Home | Non-food | Disease | Genetic Variant Linked to Deadly Prostate Cancer

Genetic Variant Linked to Deadly Prostate Cancer

01/17/2010 13:55:00 admin

Font size:

Sunday Jan 17, 2010 (foodconsumer.org) -- For the first time, researchers at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center have identified a genetic variant associated with aggressive prostate cancer, according to a new study.

The findings of the study, which were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science last week, may become the basis for genetic testing to screen cases of aggressive prostate cancer.

Jianfeng Xu, M.D., Dr. P.H., coauthor of the study, professor of epidemiology and cancer biology said although genetic markers currently have limited clinical applications, there is a potential to design a genetic panel test to predict which men will have aggressive prostate cancer in the future.

Xu and colleagues analyzed genetic information from 4,849 men with aggressive prostate cancer and 12,205 with the slow-growing disease to determine whether the men with aggressive disease had any genetic variants in common.

As a result, a genetic variant rs4054823 was found associated with a 25 percent higher risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is diagnosed in about 200,000 men each year in the United States and the disease and its complications kill about 30,000 annually in the country, according to the National cancer Institute.

Prostate cancer symptoms include urinary problems, such as not being able to pass urine, needing to urinate often, pain or burning sensation during urination, difficulty having an erection, bloody urine or semen, frequent pain in the lower back, hips or upper thighs.

Prostate cancer in most cases grows very slow. Most patients are told to take the watch-and-see approach. Treatments for the disease include surgery, radiation therapy, hormone therapy and chemotherapy.

Prostate cancer screening is not recommended for men older than 70; treatment at that age is not likely to be beneficial.

Reporting by Jimmy Downs and editing by Rachel stockton

Add to: Add to your del.icio.us

del.icio.us | Digg this story

Digg

Comments (2 posted):

Charles (Chuck) Maack on 01/18/2010 01:29:55

I respectfully vehemently disagree with the last paragraph. Regarding "no-PSA testing for the elderly:" I know of many healthy men in their mid 70s as well as in their 80s who could very well have another ten to twenty years of life who would be placed in this suggested category of "no-PSA testing." This galls me no end. I am 76 years of age and if I were to just now be found to have an elevating PSA, I would most certainly want to know what is going on. My Mother lived to 96 and my Father to 95; I have every possibility of living to those ages, so why in the world would I "not" want to know if I had developing cancer? Most certainly without such knowledge my cancer could be very aggressive and metastasize before I had any indication of its presence. Then, most assuredly, I would have to go through several very costly treatments that would likely include toxic chemotherapy agents. And I would then more likely have to go through the pain of dying "of" the prostate cancer rather than "with it." Had I been aware of developing prostate cancer early on, I could have treated it, hopefully have "disposed" of it, or at least have been able to manage it, rather than dying “of it." ABSOLUTELY, PSA testing should be available and covered by health insurance for ALL men at ALL ages!
I noticed a posting by a urologist who is also a lawyer who made note that at trial the defense would cringe when the plaintiff’s attorney announced to the jury that his client was not made aware that a simple PSA blood test would have determined that his client had developing prostate cancer and could have saved his life. And by his client’s physician failing to make this test available to his client, his client now has prostate cancer that has metastasized into his system, has caused extreme pain and loss of quality of life, and his client can now anticipate an early and painful death due to his physician failing to offer what could have been a life-
saving simple blood test. Can you imagine the sizeable amount of “damages” that would most likely be awarded the plaintiff?