The PROFILE Feasibility Study: Targeted Screening of Men With a Family History of Prostate Cancer

Germline mutations in prostate cancer: a systematic review of the evidence for personalized medicine

BACKGROUND

The goal of precision medicine in prostate cancer (PCa) is to individualize the treatment according to the patient's germline mutation status. PCa has a very high rate of genetic predisposition compared with other cancers in men, with an estimated rate of cancers ascribable to hereditary factors of 5-15%.

METHODS

A systematic search (PubMed, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov) of English literature from 2000 to 2022, using the keywords "prostate cancer", "germline mutations", "family history", and "inheritance" was conducted, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

The search identified 980 publications. Of these, 200 papers were removed before screening (duplicates, non-English literature, and publication year before 2000) and 245 records were excluded after title/abstract screening. Finally, 50 articles were included in the final analysis. We analyze the latest evidence on the genetic basis of PCa predisposition and clinical implications for more personalized screening protocols and therapeutic management of this high-prevalent cancer.

DISCUSSION

Emerging data show that germline mutations in homologous recombination genes (BRCA1/2, ATM, CHECK2), in mismatch repair genes (MLH1, MLH2, MSH6), and other additional genes are associated with the development and aggressiveness of PCa. Germline testing and genetic counseling have increasingly important implications in cancer screening and therapeutic decisions making for patients affected by PCa. Patients with localized PCa and some gene mutations are more likely to develop aggressive cancer, so active treatment may be preferable to active surveillance for these patients. Moreover, in patients with metastatic PCa, these gene alterations may be useful biomarkers for predicting response to specific therapy such as PARP inhibitors, recently approved for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant PCa. The evidence supports recent guidelines and recommendations considering germline genetic testing for patients with a positive family history of PCa or men with high risk or metastatic disease.

Prostate cancer risk in men of differing genetic ancestry and approaches to disease screening and management in these groups

Prostate cancer is the second most common solid tumour in men worldwide and it is also the most common cancer affecting men of African descent. Prostate cancer incidence and mortality vary across regions and populations. Some of this is explained by a large heritable component of this disease. It has been established that men of African and African Caribbean ethnicity are predisposed to prostate cancer (PrCa) that can have an earlier onset and a more aggressive course, thereby leading to poorer outcomes for patients in this group. Literature searches were carried out using the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies associated with PrCa risk and its association with ancestry, screening and management of PrCa. In order to be included, studies were required to be published in English in full-text form. An attractive approach is to identify high-risk groups and develop a targeted screening programme for them as the benefits of population-wide screening in PrCa using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in general population screening have shown evidence of benefit; however, the harms are considered to weigh heavier because screening using PSA testing can lead to over-diagnosis and over-treatment. The aim of targeted screening of higher-risk groups identified by genetic risk stratification is to reduce over-diagnosis and treat those who are most likely to benefit.

The BARCODE1 Pilot: a feasibility study of using germline single nucleotide polymorphisms to target prostate cancer screening

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility and uptake of a community-based prostate cancer (PCa) screening programme selecting men according to their genetic risk of PCa. To assess the uptake of PCa screening investigations by men invited for screening. The uptake of the pilot study would guide the opening of the larger BARCODE1 study recruiting 5000 men.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Healthy males aged 55-69 years were invited to participate via their general practitioners (GPs). Saliva samples were collected via mailed collection kits. After DNA extraction, genotyping was conducted using a study specific assay. Genetic risk was based on genotyping 130 germline PCa risk single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). A polygenic risk score (PRS) was calculated for each participant using the sum of weighted alleles for 130 SNPs. Study participants with a PRS lying above the 90th centile value were invited for PCa screening by prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biopsy.

RESULTS

Invitation letters were sent to 1434 men. The overall study uptake was 26% (375/1436) and 87% of responders were eligible for study entry. DNA genotyping data were available for 297 men and 25 were invited for screening. After exclusions due to medical comorbidity/invitations declined, 18 of 25 men (72%) underwent MRI and biopsy of the prostate. There were seven diagnoses of PCa (38.9%). All cancers were low-risk and were managed with active surveillance.

CONCLUSION

The BARCODE1 Pilot has shown this community study in the UK to be feasible, with an overall uptake of 26%. The main BARCODE1 study is now open and will recruit 5000 men. The results of BARCODE1 will be important in defining the role of genetic profiling in targeted PCa population screening. Patient Summary What is the paper about? Very few prostate cancer screening programmes currently exist anywhere in the world. Our pilot study investigated if men in the UK would find it acceptable to have a genetic test based on a saliva sample to examine their risk of prostate cancer development. This test would guide whether men are offered prostate cancer screening tests. What does it mean for patients? We found that the study design was acceptable: 26% of men invited to take part agreed to have the test. The majority of men who were found to have an increased genetic risk of prostate cancer underwent further tests offered (prostate MRI scan and biopsy). We have now expanded the study to enrol 5000 men. The BARCODE1 study will be important in examining whether this approach could be used for large-scale population prostate cancer screening.

Breast and Prostate Cancer Risks for Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers Using Polygenic Risk Scores

BACKGROUND

Recent population-based female breast cancer and prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed. We assessed the associations of these PRS with breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers.

METHODS

483 BRCA1 and 1318 BRCA2 European ancestry male carriers were available from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). A 147-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) prostate cancer PRS (PRSPC) and a 313-SNP breast cancer PRS were evaluated. There were 3 versions of the breast cancer PRS, optimized to predict overall (PRSBC), estrogen receptor (ER)-negative (PRSER-), or ER-positive (PRSER+) breast cancer risk.

RESULTS

PRSER+ yielded the strongest association with breast cancer risk. The odds ratios (ORs) per PRSER+ standard deviation estimates were 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.07 to 1.83) for BRCA1 and 1.33 (95% CI = 1.16 to 1.52) for BRCA2 carriers. PRSPC was associated with prostate cancer risk for BRCA1 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.33) and BRCA2 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.91) carriers. The estimated breast cancer odds ratios were larger after adjusting for female relative breast cancer family history. By age 85 years, for BRCA2 carriers, the breast cancer risk varied from 7.7% to 18.4% and prostate cancer risk from 34.1% to 87.6% between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS distributions.

CONCLUSIONS

Population-based prostate and female breast cancer PRS are associated with a wide range of absolute breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These findings warrant further investigation aimed at providing personalized cancer risks for male carriers and informing clinical management.

Genetics of prostate cancer and its utility in treatment and screening

Prostate cancer heritability is attributed to a combination of rare, moderate to highly penetrant genetic variants as well as commonly occurring variants conferring modest risks [single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)]. Some of the former type of variants (e.g., BRCA2 mutations) predispose particularly to aggressive prostate cancer and confer poorer prognoses compared to men who do not carry mutations. Molecularly targeted treatments such as PARP inhibitors have improved outcomes in men carrying somatic and/or germline DNA repair gene mutations. Ongoing clinical trials are exploring other molecular targeted approaches based on prostate cancer somatic alterations. Genome wide association studies have identified >250 loci that associate with prostate cancer risk. Multi-ancestry analyses have identified shared as well as population specific risk SNPs. Prostate cancer risk SNPs can be used to estimate a polygenic risk score (PRS) to determine an individual's genetic risk of prostate cancer. The odds ratio of prostate cancer development in men whose PRS lies in the top 1% of the risk profile ranges from 9 to 11. Ongoing studies are investigating the utility of a prostate cancer PRS to target population screening to those at highest risk. With the advent of personalized medicine and development of DNA sequencing technologies, access to clinical genetic testing is increasing, and oncology guidelines from bodies such as NCCN and ESMO have been updated to provide criteria for germline testing of "at risk" healthy men as well as those with prostate cancer. Both germline and somatic prostate cancer research have significantly evolved in the past decade and will lead to further development of precision medicine approaches to prostate cancer treatment as well as potentially developing precision population screening models.

Updates in Prostate Cancer Research and Screening in Men at Genetically Higher Risk

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostate cancer (PrCa) is the most common cancer in men in the western world and is a major source of morbidity and mortality. Currently, general population PrCa screening is not recommended due to the limitations of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. As such, there is increasing interest in identifying and screening higher-risk groups. The only established risk factors for PrCa are age, ethnicity, and having a family history of PrCa. A significant proportion of PrCa cases are caused by genetic factors.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several rare germline variants have been identified that moderately increase risk of PrCa, and targeting screening to these men is proving useful at detecting clinically significant disease. The use of a "polygenic risk score" (PRS) that can calculate a man's personalized risk based on a number of lower-risk, but common genetic variants is the subject of ongoing research. Research efforts are currently focusing on the utility of screening in specific at-risk populations based on ethnicity, such as men of Black Afro-Caribbean descent. Whilst most screening studies have focused on use of PSA testing, the incorporation of additional molecular and genomic biomarkers alongside increasingly sophisticated imaging modalities is being designed to further refine and individualise both the screening and diagnostic pathway. Approximately 10% of men with advanced PrCa have a germline genetic predisposition leading to the opportunity for novel, targeted precision treatments.

SUMMARY

The mainstreaming of genomics into the PrCa screening, diagnostic and treatment pathway will soon become standard practice and this review summarises current knowledge on genetic predisposition to PrCa and screening studies that are using genomics within their algorithms to target screening to higher-risk groups of men. Finally, we evaluate the importance of germline genetics beyond screening and diagnostics, and its role in the identification of lethal PrCa and in the selection of targeted treatments for advanced disease.

Initial Findings from a High Genetic Risk Prostate Cancer Clinic

OBJECTIVE

To improve prostate cancer screening for high-risk men, we developed an early detection clinic for patients at high genetic risk of developing prostate cancer. Despite the rapidly growing understanding of germline variants in driving aggressive prostate cancer and the increased availability of genetic testing, there is little evidence surrounding how best to screen these men.

METHODS

We are reporting on the first 45 patients enrolled, men between the ages of 35-75, primarily with known pathogenic germline variants in prostate cancer susceptibility genes. Screening consists of an intake lifestyle survey, PSA, DRE, and SelectMDx urine assay. A biopsy was recommended for any of the following indications: 1) abnormal DRE, 2) PSA above threshold, or 3) SelectMDx above threshold. The primary outcomes were number needed to screen, and number needed to biopsy to diagnose a patient with prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Patients enrolled in the clinic included those with BRCA1 (n=7), BRCA2 (n=16), Lynch Syndrome (n=6), and CHEK2 (n = 4) known pathogenic germline variants. The median age and PSA were 58 (range 35-71) and 1.4 ng/ml (range 0.1-11.4 ng/ml), respectively. 12 patients underwent a prostate needle biopsy and there were 4positive biopsies for prostate cancer.

CONCLUSION

These early data support the feasibility of opening a dedicated clinic for men at high genetic risk of prostate cancer. This early report on the initial enrollment of our long-term study will help optimize early detection protocols and provide evidence for personalized prostate cancer screening in men with key pathogenic germline variants.

Genetically Informed Prostate Cancer Screening

Prostate cancer represents a significant health care burden in the United States due to its incidence, treatment-related morbidity, and cancer-specific mortality. The burden begins with prostate-specific antigen screening, which has been subject to controversy due to concerns of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Advancements in molecular oncology have provided evidence for the inherited predisposition to prostate cancer, which could improve individualized, risk-adapted approaches to screening and mitigate the harms of routine screening. This review presents the current evidence for the genetic basis of prostate cancer and novel genetically informed, risk-adapted screening strategies for prostate cancer.

Genetic predisposition to prostate cancer: an update

Improvements in DNA sequencing technology and discoveries made by large scale genome-wide association studies have led to enormous insight into the role of genetic variation in prostate cancer risk. High-risk prostate cancer risk predisposition genes exist in addition to common germline variants conferring low-moderate risk, which together account for over a third of familial prostate cancer risk. Identifying men with additional risk factors such as genetic variants or a positive family history is of clinical importance, as men with such risk factors have a higher incidence of prostate cancer with some evidence to suggest diagnosis at a younger age and poorer outcomes. The medical community remains in disagreement on the benefits of a population prostate cancer screening programme reliant on PSA testing. A reduction in mortality has been demonstrated in many studies, but at the cost of significant amounts of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Developing targeted screening strategies for high-risk men is currently the subject of investigation in a number of prospective studies. At present, approximately 38% of the familial risk of PrCa can be explained based on published SNPs, with men in the top 1% of the risk profile having a 5.71-fold increase in risk of developing cancer compared with controls. With approximately 170 prostate cancer susceptibility loci now identified in European populations, there is scope to explore the clinical utility of genetic testing and genetic-risk scores in prostate cancer screening and risk stratification, with such data in non-European populations eagerly awaited. This review will focus on both the rare and common germline genetic variation involved in hereditary and familial prostate cancer, and discuss ongoing research in exploring the role of targeted screening in this high-risk group of men.

Genetic counseling in prostate cancer: How to implement it in daily clinical practice?

Prostate cancer plays an undeniably prominent role in public health in our days and health systems. Its epidemiological impact is quantitatively very close to that of other tumors such as colon cancer and breast cancer, in which genetic counseling is part of their routine clinical practice, both in the initial evaluation and in the selection of therapeutic strategies. Hereditary cancer syndromes, breast/ovarian and Lynch syndrome are part of genetic counseling in these tumors. Currently, we also know that they can be associated to prostate cancer. The time has come to implement genetic counseling in prostate cancer from the earliest stages of its approach, from initial suspicion to the most advanced tumors. We present an updated review carried out by our interdisciplinary working group on scientific literature, clinical practice guidelines and consensus documents, aimed at the creation and drafting of a'Protocol for genetic counseling in prostate cancer' for the study of germline, with easy application in different healthcare settings. This protocol is currently being implemented in our routine practice and provides answers to 3 specific questions: Who should receive genetic counseling for prostate cancer? Which gene panel should be analyzed? How should counseling be done according to the results obtained? Other aspects about who should perform genetic counseling, ethical considerations and regulations are also collected.

Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the UK. Prostate-specific antigen testing followed by biopsy leads to overdetection, overtreatment as well as undertreatment of the disease. Evidence of treatment effectiveness has lacked because of the paucity of randomised controlled trials comparing conventional treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional treatments for localised prostate cancer (active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy) in men aged 50-69 years.

DESIGN

A prospective, multicentre prostate-specific antigen testing programme followed by a randomised trial of treatment, with a comprehensive cohort follow-up.

SETTING

Prostate-specific antigen testing in primary care and treatment in nine urology departments in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Between 2001 and 2009, 228,966 men aged 50-69 years received an invitation to attend an appointment for information about the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study and a prostate-specific antigen test; 82,429 men were tested, 2664 were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer, 1643 agreed to randomisation to active monitoring (n = 545), radical prostatectomy (n = 553) or radical radiotherapy (n = 545) and 997 chose a treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

The interventions were active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy.

TRIAL PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Definite or probable disease-specific mortality at the 10-year median follow-up in randomised participants.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Overall mortality, metastases, disease progression, treatment complications, resource utilisation and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for 17 prostate cancer-specific (p = 0.48) and 169 all-cause (p = 0.87) deaths. Eight men died of prostate cancer in the active monitoring group (1.5 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.0); five died of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy group (0.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.2 per 1000 person years) and four died of prostate cancer in the radical radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.0 per 1000 person years). More men developed metastases in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring, n = 33 (6.3 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 4.5 to 8.8); radical prostatectomy, n = 13 (2.4 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.2 per 1000 person years); and radical radiotherapy, n = 16 (3.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 4.9 per 1000 person-years; p = 0.004). There were higher rates of disease progression in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring (n = 112; 22.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 19.0 to 27.5 per 1000 person years); radical prostatectomy (n = 46; 8.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 11.9 per 1000 person-years); and radical radiotherapy (n = 46; 9.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 12.0 per 1000 person years; p < 0.001). Radical prostatectomy had the greatest impact on sexual function/urinary continence and remained worse than radical radiotherapy and active monitoring. Radical radiotherapy's impact on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but recovered somewhat in the majority of participants. Sexual and urinary function gradually declined in the active monitoring group. Bowel function was worse with radical radiotherapy at 6 months, but it recovered with the exception of bloody stools. Urinary voiding and nocturia worsened in the radical radiotherapy group at 6 months but recovered. Condition-specific quality-of-life effects mirrored functional changes. No differences in anxiety/depression or generic or cancer-related quality of life were found. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that each arm was the most cost-effective option were 58% (radical radiotherapy), 32% (active monitoring) and 10% (radical prostatectomy).

LIMITATIONS

A single prostate-specific antigen test and transrectal ultrasound biopsies were used. There were very few non-white men in the trial. The majority of men had low- and intermediate-risk disease. Longer follow-up is needed.

CONCLUSIONS

At a median follow-up point of 10 years, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low, irrespective of the assigned treatment. Radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy reduced disease progression and metastases, but with side effects. Further work is needed to follow up participants at a median of 15 years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 37. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

The Role of BRCA Testing in Hereditary Pancreatic and Prostate Cancer Families

Beyond breast and ovarian cancers, mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes increase risks for pancreatic and prostate cancers and contribute to the prevalence of these cancers. Mutations in a number of other genes have also been shown to increase the risk for these cancers as well. Genetic testing is playing an increasingly important role in the treatment of patients with pancreatic and prostate cancer and is now recommended for all patients with pancreatic or metastatic prostate cancer, as well as patients with high Gleason grade prostate cancer and a remarkable family history. Identification of an inherited mutation can direct evaluation of the patient for other cancer risks as well as identification and management of disease in at-risk relatives. Growing evidence suggests improved responses to PARP inhibitors and other therapies in patients with mutations in the BRCA and other DNA repair genes. Although more work must be done to clarify the prevalence and penetrance of mutations in genes other than BRCA1 and BRCA2 in patients with pancreatic and prostate cancer, in most cases, testing is now being done with a panel of multiple genes. Because of the complexities in panel testing and the increased likelihood of finding variants of uncertain significance, pre- and post-test genetic counseling are essential.

Structured Population-based Prostate-specific Antigen Screening for Prostate Cancer: The European Association of Urology Position in 2019

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the first three causes of cancer mortality in Europe. Screening in asymptomatic men (aged 55-69yr) using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is associated with a migration toward lower staged disease and a reduction in cancer-specific mortality. By 20yr after testing, around 100 men need to be screened to prevent one PCa death. While this ratio is smaller than for breast and colon cancer, the long natural history of PCa means many men die from other causes. As such, the nonselective use of PSA testing and radical treatments can lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The European Association of Urology (EAU) supports measures to encourage appropriate PCa detection through PSA testing, while reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment. These goals may be achieved using personalized risk-stratified approaches. For diagnosis, the greatest benefit from early detection is likely to come in men assessed using baseline PSA levels at the age of 45yr to individualize screening intervals. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as well as risk calculators based on family history, ethnicity, digital rectal examination, and prostate volume should be considered to triage the need for biopsy, thus reducing the risk of overdiagnosis. For treatment, the EAU advocates balancing patient's life expectancy and cancer's mortality risk when deciding an approach. Active surveillance is encouraged in well-informed patients with low-risk and some intermediate-risk cancers, as it decreases the risks of overtreatment without compromising oncological outcomes. Conversely, the EAU advocates radical treatment in suitable men with more aggressive PCa. Multimodal treatment should be considered in locally advanced or high-grade cancers. PATIENT SUMMARY: Implementation of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening should be considered at a population level. Men at risk of prostate cancer should have a baseline PSA blood test (eg, at 45yr). The level of this test, combined with family history, ethnicity, and other factors, can be used to determine subsequent follow-up. Magnetic resonance imaging scans and novel biomarkers should be used to determine which men need biopsy and how any cancers should be treated.

Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies: reviewing a revolution

Since the inception of rituximab in the 1990s, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies have revolutionised the treatment of B cell hematological malignancies and have become a cornerstone of modern gold-standard practice. Additionally, the potent efficacy of these agents in depleting the B cell compartment has been used in the management of a broad array of autoimmune diseases. Multiple iterations of these agents have been investigated and are routinely used in clinical practice. In this review, we will discuss the physiology of CD20 and its attractiveness as a therapeutic target, as well as the pharmacology, pre-clinical and clinical data for the major anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies: rituximab, obinutuzumab and ofatumumab.

Prostate Cancer Germline Variations and Implications for Screening and Treatment

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a highly heritable disease, and rapid evolution of sequencing technologies has enabled marked progression of our understanding of its genetic inheritance. A complex polygenic model that involves common low-penetrance susceptibility alleles causing individually small but cumulatively significant risk and rarer genetic variants causing greater risk represent the current most accepted model. Through genome-wide association studies, more than 100 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with PCa risk have been identified. Consistent reports have identified germline mutations in the genes BRCA1, BRCA2, MMR, HOXB13, CHEK2, and NBS1 as conferring moderate risks, with some leading to a more aggressive disease behavior. Considering this knowledge, several research strategies have been developed to determine whether targeted prostate screening using genetic information can overcome the limitations of population-based prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. Germline DNA-repair mutations are more frequent in men with metastatic disease than previously thought, and these patients have a more favorable response to therapy with poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Genomic information is a practical tool that has the potential to enable the concept of precision medicine to become a reality in all steps of PCa patient care.

Prostate cancer screening: what can we learn from randomised trials?

In this article, the principle of randomised trials are first described and then prostate cancer screening trials published to date are evaluated based on these principles. A summary of the randomised prostate cancer screening is provided. The conclusion that can be made from the results of the screening trials, as well as limitations of the evidence and open questions are outlined in the end.

Men with a susceptibility to prostate cancer and the role of genetic based screening

Prostate cancer is the second most common malignancy affecting men worldwide, and the commonest affecting men of African descent. Significant diagnostic and therapeutic advances have been made in the past decade. Improvements in the accuracy of prostate cancer diagnosis include the uptake of multi-parametric MRI and a shift towards targeted biopsy. We also now have more life-prolonging systemic and hormonal therapies for men with advanced disease at our disposal than ever before. However, the development of robust screening tools and targeted screening programs has not followed at the same pace. Evidence to support population-based screening remains unclear, with the use of PSA as a screening test limiting our ability to discriminate between clinically significant and insignificant disease. Prostate cancer has a large heritable component. Given that most men without risk factors have a low lifetime risk of developing lethal prostate cancer, much work is being done to further our knowledge of how we can best screen men in higher risk categories, such as those with a family history (FH) of the disease or those of African ancestry. These men have been reported to carry upwards of a two-fold increased risk of developing the disease at an earlier age, with evidence suggesting poorer survival outcomes. In men with a FH of prostate cancer, this is felt to be due to rare, high-penetrance mutations and the presence of multiple, common low penetrance alleles, with men carrying specific germline mutations in the BRCA and other DNA repair genes at particularly high risk. To date, large scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have led to the discovery of approximately 170 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with prostate cancer risk, allowing over 30% of prostate cancer risk to be explained. Genomic tests, utilising somatic (prostate biopsy) tissue can also predict the risk of unfavourable pathology, biochemical recurrence and the likelihood of metastatic disease using gene expression. Targeted screening studies are currently under way in men with DNA repair mutations, men with a FH and those of Afro-Caribbean ethnicity which will greater inform our understanding of disease incidence and behaviour in these men, treatment outcomes and developing the most appropriate screening regime for such men. Incorporating a patient's genetic mutation status into risk algorithms allows us an opportunity to develop targeted screening programs for men in whom early cancer detection and treatment will positively influence survival, and in the process offer male family members of affected men the chance to be counselled and screened accordingly.

Genetic factors influencing prostate cancer risk in Norwegian men

Norway has one of the highest rates of death due to prostate cancer (PCa) in the world. To assess the contribution of both common and rare single nucleotide variants (SNPs) to the prostate cancer burden in Norway, we assessed the frequency of the established prostate cancer susceptibility allele, HOXB13 G84E, as well as a series of validated, common PCa risk SNPs in a Norwegian PCa population of 779 patients. The G84E allele was observed in 2.3% of patients compared to 0.7% of control individuals, OR = 3.8, P = 1 × 10-4. While there was a trend toward an earlier age at diagnosis, overall the clinicopathologic features of PCa were not significantly different in G84E carriers and non-carriers. Evaluation of 32 established common risk alleles revealed significant associations of risk alleles at 13 loci, including SNPs at 8q24, and near TET2, SLC22A3, NKX3-1, CASC8, MYC, DAP2IP, MSMB, HNF1B, PPP1R14A, and KLK2/3. When the data for each SNP are combined into a genetic risk score (GRS), Norwegian men within the top decile of GRS have over 5-fold greater risk to be diagnosed with PCa than men with GRS in the lowest decile. These results indicate that risk alleles of HOXB13 and common variant SNPs are important components of inherited PCa risk in the Norwegian population, although these factors appear to contribute little to the malignancy's aggressiveness.

Prostate cancer screening-when to start and how to screen?

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening reduces prostate cancer (PCa) mortality; however such screening may lead to harm in terms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Therefore, upfront shared decision making involving a discussion about pros and cons between a physician and a patient is crucial. Total PSA remains the most commonly used screening tool and is a strong predictor of future life-threatening PCa. Currently there is no strong consensus on the age at which to start PSA screening. Most guidelines recommend PSA screening to start no later than at age 55 and involve well-informed men in good health and a life expectancy of at least 10–15 years. Some suggest to start screening in early midlife for men with familial predisposition and men of African-American descent. Others suggest starting conversations at age 45 for all men. Re-screening intervals can be risk-stratified as guided by the man’s age, general health and PSA-value; longer intervals for those at lower risk and shorter intervals for those at higher risk. Overdiagnosis and unnecessary biopsies can be reduced using reflex tests. Magnetic resonance imaging in the pre-diagnostic setting holds promise in pilot studies and large-scale prospective studies are ongoing.

PRECISION MANAGEMENT OF LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER

INTRODUCTION

The vast majority of men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer die of other causes, highlighting the importance of determining which patient has a risk of death from prostate cancer. Precision management of prostate cancer patients includes distinguishing which men have potentially lethal disease and employing strategies for determining which treatment modality appropriately balances the desire to achieve a durable response while preventing unnecessary overtreatment.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we highlight precision approaches to risk assessment and a context for the precision-guided application of definitive therapy. We focus on three dilemmas relevant to the diagnosis of localized prostate cancer: screening, the decision to treat, and postoperative management.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

In the last five years, numerous precision tools have emerged with potential benefit to the patient. However, to achieve optimal outcome, the decision to employ one or more of these tests must be considered in the context of prevailing conventional factors. Moreover, performance and interpretation of a molecular or imaging precision test remains practitioner-dependent. The next five years will witness increased marriage of molecular and imaging biomarkers for improved multi-modal diagnosis and discrimination of disease that is aggressive versus truly indolent.