The UK Cancer Genomic National Test Directory outlines eligibility for genomic testing funded by the NHS. The directory was updated in June 2023 to include two new testing panels, R444 and R430. R444 is prostate tumour testing for BRCA1/2 only to determine eligibility for poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor (PARPi) treatment. R430 is a constitutional panel where a germline variant is suspected—the details of both panels are detailed in table 3.34 There is some overlap between R430 and other hereditary cancer testing panels, for example, R208 and R210 which are used to test for homologous recombination repair (HRR) variants in those with a strong family history of breast and ovarian cancer (BRCA1/2, PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, RAD51C, RAD51D) and inherited MMR deficiency (Lynch syndrome) (EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2), respectively.34

Table 3

Genetic testing panels available on NHS England—R444 and R430

Panel testing for somatic variants in TMPRSS2-ERG, NTRK1, NTRK2, NTRK3 is available on the NHS for PrCa but is only required if there is a doubt over the aetiology of a tumour.34

For people without a diagnosis of PrCa, genomic testing is still advocated by the NHS Genomic Medicine Service in cases where people are deemed to be at high risk of developing PrCa (see online supplemental table for eligibility criteria in the UK and USA).35 36 Based on Nyberg et al 37—currently the Manchester Score is used in the absence of PrCa data in CanRisk for determining if people are eligible for testing based on the likelihood of identifying a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/2. CanRisk is being adapted to incorporate PrCa into its risk prediction, using the Nyberg calculations for PrCa from the 2020 paper (Antoniou personal communication) based on UK data.

General management of PrCa

There is a range of management options for PrCa extending from AS to local radical treatment with surgery/radiotherapy/other focal therapies through to an increasingly longer list of options for those with metastatic disease.

As testosterone encourages prostate growth, by blocking testosterone production (in testes, adrenal glands and prostate tissue) and blocking testosterone receptors (in tissues around the body), prostate growth and symptoms from PrCa can be reduced. People diagnosed with PrCa are given androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), antiandrogen therapy or androgen synthesis inhibitors. The tumour cells initially respond to this type of therapy, but over time they can evolve to be ‘castration resistant’ and the disease progresses despite suppressed testosterone levels.

Individuals diagnosed with low risk, localised (disease confined to the prostate), unilateral PrCa of Gleason Score <3+4 (with small % pattern 4) and clinical stage T1–T2a, are monitored under AS without giving interventional treatment. For the first year postdiagnosis they receive 4-monthly PSA blood tests and repeat magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 1 year; if there has been no progression of disease, they receive 6-monthly PSA follow-ups thereafter. A consistent rise in PSA will trigger a repeat MRI and/or biopsy.

In localised, low-risk to intermediate-risk PrCa, with Gleason Score <7 and stage <T2 b, standard treatment is radical radiotherapy or prostatectomy. Focal therapy is a treatment option; The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) have approved high-intensity focused ultrasound.38 Irreversible electroporation (known as NanoKnife), laser and cryotherapy are other options which have lower side effect profiles than radical therapies and are better tolerated by patients,39 but they have higher recurrence rates and are not available with the NHS unless they are part of clinical trials in specialised centres.40

Radical prostatectomy (RP) (surgical removal of the whole prostate) is a curative treatment option for localised PrCa. External beam radiotherapy is also a treatment option for localised PrCa. The 'Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy' (STAMPEDE) trial found that radiotherapy to newly diagnosed PrCa improves overall survival compared with no radiotherapy, without detriment to quality of life compared with ADT and docetaxel (if indicated) alone.41

In the context of metastatic disease, we use terms metastatic hormone sensitive PrCa (mHSPC) or mCRPC in the case of hormone resistance. Approximately a third of PrCa cases treated with curative surgery or radiotherapy will experience recurrence and once PrCa is metastatic it is incurable.42

Locally advanced PrCa or PrCa at high risk of metastasis (disease spread to outside the pelvis) is often treated with taxane chemotherapy, such as docetaxel first line and cabazitaxel second line. Platinum chemotherapy (carboplatin) has been licensed for use in the NHS for palliative PrCa—shown to extend progression-free survival (PFS) when disease has progressed through all other treatment lines.20 Radiotherapy or surgery is reserved for localised disease only, though metastatic lesions may receive radiotherapy/CyberKnife, such as those impinging the spinal cord. Radium-223 dichloride and lutetium 177 prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) are radioactive treatment options for bone metastases and tissue metastases, respectively. Increasingly, targeted agents are being considered in PrCa treatment as later lines of systemic treatment. The only one licensed at present on the NHS is olaparib for PrCa with BRCA1/2 mutation.

Role of genetic predisposition in PrCa management

Genetic predisposition is increasingly being incorporated into oncological care and in PrCa management. The evidence detailing the interplay between genetic constitution and PrCa treatment options is summarised in figure 2.

Figure 2

General management of prostate cancer with annotation where genetic studies have been undertaken. ADT, androgen deprivation therapy; FH, family history; GWAS, genome-wide association studies; SBRT, stereotactic body radiation therapy; HRR, homologous recombination repair; HRD. homologous recombination deficiency; MMR, mismatch repair; PARP, poly ADP ribose polymerase; PFS, progression-free survival. PROFOUND study, Study of Olaparib versus Enzalutamide or Abiraterone Acetate in Men With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer; TALAPRO-2, Phase 3 study of talazoparib and enzalutamide versus placebo and enzalutamide as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; TRITON-2, Study of Rucaparib in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer and Homologous Recombination Gene Deficiency; MAGNITUDE, Phase 3 study of niraparib with abiraterone acetate and prednisone as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with and without homologous recombination repair gene alterations; PROREPAIR-B, Prospective Cohort Study of the Impact of Germline DNA Repair Mutations on the Outcomes of Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Castro et al 22found that in 1302 people with PrCa, 67 were carriers of constitutional BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, had higher T Scores, higher Gleason Scores, more frequent nodal involvement and developed metastasis sooner, with a shorter 10-year survival (50% BRCA carriers alive at 10 years vs 84% in non-carriers). Constitutional pathogenic variant status is starting to be used to guide treatment of PrCa but is still based on small data sets.

In BRCA1/2 or ATM pathogenic variant carriers, radical treatment is preferred over AS, as there is a higher chance of tumour upgrading on re-biopsy when on the AS pathway.4 Carter et al investigated the rate of reclassification (those on AS whose disease progresses) in BRCA1/2 and ATM carriers, revealing a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.96 for carriers to reclassify under AS.14

Castro et al demonstrated that BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers have an HR of 2.36 for metastatic recurrence in the 10-year post-RP or external beam radiation therapy.22 However, Castro et al also showed that there was no difference in recurrence after RP between BRCA1/2 variant carriers and non-carriers, but after radiotherapy for localised disease, all the pathogenic-variant carriers had relapsed by 5 years.22 Ahmed et al looked at those receiving radiotherapy and used data from GWAS, finding no association between individual SNPs and 2-year postradiation toxicity.43 The 'Analysing Outcomes After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment in Carriers of Rare Germline Mutations' (GENPROS) study (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02705846) will further evaluate treatment outcomes in pathogenic variant carriers with PrCa post-radiotherapy.

Gallagher et al found no significant difference in response to docetaxel in BRCA pathogenic-variant carriers versus non-carriers.44 The 'Prospective Cohort Study of the Impact of Germline DNA Repair Mutations on the Outcomes of Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer' (PROREPAIR-B) study suggested that PFS is longer in patients with mCRPC with pathogenic variants in BRCA2 in first-line treatment with abiraterone/enzalutamide (18.9 months) than with taxanes (8.6 months).45

In the context of mCRPC, targeted therapies such as PARPi (olaparib) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (pembroliuzumab) are important emerging treatment strategies, in the context of pathogenic constitutional and/or somatic BRCA1/2 variants, ATM variants46 and MMR variants, respectively.

PARP inhibitors

PARPis inhibit the DNA-repair pathways of tumour cells, leading to apoptosis—especially in homologous recombination deficient cells due to synthetic lethality. Olaparib, a PARPi, has been approved by NICE in 2023 for the treatment of mCRPC in those with BRCA1/2 variants, where the disease has already progressed on newer hormonal treatments (such as enzalutamide or abiraterone), docetaxel/cabazitaxel and radium-223 dichloride.47 Trials have shown extended time until progressive disease and longer life expectancy overall compared with retreatment with abiraterone in combination with prednisolone (AAP) and enzalutamide.

Talazoparib, olaparib, rucaparib and niraparib have now been approved by The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (USA) for patients with mCRPC who have pathogenic variants in HRR genes.48

The 'Phase 3 study of talazoparib and enzalutamide versus placebo and enzalutamide as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer' (TALAPRO-2) showed significant benefit in PFS in mCRPC with talazoparib. Median radiological PFS was not reached by 24.9 months in the talazoparib group versus 21.9 months for the placebo group,49 even in non-carriers of HRR variants.49

The 'Study of Olaparib versus Enzalutamide or Abiraterone Acetate in Men With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer' (PROFOUND) showed improved survival with olaparib in mCRPC with BRCA1/2 or ATM variants—median overall survival 19.1 months versus controls 14.7 months.50 These findings were consistent with those described by Mateo et al in phase III of the PROFOUND Study.51

Fizazi et al, in the 'Study of Rucaparib in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer and Homologous Recombination Gene Deficiency' (TRITON-2) study, analysed rucaparib (PARPi) versus controls (docetaxel/abiraterone/enzalutamide) in patients with mCRPC and pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2.52 At 62 months, median imaging-based PFS was 11.2 months in the rucaparib group versus 6.4 months in controls, with an HR of 0.50 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.69).52 These findings were supported by Abida et al who assessed rucaparib in mCRPC. The objective response rates were similar for patients with a germline or somatic pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, while a higher PSA response rate was observed in patients with a BRCA2 variant.53

The 'Phase 3 study of niraparib with abiraterone acetate and prednisone as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with and without homologous recombination repair gene alterations' (MAGNITUDE) assessed niraparib (a PARPi) and AAP in mCRPC with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants versus controls receiving AAP alone. Niraparib prolonged imaging-based PFS to a median of 19.5 months versus 10.9 months in controls.54 Improvements in time to symptomatic progression and time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy were observed with niraparib plus AAP.54

Some studies have looked at treatment outcomes with PARPis in people with variants in other HRR genes aside from BRCA1/2, with mixed results. A follow-on analysis in TRITON-2 looked at ATM variant subgroups, which showed median imaging-based PFS was 8.1 months in the rucaparib group versus 6.8 months in the controls (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.52).52 The improved survival with olaparib in people with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants seen in the PROFOUND study was also seen in people with ATM pathogenic variants.50 The 'Trial of Olaparib in Patients with Advanced Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer' (TOPARP-B) showed that not all advanced PrCas with DNA-repair defects derive similar benefit from PARP inhibition.55 Most benefit was seen among patients with biallelic BRCA2 deletions, biallelic loss of PALB2 and loss of ATM protein.55 Loss of RAD51 foci, evaluating HRR function, was found primarily in tumours with biallelic BRCA1/2 and PALB2 variants.55

Treatment with PARPi can also provide benefit to those with mCRPC without variants in HRR genes. TALAPRO-2 demonstrated prolonged survival in carriers of pathogenic variants in HRR genes and non-carriers alike with talazoparib. This benefit in non-carriers was also seen in the Phase 3 trial 'Olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer' (PROpel) study by Saad et al, where overall survival was not significantly different between treatment groups in patients with mCRPC unselected for HRR status treated with olaparib with AAP versus controls receiving AAP alone.56

Immunotherapy

Immunotherapy such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (eg, pembroluzimab) can treat MMR-deficient PrCa. They do so by blocking the checkpoint proteins (programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) on tumour cell, programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) on T cell) from binding with partner proteins, preventing the tumour cell from evading the immune system by turning the T cell off, which allows T cells to kill cancer cells.57 Immune checkpoint inhibitors are not approved yet by NICE for PrCa, however it has been considered previously by NICE—pembroluzimab treatment with enzalutamide and ADT for mHSPC58 and also with olaparib for mCRPC. In the USA the FDA has approved immune checkpoint inhibitors for ‘any solid tumour that is not able to repair errors in its DNA that occur when DNA is copied’.57

Platinum chemotherapy

Those with PrCa and pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 and other DNA-repair genes have shown increased sensitivity to platinum chemotherapy (carboplatin). The disease response is less significant in those without pathogenic variants in BRCA2.59 Carboplatin has also extended PFS in palliative patients with PrCa20 and is only licensed on the NHS for palliative PrCa. Pomerantz et al, in the largest study to date to assess the benefit of platinum chemotherapy in BRCA2 carriers with mCRPC, found that PSA decline of >50% within 12 weeks of starting platinum chemotherapy for patients with mCRPC was 75% in BRCA2 carriers versus 17% in non-carriers (p<0.001).59 Mota et al 20 demonstrated how establishing genetic status regarding tumour/constitutional deleterious variants in DNA-repair genes was used as a biomarker for patients with mCRPC to receive carboplatin after disease progression with PARPi, which showed good disease response. Zafeiriou et al describe three case reports where mCRPC had excellent response to platinum-based regimens maintaining high quality of life—one patient with a mutational signature of HRR deficiency, one patient with a BRCA variant and one with an ATM variant.60 The 'Use of Genetic Profiling to Guide Prostate Cancer Treatment' (BARCODE2) study (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02955082) is investigating the PrCa response to carboplatin in those with mCRPC who have a constitutional pathogenic variant in a panel of 115 DNA-repair genes, and who have progressed through all lines of standard treatment, to provide data to support which specific DNA aberrations are linked to platinum sensitivity.4

Given up to 25% of PwPs with mCRPC have a constitutional genetic predisposition,20 this approach to targeted treatment will be important as genetic testing becomes more widespread and the agents are licensed for this purpose.

Screening

There is no national PrCa screening programme in the UK or internationally, with two exceptions being Lithuania (since 2006) and Kazakhstan (since 2013). Although in PrCa with high Gleason Scores, PSA sensitivity is 80%–90%, it does not differentiate between indolent or progressive PrCa.61 The success of screening depends on factors such as disease incidence, natural history and harms from overinvestigation and overdiagnosis.62 There is great variation in overdiagnosis estimates in PrCa screening, which depend on the screening strategy (age range, frequency, modality of testing), investigation type and uptake, duration of follow-up, and methods of estimating overdiagnosis.63

In population screening, a test is provided to the whole population to identify the few who could have asymptomatic cancer. With risk-stratified screening, a subgroup of the population would be given the screening test—therefore fewer people would be screened while identifying the majority of the cancers present.

Screening with a PSA test alone cannot distinguish between clinically significant or indolent PrCa, which can result in unnecessary prostate biopsies, overtreatment (with potentially life-changing side effects of incontinence and erectile dysfunction) and psychological burden.4 Some argue these harms outweigh the benefit of mortality reduction. There are now large data sets which report that PSA screening reduces mortality by about 20%. The European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer looking at 182 160 PwPs in eight European countries found that a PrCa RR of mortality at 16 years follow-up was reduced by 20% in those receiving PSA screening compared with controls.64

PRS use in risk-based screening

The limitations of PSA testing are reduced when it is targeted to higher-risk groups—such as in RBS. Usage in these cohorts awards PSA a higher positive predictive value.65 PRS is an effective stratification tool to be used with factors such as age to identify those at increased PrCa risk in RBS, and we wish to highlight that PRS itself is not a screening but a stratification tool.

RBS has been demonstrated to be more cost-effective than age-based screening and leads to fewer cases of PrCa overdiagnosis and greater quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)62 66 67 (see online supplemental figure 2). Callender et al examined the benefit-harm trade-offs and cost-effectiveness of RBS versus age-based screening and no screening—in a model of 4.48 million PwPs in the UK aged between 55 years and 69 years. Age-based screening was the least cost-effective strategy (even compared with no screening at all) but prevented the most PrCa deaths and resulted in 94 831 overdiagnosed PrCa cases. RBS (using a threshold of 4% 10-year absolute PrCa risk) demonstrated the greatest number of QALYs and led to a third fewer overdiagnoses (64 384) than age-based screening.66 67 Though RBS averted 6.3% fewer deaths than age-based screening, RBS was considerably more cost-effective than age-based screening and this improved as the risk threshold increased.66 67 Huntley et al modelled cancer detection rates for multiple tumour types in those in the corresponding top 20% PRS, including PrCa. Their modelled data echoed Callender et al with regards to cost-effectiveness and deaths averted of RBS compared with age-based screening.62 However, their predicted rates of overdiagnosis were high, though we attribute this to the short follow-up time used in their modelling—as is the case with US Preventative Services Task Force and American Academy of Family Physicians, whose PrCa screening risk-benefit calculations are hampered with a 13-year follow-up, which assumes that additional benefit will not accrue over the person’s lifetime.63 68 Indeed, Shoag et al demonstrated that the number needed to screen and number of excess diagnoses falls with 25-year follow-up compared with 16-year follow-up.63

Pashayan et al showed that overdiagnosis in PrCa screening decreases with increasing polygenic risk, therefore overdiagnosis is reduced in targeted screening69 (see online supplemental figure 3). 69They calculated PRS for 17 012 PwPs aged 50–69 years in the UK, using 66 PrCa-associated SNPs. Of the 17 012 PwPs, 9404 had received a diagnosis of PrCa. Of those with PrCa, 48% were in the top risk PRS quartile. With a mean sojourn time of nine years, these individuals with PrCa in the top PRS quartile contained the smallest proportion of overdiagnosed cancers compared with the lower quartiles (19% top quartile, then 25%, then 30%, to 40% in the lowest quartile)69. Similarly, in a Finnish cohort Pashayan et al found 74% of PrCa cases occurred in those with a PRS above the population median, where overdiagnosis rates were 37% above and 58% below the PRS population median.70 This supports screening for PrCa in those with higher polygenic risk.

For those in the top 5% of PRS for PrCa, Sud et al quote an absolute PrCa lifetime risk of 22.2% compared with 12.7% in the general population.71 The BARCODE1 Study (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03857477) is the first prospective study to examine PRS genetic profiling in primary care for PrCa RBS. Aiming to recruit 5000 PwPs of European ancestry from general practitioners in the UK, each participant provides a saliva-based DNA sample, from which the PRS is calculated using a panel of 130 PrCa risk SNPs. PRSs in the top 10% of the genetic risk distribution are invited to have an MRI and prostate biopsy. Those with negative screening tests continue annual PSA for 5 years.72 This study is likely to report initial findings next year. Nyberg et al 37 predicted PrCa risk according to pathogenic variant status, PRS and family history (see online supplemental figure 4).

The Stockholm 3 (STHLM3) Study illustrates that using MRI and genetic risk in screening improves outcomes and screening efficiency, which is supported by Callender et al 67 (see online supplemental figure 5). It created a model for screening Swedish PwPs aged 50–69 years using plasma protein biomarkers such as PSA, free PSA and intact PSA. It also includes testing of 232 SNPs and clinical variables such as age, family history, previous prostate biopsy and prostate examination. They used this screening model on one cohort and PSA >3 ng/mL only on the comparison cohort. The results were that the STHLM3 screening model decreased overdiagnosis by averting 32% of prostate biopsies compared with the PSA-only arm and did not significantly decrease sensitivity of detecting high-grade disease (Gleason Score >7). It also detected 17% fewer clinically non-significant (Gleason Score <6) PrCa. Furthermore, when only performing a biopsy on those with both positive STHLM3 and MRI, a further 38% of biopsies were avoided with missing 8% of clinically significant PrCa compared with MRI alone. This indicates the accuracy of genetic screening for PrCa is improved when combined with other variables.

The 'Germline genetic profiling: correlation with targeted prostate cancer screening and treatment' (PROFILE) study (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02543905) evaluates the use of PSA screening and prostate MRI in high-risk groups aged 40–69 years (family history and Black African or Black Caribbean ancestry). It has two arms, one has MRI and biopsy irrespective of PSA and one is a PSA-only arm with a threshold for biopsy of PSA >2 ng/mL in PwPs above age 50 years or PSA >1 ng/mL in the age bracket 40–49 years. The participants also have genetic testing and are assigned a PRS. Specific effort is made in recruiting PwPs of Black African and Black Caribbean ancestry to broaden our genetic data and understanding of PrCa in these ethnicities. The results will be published in the next couple of years.

Screening in carriers of rare constitutional genetic variants

Since 2014 the 'Identification of Men With a Genetic Predisposition to Prostate Cancer' (IMPACT) study has analysed targeted PSA screening in constitutional BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers. This was the first prospective study to use constitutional genetic markers for identifying PwPs with high risk of PrCa. The IMPACT Study extended in 2020 to include the MMR genes MSH2, MSH6 and MLH1. Of note it was established in the pre-MRI era. A new suite of studies (the PROFILE studies) are now including MRI and are yet to report. The IMPACT study interim results published in 2019 show that targeted screening in BRCA2 variant carriers from age 40 years detects more clinically significant intermediate or high-risk PrCa than age-based PSA screening alone.73 The recommendation to screen all BRCA2 variant carriers with annual PSA from age 40 years has subsequently been adopted by the European Association of Urologists74 and is under consideration by the UK National Screening Committee (Eeles R and Bancroft E personal communication).

PRS can guide cancer screening in otherwise high-risk populations. Lecarpentier et al examined the effect of PrCa-associated SNPs in those with pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes (such as BRCA1 and BRCA2).9 Each BRCA1/2 variant carrier was assigned a PRS to quantify their risk. The most notable difference in cancer risk was observed at the extremes of PRS distribution—for example, BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers in the top 5% and bottom 5% of PRS had a 26% chance and a 7% chance, respectively, of PrCa by 80 years. Those with BRCA2 pathogenic variants in the top 5% and bottom 5% of PRS had a 62% chance and a 19% chance, respectively, of PrCa by age 80 years.9 Therefore, adding PRS into a genetic screen for people with high-risk variants could assist with counselling about cancer risks.

PRS and RBS may reduce health disparities in underserved populations compared with current screening programmes across the world. A risk-based approach ensures all PwPs at high risk are invited to screening, rather than relying on PwPs approaching their doctors themselves. Those who initiate a discussion around PSA screening for ‘shared decision making’ about the risks and benefits of PSA testing tend to be more educated and in a higher social demographic.75 Ethnic minorities of African origin are at increased risk of PrCa but are less likely to seek PrCa screening due to barriers.75 76

Other benefits of PRS include predicting age of diagnosis;77 for example, in the recent multiethnic paper by Wang et al, a PwP of Black African ancestry reaches the same level of PrCa risk at age 66 years as a PwP of European ancestry at age 80 years.15 It is unknown whether this will result in behavioural change and is subject to research.

Where should we place the cut-off for screening in those with high PRS?

This is societal decision on risk threshold depending on the acceptable trade-off of benefit and harm of screening and cost-effectiveness, capacity and feasibility.

Sud et al present a figure to demonstrate the trade-off between cancer detection (multiple tumour types) and overdiagnosis.71 They suggest overdiagnosis in PrCa screening is amplified by incorporating PRS, because the current variants identified are associated with PrCa incidence, not mortality.71 However, other studies do not support this claim;69 RBS screens fewer individuals than whole-population or age-based screening,66 so RBS would generate fewer cases of overdiagnosis even if rates of overdiagnosis where equal in the top and bottom PRS quartiles. Furthermore, as aforementioned, predictions of overdiagnosis are made inaccurate with short follow-up time. Sud et al quote the sensitivity of PRS across a range of diseases as 10%–15%, but this is not reflective of PRS sensitivity in predicting PrCa risk. These figures were quoted from a preprint paper looking into 926 PRS across 310 diseases, of which only 25% are cancer and even fewer are PrCa. Nonetheless, this warrants the question, at what score do we set the cut-off to capture more disease cases (improve sensitivity) but screen fewer people without disease? In PrCa, it is a fine balance between capturing cancer cases and overdiagnosis.

Given the samples used to isolate cancer-associated SNPs from GWASs (which are used to generate PRSs) were mostly from European ancestry, PRS is a less accurate tool in people with non-European ancestry, most pertinent in PwPs of Black African ancestry. The science community is working hard to address this disparity and there are studies recruiting those from black African and Caribbean ancestries to genetic testing, as well as involvement projects to widen participation in genetic testing from underserved communities to reduce health disparities.

It has been suggested that PRSs could cause psychological distress for people awaiting their genetic results, or once they receive results if the meaning is not well explained. There is also concern that those who have a low PRS will disengage from future screening or ignore disease symptoms. Peck et al found that with poorer understanding of how to interpret individual genetic risk, psychological distress caused is increased when individuals are informed of their own genetic risk.78 However, a study by Bancroft et al providing PRS to men with a strong family history of PrCa as part of a screening study did not find any indication of poor psychological outcomes or increased distress.79 Therefore, effective communication from clinicians to patients and the media is vital and must be done well to avoid confusion and misinformation—notably referring to absolute risk in the context of general population risk.

The above limitations are all to be considered but should not discredit PRS use as a tool for risk stratification. And of course, the statistics for sensitivity and specificity are all derived from statistical modelling across a range of diseases—we need UK-specific randomised trials to quantify real world impact, costs and harms.62 Overdiagnosis and subsequent harm can be reduced with risk assessment to tailor screening frequency and age range. Disease capture for high PRS is highest in more heritable diseases62 like PrCa compared with other cancers.