Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and fine-mapping efforts to date have identified more than 100 prostate cancer (PrCa)-susceptibility loci. We meta-analyzed genotype data from a custom high-density array of 46,939 PrCa cases and 27,910 controls of European ancestry with previously genotyped data of 32,255 PrCa cases and 33,202 controls of European ancestry. Our analysis identified 62 novel loci associated (P < 5.0 × 10) with PrCa and one locus significantly associated with early-onset PrCa (≤55 years). Our findings include missense variants rs1800057 (odds ratio (OR) = 1.16; P = 8.2 × 10; G>C, p.Pro1054Arg) in ATM and rs2066827 (OR = 1.06; P = 2.3 × 10; T>G, p.Val109Gly) in CDKN1B. The combination of all loci captured 28.4% of the PrCa familial relative risk, and a polygenic risk score conferred an elevated PrCa risk for men in the ninetieth to ninety-ninth percentiles (relative risk = 2.69; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.55-2.82) and first percentile (relative risk = 5.71; 95% CI: 5.04-6.48) risk stratum compared with the population average. These findings improve risk prediction, enhance fine-mapping, and provide insight into the underlying biology of PrCa.

Importance Estimates of familial cancer risk from population-based studies are essential components of cancer risk prediction. Objective To estimate familial risk and heritability of cancer types in a large twin cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants Prospective study of 80 309 monozygotic and 123 382 same-sex dizygotic twin individuals (N = 203 691) within the population-based registers of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Twins were followed up a median of 32 years between 1943 and 2010. There were 50 990 individuals who died of any cause, and 3804 who emigrated and were lost to follow-up. Exposures Shared environmental and heritable risk factors among pairs of twins. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was incident cancer. Time-to-event analyses were used to estimate familial risk (risk of cancer in an individual given a twin's development of cancer) and heritability (proportion of variance in cancer risk due to interindividual genetic differences) with follow-up via cancer registries. Statistical models adjusted for age and follow-up time, and accounted for censoring and competing risk of death. Results A total of 27 156 incident cancers were diagnosed in 23 980 individuals, translating to a cumulative incidence of 32%. Cancer was diagnosed in both twins among 1383 monozygotic (2766 individuals) and 1933 dizygotic (2866 individuals) pairs. Of these, 38% of monozygotic and 26% of dizygotic pairs were diagnosed with the same cancer type. There was an excess cancer risk in twins whose co-twin was diagnosed with cancer, with estimated cumulative risks that were an absolute 5% (95% CI, 4%-6%) higher in dizygotic (37%; 95% CI, 36%-38%) and an absolute 14% (95% CI, 12%-16%) higher in monozygotic twins (46%; 95% CI, 44%-48%) whose twin also developed cancer compared with the cumulative risk in the overall cohort (32%). For most cancer types, there were significant familial risks and the cumulative risks were higher in monozygotic than dizygotic twins. Heritability of cancer overall was 33% (95% CI, 30%-37%). Significant heritability was observed for the cancer types of skin melanoma (58%; 95% CI, 43%-73%), prostate (57%; 95% CI, 51%-63%), nonmelanoma skin (43%; 95% CI, 26%-59%), ovary (39%; 95% CI, 23%-55%), kidney (38%; 95% CI, 21%-55%), breast (31%; 95% CI, 11%-51%), and corpus uteri (27%; 95% CI, 11%-43%). Conclusions and Relevance In this long-term follow-up study among Nordic twins, there was significant excess familial risk for cancer overall and for specific types of cancer, including prostate, melanoma, breast, ovary, and uterus. This information about hereditary risks of cancers may be helpful in patient education and cancer risk counseling.

Population stratification refers to differences in allele frequencies between cases and controls due to systematic differences in ancestry rather than association of genes with disease. It has been proposed that false positive associations due to stratification can be controlled by genotyping a few dozen unlinked genetic markers. To assess stratification empirically, we analyzed data from 11 case-control and casecohort association studies. We did not detect statistically significant evidence for stratification but did observe that assessments based on a few dozen markers lack power to rule out moderate levels of stratification that could cause false positive associations in studies designed to detect modest genetic risk factors. After increasing the number of markers and samples in a case-cohort study (the design most immune to stratification), we found that stratification was in fact present. Our results suggest that modest amounts of stratification can exist even in well designed studies.