4.4 Article

Early onset prostate cancer has a significant genetic component

期刊

PROSTATE
卷 72, 期 2, 页码 147-156

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pros.21414

关键词

early onset prostate cancer; polymorphism; association; genetics

资金

  1. NIH [RO1 CA79596, RO1 CA136621, SPORE P50 CA69568]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Prostate cancer (PCa) affects more than 190,000 men each year with <= 10% of men diagnosed at =55 years, that is, early onset (EO) PCa. Based on historical findings for other cancers, EO PCa likely reflects a stronger underlying genetic etiology. METHODS. We evaluated the association between EO PCa and previously identified single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 754 Caucasian cases from the Michigan Prostate Cancer Genetics Project (mean 49.8 years at diagnosis), 2,713 Caucasian controls from Illumina's iControlDB database and 1,163 PCa cases diagnosed at >55 years from the Cancer Genetic Markers of Susceptibility Study (CGEMS). RESULTS. Significant associations existed for 13 of 14 SNPs (rs9364554 on 6q25, rs10486567 on 7p15, rs6465657 on 7q21, rs6983267 on 8q24, rs1447295 on 8q24, rs1571801 on 9q33, rs10993994 on 10q11, rs4962416 on 10q26, rs7931342 on 11q13, rs4430796 on 17q12, rs1859962 on 17q24.3, rs2735839 on 19q13, and rs5945619 on Xp11.22, but not rs2660753 on 3p12). EO PCa cases had a significantly greater cumulative number of risk alleles (mean 12.4) than iControlDB controls (mean 11.2; P = 2.1 x 10(-33)) or CGEMS cases (mean 11.9; P = 1.7 x 10(-5)). Notably, EO PCa cases had a higher frequency of the risk allele than CGEMS cases at 11 of 13 associated SNPs, with significant differences for five SNPs. EO PCa cases diagnosed at <50 (mean 12.8) also had significantly more risk alleles than those diagnosed at 50-55 years (mean 12.1; P = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS. These results demonstrate the potential for identifying PCa-associated genetic variants by focusing on the subgroup of men diagnosed with EO disease. Prostate 72: 147-156, 2012. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据