Polygenic Risk Score - the “new and improved” PSA screening result

Posted by handera @handera, Jun 2 6:51am

It looks like screening for PCa is about to get easier to perform and more accurate than getting the traditional PSA blood test.

FTA:

“In the study, spit samples were used to calculate prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for more than 6,000 European men.

Their PRSs were based on 130 genetic variations – many hereditary – shown to be linked with prostate cancer through studies into the DNA of hundreds of thousands of men.

For BARCODE 1, the men with the highest 10% of risk scores were invited to further screening. Following an MRI and a prostate biopsy, 187 of them (40% of the total) were diagnosed with prostate cancer. That’s a significant jump from the 25% of men identified by PSA tests who actually have prostate cancer. Moreover, 147 (78%) of the men diagnosed thanks to the new saliva test had a ‘normal’ PSA level, which would usually indicate that no further screening is required.“

https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2024/06/01/at-home-saliva-test-spit-test-diagnose-prostate-cancer/

Interested in more discussions like this? Go to the Prostate Cancer Support Group.

trusam1 | @trusam1 | Jun 4 11:45am

The genes/DNA detected on this test should not change over time, e.g., as a result of treatment. This test is useful for refining the predictive ability of screening, but not for following the progression of disease.

tuckerp | @tuckerp | Jun 4 11:55am

I am sure covered a million times. But since I am new here. Whichever test they use DR/Insurance should just make it part of a yearly physical or whenever the Dr orders one. I was having trouble holding my pee. I was 66 1/2. I had a previous PSA at my one year(66) but Dr ordered another one. Medicare would not cover it since it had been less than a year. They wanted me to sign an ABN. Cash price was $19. I just paid it. Ended up with cancer.

rick137 | @rick137 | Jun 5 5:30am

Bad proof reading. Should be Now I have ......

windrider354 | @windrider354 | Jun 6 10:00am

Interesting, but I don't see mention of the percentage of prostate cancers that are not linked to any (known) DNA variants.

ozzie51 | @ozzie51 | Jun 13 5:56pm

And there is also this.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/podcasts/cancer-advances/isopsa-test

handera | @handera | Jun 13 8:02pm

In reply to @ozzie51 "And there is also this. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/podcasts/cancer-advances/isopsa-test" + (show)

Ozzie51:
Thanks for this link! I read the interview and it sounds like the IsoPSA test is a significant improvement over the standard PSA test for predicting one’s risk of harboring Gleason 7 and higher PCa.

FTA:
“So, if you have an IsoPSA below the cutoff…Less than 6, you have a 92% chance of not having a high grade cancer.

Let me say that again, a 92% chance of not having high grade prostate cancer. You might have low grade cancer, but we don't care about that. And if your IsoPSA is above 6, then you have about a 50% chance of having a high grade cancer. Not just any cancer, but a high grade cancer.

I think most urologists and probably most patients would recommend, and be willing to have a biopsy for a 50% risk of high grade cancer.”

For those who would rather watch a video, than read an interview, go here: