Search

Objectives To determine whether studies that used propensity score (PS) methods in the urology literature provided sufficient detail to allow scientific reproducibility and whether appropriate statistical tests were used to obtain valid measures of effect. Materials and Methods We searched OVID Medline and the Science Citation Index from inception to November 2016 to identify studies that used PS methods from 5 general urology journals. From each included article, we extracted pertinent information related to the PS methodology such as estimation of the PS, whether balance diagnostics were performed, and the statistical analysis performed. Results We identified 114 articles for inclusion. Matching on the PS was the most common method used (62 studies, 54.4%). Of all studies, 103 (90.4%) described which covariates were used to estimate the PS; however, only 24 provided justification for the selected covariates. Although the majority of studies (70.2%) performed some sort of diagnostic evaluation to assess balance, few studies (24.6%) used appropriate methods for balance assessment. Only 4 (6.4%) studies that used PS matching provided sufficient detail to replicate the matching strategy. Finally, the majority (77.4%) of studies that used PS matching explicitly used inappropriate statistical methods to estimate the effect of an exposure on an outcome. Conclusions Propensity score methods are poorly described and implemented in the urology literature. We provide recommendations for improvement to allow scientific reproducibility and obtain valid measures of effect from their use. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Purpose: Cisplatin is one of the most commonly used chemotherapy drugs worldwide and one of the most ototoxic. We sought to identify genetic variants that modulate cisplatin-associated ototoxicity (CAO). Experimental Design: We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of CAO using quantitative audiometry (4–12 kHz) in 511 testicular cancer survivors of European genetic ancestry. We performed polygenic modeling and functional analyses using a variety of publicly available databases. We used an electronic health record cohort to replicate our top mechanistic finding. Results: One SNP, rs62283056, in the first intron of Mendelian deafness gene WFS1 (wolframin ER transmembrane glycoprotein) and an expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) for WFS1 met genome-wide significance for association with CAO (P = 1.4 × 10−8). A significant interaction between cumulative cisplatin dose and rs62283056 genotype was evident, indicating that higher cisplatin doses exacerbate hearing loss in patients with the minor allele (P = 0.035). The association between decreased WFS1 expression and hearing loss was replicated in an independent BioVU cohort (n = 18,620 patients, Bonferroni adjusted P < 0.05). Beyond this top signal, we show CAO is a polygenic trait and that SNPs in and near 84 known Mendelian deafness genes are significantly enriched for low P values in the GWAS (P = 0.048). Conclusions: We show for the first time the role of WFS1 in CAO and document a statistically significant interaction between increasing cumulative cisplatin dose and rs62283056 genotype. Our clinical translational results demonstrate that pretherapy patient genotyping to minimize ototoxicity could be useful when deciding between cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens of comparable efficacy with different cumulative doses. Clin Cancer Res; 23(13); 3325–33. ©2016 AACR.

Background Non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is especially prevalent among the elderly. Many patients with NMIBC also have significant concomitant comorbidities, including cardiovascular diseases and hypercholesterolemia. Statins are the most commonly used cholesterol-depleting agents, and they may possess anticancer properties. The objective of this population-based study was to evaluate the effect of statins on the survival of individuals diagnosed with NMIBC. Methods This is a retrospective population-based cohort study that used administrative databases to identify individuals 66 years of age and older who were diagnosed with NMIBC between 1992 and 2012. Subjects with documented use of statins before they were 66 years of age were excluded from the analysis. Cumulative daily use of statins was calculated before and after the diagnosis of NMIBC. Their effect on cancer-specific survival and overall survival was estimated using a multivariable competing risk and Cox proportional hazards model, respectively. Results The final cohort was composed of 13,811 individuals≥66 years diagnosed with NMIBC. Of these, 4,748 individuals (34%) were exposed to statins during follow-up. The median statin exposure after NMIBC diagnosis was 21.4 months (interquartile range: 7.8–45.4). After a median follow-up of 7.1 years (interquartile range: 4.0–11.3) from NMIBC diagnosis, 8,900 (64%) individuals had died. The cumulative use of statins after NMIBC diagnosis did not significantly affect cancer-specific survival ( P = 0.10). However, its cumulative use after NMIBC diagnosis was associated with a better overall survival ([0.93; 95% CI: 0.91–0.96], per year of use). Conclusions This large population-based study has provided evidence that cumulative statin use was not associated with an improved cancer-specific survival among individuals with NMIBC. However, our findings did demonstrate that statin users had a better overall survival than nonusers.

Purpose: Degarelix, a new gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist with demonstrated efficacy as first-line treatment in the management of high-risk prostate cancer, possesses some theoretical advantages over luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues in terms of avoiding “testosterone flare” and lower follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels. We set out to determine whether preoperative degarelix influenced surrogates of disease control in a randomized phase II study. Experimental Design: Thirty-nine patients were randomly assigned to one of three different neoadjuvant arms: degarelix only, degarelix/bicalutamide, or LHRH agonist/bicalutamide. Treatments were given for 3 months before prostatectomy. Patients had localized prostate cancer and had chosen radical prostatectomy as primary treatment. The primary end point was treatment effect on intratumoral dihydrotestosterone levels. Results: Intratumoral DHT levels were higher in the degarelix arm than both the degarelix/bicalutamide and LHRH agonist/bicalutamide arms (0.87 ng/g vs. 0.26 ng/g and 0.23 ng/g, P < 0.01). No significant differences existed for other intratumoral androgens, such as testosterone and dehydroepiandrosterone. Patients in the degarelix-only arm had higher AMACR levels on immunohistochemical analysis (P = 0.01). Serum FSH levels were lower after 12 weeks of therapy in both degarelix arms than the LHRH agonist/bicalutamide arm (0.55 and 0.65 vs. 3.65, P < 0.01), and inhibin B levels were lower in the degarelix/bicalutamide arm than the LHRH agonist/bicalutamide arm (82.14 vs. 126.67, P = 0.02). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant degarelix alone, compared with use of LHRH agonist and bicalutamide, is associated with higher levels of intratumoral dihydrotestosterone, despite similar testosterone levels. Further studies that evaluate the mechanisms behind these results are needed. Clin Cancer Res; 23(8); 1974–80. ©2016 AACR.

Background Exposure to metformin, a medication used to treat diabetes, has been associated with improved survival outcomes in various malignancies. However, studies evaluating the association between metformin use and kidney cancer survival outcomes have demonstrated conflicting results. Patients and Methods We performed a retrospective review of diabetic patients undergoing nephrectomy for M0 renal cell carcinoma from 2000 to 2014 at a tertiary academic center. Medication use at the time of surgery was determined by medical record review. Inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs) were derived from a propensity score model that included various clinical, surgical, and pathologic characteristics. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the association between metformin use and disease-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival in the sample weighted by the IPTWs. Results A total of 158 diabetic patients were identified, 82 (52%) of whom were taking metformin at the time of surgery. Before the application of the propensity score methods, the metformin users were significantly older and were more likely to undergo surgery between 2009 and 2014. After applying the IPTWs, the clinical, surgical, and pathologic characteristics were well balanced between the 2 groups. The median follow-up period was 43 months. Metformin use was not significantly associated with disease-free (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-2.74), cause-specific (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.08-1.86), or overall (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.40-1.85) survival. Conclusion We found no significant association between metformin use and kidney cancer outcomes. Population-based studies are needed to further evaluate the role of metformin in kidney cancer therapy.

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in men and the second most common cause of cancer-related mortality among men in the developed world. Conventional anti-PCa therapies include surgery, radiation, hormonal ablation, and chemotherapy. Despite increasing efforts, these therapies are not effective for patients with advanced and/or metastatic disease. In most cases, cancer therapies fail due to an incomplete depletion of tumor cells, resulting in tumor relapse. The cancer stem cell (CSC) hypothesis is an emerging model that explains many of the molecular characteristics of oncological disease as well as the tendency of cancers to relapse, metastasize, and develop resistance to conventional therapies. CSCs are a reservoir of cancer cells that exhibit properties of self-renewal and the ability to reestablish the heterogeneous tumor cell population. The existence of PCa stem cells offers a theoretical explanation for many uncertainties regarding PCa and also for treatment resistance and disease progression once clinical cure is achieved. Therapies targeting CSCs might therefore lead to more effective cancer treatments, divergent from a traditional anti-proliferative approach, based on tumor bulk reduction accompanied by CSC-specific inhibition. Here, we focus on reviewing the historical perspective as well as concepts regarding stem cells and CSCs in PCa. In addition, we will report possible strategies and new clinical approaches that address the CSC-based concept of tumorigenesis in PCa. (C) 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel

Background Patients on surveillance for clinical stage I (CSI) testicular cancer are counseled regarding their baseline risk of relapse. The conditional risk of relapse (cRR), which provides prognostic information on patients who have survived for a period of time without relapse, have not been determined for CSI testicular cancer. Objective To determine cRR in CSI testicular cancer. Design, setting, and participants We reviewed 1239 patients with CSI testicular cancer managed with surveillance at a tertiary academic centre between 1980 and 2014. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis cRR estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. We stratified patients according to validated risk factors for relapse. We used linear regression to determine cRR trends over time. Results and limitations At orchiectomy, the risk of relapse within 5 yr was 42.4%, 17.3%, 20.3%, and 12.2% among patients with high-risk nonseminomatous germ cell tumor (NSGCT), low-risk NSGCT, seminoma with tumor size ≥3cm, and seminoma with tumor size Conclusions After 2 yr, the risk of relapse on surveillance for CSI testicular cancer is very low. Consideration should be given to adapting surveillance protocols to individualized risk of relapse based on cRR as opposed to static protocols based on baseline factors. This strategy could reduce the intensity of follow-up for the majority of patients. Patient summary Our study is the first to provide data on the future risk of relapse during surveillance for clinical stage I testicular cancer, given a patient has been without relapse for a specified period of time.

Purpose: In prostate cancer biopsy Gleason score predicts stage and helps determine active surveillance suitability. Evidence suggests that small incremental differences in the quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 on biopsy stratify disease extent, biochemical failure following surgery and eligibility for active surveillance. We explored the overall quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 levels and adverse outcomes in patients with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer to whom active surveillance may be offered under expanded criteria.Materials and Methods: We analyzed the records of patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 (3 + 3) or 7 (3 + 4) who underwent radical prostatectomy from January 2008 to August 2015. Age, prostate specific antigen, Gleason score, quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4, overall percent positive cores (percent of prostate cancer) and clinical stage were explored as predictors of nonorgan confined disease and time to failure after radical prostatectomy.Results: In 1,2...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:The traditional serum tumor markers alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) have served a key role in diagnosis, stagi...

Introduction: Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) accounts for

We reviewed various existing active surveillance criteria and determined the competing trade-offs of the stricter vs more inclusive active surveillance criteria.Men enrolled in an active surveillance program at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre between 1998 and 2014 were identified through a prospectively maintained database. All patients were assessed for entry eligibility into the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance, Johns Hopkins, University of Miami, University of California San Francisco, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, University of Toronto-Sunnybrook and Royal Marsden protocols. The 2-sided t-test, ANOVA, Wilcoxon rank sum or chi-square tests were used for comparison as appropriate.Of the 1,365 men identified 1,085 met the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre inclusion criteria. When the Johns Hopkins, Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance and University of Miami criteria were applied 15.2%, 11.5% and 11.3% of these patients were excluded from active surveillance, respectively. No significant differences were noted between men who met the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre criteria and those who were excluded based on more stringent criteria when grade or volume reclassification was compared. No significant differences in prostate specific antigen velocity or the number of patients who proceeded to seek treatment were noted (p0.1). Rates of biochemical recurrence among patients who chose to undergo radical prostatectomy after initial active surveillance were not different between men who met the more inclusive vs more exclusive active surveillance protocols.More selective criteria do not significantly improve short-term outcomes when considering the relative risk of grade reclassification or biochemical failure after treatment. In an era of increased awareness regarding the over diagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer, we believe that stricter entry criteria should be reconsidered.

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.

Intercalated discs (ICDs) are unique and functionally indispensible to the heart, but its structural organization remains less understood. Previously, we showed that an ICD-bound transmembrane protein 65 (Tmem65) was required for Connexin 43 (Cx43) localization in cultured mouse neonatal cardiomyocytes, and that reduced Tmem65 was associated with a decrease and internalization of Cx43, and impaired electrical conduction between neighboring cardiomyocytes. Here, we investigated the role of Tmem65 in vivo by injecting CD1 mice with recombinant adeno-associated virus 9 (rAAV9) harboring Tmem65 (or scrambled) shRNA. Quantitative polymerase chain reactions and immunoblots confirmed greater than 90% reduction in Tmem65 expression in mouse ventricles compared to control samples. Immunoblots and immunofluorescence showed reduced and internalized Cx43 in Tmem65 knockdown (KD) hearts compared to controls, respectively. Kaplain-Meier survival plot showed that all Tmem65 KD mice died within 7 weeks (> 50% death 3 weeks post viral injection), whereas no death was seen in control mice. Tmem65 KD mice developed eccentric hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in 3 weeks and dilated cardiomyopathy with severe cardiac fibrosis in 7 weeks as confirmed by H&E and Masson’s Trichrome staining. Echocardiography also confirmed ventricular dilatation and showed a 60% reduction in cardiac output (19.27±1.46 mL/min in control vs. 6.63±0.52 mL/min in Tmem65 KD mice, pin vivo .

Introduction: Active surveillance (AS) is standard of care in low-risk prostate cancer (PC). This study describes a novel total cancer location (TCLo) density metric and aims to determine its performance in predicting clinical progression (CP) and grade progression (GP). Methods: This was a retrospective study of patients on AS after confirmatory biopsy (CBx). We excluded patients with Gleason ≥7 at CBx and 0.05) was independently associated with time to CP (HR 4.70, 95% CI: 2.62-8.42, p

Introduction: The management of advanced prostate cancer (PCa) continues to evolve with the emergence of new diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. As a result, there are multiple areas in this landscape with a lack of high-level evidence to guide practice. Consensus initiatives are an approach to establishing practice guidance in areas where evidence is unclear. We conducted a Canadian-based consensus forum to address key controversial areas in the management of advanced PCa. Methods: As part of a modified Delphi process, a core scientific group of PCa physicians (n=8) identified controversial areas for discussion and developed an initial set of questions, which were then reviewed and finalized with a larger group of 29 multidisciplinary PCa specialists. The main areas of focus were non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), oligometastatic prostate cancer, genetic testing in prostate cancer, and imaging in advanced prostate cancer. The predetermined threshold for consensus was set at 74% (agreement from 20 of 27 participating physicians). Results: Consensus participants included uro-oncologists (n=13), medical oncologists (n=10), and radiation oncologists (n=4). Of the 64 questions, consensus was reached in 30 questions (n=5 unanimously). Consensus was more common for questions related to biochemical recurrence, sequencing of therapies, and mCRPC. Conclusions: A Canadian consensus forum in PCa identified areas of agreement in nearly 50% of questions discussed. Areas of variability may represent opportunities for further research, education, and sharing of best practices. These findings reinforce the value of multidisciplinary consensus initiatives to optimize patient care.

Purpose To compare the psychological distress throughout several predefined disease time points in patients younger than 70 with small renal masses (SRMs) treated with either active surveillance (AS) or ablative/surgical therapy. Methods Using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System - revised (ESAS-r) questionnaire, we focused on psychological distress symptoms in all consecutive patients with an SRM between 2014 and 2017. We further evaluated the psychological distress sub-score (PDSS) of ESAS-r, consisting of the sum scores of anxiety, depression, and well-being. PDSS of patients treated with AS or ablation/surgery were compared at 4 distinct time points (before and after diagnosis, after a biopsy is performed, and at last follow-up). Multivariable linear regression models were performed to assess factors associated with worse PDSS (1-point score increase). Results We examined 477 patients, of whom 217 and 260 were treated with AS and surgery/ablation, respectively. Similar ESAS-r and PDSS scores were shown at all predefined disease time points except following an SRM biopsy and at last, follow-up, where AS-treated patients with a biopsy-proven malignancy had significantly worse PDSS (11.4 vs. 6.1, P = 0.035), and (13.2 vs. 5.4, P = 0.004), respectively. At last follow-up, multivariable linear models demonstrated that a biopsy-proven malignancy (B = 2.630, 95% CI 0.024–5.236, P = 0.048) and AS strategy (B = 6.499, 95% CI 2.340–10.658, P = 0.002) were associated with worse PDSS in all patients, and in those who underwent a biopsy, respectively. Conclusions Offering standardized psychological supportive care may be required for patients younger than 70 years on AS for SRM, especially for those with a biopsy-proven tumor.

Objectives To present long-term oncological outcomes of patients with paratesticular sarcoma treated by a multidisciplinary team. Patients and methods Patients managed at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, between 1990 and 2012, were analysed. A sarcoma expert performed central pathology review. Kaplan-Meier graphs compared local recurrence (LR), metastasis, and overall survival (OS) of patients treated with hemiscrotectomy vs those who did not. Univariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to delineate predictors of LR, metastasis, and OS. Results Overall, 51 patients with a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 132 (51.6-226.8) months were analysed. At presentation, 92.2% (47 patients) had localised disease. Only five patients (9.8%) had undergone initially planned hemiscrotectomy. Completion and salvage hemiscrotectomy was performed in 25 (54.3%) and seven (15.2%) patients, respectively. Recurrence and metastasis occurred in 12 (25.5%) and 10 patients (19.6%), respectively. At the last follow-up, 21.6% (11 patients) had died, with eight dying from their disease. Kaplan-Meyer graphs demonstrated that hemiscrotectomy improved LR (median not reached vs 62.4 months, log-rank P = 0.008) and OS (median not reached vs 168 months, log-rank P = 0.081). Univariable analysis found hemiscrotectomy to be associated with a lower LR rate (hazard ratio [HR] 0.21, P = 0.02), whilst positive margins at initial surgery were associated with increased LR (HR 4.81, P = 0.047). No metastasis predictors were found, but age (HR 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.08; P = 0.02) and non-localised disease at presentation (HR5.17, 95% CI 1.33-20.06; P = 0.017) were associated with worse OS. Conclusion Paratesticular sarcoma is a rare tumour, predominantly manifesting as localised disease. Most patients receive an initial suboptimal oncological surgery. Improved long-term outcomes are demonstrated following early hemiscrotectomy.

Background: The usefulness of echocardiographic indices, including those already used by modified Task Force Criteria (mTFC), and others such as strain imaging, to identify arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) in adolescence is not well established. Methods: Echocardiograms from 120 adolescents investigated for ARVC (13±4 years) were retrospectively analyzed. According to the mTFC, patients were classified into definite (n=38), borderline (n=39), or possible (n=43) ARVC. Results were compared with 35 healthy controls. mTFC echocardiographic parameters were analyzed, as well as comprehensive right ventricular (RV) and left ventricular assessment of function including parameters not included in mTFC such as pulsed-wave tissue Doppler and RV 2-dimensional speckle strain. Results: mTFC parameters indexed for body surface area were significantly more abnormal in patients with possible, borderline, or definite ARVC compared with controls for parasternal long-axis view of the RV outflow tract. RV end-diastolic diameters were significantly larger in patients versus controls, a difference that increased with likelihood of ARVC. Left ventricular ejection fraction, tricuspid annular peak systolic excursion, and systolic and diastolic pulsed-wave tissue Doppler imaging indices were similar to controls for all groups. Average and segmental RV peak longitudinal systolic strain was significantly lower in patients with definite ARVC (−21±4%) and disease subgroups versus controls (−25±3%). Multivariable risk analysis showed that reduced RV strain was significantly associated with ARVC diagnosis and its likelihood (multivariable odds ratio [95% CI]=1.23 [1.1–1.37]; P P Conclusions: mTFC echocardiographic criteria are significantly different between patients and controls and between the different diagnostic groups. However, in our cohort, current echocardiographic mTFC are not met by the majority of adolescent ARVC patients, particularly when indexed to body surface area. Measurement of RV apical dimensions and strain may increase the diagnostic yield of echocardiography for ARVC.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:To minimize morbidity of surgery or radiation, active surveillance (AS) is standard of care in low-risk prostate cancer (PC). Predicting which men on AS will progress an...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common non-cutaneous cancer in Canadian men and the third most common cause of cancer death in males accounting for 10% of all male canc...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:Traditionally, renal angiomyolipoma (AML) >4cm were treated with (angioembolisation, radiofrequency ablation, surgery) due to the risk of hemorrhage. The aim of the stud...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:Age is an important prognostic factor in oncology. Over 20% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer (PC) are > = 75 years old. In the growing elderly population, objective...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:Prostate cancer is the most common solid organ cancer among North American men. Traditionally, men diagnosed with prostate cancer were offered treatments in the form of ...

Obesity is associated with additional left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in adults with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). It is not known whether obesity can lead to further LVH in children with HCM. Echocardiographic LV dimensions were determined in 504 children with HCM. Measurements of interventricular septal thickness (IVST) and posterior wall thickness (PWT), and patients' weight and height were recorded. Obesity was defined as a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 99th percentile for age and sex. IVST data was available for 498 and PWT data for 484 patients. Patient age ranged from 2 to 20 years (mean ± SD, 12.5 ± 3.9) and 340 (68%) were males. Overall, patient BMI ranged from 7 to 50 (22.7 ± 6.1). Obesity (BMI 18-50, mean 29.1) was present in 140 children aged 2-19.6 (11.3 ± 4.1). The overall mean IVST was 20.5 ± 9.6 mm and the overall mean PWT was 11.0 ± 8.4 mm. The mean IVST in the obese patients was 21.6 ± 10.0 mm and mean PWT was 13.3 ± 14.7 mm. The mean IVST in the non-obese patients was 20.1 ± 9.5 mm and mean PWT was 10.4 ± 4.3 mm. Obesity was not significantly associated with IVST (p = 0.12), but was associated with increased PWT (0.0011). Obesity is associated with increased PWT but not IVST in children with HCM. Whether obesity and its impact on LVH influences clinical outcomes in children with HCM needs to be studied.

Predictors of risk of lethal arrhythmic events (LAE) is poorly understood and may differ from adults in children with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM).The purpose of this study was to determine predictors of LAE in children with HCM.A retrospective data collection was performed on 446 children and teenagers 20 years and younger (290 [65%] male; mean age 10.1 ± 5.7 years) with idiopathic HCM from 35 centers. Patients were classified as group 1 (HCM with LAE) if having a secondary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or primary prevention ICD with appropriate interventions or group 2 (HCM without LAE) if having a primary prevention ICD without appropriate interventions.There were 152 children (34%) in group 1 and 294 (66%) in group 2. Risk factors for group 1 by univariate analysis were septal thickness, posterior left ventricular (LV) wall thickness, lower LV outflow gradient, and Q wave3 mm in inferior electrocardiographic leads. Factors not associated with LAE were family history of SCD, abnormal blood pressure response to exercise, and ventricular tachycardia on ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring. Risk factors for SCD by multivariate analysis were age at ICD placement (hazard ratio [HR] 0.9; P = .0025), LV posterior wall thickness z score (HR 1.02; P.005), and LV outflow gradient30 mm Hg (HR 2.0; P.006). LV posterior wall thickness z score ≥ 5 was associated with LAE.Risk factors for LAE appear different in children compared to adults. Conventional adult risk factors were not significant in children. Further prospective studies are needed to improve risk stratification for LAE in children with HCM.

Objective The statin family of cholesterol-lowering drugs has been shown to induce tumor-specific apoptosis by inhibiting the rate-limiting enzyme of the mevalonate (MVA) pathway, HMG-CoA reductase (HMGCR). Accumulating evidence suggests that statin use may delay prostate cancer (PCa) progression in a subset of patients; however, the determinants of statin drug sensitivity in PCa remain unclear. Our goal was to identify molecular features of statin-sensitive PCa and opportunities to potentiate statin-induced PCa cell death. Methods Deregulation of HMGCR expression in PCa was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. The response of PCa cell lines to fluvastatin-mediated HMGCR inhibition was assessed using cell viability and apoptosis assays. Activation of the sterol-regulated feedback loop of the MVA pathway, which was hypothesized to modulate statin sensitivity in PCa, was also evaluated. Inhibition of this statin-induced feedback loop was performed using RNA interference or small molecule inhibitors. The achievable levels of fluvastatin in mouse prostate tissue were measured using liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. Results High HMGCR expression in PCa was associated with poor prognosis; however, not all PCa cell lines underwent apoptosis in response to treatment with physiologically-achievable concentrations of fluvastatin. Rather, most cell lines initiated a feedback response mediated by sterol regulatory element-binding protein 2 (SREBP2), which led to the further upregulation of HMGCR and other lipid metabolism genes. Overcoming this feedback mechanism by knocking down or inhibiting SREBP2 potentiated fluvastatin-induced PCa cell death. Notably, we demonstrated that this feedback loop is pharmacologically-actionable, as the drug dipyridamole can be used to block fluvastatin-induced SREBP activation and augment apoptosis in statin-insensitive PCa cells. Conclusion Our study implicates statin-induced SREBP2 activation as a PCa vulnerability that can be exploited for therapeutic purposes using clinically-approved agents., Highlights • High HMGCR protein expression in prostate cancer is associated with poor prognosis. • Statin-mediated HMGCR inhibition induces apoptosis in a subset of prostate cancer cells. • Statin-induced SREBP2 activation modulates statin sensitivity in prostate cancer. • Inhibiting SREBP2 sensitizes prostate cancer cells to statin-induced apoptosis. • Combined statin and dipyridamole therapy significantly delays prostate tumor growth.

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.

Introduction: Prostate cancer poses a significant lifetime risk to Canadian men. Treatment for metastatic prostatic cancer (mPCa) is an area of ongoing research with a lack of up-to-date clinical guidance. The multidisciplinary Canadian Genitourinary Research Consortium (GURC) determined that additional guidance focusing on management of mPCa was warranted. Methods: The most up-to-date guidelines, consensus statements, and emerging phase 3 trials were identified and used to inform development of algorithms by a multidisciplinary genitourinary oncology panel outlining recommendations for the management of mPCa. Results: A single pan-Canadian guideline and five national and international guidelines or consensus statements published since 2015 were identified, along with two new phase 3 trials and one additional randomized comparison. Iterative GURC discussions led to the development of two mPCa algorithms: the first addressing management of newly diagnosed metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) patients and the second addressing treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). For newly diagnosed mCSPC patients with high-volume/high-risk disease, either docetaxel or abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is recommended. The addition of radiotherapy to ADT is suggested for those with low-volume disease and/or AAP to ADT for low-volume or low-risk disease. For first-line mCRPC, androgen receptor-axis-targeted (ARAT) therapy is recommended for most patients, while sequencing with docetaxel, radium-223, ARAT therapy, and/or cabazitaxel is recommended for later lines of therapy. Conclusions: Two treatment algorithms were developed for the management of mPC and can be used by multidisciplinary specialist teams to guide treatment.

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.

Introduction: Current prostate cancer (PC) guidelines primarily focus on localized or metastatic PC. A multidisciplinary genitourinary oncology panel determined that additional guidance focusing on monitoring and management of biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical therapy and non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) was warranted. Methods: The most up-to-date national and international guidelines, consensus statements, and emerging phase 3 trials were identified and used to inform development of algorithms by a multidisciplinary genitourinary oncology panel outlining optimal monitoring and treatment for patients with non-metastatic PC. Results: A total of eight major national and international guidelines/consensus statements published since 2015 and three phase 3 trials were identified. Working group discussions among the multidisciplinary genitourinary oncology panel led to the development of two algorithms: the first addressing management of patients with BCR following radical therapy (post-BCR), and the second addressing management of nmCRPC. The post-BCR algorithm suggests consideration of early salvage treatment in select patients, and provides guidance regarding observation vs. intermittent or continuous androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). The nmCRPC algorithm suggests continued ADT and monitoring for all patients, with consideration of treatment with apalutamide or enzalutamide for patients with high-risk disease (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] doubling time of ≤10 months). Conclusions: Two treatment algorithms have been developed to guide the management of non-metastatic PC, and should be considered in the context of local guidelines and practice patterns.

Purpose The most prevalent intervention for localized prostate cancer (pca) is radical prostatectomy (rp), which has a 10-year relative survival rate of more than 90%. The improved survival rate has led to a focus on reducing the burden of treatment-related morbidity and improving the patient and partner survivorship experience. Post-rp sexual dysfunction (sdf) has received significant attention, given its substantial effect on patient and partner health-related quality of life. Accordingly, there is a need for sdf treatment to be a fundamental component of pca survivorship programming. Methods Most research about the treatment of post-rp sdf involves biomedical interventions for erectile dysfunction (ed). Although findings support the effectiveness of pro-erectile agents and devices, most patients discontinue use of such aids within 1 year after their rp. Because side effects of pro-erectile treatment have proved to be inadequate in explaining the gap between efficacy and ongoing use, current research focuses on a biopsychosocial perspective of ed. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of literature describing the components of a biopsychosocial program designed for the post-rp population and their partners. Results In this paper, we detail the development of the Prostate Cancer Rehabilitation Clinic (pcrc), which emphasizes multidisciplinary intervention teams, active participation by the partner, and a broad-spectrum medical, psychological, and interpersonal approach. Conclusions The goal of the pcrc is to help patients and their partners achieve optimal sexual health and couple intimacy after rp, and to help design cost-effective and beneficial rehabilitation programs.

12063 Background: Platinum levels are measurable in the serum for decades after cisplatin therapy and higher levels may be related to chemotherapy-induced toxicities. Since cisplatin is cleared exclusively by the kidney, we hypothesized that a genetic predictor of kidney function, an estimated glomerular filtration rate polygenic risk score (eGFR PRS), would significantly associate with serum platinum levels and could improve prediction models. Methods: Within a large well-characterized, multicenter clinical cohort of cisplatin-treated testicular cancer survivors (TCS), we conducted analyses on all patients with genetic data and serum platinum levels. Genotyping was performed on the HumanOmniExpressExome chip and standard QC measures were included. Serum platinum concentrations were quantified by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. For all TCS, time since therapy (TIME) and cumulative cisplatin dose were collected. The eGFR PRS was developed from the Chronic Kidney Disease Genetics (CKDGen) consortium meta-analysis summary statistics using PRS-CS. Using principal component analysis, we restricted the analysis to TCS of genetically determined European ancestry, then calculated the genome-wide PRS for all participants. We performed Cox regression analyses to evaluate prediction models of serum platinum that included cumulative dose and TIME, as well as a model including eGFR PRS. Data are presented as median(interquartile range). Results: 901 patients were included in our analysis with a median diagnosis age of 31 (26 - 38) years, cumulative cisplatin dose of 400 (300-400) mg/m2, and time since first cisplatin dose of 4.6 (2.3-9.5) years. The median serum platinum level for all TCS was 305 (121-981) ng/L. When stratified into quartiles by eGFR PRS, TCS in the lowest quartile had a median serum platinum level of 316 (139-1014) ng/L while TCS in the highest had a median of 268 (106-731) ng/L. Comparison of two Cox regression models for serum platinum prediction, one including only cumulative dose and TIME as predictors and a second including dose, TIME, eGFR PRS, and an eGFR PRS*TIME interaction term, we determined the model including eGFR PRS had a lower AIC (14350 vs 16180) suggesting a more parsimonious model. Further, eGFR PRS was a significant independent predictor of serum platinum levels (p = 0.02) and the impact of eGFR PRS varies over time (eGFR PRS*TIME, p = 0.05). Conclusions: The genetic predictor of kidney function circumvents the use of renal function measures that may have been impaired by initial cisplatin administration. It is a significant independent predictor of serum platinum levels and consistent with expectation: TCS with higher genetically predicted kidney function had lower serum platinum levels. Our results suggest kidney function inferred by genetics may improve the prediction of serum platinum levels.

5025 Background: Cancer survivors are at increased risk of anxiety and depression that can affect health-related quality of life. There is no study to date that has examined the characteristics of testicular cancer survivors (TCS) taking medications for anxiety or depression since pharmacological interventions are typically reserved for more severe cases of these disorders. In this study, we aimed to examine sociodemographic factors, cisplatin-related adverse health outcomes (AHOs), and cumulative burden of morbidity (CBMPt) scores associated with medication use for anxiety and/or depression in TCS. Methods: A total of 1,802 TCS who completed CBCT ≥12 months previously completed validated questionnaires regarding sociodemographic features and cisplatin-related AHOs (hearing impairment, tinnitus, peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN), kidney disease). Patients were recognized as users of medications for anxiety and/or depression if they used pharmacological classes of these medications and also indicated that the reason for use was for anxiety or depression. Individual AHOs were graded 0-to-4 based on severity according to NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03. A CBMPt score encompassed the number and severity of cisplatin-related AHOs. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the relationship of individual AHOs and CBMPt with medication use for anxiety and/or depression. Results: A total of 151 TCS (8.4%) used medications for anxiety and/or depression. Any grade of HL, tinnitus, PSN, and kidney disease were reported by 37.9%, 39.5%, 55.2%, and 2.4% of 1,802 participants, respectively. No cisplatin-related AHO were reported by 511 (28.4%) participants, whereas 622 (34.5%), 334 (18.5%), 287 (15.9%), and 48 (2.7%), respectively, had very low, low, medium, and high CBMPt scores. Higher CBMPt scores were significantly associated with greater medication use for anxiety and/or depression (CBMPt scores of low (OR = 2.96, 95%CI, 1.67-5.24), medium (OR = 3.47, 95%CI, 1.95-6.18), and high (OR = 3.18, 95%CI, 1.22-8.3). A multivariable model including individual AHOs indicated that tinnitus ( P= 0.0009), PSN ( P= 0.02), and having health insurance (OR = 2.15, 95%CI, 1.01-4.56) were associated with significantly greater use of these medications; whereas being employed (OR = 0.39, 95%CI, 0.23-0.66) and vigorous physical activity (OR = 0.63, 95%CI,0.44-0.89) were associated with significantly diminished use. Conclusions: We found that TCS with higher CBMPt scores had a higher probability of using medications for anxiety and/or depression and conversely, those who were employed and physically active tended to have reduced use. These findings deserve further investigation in longitudinal studies. In the interim, healthcare providers should be aware of these associations in formulating survivorship care plans.

5016 Background: Although pure-tone audiometry is the gold standard to evaluate hearing loss (HL), patient-reported outcomes are practically more time and cost effective. However, no data exist on factors associated with discrepancies between patient-reported and audiometrically-defined HL in adult-onset cancer survivors after cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CBCT); and few comprehensive assessments of factors associated with audiometrically-defined HL have been conducted. Methods: A total of 1,410 testicular cancer survivors (TCS) ≥6 months post-CBCT completed comprehensive audiometric assessments (0.25-12 kHz) and detailed questionnaires of sociodemographic, clinical, and health behaviors. Audiometrically-defined HL severity was defined using American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) criteria. Multivariable multinomial logistic regression identified factors associated with discrepancies (overestimation and underestimation vs. concordance), between patient-reported and audiometrically-defined HL and multivariable ordinal logistic regression evaluated factors associated with the HL severity. Results: Overall, 34.8% of TCS self-reported HL, while 77.8% had audiometrically-defined HL. Among TCS without tinnitus, those with audiometrically-defined HL at only extended high frequencies (EHFs) (10-12 kHz) (17.8%) or at both EHFs and standard frequencies (0.25-8 kHz) (23.4%) were significantly more likely to self-report HL than those with no audiometrically-defined HL (8.1%) (OR = 2.48; 95%CI, 1.31-4.68 and OR = 3.49; 95%CL,1.89-6.44, respectively). Older age (OR = 1.09; P< 0.0001), absence of prior noise exposure (OR = 1.40; P= 0.02), and mixed/conductive HL (OR = 2.01; P= 0.0007) were associated with greater underestimation of audiometrically-defined HL severity. Hearing aid use (OR = 0.18; P= 0.003) and higher education ( P= 0.004) were associated with less underestimation of audiometrically-defined HL severity, while tinnitus was associated with greater overestimation ( P< 0.0001). Older age (OR = 1.13; P< 0.0001), cumulative cisplatin dose ( > 300 mg/m2, OR = 1.47; P= 0.0001), and hypertension (OR = 1.80; P= 0.0007) were associated with greater ASHA-defined HL severity, whereas post-graduate education (OR = 0.58; P= 0.005) was associated with less severe HL. Conclusions: Discrepancies between patient-reported and audiometrically-defined HL after CBCT are associated with several factors including age, education, tinnitus, prior noise exposure, use of hearing aids, and conductive HL. Understanding these factors will help clinicians to better interpret self-reported HL as a surrogate for audiometric assessments. For survivors who self-report HL, but have normal audiometric findings at standard frequencies, referral to an audiologist for additional testing and inclusion of EHFs in audiometric assessments, should be considered.

12004 Background: Cisplatin is an essential component of first-line chemotherapy for many cancers, but causes neurotoxicity, including hearing loss (CisHL), tinnitus (CisTinn), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (CisPNeuro). However, few opportunities exist to identify risk factors and comorbidities for cisplatin-induced neurotoxicities among large numbers of homogenously treated patients without the confounding effect of cranial radiotherapy. Methods: Within a well-characterized clinical cohort of 1,680 cisplatin-treated testicular cancer survivors, linear and logistic regression analysis were utilized to analyze associations of CisHL (n = 1,258), CisTinn (n = 1,217), and CisPNeuro (n = 1,653) with non-genetic risk factors. Genome-wide association studies and gene-based analysis were performed on each phenotype. Results: Cisplatin-induced neurotoxicities (CisHL CisTinn, CisPNeuro), adjusting for age and cisplatin dose, were interdependent. Survivors with these neurotoxicities experienced more hypertension (CisTinn: OR = 2.62, p < 0.0001; CisHL: β = 0.25, p = 8.5 x10-4; CisPNeuro: OR = 1.86, p < 0.0001) and were more likely to report their health as poor (CisTinn: OR = 0.54, p < 0.0001; CisHL: β = -0.11, p < 0.0001; CisPNeuro: OR = 0.61, p < 0.0001). Persistent vertigo was significantly associated with both CisTinn (OR = 7.18, p < 0.0001) and CisPNeuro (OR = 4.29, p < 0.0001). In addition, CisTinn was significantly associated with hypercholesterolemia (OR = 1.78, p = 0.01). Importantly, gene-based association analyses identified significant associations between CisTinn and WNT8A (n = 1,037, p = 2.52x10-6) , encoding a signaling protein important in germ cell tumors; and marginal significance between CisHL and TXNRD1 (n = 1,071, p = 4.21x10-6) , thioredoxin reductase-1, which plays a key role in redox regulation. In silico analysis showed high expression levels of TXNRD1 were significantly correlated with cellular resistance to cisplatin in central nervous system tumor cells (Spearman Rho = 0.35, p = 0.04; R2= 0.14, p = 0.03), indicating TXNRD1 is protective for cisplatin-induced cytotoxicity. Previously, rs62283056 in WFS1 found to be significantly associated with CisHL (n = 511; subset of current population), was marginally significant in an independent replication cohort (p = 0.06; n = 606; subset of current population). Conclusions: Cisplatin-induced neurotoxicities are significantly associated with multiple clinical characteristics, including hypertension and self-reported poor health. WNT8A and TXNRD1 are notable risk factors for CisTinn and CisHL, respectively . Future studies should further investigate these genes and their potential impact on chemotherapy strategies. This study, based on the largest number of testicular cancer survivors investigated to date, highlights the clinical importance of these iatrogenic toxicities and their associated risk factors.

Targeted focal therapy of intermediate-risk prostate cancer performed with transrectal MRI-guided focused ultrasound has encouraging early oncologic and functional outcomes.

Objective Men with metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCTs) often present with residual chest tumors after chemotherapy. We examined the pathologic concordance of intrathoracic disease and outcomes based on the worst pathology of disease resected at first thoracic surgery. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive patients undergoing thoracic resection for metastatic NSGCT in our institution between 2005 and 2018. Results Eighty-nine patients (all men) were included. The median age was 29 years (interquartile range [IQR], 23-35 years). Primary sites were testis (n = 84; 94.4%) and retroperitoneum (n = 5; 5.6%). Eighty-seven patients received chemotherapy before undergoing surgery. Nineteen patients (21.3%; group 1) had malignancy resected at first surgery (OR1), and the other 70 patients had benign disease at OR1 (78.7%; group 2). Concordant pathology between lungs was 85.2% in group 1 and 91% in group 2, and between lung and mediastinum was 50% in group 1 and 72.7% in group 2. Despite no teratoma at OR1, 3 patients (15.8%) in group 2 had resection of teratoma (n = 2) or malignancy (n = 1) at future surgery. After a mean follow-up of 65.5 months (IQR, 23.1-89.2 months) for group 1 and 47.7 months (IQR, 13.0-75.1 months) for group 2, overall survival was significantly worse for group 1 (68.4% vs 92.9%; P = .03). Conclusions The wide range of pathology resected in patients with intrathoracic NSGCT metastases requires careful decision making regarding treatment. Pathologic concordance between lungs is better than that between lung and mediastinum in patients with intrathoracic NSGCT metastases. Aggressive surgical management should be considered for all residual disease due to the low concordance between sites and the potential for excellent long-term survival even in patients with chemotherapy-refractory disease.

149 Background: Despite significant advancements in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer, a validated prognostic tool for patients with de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is still lacking. Using population-based data from Ontario, Canada, we sought to examine the prognostic association between common laboratory tests and survival for patients with mCSPC. Methods: A population-based cohort of men aged 66 years and older diagnosed with de novo metastatic prostate cancer between 2014-2019 were included. We assessed the association between laboratory tests at the time of cancer diagnosis and overall survival (OS). Utilizing a complete case analysis, we used Cox proportional hazards models to assess the association between these laboratory tests and OS while adjusting for patient and disease characteristics. Results: A total of 3,556 men with de novo mCSPC were included. On multivariable analysis, there were significant associations between OS and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, albumin, hemoglobin, PSA decrease and PSA nadir