Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Oct 2;10(10):e0136735.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136735. eCollection 2015.

Incorporating Known Genetic Variants Does Not Improve the Accuracy of PSA Testing to Identify High Risk Prostate Cancer on Biopsy

Affiliations

Incorporating Known Genetic Variants Does Not Improve the Accuracy of PSA Testing to Identify High Risk Prostate Cancer on Biopsy

Rebecca Gilbert et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Introduction: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is a widely accepted screening method for prostate cancer, but with low specificity at thresholds giving good sensitivity. Previous research identified four single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) principally associated with circulating PSA levels rather than with prostate cancer risk (TERT rs2736098, FGFR2 rs10788160, TBX3 rs11067228, KLK3 rs17632542). Removing the genetic contribution to PSA levels may improve the ability of the remaining biologically-determined variation in PSA to discriminate between high and low risk of progression within men with identified prostate cancer. We investigate whether incorporating information on the PSA-SNPs improves the discrimination achieved by a single PSA threshold in men with raised PSA levels.

Materials and methods: Men with PSA between 3-10 ng/mL and histologically-confirmed prostate cancer were categorised as high or low risk of progression (Low risk: Gleason score≤6 and stage T1-T2a; High risk: Gleason score 7-10 or stage T2C). We used the combined genetic effect of the four PSA-SNPs to calculate a genetically corrected PSA risk score. We calculated the Area under the Curve (AUC) to determine how well genetically corrected PSA risk scores distinguished men at high risk of progression from low risk men.

Results: The analysis includes 868 men with prostate cancer (Low risk: 684 (78.8%); High risk: 184 (21.2%)). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves indicate that including the 4 PSA-SNPs does not improve the performance of measured PSA as a screening tool for high/low risk prostate cancer (measured PSA level AUC = 59.5% (95% CI: 54.7,64.2) vs additionally including information from the 4 PSA-SNPs AUC = 59.8% (95% CI: 55.2,64.5) (p-value = 0.40)).

Conclusion: We demonstrate that genetically correcting PSA for the combined genetic effect of four PSA-SNPs, did not improve discrimination between high and low risk prostate cancer in men with raised PSA levels (3-10 ng/mL). Replication and gaining more accurate estimates of the effects of the 4 PSA-SNPs and additional variants associated with PSA levels and not prostate cancer could be obtained from subsequent GWAS from larger prospective studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Histograms showing the distribution of genetically corrected PSA risk score.
Histograms showing genetically corrected PSA risk score, including information on the 4 PSA-SNPs using the published coefficients, stratified by high versus low risk of progression show no difference between men at high and low risk of progression.
Fig 2
Fig 2. ROC curves comparing measured PSA to genetically corrected PSA risk score using the 4 PSA-SNPs.
Area under the curve (AUC) comparing measured PSA, genetically corrected PSA risk score based on 4 PSA-SNPs using the published coefficients and PSA risk score corrected for both 4 PSA-SNPs and 10 aggressive prostate cancer SNPs using published coefficients.

References

    1. Cancer Research UK (2014) CancerStats report Prostate Cancer—UK, Cancer Research UK. Available: http://infocancerresearchukorg/cancerstats/types/prostate.
    1. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TLJ, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al. (2009) Screening and Prostate-Cancer Mortality in a Randomized European Study. The New England Journal of Medicine 360: 1320–1328. 10.1056/NEJMoa0810084 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J, Tammela TL, Penson DF, Carter HB, et al. (2014) Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment of Prostate Cancer. European Urology 65: 1046–1055. 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aus G, Damber J, Khatami A, Lilja H, Stranne J, Hugosson J. (2005) Individualized screening interval for prostate cancer based on prostate-specific antigen level: Results of a prospective, randomized, population-based study. Archives of Internal Medicine 165: 1857–1861. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, et al. (2006) Assessing Prostate Cancer Risk: Results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 98: 529–534. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances