Prostate cancer genetic propensity risk score may modify the association between this tumour and type 2 diabetes mellitus (MCC-Spain study)

Barrios-Rodríguez, Rocío; García-Esquinas, Esther; Pérez-Gómez, Beatriz; Castaño Vinyals, Gemma; Llorca, Javier; Fernández de Larrea-Baz, Nerea; Olmedo-Requena, Rocío; Vanaclocha-Espi, Mercedes; Alguacil Ojeda, Juan; Fernández-Tardón, Guillermo; Fernández-Navarro, Pablo; Cecchini Rosell, Lluís; Lope, Virginia; Gómez-Acebo, Inés; Aragonés, Núria; Kogevinas, Manolis; Pollán, Marina; Jiménez-Moleón, José Juan

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00446-w

Prostate cancer genetic propensity risk score may modify the association between this tumour and type 2 diabetes mellitus (MCC-Spain study)

Citation

Barrios-Rodríguez R, García-Esquinas E, Pérez-Gómez B, Castaño-Vinyals G, Llorca J, de Larrea-Baz NF, et al. Prostate cancer genetic propensity risk score may modify the association between this tumour and type 2 diabetes mellitus (MCC-Spain study). Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022 Apr; 25(4): 694-9. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00446-w

Abstract

Background: Some studies have reported an inverse association between type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and prostate cancer (PCa), but results on this issue are still inconsistent. In this study, we evaluate whether this heterogeneity might be related to differences in this relationship by tumour or by individual genetic susceptibility to PCa. Methods: We studied 1047 incident PCa cases and 1379 randomly selected controls, recruited in 7 Spanish provinces for the population-based MCC-Spain case-control. Tumour were classified by aggressiveness according to the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP), and we constructed a PCa polygenic risk score (PRS) as proxy for genetic susceptibility. The epidemiological questionnaire collected detailed self-reported data on T2DM diagnosis and treatment. The association between T2DM status and PCa was studied by fitting mixed logistic regression models, and, for its association by aggressiveness of PCa, with multinomial logistic regression models. To evaluate the possible modulator role of PRS in this relationship, we included the corresponding interaction term in the model, and repeated the analysis stratified by PRS tertiles. Results: Globally, our results showed an inverse association between T2DM and overall PCa limited to grade 1 tumours (ORISUP = 1: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.53-0.98), which could be compatible with a detection bias. However, PCa risk also varied with duration of diabetes treatment -inversely to metformin and positively with insulin-, without differences by aggressiveness. When we considered genetic susceptibility, T2DM was more strongly associated with lower PCa risk in those with lower PRS (ORtertile 1: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.11-0.87), independently of ISUP grade. Conclusions: Our findings reinforce the need to include aggressiveness and susceptibility of PCa, and T2DM treatments in the study of the relationship between both diseases.