scholarly journals The impact of inflammatory and immune response-related genetic variants on prostate cancer risk among men of African descent.

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominique Jones
2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuanyuan Mi ◽  
Kewei Ren ◽  
Jiangang Zou ◽  
Yu  Bai ◽  
Lifeng Zhang ◽  
...  

Background/Aims: MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are a class of small non-coding RNA molecules which play a significant role in transcriptional and translational regulation. Published data on the association between the miRNA SNPs and prostate cancer (PCa) risk are somewhat inconclusive. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of all available studies including 2,227 patients and 2,331 control subjects to evaluate the impact of three common genetic variants of microRNAs in prostate cancer risk. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were utilized to investigate the strength of the association. Results: For miR-499 polymorphism, a significant association was observed between the rs3746444 A>G polymorphism and PCa risk in heterozygote comparison and dominant genetic model, in particular in Asian population subgroup. For miR-146a polymorphism, the rs2910164 CC genotype was associated with decreased PCa risk in Asian population in homozygote comparison. In addition, rs2910164 CC genotype had a weekly higher percentage value in subgroup of Gleason score < 7. Similar results were also indicated in localized prostate cancer in subgroup analysis by tumor stage. For miR-196a2 polymorphism, no association was observed between this variant and PCa risk in the overall group. However, in stratified analysis by ethnicity, we found that rs11614913 T allele was a risk factor for Asian PCa patients. Conclusions: Polymorphisms of miR-196a2 rs11614913, miR-146a rs2910164, and miR-499 rs3746444 may contribute to the risk for developing prostate cancer in Asian descendants. Moreover, miR-146a rs2910164 polymorphism was related to PCa prognosis.


2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 347-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
E N Rogers ◽  
D Z Jones ◽  
N C Kidd ◽  
S Yeyeodu ◽  
G Brock ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Bandala-Jacques ◽  
Kevin Daniel Castellanos Esquivel ◽  
Fernanda Pérez-Hurtado ◽  
Cristobal Hernández-Silva ◽  
Nancy Reynoso-Noverón

BACKGROUND Screening for prostate cancer has long been a debated, complex topic. The use of risk calculators for prostate cancer is recommended for determining patients’ individual risk of cancer and the subsequent need for a prostate biopsy. These tools could lead to a better discrimination of patients in need of invasive diagnostic procedures and for optimized allocation of healthcare resources OBJECTIVE To systematically review available literature on current prostate cancer risk calculators’ performance in healthy population, by comparing the impact factor of individual items on different cohorts, and the models’ overall performance. METHODS We performed a systematic review of available prostate cancer risk calculators targeted at healthy population. We included studies published from January 2000 to March 2021 in English, Spanish, French, Portuguese or German. Two reviewers independently decided for or against inclusion based on abstracts. A third reviewer intervened in case of disagreements. From the selected titles, we extracted information regarding the purpose of the manuscript, the analyzed calculators, the population for which it was calibrated, the included risk factors, and the model’s overall accuracy. RESULTS We included a total of 18 calculators across 53 different manuscripts. The most commonly analyzed ones were they PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators, developed from North American and European cohorts, respectively. Both calculators provided high precision for the diagnosis of aggressive prostate cancer (AUC as high as 0.798 for PCPT and 0.91 for ERSPC). We found 9 calculators developed from scratch for specific populations, which reached diagnostic precisions as high as 0.938. The most commonly included risk factors in the calculators were age, PSA levels and digital rectal examination findings. Additional calculators included race and detailed personal and family history CONCLUSIONS Both the PCPR and the ERSPC risk calculators have been successfully adapted for cohorts other than the ones they were originally created for with no loss of diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, designing calculators from scratch considering each population’s sociocultural differences has resulted in risk tools that can be well adapted to be valid in more patients. The best risk calculator for prostate cancer will be that which was has been calibrated for its intended population and can be easily reproduced and implemented CLINICALTRIAL CRD42021242110


2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Radhika G. Andavolu ◽  
Jean-Luc Cardenas ◽  
Ross Shore ◽  
Zach Rubin ◽  
James MacMurray ◽  
...  

The Prostate ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 68 (12) ◽  
pp. 1257-1262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jielin Sun ◽  
Bao-Li Chang ◽  
Sarah D. Isaacs ◽  
Kathleen E. Wiley ◽  
Fredrik Wiklund ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 208 (11) ◽  
pp. 552-558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaik Mohammad Naushad ◽  
Parvathaneni Shree Divyya ◽  
M. Janaki Ramaiah ◽  
Balraj Alex Stanley ◽  
S. Prasanna Lakshmi ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (11) ◽  
pp. e26527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jyotsna Batra ◽  
Felicity Lose ◽  
Tracy O'Mara ◽  
Louise Marquart ◽  
Carson Stephens ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (24) ◽  
pp. 6170-6174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng-Yuan Gu ◽  
Sheng-Ming Jin ◽  
Xiao-Jian Qin ◽  
Yao Zhu ◽  
Dai Bo ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document