Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer (except skin cancer) in men. Several factors have been associated with an increased risk for prostate cancer, including age, ethnicity, family history, lifestyle, and environmental exposures. Recognition of the importance of the interaction of these factors in prostate cancer has led to an interest in their evaluation as a model both for studying genetic susceptibility patterns and for studying and providing educational tools and preventive interventions. One such model has been developed at Fox Chase Cancer Center. Critical to the implementation of the model has been the establishment of the Prostate Cancer Risk Registry (PCRR) and Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Program (PRAP). Together, they serve as a unique resource for investigating the interaction between environmental factors and genetic susceptibility patterns; exploring the early, premalignant biological markers of prostate cancer; and prospectively assessing the quality of life (QOL) of men at risk. In addition, PRAP facilitates the evaluation of models for prostate cancer risk counseling and screening in the community. This paper describes this model for early detection and risk reduction, along with preliminary data from its first two study aims. 3The program is particularly relevant in view of the wealth of genetic information emerging from the Human Genome Project. [ONCOLOGY 13 (3):325-334, 1999]
An estimated 184,500 new cases of prostate cancer were diagnosed in 1998, and almost 40,000 men died from the disease. Because of the high burden of morbidity and mortality from prostate cancer, the federal government, through the Medicare reform bill recently passed by Congress, has committed significant resources to expand efforts to improve the control and prevention of prostate cancer. The bill will cover annual prostate cancer screening for men over age 50 years beginning in the year 2000.
Despite this governmental support for prostate cancer screening, the issues of who, how, and when to screen for prostate cancer, and even whether such screening should be done at all, are still being debated at both the state and federal levels. These debates are due, in part, to conflicting and/or vague screening recommendations issued by medical organizations, such as the American Urologic Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Physicians.
Divisiveness over prostate screening recommendations has arisen because, despite the development of sensitive and reliable screening methods, such as the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, questions have been raised about the cost-benefit of prostate cancer screening in asymptomatic
men and the cost-benefit of diagnosis and treatment of localized prostate cancer.[2-4] Most of the controversies center around two arguments: (1) that screening of asymptomatic men leads to the detection and costly treatment of latent tumors that would have remained clinically silent and would have been discovered only on autopsy; and (2) that treatment confers only a small survival benefit while having a large negative impact on patients’ quality of life.
Arguments in favor of continued screening include pathologic evidence that most of the cancers detected by screening are clinically significant tumors, and that only a small percentage (10% to 15%) are insignificant or latent tumors.[5,6]
Nevertheless, with the steadily rising cost of health care, resources for screening have come under close scrutiny. A more cost-effective approach to prostate cancer screening may be to screen only those men at high risk for the disease.
Based on these considerations, Dr. Gerald E. Hanks founded the Prostate Cancer Risk Registry (PCRR) and Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Program (PRAP) at Fox Chase Cancer Center in 1996. This risk assessment program offers a unique opportunity for high-risk men to obtain information regarding their risk for prostate cancer within a defined research protocol that will study their risk factors within a biopsychosocial framework. After a brief discussion on risk factors for prostate cancer, this article will describe the establishment of the PCRR and PRAP, their objectives and aims, and preliminary results relating to two of those aims.
Primary Risk Factors
Men at “high risk” for prostate cancer have been defined by the American Cancer Society as those who have a strong family history or who are African-American. Despite the fact that prostate cancer has a high prevalence (ie, there are many individuals whose prostate cancer results from a variety of causes), it has been theorized that the disease has a genetic component. Family history and a genetic predisposition to develop this common disease have been documented.[8-13] Hereditary prostate cancer is associated with a pattern of cancer distribution consistent with Mendelian inheritance of a susceptibility gene.[14-16] This inherited prostate cancer gene could be autosomal-dominant, x-linked, or recessive.
Segregation analysis suggests the existence of a dominant susceptibility locus accounting for 9% of all prostate cancers and more than 40% of early-onset tumors. The increased risk conferred by family history has been seen in men of all ages but is more pronounced in younger men (ie, those < 65 years old).
The Human Genome Project, an international research program designed to map the human genome and to localize the estimated 50,000 to 100,000 genes within the human genome, has already had an impact on common cancers, such as breast and colon cancers, by localizing specific chromosomal regions. This project recently supported the genome-wide scan of high-risk prostate cancer families, which led to the identification of a genetic locus, HPC1, on chromosome 1, which is associated with prostate cancer predis position. In 1996, Smith et al undertook a linkage analysis to search for evidence of loci contributing to risk for prostate cancer in 66 high-risk prostate cancer families. This analysis showed linkage to the long-arm of chromosome 1 (1q24-25), thus providing strong evidence for a major prostate cancer susceptibility gene. New evidence indicates that a second prostate cancer susceptibility locus resides on chromosome X (Xq 27-28), a finding consistent with results of previous population-based studies suggesting an x-linked mode of inheritence. Recommendations have been made to target future efforts at positional cloning of the gene in families who meet the proposed clinical criteria for hereditary prostate cancer.
Advances in the isolation of genes associated with hereditary cancers not only will elucidate the basic mechanisms of carcinogenesis but also will provide precise tools for assessing an individual’s risk for cancer. The incorporation of genetic information into clinical cancer risk assessment paradigms is being proposed as a way of targeting preventive strategies to the most appropriate individuals and maximizing their effectiveness.
Independent of family history, African-American males have the highest incidence of and mortality from prostate cancer in the world. Mebane and colleagues reported that black males have a two to three times higher rate of being diagnosed with prostate cancer before age 65 years, whereas the mean age at diagnosis among white men is 72.3 years. In 1993, prostate cancer accounted for 9.4% of cancer deaths in African-Americans but only 6.2% of cancer deaths in Caucasians. Black men have a 9.6% risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer and a 3% risk of dying from the disease, as compared with a 5.2% risk of diagnosis and a 1.4% risk of dying from the disease for US white men.
Prostate cancer survival rates from the last period for which data are available (1986 to 1992) also show marked racial differences; the 5-year survival rate is 73% for blacks, as compared with 89% for whites. Finally, the proportion of patients diagnosed with metastatic disease is higher in black compared with white Americans.
Age is the primary risk factor for prostate cancer. Indeed, the age-adjusted incidence rate of prostate cancer among men ³ 65 years old increased by 82% according to a population-based study derived from Medicare claims data and National Cancer Institute (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) statistics accumulated between 1986 and 1991. For men at high risk due to other factors, it is not only their age at the time of screening that heightens that risk but also the age of onset of prostate cancer in a first-degree relative. For example, if a man is diagnosed before age 62 years, his brother or brothers have a four times higher relative risk of developing a malignancy.
Additional Risk Factors
In addition to family history, ethnicity, and age, it has become clear that lifestyle risk factors are associated with the development of prostate cancer. Several studies have demonstrated an association between animal fat intake[31-33] and the risk of developing prostate cancer. Although other studies have not supported this association,[34-36] the strong correlation between national consumption of fat and national rates of prostate cancer has led to continued interest in the relationship.
Weaker associations have been found between the use of tobacco and occupational exposure to cadmium, a trace mineral found in alkaline batteries, and subsequent development of prostate cancer.
Since the multifactorial nature of prostate cancer makes it unlikely that the alteration of any one risk factor will prevent the disease, a great deal still needs to be learned about the etiology, biology, and genetic regulation of the disease. The recent growth of genetic information about prostate cancer and the imminent identification of a gene or genes responsible for prostate cancer susceptibility, coinciding with the efforts of the Human Genome Project, will have major public health implications. These implications include the development and evaluation of genetic screening policies, patient treatment preferences, quality of life (QOL) data, patient and physician education, counseling strategies, and health care policy. The demand for genetic testing, as well as confusion about the meaning of prostate cancer susceptibility, is likely to grow, and the need to educate men about their individual and familial risk for prostate cancer will become more acute.
Attempting to meet some of these needs, family cancer programs that offer a wide range of services, including risk analysis, screening, DNA testing and storage, chemoprevention, and assistance with treatment decision-making, are being developed at medical centers throughout North America and Europe. One of the most cost- and labor-efficient ways to approach the definition of prostate cancer risk is to study persons known to be at increased risk for the disease.
1. Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, et al: Cancer statistics, 1998. CA Cancer J Clin 48:6-29, 1998.
2. Beck JR, Kattan MW, Miles BJ: A critique of the decision analysis for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 152:1894-1899, 1994.
3. Krahn MD, Mahoney JE, Eckman MH, et al: Screening for prostate cancer: A decision analysis. JAMA 272:773-780, 1994.
4. Lubke WL, Optenberg SA, Thompson IM, et al: Analysis of the first-year cost of a prostate cancer screening program in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 86:1790-1792, 1994.
5. Slawin KM, Ohori M, Dillioglugil O, et al: Screening for prostate cancer: An analysis of the early experience. CA Cancer J Clin 45:134-147, 1995.
6. Dugan JA, Bostwick DG, Myers RP, et al: The definition and preoperative prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. JAMA 275:288-294, 1996.
7. von Eschenbach A, Ho R, Murphy GP, et al: American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of prostate cancer: Update, June 10, 1997. Cancer 80:1805-1807, 1997.
8. Spitz MR, Currier R, Fueger JJ, et al: Familial patterns of prostate cancer: A case-control analysis. J Urol 17:337-347, 1991.
9. Carter BS, Beaty TH, Steinberg GD, et al: Mendelian inheritance of familial prostate cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89:3367-3371, 1992.
10. Goldgar ED, Easton DF, Cannon-Albright LA, et al: Systematic population-based assessment of cancer risk in first-degree relatives. J Natl Cancer Inst 86:1600-1608, 1994.
11. Gronberg H, Damber L, Damber JE, et al: Familial prostate cancer in Sweden: A nationwide register cohort study. Cancer 77:138-143, 1996.
12. Braun MM, Partin AW, Caporaso N, et al: Prostate cancer concordance rates among World War II veteran twins suggest hereditary influences. J Urol 153(suppl):504A (abstract), 1995.
13.Whittemore AS, Kolonel LN, Wu AH, et al: Prostate cancer in relation to diet, physical activity, and body size in blacks, whites and Asians in the United States and Canada. J Cancer Natl Inst 87:652-661, 1995.
14. Carter BS, Bova GS, Beaty TH, et al: Hereditary prostate cancer: Epidemiologic and clinical features. J Urol 150:797-802, 1993.
15. Baffoe-Bonnie B: A genetic epidemiologic approach to studying the relationship between prostate cancer and breast cancer (Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation). The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, pp 52-68; 135-174, 1997.
16. Schaid DJ, McDonnell SK, Blute ML, et al: Evidence for autosomal dominant inheritance of prostate cancer. Am J Hum Genet 62:1425-1438, 1998.
17. Monroe KR, Yu MC, Kolonel LN, et al: Evidence of an x-linked or recessive genetic component to prostate cancer risk. Nat Med 1:827-829, 1995.
18. Human Genome Project. Available at: http:/www.nhgri.nih.gov/hap/ 1997.
19. Smith JR, Freije D, Carpten JD, et al: Major susceptibility locus for prostate cancer on chromosome 1 suggested by a genome-wide search. Science 274:1371-1374, 1996.
20. Xu J, Meyers D, Freije D, et al: Evidence for a prostate cancer susceptibility locus on the X chromosome. Nat Genet 20:175-179, 1998.
21. Cooney KA, McCarthy JD, Lange E, et al: Prostate cancer susceptibility locus on chromosome 1q: A confirmatory study. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:955-959, 1997.
22. Botkin J, Croyle R, Smith K, et al: A model protocol for evaluating the behavioral and psychosocial effects of BRCA1 testing. J Natl Cancer Inst 88:872-882, 1996.
23. Brawley OW, Thompson IM: The chemoprevention of prostate cancer and the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. Cancer Treat Res 88:189-200, 1996.
24. Mebane C, Gibbs Y, Horn J, et al: Current status of prostate cancer in North American black males. J Natl Med Assoc 82:782-783, 1990.
25. Mettlin C, Murphy GP, Lee F, et al: Characteristics of prostate cancers detected in a multimodality early detection program. Cancer 72:147-149, 1993.
26. Morton R: Racial differences in adenocarcinoma of the prostate in North American men. Urology 44:637-645, 1994.
27. Parker S, Tong T, Bolden S, et al: Cancer statistics, 1997. CA Cancer J Clin 47:5-27, 1997.
28. Steele G, Osteen R, Winchester DP, et al: Clinical highlights from the National Cancer Data Base. CA Cancer J Clin 44:71-80, 1994.
29. Potosky AL, Miller BA, Albertsen PC, et al: The role of increasing detection in the rising incidence of prostate cancer. JAMA 273:548-552, 1995.
30. Huncharek M, Muscat J: Genetic characteristics of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 4:681-687, 1995.
31. Dorgan JF, Judd JT, Longcope C, et al: Effects of dietary fat and fiber on plasma and urine androgens and estrogens in men: A controlled feeding study. Am J Clin Nutr 64:850-855, 1996.
32. Rose DP, Boyar AP, Wynder EL: International comparisons of mortality rates for cancer of the breast, ovary, prostate, and colon, and per capita food consumption. Cancer 58:2363-2371, 1986.
33. Rose DP, Connolly JM: Dietary fat, fatty acids, and prostate cancer. Lipids 27:798-803, 1992.
34. Mettlin C, Selenskas S, Natarajan N, et al: Beta-carotene and animal fats and their relationship to prostate cancer risk. Cancer 64:605-612, 1989.
35. Ohno Y, Yoshida O, Oishi K, et al: Dietary beta-carotene and cancer of the prostate: A case-control study in Kyoto, Japan. Cancer Res 48:1331-1336, 1988.
36. Kaul L, Heshmat MY, Kovi J, et al: The role of diet in prostate cancer. Nutr Cancer 9:123-128, 1987.
37. Pienta L, Esper P: Risk factors for prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 118:793-802, 1993.
38. Crawford ED, DeAntoni EP: Prostate Cancer Awareness Week demonstrates continued value to early detection strategies. Conference Proceedings of the American Urological Association, Las Vegas. 153:334,1995.
39. Cupp MR, Oesterling JE: Prostate-specific antigen, digital rectal examination, and transrectal ultrasonography: Their roles in diagnosing early prostate cancer. Mayo Clin Proc 68:297-306, 1993.
40. Herr H: Quality of life in prostate cancer patients. CA Cancer J Clin 47:207-217, 1997.
41. Singer PA, Tasch ES, Stocking C, et al: Sex or survival: Trade-offs between quality and quantity of life. J Clin Oncol 9:328-334, 1991.
42. Smith GE, DeHaven MJ, Grundig JP, et al: African-American males and prostate cancer: Assessing knowledge levels in the community. J Natl Med Assoc 89:387-391, 1997.
43. Wolf AMD, Nasser JF, Wolf AM, et al: The impact of informed consent on patient interest in prostate-specific antigen screening. Arch Intern Med 156:1333-1336, 1996.
44. Myers RE, Wolf TA, McKeen L, et al: Factors associated with intention to undergo annual prostate cancer screening among African American men in Philadelphia. Am Cancer Soc 78:471-479, 1996.
45. Miller SM, Mischel W, O’Leary A, et al: From human papillomavirus (HPV) to cervical cancer: Psychological processes in infection, detection, and control. Ann Behav Med 18:219-228, 1996a.
46. Miller SM, Shoda Y, Hurley K, et al: Applying cognitive-social theory to health-protective behavior: Breast self-examination in cancer screening. Psychol Bull 119:70-94, 1996b.
47. Mischel W, Shoda Y: A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychol Rev 102:246-268, 1995.
48. Cantor S, Spann S, Volk R, et al: Prostate cancer screening: A decision analysis. J Fam Pract 41:33-41, 1995.
49. Fleming C, Wasson JH, Albertsen PC, et al: A decision analysis of alternative treatment strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 269:2650-2658, 1993.
50. Torrance G, Thomas W, Sackett D, et al: A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 7:118-133, 1972.
51. Gudex C: Time Trade-Off User Manual: Props and Self-Completion Methods. York, England, Measurement and Valuation of Health Group Centre for Health Economics and Social and Community Planning Research, 1994.
52. Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Giovanucci E, et al: Plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 and prostate cancer risk: A prospective study. Science 279:563-566, 1998.
53. Schwartz JS, Lewis CE, Clancy C, et al: Internists’ practices in health promotion and disease prevention. Ann Intern Med 114:46, 1991.
54.Valente CM, Sobal J, Muncie HL, et al: Health promotion: Physicians’ beliefs, attitudes, and practices. Am J Prev Med 2:82-88, 1986.
55. Pannek J, Partin AW: Prostate-specific antigen: What’s new in 1997. Oncology 11:1273-1282, 1997.
56. Catalona WJ, Richie JP, Ahman FR, et al: Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: Results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men. J Urol 151:1283, 1994.