Cancer Genetics and Epigenetics 2024, Vol.12, No.2, 97-105 http://medscipublisher.com/index.php/cge 101 undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer, indicating a higher likelihood of disease progression (Na et al., 2017; Carter et al., 2019). The detection of these mutations can aid in the identification of high-risk individuals and inform decisions regarding surveillance and treatment strategies. The identification of genetic markers such as BRCA1, BRCA2, HOXB13, CHEK2, and ATM plays a crucial role in the early screening and management of prostate cancer. These markers help stratify risk, guide screening protocols, and inform targeted therapeutic approaches, ultimately contributing to improved patient outcomes. 5 Clinical Implications and Benefits 5.1 Improved screening accuracy The integration of genetic markers into prostate cancer screening protocols has shown significant promise in enhancing the accuracy of early detection. For instance, the inclusion of the rs6983561 marker has been demonstrated to improve the predictive accuracy of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests among African American men, increasing the concordance index from 0.57 to 0.75 when combined with PSA (Hughes et al., 2012). Additionally, genome-wide association studies have identified several genetic polymorphisms that can help recognize men at high risk of developing prostate cancer, thereby refining screening techniques and reducing unnecessary biopsies (Cucchiara et al., 2018). 5.2 Reduction in overdiagnosis and overtreatment One of the major challenges in prostate cancer management is the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of indolent cancers. Genetic markers can help address this issue by distinguishing between aggressive and non-aggressive forms of the disease. For example, the use of gene expression signatures and commercially available tools like Decipher, Oncotype DX, and Prolaris has improved risk stratification, allowing for better identification of men at the highest risk of adverse outcomes (Boström et al., 2015; Cózar et al., 2018). This stratification helps in making more informed decisions about the necessity and extent of treatment, thereby reducing the rates of overtreatment (Choudhury et al., 2012; Nevo et al., 2020). 5.3 Personalized risk assessment Genetic markers offer a pathway to personalized risk assessment, which is crucial for tailoring screening and treatment strategies to individual patients. Studies have shown that genetic markers such as BRCA1, BRCA2, and other DNA damage repair genes can drive the development of prostate cancer and are associated with more aggressive disease (Meng et al., 2019). Personalized risk assessment using these markers can guide early detection and treatment decisions, improving patient outcomes. Moreover, the use of genetic scores based on multiple SNPs has been shown to improve the prediction of prostate cancer risk, even after adjusting for known clinical variables (Kader et al., 2012). 5.4 Case study A notable case study involves the use of the rs6983561 marker in a cohort of high-risk African American men. In this study, the marker was significantly associated with an earlier time to prostate cancer diagnosis and improved the predictive accuracy of PSA tests. This finding underscores the potential of genetic markers to refine and personalize prostate cancer early detection for high-risk populations (Hughes et al., 2012). Another example is the IMPACT study, which highlighted the elevated cancer detection rate in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, emphasizing the importance of close PSA screening in these men (Das et al., 2019). 6 Challenges and Limitations 6.1 Genetic heterogeneity Genetic heterogeneity poses a significant challenge in the early screening of prostate cancer using genetic markers. The variability in genetic alterations among different patients can lead to inconsistent results in the identification and prognostication of prostate cancer. For instance, extensive heterogeneity has been observed in Gleason Scores, DNA ploidy, and PTEN expression among prostate cancer patients, which complicates the evaluation of prognostic markers (Cyll et al., 2017). This heterogeneity necessitates multi-sample analyses to support clinical treatment decisions, as single-sample analyses may not provide a comprehensive understanding of the tumor's
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ4ODYzNQ==