utility for younger men. Second, our results illustrate the value of investigating these issues in subgroups that could lead to more effective use of genetics. Estimating population effects by combining clinical strata together may obscure important information. We found a statistically significantly stronger association between a genetic risk score summarizing known prostate cancer risk alleles and prostate cancer risk among younger men. We identified this gene–age interaction by aggregating evidence across risk loci; previous analyses of individual markers provided suggestive but not definitive evidence that many of these markers had larger ORs among younger men (16). In addition, some of the SNPs included in our model were identified in a GWAS enriched of younger cases (23). However, we note that the clinical value of genetic risk models can vary by age (or other known risk factors) even if the genetic OR does not vary by age. Thus, the absence of statistical interaction as usually defined for disease outcomes (differences in genetic ORs across strata) does not necessarily imply absence of important differences in measures of clinical utility, including discrimination, net reclassification index (24), expected change in adverse events (25, 26), or change in age at recommended screening (2).

Although each genetic variant contributes a very small risk effect, the aggregated sum has a substantial impact on risk. Compared with men in the bottom 10% of risk alleles carried, men in the top 10th percentile had a 5-fold risk of developing prostate cancer during their lifetime and more than 7-fold risk of developing prostate cancer before the age of 65. The 10-year absolute risk of a 60-year-old man with a positive family history and high genetic burden (90th percentile) was 23%. We observed similar risk estimates when stratifying on disease aggressiveness, as defined by grade and stage. In agreement with previous studies, our genetic risk model showed equal discriminative ability for aggressive and localized prostate cancer. This is not surprising as the SNPs included in our model have not been associated with disease aggressiveness (16) and it remains to be seen if there exists genetic variants associated with prostate cancer subtypes. Our results are nevertheless disappointing given the widely heterogeneous natural history of prostate cancer and the need to distinguish indolent from aggressive cancer. However, a recent randomized trial showed that active treatment with radical prostatectomy decreases rates of both prostate cancer–specific death and overall death, with the largest benefit for men younger than 65 years (27). Of importance, the authors also observed a significant decrease in overall mortality associated with surgery among men diagnosed with low-grade tumors.

A risk model including only SNPs appears to have higher discriminatory ability than family history alone. This observation can partly be explained by our broad definition of family history as defined by a first-degree relative with prostate cancer. Most likely, a more refined definition would increase the discriminatory power of family history further; other studies will have to address this question, because more detailed data are not available in BPC3. However, detailed family history has inherent limitations as men from small families or men whose fathers died at a young age (of other causes), etc, have less informative history. Of note, men with a family history of prostate cancer experience higher absolute risks than men without a family history regardless of number of risk alleles carried. Thus, family history of prostate cancer is still an important source of information when discussing a likelihood of patient of developing prostate cancer.

Because it is expected that additional GWAS and next-generation sequencing will discover additional risk variants, the genetic risk models as presented here will require regular updates. However, additional genetic variants will most likely have small risk effects or be rare in the population and thus provide limited increments in discriminative ability. Moreover, it is difficult for new predictors to raise the C-statistic when existing variables (in this case SNPs) discriminate well (28, 29). Nonetheless, Wray and colleagues estimated that a genetic risk model that fully explains the genetic variation of prostate cancer has a maximum C-statistic of 0.90, assuming a heritability of 0.44 (30).

The relatively high performance of our genetic risk model (C = 0.68) does not by itself guarantee clinical utility. For comparison, a single PSA test has a better accuracy (C > 0.70; ref. 31), yet despite this high C-statistic, the public health utility of PSA screening remains controversial. So far, PSA testing has been reported to have low discriminatory power between indolent and clinical aggressive prostate cancer, resulting in substantial overdiagnosis, leading to a debate over the efficacy and cost effectiveness as a screening tool (32). Monitoring changes in PSA levels over time (known as PSA velocity) has been widely advocated as a more useful marker, but so far, little evidence suggests, this provides more clinical information beyond a single PSA test (33). It has been proposed that the combined information on PSA and known genetic architecture (as defined by common genetic variants with modest risk effects) might increase our ability to detect a prostate cancer, but published reports provide only modest support for this hypothesis (5, 34, 35). In the end, the ultimate arbiter of any screening tests utility is its ability to reduce net morbidity and mortality.

In summary, we have constructed genetic risk models for prostate cancer based on 25 SNPs previously identified as well as information on family history and age. Our results indicate that incorporating genetic information and family history in prostate cancer risk models can be particularly useful for identifying younger men that might benefit from PSA screening. Although our model conducted reasonably well in terms of discriminatory ability, its clinical utility is still limited.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Grant Support

This work was supported by the U.S. NIH, National Cancer Institute (cooperative agreements U01-CA98233-07 to D.J. Hunter, U01-CA98710-06 to M.J. Thun, U01-CA98216-06 to E. Riboli and R. Kaaks, and U01-CA98758-07 to B.E. Henderson and Intramural Research Program of NIH/National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention Online (http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Received November 5, 2011.
  • Revision received December 20, 2011.
  • Accepted December 20, 2011.
  • ©2012 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Jemal A,
    2. Siegel R,
    3. Xu J,
    4. Ward E
    . Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60:277–300.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Pharoah PD,
    2. Antoniou AC,
    3. Easton DF,
    4. Ponder BA
    . Polygenes, risk prediction, and targeted prevention of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2796–803.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Bratt O
    . What should a urologist know about hereditary predisposition to prostate cancer? BJU Int 2007;99:743–7; discussion 747–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Pashayan N,
    2. Duffy SW,
    3. Chowdhury S,
    4. Dent T,
    5. Burton H,
    6. Neal DE,
    7. et al.
    Polygenic susceptibility to prostate and breast cancer: implications for personalised screening. Br J Cancer 2011;104:1656–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Johansson M,
    2. Holmstrom B,
    3. Hinchliffe SR,
    4. Bergh A,
    5. Stenman UH,
    6. Hallmans G,
    7. et al.
    Combining 33 genetic variants with prostate specific antigen for prediction of prostate cancer: longitudinal study. Int J Cancer 2012;130:129–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Sun J,
    2. Kader AK,
    3. Hsu FC,
    4. Kim ST,
    5. Zhu Y,
    6. Turner AR,
    7. et al.
    Inherited genetic markers discovered to date are able to identify a significant number of men at considerably elevated risk for prostate cancer. Prostate 2011;71:421–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hunter DJ,
    2. Riboli E,
    3. Haiman CA,
    4. Albanes D,
    5. Altshuler D,
    6. Chanock SJ,
    7. et al.
    A candidate gene approach to searching for low-penetrance breast and prostate cancer genes. Nat Rev Cancer 2005;5:977–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group. N Engl J Med 1994;330:1029–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Calle EE,
    2. Rodriguez C,
    3. Jacobs EJ,
    4. Almon ML,
    5. Chao A,
    6. McCullough ML,
    7. et al.
    The American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort: rationale, study design, and baseline characteristics. Cancer 2002;94:500–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Riboli E,
    2. Hunt KJ,
    3. Slimani N,
    4. Ferrari P,
    5. Norat T,
    6. Fahey M,
    7. et al.
    European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC): study populations and data collection. Public Health Nutr 2002;5:1113–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Giovannucci E,
    2. Pollak M,
    3. Liu Y,
    4. Platz EA,
    5. Majeed N,
    6. Rimm EB,
    7. et al.
    Nutritional predictors of insulin-like growth factor I and their relationships to cancer in men. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:84–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Severi G,
    2. Morris HA,
    3. MacInnis RJ,
    4. English DR,
    5. Tilley WD,
    6. Hopper JL,
    7. et al.
    Circulating insulin-like growth factor-I and binding protein-3 and risk of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:1137–41.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Kolonel LN,
    2. Altshuler D,
    3. Henderson BE
    . The multiethnic cohort study: exploring genes, lifestyle and cancer risk. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4:519–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Chan JM,
    2. Stampfer MJ,
    3. Ma J,
    4. Gann P,
    5. Gaziano JM,
    6. Pollak M,
    7. et al.
    Insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) and IGF binding protein-3 as predictors of advanced-stage prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1099–106.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Hayes RB,
    2. Reding D,
    3. Kopp W,
    4. Subar AF,
    5. Bhat N,
    6. Rothman N,
    7. et al.
    Etiologic and early marker studies in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. Control Clin Trials 2000;21(6 Suppl):349S–55S.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Lindstrom S,
    2. Schumacher F,
    3. Siddiq A,
    4. Travis RC,
    5. Campa D,
    6. Berndt SI,
    7. et al.
    Characterizing Associations and SNP-Environment Interactions for GWAS- Identified Prostate Cancer Risk Markers-Results from BPC3. PLoS One 2011;6:e17142.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Little RJA,
    2. Rubin DB
    1. Little RJA,
    2. Rubin DB
    . Single imputation methods. In: Little RJA, Rubin DB , editors. Statistical analysis with missing data. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons; 2002. p. 59–75.
  18. 18.↵
    1. Newson R
    . Confidence intervals for rank statistics: Somers' D and extensions. Stata J 2006:309–34.
  19. 19.↵
    1. SEER-13
    . Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov) SEER*Stat Database: Incidence-SEER 13 Regs Research Data, Nov 2009 Sub (1992–2007). [updated 2011 Nov 10; cited 2010 Oct 29]. Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/.
  20. 20.↵
    1. Arias E
    . United States life tables, 2007. National vital statistics reports. vol 59 no 9. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2011. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/.
  21. 21.↵
    1. Dupont WD
    . Converting relative risks to absolute risks: a graphical approach. Stat Med 1989;8:641–51.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    R Development Core Team (2009). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2009.
  23. 23.↵
    1. Eeles RA,
    2. Kote-Jarai Z,
    3. Giles GG,
    4. Olama AA,
    5. Guy M,
    6. Jugurnauth SK,
    7. et al.
    Multiple newly identified loci associated with prostate cancer susceptibility. Nat Genet 2008;40:316–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Pencina MJ,
    2. D'Agostino RB Sr.,
    3. D'Agostino RB Jr.,
    4. Vasan RS
    . Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 2008;27:157–72; discussion 207–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Gail MH
    . Value of adding single-nucleotide polymorphism genotypes to a breast cancer risk model. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:959–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Gail MH
    . Personalized estimates of breast cancer risk in clinical practice and public health. Stat Med 2011;30:1090–104.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Bill-Axelson A,
    2. Holmberg L,
    3. Ruutu M,
    4. Garmo H,
    5. Stark JR,
    6. Busch C,
    7. et al.
    Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1708–17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Wang TJ
    . Assessing the role of circulating, genetic, and imaging biomarkers in cardiovascular risk prediction. Circulation 2011;123:551–65.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Pepe MS,
    2. Janes H,
    3. Longton G,
    4. Leisenring W,
    5. Newcomb P
    . Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:882–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Wray NR,
    2. Yang J,
    3. Goddard ME,
    4. Visscher PM
    . The genetic interpretation of area under the ROC curve in genomic profiling. PLoS Genet 2010;6:e1000864.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Schroder F,
    2. Kattan MW
    . The comparability of models for predicting the risk of a positive prostate biopsy with prostate-specific antigen alone: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2008;54:274–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Vickers AJ,
    2. Lilja H
    . Prostate cancer: estimating the benefits of PSA screening. Nat Rev Urol 2009;6:301–3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Vickers AJ,
    2. Savage C,
    3. O'Brien MF,
    4. Lilja H
    . Systematic review of pretreatment prostate-specific antigen velocity and doubling time as predictors for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:398–403.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Aly M,
    2. Wiklund F,
    3. Xu J,
    4. Isaacs WB,
    5. Eklund M,
    6. D'Amato M,
    7. et al.
    Polygenic risk score improves prostate cancer risk prediction: results from the Stockholm-1 cohort study. Eur Urol 2011;60:21–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Gudmundsson J,
    2. Besenbacher S,
    3. Sulem P,
    4. Gudbjartsson DF,
    5. Olafsson I,
    6. Arinbjarnarson S,
    7. et al.
    Genetic correction of PSA values using sequence variants associated with PSA levels. Sci Transl Med 2010;2:62ra92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 21 (3)
March 2012
Volume 21, Issue 3
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Common Genetic Variants in Prostate Cancer Risk Prediction—Results from the NCI Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium (BPC3)
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Common Genetic Variants in Prostate Cancer Risk Prediction—Results from the NCI Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium (BPC3)
Sara Lindström, Fredrick R. Schumacher, David Cox, Ruth C. Travis, Demetrius Albanes, Naomi E. Allen, Gerald Andriole, Sonja I. Berndt, Heiner Boeing, H. Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita, E. David Crawford, W. Ryan Diver, J. Michael Gaziano, Graham G. Giles, Edward Giovannucci, Carlos A. Gonzalez, Brian Henderson, David J. Hunter, Mattias Johansson, Laurence N. Kolonel, Jing Ma, Loïc Le Marchand, Valeria Pala, Meir Stampfer, Daniel O. Stram, Michael J. Thun, Anne Tjonneland, Dimitrios Trichopoulos, Jarmo Virtamo, Stephanie J. Weinstein, Walter C. Willett, Meredith Yeager, Richard B. Hayes, Gianluca Severi, Christopher A. Haiman, Stephen J. Chanock and Peter Kraft
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev March 1 2012 (21) (3) 437-444; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-1038

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Common Genetic Variants in Prostate Cancer Risk Prediction—Results from the NCI Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium (BPC3)
Sara Lindström, Fredrick R. Schumacher, David Cox, Ruth C. Travis, Demetrius Albanes, Naomi E. Allen, Gerald Andriole, Sonja I. Berndt, Heiner Boeing, H. Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita, E. David Crawford, W. Ryan Diver, J. Michael Gaziano, Graham G. Giles, Edward Giovannucci, Carlos A. Gonzalez, Brian Henderson, David J. Hunter, Mattias Johansson, Laurence N. Kolonel, Jing Ma, Loïc Le Marchand, Valeria Pala, Meir Stampfer, Daniel O. Stram, Michael J. Thun, Anne Tjonneland, Dimitrios Trichopoulos, Jarmo Virtamo, Stephanie J. Weinstein, Walter C. Willett, Meredith Yeager, Richard B. Hayes, Gianluca Severi, Christopher A. Haiman, Stephen J. Chanock and Peter Kraft
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev March 1 2012 (21) (3) 437-444; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-1038
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Grant Support
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Urinary Melatonin in Relation to Breast Cancer Risk
  • Endometrial Cancer and Ovarian Cancer Cross-Cancer GWAS
  • Risk Factors of Subsequent CNS Tumor after Pediatric Cancer
Show more Research Articles
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement