Association between single-nucleotide polymorphisms in growth factor genes and quality of life in men with prostate cancer and the general population

A Re-evaluation of Candidate Gene Studies for Well-Being in Light of Genome-Wide Evidence

Ever since twin-family studies found that a substantial amount (± 40%) of the variation in well-being can be explained by genetic variation, several candidate genes have been proposed explaining this variation. However, these candidate gene and candidate gene-by-environment interaction studies have been surrounded by controversy regarding the validity and replication of their results. In the present study, we review the existing candidate gene literature for well-being. First, we perform a systematic literature search that results in the inclusion of 41 studies. After describing the results of the included studies, we evaluated the included candidate polymorphisms by (1) looking up the results for the studied candidate SNPs in a large well-being genome-wide association study, (2) performing association analyses in UK biobank (UKB) data for the candidate variable number tandem repeats (VNTR) and the APOE ε4 allele, and (3) studying possible candidate interactions with positive and negative environmental moderators using UKB data. We find no support for any of the candidate genes or candidate gene-environment interactions for well-being, with the exception of two SNPs that were chosen based on genome-wide evidence. While the generalizability of our findings is limited by our phenotype and environment definitions, we strongly advise well-being researchers to abandon the candidate gene approach in the field of well-being and move toward genome-wide approaches.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10902-022-00538-x.

Genetic Variations and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL): A Genome-Wide Study Approach

Simple Summary

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is associated with cancer prognosis as well as with age, sex, race, and lifestyle factors, including diet and physical activity. To investigate the hypothesis that HRQOL has genetic underpinnings in patients with cancer, we performed a genome-wide association study to evaluate genetic variants (single nucleotide polymorphisms, SNPs) associated with mental and physical QOL as measured by the PROMIS assessment tool in breast cancer survivors participating in a longitudinal cohort study, the Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry (MCBDR). Age and financial concerns were associated with worse physical and mental health, and previous receipt of chemotherapy was associated with worse mental health. SNPs in SCN10A, LMX1B, SGCD, PARP12, and SEMA5A were associated with physical and mental QOL, but none at the genome-wide significance thresholds of p < 5 × 10⁻⁸.

Abstract

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an important prognostic patient-reported outcome in oncology. Because prior studies suggest that HRQOL is, in part, heritable, we performed a GWAS to elucidate genetic factors associated with HRQOL in breast cancer survivors. Physical and mental HRQOL were measured via paper surveys that included the PROMIS-10 physical and mental health domain scales in 1442 breast cancer survivors participating in the Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry (MCBDR). In multivariable regression analyses, age and financial concerns were significantly associated with global physical health (age: p = 1.6 × 10⁻²³; financial concerns: p = 4.8 × 10⁻⁴⁰) and mental health (age: p = 3.5 × 10⁻⁷; financial concerns: p = 2.0 × 10⁻⁶⁹⁾. Chemotherapy was associated with worse global mental health (p = 0.01). In the GWAS, none of the SNPs reached the genome-wide association significance threshold of 5 × 10⁻⁸ for associations with either global physical or global mental health, however, a cluster of SNPs in SCN10A, particularly rs112718371, appeared to be linked to worse global physical health (p = 5.21 × 10⁻⁸). Additionally, SNPs in LMX1B, SGCD, PARP12 and SEMA5A were also moderately associated with worse physical and mental health (p < 10⁻⁶). These biologically plausible candidate SNPs warrant further study as possible predictors of HRQOL.

Do psychological harms result from being labelled with an unexpected diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm or prostate cancer through screening? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

A potential psychological harm of screening is unexpected diagnosis-labelling. We need to know the frequency and severity of this harm to make informed decisions about screening. We asked whether current evidence allows an estimate of any psychological harm of labelling. As case studies, we used two conditions for which screening is common: prostate cancer (PCa) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).

DESIGN

Systematic review with narrative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We searched the English language literature in PubMed, PsychINFO and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) for research of any design published between 1 January 2002 and 23 January 2017 that provided valid data about the psychological state of people recently diagnosed with early stage PCa or AAA. Two authors independently used explicit criteria to review and critically appraise all studies for bias, applicability and the extent to which it provided evidence about the frequency and severity of harm from labelling.

RESULTS

35 quantitative studies (30 of PCa and 5 of AAA) met our criteria, 17 (48.6%) of which showed possible or definite psychological harm from labelling. None of these studies, however, had either appropriate measures or relevant comparisons to estimate the frequency and severity of psychological harm. Four PCa and three AAA qualitative studies all showed clear evidence of at least moderate psychological harm from labelling. Seven population-based studies found increased suicide in patients recently diagnosed with PCa.

CONCLUSIONS

Although qualitative and population-based studies show that at least moderate psychological harm due to screening for PCa and AAA does occur, the current quantitative evidence is insufficient to allow a more precise estimation of frequency and severity. More sensitive measures and improved research designs are needed to fully characterise this harm. In the meantime, clinicians and recommendation panels should be aware of the occurrence of this harm.