Search

Purpose To determine the demographic, clinical, decision-making, and quality-of-life factors that are associated with treatment decision regret among long-term survivors of localized prostate cancer. Patients and Methods We evaluated men who were age ≤ 75 years when diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between October 1994 and October 1995 in one of six SEER tumor registries and who completed a 15-year follow-up survey. The survey obtained demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical data and measured treatment decision regret, informed decision making, general- and disease-specific quality of life, health worry, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concern, and outlook on life. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify factors associated with regret. Results We surveyed 934 participants, 69.3% of known survivors. Among the cohort, 59.1% had low-risk tumor characteristics (PSA < 10 ng/mL and Gleason score < 7), and 89.2% underwent active treatment. Overall, 14.6% expressed treatment decision regret: 8.2% of those whose disease was managed conservatively, 15.0% of those who received surgery, and 16.6% of those who underwent radiotherapy. Factors associated with regret on multivariable analysis included reporting moderate or big sexual function bother (reported by 39.0%; OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.51 to 5.0), moderate or big bowel function bother (reported by 7.7%; OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.04 to 5.15), and PSA concern (mean score 52.8; OR, 1.01 per point change; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02). Increasing age at diagnosis and report of having made an informed treatment decision were inversely associated with regret. Conclusion Regret was a relatively infrequently reported outcome among long-term survivors of localized prostate cancer; however, our results suggest that better informing men about treatment options, in particular, conservative treatment, might help mitigate long-term regret. These findings are timely for men with low-risk cancers who are being encouraged to consider active surveillance.

// Min A. Jhun 1 , Milan S. Geybels 1, 2 , Jonathan L. Wright 1, 3 , Suzanne Kolb 1 , Craig April 4 , Marina Bibikova 4 , Elaine A. Ostrander 5 , Jian-Bing Fan 4 , Ziding Feng 6 and Janet L. Stanford 1, 7 1 Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA 2 Department of Epidemiology, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands 3 Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA 4 Department of Oncology, Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA 5 Cancer Genetics and Comparative Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA 6 Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA 7 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Correspondence to: Janet L. Stanford, email: jstanfor@fredhutch.org Keywords: gene expression, Gleason score, prostate cancer, recurrence, metastasis Received: February 17, 2017 Accepted: March 30, 2017 Published: April 26, 2017 ABSTRACT Prostate cancer (PCa) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Gleason score (GS) is one of the best predictors of PCa aggressiveness, but additional tumor biomarkers may improve its prognostic accuracy. We developed a gene expression signature of GS to enhance the prediction of PCa outcomes. Elastic net was used to construct a gene expression signature by contrasting GS 8-10 vs. ≤6 tumors in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset. The constructed signature was then evaluated for its ability to predict recurrence and metastatic-lethal (ML) progression in a Fred Hutchinson (FH) patient cohort (N=408; N Recurrence =109; N MLprogression =27). The expression signature included transcripts representing 49 genes. In the FH cohort, a 25% increase in the signature was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.51 (P=2.7×10 −5 ) for recurrence. The signature’s area under the curve (AUC) for predicting recurrence and ML progression was 0.68 and 0.76, respectively. Compared to a model with age at diagnosis, pathological stage and GS, the gene expression signature improved the AUC for recurrence (3%) and ML progression (6%). Higher levels of the signature were associated with increased expression of genes in cell cycle-related pathways and decreased expression of genes in androgen response, estrogen response, oxidative phosphorylation, and apoptosis. This gene expression signature based on GS may improve the prediction of recurrence as well as ML progression in PCa patients after radical prostatectomy.

Urologists have been criticized for overtreating men with low risk prostate cancer and for passively observing older men with higher risk disease. Proponents of active surveillance for low risk disease and critics of watchful waiting for higher risk disease have advocated for more judicious use of observation. Thus, we compared 2 population based cohorts to determine how expectant management has evolved during the last 2 decades.A total of 5,871 men with localized prostate cancer were enrolled in the PCOS (Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study) or the CEASAR (Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation) study. We compared the use of definitive treatment vs expectant management (watchful waiting or active surveillance) across cohorts, focusing on the influence of disease risk, age and comorbidities.Use of watchful waiting or active surveillance was similar in PCOS and CEASAR (14% in each). Compared to the PCOS, more men in the CEASAR study with low risk disease selected watchful waiting or active surveillance (25% vs 15%, respectively), whereas fewer men with intermediate (7% vs 14%) and high risk (3% vs 10%) disease chose watchful waiting or active surveillance (p0.001 for each). The association of disease risk with watchful waiting or active surveillance was significantly larger in CEASAR than in PCOS (OR 7.3, 95% CI 3.4 to 15.7). Older age was associated with watchful waiting or active surveillance in both cohorts but there was no association between comorbidity and watchful waiting or active surveillance in the CEASAR study.Use of watchful waiting or active surveillance was more aligned with disease risk in CEASAR compared to PCOS, suggesting there has been a pivot from watchful waiting to active surveillance. While older men were more likely to be observed, comorbidity had little, if any, influence.

Next-generation sequencing technologies have afforded unprecedented characterization of low-frequency and rare genetic variation. Due to low power for single-variant testing, aggregative methods are commonly used to combine observed rare variation within a single gene. Causal variation may also aggregate across multiple genes within relevant biomolecular pathways. Kernel-machine regression and adaptive testing methods for aggregative rare-variant association testing have been demonstrated to be powerful approaches for pathway-level analysis, although these methods tend to be computationally intensive at high-variant dimensionality and require access to complete data. An additional analytical issue in scans of large pathway definition sets is multiple testing correction. Gene set definitions may exhibit substantial genic overlap, and the impact of the resultant correlation in test statistics on Type I error rate control for large agnostic gene set scans has not been fully explored. Herein, we first outline a statistical strategy for aggregative rare-variant analysis using component gene-level linear kernel score test summary statistics as well as derive simple estimators of the effective number of tests for family-wise error rate control. We then conduct extensive simulation studies to characterize the behavior of our approach relative to direct application of kernel and adaptive methods under a variety of conditions. We also apply our method to two case-control studies, respectively, evaluating rare variation in hereditary prostate cancer and schizophrenia. Finally, we provide open-source R code for public use to facilitate easy application of our methods to existing rare-variant analysis results.

ObjectivesA polygenic hazard score (PHS1)—weighted sum of 54 single-nucleotide polymorphism genotypes—was previously associated with age at prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis and improved PCa screening accuracy in Europeans. Performance in more diverse populations is unknown. We evaluated PHS association with PCa in multi-ethnic populations.DesignPHS1 was adapted for compatibility with genotype data from the OncoArray project (PHS2) and tested for association with age at PCa diagnosis, at aggressive PCa diagnosis, and at PCa death.SettingMultiple international institutions.ParticipantsMen with available OncoArray data from the PRACTICAL consortium who were not included in PHS1 development/validation.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPHS2 was tested via Cox proportional hazards models for age at PCa diagnosis, age at aggressive PCa diagnosis (any of: Gleason score ≥7, stage T3-T4, PSA≥10 ng/mL, nodal/distant metastasis), and age at PCa-specific death.Results80,491 men of various self-reported race/ethnicities were included (30,575 controls, 49,916 PCa cases; genetic ancestry groups: 71,856 European, 6,253 African, 2,382 Asian). Median age at last follow-up was 70 years (IQR 63-76); 3,983 PCa deaths, 5,806 other deaths, 70,702 still alive. PHS2 had 46 polymorphisms: 24 directly genotyped and 22 acceptable proxies (r2 ≥0.94). PHS2 was associated with age at PCa diagnosis in the multi-ethnic dataset (z=54, p-16) and in each genetic ancestry group: European (z=56, p-16), Asian (z=47, p-16), African (z=29, p-16). PHS2 was also associated with age at aggressive PCa diagnosis in each genetic ancestry group (p-16) and with age of PCa death in the full dataset (p-16). Comparing the 80th and 20th percentiles of genetic risk, men with high PHS had hazard ratios of 5.3 [95% CI: 5.0-5.7], 5.9 [5.5-6.3], and 5.7 [4.6-7.0] for PCa, aggressive PCa, and PCa-specific death, respectively. Within European, Asian, and African ancestries, analogous hazard ratios for PCa were 5.5 [5.2-5.9], 4.5 [3.2-6.3], and 2.5 [2.1-3.1], respectively.ConclusionsPHS2 is strongly associated with age at PCa diagnosis in a multi-ethnic dataset. PHS2 stratifies men of European, Asian, and African ancestry by genetic risk for any, aggressive, and fatal PCa.Summary boxesWhat is already known on this topicGenetic risk stratification can identify men with greater predisposition for developing prostate cancer, but these risk models may worsen health disparities, as most have only been validated for men of European ancestryA polygenic hazard score was previously associated with age at prostate cancer diagnosis and improved PCa screening accuracy in EuropeansPerformance of the polygenic hazard score in multi-ethnic populations is unknownWhat this study addsIn a dataset from 80,491 men of various self-reported race/ethnicities, the polygenic hazard score was associated with age at prostate cancer diagnosis, aggressive prostate cancer diagnosis, and prostate cancer death.PHS stratifies men of European, Asian, and African ancestry by genetic risk for any, aggressive, and fatal prostate cancer.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Publisher's version (útgefin grein)., Quantifying the genetic correlation between cancers can provide important insights into the mechanisms driving cancer etiology. Using genome-wide association study summary statistics across six cancer types based on a total of 296,215 cases and 301,319 controls of European ancestry, here we estimate the pair-wise genetic correlations between breast, colorectal, head/neck, lung, ovary and prostate cancer, and between cancers and 38 other diseases. We observed statistically significant genetic correlations between lung and head/neck cancer (rg = 0.57, p = 4.6 × 10−8), breast and ovarian cancer (rg = 0.24, p = 7 × 10−5), breast and lung cancer (rg = 0.18, p =1.5 × 10−6) and breast and colorectal cancer (rg = 0.15, p = 1.1 × 10−4). We also found that multiple cancers are genetically correlated with non-cancer traits including smoking, psychiatric diseases and metabolic characteristics. Functional enrichment analysis revealed a significant excess contribution of conserved and regulatory regions to cancer heritability. Our comprehensive analysis of cross-cancer heritability suggests that solid tumors arising across tissues share in part a common germline genetic basis., The authors in this manuscript were working on behalf of BCAC, CCFR, CIMBA, CORECT, GECCO, OCAC, PRACTICAL, CRUK, BPC3, CAPS, PEGASUS, TRICL-ILCCO, ABCTB, APCB, BCFR, CONSIT TEAM, EMBRACE, GC-HBOC, GEMO, HEBON, kConFab/AOCS Mod SQuaD, and SWE-BRCA. The breast cancer genome-wide association analyses: BCAC is funded by Cancer Research UK [C1287/A16563, C1287/A10118], the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant numbers 634935 and 633784 for BRIDGES and B-CAST, respectively), and by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement number 223175 (grant number HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS). The EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme funding source had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. Genotyping of the OncoArray was funded by the NIH Grant U19 CA148065, and Cancer UK Grant C1287/A16563 and the PERSPECTIVE project supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant GPH-129344) and, the Ministère de l’Économie, Science et Innovation du Québec through Genome Québec and the PSR-SIIRI-701 grant, and the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation. Funding for the iCOGS infrastructure came from: the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/A16565), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978), and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065, and 1U19 CA148112—the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer, and Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. The DRIVE Consortium was funded by U19 CA148065. The Australian Breast Cancer Family Study (ABCFS) was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (USA). The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the USA Government or the BCFR. The ABCFS was also supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the New South Wales Cancer Council, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (Australia), and the Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium. J.L.H. is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Principal Research Fellow. M.C.S. is a NHMRC Senior Research Fellow. The ABCS study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society [grants NKI 2007-3839; 2009 4363]. The Australian Breast Cancer Tissue Bank (ABCTB) is generously supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, The Cancer Institute NSW and the National Breast Cancer Foundation. The ACP study is funded by the Breast Cancer Research Trust, UK. The AHS study is supported by the intramural research program of the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute (grant number Z01-CP010119), and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (grant number Z01-ES049030). The work of the BBCC was partly funded by ELAN-Fond of the University Hospital of Erlangen. The BBCS is funded by Cancer Research UK and Breast Cancer Now and acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN). The BCEES was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia and the Cancer Council Western Australia and acknowledges funding from the National Breast Cancer Foundation (JS). For the BCFR-NY, BCFR-PA, and BCFR-UT this work was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government or the BCFR. For BIGGS, ES is supported by NIHR Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Guy’s & St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King’s College London, United Kingdom. IT is supported by the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. BOCS is supported by funds from Cancer Research UK (C8620/A8372/A15106) and the Institute of Cancer Research (UK). BOCS acknowledges NHS funding to the Royal Marsden/Institute of Cancer Research NIHR Specialist Cancer Biomedical Research Centre. The BREast Oncology GAlician Network (BREOGAN) is funded by Acción Estratégica de Salud del Instituto de Salud Carlos III FIS PI12/02125/Cofinanciado FEDER; Acción Estratégica de Salud del Instituto de Salud Carlos III FIS Intrasalud (PI13/01136); Programa Grupos Emergentes, Cancer Genetics Unit, Instituto de Investigacion Biomedica Galicia Sur. Xerencia de Xestion Integrada de Vigo-SERGAS, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain; Grant 10CSA012E, Consellería de Industria Programa Sectorial de Investigación Aplicada, PEME I + D e I + D Suma del Plan Gallego de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica de la Consellería de Industria de la Xunta de Galicia, Spain; Grant EC11-192. Fomento de la Investigación Clínica Independiente, Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad, Spain; and Grant FEDER-Innterconecta. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, Xunta de Galicia, Spain. The BSUCH study was supported by the Dietmar-Hopp Foundation, the Helmholtz Society and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). The CAMA study was funded by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT) (SALUD-2002-C01-7462). Sample collection and processing was funded in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute (NCI R01CA120120 and K24CA169004). CBCS is funded by the Canadian Cancer Society (grant # 313404) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CCGP is supported by funding from the University of Crete. The CECILE study was supported by Fondation de France, Institut National du Cancer (INCa), Ligue Nationale contre le Cancer, Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire, de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail (ANSES), Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR). The CGPS was supported by the Chief Physician Johan Boserup and Lise Boserup Fund, the Danish Medical Research Council, and Herlev and Gentofte Hospital. The CNIO-BCS was supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Cáncer and grants from the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer and the Fondo de Investigación Sanitario (PI11/00923 and PI12/00070). COLBCCC is supported by the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. D.T. was in part supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. The American Cancer Society funds the creation, maintenance, and updating of the CPS-II cohort. The CTS was initially supported by the California Breast Cancer Act of 1993 and the California Breast Cancer Research Fund (contract 97-10500) and is currently funded through the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA77398, UM1 CA164917, and U01 CA199277). Collection of cancer incidence data was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885. H.A.C eceives support from the Lon V Smith Foundation (LVS39420). The University of Westminster curates the DietCompLyf database funded by Against Breast Cancer Registered Charity No. 1121258 and the NCRN. The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by: Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) (France); German Cancer Aid, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Germany); the Hellenic Health Foundation, the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (Greece); Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC-Italy and National Research Council (Italy); Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Health Research Fund (FIS), PI13/00061 to Granada, PI13/01162 to EPIC-Murcia, Regional Governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, ISCIII RETIC (RD06/0020) (Spain); Cancer Research UK (14136 to EPIC-Norfolk; C570/A16491 and C8221/A19170 to EPIC-Oxford), Medical Research Council (1000143 to EPIC-Norfolk, MR/M012190/1 to EPIC-Oxford) (United Kingdom). The ESTHER study was supported by a grant from the Baden Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts. Additional cases were recruited in the context of the VERDI study, which was supported by a grant from the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe). FHRISK is funded from NIHR grant PGfAR 0707-10031. The GC-HBOC (German Consortium of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer) is supported by the German Cancer Aid (grant no 110837, coordinator: Rita K. Schmutzler, Cologne). This work was also funded by the European Regional Development Fund and Free State of Saxony, Germany (LIFE - Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases, project numbers 713-241202, 713-241202, 14505/2470, and 14575/2470). The GENICA was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany grants 01KW9975/5, 01KW9976/8, 01KW9977/0, and 01KW0114, the Robert Bosch Foundation, Stuttgart, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, the Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum (IPA), Bochum, as well as the Department of Internal Medicine, Evangelische Kliniken Bonn gGmbH, Johanniter Krankenhaus, Bonn, Germany. The GEPARSIXTO study was conducted by the German Breast Group GmbH. The GESBC was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e. V. [70492] and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). GLACIER was supported by Breast Cancer Now, CRUK and Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The HABCS study was supported by the Claudia von Schilling Foundation for Breast Cancer Research, by the Lower Saxonian Cancer Society, and by the Rudolf-Bartling Foundation. The HEBCS was financially supported by the Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (266528), the Finnish Cancer Society, and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. The HERPACC was supported by MEXT Kakenhi (No. 170150181 and 26253041) from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, Culture and Technology of Japan, by a Grant-in-Aid for the Third Term Comprehensive 10-Year Strategy for Cancer Control from Ministry Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, by Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants for Research on Applying Health Technology from Ministry Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, by National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, and “Practical Research for Innovative Cancer Control (15ck0106177h0001)” from Japan Agency for Medical Research and development, AMED, and Cancer Bio Bank Aichi. The HMBCS was supported by a grant from the Friends of Hannover Medical School and by the Rudolf Bartling Foundation. The HUBCS was supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education (RUS08/017), and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations for support the Bioresource collections and RFBR grants 14-04-97088, 17-29-06014, and 17-44-020498. ICICLE was supported by Breast Cancer Now, CRUK, and Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. Financial support for KARBAC was provided through the regional agreement on medical training and clinical research (A.L.F.) between Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet, the Swedish Cancer Society, The Gustav V Jubilee foundation and Bert von Kantzows foundation. The KARMA study was supported by Märit and Hans Rausings Initiative Against Breast Cancer. The KBCP was financially supported by the special Government Funding (E.V.O.) of Kuopio University Hospital grants, Cancer Fund of North Savo, the Finnish Cancer Organizations, and by the strategic funding of the University of Eastern Finland. kConFab is supported by a grant from the National Breast Cancer Foundation, and previously by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. Financial support for the AOCS was provided by the United States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command [DAMD17-01-1-0729], Cancer Council Victoria, Queensland Cancer Fund, Cancer Council New South Wales, Cancer Council South Australia, The Cancer Foundation of Western Australia, Cancer Council Tasmania and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC; 400413, 400281, 199600). G.C.-T. and P.W. are supported by the NHMRC. RB was a Cancer Institute NSW Clinical Research Fellow. The KOHBRA study was partially supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI16C1127; 1020350; 1420190). LAABC is supported by grants (1RB-0287, 3PB-0102, 5PB-0018, 10PB-0098) from the California Breast Cancer Research Program. Incident breast cancer cases were collected by the USC Cancer Surveillance Program (CSP) which is supported under subcontract by the California Department of Health. The CSP is also part of the National Cancer Institute’s Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, under contract number N01CN25403. L.M.B.C. is supported by the ‘Stichting tegen Kanker’. D.L. is supported by the FWO. The MABCS study is funded by the Research Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology “Georgi D. Efremov” and supported by the German Academic Exchange Program, DAAD. The MARIE study was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V. [70-2892-BR I, 106332, 108253, 108419, 110826, 110828], the Hamburg Cancer Society, the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany [01KH0402]. MBCSG is supported by grants from the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC) and by funds from the Italian citizens who allocated the 5/1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects “5 × 1000”). The MCBCS was supported by the NIH grants CA192393, CA116167, CA176785 an NIH Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer [CA116201], and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation. MCCS cohort recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria. The MCCS was further supported by Australian NHMRC grants 209057 and 396414, and by infrastructure provided by Cancer Council Victoria. Cases and their vital status were ascertained through the Victorian Cancer Registry (VCR) and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), including the National Death Index and the Australian Cancer Database. The MEC was support by NIH grants CA63464, CA54281, CA098758, CA132839, and CA164973. The MISS study is supported by funding from ERC-2011-294576 Advanced grant, Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council, Local hospital funds, Berta Kamprad Foundation, Gunnar Nilsson. The MMHS study was supported by NIH grants CA97396, CA128931, CA116201, CA140286, and CA177150. MSKCC is supported by grants from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Initiative. The work of MTLGEBCS was supported by the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program – grant # CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade – grant # PSR-SIIRI-701. MYBRCA is funded by research grants from the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Malaysia. MYMAMMO is supported by research grants from Yayasan Sime Darby LPGA Tournament and Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (RP046B-15HTM). The NBCS has been supported by the Research Council of Norway grant 193387/V50 (to A.-L. Børresen-Dale and V.N. Kristensen) and grant 193387/H10 (to A.-L. Børresen-Dale and V.N. Kristensen), South Eastern Norway Health Authority (grant 39346 to A.-L. Børresen-Dale and 27208 to V.N. Kristensen) and the Norwegian Cancer Society (to A.-L. Børresen-Dale and 419616 - 71248 - PR-2006-0282 to V.N. Kristensen). It has received funding from the K.G. Jebsen Centre for Breast Cancer Research (2012-2015). The NBHS was supported by NIH grant R01CA100374. Biological sample preparation was conducted the Survey and Biospecimen Shared Resource, which is supported by P30 CA68485. The Northern California Breast Cancer Family Registry (NC-BCFR) and Ontario Familial Breast Cancer Registry (OFBCR) were supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (USA). The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the USA Government or the BCFR. The Carolina Breast Cancer Study was funded by Komen Foundation, the National Cancer Institute (P50 CA058223, U54 CA156733, and U01 CA179715), and the North Carolina University Cancer Research Fund. The NGOBCS was supported by Grants-in-Aid for the Third Term Comprehensive Ten-Year Strategy for Cancer Control from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan, and for Scientific Research on Priority Areas, 17015049 and for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas, 221S0001, from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan. The NHS was supported by NIH grants P01 CA87969, UM1 CA186107, and U19 CA148065. The NHS2 was supported by NIH grants UM1 CA176726 and U19 CA148065. The OBCS was supported by research grants from the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Academy of Finland (grant number 250083, 122715 and Center of Excellence grant number 251314), the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, the University of Oulu, the University of Oulu Support Foundation, and the special Governmental EVO funds for Oulu University Hospital-based research activities. The ORIGO study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society (RUL 1997-1505) and the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI-NL CP16). The PBCS was funded by Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. Genotyping for PLCO was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, NCI, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics. The PLCO is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and supported by contracts from the Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. The POSH study is funded by Cancer Research UK (grants C1275/A11699, C1275/C22524, C1275/A19187, C1275/A15956, and Breast Cancer Campaign 2010PR62, 2013PR044. PROCAS is funded from NIHR grant PGfAR 0707-10031. The RBCS was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society (DDHK 2004-3124, DDHK 2009-4318). The SASBAC study was supported by funding from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research of Singapore (A*STAR), the US National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. The SBCGS was supported primarily by NIH grants R01CA64277, R01CA148667, UMCA182910, and R37CA70867. Biological sample preparation was conducted the Survey and Biospecimen Shared Resource, which is supported by P30 CA68485. The scientific development and funding of this project were, in part, supported by the Genetic Associations and Mechanisms in Oncology (GAME-ON) Network U19 CA148065. The SBCS was supported by Sheffield Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre and Breast Cancer Now Tissue Bank. The SCCS is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA092447). Data on SCCS cancer cases used in this publication were provided by the Alabama Statewide Cancer Registry; Kentucky Cancer Registry, Lexington, KY; Tennessee Department of Health, Office of Cancer Surveillance; Florida Cancer Data System; North Carolina Central Cancer Registry, North Carolina Division of Public Health; Georgia Comprehensive Cancer Registry; Louisiana Tumor Registry; Mississippi Cancer Registry; South Carolina Central Cancer Registry; Virginia Department of Health, Virginia Cancer Registry; Arkansas Department of Health, Cancer Registry, 4815 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72205. The Arkansas Central Cancer Registry is fully funded by a grant from National Program of Cancer Registries, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Data on SCCS cancer cases from Mississippi were collected by the Mississippi Cancer Registry which participates in the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC or the Mississippi Cancer Registry. SEARCH is funded by Cancer Research UK [C490/A10124, C490/A16561] and supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. The University of Cambridge has received salary support for PDPP from the NHS in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserve. SEBCS was supported by the BRL (Basic Research Laboratory) program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2012-0000347). SGBCC is funded by the NUS start-up Grant, National University Cancer Institute Singapore (NCIS) Centre Grant and the NMRC Clinician Scientist Award. Additional controls were recruited by the Singapore Consortium of Cohort Studies-Multi-ethnic cohort (SCCS-MEC), which was funded by the Biomedical Research Council, grant number: 05/1/21/19/425. The Sister Study (SISTER) is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01-ES044005 and Z01-ES049033). The Two Sister Study (2SISTER) was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01-ES044005 and Z01-ES102245), and, also by a grant from Susan G. Komen for the Cure, grant FAS0703856. SKKDKFZS is supported by the DKFZ. The SMC is funded by the Swedish Cancer Foundation. The SZBCS was supported by Grant PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. The TBCS was funded by The National Cancer Institute, Thailand. The TNBCC was supported by a Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation. The TWBCS is supported by the Taiwan Biobank project of the Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Academia Sinica, Taiwan. The UCIBCS component of this research was supported by the NIH [CA58860, CA92044] and the Lon V Smith Foundation [LVS39420]. The UKBGS is funded by Breast Cancer Now and the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), London. ICR acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. The UKOPS study was funded by The Eve Appeal (The Oak Foundation) and supported by the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. The US3SS study was supported by Massachusetts (K.M.E., R01CA47305), Wisconsin (P.A.N., R01 CA47147) and New Hampshire (L.T.-E., R01CA69664) centers, and Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. The USRT Study was funded by Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. The WAABCS study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA89085 and P50 CA125183 and the D43 TW009112 grant), Susan G. Komen (SAC110026), the Dr. Ralph and Marian Falk Medical Research Trust, and the Avon Foundation for Women. The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the US National Institutes of Health and the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHSN268201100046C, HHSN268201100001C, HHSN268201100002C, HHSN268201100003C, HHSN268201100004C, and HHSN271201100004C). This work was also funded by NCI U19 CA148065-01. D.G.E. is supported by the all Manchester NIHR Biomedical research center Manchester (IS-BRC-1215-20007). HUNBOCS, Hungarian Breast and Ovarian Cancer Study was supported by Hungarian Research Grant KTIA-OTKA CK-80745, NKFI_OTKA K-112228. C.I. received support from the Nontherapeutic Subject Registry Shared Resource at Georgetown University (NIH/NCI P30-CA-51008) and the Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research. K.M. is supported by CRUK C18281/A19169. City of Hope Clinical Cancer Community Research Network and the Hereditary Cancer Research Registry, supported in part by Award Number RC4CA153828 (PI: J Weitzel) from the National Cancer Institute and the office of the Directory, National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The colorectal cancer genome-wide association analyses: Colorectal Transdisciplinary Study (CORECT): The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the CORECT Consortium, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government or the CORECT Consortium. We are incredibly grateful for the contributions of Dr. Brian Henderson and Dr. Roger Green over the course of this study and acknowledge them in memoriam. We are also grateful for support from Daniel and Maryann Fong. ColoCare: we thank the many investigators and staff who made this research possible in ColoCare Seattle and ColoCare Heidelberg. ColoCare was initiated and developed at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center by Drs. Ulrich and Grady. CCFR: the Colon CFR graciously thanks the generous contributions of their study participants, dedication of study staff, and financial support from the U.S. National Cancer Institute, without which this important registry would not exist. Galeon: GALEON wishes to thank the Department of Surgery of University Hospital of Santiago (CHUS), Sara Miranda Ponte, Carmen M Redondo, and the staff of the Department of Pathology and Biobank of CHUS, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago (IDIS), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Galicia Sur (IISGS), SERGAS, Vigo, Spain, and Programa Grupos Emergentes, Cancer Genetics Unit, CHUVI Vigo Hospital, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain. MCCS: this study was made possible by the contribution of many people, including the original investigators and the diligent team who recruited participants and continue to work on follow-up. We would also like to express our gratitude to the many thousands of Melbourne residents who took part in the study and provided blood samples. SEARCH: We acknowledge the contributions of Mitul Shah, Val Rhenius, Sue Irvine, Craig Luccarini, Patricia Harrington, Don Conroy, Rebecca Mayes, and Caroline Baynes. The Swedish low-risk colorectal cancer study: we thank Berith Wejderot and the Swedish low-risk colorectal cancer study group. Genetics & Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO): we thank all those at the GECCO Coordinating Center for helping bring together the data and people that made this project possible. ASTERISK: we are very grateful to Dr. Bruno Buecher without whom this project would not have existed. We also thank all those who agreed to participate in this study, including the patients and the healthy control persons, as well as all the physicians, technicians and students. DACHS: we thank all participants and cooperating clinicians, and Ute Handte-Daub, Renate Hettler-Jensen, Utz Benscheid, Muhabbet Celik, and Ursula Eilber for excellent technical assistance. HPFS, NHS and PHS: we acknowledge Patrice Soule and Hardeep Ranu of the Dana-Farber Harvard Cancer Center High-Throughput Polymorphism Core who assisted in the genotyping for NHS, HPFS, and PHS under the supervision of Dr. Immaculata Devivo and Dr. David Hunter, Qin (Carolyn) Guo, and Lixue Zhu who assisted in programming for NHS and HPFS and Haiyan Zhang who assisted in programming for the PHS. We thank the participants and staff of the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, for their valuable contributions as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: A.L., A.Z., A.R., C.A., C.O., C.T., D.E., F.L., G.A., I.D., I.L., I.N., I.A., K.Y., L.A., M.E., M.D., M.A., M.I., N.E., N.H., N.J., N.Y., N.C., N.D., O.H., O.K., O.R., P.A., R.I., S.C., T.N., T.X., V.A., W.A., W.Y. In addition, this study was approved by the Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH) Human Investigations Committee. Certain data used in this publication were obtained from the DPH. We assume full responsibility for analyses and interpretation of these data. PLCO: we thank Drs. Christine Berg and Philip Prorok, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, the Screening Center investigators and staff or the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial, Mr. Tom Riley and staff, Information Management Services Inc., Ms. Barbara O’Brien and staff, Westat Inc. and Drs. Bill Kopp, Wen Shao and staff, SAIC-Frederick. Most importantly, we acknowledge the study participants for their contributions for making this study possible. The statements contained herein are solely those of the authors and do not represent or imply concurrence or endorsement by NCI. PMH: we thank the study participants and staff of the Hormones and Colon Cancer study. WHI: we thank the WHI investigators and staff for their dedication, and the study participants for making the program possible. A full listing of WHI investigators can be found at https://cleo.whi.org/researchers/Documents%20%20Write%20a%20Paper/WHI%20Investigator%20Short20List.pdf. CORECT: The CORECT Study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NCI/NIH), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (grant numbers U19 CA148107, R01 CA81488, P30 CA014089, R01 CA197350; P01 CA196569; and R01 CA201407) and National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health (grant number T32 ES013678). The ATBC Study was supported by the US Public Health Service contracts (N01-CN-45165, N01-RC-45035, N01-RC-37004, and HHSN261201000006C) from the National Cancer Institute. The Cancer Prevention Study-II Nutrition Cohort is funded by the American Cancer Society. ColoCare: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (grant numbers R01 CA189184, U01 CA206110, 2P30CA015704-40 (Gilliland)), the Matthias Lackas-Foundation, the German Consortium for Translational Cancer Research, and the EU TRANSCAN initiative. Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO): funding for GECCO was provided by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (grant numbers U01 CA137088, R01 CA059045, and U01 CA164930). This research was funded in part through the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA015704. The Colon Cancer Family Registry (CFR) Illumina GWAS was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (grant numbers U01 CA122839, R01 CA143247). The Colon CFR/CORECT Affymetrix Axiom GWAS and OncoArray GWAS were supported by funding from National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (grant number U19 CA148107 to S.G.). The Colon CFR participant recruitment and collection of data and biospecimens used in this study were supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (grant number UM1 CA167551) and through cooperative agreements with the following Colon CFR centers: Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (NCI/NIH grant numbers U01 CA074778 and U01/U24 CA097735), USC Consortium Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (NCI/NIH grant numbers U01/U24 CA074799), Mayo Clinic Cooperative Family Registry for Colon Cancer Studies (NCI/NIH grant number U01/U24 CA074800), Ontario Familial Colorectal Cancer Registry (NCI/NIH grant number U01/U24 CA074783), Seattle Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (NCI/NIH grant number U01/U24 CA074794), and University of Hawaii Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (NCI/NIH grant number U01/U24 CA074806), Additional support for case ascertainment was provided from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute to Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (Control Nos. N01-CN-67009 and N01-PC-35142, and Contract No. HHSN2612013000121), the Hawai’i Department of Health (Control Nos. N01-PC-67001 and N01-PC-35137, and Contract No. HHSN26120100037C, and the California Department of Public Health (contracts HHSN261201000035C awarded to the University of Southern California, and the following state cancer registries: A.Z., C.O., M.N., N.C., N.H., and by the Victoria Cancer Registry and Ontario Cancer Registry. ESTHER/VERDI was supported by grants from the Baden–Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts and the German Cancer Aid. MCCS cohort recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria. GALEON: FIS Intrasalud (PI13/01136). The MCCS was further supported by Australian NHMRC grants 509348, 209057, 251553, and 504711 and by infrastructure provided by Cancer Council Victoria. Cases and their vital status were ascertained through the Victorian Cancer Registry (VCR) and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), including the National Death Index and the Australian Cancer Database. MSKCC: the work at Sloan Kettering in New York was supported by the Robert and Kate Niehaus Center for Inherited Cancer Genomics and the Romeo Milio Foundation. Moffitt: This work was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health (grant numbers R01 CA189184, P30 CA076292), Florida Department of Health Bankhead-Coley Grant 09BN-13, and the University of South Florida Oehler Foundation. Moffitt contributions were supported in part by the Total Cancer Care Initiative, Collaborative Data Services Core, and Tissue Core at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (grant number P30 CA076292). SEARCH: Cancer Research UK (C490/A16561). The Spanish study was supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, co-funded by FEDER funds –a way to build Europe– (grants PI14-613 and PI09-1286), Catalan Government DURSI (grant 2014SGR647), and Junta de Castilla y León (grant LE22A10-2). The Swedish Low-risk Colorectal Cancer Study: the study was supported by grants from the Swedish research council; K2015-55 × -22674-01-4, K2008-55 × -20157-03-3, K2006-72 × -20157-01-2 and the Stockholm County Council (ALF project). CIDR genotyping for the Oncoarray was conducted under contract 268201200008I (to K.D.), through grant 101HG007491-01 (to C.I.A.). The Norris Cotton Cancer Center - P30CA023108, The Quantitative Biology Research Institute - P20GM103534, and the Coordinating Center for Screen Detected Lesions - U01CA196386 also supported efforts of C.I.A. This work was also supported by the National Cancer Institute (grant numbers U01 CA1817700, R01 CA144040). ASTERISK: a Hospital Clinical Research Program (PHRC) and supported by the Regional Council of Pays de la Loire, the Groupement des Entreprises Françaises dans la Lutte contre le Cancer (GEFLUC), the Association Anne de Bretagne Génétique and the Ligue Régionale Contre le Cancer (LRCC). COLO2&3: National Institutes of Health (grant number R01 CA060987). DACHS: This work was supported by the German Research Council (BR 1704/6-1, BR 1704/6-3, BR 1704/6-4, CH 117/1-1, HO 5117/2-1, HE 5998/2-1, KL 2354/3-1, RO 2270/8-1, and BR 1704/17-1), the Interdisciplinary Research Program of the National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Germany, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01KH0404, 01ER0814, 01ER0815, 01ER1505A, and 01ER1505B). DALS: National Institutes of Health (grant number R01 CA048998 to M.L.S). HPFS is supported by National Institutes of Health (grant numbers P01 CA055075, UM1 CA167552, R01 137178, and P50 CA127003), NHS by the National Institutes of Health (grant numbers UM1 CA186107, R01 CA137178, P01 CA087969, and P50 CA127003), NHSII by the National Institutes of Health (grant numbers R01 050385CA and UM1 CA176726), and PHS by the National Institutes of Health (grant number R01 CA042182). MEC: National Institutes of Health (grant numbers R37 CA054281, P01 CA033619, and R01 CA063464). OFCCR: National Institutes of Health, through funding allocated to the Ontario Registry for Studies of Familial Colorectal Cancer (grant number U01 CA074783); see Colon CFR section above. As subset of ARCTIC, OFCCR is supported by a GL2 grant from the Ontario Research Fund, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Cancer Risk Evaluation (CaRE) Program grant from the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute. T.J.H. and B.W.Z. are recipients of Senior Investigator Awards from the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, through generous support from the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation. PLCO: Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and supported by contracts from the Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS. Additionally, a subset of control samples was genotyped as part of the Cancer Genetic Markers of Susceptibility (CGEMS) Prostate Cancer GWAS, Colon CGEMS pancreatic cancer scan (PanScan), and the Lung Cancer and Smoking study. The prostate and PanScan study datasets were accessed with appropriate approval through the dbGaP online resource (http://cgems.cancer.gov/data/) accession numbers phs000207.v1.p1 and phs000206.v3.p2, respectively, and the lung datasets were accessed from the dbGaP website (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap) through accession number phs000093.v2.p2. Funding for the Lung Cancer and Smoking study was provided by National Institutes of Health (NIH), Genes, Environment and Health Initiative (GEI) Z01 CP 010200, NIH U01 HG004446, and NIH GEI U01 HG 004438. For the lung study, the GENEVA Coordinating Center provided assistance with genotype cleaning and general study coordination, 23 and the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research conducted genotyping. PMH: National Institutes of Health (grant number R01 CA076366). VITAL: National Institutes of Health (grant number K05-CA154337). WHI: The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through contracts HHSN268201600018C, HHSN268201600001C, HHSN268201600002C, HHSN268201600003C, and HHSN268201600004C. The head and neck cancer genome-wide association analyses: The study was supported by NIH/NCI: P50 CA097190, and P30 CA047904, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (no. 020214) and Cancer Care Ontario Research Chair to R.H. The Princess Margaret Hospital Head and Neck Cancer Translational Research Program is funded by the Wharton family, Joe’s Team, Gordon Tozer, Bruce Galloway and the Elia family. Geoffrey Liu was supported by the Posluns Family Fund and the Lusi Wong Family Fund at the Princess Margaret Foundation, and the Alan B. Brown Chair in Molecular Genomics. This publication presents data from Head and Neck 5000 (H&N5000). H&N5000 was a component of independent research funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (RP-PG-0707-10034). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Human papillomavirus (HPV) in H&N5000 serology was supported by a Cancer Research UK Programme Grant, the Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme (grant number: C18281/A19169). National Cancer Institute (R01-CA90731); National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (P30ES10126). The authors thank all the members of the GENCAPO team/The Head and Neck Genome Project (GENCAPO) was supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) (Grant numbers 04/12054-9 and 10/51168-0). CPS-II recruitment and maintenance is supported with intramural research funding from the American Cancer Society. Genotyping performed at the Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR) was funded through the U.S. National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) grant 1 × 01HG007780-0. The University of Pittsburgh head and neck cancer case-control study is supported by National Institutes of Health grants P50 CA097190 and P30 CA047904. The Carolina Head and Neck Cancer Study (CHANCE) was supported by the National Cancer Institute (R01-CA90731). The Head and Neck Genome Project (GENCAPO) was supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) (Grant numbers 04/12054-9 and 10/51168-0). The authors thank all the members of the GENCAPO team. The HN5000 study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (RP-PG-0707-10034), the views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The Toronto study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (020214) and the National Cancer Institute (U19-CA148127) and the Cancer Care Ontario Research Chair. The alcohol-related cancers and genetic susceptibility study in Europe (ARCAGE) was funded by the European Commission’s 5th Framework Program (QLK1-2001-00182), the Italian Association for Cancer Research, Compagnia di San Paolo/FIRMS, Region Piemonte, and Padova University (CPDA057222). The Rome Study was supported by the Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC) IG 2011 10491 and IG2013 14220 to S.B., and Fondazione Veronesi to S.B. The IARC Latin American study was funded by the European Commission INCO-DC programme (IC18-CT97-0222), with additional funding from Fondo para la Investigacion Cientifica y Tecnologica (Argentina) and the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (01/01768-2). We thank Leticia Fernandez, Instituto Nacional de Oncologia y Radiobiologia, La Habana, Cuba and Sergio and Rosalina Koifman, for their efforts with the IARC Latin America study São Paulo center. The IARC Central Europe study was supported by European Commission’s INCO-COPERNICUS Program (IC15- CT98-0332), NIH/National Cancer Institute grant CA92039, and the World Cancer Research Foundation grant WCRF 99A28. The IARC Oral Cancer Multicenter study was funded by grant S06 96 202489 05F02 from Europe against Cancer; grants FIS 97/0024, FIS 97/0662, and BAE 01/5013 from Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias, Spain; the UICC Yamagiwa-Yoshida Memorial International Cancer Study; the National Cancer Institute of Canada; Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro; and the Pan-American Health Organization. Coordination of the EPIC study is financially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The lung cancer genome-wide association analyses: Transdisciplinary Research for Cancer in Lung (TRICL) of the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO) was supported by (U19-CA148127, CA148127S1, U19CA203654, and Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas RR170048). The ILCCO data harmonization is supported by Cancer Care Ontario Research Chair of Population Studies to R. H. and Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System. The TRICL-ILCCO OncoArray was supported by in-kind genotyping by the Centre for Inherited Disease Research (26820120008i-0-26800068-1). The CAPUA study was supported by FIS-FEDER/Spain grant numbers FIS-01/310, FIS-PI03-0365, and FIS-07-BI060604, FICYT/Asturias grant numbers FICYT PB02-67 and FICYT IB09-133, and the University Institute of Oncology (IUOPA), of the University of Oviedo and the Ciber de Epidemiologia y Salud Pública. CIBERESP, SPAIN. The work performed in the CARET study was supported by the National Institute of Health/National Cancer Institute: UM1 CA167462 (PI: Goodman), National Institute of Health UO1-CA6367307 (PIs Omen, Goodman); National Institute of Health R01 CA111703 (PI Chen), National Institute of Health 5R01 CA151989-01A1(PI Doherty). The Liverpool Lung project is supported by the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. The Harvard Lung Cancer Study was supported by the NIH (National Cancer Institute) grants CA092824, CA090578, CA074386. The Multi-ethnic Cohort Study was partially supported by NIH Grants CA164973, CA033619, CA63464, and CA148127. The work performed in MSH-PMH study was supported by The Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (020214), Ontario Institute of Cancer and Cancer Care Ontario Chair Award to R.J.H. and G.L. and the Alan Brown Chair and Lusi Wong Programs at the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation. NJLCS was funded by the State Key Program of National Natural Science of China (81230067), the National Key Basic Research Program Grant (2011CB503805), the Major Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81390543). The Norway study was supported by Norwegian Cancer Society, Norwegian Research Council. The Shanghai Cohort Study (SCS) was supported by National Institutes of Health R01 CA144034 (PI: Yuan) and UM1 CA182876 (PI: Yuan). The Singapore Chinese Health Study (SCHS) was supported by National Institutes of Health R01 CA144034 (PI: Yuan) and UM1 CA182876 (PI: Yuan). The work in TLC study has been supported in part the James & Esther King Biomedical Research Program (09KN-15), National Institutes of Health Specialized Programs of Research Excellence (SPORE) Grant (P50 CA119997), and by a Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG) at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, an NCI designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (grant number P30-CA76292). The Vanderbilt Lung Cancer Study—BioVU dataset used for the analyses described was obtained from Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s BioVU, which is supported by institutional funding, the 1S10RR025141-01 instrumentation award, and by the Vanderbilt CTSA grant UL1TR000445 from NCATS/NIH. Dr. Aldrich was supported by NIH/National Cancer Institute K07CA172294 (PI: Aldrich) and Dr. Bush was supported by NHGRI/NIH U01HG004798 (PI: Crawford). The Copenhagen General Population Study (CGPS) was supported by the Chief Physician Johan Boserup and Lise Boserup Fund, the Danish Medical Research Council and Herlev Hospital. The NELCS study: Grant Number P20RR018787 from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The Kentucky Lung Cancer Research Initiative was supported by the Department of Defense [Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command Program] under award number: 10153006 (W81XWH-11-1-0781). Views and opinions of, and endorsements by the author(s) do not reflect those of the US Army or the Department of Defense. This research was also supported by unrestricted infrastructure funds from the UK Center for Clinical and Translational Science, NIH grant UL1TR000117 and Markey Cancer Center NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA177558) Shared Resource Facilities: Cancer Research Informatics, Biospecimen and Tissue Procurement, and Biostatistics and Bioinformatics. The M.D. Anderson Cancer Center study was supported in part by grants from the NIH (P50 CA070907, R01 CA176568) (to X.W.), Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas (RP130502) (to X.W.), and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center institutional support for the Center for Translational and Public Health Genomics. The deCODE study of smoking and nicotine dependence was funded in part by a grant from NIDA (R01- DA017932). The study in Lodz center was partially funded by Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, under task NIOM 10.13: Predictors of mortality from non-small cell lung cancer—field study. Genetic sharing analysis was funded by NIH grant CA194393. The research undertaken by M.D.T., L.V.W., and M.S.A. was partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. M.D.T. holds a Medical Research Council Senior Clinical Fellowship (G0902313). The work to assemble the FTND GWAS meta-analysis was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) grant number R01 DA035825 (Principal Investigator [PI]: DBH). The study populations included COGEND (dbGaP phs000092.v1.p1 and phs000404.v1.p1), COPDGene (dbGaP phs000179.v3.p2), deCODE Genetics, EAGLE (dbGaP phs000093.vs.p2), and SAGE. dbGaP phs000092.v1.p1). See Hancock et al. Transl Psychiatry 2015 (PMCID: PMC4930126) for the full listing of funding sources and other acknowledgments. The Resource for the Study of Lung Cancer Epidemiology in North Trent (ReSoLuCENT)study was funded by the Sheffield Hospitals Charity, Sheffield Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre and Weston Park Hospital Cancer Charity. The ovarian cancer genome-wide association analysis: The Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) is supported by a grant from the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund thanks to donations by the family and friends of Kathryn Sladek Smith (PPD/RPCI.07). The scientific development and funding for this project were in part supported by the US National Cancer Institute GAME-ON Post-GWAS Initiative (U19-CA148112). This study made use of data generated by the Wellcome Trust Case Control consortium that was funded by the Wellcome Trust under award 076113. The results published here are in part based upon data generated by The Cancer Genome Atlas Pilot Project established by the National Cancer Institute and National Human Genome Research Institute (dbGap accession number phs000178.v8.p7). The OCAC OncoArray genotyping project was funded through grants from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (CA1X01HG007491-01 (C.I.A.), U19-CA148112 (T.A.S.), R01-CA149429 (C.M.P.), and R01-CA058598 (M.T.G.); Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP-86727 (L.E.K.) and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund (A.B.). The COGS project was funded through a European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme grant (agreement number 223175 - HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) and through a grant from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (R01-CA122443 (E.L.G)). Funding for individual studies: AAS: National Institutes of Health (RO1-CA142081); AOV: The Canadian Institutes for Health Research (MOP-86727); AUS: The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group was supported by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (DAMD17-01-1-0729), National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia (199600, 400413 and 400281), Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania and Cancer Foundation of Western Australia (Multi-State Applications 191, 211, and 182). The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study gratefully acknowledges additional support from Ovarian Cancer Australia and the Peter MacCallum Foundation; BAV: ELAN Funds of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg; BEL: National Kankerplan; BGS: Breast Cancer Now, Institute of Cancer Research; BVU: Vanderbilt CTSA grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) (ULTR000445); CAM: National Institutes of Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre and Cancer Research UK Cambridge Cancer Centre; CHA: Innovative Research Team in University (PCSIRT) in China (IRT1076); CNI: Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI12/01319); Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (SAF2012); COE: Department of Defense (W81XWH-11-2-0131); CON: National Institutes of Health (R01-CA063678, R01-CA074850; and R01-CA080742); DKE: Ovarian Cancer Research Fund; DOV: National Institutes of Health R01-CA112523 and R01-CA87538; EMC: Dutch Cancer Society (EMC 2014-6699); EPC: The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by Danish Cancer Society (Denmark); Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) (France); German Cancer Aid, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Germany); the Hellenic Health Foundation (Greece); Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC-Italy and National Research Council (Italy); Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); ERC-2009-AdG 232997 and Nordforsk, Nordic Centre of Excellence programme on Food, Nutrition and Health (Norway); Health Research Fund (FIS), PI13/00061 to Granada, PI13/01162 to EPIC-Murcia, Regional Governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, ISCIII RETIC (RD06/0020) (Spain); Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council and County Councils of Skåne and Västerbotten (Sweden); Cancer Research UK (14136 to EPIC-Norfolk; C570/A16491 and C8221/A19170 to EPIC-Oxford), Medical Research Council (1000143 to EPIC-Norfolk, MR/M012190/1 to EPIC-Oxford) (United Kingdom); GER: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Programme of Clinical Biomedical Research (01 GB 9401) and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ); GRC: This research has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund—ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)—Research Funding Program of the General Secretariat for Research & Technology: SYN11_10_19 NBCA. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund; GRR: Roswell Park Cancer Institute Alliance Foundation, P30 CA016056; HAW: U.S. National Institutes of Health (R01-CA58598, N01-CN-55424, and N01-PC-67001); HJO: Intramural funding; Rudolf-Bartling Foundation; HMO: Intramural funding; Rudolf-Bartling Foundation; HOC: Helsinki University Research Fund; HOP: Department of Defense (DAMD17-02-1-0669) and NCI (K07-CA080668, R01-CA95023, P50-CA159981 MO1-RR000056 R01-CA126841); HUO: Intramural funding; Rudolf-Bartling Foundation; JGO: JSPS KAKENHI grant; JPN: Grant-in-Aid for the Third Term Comprehensive 10-Year Strategy for Cancer Control from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare; KRA: This study (Ko-EVE) was supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI16C1127; 0920010); LAX: American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124; LUN: ERC-2011-AdG 294576-risk factors cancer, Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council, Beta Kamprad Foundation; MAC: National Institutes of Health (R01-CA122443, P30-CA15083, P50-CA136393); Mayo Foundation; Minnesota Ovarian Cancer Alliance; Fred C. and Katherine B. Andersen Foundation; Fraternal Order of Eagles; MAL: Funding for this study was provided by research grant R01- CA61107 from the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, research grant 94 222 52 from the Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark; and the Mermaid I project; MAS: Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation; MAY: National Institutes of Health (R01-CA122443, P30-CA15083, and P50-CA136393); Mayo Foundation; Minnesota Ovarian Cancer Alliance; Fred C. and Katherine B. Andersen Foundation; MCC: Cancer Council Victoria, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) grants number 209057, 251533, 396414, and 504715; MDA: DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program (W81XWH-07-0449); MEC: NIH (CA54281, CA164973, CA63464); MOF: Moffitt Cancer Center, Merck Pharmaceuticals, the state of Florida, Hillsborough County, and the city of Tampa; NCO: National Institutes of Health (R01-CA76016) and the Department of Defense (DAMD17-02-1-0666); NEC: National Institutes of Health R01-CA54419 and P50-CA105009 and Department of Defense W81XWH-10-1-02802; NHS: UM1 CA186107, P01 CA87969, R01 CA49449, R01-CA67262, UM1 CA176726; NJO: National Cancer Institute (NIH-K07 CA095666, R01-CA83918, NIH-K22-CA138563, and P30-CA072720) and the Cancer Institute of New Jersey; If Sara Olson and/or Irene Orlow is a co-author, please add NCI CCSG award (P30-CA008748) to the funding sources; NOR: Helse Vest, The Norwegian Cancer Society, The Research Council of Norway; NTH: Radboud University Medical Centre; OPL: National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia (APP1025142) and Brisbane Women’s Club; ORE: OHSU Foundation; OVA: This work was supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant (MOP-86727) and by NIH/NCI 1 R01CA160669-01A1; PLC: Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute; POC: Pomeranian Medical University; POL: Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute; PVD: Canadian Cancer Society and Cancer Research Society GRePEC Program; RBH: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; RMH: Cancer Research UK, Royal Marsden Hospital; RPC: National Institute of Health (P50-CA159981, R01-CA126841); SEA: Cancer Research UK (C490/A10119 C490/A10124); UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres at the University of Cambridge; SIS: NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Z01-ES044005 and Z01-ES049033; SMC: The bbSwedish Research Council-SIMPLER infrastructure; the Swedish Cancer Foundation; SON: National Health Research and Development Program, Health Canada, grant 6613-1415-53; SRO: Cancer Research UK (C536/A13086, C536/A6689) and Imperial Experimental Cancer Research Centre (C1312/A15589); STA: NIH grants U01 CA71966 and U01 CA69417; SWE: Swedish Cancer foundation, WeCanCureCancer and VårKampMotCancer foundation; SWH: NIH (NCI) grant R37-CA070867; TBO: National Institutes of Health (R01-CA106414-A2), American Cancer Society (CRTG-00-196-01-CCE), Department of Defense (DAMD17-98-1-8659), Celma Mastery Ovarian Cancer Foundation; TOR: NIH grants R01-CA063678 and R01 CA063682; UCI: NIH R01-CA058860 and the Lon V Smith Foundation grant LVS39420; UHN: Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Foundation-Bridge for the Cure; UKO: The UKOPS study was funded by The Eve Appeal (The Oak Foundation) and supported by the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre; UKR: Cancer Research UK (C490/A6187), UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres at the University of Cambridge; USC: P01CA17054, P30CA14089, R01CA61132, N01PC67010, R03CA113148, R03CA115195, N01CN025403, and California Cancer Research Program (00-01389V-20170, 2II0200); VAN: BC Cancer Foundation, VGH & UBC Hospital Foundation; VTL: NIH K05-CA154337; WMH: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Enabling Grants ID 310670 & ID 628903. Cancer Institute NSW Grants 12/RIG/1-17 & 15/RIG/1-16; WOC: National Science Centren (N N301 5645 40). The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland. The University of Cambridge has received salary support for PDPP from the NHS in the East of England through the Clinical Academia Reserve. The prostate cancer genome-wide association analyses: we pay tribute to Brian Henderson, who was a driving force behind the OncoArray project, for his vision and leadership, and who sadly passed away before seeing its fruition. We also thank the individuals who participated in these studies enabling this work. The ELLIPSE/PRACTICAL (http//:practical.icr.ac.uk) prostate cancer consortium and his collaborating partners were supported by multiple funding mechanisms enabling this current work. ELLIPSE/PRACTICAL Genotyping of the OncoArray was funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) (U19 CA148537 for ELucidating Loci Involved in Prostate Cancer SuscEptibility (ELLIPSE) project and X01HG007492 to the Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR) under contract number HHSN268201200008I). Additional analytical support was provided by NIH NCI U01 CA188392 (F.R.S.). Funding for the iCOGS infrastructure came from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, and C8197/A16565), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065, and 1U19 CA148112; the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defense (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer, Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175), Cancer Research UK Grants C5047/A7357, C1287/A10118, C1287/A16563, C5047/A3354, C5047/A10692, C16913/A6135, C5047/A21332 and The National Institute of Health (NIH) Cancer Post-Cancer GWAS initiative grant: No. 1 U19 CA148537-01 (the GAME-ON initiative). We also thank the following for funding support: The Institute of Cancer Research and The Everyman Campaign, The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation, Prostate Research Campaign UK (now Prostate Action), The Orchid Cancer Appeal, The National Cancer Research Network UK, and The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) UK. We are grateful for support of NIHR funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. The Prostate Cancer Program of Cancer Council Victoria also acknowledge grant support from The National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (126402, 209057, 251533, 396414, 450104, 504700, 504702, 504715, 623204, 940394, and 614296), VicHealth, Cancer Council Victoria, The Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, The Whitten Foundation, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Tattersall’s. E.A.O., D.M.K., and E.M.K. acknowledge the Intramural Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute for their support. The BPC3 was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (cooperative agreements U01-CA98233 to D.J.H., U01-CA98710 to S.M.G., U01-CA98216 to E.R., and U01-CA98758 to B.E.H., and Intramural Research Program of NIH/National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics). CAPS GWAS study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Foundation (grant no 09-0677, 11-484, 12-823), the Cancer Risk Prediction Center (CRisP; www.crispcenter.org), a Linneus Centre (Contract ID 70867902) financed by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council (grant no K2010-70 × -20430-04-3, 2014-2269). The Hannover Prostate Cancer Study was supported by the Lower Saxonian Cancer Society. PEGASUS was supported by the Intramural Research Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. RAPPER was supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Center, Cancer Research UK (C147/A25254, C1094/A18504) and the EU’s 7th Framework Programme Grant/Agreement no 60186. Overall: this research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource (application number 16549). NHS is supported by UM1 CA186107 (NHS cohort infrastructure grant), P01 CA87969, and R01 CA49449. NHSII is supported by UM1 CA176726 (NHSII cohort infrastructure grant), and R01-CA67262. A.L.K. is supported by R01 MH107649. We would like to thank the participants and staff of the NHS and NHSII for their valuable contributions as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WY. The authors assume full responsibility for analyses and interpretation of these data.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and fine-mapping efforts to date have identified more than 100 prostate cancer (PrCa)-susceptibility loci. We meta-analyzed genotype data from a custom high-density array of 46,939 PrCa cases and 27,910 controls of European ancestry with previously genotyped data of 32,255 PrCa cases and 33,202 controls of European ancestry. Our analysis identified 62 novel loci associated (PC, p.Pro1054Arg) in ATM and rs2066827 (OR = 1.06; P = 2.3 × 10(−9); T>G, p.Val109Gly) in CDKN1B. The combination of all loci captured 28.4% of the PrCa familial relative risk, and a polygenic risk score conferred an elevated PrCa risk for men in the ninetieth to ninety-ninth percentiles (relative risk = 2.69; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.55–2.82) and first percentile (relative risk = 5.71; 95% CI: 5.04–6.48) risk stratum compared with the population average. These findings improve risk prediction, enhance fine-mapping, and provide insight into the underlying biology of PrCa(1).

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have transformed our understanding of susceptibility to multiple myeloma (MM), but much of the heritability remains unexplained. We report a new GWAS, a meta-analysis with previous GWAS and a replication series, totalling 9974 MM cases and 247,556 controls of European ancestry. Collectively, these data provide evidence for six new MM risk loci, bringing the total number to 23. Integration of information from gene expression, epigenetic profiling and in situ Hi-C data for the 23 risk loci implicate disruption of developmental transcriptional regulators as a basis of MM susceptibility, compatible with altered B-cell differentiation as a key mechanism. Dysregulation of autophagy/apoptosis and cell cycle signalling feature as recurrently perturbed pathways. Our findings provide further insight into the biological basis of MM.

BACKGROUND Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) may affect prostate cancer (PCa) growth by various mechanisms including those related to androgens. The fusion of the androgen-regulated gene TMPRSS2 and the oncogene ERG (TMPRSS2:ERG or T2E) is common in PCa, and prostate tumors that harbor the gene fusion are believed to represent a distinct disease subtype. We studied the association of CCB use with the risk of PCa, and molecular subtypes of PCa defined by T2E status. METHODS Participants were residents of King County, Washington, recruited for population-based case–control studies (1993–1996 or 2002–2005). Tumor T2E status was determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization using tumor tissue specimens from radical prostatectomy. Detailed information on use of CCBs and other variables was obtained through in-person interviews. Binomial and polytomous logistic regression were used to generate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS The study included 1,747 PCa patients and 1,635 age-matched controls. A subset of 563 patients treated with radical prostatectomy had T2E status determined, of which 295 were T2E positive (52%). Use of CCBs (ever vs. never) was not associated with overall PCa risk. However, among European-American men, users had a reduced risk of higher-grade PCa (Gleason scores ≥7: adjusted OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44–0.95). Further, use of CCBs was associated with a reduced risk of T2E positive PCa (adjusted OR = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.19–0.78), but was not associated with T2E negative PCa. CONCLUSIONS This study found suggestive evidence that use of CCBs is associated with reduced relative risks for higher Gleason score and T2E positive PCa. Future studies of PCa etiology should consider etiologic heterogeneity as PCa subtypes may develop through different causal pathways. Prostate © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in developed countries, and is a target for risk reduction strategies. The effects of alcohol consumption on prostate cancer incidence and survival remain unclear, potentially due to methodological limitations of observational studies. In this study, we investigated the associations of genetic variants in alcohol-metabolising genes with prostate cancer incidence and survival. We analysed data from 23,868 men with prostate cancer and 23,051 controls from 25 studies within the international PRACTICAL Consortium. Study-specific associations of 68 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 8 alcohol-metabolising genes (Alcohol Dehydrogenases (ADHs) and Aldehyde Dehydrogenases (ALDHs)) with prostate cancer diagnosis and prostate cancer-specific mortality, by grade, were assessed using logistic and Cox regression models, respectively. The data across the 25 studies were meta-analysed using fixed-effect and random-effects models. We found little evidence that variants in alcohol metabolising genes were associated with prostate cancer diagnosis. Four variants in two genes exceeded the multiple testing threshold for associations with prostate cancer mortality in fixed-effect meta-analyses. SNPs within ALDH1A2 associated with prostate cancer mortality were rs1441817 (fixed effects hazard ratio, HRfixed = 0.78; 95% confidence interval (95%CI):0.66,0.91; p values = 0.002); rs12910509, HRfixed = 0.76; 95%CI:0.64,0.91; p values = 0.003); and rs8041922 (HRfixed = 0.76; 95%CI:0.64,0.91; p values = 0.002). These SNPs were in linkage disequilibrium with each other. In ALDH1B1, rs10973794 (HRfixed = 1.43; 95%CI:1.14,1.79; p values = 0.002) was associated with prostate cancer mortality in men with low-grade prostate cancer. These results suggest that alcohol consumption is unlikely to affect prostate cancer incidence, but it may influence disease progression.

Supplemental Data Supplemental Data include one figure and five tables and can be found with this article online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.08.016. Supplemental Data Document S1. Figure S1 and Tables S1–S5 Download Document S2. Article plus Supplemental Data Download Web Resources ClinVar, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar/ dbNSFP, https://sites.google.com/site/jpopgen/dbNSFP Human Gene Mutation Database, http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ REVEL, https://sites.google.com/site/revelgenomics/ SwissVar, http://swissvar.expasy.org/ The vast majority of coding variants are rare, and assessment of the contribution of rare variants to complex traits is hampered by low statistical power and limited functional data. Improved methods for predicting the pathogenicity of rare coding variants are needed to facilitate the discovery of disease variants from exome sequencing studies. We developed REVEL (rare exome variant ensemble learner), an ensemble method for predicting the pathogenicity of missense variants on the basis of individual tools: MutPred, FATHMM, VEST, PolyPhen, SIFT, PROVEAN, MutationAssessor, MutationTaster, LRT, GERP, SiPhy, phyloP, and phastCons. REVEL was trained with recently discovered pathogenic and rare neutral missense variants, excluding those previously used to train its constituent tools. When applied to two independent test sets, REVEL had the best overall performance (p < 10−12) as compared to any individual tool and seven ensemble methods: MetaSVM, MetaLR, KGGSeq, Condel, CADD, DANN, and Eigen. Importantly, REVEL also had the best performance for distinguishing pathogenic from rare neutral variants with allele frequencies

Background: Prostate cancer is a common cancer worldwide with no established modifiable lifestyle factors to guide prevention. The associations between polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and prostate cancer risk have been inconsistent. Using Mendelian randomisation, we evaluated associations between PUFAs and prostate cancer risk.Methods: We used individual-level data from a consortium of 22 721 cases and 23 034 controls of European ancestry. Externally-weighted PUFA-specific polygenic risk scores (wPRSs), with explanatory variation ranging from 0.65 to 33.07%, were constructed and used to evaluate associations with prostate cancer risk per one standard deviation (s.d.) increase in genetically-predicted plasma PUFA levels using multivariable-adjusted unconditional logistic regression.Results: No overall association was observed between the genetically-predicted PUFAs evaluated in this study and prostate cancer risk. However, risk reductions were observed for short-chain PUFAs, linoleic (ORLA=0.95, 95%CI=0.92, 0.98) and α-linolenic acids (ORALA=0.96, 95%CI=0.93, 0.98), among men LA=1.04, 95%CI=1.01, 1.07). For long-chain PUFAs (i.e., arachidonic, eicosapentaenoic, and docosapentaenoic acids), increased risks were observed among men AA=1.05, 95%CI=1.02, 1.08; OREPA=1.04, 95%CI=1.01, 1.06; ORDPA=1.05, 95%CI=1.02, 1.08).Conclusion: Results from this study suggest that circulating ω-3 and ω-6 PUFAs may have a different role in the aetiology of early- and late-onset prostate cancer.

Rare variants (RVs) have been shown to be significant contributors to complex disease risk. By definition, these variants have very low minor allele frequencies and traditional single-marker methods for statistical analysis are underpowered for typical sequencing study sample sizes. Multimarker burden-type approaches attempt to identify aggregation of RVs across case-control status by analyzing relatively small partitions of the genome, such as genes. However, it is generally the case that the aggregative measure would be a mixture of causal and neutral variants, and these omnibus tests do not directly provide any indication of which RVs may be driving a given association. Recently, Bayesian variable selection approaches have been proposed to identify RV associations from a large set of RVs under consideration. Although these approaches have been shown to be powerful at detecting associations at the RV level, there are often computational limitations on the total quantity of RVs under consideration and compromises are necessary for large-scale application. Here, we propose a computationally efficient alternative formulation of this method using a probit regression approach specifically capable of simultaneously analyzing hundreds to thousands of RVs. We evaluate our approach to detect causal variation on simulated data and examine sensitivity and specificity in instances of high RV dimensionality as well as apply it to pathway-level RV analysis results from a prostate cancer (PC) risk case-control sequencing study. Finally, we discuss potential extensions and future directions of this work.

BACKGROUND DNA methylation has been hypothesized as a mechanism for explaining the association between smoking and adverse prostate cancer (PCa) outcomes. This study was aimed at assessing whether smoking is associated with prostate tumor DNA methylation and whether these alterations may explain in part the association of smoking with PCa recurrence and mortality. METHODS A total of 523 men had radical prostatectomy as their primary treatment, detailed smoking history data, long-term follow-up for PCa outcomes, and tumor tissue profiled for DNA methylation. Ninety percent of the men also had matched tumor gene expression data. A methylome-wide analysis was conducted to identify differentially methylated regions (DMRs) by smoking status. To select potential functionally relevant DMRs, their correlation with the messenger RNA (mRNA) expression of corresponding genes was evaluated. Finally, a smoking-related methylation score based on the top-ranked DMRs was created to assess its association with PCa outcomes. RESULTS Forty DMRs were associated with smoking status, and 10 of these were strongly correlated with mRNA expression (aldehyde oxidase 1 [AOX1], claudin 5 [CLDN5], early B-cell factor 1 [EBF1], homeobox A7 [HOXA7], lectin galactoside-binding soluble 3 [LGALS3], microtubule-associated protein τ [MAPT], protocadherin γ A [PCDHGA]/protocadherin γ B [PCDHGB], paraoxonase 3 [PON3], synaptonemal complex protein 2 like [SYCP2L], and zinc finger and SCAN domain containing 12 [ZSCAN12]). Men who were in the highest tertile for the smoking-methylation score derived from these DMRs had a higher risk of recurrence (odds ratio [OR], 2.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-3.72) and lethal disease (OR, 4.21; 95% CI, 1.65-11.78) in comparison with men in the lower 2 tertiles. CONCLUSIONS This integrative molecular epidemiology study supports the hypothesis that smoking-associated tumor DNA methylation changes may explain at least part of the association between smoking and adverse PCa outcomes. Future studies are warranted to confirm these findings and understand the implications for improving patient outcomes. Cancer 2016;122:2168–77. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Background: Germline mutations within DNA-repair genes are implicated in susceptibility to multiple forms of cancer. For prostate cancer (PrCa), rare mutations in BRCA2 and BRCA1 give rise to moderately elevated risk, whereas two of ∼100 common, low-penetrance PrCa susceptibility variants identified so far by genome-wide association studies implicate RAD51B and RAD23B. Methods: Genotype data from the iCOGS array were imputed to the 1000 genomes phase 3 reference panel for 21 780 PrCa cases and 21 727 controls from the Prostate Cancer Association Group to Investigate Cancer Associated Alterations in the Genome (PRACTICAL) consortium. We subsequently performed single variant, gene and pathway-level analyses using 81 303 SNPs within 20 Kb of a panel of 179 DNA-repair genes. Results: Single SNP analyses identified only the previously reported association with RAD51B. Gene-level analyses using the SKAT-C test from the SNP-set (Sequence) Kernel Association Test (SKAT) identified a significant association with PrCa for MSH5. Pathway-level analyses suggested a possible role for the translesion synthesis pathway in PrCa risk and Homologous recombination/Fanconi Anaemia pathway for PrCa aggressiveness, even though after adjustment for multiple testing these did not remain significant. Conclusions: MSH5 is a novel candidate gene warranting additional follow-up as a prospective PrCa-risk locus. MSH5 has previously been reported as a pleiotropic susceptibility locus for lung, colorectal and serous ovarian cancers.

BACKGROUND The epidemiologic evidence for an association of Trichomonas vaginalis (Tv) with overall prostate cancer is mixed, but some studies suggest Tv may increase risk of more aggressive disease. The aim of this study was to assess whether Tv serostatus is associated with advanced or fatal prostate cancer. METHODS A total of 146 men with advanced (metastatic or fatal) prostate cancer and 181 age-matched controls were selected from two prior population-based, case-control studies. Tv serostatus was determined with the same laboratory methods used in previous epidemiologic studies. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using multivariable logistic regression to compare Tv serostatus in prostate cancer cases and controls adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS The seroprevalence of Tv in controls was 23%. Tv serostatus was not associated with an increased risk of metastatic or fatal prostate cancer (ORs

Germline variation at 8q24 is the strongest risk factor for prostate cancer (PCa) across all racial and ethnic populations. While most 8q24 associations have been observed across populations, rs72725854 [T risk allele frequency ~6%] is only found in men of African ancestry and is the strongest known genome-wide association signal for PCa in this population. We investigated whether the T allele of rs72725854 is associated with PCa family history and age at diagnosis, characteristics known to have a strong genetic component. Analyses were performed using a sample of 9,052 cases and 8,595 controls from the African Ancestry Prostate Cancer (AAPC) GWAS Consortium and the ELLIPSE/PRACTICAL OncoArray Consortium. Participants were unselected for PCa family history. Among cases, 23.7% carried at least one copy of the T allele versus 11.6% of controls. The OR was 2.29 (95% CI=2.10–2.49) for TA heterozygotes and 5.04 (95% CI=3.36–7.55) for TT homozygotes. The percentage of cases carrying the T allele was significantly greater for men with a PCa family history (27.4% vs. 22.7% without a family history, p=0.002) and for men diagnosed 100 ng/ml or death from PCa), 25.4% for high-risk disease (stage T3/T4, Gleason 8-10, or PSA=20-100 ng/ml), 24.6% for intermediate-risk disease (Gleason=7, stage T1/T2, and PSA=10-20 ng/ml), and 21.4% for low-risk disease (Gleason Citation Format: Burcu F. Darst, Jeannette T. Bensen, Sue A. Ingles, Benjamin A. Rybicki, Barbara Nemesure, Esther M. John, Jay H. Fowke, Victoria L. Stevens, Sonja I. Berndt, Chad D. Huff, Jong Y. Park, Wei Zheng, Elaine A. Ostrander, Shiv Srivastava, John Carpten, Thomas A. Sellers, Maureen Sanderson, Dana C. Crawford, Olivier Cussenot, Jennifer Cullen, Rick A. Kittles, Jianfeng Xu, Zsofia Kote-Jarai, Luc Multigner, Marie-Elise Parent, Florence Menegaux, Geraldine Cancel-Tassin, Adam S. Kibel, Eric A. Klein, Phyllis J. Goodman, Jennifer J. Hu, Graham Casey, Anselm J. Hennis, Ian M. Thompson, Robin Leach, James L. Mohler, Elizabeth T. Fontham, Gary J. Smith, Jack A. Taylor, Rosalind A. Eeles, Laurent Brureau, Stephen J. Chanock, Stephen Watya, Janet L. Stanford, Diptasri Mandal, William B. Isaacs, Kathleen A. Cooney, William J. Blot, David V. Conti, Christopher A. Haiman. A germline variant at 8q24 contributes to familial clustering of prostate cancer in men of African ancestry [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 3517.

Background: Persons of African ancestry (AA) experience a 1.5-2-fold risk of multiple myeloma (MM) compared to persons of European ancestry (EA). We assembled a set of MM patients with self-reported AA in order to evaluate the contribution of genetics to etiology in this high-risk group. Methods: Here we present the results of a meta-analysis of two GWAS in 1,813 cases and 8,871 controls of AA. We also conducted an admixture mapping scan to identify risk alleles associated with local ancestry, fine-mapped the 23 known susceptibility loci to find markers that could better capture MM risk in individuals of AA, and constructed a polygenic risk score (PRS) to assess the aggregated effect of known MM risk alleles. Finally, we conducted an eQTL analysis measuring gene expression in those genes harboring a risk variant in malignant plasma cells from 292 of the patients from a single site. Results: In GWAS analysis, we identified two suggestive novel loci located at 9p24.3 and 9p13.1 at P Conclusion: Our study shows that common genetic variation contributes to MM risk individuals of AA. This abstract is also being presented as Poster C040. Citation Format: Zhaohui Du, Niels Weinhold, Gregory Chi Song, Kristen A. Rand, David J. Van Den Berg, Amie E. Hwang, Xin Sheng, Victor Hom, Sikander Ailawadhi, Ajay K. Nooka, Seema Singhal, Karen Pawlish, Edward Peters, Cathryn Bock, Ann Mohrbacher, Alexander Stram, Sonja I. Berndt, William J. Blot, Graham Casey, Victoria L. Stevens, Rick Kittles, Phyllis J. Goodman, W. Ryan Diver, Anselm Hennis, Barbara Nemesure, Eric A. Klein, Benjamin A. Rybicki, Janet L. Stanford, John S. Witte, Lisa Signorello, Esther M. John, Leslie Bernstein, Antoinette Stroup, Owen W. Stephens, Maurizio Zangari, Frits Van Rhee, Andrew Olshan, Wei Zheng, Jennifer J. Hu, Regina Ziegler, Sarah J. Nyante, Sue Ann Ingles, Michael Press, John David Carpten, Stephen Chanock, Jayesh Mehta, Graham A Colditz, Jeffrey Wolf, Thomas G. Martin, Michael Tomasson, Mark A. Fiala, Howard Terebelo, Nalini Janakiraman, Laurence Kolonel, Kenneth C. Anderson, Loic Le Marchand, Daniel Auclair, Brian C.-H. Chiu, Elad Ziv, Daniel Stram, Ravi Vij, Leon Bernal-Mizrachi, Gareth J. Morgan, Jeffrey A. Zonder, Carol Ann Huff, Sagar Lonial, Robert Z. Orlowski, David V. Conti, Christopher A. Haiman, Wendy Cozen. A meta-analysis of genome-wide association study and eQTL analysis of multiple myeloma among African Americans [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2019 Sep 20-23; San Francisco, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(6 Suppl_2):Abstract nr PR05.

BACKGROUND Prognostic biomarkers for localized prostate cancer (PCa) could improve personalized medicine. Our group previously identified a panel of differentially methylated CpGs in primary tumor tissue that predict disease aggressiveness, and here we further validate these biomarkers. METHODS Pyrosequencing was used to assess CpG methylation of eight biomarkers previously identified using the HumanMethylation450 array; CpGs with strongly correlated (r >0.70) results were considered technically validated. Logistic regression incorporating the validated CpGs and Gleason sum was used to define and lock a final model to stratify men with metastatic-lethal versus non-recurrent PCa in a training dataset. Coefficients from the final model were then used to construct a DNA methylation score, which was evaluated by logistic regression and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses in an independent testing dataset. RESULTS Five CpGs were technically validated and all were retained (P

BACKGROUND: There is preliminary evidence linking physical activity to better prostate cancer (PCa) outcomes, though the molecular mechanisms underlying this association are not clear. METHODS: In a Seattle-based cohort of patients diagnosed with clinically localized PCa and prospective follow-up for outcomes (n=1354), we studied the association between self-reported vigorous physical activity and PCa progression to a metastatic-lethal phenotype. A subset of patients have prostate cancer tissue samples available for investigating DNA methylation (Infinium® HumanMethylation450 BeadChip array) and exercise (n=524). RESULTS: Patients who had vigorous physical activity at least once per week during the year before diagnosis (~79% of the cohort) were significantly less likely to progress to metastatic-lethal PCa compared to those who had vigorous physical activity less frequently (adjusted hazard ratio =0.63, p-value=0.029). Among the subset of men who had radical prostatectomy as primary treatment and tumor tissue available, a differentially methylated region (DMR) was identified (family-wise error rate=0.03, hypo-methylated in the weekly exercise group), with 9 methylation probes located in the promoter region of CRACR2A. This gene encodes a calcium binding protein involved in innate immune response. The methylation level of the nine CpGs was inversely correlated with CRACR2A gene expression (average correlation coefficient= – 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Vigorous physical activity before diagnosis is associated with epigenetic alterations of CRACR2A and PCa metastatic lethal progression. IMPACT: This analysis provides strong evidence for the association between vigorous physical activity and a less likelihood to develop metastatic lethal progression, and a suggestive link between exercise and DNA methylation in CRACRA2A gene.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and fine-mapping efforts to date have identified more than 100 prostate cancer (PrCa)-susceptibility loci. We meta-analyzed genotype data from a custom high-density array of 46,939 PrCa cases and 27,910 controls of European ancestry with previously genotyped data of 32,255 PrCa cases and 33,202 controls of European ancestry. Our analysis identified 62 novel loci associated (P < 5.0 × 10-8) with PrCa and one locus significantly associated with early-onset PrCa (≤55 years). Our findings include missense variants rs1800057 (odds ratio (OR) = 1.16; P = 8.2 × 10-9; G>C, p.Pro1054Arg) in ATM and rs2066827 (OR = 1.06; P = 2.3 × 10-9; T>G, p.Val109Gly) in CDKN1B. The combination of all loci captured 28.4% of the PrCa familial relative risk, and a polygenic risk score conferred an elevated PrCa risk for men in the ninetieth to ninety-ninth percentiles (relative risk = 2.69; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.55-2.82) and first percentile (relative risk = 5.71; 95% CI: 5.04-6.48) risk stratum compared with the population average. These findings improve risk prediction, enhance fine-mapping, and provide insight into the underlying biology of PrCa 1 .

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is a leading cause of mortality and genetic factors can influence tumour aggressiveness. Several germline variants have been associated with PCa-specific mortality (PCSM), but further replication evidence is needed. Methods: Twenty-two previously identified PCSM-associated genetic variants were genotyped in seven PCa cohorts (12,082 patients; 1544 PCa deaths). For each cohort, Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for risk of PCSM associated with each variant. Data were then combined using a meta-analysis approach. Results Fifteen SNPs were associated with PCSM in at least one of the seven cohorts. In the meta-analysis, after adjustment for clinicopathological factors, variants in the MGMT (rs2308327; HR 0.90; p-value = 3.5 x 10(-2)) and IL4 (rs2070874; HR 1.22; p-value = 1.1 x 10(-3)) genes were confirmed to be associated with risk of PCSM. In analyses limited to men diagnosed with local or regional stage disease, a variant in AKT1, rs2494750, was also confirmed to be associated with PCSM risk (HR 0.81; p-value = 3.6 x 10(-2)). Conclusions: This meta-analysis confirms the association of three genetic variants with risk of PCSM, providing further evidence that genetic background plays a role in PCa-specific survival. While these variants alone are not sufficient as prognostic biomarkers, these results may provide insights into the biological pathways modulating tumour aggressiveness.

Prostate cancer is the most common solid tumor and the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in American men. Worldwide, prostate cancer ranks second and fifth as a cause of cancer and cancer deaths, respectively. Despite the international burden of disease due to prostate cancer, its etiology is unclear in most cases. Established risk factors include age, race/ancestry, and family history of the disease. Prostate cancer has a strong heritable component, and genome-wide association studies have identified over 110 common risk-associated genetic variants. Family-based sequencing studies have also found rare mutations (e.g., HOXB13) that contribute to prostate cancer susceptibility. Numerous environmental and lifestyle factors (e.g., obesity, diet) have been examined in relation to prostate cancer incidence, but few modifiable exposures have been consistently associated with risk. Some of the variability in results may be related to etiological heterogeneity, with different causes underlying the development of distinct disease subgroups.

Background Aberrant DNA methylation may promote prostate carcinogenesis. We investigated epigenome-wide DNA methylation profiles in prostate cancer (PCa) compared to adjacent benign tissue to identify differentially methylated CpG sites. Methods The study included paired PCa and adjacent benign tissue samples from 20 radical prostatectomy patients. Epigenetic profiling was done using the Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChip. Linear models that accounted for the paired study design and False Discovery Rate Q-values were used to evaluate differential CpG methylation. mRNA expression levels of the genes with the most differentially methylated CpG sites were analyzed. Results In total, 2,040 differentially methylated CpG sites were identified in PCa versus adjacent benign tissue (Q-value

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk scores comprising established susceptibility variants have shown to be informative classifiers for several complex diseases including prostate cancer. For prostate cancer it is unknown if inclusion of genetic markers that have so far not been associated with prostate cancer risk at a genome-wide significant level will improve disease prediction. METHODS: We built polygenic risk scores in a large training set comprising over 25,000 individuals. Initially 65 established prostate cancer susceptibility variants were selected. After LD pruning additional variants were prioritized based on their association with prostate cancer. Six-fold cross validation was performed to assess genetic risk scores and optimize the number of additional variants to be included. The final model was evaluated in an independent study population including 1,370 cases and 1,239 controls. RESULTS: The polygenic risk score with 65 established susceptibility variants provided an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.67. Adding an additional 68 novel variants significantly increased the AUC to 0.68 (P = 0.0012) and the net reclassification index with 0.21 (P = 8.5E-08). All novel variants were located in genomic regions established as associated with prostate cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of additional genetic variants from established prostate cancer susceptibility regions improves disease prediction.

© 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Background Despite the paramount importance of patient-reported outcomes, little is known about the evolution of patient-reported urinary and sexual function over time. Objective To evaluate differences in pretreatment urinary and sexual function in two population-based cohorts of men with prostate cancer enrolled nearly 20 yr apart. Design, setting, and participants Patients were enrolled in the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study (PCOS) or the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study, two population-based cohorts that enrolled patients with incident prostate cancer from 1994 to 1995 and from 2011 to 2012, respectively. Participants completed surveys at baseline and various time points thereafter. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis We performed multivariable logistic and linear regression analysis to investigate differences in pretreatment function between studies. Results and limitations The study comprised 5469 men of whom 2334 (43%) were enrolled in PCOS and 3135 (57%) were enrolled in CEASAR. Self-reported urinary incontinence was higher in CEASAR compared with PCOS (7.7% vs 4.7%; adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-2.43). Similarly, self-reported erectile dysfunction was more common among CEASAR participants (44.7% vs 24.0%) with an adjusted OR of 3.12 (95% CI, 2.68-3.64). Multivariable linear regression models revealed less favorable self-reported baseline function among CEASAR participants in the urinary incontinence and sexual function domains. The study is limited by its observational design and possibility of unmeasured confounding. Conclusions Reporting of pretreatment urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction has increased over the past two decades. These findings may reflect sociological changes including heightened media attention and direct-to-consumer marketing, among other potential explanations. Patient summary Patient reporting of urinary and sexual function has evolved and is likely contingent on continually changing societal norms. Recognizing the evolving nature of patient reporting is essential in efforts to conduct high-quality, impactful comparative effectiveness research.

BACKGROUND Prostate cancer (PCa) is clinically and biologically heterogeneous, making it difficult to predict at detection whether it will take an indolent or aggressive disease course. Cell cycle-regulated genes may be more highly expressed in actively dividing cells, with transcript levels reflecting tumor growth rate. Here, we evaluated expression of cell cycle genes in relation to PCa outcomes in a population-based cohort. METHODS Gene expression data were generated from tumor tissues obtained at radical prostatectomy for 383 population-based patients (12.3-years average follow-up). The overall mean and individual transcript levels of 30 selected cell cycle genes was compared between patients with no evidence of recurrence (73%) and those who recurred (27%) or died (7%) from PCa. RESULTS The multivariate adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for a change from the 25th to 75th percentile of mean gene expression level (range 8.02–10.05) was 1.25 (95%CI 0.96–1.63; P = 0.10) for PCa recurrence risk, and did not vary substantially by Gleason score, TMPRSS2-ERG fusion status, or family history of PCa. For lethal PCa, the HR for a change (25th to 75th percentile) in mean gene expression level was 2.04 (95%CI 1.26–3.31; P = 0.004), adjusted for clinicopathological variables. The ROC curve for mean gene expression level alone (AUC = 0.740) did not perform as well as clinicopathological variables alone (AUC = 0.803) for predicting lethal PCa, and the addition of mean gene expression to clinicopathological variables did not substantially improve prediction (AUC = 0.827; P = 0.18). Higher TK1 expression was strongly associated with both recurrent (P = 6.7 × 10−5) and lethal (P = 6.4 × 10−6) PCa. CONCLUSIONS Mean expression level for 30 selected cell cycle-regulated genes was unrelated to recurrence risk, but was associated with a twofold increase in risk of lethal PCa. However, gene expression had less discriminatory accuracy than clinical variables alone for predicting lethal events. Transcript levels for several genes in the panel were significantly overexpressed in lethal versus non-recurrent PCa. Prostate 75:1354–1362, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The T2E gene fusion, formed by fusion of the transmembrane protease, serine 2, gene (TMPRSS2) with the erythroblast transformation-specific (ETS)-related gene (ERG), is found in approximately 50% of prostate cancers and may characterize distinct molecular subtypes of prostate cancer with different etiologies. We investigated the relationship between body mass index (BMI; weight (kg)/height (m)(2)) and prostate cancer risk by T2E status. Study participants were residents of King County, Washington, recruited for 2 population-based case-control studies conducted in 1993-1996 and 2002-2005. Tumor T2E status was determined for 563 prostate cancer patients who underwent radical prostatectomy. Information on weight, height, and covariables was obtained through in-person interviews. We performed polytomous logistic regression to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for T2E-positive and -negative prostate cancer. Comparing the highest BMI quartile with the lowest, inverse associations were observed between recent (≥29.7 vs.

Genetic studies have identified single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with the risk of prostate cancer (PC). It remains unclear whether such genetic variants are associated with disease aggressiveness. The NCI-SPORE Genetics Working Group retrospectively collected clinicopathologic information and genotype data for 36 SNPs which at the time had been validated to be associated with PC risk from 25,674 cases with PC. Cases were grouped according to race, Gleason score (Gleason ≤6, 7, ≥8) and aggressiveness (non-aggressive, intermediate, and aggressive disease). Statistical analyses were used to compare the frequency of the SNPs between different disease cohorts. After adjusting for multiple testing, only PC-risk SNP rs2735839 (G) was significantly and inversely associated with aggressive (OR=0.77; 95% CI 0.69–0.87) and high-grade disease (OR=0.77; 95% CI 0.68–0.86) in European men. Similar associations with aggressive (OR=0.72; 95% CI 0.58–0.89) and high-grade disease (OR=0.69; 95% CI 0.54–0.87) were documented in African-American subjects. The G allele of rs2735839 was associated with disease aggressiveness even at low PSA levels (

To understand the genetic drivers of immune recognition and evasion in colorectal cancer, we analyzed 1,211 colorectal cancer primary tumor samples, including 179 classified as microsatellite instability–high (MSI-high). This set includes The Cancer Genome Atlas colorectal cancer cohort of 592 samples, completed and analyzed here. MSI-high, a hypermutated, immunogenic subtype of colorectal cancer, had a high rate of significantly mutated genes in important immune-modulating pathways and in the antigen presentation machinery, including biallelic losses of B2M and HLA genes due to copy-number alterations and copy-neutral loss of heterozygosity. WNT/β-catenin signaling genes were significantly mutated in all colorectal cancer subtypes, and activated WNT/β-catenin signaling was correlated with the absence of T-cell infiltration. This large-scale genomic analysis of colorectal cancer demonstrates that MSI-high cases frequently undergo an immunoediting process that provides them with genetic events allowing immune escape despite high mutational load and frequent lymphocytic infiltration and, furthermore, that colorectal cancer tumors have genetic and methylation events associated with activated WNT signaling and T-cell exclusion. Significance: This multi-omic analysis of 1,211 colorectal cancer primary tumors reveals that it should be possible to better monitor resistance in the 15% of cases that respond to immune blockade therapy and also to use WNT signaling inhibitors to reverse immune exclusion in the 85% of cases that currently do not. Cancer Discov; 8(6); 730–49. ©2018 AACR. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 663

Prostate cancer incidence is 1.6-fold higher in African Americans than in other populations. The risk factors that drive this disparity are unknown and potentially consist of social, environmental, and genetic influences. To investigate the genetic basis of prostate cancer in men of African ancestry, we performed a genome-wide association meta-analysis using two-sided statistical tests in 10 202 case subjects and 10 810 control subjects. We identified novel signals on chromosomes 13q34 and 22q12, with the risk-associated alleles found only in men of African ancestry (13q34: rs75823044, risk allele frequency = 2.2%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.37 to 1.76, P = 6.10 × 10−12; 22q12.1: rs78554043, risk allele frequency = 1.5%, OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.39 to 1.89, P = 7.50 × 10−10). At 13q34, the signal is located 5’ of the gene IRS2 and 3’ of a long noncoding RNA, while at 22q12 the candidate functional allele is a missense variant in the CHEK2 gene. These findings provide further support for the role of ancestry-specific germline variation in contributing to population differences in prostate cancer risk.

This unit describes a technique for generating exome-enriched sequencing libraries using DNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples. Utilizing commercially available kits, we present a low-input FFPE workflow starting with 50 ng of DNA. This procedure includes a repair step to address damage caused by FFPE preservation that improves sequence quality. Subsequently, libraries undergo an in-solution-targeted selection for exons, followed by sequencing using the Illumina next-generation short-read sequencing platform. © 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Purpose: Aside from Gleason sum, few factors accurately identify the subset of prostate cancer patients at high risk for metastatic progression. We hypothesized that epigenetic alterations could distinguish prostate tumors with life-threatening potential. Experimental Design: Epigenome-wide DNA methylation profiling was performed in surgically resected primary tumor tissues from a population-based (n = 430) and a replication (n = 80) cohort of prostate cancer patients followed prospectively for at least 5 years. Metastasis was confirmed by positive bone scan, MRI, CT, or biopsy, and death certificates confirmed cause of death. AUC, partial AUC (pAUC, 95% specificity), and P value criteria were used to select differentially methylated CpG sites that robustly stratify patients with metastatic-lethal from nonrecurrent tumors, and which were complementary to Gleason sum. Results: Forty-two CpG biomarkers stratified patients with metastatic-lethal versus nonrecurrent prostate cancer in the discovery cohort, and eight of these CpGs replicated in the validation cohort based on a significant (P < 0.05) AUC (range, 0.66–0.75) or pAUC (range, 0.007–0.009). The biomarkers that improved discrimination of patients with metastatic-lethal prostate cancer include CpGs in five genes (ALKBH5, ATP11A, FHAD1, KLHL8, and PI15) and three intergenic regions. In the validation dataset, the AUC for Gleason sum alone (0.82) significantly increased with the addition of four individual CpGs (range, 0.86–0.89; all P Conclusions: Eight differentially methylated CpGs that distinguish patients with metastatic-lethal from nonrecurrent tumors were validated. These novel epigenetic biomarkers warrant further investigation as they may improve prognostic classification of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer and provide new insights on tumor aggressiveness. Clin Cancer Res; 23(1); 311–9. ©2016 AACR.

Despite recent progress on estimating the heritability explained by genotyped SNPs (h(2)g), a large gap between h(2)g and estimates of total narrow-sense heritability (h(2)) remains. Explanations for this gap include rare variants or upward bias in family-based estimates of h(2) due to shared environment or epistasis. We estimate h(2) from unrelated individuals in admixed populations by first estimating the heritability explained by local ancestry (h(2)γ). We show that h(2)γ = 2FSTCθ(1 - θ)h(2), where FSTC measures frequency differences between populations at causal loci and θ is the genome-wide ancestry proportion. Our approach is not susceptible to biases caused by epistasis or shared environment. We applied this approach to the analysis of 13 phenotypes in 21,497 African-American individuals from 3 cohorts. For height and body mass index (BMI), we obtained h(2) estimates of 0.55 ± 0.09 and 0.23 ± 0.06, respectively, which are larger than estimates of h(2)g in these and other data but smaller than family-based estimates of h(2).

Germline genetic variants have been suggested as prognostic biomarkers for identifying patients at high risk for lethal prostate cancer (PCa). Validation studies have confirmed the association of several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with fatal PCa, but whether these variants affect PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) in patients with an inherited predisposition to PCa, based on familial history, is unknown. For this study, a cohort of 957 PCa patients from 270 hereditary prostate cancer families of European ancestry was genotyped for a panel of 22 PCSM-associated SNPs. Death certificates were reviewed to confirm cause of death. Mixed-effect Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess survival according to genotypes, accounting for relatedness and clinicopathological factors. Within this cohort, 98 PCa deaths were confirmed over an average follow-up period of 12.7 years after diagnosis. Variant allele carriers for three SNPs had significantly altered risk for PCSM [rs635261 at RNASEL, hazard ratio (HR), 0.35, 95% CI, 0.18-0.66; p = 0.002; rs915927 in XRCC1, HR, 1.91, 95% CI, 1.21-3.02; p = 0.009; and rs2494750 at AKT1, HR, 0.45, 95% CI, 0.23-0.90; p = 0.016). These results confirm the association of genetic variation in three genes with PCa lethality in a cohort of men with an inherited susceptibility to the disease and provide validation evidence that germline SNPs provide prognostic information for PCa patients. Development of a panel of germline biomarkers with clinical utility for distinguishing patients at detection who have an increased risk for fatal PCa is warranted.

To assess the relationship between androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) exposure and self-reported bone complications among men in a population-based cohort of prostate cancer survivors followed for 15 years after diagnosis. The Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study enrolled 3533 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1994 and 1995. This analysis included participants with non-metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis who completed 15-year follow-up surveys to report development of fracture, and use of bone-related medications. The relationship between ADT duration and bone complications was assessed using multivariable logistic regression models. Among 961 surviving men, 157 (16.3%) received prolonged ADT (>1 year), 120 (12.5%) received short-term ADT (⩽1 year) and 684 (71.2%) did not receive ADT. Men receiving prolonged ADT had higher odds of fracture (OR 2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1–5.7), bone mineral density testing (OR 5.9; 95% CI: 3.0–12) and bone medication use (OR 4.3; 95% CI: 2.3–8.0) than untreated men. Men receiving short-term ADT reported rates of fracture similar to untreated men. Half of men treated with prolonged ADT reported bone medication use. In this population-based cohort study with long-term follow-up, prolonged ADT use was associated with substantial risks of fracture, whereas short-term use was not. This information should be considered when weighing the advantages and disadvantages of ADT in men with prostate cancer.

Genome-wide association studies have identified more than 80 risk variants for prostate cancer, mainly in European or Asian populations. The generalizability of these variants in other racial/ethnic populations needs to be understood before the loci can be used widely in risk modeling. In our study, we examined 82 previously reported risk variants in 4,853 prostate cancer cases and 4,678 controls of African ancestry. We performed association testing for each variant using logistic regression adjusted for age, study and global ancestry. Of the 82 known risk variants, 68 (83%) had effects that were directionally consistent in their association with prostate cancer risk and 30 (37%) were significantly associated with risk at p < 0.05, with the most statistically significant variants being rs116041037 (p = 3.7 × 10(-26) ) and rs6983561 (p = 1.1 × 10(-16) ) at 8q24, as well as rs7210100 (p = 5.4 × 10(-8) ) at 17q21. By exploring each locus in search of better markers, the number of variants that captured risk in men of African ancestry (p < 0.05) increased from 30 (37%) to 44 (54%). An aggregate score comprised of these 44 markers was strongly associated with prostate cancer risk [per-allele odds ratio (OR) = 1.12, p = 7.3 × 10(-98) ]. In summary, the consistent directions of effects for the vast majority of variants in men of African ancestry indicate common functional alleles that are shared across populations. Further exploration of these susceptibility loci is needed to identify the underlying biologically relevant variants to improve prostate cancer risk modeling in populations of African ancestry.

Background: One challenge in prostate cancer is distinguishing indolent from aggressive disease at diagnosis. DNA promoter hypermethylation is a frequent epigenetic event in prostate cancer, but few studies of DNA methylation in relation to features of more aggressive tumors or prostate cancer recurrence have been completed. Methods: We used the Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChip to assess DNA methylation in tumor tissue from 407 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy. Recurrence status was determined by follow-up patient surveys, medical record review, and linkage with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry. The methylation status of 14 genes for which promoter hypermethylation was previously correlated with advanced disease or biochemical recurrence was evaluated. Average methylation level for promoter region CpGs in patients who recurred compared with those with no evidence of recurrence was analyzed. For two genes with differential methylation, time to recurrence was examined. Results: During an average follow-up of 11.7 years, 104 (26%) patients recurred. Significant promoter hypermethylation in at least 50% of CpG sites in two genes, ABHD9 and HOXD3, was found in tumors from patients who recurred compared with those without recurrence. Evidence was strongest for HOXD3 (lowest P = 9.46 × 10−6), with higher average methylation across promoter region CpGs associated with reduced recurrence-free survival (P = 2 × 10−4). DNA methylation profiles did not differ by recurrence status for the other genes. Conclusions: These results validate the association between promoter hypermethylation of ADHB9 and HOXD3 and prostate cancer recurrence. Impact: Tumor DNA methylation profiling may help to distinguish patients with prostate cancer at higher risk for disease recurrence. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(7); 1331–9. ©2014 AACR.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 76 variants associated with prostate cancer risk predominantly in populations of European ancestry. To identify additional susceptibility loci for this common cancer, we conducted a meta-analysis of > 10 million SNPs in 43,303 prostate cancer cases and 43,737 controls from studies in populations of European, African, Japanese and Latino ancestry. Twenty-three new susceptibility loci were identified at association P < 5 × 10(-8); 15 variants were identified among men of European ancestry, 7 were identified in multi-ancestry analyses and 1 was associated with early-onset prostate cancer. These 23 variants, in combination with known prostate cancer risk variants, explain 33% of the familial risk for this disease in European-ancestry populations. These findings provide new regions for investigation into the pathogenesis of prostate cancer and demonstrate the usefulness of combining ancestrally diverse populations to discover risk loci for disease.

Previous GWAS studies have reported significant associations between various common SNPs and prostate cancer risk using cases unselected for family history. How these variants influence risk in familial prostate cancer is not well studied. Here, we analyzed 25 previously reported SNPs across 14 loci from prior prostate cancer GWAS. The International Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics (ICPCG) previously validated some of these using a family-based association method (FBAT). However, this approach suffered reduced power due to the conditional statistics implemented in FBAT. Here, we use a case-control design with an empirical analysis strategy to analyze the ICPCG resource for association between these 25 SNPs and familial prostate cancer risk. Fourteen sites contributed 12,506 samples (9,560 prostate cancer cases, 3,368 with aggressive disease, and 2,946 controls from 2,283 pedigrees). We performed association analysis with Genie software which accounts for relationships. We analyzed all familial prostate cancer cases and the subset of aggressive cases. For the familial prostate cancer phenotype, 20 of the 25 SNPs were at least nominally associated with prostate cancer and 16 remained significant after multiple testing correction (p a parts per thousand currency sign 1E (-3)) occurring on chromosomal bands 6q25, 7p15, 8q24, 10q11, 11q13, 17q12, 17q24, and Xp11. For aggressive disease, 16 of the SNPs had at least nominal evidence and 8 were statistically significant including 2p15. The results indicate that the majority of common, low-risk alleles identified in GWAS studies for all prostate cancer also contribute risk for familial prostate cancer, and that some may contribute risk to aggressive disease.

PURPOSE Digoxin is a commonly used medication for heart failure and cardiac arrhythmias that has recently been suggested as a novel chemotherapeutic agent. Preclinical studies of prostate cancer (PCa) have shown anti-tumor activity with digoxin. We explore the relationship between use of digoxin and PCa risk. METHODS Data from a population-based case–control study of incident cases aged 35–74 years at PCa diagnosis in 2002–2005 in King County, Washington were available. Controls were identified by random digit dialing and frequency matched by age. Use of digoxin was determined from in-person questionnaires regarding medical and prescription history. The relationship of digoxin use with PCa risk was evaluated with logistic regression. RESULTS One thousand one cases of PCa and 942 controls were analyzed. The prevalence of digoxin use in controls was 2.7%, and use was positively correlated with age. In multivariate analysis adjusting for age, race, PSA screening, and family history of PCa, digoxin use was associated with a reduction in the odds ratio of PCa (OR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.30–1.10). Among those with ≥3 PSA tests over the preceding 5 years (546 cases, 380 controls), digoxin use was associated with a stronger reduction of PCa risk (OR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.20–0.98). CONCLUSION These data indicate digoxin use may be associated with a reduction in risk of PCa. Given the potential mechanisms by which digoxin may exert an anti-neoplastic effect and other recent studies showing a negative association between digoxin use and PCa, further research is warranted. Prostate 74:97–102, 2014. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background: Rare, inherited mutations account for 5% to 10% of all prostate cancer cases. However, to date, few causative mutations have been identified. Methods: To identify rare mutations for prostate cancer, we conducted whole-exome sequencing (WES) in multiple kindreds (n = 91) from 19 hereditary prostate cancer (HPC) families characterized by aggressive or early-onset phenotypes. Candidate variants (n = 130) identified through family- and bioinformatics-based filtering of WES data were then genotyped in an independent set of 270 HPC families (n = 819 prostate cancer cases; n = 496 unaffected relatives) for replication. Two variants with supportive evidence were subsequently genotyped in a population-based case–control study (n = 1,155 incident prostate cancer cases; n = 1,060 age-matched controls) for further confirmation. All participants were men of European ancestry. Results: The strongest evidence was for two germline missense variants in the butyrophilin-like 2 (BTNL2) gene (rs41441651, p.Asp336Asn and rs28362675, p.Gly454Cys) that segregated with affection status in two of the WES families. In the independent set of 270 HPC families, 1.5% (rs41441651; P = 0.0032) and 1.2% (rs28362675; P = 0.0070) of affected men, but no unaffected men, carried a variant. Both variants were associated with elevated prostate cancer risk in the population-based study (rs41441651: OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.27–5.87; P = 0.010; rs28362675: OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.16–5.46; P = 0.019). Conclusions: Results indicate that rare BTNL2 variants play a role in susceptibility to both familial and sporadic prostate cancer. Impact: Results implicate BTNL2 as a novel prostate cancer susceptibility gene. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(9); 1520–8. ©2013 AACR.

BACKGROUND Recently, a genetic variant (rs10993994) in the MSMB gene associated with prostate cancer (PCa) risk was shown to correlate with reduced prostate secretory protein of 94 amino acids (PSP94) levels. Although the biological activity of PSP94 is unclear, one of its hypothesized functions is to protect prostatic cells from pathogens. Number of sexual partners and a history of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) have been positively associated with PCa risk, and these associations may be related to pathogen-induced chronic prostatic inflammation. Based on these observations, we investigated whether MSMB genotype modifies the PCa-sexual history association. METHODS We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between number of sexual partners and PCa by fitting logistic regression models, stratified by MSMB genotype, and adjusted for age, family history of PCa, and PCa screening history among 1,239 incident cases and 1,232 controls. RESULTS Compared with 1–4 female sexual partners, men with ≥15 such partners who carried the variant T allele of rs10993994 were at increased risk for PCa (OR = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.03–1.71); no association was observed in men with the CC genotype (OR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.73–1.46; P = 0.05 for interaction). Similar estimates were observed for total sexual partners (any T allele OR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07–1.77; CC genotype OR = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.79–1.55; P = 0.06 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS The rs10993994 genotype in the MSMB gene modifies the association between number of sexual partners and PCa risk. These findings support a hypothesized biological mechanism whereby prostatic infection/inflammation may enhance risk of PCa. Prostate 73:1803–1809, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

INTRODUCTION Obese men have an increased risk of prostate cancer (PCa)-specific mortality. Potential mechanisms include insulin and related proteins. We investigate whether a short-term caloric restriction diet in overweight/obese men with newly diagnosed PCa can lead to measurable changes in patient anthropometrics and insulin-related proteins. METHODS Overweight and obese PCa patients choosing active surveillance or radical prostatectomy were randomized to a 6-week, caloric-restricted diet or to continue their current diet. Changes from baseline to end of study in anthropometrics, dietary constituents and serum proteins (insulin, c-peptide, IGF-1, adiponectin, IGF-BP3) were compared between the intervention and control groups using a Generalized Estimating Equation model. RESULTS Nineteen patients were randomized to the intervention (N = 10) or control (N = 9) group. Men in the intervention group had a 1.7% (3.7 lbs) mean decline in weight versus 1.0% (2.0 lbs) in controls (P

Background—We investigated associations between statin use begun before PCa diagnosis and prostate cancer (PCa) recurrence/progression and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) in a prospective, population-based cohort study. Methods—The analysis included 1,001 PCa patients diagnosed in 2002–2005 in King County, Washington. Statin use was assessed at baseline using a detailed in-person interview. Prostate cancer recurrence/progression events and cause-specific survival were ascertained from a followup survey and the SEER registry. Multivariable competing risk and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the risk of PCa outcomes according to categories of statin use. Results—Of the 1,001 PCa patients in our study, 289 men were ever users of statin drugs. During follow-up, we identified 151 PCa recurrence/progression events and 123 total deaths, including 39 PCa-specific deaths. In unadjusted analysis, the risk of PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) was significantly lower for statin users compared to non-users (1% versus 5% at 10 years; P

Results After 15 years of follow-up, there were 568 deaths, including 104 from PC. RP was associated with statistically significant advantages for overall (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.53 to 0.70, P

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 36 loci associated with body mass index (BMI), predominantly in populations of European ancestry. We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the association of3.2 million SNPs with BMI in 39,144 men and women of African ancestry and followed up the most significant associations in an additional 32,268 individuals of African ancestry. We identified one new locus at 5q33 (GALNT10, rs7708584, P = 3.4 × 10(-11)) and another at 7p15 when we included data from the GIANT consortium (MIR148A-NFE2L3, rs10261878, P = 1.2 × 10(-10)). We also found suggestive evidence of an association at a third locus at 6q16 in the African-ancestry sample (KLHL32, rs974417, P = 6.9 × 10(-8)). Thirty-two of the 36 previously established BMI variants showed directionally consistent effect estimates in our GWAS (binomial P = 9.7 × 10(-7)), five of which reached genome-wide significance. These findings provide strong support for shared BMI loci across populations, as well as for the utility of studying ancestrally diverse populations.

BACKGROUND Evidence suggests that high-heat cooking methods may increase the risk of prostate cancer (PCa). The addition of oil/fat, as in deep-frying, may be of particular concern, and has not specifically been investigated in relation to PCa. Potential mechanisms include the formation of potentially carcinogenic agents such as aldehydes, acrolein, heterocyclic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and acrylamide. METHODS We estimated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between tertiles of intake of deep-fried foods from a food frequency questionnaire (French fries, fried chicken, fried fish, doughnuts and snack chips) and PCa risk, adjusted for potential confounders, among 1,549 cases and 1,492 controls. We additionally examined associations with more aggressive PCa (defined as regional/distant stage, elevated Gleason score or prostate-specific antigen level). RESULTS Compared with