Search

Supplemental Table 1: Detailed characteristics of studies included in the ASSET meta-analysis of DNA damage repair and signaling genes. Supplemental Table 2: DNA repair gene, region, and final SNP selection data, using human reference genome assembly, GRCh38. Supplemental Table 3: List of all DNA repair genes and DNA repair pathways included in this study. Supplemental Table 4: Statistical associations (p-values) for cancer risk versus genetic variation within DNA repair pathways. Sensitivity analysis of Table 3, with RAD51B, MSH5, and BRCA2 gene removed from analysis. Statistically significant values are in bold (p < 0.05). Supplemental Table 5: Statistical associations (p-values) for cancer risk versus genetic variation within DNA repair pathways. Sensitivity analysis of Table 3, with 6 genes removed from the analysis -- all genes containing loci with individual SNP associations of p < 1 x 10-4. Statistically significant values are in bold (p < 0.05).

Background: DNA damage is an established mediator of carcinogenesis, although genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified few significant loci. This cross-cancer site, pooled analysis was performed to increase the power to detect common variants of DNA repair genes associated with cancer susceptibility.Methods: We conducted a cross-cancer analysis of 60,297 single nucleotide polymorphisms, at 229 DNA repair gene regions, using data from the NCI Genetic Associations and Mechanisms in Oncology (GAME-ON) Network. Our analysis included data from 32 GWAS and 48,734 controls and 51,537 cases across five cancer sites (breast, colon, lung, ovary, and prostate). Because of the unavailability of individual data, data were analyzed at the aggregate level. Meta-analysis was performed using the Association analysis for SubSETs (ASSET) software. To test for genetic associations that might escape individual variant testing due to small effect sizes, pathway analysis of eight DNA repair pathways was performed using hierarchical modeling.Results: We identified three susceptibility DNA repair genes, RAD51B (P < 5.09 × 10−6), MSH5 (P < 5.09 × 10−6), and BRCA2 (P = 5.70 × 10−6). Hierarchical modeling identified several pleiotropic associations with cancer risk in the base excision repair, nucleotide excision repair, mismatch repair, and homologous recombination pathways.Conclusions: Only three susceptibility loci were identified, which had all been previously reported. In contrast, hierarchical modeling identified several pleiotropic cancer risk associations in key DNA repair pathways.Impact: Results suggest that many common variants in DNA repair genes are likely associated with cancer susceptibility through small effect sizes that do not meet stringent significance testing criteria. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(1); 193–200. ©2015 AACR.

Supplemental Figure 1: Manhattan plot, illustrating p-values from 60,297 SNP associations, generated from each of the 10 studies used in the meta-analysis. Statistical significance threshold is denoted by the red line (p = 5.09 x 10-6).

Contains fulltext : 291600.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

Background: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: To present the results from the APCCC 2019. Design, setting, and participants: Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naive prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. Results and limitations: Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. Conclusions: These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. Patient summary: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients., NA

Background: innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: to present the voting results from APCCC 2021. Design, setting, and participants: the experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. Results and limitations: the voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. Conclusions: these voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making., National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Practitioner Fellowship; Prostate Cancer Foundation; Peter MacCallum Foundation; NHMRC Investigator Grant

Breast and prostate cancer risks; Pathogenic variant Riscos de càncer de mama i pròstata; Variants patogèniques Riesgos de cáncer de mama y próstata; Variantes patogénicas Background Recent population-based female breast cancer and prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed. We assessed the associations of these PRS with breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Methods 483 BRCA1 and 1318 BRCA2 European ancestry male carriers were available from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). A 147-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) prostate cancer PRS (PRSPC) and a 313-SNP breast cancer PRS were evaluated. There were 3 versions of the breast cancer PRS, optimized to predict overall (PRSBC), estrogen receptor (ER)–negative (PRSER-), or ER-positive (PRSER+) breast cancer risk. Results PRSER+ yielded the strongest association with breast cancer risk. The odds ratios (ORs) per PRSER+ standard deviation estimates were 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.07 to 1.83) for BRCA1 and 1.33 (95% CI = 1.16 to 1.52) for BRCA2 carriers. PRSPC was associated with prostate cancer risk for BRCA1 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.33) and BRCA2 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.91) carriers. The estimated breast cancer odds ratios were larger after adjusting for female relative breast cancer family history. By age 85 years, for BRCA2 carriers, the breast cancer risk varied from 7.7% to 18.4% and prostate cancer risk from 34.1% to 87.6% between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS distributions. Conclusions Population-based prostate and female breast cancer PRS are associated with a wide range of absolute breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These findings warrant further investigation aimed at providing personalized cancer risks for male carriers and informing clinical management. The CIMBA data management and data analysis were supported by Cancer Research UK grants C12292/A20861 and PPRPGM-Nov20\100002. The research leading to these results has received funding from the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC) under IG 2018 - ID. 21389 and the Italian League for the Fight Against Cancer (LILT) under IG 2019 projects, P.I. Ottini Laura and Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research-Dipartimenti di Eccellenza-L. 232/2016. CIMBA: GCT is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Research Fellow. iCOGS and OncoArray data: the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement No. 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/A16565), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (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 (CRN-87521), and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade (PSR-SIIRI-701), Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. The Personalized Risk Stratification for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer (PERSPECTIVE) and PERSPECTIVE I&I projects were supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ministry of Economy and Innovation through Genome Québec, and The Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation and the Ontario Research Fund. Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR): UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Baltic Familial Breast Ovarian Cancer Consortium (BFBOCC): Lithuania (BFBOCC-LT): Research Council of Lithuania grant SEN-18/2015. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC): Breast Cancer Research Foundation. BRCA-gene mutations and breast cancer in South African women (BMBSA): Cancer Association of South Africa (PI Elizabeth J. van Rensburg). Spanish National Cancer Centre (CNIO): Spanish Ministry of Health PI16/00440 supported by Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) funds, the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) SAF2014-57680-R and the Spanish Research Network on Rare diseases (CIBERER). City of Hope - Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network (COH-CCGCRN): Research reported in this publication was supported by the NCI of the NIH under grant No. R25CA112486, and RC4CA153828 (PI: J. Weitzel) from the NCI and the Office of the Director, NIH. CONsorzio Studi ITaliani sui Tumori Ereditari Alla Mammella (CONSIT TEAM): Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2014 No.15547) to P. Radice. Funds from Italian citizens who allocated the 5x1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects ‘5x1000’) to S. Manoukian. Associazione CAOS Varese to M.G. Tibiletti. AIRC (IG2015 No.16732) to P. Peterlongo. National Centre for Scientific Research Demokritos (DEMOKRITOS): 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. German Cancer Research Center (DFKZ): German Cancer Research Center. Epidemiological Study of Familial Breast Cancer (EMBRACE): Cancer Research UK Grants C1287/A10118 and C1287/A11990. D. Gareth Evans and Fiona Lalloo are supported by an National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) grant to the Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester. The Investigators at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Ros Eeles and Elizabeth Bancroft are supported by Cancer Research UK Grant C5047/A8385. Ros Eeles is also supported by NIHR support to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC): The University of Kansas Cancer Center (P30 CA168524) and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. AKG was in part funded by the NCI (R01 CA214545 and R01 CA140323), The Kansas Institute for Precision Medicine (P20 GM130423), and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. A.K.G. is the Chancellors Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences Professor. Fundación Pública Galega de Medicina Xenómica (FPGMX): FISPI05/2275 and Mutua Madrileña Foundation (FMMA). German Familial Breast Group (GC-HBOC): German Cancer Aid (grant No. 110837, Rita K. Schmutzler) and the European Regional Development Fund and Free State of Saxony, Germany (LIFE—Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases, project No. 713-241202, No. 713-241202, No. 14505/2470, and No. 14575/2470). Genetic Modifiers of cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (GEMO): Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer; the Association “Le cancer du sein, parlons-en!” Award, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program and the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa grants 2013-1-BCB-01-ICH-1 and SHS-E-SP 18-015). Georgetown University (GEORGETOWN): the Non-Therapeutic Subject Registry Shared Resource at Georgetown University (NIH/NCI grant P30-CA051008), the Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, and Swing Fore the Cure. Ghent University Hospital (G-FAST): Bruce Poppe is a senior clinical investigator of FWO. Mattias Van Heetvelde obtained funding from IWT. Hospital Clinico San Carlos (HCSC): Spanish Ministry of Health PI15/00059, PI16/01292, and CB-161200301 CIBERONC from ISCIII (Spain), partially supported by European Regional Development FEDER funds. Helsinki Breast Cancer Study (HEBCS): Helsinki University Hospital Research Fund, the Finnish Cancer Society and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. Hereditary Breast and Ovarian cancer study the Netherlands (HEBON): the Dutch Cancer Society grants NKI1998-1854, NKI2004-3088, NKI2007-3756, the Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research grant NWO 91109024, the Pink Ribbon grants 110005 and 2014-187.WO76, the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI) grant NWO 184.021.007/CP46 and the Transcan grant JTC 2012 Cancer 12-054. HEBON thanks the registration teams of Dutch Cancer Registry (IKNL; S. Siesling, J. Verloop) and the Dutch Pathology database (PALGA; L. Overbeek) for part of the data collection. Study of Genetic Mutations in Breast and Ovarian Cancer patients in Hong Kong and Asia (HRBCP): Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Dr Ellen Li Charitable Foundation, The Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, National Institute of Health1R 03CA130065, and North California Cancer Center. Molecular Genetic Studies of Breast- and Ovarian Cancer in Hungary (HUNBOCS): Hungarian Research Grants KTIA-OTKA CK-80745 and NKFI_OTKA K-112228. Institut Català d’Oncologia (ICO): The authors would like to particularly acknowledge the support of the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (organismo adscrito al Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad) and “FEDER, una manera de hacer Europa” (PI10/01422, PI13/00285, PIE13/00022, PI15/00854, PI16/00563 and CIBERONC) and the Institut Català de la Salut and Autonomous Government of Catalonia (2009SGR290, 2014SGR338 and PERIS Project MedPerCan). International Hereditary Cancer Centre (IHCC): PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. Iceland Landspitali – University Hospital (ILUH): Icelandic Association “Walking for Breast Cancer Research” and by the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. INterdisciplinary HEalth Research Internal Team BReast CAncer susceptibility (INHERIT): Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program—grant No. CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade—grant No. PSR-SIIRI-701. Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IOVHBOCS): Ministero della Salute and “5x1000” Istituto Oncologico Veneto grant. Portuguese Oncology Institute-Porto Breast Cancer Study (IPOBCS): Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro. Kathleen Cuningham Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer (kConFab): 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. Korean Hereditary Breast Cancer Study (KOHBRA): 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). Mayo Clinic (MAYO): NIH grants CA116167, CA192393 and CA176785, an NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), and a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. McGill University (MCGILL): Jewish General Hospital Weekend to End Breast Cancer, Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade. Marc Tischkowitz is supported by the funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program (2007Y2013)/European Research Council (Grant No. 310018). Modifier Study of Quantitative Effects on Disease (MODSQUAD): MH CZ—DRO (MMCI, 00209805), MEYS—NPS I—LO1413 to LF, and by Charles University in Prague project UNCE204024 (MZ). Memorial Sloane Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC): the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Initiative, the Andrew Sabin Research Fund and a Cancer Center Support Grant/Core Grant (P30 CA008748). Women’s College Research Institute Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Study (NAROD): 1R01 CA149429-01. National Cancer Institute (NCI): the Intramural Research Program of the US NCI, NIH, and by support services contracts NO2-CP-11019-50, N02-CP-21013-63 and N02-CP-65504 with Westat, Inc, Rockville, MD. National Israeli Cancer Control Center (NICCC): Clalit Health Services in Israel, the Israel Cancer Association and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), NY. N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology (NNPIO): the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants 17-54-12007, 17-00-00171 and 18-515-12007). NRG Oncology: U10 CA180868, NRG SDMC grant U10 CA180822, NRG Administrative Office and the NRG Tissue Bank (CA 27469), the NRG Statistical and Data Center (CA 37517) and the Intramural Research Program, NCI. The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (OSUCCG): Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. Università di Pisa (PBCS): AIRC [IG 2013 N.14477] and Tuscany Institute for Tumors (ITT) grant 2014-2015-2016. South East Asian Breast Cancer Association Study (SEABASS): Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation. Sheba Medical Centre (SMC): the Israeli Cancer Association. Swedish Breast Cancer Study (SWE-BRCA): the Swedish Cancer Society. University of Chicago (UCHICAGO): NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA125183), R01 CA142996, 1U01CA161032 and by the Ralph and Marion Falk Medical Research Trust, the Entertainment Industry Fund National Women’s Cancer Research Alliance and the Breast Cancer research Foundation. OIO is an American Cancer Society (ACS) Clinical Research Professor. University of California Los Angeles (UCLA): Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Foundation; Breast Cancer Research Foundation. University of California San Francisco (UCSF): UCSF Cancer Risk Program and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. UK Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry (UKFOCR): Cancer Research UK. University of Pennsylvania (UPENN): NIH (R01-CA102776 and R01-CA083855); Breast Cancer Research Foundation; Susan G. Komen Foundation for the cure, Basser Research Center for BRCA. Cancer Family Registry University of Pittsburg (UPITT/MWH): Hackers for Hope Pittsburgh. Victorian Familial Cancer Trials Group (VFCTG): Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, National Breast Cancer Foundation. Women’s Cancer Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (WCP): Dr Karlan is funded by the ACS Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124. TN-D is a recipient of a Career Development Fellow from the National Breast Cancer Foundation (Australia, ECF-17-001).

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert’s treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. Patient summary In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients.

Contains fulltext : 229292.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) PURPOSE: We assessed the associations between population-based polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. METHODS: Retrospective cohort data on 18,935 BRCA1 and 12,339 BRCA2 female pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestry were available. Three versions of a 313 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) BC PRS were evaluated based on whether they predict overall, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, or ER-positive BC, and two PRS for overall or high-grade serous EOC. Associations were validated in a prospective cohort. RESULTS: The ER-negative PRS showed the strongest association with BC risk for BRCA1 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] per standard deviation = 1.29 [95% CI 1.25-1.33], P = 3×10(-72)). For BRCA2, the strongest association was with overall BC PRS (HR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.27-1.36], P = 7×10(-50)). HR estimates decreased significantly with age and there was evidence for differences in associations by predicted variant effects on protein expression. The HR estimates were smaller than general population estimates. The high-grade serous PRS yielded the strongest associations with EOC risk for BRCA1 (HR = 1.32 [95% CI 1.25-1.40], P = 3×10(-22)) and BRCA2 (HR = 1.44 [95% CI 1.30-1.60], P = 4×10(-12)) carriers. The associations in the prospective cohort were similar. CONCLUSION: Population-based PRS are strongly associated with BC and EOC risks for BRCA1/2 carriers and predict substantial absolute risk differences for women at PRS distribution extremes.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation and one of its mediators, NF-kappa B (NFκB), have been implicated in prostate cancer carcinogenesis. We assessed whether germline polymorphisms associated with NFκB are associated with the risk of developing lethal disease (metastases or death from prostate cancer).METHODS: Using a Bayesian approach leveraging NFκB biology with integration of publicly available datasets we used a previously defined genome-wide functional association network specific to NFκB and lethal prostate cancer. A dense-module-searching method identified modules enriched with significant genes from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) study in a discovery data set, Physicians' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (PHS/HPFS). The top 48 candidate single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from the dense-module-searching method were then assessed in an independent prostate cancer cohort and the one SNP reproducibly associated with lethality was tested in a third cohort. Logistic regression models evaluated the association between each SNP and lethal prostate cancer. The candidate SNP was assessed for association with lethal prostate cancer in 6 of 28 studies in the prostate cancer association group to investigate cancer associated alterations in the genome (PRACTICAL) Consortium where there was some medical record review for death ascertainment which also had SNP data from the ONCOARRAY platform. All men self-identified as Caucasian.RESULTS: The rs1910301 SNP which was reproducibly associated with lethal disease was nominally associated with lethal disease (odds ratio [OR] = 1.40; p = .02) in the discovery cohort and the minor allele was also associated with lethal disease in two independent cohorts (OR = 1.35; p = .04 and OR = 1.35; p = .07). Fixed effects meta-analysis of all three cohorts found an association: OR = 1.37 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-1.62, p = .0003). This SNP is in the promoter region of FRAS1, a gene involved in epidermal-basement membrane adhesion and is present at a higher frequency in men with African ancestry. No association was found in the subset of studies from the PRACTICAL consortium studies which had a total of 106 deaths out total of 3263 patients and a median follow-up of 4.4 years.CONCLUSIONS: Through its connection with the NFκB pathway, a candidate SNP with a higher frequency in men of African ancestry without cancer was found to be associated with lethal prostate cancer across three well-annotated independent cohorts of Caucasian men.

Contains fulltext : 237895.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers has been shown to decrease with longer duration of oral contraceptive use. Although the effects of using oral contraceptives in the general population are well established (approximately 50% risk reduction in ovarian cancer), the estimated risk reduction in mutation carriers is much less precise because of potential bias and small sample sizes. In addition, only a few studies on oral contraceptive use have examined the associations of duration of use, time since last use, starting age, and calendar year of start with risk of ovarian cancer. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate in more detail the associations of various characteristics of oral contraceptive use and risk of ovarian cancer, to provide healthcare providers and carriers with better risk estimates. STUDY DESIGN: In this international retrospective study, ovarian cancer risk associations were assessed using oral contraceptives data on 3989 BRCA1 and 2445 BRCA2 mutation carriers. Age-dependent-weighted Cox regression analyses were stratified by study and birth cohort and included breast cancer diagnosis as a covariate. To minimize survival bias, analyses were left truncated at 5 years before baseline questionnaire. Separate analyses were conducted for each aspect of oral contraceptive use and in a multivariate analysis, including all these aspects. In addition, the analysis of duration of oral contraceptive use was stratified by recency of use. RESULTS: Oral contraceptives were less often used by mutation carriers who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer (ever use: 58.6% for BRCA1 and 53.5% BRCA2) than by unaffected carriers (ever use: 88.9% for BRCA1 and 80.7% for BRCA2). The median duration of use was 7 years for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers who developed ovarian cancer and 9 and 8 years for unaffected BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers with ovarian cancer, respectively. For BRCA1 mutation carriers, univariate analyses have shown that both a longer duration of oral contraceptive use and more recent oral contraceptive use were associated with a reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer. However, in multivariate analyses, including duration of use, age at first use, and time since last use, duration of oral contraceptive use proved to be the prominent protective factor (compared with 10 years [hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.73]; P(trend)=.008). The inverse association between duration of use and ovarian cancer risk persisted for more than 15 years (duration of ≥10 years; BRCA1 15 years since last use [hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.59]). Univariate results for BRCA2 mutation carriers were similar but were inconclusive because of limited sample size. CONCLUSION: For BRCA1 mutation carriers, longer duration of oral contraceptive use is associated with a greater reduction in ovarian cancer risk, and the protection is long term.

The effect of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) on breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers is uncertain. Retrospective analyses have suggested a protective effect but may be substantially biased. Prospective studies have had limited power, particularly for BRCA2 mutation carriers. Further, previous studies have not considered the effect of RRSO in the context of natural menopause.A multi-centre prospective cohort of 2272 BRCA1 and 1605 BRCA2 mutation carriers was followed for a mean of 5.4 and 4.9 years, respectively; 426 women developed incident breast cancer. RRSO was modelled as a time-dependent covariate in Cox regression, and its effect assessed in premenopausal and postmenopausal women.There was no association between RRSO and breast cancer for BRCA1 (HR = 1.23; 95% CI 0.94-1.61) or BRCA2 (HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.62-1.24) mutation carriers. For BRCA2 mutation carriers, HRs were 0.68 (95% CI 0.40-1.15) and 1.07 (95% CI 0.69-1.64) for RRSO carried out before or after age 45 years, respectively. The HR for BRCA2 mutation carriers decreased with increasing time since RRSO (HR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.26-0.99 for 5 years or longer after RRSO). Estimates for premenopausal women were similar.We found no evidence that RRSO reduces breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers. A potentially beneficial effect for BRCA2 mutation carriers was observed, particularly after 5 years following RRSO. These results may inform counselling and management of carriers with respect to RRSO.

Background The development of prostate cancer can be influenced by genetic and environmental factors. Numerous germline SNPs influence prostate cancer susceptibility. The functional pathways in which these SNPs increase prostate cancer susceptibility are unknown. Finasteride is currently not being used routinely as a chemoprevention agent but the long term outcomes of the PCPT trial are awaited. The outcomes of the SELECT trial have not recommended the use of chemoprevention in preventing prostate cancer. This study investigated whether germline risk SNPs could be used to predict outcomes in the PCPT and SELECT trial. Methods Genotyping was performed in European men entered into the PCPT trial (n = 2434) and SELECT (n = 4885). Next generation genotyping was performed using Affymetrix® Eureka™ Genotyping protocols. Logistic regression models were used to test the association of risk scores and the outcomes in the PCPT and SELECT trials. Results Of the 100 SNPs, 98 designed successfully and genotyping was validated for samples genotyped on other platforms. A number of SNPs predicted for aggressive disease in both trials. Men with a higher polygenic score are more likely to develop prostate cancer in both trials, but the score did not predict for other outcomes in the trial. Conclusion Men with a higher polygenic risk score are more likely to develop prostate cancer. There were no interactions of these germline risk SNPs and the chemoprevention agents in the SELECT and PCPT trials.

Acknowledging the increasing number of studies describing the use of whole-body MRI for cancer screening, and the increasing number of examinations being performed in patients with known cancers, an international multidisciplinary expert panel of radiologists and a geneticist with subject-specific expertise formulated technical acquisition standards, interpretation criteria, and limitations of whole-body MRI for cancer screening in individuals at higher risk, including those with cancer predisposition syndromes. The Oncologically Relevant Findings Reporting and Data System (ONCO-RADS) proposes a standard protocol for individuals at higher risk, including those with cancer predisposition syndromes. ONCO-RADS emphasizes structured reporting and five assessment categories for the classification of whole-body MRI findings. The ONCO-RADS guidelines are designed to promote standardization and limit variations in the acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body MRI scans for cancer screening. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Item does not contain fulltext Importance: The clinical management of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers requires accurate, prospective cancer risk estimates. Objectives: To estimate age-specific risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for mutation carriers and to evaluate risk modification by family cancer history and mutation location. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of 6036 BRCA1 and 3820 BRCA2 female carriers (5046 unaffected and 4810 with breast or ovarian cancer or both at baseline) recruited in 1997-2011 through the International BRCA1/2 Carrier Cohort Study, the Breast Cancer Family Registry and the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer, with ascertainment through family clinics (94%) and population-based studies (6%). The majority were from large national studies in the United Kingdom (EMBRACE), the Netherlands (HEBON), and France (GENEPSO). Follow-up ended December 2013; median follow-up was 5 years. Exposures: BRCA1/2 mutations, family cancer history, and mutation location. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual incidences, standardized incidence ratios, and cumulative risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer. Results: Among 3886 women (median age, 38 years; interquartile range [IQR], 30-46 years) eligible for the breast cancer analysis, 5066 women (median age, 38 years; IQR, 31-47 years) eligible for the ovarian cancer analysis, and 2213 women (median age, 47 years; IQR, 40-55 years) eligible for the contralateral breast cancer analysis, 426 were diagnosed with breast cancer, 109 with ovarian cancer, and 245 with contralateral breast cancer during follow-up. The cumulative breast cancer risk to age 80 years was 72% (95% CI, 65%-79%) for BRCA1 and 69% (95% CI, 61%-77%) for BRCA2 carriers. Breast cancer incidences increased rapidly in early adulthood until ages 30 to 40 years for BRCA1 and until ages 40 to 50 years for BRCA2 carriers, then remained at a similar, constant incidence (20-30 per 1000 person-years) until age 80 years. The cumulative ovarian cancer risk to age 80 years was 44% (95% CI, 36%-53%) for BRCA1 and 17% (95% CI, 11%-25%) for BRCA2 carriers. For contralateral breast cancer, the cumulative risk 20 years after breast cancer diagnosis was 40% (95% CI, 35%-45%) for BRCA1 and 26% (95% CI, 20%-33%) for BRCA2 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] for comparing BRCA2 vs BRCA1, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.82; P=.001 for difference). Breast cancer risk increased with increasing number of first- and second-degree relatives diagnosed as having breast cancer for both BRCA1 (HR for >/=2 vs 0 affected relatives, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.41-2.82; P

Purpose To describe a snapshot of international genetic testing practices, specifically regarding the use of multigene panels, for hereditary breast/ovarian cancers. We conducted a survey through the Evidence-Based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles (ENIGMA) consortium, covering questions about 16 non- BRCA1/ 2 genes. Methods Data were collected via in-person and paper/electronic surveys. ENIGMA members from around the world were invited to participate. Additional information was collected via country networks in the United Kingdom and in Italy. Results Responses from 61 cancer genetics practices across 20 countries showed that 16 genes were tested by > 50% of the centers, but only six ( PALB2, TP53, PTEN, CHEK2, ATM, and BRIP1) were tested regularly. US centers tested the genes most often, whereas United Kingdom and Italian centers with no direct ENIGMA affiliation at the time of the survey were the least likely to regularly test them. Most centers tested the 16 genes through multigene panels; some centers tested TP53, PTEN, and other cancer syndrome–associated genes individually. Most centers reported (likely) pathogenic variants to patients and would test family members for such variants. Gene-specific guidelines for breast and ovarian cancer risk management were limited and differed among countries, especially with regard to starting age and type of imaging and risk-reducing surgery recommendations. Conclusion Currently, a small number of genes beyond BRCA1/ 2 are routinely analyzed worldwide, and management guidelines are limited and largely based on expert opinion. To attain clinical implementation of multigene panel testing through evidence-based management practices, it is paramount that clinicians (and patients) participate in international initiatives that share panel testing data, interpret sequence variants, and collect prospective data to underpin risk estimates and evaluate the outcome of risk intervention strategies.

1505 Background: Genetic profiling could be used to target population screening for prostate cancer (PrCa). Approximately 170 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been identified that associate with PrCa development. Although these confer a low to moderate risk of PrCa, the risk is cumulative with increasing number of risk alleles. BARCODE1 is the first study to prospectively investigate the use of a genetic profile in PrCa screening in the UK general population. Methods: A custom Eurek Genomics (EG) SNP assay was developed. Healthy males aged 55-69 were invited to participate via their General Practitioners (GPs). Saliva samples were collected via mailed collection kits. After DNA extraction, genotyping was conducted using the EG assay and a polygenic risk score (PRS) was calculated for each participant. The PRS was calculated using the sum of the weighted alleles for 130 risk loci. Men in the top 10% of the genetic risk profile were invited for prostate MRI and biopsy at the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) in London. Results: Invitation letters were sent to 1434 men; overall uptake was 26% (range 13%-47%). 87% of responders were eligible for study entry. DNA was extracted from 303 samples and genotyped. Data were available for 285 men following QC. Mean PRS was 10.33 with a standard deviation of 0.64; twenty-five participants with a PRS above the 90th centile were identified for screening with MRI and prostate biopsy. Of these men (after exclusions due to medical comorbidity/invitations declined) 9 out of 20 had an abnormal MRI (45%) and 18 men underwent biopsy with 7 diagnoses of PrCa (38.8%). All cancers were low-risk with a mean PSA of 1.8 and were managed with Active Surveillance (AS). There were two adverse events following biopsy, both simple lower urinary tract infections managed with oral antibiotics. Average duration of follow-up is 4.5 months (range 1-11). Conclusions: Successful completion of recruitment has shown this community study to be feasible, with an average uptake of 26%. Approximately 70 GP sites have been identified to allow a transition to the full BARCODE-1 study which will recruit 5000 men. The use of genetic profiles to guide PrCa screening is attractive; it requires a one-off test utilising germline DNA which can be assessed for risk loci which are constant, unlike PSA which fluctuates. The results of the BARCODE1 study will be important in defining the role of genetic profiling in targeted PrCa population screening.

The prevalence and spectrum of germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 have been reported in single populations, with the majority of reports focused on White in Europe and North America. The Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) has assembled data on 18,435 families with BRCA1 mutations and 11,351 families with BRCA2 mutations ascertained from 69 centers in 49 countries on six continents. This study comprehensively describes the characteristics of the 1,650 unique BRCA1 and 1,731 unique BRCA2 deleterious (disease-associated) mutations identified in the CIMBA database. We observed substantial variation in mutation type and frequency by geographical region and race/ethnicity. In addition to known founder mutations, mutations of relatively high frequency were identified in specific racial/ethnic or geographic groups that may reflect founder mutations and which could be used in targeted (panel) first pass genotyping for specific populations. Knowledge of the population-specific mutational spectrum in BRCA1 and BRCA2 could inform efficient strategies for genetic testing and may justify a more broad-based oncogenetic testing in some populations.

Background For BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, the association between oral contraceptive preparation (OCP) use and breast cancer (BC) risk is still unclear. Methods Breast camcer risk associations were estimated from OCP data on 6030 BRCA1 and 3809 BRCA2 mutation carriers using age-dependent Cox regression, stratified by study and birth cohort. Prospective, left-truncated retrospective and full-cohort retrospective analyses were performed. Results For BRCA1 mutation carriers, OCP use was not associated with BC risk in prospective analyses (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75 to 1.56), but in the left-truncated and full-cohort retrospective analyses, risks were increased by 26% (95% CI = 6% to 51%) and 39% (95% CI = 23% to 58%), respectively. For BRCA2 mutation carriers, OCP use was associated with BC risk in prospective analyses (HR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.97), but retrospective analyses were inconsistent (left-truncated: HR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.33; full cohort: HR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.28 to 1.81). There was evidence of increasing risk with duration of use, especially before the first full-term pregnancy (BRCA1: both retrospective analyses, P < .001 and P = .001, respectively; BRCA2: full retrospective analysis, P = .002). Conclusions Prospective analyses did not show that past use of OCP is associated with an increased BC risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers in young middle-aged women (40–50 years). For BRCA2 mutation carriers, a causal association is also not likely at those ages. Findings between retrospective and prospective analyses were inconsistent and could be due to survival bias or a true association for younger women who were underrepresented in the prospective cohort. Given the uncertain safety of long-term OCP use for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, indications other than contraception should be avoided and nonhormonal contraceptive methods should be discussed.

Background: In advanced prostate cancer (APC), successful drug development as well as advances in imaging and molecular characterisation have resulted in multiple areas where there is lack of evidence or low level of evidence. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017 addressed some of these topics. Objective: To present the report of APCCC 2017. Design, setting, and participants: Ten important areas of controversy in APC management were identified: high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer; "oligometastatic" prostate cancer; castration-naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer; the role of imaging in APC; osteoclast-targeted therapy; molecular characterisation of blood and tissue; genetic counselling/testing; side effects of systemic treatment(s); global access to prostate cancer drugs. A panel of 60 international prostate cancer experts developed the program and the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 150 predefined questions, which have been developed following a modified Delphi process. Results and limitations: Voting is based on panellist opinion, and thus is not based on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article, as well as in the detailed voting results recorded in Supplementary data. Conclusions: The presented expert voting results can be used for support in areas of management of men with APC where there is no high-level evidence, but individualised treatment decisions should as always be based on all of the data available, including disease extent and location, prior therapies regardless of type, host factors including comorbidities, as well as patient preferences, current and emerging evidence, and logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2017 again identified important areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them. Patient summary: The second Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 did provide a forum for discussion and debates on current treatment options for men with advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the conference is to bring the expertise of world experts to care givers around the world who see less patients with prostate cancer. The conference concluded with a discussion and voting of the expert panel on predefined consensus questions, targeting areas of primary clinical relevance. The results of these expert opinion votes are embedded in the clinical context of current treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer and provide a practical guide to clinicians to assist in the discussions with men with prostate cancer as part of a shared and multidisciplinary decision-making process. At the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference, 10 important areas of controversy in advanced prostate cancer management were identified, discussed, and the experts voted on 150 predefined consensus questions. The full report of the results is summarised here.

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

The OCAC OncoArray genotyping project: et al., To identify common alleles associated with different histotypes of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), we pooled data from multiple genome-wide genotyping projects totaling 25,509 EOC cases and 40,941 controls. We identified nine new susceptibility loci for different EOC histotypes: six for serous EOC histotypes (3q28, 4q32.3, 8q21.11, 10q24.33, 18q11.2 and 22q12.1), two for mucinous EOC (3q22.3 and 9q31.1) and one for endometrioid EOC (5q12.3). We then performed meta-analysis on the results for high-grade serous ovarian cancer with the results from analysis of 31,448 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, including 3,887 mutation carriers with EOC. This identified three additional susceptibility loci at 2q13, 8q24.1 and 12q24.31. Integrated analyses of genes and regulatory biofeatures at each locus predicted candidate susceptibility genes, including OBFC1, a new candidate susceptibility gene for low-grade and borderline serous EOC., The OCAC OncoArray genotyping project was funded through grants from the US 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.). Funding for the CIMBA OncoArray genotyping was provided by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ministère de l’Économie, de la Science et de l’Innovation du Québec through Génome Québec, the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation for the PERSPECTIVE project, the US National Institutes of Health (CA1X01HG007491-01 (C.I.A.)), the Odense University Hospital Research Foundation (M.T.), the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (1420190 (S.K.P.)), the Italian Association for Cancer Research (IG16933 (L.O.)) and German Cancer Aid (110837 (R.K.S.).

Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 94 common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer (BC) risk and 18 associated with ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Several of these are also associated with risk of BC or OC for women who carry a pathogenic mutation in the high-risk BC and OC genes BRCA1 or BRCA2. The combined effects of these variants on BC or OC risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have not yet been assessed while their clinical management could benefit from improved personalized risk estimates. Methods: We constructed polygenic risk scores (PRS) using BC and OC susceptibility SNPs identified through population-based GWAS: for BC (overall, estrogen receptor [ER]-positive, and ER-negative) and for OC. Using data from 15 252 female BRCA1 and 8211 BRCA2 carriers, the association of each PRS with BC or OC risk was evaluated using a weighted cohort approach, with time to diagnosis as the outcome and estimation of the hazard ratios (HRs) per standard deviation increase in the PRS. Results: The PRS for ER-negative BC displayed the strongest association with BC risk in BRCA1 carriers (HR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 1.31, P = 8.2 x 10(53)). In BRCA2 carriers, the strongest association with BC risk was seen for the overall BC PRS (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.28, P = 7.2 x 10(-20)). The OC PRS was strongly associated with OC risk for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These translate to differences in absolute risks (more than 10% in each case) between the top and bottom deciles of the PRS distribution; for example, the OC risk was 6% by age 80 years for BRCA2 carriers at the 10th percentile of the OC PRS compared with 19% risk for those at the 90th percentile of PRS. Conclusions: BC and OC PRS are predictive of cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Incorporation of the PRS into risk prediction models has promise to better inform decisions on cancer risk management.

PURPOSE: Cis-acting regulatory SNPs resulting in differential allelic expression (DAE) may, in part, explain the underlying phenotypic variation associated with many complex diseases. To investigate whether common variants associated with DAE were involved in breast cancer susceptibility among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, a list of 175 genes was developed based of their involvement in cancer-related pathways. METHODS: Using data from a genome-wide map of SNPs associated with allelic expression, we assessed the association of ~320 SNPs located in the vicinity of these genes with breast and ovarian cancer risks in 15,252 BRCA1 and 8211 BRCA2 mutation carriers ascertained from 54 studies participating in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2. RESULTS: We identified a region on 11q22.3 that is significantly associated with breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers (most significant SNP rs228595 p = 7 × 10-6). This association was absent in BRCA2 carriers (p = 0.57). The 11q22.3 region notably encompasses genes such as ACAT1, NPAT, and ATM. Expression quantitative trait loci associations were observed in both normal breast and tumors across this region, namely for ACAT1, ATM, and other genes. In silico analysis revealed some overlap between top risk-associated SNPs and relevant biological features in mammary cell data, which suggests potential functional significance. CONCLUSION: We identified 11q22.3 as a new modifier locus in BRCA1 carriers. Replication in larger studies using estrogen receptor (ER)-negative or triple-negative (i.e., ER-, progesterone receptor-, and HER2-negative) cases could therefore be helpful to confirm the association of this locus with breast cancer risk. Funding for the iCOGS infrastructure came from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement No. 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, 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, Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. BCFR: this work was supported by Grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. BFBOCC was supported by Lithuania (BFBOCC-LT): Research Council of Lithuania Grant SEN-18/2015. BIDMC was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. BRCA-gene mutations and breast cancer in South African women (BMBSA) was supported by Grants from the Cancer Association of South Africa (CANSA) to Elizabeth J. van Rensburg. BRICOH: SLN was partially supported by the Morris and Horowitz Families Endowed Professorship. CNIO: this work was partially supported by Spanish Association Against Cancer (AECC08), RTICC 06/0020/1060, FISPI08/1120, Mutua Madrilena Foundation (FMMA), and SAF2010-20493. COH-CCGCRN: patients were recruited for this study from the City of Hope Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network, supported in part by Award Number RC4CA153828 (PI: J. Weitzel) from the National Cancer Institute and the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health. CONSIT Team: Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC) to P. Peterlongo (IG 2012 Id. 12821) and P. Radice (IG 2014 Id. 15547). Funds from Italian citizens who allocated the 5 9 1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional Strategic Projects '5x1000') to S. Manoukian. FiorGen Foundation for Pharmacogenomics to L. Papi. CORE: the CIMBA Data Management and Data Analysis were supported by Cancer Research: UK Grants C12292/A20861, C12292/A11174. ACA is a Cancer Research-UK Senior Cancer Research Fellow. GCT is an NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellow. J. Lecarpentier has been financially supported by the Fondation ARC (FONDATION ARC, 9 rue Guy Moquet 94803 Villejuif: France), Grant Number SAE20131200623. This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the "CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer" Program: Grant No. CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade: Grant No. PSR-SIIRI-701. The PERSPECTIVE Project was supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ministere de l'Economie, Innovation et Exportation du Quebec through Genome Quebec, and The Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation. This work was also supported by the Ministere de l'Economie, Innovation et Exportation du Quebec: Grant No. PSR-SIIRI-701. DEMOKRITOS: 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 and Technology: SYN11_10_19 NBCA. Investing in Knowledge Society through the European Social Fund. The DKFZ Study was supported by the DKFZ. EMBRACE was supported by Cancer Research UK Grants C1287/A10118 and C1287/A11990. D. Gareth Evans and Fiona Lalloo were supported by an NIHR Grant to the Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester. The Investigators at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust were supported by an NIHR Grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Ros Eeles and Elizabeth Bancroft were supported by Cancer Research UK Grant C5047/A8385. Ros Eeles was also supported by NIHR support to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. FCCC: the authors acknowledge the support from The University of Kansas Cancer Center (P30 CA168524) and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. A.K.G. was funded by 5U01CA113916, R01CA140323, and by the Chancellors Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences Professorship. The German Consortium of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC) was supported by the German Cancer Aid (Grant No. 110837, Rita K. Schmutzler). This work was supported 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, 14575/2470). GEMO: the study was supported by the Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer; the Association "Le cancer du sein, parlons-en!" Award; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the "CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer" Program and the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa). GEORGETOWN: CI received support from the Non-therapeutic Subject Registry Shared Resource at Georgetown University (NIH/NCI Grant P30-CA051008), the Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical GenomicsResearch, and Swing Fore the Cure. G-FAST: Bruce Poppe is a Senior Clinical Investigator of FWO. Mattias Van Heetvelde obtained funding from IWT. HCSC was supported by a Grant RD12/0036/0006 and 15/00059 from ISCIII (Spain), partially supported by European Regional Development FEDER Funds. The HEBCS was financially supported by the Helsinki University Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (266528), the Finnish Cancer Society and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. HEBON Study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society Grants NKI1998-1854, NKI2004-3088, and NKI2007-3756, the Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research Grant NWO 91109024, the Pink Ribbon Grants 110005 and 2014-187.WO76, the BBMRI Grant NWO 184.021.007/CP46, and the Transcan Grant JTC 2012 Cancer 12-054. HEBON thanks the Registration Teams of Dutch Cancer Registry (IKNL; S. Siesling, J. Verloop) and the Dutch Pathology database (PALGA; L. Overbeek) for their help in part of the data collection. HRBCP was supported by the Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Dr. Ellen Li Charitable Foundation, The Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, National Institute of Health 1R 03CA130065, and North California Cancer Center. Hungarian Breast and Ovarian Cancer Study (HUNBOCS) was supported by Hungarian Research Grants KTIA-OTKA CK-80745 and OTKA K-112228. ICO: Contract Grant Sponsor: Asociacion Espanola Contra el Cancer, Spanish Health Research Fund; Carlos III Health Institute; Catalan Health Institute and Autonomous Government of Catalonia. Contract Grant Numbers: ISCIIIRETIC RD06/0020/1051, RD12/0036/008, PI10/01422, PI10/00748, PI13/00285, PIE13/00022, 2009SGR290, and 2014SGR364. The IHCC was supported by Grant PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. The ILUH Group was supported by the Icelandic Association "Walking for Breast Cancer Research" and by the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. INHERIT: this work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the "CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer" Program: Grant No. CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade: Grant No. PSR-SIIRI-701. The PERSPECTIVE Project was supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Grant GPH-129344), the Ministere de l'Economie, Science et Innovation du Quebec through Genome Quebec, and the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation. IOVHBOCS was supported by Ministero della Salute and "5x1000" Istituto Oncologico Veneto Grant. IPOBCS: this study was in part supported by Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro. kConFab was 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. KOHBRA was supported by a Grant from the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs, Republic of Korea (1020350). MAYO was supported by NIH Grants CA116167, CA192393, and CA176785, an NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), and a Grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. MCGILL: Jewish General Hospital Weekend to End Breast Cancer, Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade. MODSQUAD was supported by MH CZ: DRO (MMCI, 00209805) and by the European Regional Development Fund and the State Budget of the Czech Republic (RECAMO, CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0101) to LF, and by Charles University in Prague Project UNCE204024 (MZ). MSKCC was supported by Grants from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Initiative, and the Andrew Sabin Research Fund. NAROD: 1R01 CA149429-01. NCI: the research of Drs. MH Greene and PL Mai was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the US National Cancer Institute, NIH, and by Support Services Contracts NO2-CP-11019-50 and N02-CP-65504 with Westat, Inc., Rockville, MD. NICCC was supported by Clalit Health Services in Israel. Some of its activities were supported by the Israel Cancer Association and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), NY. NNPIO: this work has been supported by the Russian Federation for Basic Research (Grants 15-04-01744 and 16-54-00055). NRG Oncology: this study was supported by NRG Oncology Operations Grant Number U10 CA180868 as well as NRG SDMC Grant U10 CA180822, Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) Administrative Office and the GOG Tissue Bank (CA 27469), and the GOG Statistical and Data Center (CA 37517). Drs. Greene, Mai, and Savage were supported by Funding from the Intramural Research Program, NCI. OSUCCG was supported by the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. PBCS: this work was supported by the Italian Association of Cancer Research (AIRC) [IG 2013 N.14477] and Tuscany Institute for Tumors (ITT) Grant 2014-2015-2016. SEABASS: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06), and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation. The SMC Team was in part sponsored by a Grant from the Israeli Cancer Association to the Israeli Consortium of Hereditary Breast Cancer. SWE-BRCA Collaborators were supported by the Swedish Cancer Society. UCHICAGO was supported by NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA125183), R01 CA142996, 1U01CA161032, and by the Ralph and Marion Falk Medical Research Trust, the Entertainment Industry Fund National Women's Cancer Research Alliance, and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. OIO is an ACS Clinical Research Professor. UCLA: Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Foundation; Breast Cancer Research Foundation. UCSF: UCSF Cancer Risk Program and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. UKFOCR was supported by a Project Grant from CRUK to Paul Pharoah. UPENN: National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01-CA102776 and R01-CA083855; Breast Cancer Research Foundation; Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure, Basser Research Center for BRCA. VFCTG: Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, National Breast Cancer Foundation. WCP: Dr. Karlan was funded by the American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124. Sí

Background Screening for prostate cancer with prostate specific antigen (PSA) remains controversial. Risk-tailoring based on age and polygenic profile might conserve the benefits of PSA screening whilst reducing overdiagnosis. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness and benefit-to-harm balance of polygenic risk-tailored screening for prostate cancer. Methods A life-table approach was used. A hypothetical cohort of 4.48 million men in England between the ages of 55 and 70 was followed to the age of 90. Three scenarios were compared: no screening, age-based screening (PSA testing every four years from 55 to 70), and risk-tailored screening based on age and polygenic risk profile (men above the risk threshold receive PSA testing four-yearly from the age they reach the risk threshold to 70). The number of prostate cancer cases, deaths from prostate cancer, overdiagnosed cases, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost per QALY, and net monetary benefit were calculated. Sensitivity analyses investigated the impact of parameter uncertainty, and the impact of varying the risk threshold, on outcomes. Costs were estimated from the perspective of the UK National Health Service; both costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. Results The incremental cost per additional QALY for age-based screening compared to no screening was £58,254 ($75,899), with 27% simulations having an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than £20,000 ($26,058), the threshold set by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for an intervention to be considered cost-effective. In risk-tailored screening, as the 10-year absolute risk-threshold was progressively increased from 2.6%, equivalent to the 10-year absolute risk of a 55-year old man, to 7.1%, the corresponding risk of a 69-year old man, the cost per additional QALY gained reduced from £36,065 ($46,989) to £26,210 ($34,149), when compared to no screening. By comparison with age-based screening, risk-tailored screening with a threshold between 2.6% and 7.1% led to 8 (2.5%) and 45 (13%) fewer deaths prevented from prostate cancer per 10,000 men, with a 0.1% rise and 10% reduction in costs, respectively. Raising the risk threshold from 2.6% to 7.1% led to fewer men being screened (cumulative total of 35% of men screened by comparison with 83%), 53% fewer overdiagnosed cases, 22% fewer biopsies and 10% lower costs, at the expense of 10% fewer prostate cancer deaths averted. Conclusion Risk-tailored screening reduces the harms of screening for prostate cancer whilst preserving much of the mortality benefit. This study raises the prospect of risk-tailored population-based screening for prostate cancer; the precise risk-thresholds selected will depend on societal judgements regarding the appropriate trade-offs between harms and benefits. Citation Format: Thomas Callender, Mark Emberton, Steve Morris, Ros Eeles, Zsofia Kote-Jarai, Paul Pharoah, Nora Pashayan. Polygenic risk-tailored screening for prostate cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 2415.

The second meeting of the Blue Skies Forum took place in Downing College, Cambridge, in April 2013, with the objective of focusing attention on new initiatives in the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer, in particular on areas of research that aim to identify aggressive disease. The meeting was hosted by Prostate Cancer UK and supported by The Howard Foundation. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons

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

Prostate cancer has a strong familial component but uncovering the molecular basis for inherited susceptibility for this disease has been challenging. Recently, a rare, recurrent mutation (G84E) in HOXB13 was reported to be associated with prostate cancer risk. Confirmation and characterization of this finding is necessary to potentially translate this information to the clinic. To examine this finding in a large international sample of prostate cancer families, we genotyped this mutation and 14 other SNPs in or flanking HOXB13 in 2,443 prostate cancer families recruited by the International Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics (ICPCG). At least one mutation carrier was found in 112 prostate cancer families (4.6 %), all of European descent. Within carrier families, the G84E mutation was more common in men with a diagnosis of prostate cancer (194 of 382, 51 %) than those without (42 of 137, 30 %), P = 9.9 × 10−8 [odds ratio 4.42 (95 % confidence interval 2.56–7.64)]. A family-based association test found G84E to be significantly over-transmitted from parents to affected offspring (P = 6.5 × 10−6). Analysis of markers flanking the G84E mutation indicates that it resides in the same haplotype in 95 % of carriers, consistent with a founder effect. Clinical characteristics of cancers in mutation carriers included features of high-risk disease. These findings demonstrate that the HOXB13 G84E mutation is present in ~5 % of prostate cancer families, predominantly of European descent, and confirm its association with prostate cancer risk. While future studies are needed to more fully define the clinical utility of this observation, this allele and others like it could form the basis for early, targeted screening of men at elevated risk for this common, clinically heterogeneous cancer. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00439-012-1229-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The human tissue Kallikrein family consists of 15 genes with the majority shown to be differentially expressed in cancers and/or indicators of cancer prognosis. We sought to elucidate the role of common genetic variation in four of the Kallikrein genes, KLK5, KLK6, KLK12, and KLK13, in prostate cancer risk and tumor aggressiveness. Genotyping of all 22 tagging single nucleotide polymorphisms (tagSNPs) in the KLK5, KLK6, KLK12, and KLK13 genes was performed in approximately 1,000 prostate cancer cases and 1,300 male controls from Australia. Data from any positive results were also accessed for 1,844 cases and 1,886 controls from a previously published prostate cancer genome-wide association study set from the United Kingdom. For one SNP in KLK12, rs3865443, there was evidence for association with prostate cancer risk of similar direction and magnitude in the replication set to that seen in the Australian cohort. We conducted genotyping of a further 309 prostate cancer cases, and combined analyses revealed an increased risk of prostate cancer for carriers of the rare homozygous genotype for rs3865443 (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.04-1.57; P = 0.018). No other tagSNPs in the KLK5, KLK6, and KLK13 genes were consistently associated with prostate cancer risk or tumor aggressiveness. Analysis of a combined sample of 3,153 cases and 3,199 controls revealed the KLK12 tagSNP rs3865443 to be marginally statistically significantly associated with risk of prostate cancer. Considering the total number of SNPs investigated in this study, this finding should be interpreted cautiously and requires additional validation from very large datasets such as those of the Prostate Cancer Association group to investigate cancer associated alterations (PRACTICAL) Consortium.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The relation of serum androgens and the development of prostate cancer (PCa) is subject of debate. Lower total testosterone (TT) levels have been associated with increased PCa detection and worse pathological features after treatment. The aim of this study is to investigate the association of serum androgens levels and PCa detection in a prospective screening study of men at higher genetic risk due to BRCA mutation METHODS: Six hundred and fifty seven participants in the IMPACT study had sequential TT and sexual hormone binding globulin (SHBG) measurements in serum samples at annual visits, giving 2783 prospective androgen levels, from 234 BRCA1 carriers, 268 BRCA2 carriers and 155 mutation negative controls. Free and bioavailable testosterone were calculated from TT and SHBG using the Sordergaard equation. Age, BMI, PSA and hormonal concentrations were compared between men affected and unaffected with PCa within each genetic cohort using unpaired t-test. The Fisher exact test was used to correlate hypogonadic levels of testosterone and genetic status with PCa diagnosis within each genetic category RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the PSA levels and BMI at study entry. Mean ages were 53.52, 52.17, and 51.17 years, for the control, BRCA1 and BRCA2 groups, respectively (BRCA1 p1⁄40.24 and BRCA2 p1⁄40.01). In the BRCA2 cohort, serum TT levels were lower in carriers diagnosed with PCa, compared with unaffected carriers and controls (11.2, 13.78, 13.4 nmol/L, mean values per group, respectively, p1⁄40.02 and p1⁄40.009). In the BRCA1 cohort, no significant difference was observed between affected and unaffected carriers and controls (13.6, 13.5, 13.4, nmol/L, mean values per group respectively, p1⁄40.82 and p-0.69). SHBG levels were significantly higher in BRCA1 carriers with PCa than unaffected carriers and controls (47.62, 37.97, 40.34 nmol/L, respectively; p1⁄40.002 and p1⁄40.03). TT levels

Background: Numerous germline single-nucleotide polymorphisms increase susceptibility to prostate cancer, some lying near genes involved in cellular radiation response. This study investigated whether prostate cancer patients with a high genetic risk have increased toxicity following radiotherapy. Methods: The study included 1560 prostate cancer patients from four radiotherapy cohorts: RAPPER (n=533), RADIOGEN (n=597), GenePARE (n=290) and CCI (n=150). Data from genome-wide association studies were imputed with the 1000 Genomes reference panel. Individuals were genetically similar with a European ancestry based on principal component analysis. Genetic risks were quantified using polygenic risk scores. Regression models tested associations between risk scores and 2-year toxicity (overall, urinary frequency, decreased stream, rectal bleeding). Results were combined across studies using standard inverse-variance fixed effects meta-analysis methods. Results: A total of 75 variants were genotyped/imputed successfully. Neither non-weighted nor weighted polygenic risk scores were associated with late radiation toxicity in individual studies (P>0.11) or after meta-analysis (P>0.24). No individual variant was associated with 2-year toxicity. Conclusion: Patients with a high polygenic susceptibility for prostate cancer have no increased risk for developing late radiotherapy toxicity. These findings suggest that patients with a genetic predisposition for prostate cancer, inferred by common variants, can be safely treated using current standard radiotherapy regimens.

BACKGROUND In spite of intensive efforts, understanding of the genetic aspects of familial prostate cancer (PC) remains largely incomplete. In a previous microsatellite-based linkage scan of 1,233 PC families, we identified suggestive evidence for linkage (i.e., LOD?=?1.86) at 5q12, 15q11, 17q21, 22q12, and two loci on 8p, with additional regions implicated in subsets of families defined by age at diagnosis, disease aggressiveness, or number of affected members. METHODS. In an attempt to replicate these findings and increase linkage resolution, we used the Illumina 6000 SNP linkage panel to perform a genome-wide linkage scan of an independent set of 762 multiplex PC families, collected by 11 International Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics (ICPCG) groups. RESULTS. Of the regions identified previously, modest evidence of replication was observed only on the short arm of chromosome 8, where HLOD scores of 1.63 and 3.60 were observed in the complete set of families and families with young average age at diagnosis, respectively. The most significant linkage signals found in the complete set of families were observed across a broad, 37cM interval on 4q13-25, with LOD scores ranging from 2.02 to 2.62, increasing to 4.50 in families with older average age at diagnosis. In families with multiple cases presenting with more aggressive disease, LOD cores over 3.0 were observed at 8q24 in the vicinity of previously identified common PC risk variants, as well as MYC, an important gene in PC biology. CONCLUSIONS. These results will be useful in prioritizing future susceptibility gene discovery efforts in thiscommon cancer. Prostate 72: 410-426, 2012. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background: Inherited BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations confer elevated breast cancer risk. Knowledge of factors that can improve breast cancer risk assessment in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers may improve personalized cancer prevention strategies. Methods: A cohort of 5,546 BRCA1 and 2,865 BRCA2 mutation carriers was used to evaluate risk of breast cancer associated with BARD1 Cys557Ser. In a second nonindependent cohort of 1,537 of BRCA1 and 839 BRCA2 mutation carriers, BARD1 haplotypes were also evaluated. Results: The BARD1 Cys557Ser variant was not significantly associated with risk of breast cancer from single SNP analysis, with a pooled effect estimate of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.71–1.15) in BRCA1 carriers and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.59–1.29) in BRCA2 carriers. Further analysis of haplotypes at BARD1 also revealed no evidence that additional common genetic variation not captured by Cys557Ser was associated with breast cancer risk. Conclusion: Evidence to date does not support a role for BARD1 variation, including the Cy557Ser variant, as a modifier of risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Impact: Interactors of BRCA1/2 have been implicated as modifiers of BRCA1/2-associated cancer risk. Our finding that BARD1 does not contribute to this risk modification may focus research on other genes that do modify BRCA1/2-associated cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 20(5); 1032–8. ©2011 AACR.

e13617Background: The BARCODE2 study is investigating the response to platinum chemotherapy in men with advanced prostate cancer (PrCa) and a germline mutation in a DNA repair gene. We present the ...

18 Background: Prostate cancer (PrCa) is the most common solid tumour in men in the Western world. There is substantial evidence that PrCa predisposition is due both to common and rare germline variation. Methods: We screened 167 genes from DNA damage response and repair pathways, within a UK based cohort of young onset cases (diagnosed at < 65 years) and controls. Samples were sequenced using a custom Agilent SureSelectXT bait library and Illumina HiSeq technology and processed using a BWA/GATK 2.8 pipeline. Following sample QC, data were analysed from 1,285 PrCa cases and 1,163 controls. Results: We identified 5,086 single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and 175 indels; 233 unique protein truncating variants (PTVs) with MAF < 0.5% in controls were found in 97 genes of the screening panel. The total proportion of PTV carriers in cases was higher than in controls (14.5% vs. 11.6%, P = 0.036; OR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.01-1.64). This enrichment was greater within the previously reported BROCA gene set of 22 tumour suppressor genes (4.5% vs 2.2%, P = 2.5x10-3; OR = 2.07, 95% CI 1.28-3.34). To identify genes which best to distinguish PrCa cases from controls, we applied the adaptive combination of P values algorithm, ADA, for genes with at least 2 carriers of PTVs. This analysis selected 10 genes, (OR = 3.37, 95% CI 2.05-5.66, PADA= 5.99x10-3); men with PTVs in these were about 3.4-fold more likely to have PrCa (5.8% vs. 1.8%). We subsequently compared aggressive cases (Gleason score ≥ 8, n = 204) with non-aggressive cases (Gleason score ≤ 7, n = 1049) and lethal PrCa cases (cause of death PrCa, n = 183) with indolent cases (Gleason score ≤ 6, n = 563) to evaluate genes associated with poor clinical prognosis. Using ADA, 4 genes were selected for aggressive PrCa ( PADA= 0.006) and 2 of these also for lethal PrCa ( PADA= 0.057). Conclusions: These gene sets provide an 11 gene panel which could be used for clinical testing and will help to facilitate the development of a PrCa specific sequencing panel with both predictive and prognostic potential.

To review imaging features of screening-detected cancers on images from diagnostic and prior examinations to identify specific abnormalities to aid earlier detection of or facilitate differentiation of cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers and in women with a high risk for breast cancer.Informed consent and multicenter and local research ethics committee approval were obtained. Women (mean age, 40.1 years; range, 27-55 years) who had at least a 50% risk of being a BRCA1, BRCA2, or TP53 gene mutation carrier were recruited from August 1997 to March 2003 into the United Kingdom Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Screening Study Group trial and were offered annual magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and two-view mammography (total number of screenings, 2065 and 1973; mean, 2.38 and 2.36, respectively). Images in all 39 cancer cases were reread in consensus to document the morphologic and enhancement imaging features on MR and mammographic images in screening and prior examinations. Cases were grouped into genetic subtypes.With MR imaging, there was no difference in morphologic or enhancement characteristics between the genetic subgroups. Cancers on images from prior examinations were of smaller size, showed less enhancement, and were more likely to have a type 1 enhancement curve compared with those cancers in the subsequent diagnostic screening examinations. The tumor sizes detected by using MR imaging and mammography were not significantly different (P = .46). The cancers in BRCA1 carriers found by using MR imaging tended to be smaller than those detected by using mammography (median, 17 mm vs 30 mm; P = .37), whereas the opposite was true for cancers found in BRCA2 carriers (MR imaging median size = 12.5 mm vs mammographic median size = 6 mm; P = .067); the difference was not significant. Tumors with prior MR imaging abnormalities grew at an average of 5.1 mm/y.When undertaking MR imaging surveillance in high-risk women, small enhancing lesions should be regarded with suspicion and biopsied or patients should be followed up at 6 months.

The family histories of 130 individuals with documented hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) (caused by mutations in mismatch-repair (MMR) genes MSH2 (n = 64), MLH1 (n = 62) or MSH6 (n = 4)) were obtained, and incidence of cancers in those families was compared to that in the general population. There were a total of 982 cancers in 723 individuals. Colorectal cancer (CRC) was the commonest type (64% and 55% in individuals from families with germline MLH1 and MSH2 mutations respectively). Median age at diagnosis of first CRC in MSH6 mutation families was 59 years compared to 45 years in both MLH1 and MSH2 mutation families. The relative risk (RR) of endometrial cancer was 55 in MSH2 mutation families, compared with 27 in MLH1 mutation families, and 37 in MSH6 mutation families; median age at diagnosis 49 years. Even within MSH2 families, endometrial cancer tended to cluster, with 28 of the 58 cases coming from families with three or more cases (P < 0.001). Absolute risk of endometrial cancer in MLH1 families was still greater than any other cancer (other than CRC). 5% of cancers in both MLH1 and MSH2 mutation families were gastric (RR = 12); 53% of these were diagnosed before 50 years. Seven cases of small intestinal cancer occurred in MSH2 and MLH1 mutation families (RR = 26). There were 13 cases of cancer of the ureter; all were in MSH2 families. These cancers tended to cluster within families (P < 0.001); three of seven families with urothelial cancer had such cases in two or more individuals; two others had kidney cancer. Nineteen of 27 ovarian cancers (70%) were in MSH2 mutation families and 70% of these were diagnosed before age 50 years. There were 9 cases of sebaceous skin cancer, 3 in two MLH1 and 6 in four MSH2 mutation families. Of 22 pancreatic cancers, 14 were known to be diagnosed before 60 years. Breast cancer RR was 1.7 overall. The type of mutation (truncating or other type, and site of mutation) showed no obvious correlation with the presence or absence of extra-colonic cancers in families.

Background: DNA damage is an established mediator of carcinogenesis, although genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified few significant loci. This cross-cancer site, pooled analysis was performed to increase the power to detect common variants of DNA repair genes associated with cancer susceptibility. Methods: We conducted a cross-cancer analysis of 60,297 single nucleotide polymorphisms, at 229 DNA repair gene regions, using data from the NCI Genetic Associations and Mechanisms in Oncology (GAME-ON) Network. Our analysis included data from 32 GWAS and 48,734 controls and 51,537 cases across five cancer sites (breast, colon, lung, ovary, and prostate). Because of the unavailability of individual data, data were analyzed at the aggregate level. Meta-analysis was performed using the Association analysis for SubSETs (ASSET) software. To test for genetic associations that might escape individual variant testing due to small effect sizes, pathway analysis of eight DNA repair pathways was performed using hierarchical modeling. Results: We identified three susceptibility DNA repair genes, RAD51B (P < 5.09 × 10−6), MSH5 (P < 5.09 × 10−6), and BRCA2 (P = 5.70 × 10−6). Hierarchical modeling identified several pleiotropic associations with cancer risk in the base excision repair, nucleotide excision repair, mismatch repair, and homologous recombination pathways. Conclusions: Only three susceptibility loci were identified, which had all been previously reported. In contrast, hierarchical modeling identified several pleiotropic cancer risk associations in key DNA repair pathways. Impact: Results suggest that many common variants in DNA repair genes are likely associated with cancer susceptibility through small effect sizes that do not meet stringent significance testing criteria. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(1); 193–200. ©2015 AACR.

Purpose: In this study, the differential gene expression changes following radiation-induced DNA damage in healthy cells from BRCA1/BRCA1 mutation carriers have been compared with controls using high-density microarray technology. We aimed to establish if BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers could be distinguished from noncarriers based on expression profiling of normal cells. Experimental Design: Short-term primary fibroblast cultures were established from skin biopsies from 10 BRCA1 and 10 BRCA2 mutation carriers and 10 controls, all of whom had previously had breast cancer. The cells were subjected to 15 Gy ionizing irradiation to induce DNA damage. RNA was extracted from all cell cultures, preirradiation and at 1 hour postirradiation. For expression profiling, 15 K spotted cDNA microarrays manufactured by the Cancer Research UK DNA Microarray Facility were used. Statistical feature selection was used with a support vector machine (SVM) classifier to determine the best feature set for predicting BRCA1 or BRCA2 heterozygous genotype. To investigate prediction accuracy, a nonprobabilistic classifier (SVM) and a probabilistic Gaussian process classifier were used. Results: In the task of distinguishing BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers from noncarriers and from each other following radiation-induced DNA damage, the SVM achieved 90%, and the Gaussian process classifier achieved 100% accuracy. This effect could not be achieved without irradiation. In addition, the SVM identified a set of BRCA genotype predictor genes. Conclusions: We conclude that after irradiation-induced DNA damage, BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carrier cells have a distinctive expression phenotype, and this may have a future role in predicting genotypes, with application to clinical detection and classification of mutations.

High breast density as measured on mammograms is a strong risk factor for breast cancer in the general population, but its effect in carriers of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is unclear. We obtained mammograms from 206 female carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, 96 of whom were subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer and 136 relatives of carriers who were themselves noncarriers. We compared the mammographic densities of affected carriers (cases) and unaffected carriers (controls), and of mutation carriers and noncarriers, using a computer-assisted method of measurement and visual assessment by two observers. Analyses were adjusted for age, parity, body mass index, menopausal status, and hormone replacement therapy use. There was no difference in the mean percent density between noncarriers and carriers. Among carriers, increasing mammographic density was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (Ptrend = 0.024). The odds ratio (OR; 95% confidence interval) for breast cancer associated with a density of ≥50% was 2.29 (1.23-4.26; P = 0.009). The OR did not differ between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers or between premenopausal and postmenopausal carriers. The results suggest that the distribution of breast density in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers is similar to that in non-carriers. High breast density in carriers is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, with the relative risk being similar to that observed in the general population. Use of mammographic density could improve individual risk prediction in carriers. (Cancer Res 2006; 66(3): 1866-72)

Introduction The distribution of histopathological features of invasive breast tumors in BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation carriers differs from that of individuals with no known mutation. Histopathological features thus have utility for mutation prediction, including statistical modeling to assess pathogenicity of BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants of uncertain clinical significance. We analyzed large pathology datasets accrued by the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) and the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) to reassess histopathological predictors of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status, and provide robust likelihood ratio (LR) estimates for statistical modeling. Methods Selection criteria for study/center inclusion were estrogen receptor (ER) status or grade data available for invasive breast cancer diagnosed younger than 70 years. The dataset included 4,477 BRCA1 mutation carriers, 2,565 BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 47,565 BCAC breast cancer cases. Country-stratified estimates of the likelihood of mutation status by histopathological markers were derived using a Mantel-Haenszel approach. Results ER-positive phenotype negatively predicted BRCA1 mutation status, irrespective of grade (LRs from 0.08 to 0.90). ER-negative grade 3 histopathology was more predictive of positive BRCA1 mutation status in women 50 years or older (LR = 4.13 (3.70 to 4.62)) versus younger than 50 years (LR = 3.16 (2.96 to 3.37)). For BRCA2, ER-positive grade 3 phenotype modestly predicted positive mutation status irrespective of age (LR = 1.7-fold), whereas ER-negative grade 3 features modestly predicted positive mutation status at 50 years or older (LR = 1.54 (1.27 to 1.88)). Triple-negative tumor status was highly predictive of BRCA1 mutation status for women younger than 50 years (LR = 3.73 (3.43 to 4.05)) and 50 years or older (LR = 4.41 (3.86 to 5.04)), and modestly predictive of positive BRCA2 mutation status in women 50 years or older (LR = 1.79 (1.42 to 2.24)). Conclusions These results refine likelihood-ratio estimates for predicting BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status by using commonly measured histopathological features. Age at diagnosis is an important variable for most analyses, and grade is more informative than ER status for BRCA2 mutation carrier prediction. The estimates will improve BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant classification and inform patient mutation testing and clinical management. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13058-014-0474-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.