| 1. |
- Dadaev, T, et al.
(författare)
-
Fine-mapping of prostate cancer susceptibility loci in a large meta-analysis identifies candidate causal variants
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Nature communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723. ; 9:1, s. 2256-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Prostate cancer is a polygenic disease with a large heritable component. A number of common, low-penetrance prostate cancer risk loci have been identified through GWAS. Here we apply the Bayesian multivariate variable selection algorithm JAM to fine-map 84 prostate cancer susceptibility loci, using summary data from a large European ancestry meta-analysis. We observe evidence for multiple independent signals at 12 regions and 99 risk signals overall. Only 15 original GWAS tag SNPs remain among the catalogue of candidate variants identified; the remainder are replaced by more likely candidates. Biological annotation of our credible set of variants indicates significant enrichment within promoter and enhancer elements, and transcription factor-binding sites, including AR, ERG and FOXA1. In 40 regions at least one variant is colocalised with an eQTL in prostate cancer tissue. The refined set of candidate variants substantially increase the proportion of familial relative risk explained by these known susceptibility regions, which highlights the importance of fine-mapping studies and has implications for clinical risk profiling.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Ahlgren, Göran M., et al.
(författare)
-
Docetaxel Versus Surveillance After Radical Prostatectomy for High-risk Prostate Cancer : Results from the Prospective Randomised, Open-label Phase 3 Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 12 Trial
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838. ; 73:6, s. 870-876
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy is standard treatment for other solid tumours, but to date has not proven effective in prostate cancer. Objective: o evaluate whether six cycles of docetaxel alone improve biochemical disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. Design, setting, and participants: Open-label, randomised multinational phase 3 trial. Enrolment of 459 patients after prostatectomy. Inclusion criteria: high-risk pT2 margin positive or pT3a Gleason score ≥4+3, pT3b, or lymph node positive disease Gleason score ≥3+4. Patients assigned (1:1) to either six cycles of adjuvant docetaxel 75mg/m2 every 3 wk without daily prednisone (Arm A) or surveillance (Arm B) until endpoint was reached. Primary endpoint was prostate-specific antigen progression ≥0.5 ng/ml. Intervention: Docetaxel treatment after prostatectomy. Results and limitations: Median time to progression, death, or last follow-up was 56.8 mo. Primary endpoint was reached in 190/459 patients-the risk of progression at 5 yr being 41% (45% in Arm A and 38% in Arm B). There was evidence of nonproportional hazards in Kaplan-Meier analysis, so we used the difference in restricted mean survival time as the primary estimate of effect. Restricted mean survival time to endpoint was 43 mo in Arm A versus 46 mo in Arm B (p = 0.06), a nonsignificant difference of 3.2 mo (95% confidence interval: 6.7 to -1.5 mo). A total of 116 serious adverse events were recorded in Arm A and 41 in Arm B with no treatment-related deaths. Not all patients received docetaxel by protocol. The endpoint is biochemical progression and some patients received radiation treatment before the endpoint. Conclusions: Docetaxel without hormonal therapy did not significantly improve biochemical disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy. Patient summary: In this randomised trial, we tested whether chemotherapy after surgery for high-risk prostate cancer decreases the risk of a rising prostate-specific antigen. We found no benefit from docetaxel given after radical prostatectomy. In this randomised trial, docetaxel without hormonal therapy or continuous corticosteroids was given after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. We found no benefit from docetaxel alone given after radical prostatectomy.
|
|
| 4. |
- Tolbod, Lars P., et al.
(författare)
-
Non-invasive quantification of tumor blood flow in prostate cancer using O-15-H2O PET/CT
- 2018
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. - : E-CENTURY PUBLISHING CORP. - 2160-8407. ; 8:5, s. 292-302
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Tumor blood flow (TBF) measurements in prostate cancer (PCa) provide an integrative index of tumor growth, which could be important for primary diagnosis and therapy response evaluation. O-15-water PET is the noninvasive gold standard but is technically demanding. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of three different non-invasive strategies with an invasively measured arterial input function (BSIF): Using image-derived input functions (IDIF) from either 1) a separate heart scan or 2) the pelvic scan or 3) a populations-based input function (PBIF). Nine patients with biopsy-verified PCa scheduled for prostatectomy were included. All patients were characterized with serum levels of PSA (s-PSA), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRl) and post-surgical histopathology Gleason Grade. Dynamic O-15-water was performed of the heart and the pelvic area 15 minutes apart. TBF estimated from both wash-in (K-1) and wash-out (k(2)) constants was calculated using a one-compartmental model. Results: Mean (range) s PSA was 12 (3-27) ng/mL, Gleason Grade Group was 2.9 (1-5), k(2) was 0.44 (0.007-1.2), and K-1 was 0.24 (0.07-0.55) mL,/mL/min. k(2) (BSIF)correlated with s-PSA (r=0.86, P<0.01) and Gleason Grade Group (rho=0.78, P=0.01). BSIF, heart-IDIF and PBIF provided near-identical k(2) and K-1 (r>0.95, P<0.001) with slopes near unity. The correlations of BSIF and pelvic-IDIF rate constants were good (r>0.95, P<0.001), but individual errors high. In conclusion, non-invasive protocols for O-15-water PET with IDIF or PBIF accurately measures perfusion in prostate cancer and might be useful for evaluation of tumor aggressiveness and treatment response.
|
|
