Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions.Available Data: This dataset only includes traumatic injury participants. For ROC cardiac arrest Epistry data please see: ROC-Cardiac Epistry 1 and 2 and ROC-Cardiac Epistry 3.Objectives: To build a prospective population-based registry of participants with out-of-hospital traumatic injury responded to by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Specific aims included: to establish whether the results of Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) trials can be generalized to the larger population of people that experience traumatic injury; to more fully establish the burden of traumatic injury; and to examine the relationships between variation in EMS structure and process, regional and periodic factors, and participant outcomes.Background: Traumatic injury is a major public health problem generating substantial morbidity, mortality, and economic burden on society. The majority of seriously injured persons are initially evaluated and cared for by prehospital providers, however the effect of EMS systems, EMS clinical care, and EMS interventions on trauma patient outcomes is largely unknown. EMS factors such as service level, number of responding providers, use of procedures or drugs in the field, training, quality assurance/feedback, and response time intervals also vary significantly by region.The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) was established in 2004 to conduct clinical research in the areas of cardiopulmonary arrest and life-threatening traumatic injury with the overall goal of improving resuscitation outcomes. Previous trauma registries have generally focused primarily on hospitalized patients with limited prehospital information. Registries may also exclude trauma cases at far ends of the spectrum, such as those who die in the field or in a non-trauma center and/or patients that are treated and released. These limitations do not allow for detailed, outcome-based assessments of EMS system factors necessary to define prehospital resuscitation best practices. Therefore there was a need for standardized data collection of out-of-hospital traumatic injuries matched to hospital-based outcomes in diverse geographic locations in order to identify the independent effects of prognostic or treatment factors accounting for variations in survival. Participants: The registry included 13,830 traumatic events from 264 EMS agencies transporting to 287 acute care hospitals from the following regional centers: Birmingham, Alabama; Dallas, Texas; Iowa City, Iowa; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; San Diego, California; Seattle/King County, Washington; Ottawa, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; and Vancouver, British Columbia.Design: ROC Epistry collected standardized data regarding episode-specific factors, participant demographics, clinical information, pre-hospital interventions and disposition, hospital information, and participant outcome for all out-of-hospital traumatic injuries in the ROC regions. Cases were identified through review of emergency response system records including dispatch centers, EMS ground agencies, and air medical services. Out-of-hospital data were extracted from existing databases whenever possible and augmented with targeted review of EMS reports. Hospital data were abstracted directly from the hospital file in most cases. Sites submitted data using a web-based interface or batch uploads (Newgard, et al., 2008, PMID: 18482792).
Data Access NOTE Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Objectives To compare the effectiveness of surgical treatment to the effectiveness of endovascular treatment in adults with chronic limb-threatening ischemia who are eligible for both treatment options. Background Peripheral artery disease (PAD) affects more than 200 million people worldwide. A portion of those individuals develop chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). CLTI is associated with severe health outcomes. CLTI is defined by ischemic foot pain at rest, ischemic ulcerations, or gangrene. Treatment for CLTI includes revascularization to improve limb perfusion and limit the risk of amputation. However, the choice of surgery or endovascular therapy for revascularization varies greatly. The extent to which this variability affects clinical outcomes in patients with CLTI is unknown. The BEST-CLI trial was initiated to determine whether endovascular revascularization was superior to surgical revascularization in patients with CLTI. Participants A total of 1434 participants with a single segment of great saphenous vein comprised cohort 1. Of these, 718 participants were randomly assigned to the surgical treatment group and 716 participants were randomly assigned to the endovascular therapy group. A total of 396 participants needing an alternative conduit comprised cohort 2. Of these, 197 participants were randomly assigned to the surgical treatment group and 199 participants were randomly assigned to the endovascular therapy group. Design BEST-CLI was an international, randomized, open-label trial. Participants were assigned to one of two cohorts based on the availability of a single segment of great saphenous vein. Participants in both cohorts were randomly assigned to either surgery or endovascular therapy. Follow-up was performed at 30 days after the procedure, 3 months, 6 months, and every 6 months thereafter up to 84 months after randomization. Telephone visits in lieu of clinic visits were planned at 30 months and every 12 months thereafter and at the end of the trial. Participants were followed for major adverse cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause), quality of life, level of pain, and performance on the six-minute walk test. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse limb events or death from any cause. A major adverse limb event was defined as above ankle amputation of the index limb or a major index-limb reintervention (new bypass, interposition graft revision, thrombectomy, or thrombolysis). Conclusions Among patients with CLTI who had an adequate great saphenous vein for surgical revascularization (cohort 1), the incidence of a major adverse limb event or death was significantly lower in the surgical group than in the endovascular group. Among the patients who lacked an adequate saphenous vein conduit (cohort 2), the outcomes in the two groups were similar. Farber A, Menard MT, Conte MS, et al. Surgery or Endovascular Therapy for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(25):2305-2316. PMID 36342173
Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Objective: To determine the effect of inhaled, nebulized inorganic nitrite on exercise capacity in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Background: Approximately half of patients with heart failure have a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, there are no proven effective medical treatments for this syndrome. Evidence suggests that impairments in nitric oxide availability have a potentially important role in the pathophysiology of HFpEF.Unlike organic nitrates, inorganic nitrite is converted to nitric oxide in the presence of hypoxia and acidosis, conditions that develop during exercise. Because the cardiac, vascular, and skeletal muscle abnormalities that limit physical capacity and contribute to symptoms in patients with HFpEF characteristically develop during exercise, inorganic nitrite may provide the best way to target nitric oxide delivery precisely at the time of greatest need. The HFN-INDIE trial was initiated to test the hypothesis that compared to placebo, longer-term use of inhaled, nebulized inorganic nitrite would enhance peak exercise capacity in patients with HFpEF. Participants: A total of 105 participants were randomized. 53 were randomized to receive nitrite first and 52 were randomized to receive placebo first.Design: HFN-INDIE was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. After enrollment, patients underwent baseline studies to determine eligibility. All patients were required to display objective exercise limitation, evidenced by reduced peak oxygen consumption (V̇o2) on cardiopulmonary exercise testing of less than 75% predicted, with a respiratory exchange ratio indicative of maximal effort (≥1.0). Following qualifying exercise testing, eligible participants received an open-label, single-dose run-in of inhaled, nebulized sodium nitrite (80 mg) to assess tolerability, symptoms, and orthostatic vital signs. Patients developing hypotension (systolic blood pressure The prespecified primary end point was peak V̇o2, measured as the highest 30-second average during upright cycle ergometry, during the 4-week period in which patients were receiving inorganic nitrite as compared with placebo. Accelerometry, health-related quality-of-life scores on the self-administered Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (score range, 0-100, with higher scores indicating better quality of life), echocardiographic indicators of cardiac filling pressures measured at trough drug levels (E/e′ ratio, estimated pulmonary artery systolic pressure, and left atrial volume index; lower scores indicate better health for all), ventilatory efficiency (VE/V̇co2, lower indicating better health), exercise time (higher indicating better health), and NT-proBNP levels (lower indicating better health) were also collected.Data Availability: Data available from this study includes transthoracic echocardiogram images from multiple timepoints. There are 199 echocardiographic exams available, totaling over 13,100 individual echocardiogram images. Conclusions: Among patients with HFpEF, administration of inhaled inorganic nitrite for 4 weeks, compared with placebo, did not result in significant improvement in exercise capacity.Reference: Borlaug et al., 2018, PMID: 30398602.
The cfMethyl-Seq libraries of the serial plasma cfDNA samples from the four NSCLC patients were constructed following the standard protocol. 10 ng of cfDNA in the volume of 25 µl was used as input material. 5’-end dephosphorylation was done with 3 µl 10xCutSmart buffer and 2 µl quick CIP from NEB (Ipswich, MA) at 37 oC for 30 min then heat-inactivated at 80 oC for 5 min. The 3’-end blocking was done with 0.5 µl 10xCutSmart buffer, 3 µl 2.5 mM CoCl2, 1 µl terminal transferase (all from NEB), and 0.5 µl 1 mM ddGTP at 37 oC for 2 h followed by 75 oC for 20 min. The mixture was then purified with 2x AmpureXP beads (Beckman Coulter, Indianapolis, IN) and eluted in 21.5 µl RT-PCR grade water (Thermo-Fisher, Waltham, MA). Restriction digestion was done with 2.5 µl 10xCutSmart buffer and 1 µl MspI (NEB) for 18 h at 37  oC and 20 min at 65 oC . 0.5 µl 10xCutSmart buffer, 0.3 µl dACGTP mixture (100 mM dATP, 10 mM dCTP, 10 mM dGTP), 1 µl Klenow (exo-, 5U/µl, NEB) and 2.6 µl RT-PCR water, 0.6 µl 50 mM DTT (ThermoFisher) was added to the mixture for end repair and A-overhang addition with the program 30  oC for 20 min, 37 oC for 1 h and 75 oC for 20 min. Adapter ligation was then performed with 1 µl 10xThermoFisher HC T4 ligase buffer, 0.4 µl 100 mM ATP (ThermoFisher), 0.2 µl 50 mM DTT, 1 µl ThermoFisher HC T4 DNA ligase (30 Weiss Unit/µl), 5 ng home-made duplex UMI adapter with all the cytosines methylated (protocol adopted from Kennedy et al.) at 16 oC for 20 h and 65 oC for 20 min. Bisulfite conversion of the adapter-ligated product was carried out with QIAGEN EpiTect plus DNA bisulfite kit following their protocol for two rounds of conversion. The converted product was purified with Qiagen MinElute spin column and eluted with 20 µl RT-PCR water. PCR amplification was done using the NEBNext Multiplex Oligos for Illumina (2.5 µl of universal and index primer each) and 25 µl KAPA HiFi HotStart Uracil+ ReadyMix (Roche) with the following cycling conditions: 98  oC for 45 s, 15 cycles of 98  oC for 15 s, 60  oC for 30 s and 72  oC for 30 s, followed by a final extension at 72  oC for 5 min. The PCR product was purified with 1x AmpureXP beads and eluted with 30 µl EB buffer. DNA concentration was measured by Qubit 1xdsDNA HS assay. 5% TBE-UREA PAGE and bioanalyzer assay was performed as quality control on each library before sequencing.
The Resource for Genetic Epidemiology Research on Aging (GERA) Cohort was created by a RC2 "Grand Opportunity" grant that was awarded to the Kaiser Permanente Research Program on Genes, Environment, and Health (RPGEH) and the UCSF Institute for Human Genetics (AG036607; Schaefer/Risch, PIs). The RC2 project enabled genome-wide SNP genotyping (GWAS) to be conducted on a cohort of over 100,000 adults who are members of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Plan, Northern California Region (KPNC), and participating in its RPGEH. The purpose of the RPGEH is to facilitate research on the genetic and environmental factors that affect health and disease by linking together clinical data from electronic health records, survey data on demographic and behavioral factors, and environmental data from various sources, with genetic data derived from biospecimens collected from participants. At the time of the award of the RC2 project in late 2009, the RPGEH had established a cohort of about 140,000 individuals who had answered a detailed survey, provided saliva samples for extraction of DNA, and given broad consent for the use of their data in studies of health and disease. To maximize the diversity of the resulting sample, the GERA cohort was formed by including all racial and ethnic minority participants with saliva samples (N = 20,925; 19%); the remaining participants were drawn sequentially and randomly from white non-Hispanic participants (89,341; 81%). A total of 110,266 participant samples were included to ensure that at least 100,000 were successfully assayed. The resulting GERA cohort is 42% male, 58% female, and ranges in age from 18 to over 100 years old with an average age of 63 years at the time of the RPGEH survey (2007). The sample is ethnically diverse, generally well-educated with above average income. Approximately 69% of the participants are married or living with a partner. Length of membership in KPNC averages 23.5 years. UCSF and RPGEH investigators worked with the genomics company Affymetrix to design four custom microarrays for genotyping each of the four major race-ethnicity groups included in the GERA Cohort, described in detail in Hoffmann et al., 2011a and 2011b. Following genotyping and quality control procedures, and after removal of invalid, discordant, or withdrawn samples, about 103,000 participants were successfully genotyped. The resulting genotypic data were linked to survey data and data abstracted from the electronic medical records. As described below, all RPGEH participants were mailed new consent forms with explicit discussion of the placement of data in the NIH-maintained dbGaP. About 77% of participants returned completed consent forms, resulting in a final sample size of 78,486 participants in the GERA Cohort with data for deposit into dbGaP. Origins of the RPGEH GERA Cohort The goal in creating the RPGEH GERA cohort was to create a large, multiethnic, and comprehensive population-based resource for research into the genetic and environmental basis of common age-related diseases and their treatment, and factors influencing healthy aging and longevity. The GERA Cohort consists of a diverse cohort of more than 100,000 adults who are members of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Plan, Northern California Region (KPNC), and participating in its Research Program on Genes, Environment and Health (RPGEH). KPNC is an integrated health care delivery system with a population of about 3.3 million people in northern California. The membership of KPNC is representative of the general population in the 14 county area in which facilities are located, although the membership is underrepresented for the extremes of income at both ends of the spectrum. The RPGEH utilizes the longitudinal electronic health records (EHR) of KPNC to obtain clinical, laboratory, imaging and pharmacy information on all cohort members, to which personal demographic, behavioral and health characteristics have been added through member surveys. The GERA Cohort comprises a subsample of the RPGEH participant cohort, and was created through the RC2 award from the NIA, NIMH, and NIH Common Fund as described above. GERA Study Design The GERA Cohort is a subsample, as described above, of the longitudinal cohort enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente RPGEH. The RPGEH cohort includes about 400,000 survey participants of whom about 200,000 have provided broad consent and a sample of saliva or blood for use in studies of genetic and environmental factors in health and disease. The GERA Cohort was developed from a mailed survey sent to all adult members of KPNC who had been members for two years or more in 2007. All survey respondents were contacted and asked to complete a consent form; those who completed consent forms were asked to provide a saliva sample. Additional male participants were added to the RPGEH through inclusion of the Northern California sample of the California Men's Health Study (CMHS) cohort of about 40,000 men from KPNC, ages 45-69 years old at the time of the CMHS survey in 2002-2003. The CMHS participants contributed about 15,400 saliva samples to the RPGEH and were eligible for inclusion in the GERA Cohort. CMHS participants were included according to the same sampling design as for the RPGEH cohort as a whole. Specifically, all minority participants were selected for inclusion in order to maximize representation of minorities in the GERA Cohort, and Non-Hispanic White participants were selected at random to complete the sample of 110,266 GERA Cohort participants. GERA Genotypic Data High-density genotyping was conducted at UCSF using custom designed Affymetrix Axiom arrays, as described in Hoffmann et al. (2011a; 2011b). To maximize genome-wide coverage of common and less common variants, four specific arrays were designed for individuals of Non-Hispanic White (EUR), East Asian (EAS), African-American (AFR), and Latino (LAT) race/ethnicity. There was broad overlap among the SNPs on the arrays, which were designed using a hybrid greedy imputation algorithm (Hoffmann et al., 2011b) applied to genotype information validated by Affymetrix from the 1000 Genomes Project. However, in order to capture low frequency variants specific to particular race-ethnicity groups, SNP content varies between arrays. A more detailed description of the process of genotyping and results is included in Genotyping of DNA Samples. Description of the analyses of population structure and development of principal components for adjustment of population structure is included in Population Structure Analysis. GERA Phenotypic Data RPGEH and CMHS Survey Data. The sources of data on demographic and behavioral factors deposited in dbGaP for the GERA Cohort are the RPGEH and CMHS surveys. Data on common demographic factors such as gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, and education and on behavioral factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and body mass index, have been cleaned, edited, reconciled between the two surveys, and compiled into summary indices, where appropriate, for deposition into dbGaP. A more complete description of the survey variables is included in Survey Variables Documentation. Please note that the terms of use of the GERA Cohort Data, as specified in the Data Use Certification (DUC), prohibit the use of survey variables as outcomes in analyses. For example, a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of education or smoking is not permitted as specified by the DUC. Only health conditions can be used as outcome variables in analyses. Health Conditions derived from Kaiser Permanente Electronic Medical Records. Data on the occurrence of health conditions in participants in the GERA Cohort have been derived from summarizing ICD-9 coded diagnoses in Kaiser Permanente's electronic medical records. An algorithm that aggregates specific ICD-9 codes into appropriate diagnostic groups for selected conditions is applied to outpatient and inpatient databases; see Disease and Conditions Definitions Documentation for details. The criterion for including a condition as "present" for a participant is the occurrence of two or more diagnoses within a diagnostic category occurring on separate days. Two or more is used as the criterion in order to reduce false positives due to mistakes or rule-out diagnoses. When compared with validated disease registries, the criterion of 2+ diagnoses yields high specificity and good sensitivity. ICD-9 codes in the electronic records are specified in several ways. For outpatient visits occurring during the period 1995 to 2006, diagnoses were assigned by the treating physician who endorsed specific diagnoses on an optically scanned list that varied by specialty. Beginning in 2006 with the advent of an integrated, fully electronic medical record, outpatient diagnoses are made by physicians/ providers using a pull down menu. Discharge diagnoses from inpatient stays are specified by physicians and coded by specially trained coders. Databases of ICD-9 codes for diagnoses assigned at outpatient visits, or as one of the discharge diagnoses following inpatient stays, are complete and available for all KPNC members dating back to 1995. Although the average length of KPNC membership among GERA cohort members is 23.5 years in 2007, not all have been members since 1995, so the history for some conditions, such as those that are not chronic or recurrent, may not be complete for all cohort members. The year of first membership in KPNC is included as a variable in the list of survey variables, enabling investigators to estimate the number of years of observation of each Cohort member. RPGEH Access and Collaborations Website and Procedures The RPGEH maintains a web portal for inquiries and applications for collaboration and access to data. The url is: https://rpgehportal.kaiser.org/. RPGEH has an application process and an Access Review Committee that reviews applications for collaboration and use. For more details, please contact RPGEH through the website.
The purpose of this study is to address the key question of whether and how family health history (FHH) is adopted as a tool to more efficiently manage patients at risk for breast, colon, ovarian, and hereditary cancer syndromes as well as thrombophilia and coronary heart disease (CHD) and to provide evidence supporting clinical utility -- improved health behaviors in patients and physician screening recommendations. Five health care delivery organizations will participate in this demonstration project: Duke University, the Medical College of Wisconsin, the Air Force, Essentia Health, University of North Texas. Duke will serve as a coordinating center for this project (Pro00043372) as well as a site. Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures as intermediate clinical effectiveness measures for Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) and selected cancers as well as survey/formative data and electronic medical record (EMR) data will be used as outcomes measures. The research model is purposely designed to mimic clinical delivery as an important step toward widespread implementation and sustainability. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing usual care to the FHH guided preventive health model will be used. The completion of this project will result in an optimal strategy for integration of FHH data collection and clinical decision support (CDS) tools into an EMR and demonstrate the utility of the FHH intervention among diverse primary care patients, their settings, their providers, and the health systems that deliver their care. Specific Aim 1: To optimize the collection of patient entered FHH in diverse clinical environments for coronary heart disease, thrombosis, and selected cancers Specific Aim 2: To export FHH data to an open clinical decision support (open CDS) platform and return CDS results to providers and patients (and to EMRs where relevant). To explore the integration of genetic risk and FHH data at selected sites. Specific Aim 3: To assess the clinical and personal utility of FHH using a pragmatic observational study design to assess reach, adoption, integrity, exposure, and sustainability, and to capture, analyze, and report effectiveness outcomes at each stakeholder level: patient, provider, and clinic/system. Specific Aim 4: To take a leadership role in the dissemination of guidelines for a FHH intervention across in diverse practice settings. AAA Hypertension Lupus Multiple sclerosis Obesity Osteoporosis Thyroid disease Rheumatoid arthritis Blood clotting (6): Blood Clot (high risk features) Factor V PT mutation AT III deficiency Protein S deficiency Protein C deficiency Brain Disorders (5): Dementia Hemorrhagic stroke Ischemic stroke Macrocephaly Seizure Cancer/Adenomas (32): Bone cancer Brain cancer Breast cancer Colon cancer Adrenal cortex tumor Neuroendocrine tumor Paraganglioma Pheochromoctyoma Pituitary adenoma Medullary thyroid cancer Non-medullary (follicular or papillary) thyroid cancer Don't know type of thyroid cancer Thyroid nodule Other type of endocrine cancer Esophageal cancer Kidney cancer Leukemia Lipoma Liver cancer Muscle cancer Ovarian cancer Pancreatic cancer Prostate cancer Rectal cancer Retinoblastoma Melanoma Non-melanoma skin cancer Do not know type of skin cancer Small bowel cancer Stomach cancer Uterine cancer Other type of cancer Cardiovascular/heart/artery disease (5): Atrial fibrillation Carotid stenosis Heart attack/coronary artery disease Peripheral arterial disease Other heart disease Diabetes (3): Gestational diabetes Diabetes type I Diabetes type 2 Digestive Disorders (5): Colon polyp Crohn's disease Irritable bowel syndrome Ulcerative colitis Other digestive disorder Eye Disorder (3): Blindness Glaucoma Macular degeneration Hereditary Cancer Syndromes (22): Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome Cowden syndrome Familial adenomatous polyposis Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma syndrome Hereditary melenoma Hereditary papillary renal cancer syndrome Hereditary paraganglioma-pheochromocytoma syndrome Hereditary retinoblastoma Juvenile polyposis Li-Fraumeni syndrome Lynch syndrome Mutyh-associated polyposis Malignant hyperthermia susceptibility Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 Nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome Peutz-Jeghers syndrome Tuberous Sclerosis complex Von-Hippel Lindau syndrome Other hereditary cancer Hereditary Cardiovascular syndromes (10): Long qt Brugada Catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy Dilated cardiomyopathy Left ventricular non-compaction syndrome Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia Ehlers-Danlos syndrome Marfan syndrome Other hereditary cardiovascular syndrome High cholesterol (2): Hyperlipidemia Familial hypercholesterolemia Kidney Disease (6): Cystic kidney disease Diabetic kidney disease Kidney nephrosis Nephritis Nephrotic syndrome Other kidney disease Liver Disease (6): Alpha 1 antitrypsinase deficiency Auto-immune hepatitis Hereditary hemochromatosis Primary biliary cirrhosis Sclerosing cholangitis Wilson's disease Lung Disease (3): Asthma COPD/chronic bronchitis/emphysema Other lung disease Psychological disorder (14): Addiction ADHD Autism Bipolar Depression Eating disorder Intellectual disability Obsessive compulsive disorder Panic disorder Personality disorder PTSD Schizophrenia Social phobia Sickle cell/thalassemia (3): Sickle cell disease Sickle cell trait Thalassemia
Background and Rationale for the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) Over the last several decades, advances in treatments for childhood and adolescent cancer have substantially improved survival following diagnosis. These improvements gave rise to the responsibility for investigating long-term treatment-associated morbidity and mortality. Early efforts to describe late effects were largely conducted through single-institution and limited consortia studies. However, by the mid-1980s, it became increasingly clear that these approaches had inherent limitations, including small sample size, convenience sampling, incompletely characterized populations, and limited length of follow-up. To overcome these limitations, the CCSS was proposed and funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as a U01 grant in 1994. Subsequently, the strengths of the CCSS, including an efficient and extensive infrastructure, plus expanding database and biorepository, were recognized and appreciated. Thus, in consultation with the NCI, the CCSS was converted to a U24 (resource grant) funding mechanism to serve the scientific community in 2000. The overarching goal of the CCSS resource is to increase the conduct of innovative and high impact research related to pediatric cancer survivorship. CCSS has been used extensively by researchers from a wide range of disciplines to address a broad spectrum of topics. Strengths of the resource include its large size, comprehensive annotation of treatment exposures, ongoing longitudinal follow-up with characterization of a wide array of participant characteristics and outcomes, and an established biorepository. Design of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) is a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary collaborative research resource comprised of a retrospective hospital-based cohort of survivors of childhood cancer and a comparison sibling cohort. Eligible survivors from 31 participating institutions were diagnosed between 1970 and 1999, prior to age 21 years, with selected common pediatric cancers (leukemia, central nervous system tumors, Hodgkin lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, kidney tumors, neuroblastoma, soft tissue sarcoma, or bone tumors). All patients who survived five years from the date of diagnosis were eligible, regardless of disease or treatment status. The baseline questionnaire was completed by 24,368 survivors and 5,039 siblings recruited to serve as a comparison group. To date, participants have completed three general follow-up surveys, as well as a number of specialized surveys on specific topics (e.g. health care, insurance, screening practices, men's and women's health issues, adolescent health, sleep and fatigue). In addition, biological samples (buccal cells, saliva and/or blood) have been collected for over 11,000 participants. Full descriptions of the design and characteristics of the CCSS have been previously published (Robison et al; Leisenring et al.), and available data and samples are described at https://ccss.stjude.org/develop-a-study/gwas-data-resource.html. Treatment Data in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study A key feature of CCSS is the availability of detailed treatment data, which were collected by abstraction of medical records for each individual member of the cohort. Detailed abstraction included dates of therapy, protocol information, and specific details regarding surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Quantitative dose details were collected for 22 specific chemotherapeutic agents, including alkylating agents, anthracyclines, platinum compounds and epipodophyllotoxins. In addition to individual agent doses, algorithms have been created to calculate cumulative doses of all drugs in a specific class, such as anthracyclines (doxorubicin, daunomycin and idarubicin) or platinum agents (cisplatinum and carboplatinum). Data abstracted for surgeries included dates and both the names and corresponding International Classification of Diseases (9th revision) code. For radiation treatment data, all relevant records were sent to the Radiation Physics Center at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center for detailed abstraction and dosimetry. Initial body region dosimetry was performed for all participants, followed by more detailed dosimetry as needed for specific studies. Genomics Data in the Childhood Cancer Survivor StudyThe NCI's Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and CCSS investigators collaborated to conduct genomics studies (SNP array genotyping and whole exome sequencing) using samples from the CCSS Biorepository. Studies included all cohort participants with available DNA regardless of sex or ancestry when the genomics studies were initiated. Phenotype Data in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study Vital status and cause of death for both participants and non-participants is determined via linkage with the National Death Index (NDI). Identification of subsequent neoplasms is based on self-report, followed by validation using medical records, or via NDI. A wide array of additional health outcomes have been ascertained via a comprehensive set of questions on the CCSS questionnaires, covering potential adverse events across a range of organ systems (hearing/vision/speech, urinary, hormonal, heart and circulatory, respiratory, digestive, brain and nervous systems). In addition to health outcomes, longitudinal data have been collected on demographics, health behaviors, family history, screening practices, insurance status, and a range of psychosocial and neurocognitive factors. A full listing of available variables and copies of the CCSS questionnaires are available at http://ccss.stjude.org. Research Areas in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study Extensive use by the research community has resulted in over 265 published manuscripts on a wide range of topics, including associations between treatment factors and mortality, subsequent neoplasms, chronic health conditions, cardiac events, neurocognitive sequelae, psychosocial factors, fertility, and health status. Additional topics have included health behaviors, screening practices, health care access and utilization, statistical and exposure assessment methodology, and development of risk prediction models. A full listing of published manuscripts using CCSS data is available on the CCSS website at https://ccss.stjude.org/published-research/publications.html. The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study as a Resource for Investigators The CCSS is an NCI-funded resource (U24 CA55727) to promote and facilitate research among long-term survivors of cancer diagnosed during childhood and adolescence. Interested investigators are encouraged to develop research ideas and propose projects within CCSS, whether or not they are from a participating CCSS institution. The CCSS is now accepting proposals to collaborate with CCSS and NCI investigators in the use of genomics data and corresponding outcomes-related data to address innovative research questions relating to potential genetic contributions to risk for treatment-related outcomes. Any researcher, or group of researchers, qualified to conduct genetic research can submit a proposal. There are no restrictions relative to country, institution, or prior involvement in CCSS. A full description of the process for developing a proposal for genetic research in CCSS can be found at https://ccss.stjude.org/develop-a-study/gwas-data-resource.html, along with listings of approved proposals.
Description of Cohort: The California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) Breast Health Cohort is a cohort study based at CPMC and is linked to the San Francisco Mammography Registry, one of the sites of the NCI-funded Breast Cancer Screening Consortium (U01CA063740). CPMC is a community hospital in San Francisco, which has one of the highest volumes for mammography in San Francisco. Between September 2004 and June 2007, >90,000 mammograms were performed at CPMC. The CPMC breast health cohort collects demographic and risk factor data on women receiving mammography through participation in the San Francisco Mammography Registry, as part of the Breast Cancer Screening Consortium (U01CA063740). The SFMR database collects information from all sources, including a questionnaire on demographic and risk factor information, the clinical results of the breast examination, the measures of breast density by Dr. John Shepherd and the women who agreed to donate a blood sample. By merging these various sources of information we have very efficiently developed a large sample of women who have donated blood and have had a measure of mamographic density. Blood Collection: Dr. Steve Cummings is leading an effort to collect and archive blood samples from women who are receiving mammography screening. All women who are sent for a screening mammogram at CPMC are considered eligible. Since the cohort began collecting blood samples in July 2004 until June 2007, samples have been collected from over 11,000 women. Measurement of Breast Density: Dr. John Shepherd is currently measuring breast density in a large fraction of the cohort using an automated approach with single X-ray absorptiometry. Dr. Shepherd has established a link with the CPMC mammography center that allows him to collect routine digital mammography information. Using the data from the mammogram, Dr. Shepherd and his group have developed the single X-ray absorptiometry (SXA) technique for measuring density which is described in more detail below. The table demonstrates the distribution of demographic variables and some breast cancer risk factors of women who donated blood and had a breast density measurement in the CPMC breast health cohort. Nearly 80% of the participants are Caucasian and most of the women are post-menopausal with a median age of ~52. Since it will be difficult to accrue a large enough sample from each ethnic group, our study will focus only on Caucasian women. Table: Demographic variables, reproductive history and family history of breast cancer among 2962 women participating in the CPMC cohort study who contributed blood samples between 1994-1997. Variable Median/Percentage Age (Median/IQR) 52 (46-59) Ethnicity Caucasian/White 0.76 Asian/Pacific Islander 0.141 Hispanic 0.029 Mixed Race/Ethnicity 0.039 African American/Black 0.022 American Indian 0.001 Other 0.009 First degree relative with breast cancer 0.17 Age at first birth Nulliparous 0.39 Age<20 0.043 Age>40 0.032 Age<30, ≥20 0.251 Age>30, ≤40 0.282 Measurement of Breast Density in Cohort: Measurement of breast density is accomplished using an automated technique for all mammograms obtained by Dr. Shepherd using Single X-Ray absorptiometry (SXA). SXA measurement of breast density is done on approximately 30% of all screening mammograms. Below we describe the method for measurement of breast density by SXA by Dr. Shepherd's group and its validation and association with breast cancer. As we demonstrate below, breast density, as measured by SXA, is an automated, highly reproducible measure of the density of breast tissue and is associated with breast cancer risk. SXA for Quantifying Breast Density: Single x-ray absorptiometry (SXA) was initially developed for measuring bone density. SXA can determine the fraction of each of two densities simultaneously using the fact the sample is a constant thickness, the thickness in known, and the total attenuation is known. In applying this technique to breast density, we assume a two compartment model: fat and non-fatty (fibroglandular tissue). We use a reference material composed of various concentrations of two materials: one which is the same density as fat and another which is the same density as fibroglandular tissue. The reference material (phantom) is placed in the X-ray field with each mammogram. We have been able to implement this in a way that is unintrusive to the patient and technologist at CPMC. Assuming this two-compartment model and a constant known breast thickness, we can then calculate the percent density at any region of the breast based on the assumption that % pixel grey-scale is proportion to the mass fractions of breast fat and lean tissue. If reference materials (a phantom) of fat and fibroglandular tissue are imaged with the patient's breast and the reference materials have the same thickness as the patient's breast, then the breast's grey-scale values can be converted to fat/fibroglandular mass fractions by interpolating between those two references. The total percent density is found by averaging the volume fraction over all breast pixels. The phantom being used for breast density assessment at CPMC began to be used in September 2004. The phantom does not have to be manipulated by the technologist and stays attached on the mammography device during standard craniocaudal (CC) views. Thus it creates minimal to no interference with the clinical mammogram. Reproducibility of breast density measures: Traditional measures of mammographic density require some human interpretation. A human reader outlines the area perceived to be dense and a computer then calculates the percent area outlined as a percent of the entire image. Thus, while traditional mammographic density is associated with breast cancer risk, it has some limitations. In a study by Drs. Shepherd, Kerlikowske, et al., the correlation coefficient (Pearson's R) between different readers was 0.8-0.9. In contrast to the traditional mammographic density measurement, the SXA measurement is fully automated and, therefore, the reproducibility of the measurement is higher. Dr. Shepherd and colleagues have performed a replication study of SXA as a measurement of breast density. They have estimated the correlation coefficient of the SXA measurement of breast density to be >0.98. Thus, as expected for an automated measure, SXA is a highly reproducible measure of mammographic breast density. Drs. Shepherd and Kerlikowske have recently analyzed the association between breast cancer risk and breast density as measured by SXA (Shepherd et al., Cancer Epi Biomarkers and Prev, 2011, PMID: 21610220). They found that women in the highest quintile of % volumetric density had an odds ratio of 4.1 (95% CI: 2.3 - 7.2) for breast cancer risk compared to women in the lowest quintile of volumetric density. Thus volumetric density appears to be a highly reproducible, automated measure of breast cancer.
372 samples consisting of 185 patient paired CD138+ tumor and non-involved DNA pairs, plus 5 Horizon Diagnostic known mutation standards (HD). Samples were processed using the KAPA HyperCap protocol and hybridized onto a targeted panel for multiple myeloma and associated diseases. Reference Sudha et al Clinical Cancer Research, 2022.
Original description of the study: From ELLIPSE (linked to the PRACTICAL consortium), we contributed ~78,000 SNPs to the OncoArray. A large fraction of the content was derived from the GWAS meta-analyses in European ancestry populations (overall and aggressive disease; ~27K SNPs). We also selected just over 10,000 SNPs from the meta-analyses in the non-European populations, with a majority of these SNPs coming from the analysis of overall prostate cancer in African ancestry populations as well as from the multiethnic meta-analysis. A substantial fraction of SNPs (~28,000) were also selected for fine-mapping of 53 loci not included in the common fine-mapping regions (tagging at r2>0.9 across ±500kb regions). We also selected a few thousand SNPs related with PSA levels and/or disease survival as well as SNPs from candidate lists provided by study collaborators, as well as from meta-analyses of exome SNP chip data from the Multiethnic Cohort and UK studies. The Contributing Studies: Aarhus: Hospital-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Patients treated for prostate adenocarcinoma at Department of Urology, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby (Aarhus, Denmark). Source of controls: Age-matched males treated for myocardial infarction or undergoing coronary angioplasty, but with no prostate cancer diagnosis based on information retrieved from the Danish Cancer Register and the Danish Cause of Death Register. AHS: Nested case-control study within prospective cohort. Source of cases: linkage to cancer registries in study states. Source of controls: matched controls from cohort ATBC: Prospective, nested case-control. Source of cases: Finnish male smokers aged 50-69 years at baseline. Source of controls: Finnish male smokers aged 50-69 years at baseline BioVu: Cases identified in a biobank linked to electronic health records. Source of cases: A total of 214 cases were identified in the VUMC de-identified electronic health records database (the Synthetic Derivative) and shipped to USC for genotyping in April 2014. The following criteria were used to identify cases: Age 18 or greater; male; African Americans (Black) only. Note that African ancestry is not self-identified, it is administratively or third-party assigned (which has been shown to be highly correlated with genetic ancestry for African Americans in BioVU; see references). Source of controls: Controls were identified in the de-identified electronic health record. Unfortunately, they were not age matched to the cases, and therefore cannot be used for this study. Canary PASS: Prospective, Multi-site, Observational Active Surveillance Study. Source of cases: clinic based from Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center, Eastern Virginia Medical School, University of California at San Francisco, University of Texas Health Sciences Center San Antonio, University of Washington, VA Puget Sound. Source of controls: N/A CCI: Case series, Hospital-based. Source of cases: Cases identified through clinics at the Cross Cancer Institute. Source of controls: N/A CerePP French Prostate Cancer Case-Control Study (ProGene): Case-Control, Prospective, Observational, Hospital-based. Source of cases: Patients, treated in French departments of Urology, who had histologically confirmed prostate cancer. Source of controls: Controls were recruited as participating in a systematic health screening program and found unaffected (normal digital rectal examination and total PSA < 4 ng/ml, or negative biopsy if PSA > 4 ng/ml). COH: hospital-based cases and controls from outside. Source of cases: Consented prostate cancer cases at City of Hope. Source of controls: Consented unaffected males that were part of other studies where they consented to have their DNA used for other research studies. COSM: Population-based cohort. Source of cases: General population. Source of controls: General population CPCS1: Case-control - Denmark. Source of cases: Hospital referrals. Source of controls: Copenhagen General Population Study CPCS2: Source of cases: Hospital referrals. Source of controls: Copenhagen General Population Study CPDR: Retrospective cohort. Source of cases: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Source of controls: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center ACS_CPS-II: Nested case-control derived from a prospective cohort study. Source of cases: Identified through self-report on follow-up questionnaires and verified through medical records or cancer registries, identified through cancer registries or the National Death Index (with prostate cancer as the primary cause of death). Source of controls: Cohort participants who were cancer-free at the time of diagnosis of the matched case, also matched on age (±6 mo) and date of biospecimen donation (±6 mo). EPIC: Case-control - Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, UK. Source of cases: Identified through record linkage with population-based cancer registries in Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and UK. In Germany and Greece, follow-up is active and achieved through checks of insurance records and cancer and pathology registries as well as via self-reported questionnaires; self-reported incident cancers are verified through medical records. Source of controls: Cohort participants without a diagnosis of cancer EPICAP: Case-control, Population-based, ages less than 75 years at diagnosis, Hérault, France. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases in all public hospitals and private urology clinics of département of Hérault in France. Cases validation by the Hérault Cancer Registry. Source of controls: Population-based controls, frequency age matched (5-year groups). Quotas by socio-economic status (SES) in order to obtain a distribution by SES among controls identical to the SES distribution among general population men, conditionally to age. ERSPC: Population-based randomized trial. Source of cases: Men with PrCa from screening arm ERSPC Rotterdam. Source of controls: Men without PrCa from screening arm ERSPC Rotterdam ESTHER: Case-control, Prospective, Observational, Population-based. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases in all hospitals in the state of Saarland, from 2001-2003. Source of controls: Random sample of participants from routine health check-up in Saarland, in 2000-2002 FHCRC: Population-based, case-control, ages 35-74 years at diagnosis, King County, WA, USA. Source of cases: Identified through the Seattle-Puget Sound SEER cancer registry. Source of controls: Randomly selected, age-frequency matched residents from the same county as cases Gene-PARE: Hospital-based. Source of cases: Patients that received radiotherapy for treatment of prostate cancer. Source of controls: n/a Hamburg-Zagreb: Hospital-based, Prospective. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases seen at the Department of Oncology, University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. Source of controls: Population-based (Croatia), healthy men, older than 50, with no medical record of cancer, and no family history of cancer (1st & 2nd degree relatives) HPFS: Nested case-control. Source of cases: Participants of the HPFS cohort. Source of controls: Participants of the HPFS cohort IMPACT: Observational. Source of cases: Carriers and non-carriers (with a known mutation in the family) of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, aged between 40 and 69, who are undergoing prostate screening with annual PSA testing. This cohort has been diagnosed with prostate cancer during the study. Source of controls: Carriers and non-carriers (with a known mutation in the family) of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, aged between 40 and 69, who are undergoing prostate screening with annual PSA testing. This cohort has not been diagnosed with prostate cancer during the study. IPO-Porto: Hospital-based. Source of cases: Early onset and/or familial prostate cancer. Source of controls: Blood donors Karuprostate: Case-control, Retrospective, Population-based. Source of cases: From FWI (Guadeloupe): 237 consecutive incident patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer attending public and private urology clinics; From Democratic Republic of Congo: 148 consecutive incident patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer attending the University Clinic of Kinshasa. Source of controls: From FWI (Guadeloupe): 277 controls recruited from men participating in a free systematic health screening program open to the general population; From Democratic Republic of Congo: 134 controls recruited from subjects attending the University Clinic of Kinshasa KULEUVEN: Hospital-based, Prospective, Observational. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases recruited at the University Hospital Leuven. Source of controls: Healthy males with no history of prostate cancer recruited at the University Hospitals, Leuven. LAAPC: Subjects were participants in a population-based case-control study of aggressive prostate cancer conducted in Los Angeles County. Cases were identified through the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program rapid case ascertainment system. Eligible cases included African American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White men diagnosed with a first primary prostate cancer between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2003. Eligible cases also had (a) prostatectomy with documented tumor extension outside the prostate, (b) metastatic prostate cancer in sites other than prostate, (c) needle biopsy of the prostate with Gleason grade ≥8, or (d) needle biopsy with Gleason grade 7 and tumor in more than two thirds of the biopsy cores. Eligible controls were men never diagnosed with prostate cancer, living in the same neighborhood as a case, and were frequency matched to cases on age (± 5 y) and race/ethnicity. Controls were identified by a neighborhood walk algorithm, which proceeds through an obligatory sequence of adjacent houses or residential units beginning at a specific residence that has a specific geographic relationship to the residence where the case lived at diagnosis. Malaysia: Case-control. Source of cases: Patients attended the outpatient urology or uro-onco clinic at University Malaya Medical Center. Source of controls: Population-based, age matched (5-year groups), ascertained through electoral register, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia MCC-Spain: Case-control. Source of cases: Identified through the urology departments of the participating hospitals. Source of controls: Population-based, frequency age and region matched, ascertained through the rosters of the primary health care centers MCCS: Nested case-control, Melbourne, Victoria. Source of cases: Identified by linkage to the Victorian Cancer Registry. Source of controls: Cohort participants without a diagnosis of cancer MD Anderson: Participants in this study were identified from epidemiological prostate cancer studies conducted at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the Houston Metropolitan area. Cases were accrued in the Houston Medical Center and were not restricted with respect to Gleason score, stage or PSA. Controls were identified via random-digit-dialing or among hospital visitors and they were frequency matched to cases on age and race. Lifestyle, demographic, and family history data were collected using a standardized questionnaire. MDACC_AS: A prospective cohort study. Source of cases: Men with clinically organ-confined prostate cancer meeting eligibility criteria for a prospective cohort study of active surveillance at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Source of controls: N/A MEC: The Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) is comprised of over 215,000 men and women recruited from Hawaii and the Los Angeles area between 1993 and 1996. Between 1995 and 2006, over 65,000 blood samples were collected from participants for genetic analyses. To identify incident cancer cases, the MEC was cross-linked with the population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registries in California and Hawaii, and unaffected cohort participants with blood samples were selected as controls MIAMI (WFPCS): Prostate cancer cases and controls were recruited from the Departments of Urology and Internal Medicine of the Wake Forest University School of Medicine using sequential patient populations as described previously (PMID:15342424). All study subjects received a detailed description of the study protocol and signed their informed consent, as approved by the medical center's Institutional Review Board. The general eligibility criteria were (i) able to comprehend informed consent and (ii) without previously diagnosed cancer. The exclusion criteria were (i) clinical diagnosis of autoimmune diseases; (ii) chronic inflammatory conditions; and (iii) infections within the past 6 weeks. Blood samples were collected from all subjects. MOFFITT: Hospital-based. Source of cases: clinic based from Moffitt Cancer Center. Source of controls: Moffitt Cancer Center affiliated Lifetime cancer screening center NMHS: Case-control, clinic based, Nashville TN. Source of cases: All urology clinics in Nashville, TN. Source of controls: Men without prostate cancer at prostate biopsy. PCaP: The North Carolina-Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP) is a multidisciplinary population-based case-only study designed to address racial differences in prostate cancer through a comprehensive evaluation of social, individual and tumor level influences on prostate cancer aggressiveness. PCaP enrolled approximately equal numbers of African Americans and Caucasian Americans with newly-diagnosed prostate cancer from North Carolina (42 counties) and Louisiana (30 parishes) identified through state tumor registries. African American PCaP subjects with DNA, who agreed to future use of specimens for research, participated in OncoArray analysis. PCMUS: Case-control - Sofia, Bulgaria. Source of cases: Patients of Clinic of Urology, Alexandrovska University Hospital, Sofia, Bulgaria, PrCa histopathologically confirmed. Source of controls: 72 patients with verified BPH and PSA<3,5; 78 healthy controls from the MMC Biobank, no history of PrCa PHS: Nested case-control. Source of cases: Participants of the PHS1 trial/cohort. Source of controls: Participants of the PHS1 trial/cohort PLCO: Nested case-control. Source of cases: Men with a confirmed diagnosis of prostate cancer from the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. Source of controls: Controls were men enrolled in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial without a diagnosis of cancer at the time of case ascertainment. Poland: Case-control. Source of cases: men with unselected prostate cancer, diagnosed in north-western Poland at the University Hospital in Szczecin. Source of controls: cancer-free men from the same population, taken from the healthy adult patients of family doctors in the Szczecin region PROCAP: Population-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Cases were ascertained from the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden Follow-Up Study, a retrospective nationwide cohort study of patients with localized prostate cancer. Source of controls: Controls were selected among men referred for PSA testing in laboratories in Stockholm County, Sweden, between 2010 and 2012. PROGReSS: Hospital-based, Prospective, Observational. Source of cases: Prostate cancer cases from the Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain. Source of controls: Cancer-free men from the same population ProMPT: A study to collect samples and data from subjects with and without prostate cancer. Retrospective, Experimental. Source of cases: Subjects attending outpatient clinics in hospitals. Source of controls: Subjects attending outpatient clinics in hospitals ProtecT: Trial of treatment. Samples taken from subjects invited for PSA testing from the community at nine centers across United Kingdom. Source of cases: Subjects who have a proven diagnosis of prostate cancer following testing. Source of controls: Identified through invitation of subjects in the community. PROtEuS: Case-control, population-based. Source of cases: All new histologically-confirmed cases, aged less or equal to 75 years, diagnosed between 2005 and 2009, actively ascertained across Montreal French hospitals. Source of controls: Randomly selected from the Provincial electoral list of French-speaking men between 2005 and 2009, from the same area of residence as cases and frequency-matched on age. QLD: Case-control. Source of cases: A longitudinal cohort study (Prostate Cancer Supportive Care and Patient Outcomes Project: ProsCan) conducted in Queensland, through which men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer from 26 private practices and 10 public hospitals were directly referred to ProsCan at the time of diagnosis by their treating clinician (age range 43-88 years). All cases had histopathologically confirmed prostate cancer, following presentation with an abnormal serum PSA and/or lower urinary tract symptoms. Source of controls: Controls comprised healthy male blood donors with no personal history of prostate cancer, recruited through (i) the Australian Red Cross Blood Services in Brisbane (age range 19-76 years) and (ii) the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) (age and post-code/ area matched to ProsCan, age range 54-90 years). RAPPER: Multi-centre, hospital based blood sample collection study in patients enrolled in clinical trials with prospective collection of radiotherapy toxicity data. Source of cases: Prostate cancer patients enrolled in radiotherapy trials: CHHiP, RT01, Dose Escalation, RADICALS, Pelvic IMRT, PIVOTAL. Source of controls: N/A SABOR: Prostate Cancer Screening Cohort. Source of cases: Men >45 yrs of age participating in annual PSA screening. Source of controls: Males participating in annual PSA prostate cancer risk evaluations (funded by NCI biomarkers discovery and validation grant), recruited through University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and affiliated sites or through study advertisements, enrolment open to the community SCCS: Case-control in cohort, Southeastern USA. Prospective, Observational, Population-based. Source of cases: SCCS entry population. Source of controls: SCCS entry population SCPCS: Population-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: South Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Source of controls: Health Care Financing Administration beneficiary file SEARCH: Case-control - East Anglia, UK. Source of cases: Men < 70 years of age registered with prostate cancer at the population-based cancer registry, Eastern Cancer Registration and Information Centre, East Anglia, UK. Source of controls: Men attending general practice in East Anglia with no known prostate cancer diagnosis, frequency matched to cases by age and geographic region SNP_Prostate_Ghent: Hospital-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Men treated with IMRT as primary or postoperative treatment for prostate cancer at the Ghent University Hospital between 2000 and 2010. Source of controls: Employees of the University hospital and members of social activity clubs, without a history of any cancer. SPAG: Hospital-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Guernsey. Source of controls: Guernsey STHM2: Population-based, Retrospective, Observational. Source of cases: Cases were selected among men referred for PSA testing in laboratories in Stockholm County, Sweden, between 2010 and 2012. Source of controls: Controls were selected among men referred for PSA testing in laboratories in Stockholm County, Sweden, between 2010 and 2012. PCPT: Case-control from a randomized clinical trial. Source of cases: Randomized clinical trial. Source of controls: Randomized clinical trial SELECT: Case-cohort from a randomized clinical trial. Source of cases: Randomized clinical trial. Source of controls: Randomized clinical trial TAMPERE: Case-control - Finland, Retrospective, Observational, Population-based. Source of cases: Identified through linkage to the Finnish Cancer Registry and patient records; and the Finnish arm of the ERSPC study. Source of controls: Cohort participants without a diagnosis of cancer UGANDA: Uganda Prostate Cancer Study: Uganda is a case-control study of prostate cancer in Kampala Uganda that was initiated in 2011. Men with prostate cancer were enrolled from the Urology unit at Mulago Hospital and men without prostate cancer (i.e. controls) were enrolled from other clinics (i.e. surgery) at the hospital. UKGPCS: ICR, UK. Source of cases: Cases identified through clinics at the Royal Marsden hospital and nationwide NCRN hospitals. Source of controls: Ken Muir's control- 2000 ULM: Case-control - Germany. Source of cases: familial cases (n=162): identified through questionnaires for family history by collaborating urologists all over Germany; sporadic cases (n=308): prostatectomy series performed in the Clinic of Urology Ulm between 2012 and 2014. Source of controls: age-matched controls (n=188): age-matched men without prostate cancer and negative family history collected in hospitals of Ulm WUGS/WUPCS: Cases Series, USA. Source of cases: Identified through clinics at Washington University in St. Louis. Source of controls: Men diagnosed and managed with prostate cancer in University based clinic. Acknowledgement Statements: Aarhus: This study was supported by the Danish Strategic Research Council (now Innovation Fund Denmark) and the Danish Cancer Society. The Danish Cancer Biobank (DCB) is acknowledged for biological material. AHS: This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (Z01CP010119). ATBC: This research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH and the National Cancer Institute. Additionally, this research was supported by U.S. Public Health Service contracts N01-CN-45165, N01-RC-45035, N01-RC-37004, HHSN261201000006C, and HHSN261201500005C from the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services. BioVu: The dataset(s) used for the analyses described were obtained from Vanderbilt University Medical Center's BioVU which is supported by institutional funding and by the National Center for Research Resources, Grant UL1 RR024975-01 (which is now at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Grant 2 UL1 TR000445-06). Canary PASS: PASS was supported by Canary Foundation and the National Cancer Institute's Early Detection Research Network (U01 CA086402) CCI: This work was awarded by Prostate Cancer Canada and is proudly funded by the Movember Foundation - Grant # D2013-36.The CCI group would like to thank David Murray, Razmik Mirzayans, and April Scott for their contribution to this work. CerePP French Prostate Cancer Case-Control Study (ProGene): None reported COH: SLN is partially supported by the Morris and Horowitz Families Endowed Professorship COSM: The Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Foundation CPCS1 & CPCS2: Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, DK-2730 Herlev, DenmarkCPCS1 would like to thank the participants and staff of the Copenhagen General Population Study for their important contributions. CPDR: Uniformed Services University for the Health Sciences HU0001-10-2-0002 (PI: David G. McLeod, MD) CPS-II: The American Cancer Society funds the creation, maintenance, and updating of the Cancer Prevention Study II cohort. CPS-II thanks the participants and Study Management Group for their invaluable contributions to this research. We would also like to acknowledge the contribution to this study from central cancer registries supported through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Program of Cancer Registries, and cancer registries supported by the National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results program. EPIC: The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by the Danish Cancer Society (Denmark); the Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum and Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany); the Hellenic Health Foundation, Greek Ministry of Health; Greek Ministry of Education (Greece); the Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC) and National Research Council (Italy); the Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF); the Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); the Health Research Fund (FIS), Regional Governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, Spanish Ministry of Health ISCIII RETIC (RD06/0020), Red de Centros RCESP, C03/09 (Spain); the Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Scientific Council and Regional Government of Skåne and Västerbotten, Fundacion Federico SA (Sweden); the Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council (United Kingdom). EPICAP: The EPICAP study was supported by grants from Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, Ligue départementale du Val de Marne; Fondation de France; Agence Nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l'environnement et du travail (ANSES). The EPICAP study group would like to thank all urologists, Antoinette Anger and Hasina Randrianasolo (study monitors), Anne-Laure Astolfi, Coline Bernard, Oriane Noyer, Marie-Hélène De Campo, Sandrine Margaroline, Louise N'Diaye, and Sabine Perrier-Bonnet (Clinical Research nurses). ERSPC: This study was supported by the DutchCancerSociety (KWF94-869,98-1657,2002-277,2006-3518, 2010-4800), The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW-002822820, 22000106, 50-50110-98-311, 62300035), The Dutch Cancer Research Foundation (SWOP), and an unconditional grant from Beckman-Coulter-HybritechInc. ESTHER: The ESTHER study was supported by a grant from the Baden Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts. The ESTHER group would like to thank Hartwig Ziegler, Sonja Wolf, Volker Hermann, Heiko Müller, Karina Dieffenbach, Katja Butterbach for valuable contributions to the study. FHCRC: The FHCRC studies were supported by grants R01-CA056678, R01-CA082664, and R01-CA092579 from the US National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, with additional support from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. FHCRC would like to thank all the men who participated in these studies. Gene-PARE: The Gene-PARE study was supported by grants 1R01CA134444 from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, PC074201 and W81XWH-15-1-0680 from the Prostate Cancer Research Program of the Department of Defense and RSGT-05-200-01-CCE from the American Cancer Society. Hamburg-Zagreb: None reported HPFS: The Health Professionals Follow-up Study was supported by grants UM1CA167552, CA133891, CA141298, and P01CA055075. HPFS are grateful to the participants and staff of the Physicians' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for their valuable contributions, as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, and WY. IMPACT: The IMPACT study was funded by The Ronald and Rita McAulay Foundation, CR-UK Project grant (C5047/A1232), Cancer Australia, AICR Netherlands A10-0227, Cancer Australia and Cancer Council Tasmania, NIHR, EU Framework 6, Cancer Councils of Victoria and South Australia, and Philanthropic donation to Northshore University Health System. We acknowledge support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Foundation NHS Trust. IMPACT acknowledges the IMPACT study steering committee, collaborating centres, and participants. IPO-Porto: The IPO-Porto study was funded by Fundaçäo para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT; UID/DTP/00776/2013 and PTDC/DTP-PIC/1308/2014) and by IPO-Porto Research Center (CI-IPOP-16-2012 and CI-IPOP-24-2015). MC and MPS are research fellows from Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro, Núcleo Regional do Norte. SM is a research fellow from FCT (SFRH/BD/71397/2010). IPO-Porto would like to express our gratitude to all patients and families who have participated in this study. Karuprostate: The Karuprostate study was supported by the the Frech National Health Directorate and by the Association pour la Recherche sur les Tumeurs de la ProstateKarusprostate thanks Séverine Ferdinand. KULEUVEN: F.C. and S.J. are holders of grants from FWO Vlaanderen (G.0684.12N and G.0830.13N), the Belgian federal government (National Cancer Plan KPC_29_023), and a Concerted Research Action of the KU Leuven (GOA/15/017). TVDB is holder of a doctoral fellowship of the FWO. LAAPC: This study was funded by grant R01CA84979 (to S.A. Ingles) from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. Malaysia: The study was funded by the University Malaya High Impact Research Grant (HIR/MOHE/MED/35). Malaysia thanks all associates in the Urology Unit, University of Malaya, Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation (CARIF) and the Malaysian Men's Health Initiative (MMHI). MCCS: MCCS cohort recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria. The MCCS was further supported by Australian NHMRC grants 209057, 251553, and 504711, and by infrastructure provided by Cancer Council Victoria. Cases and their vital status were ascertained through the Victorian Cancer Registry (VCR) and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), including the National Death Index and the Australian Cancer Database. MCC-Spain: The study was partially funded by the Accion Transversal del Cancer, approved on the Spanish Ministry Council on the 11th October 2007, by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III-FEDER (PI08/1770, PI09/00773-Cantabria, PI11/01889-FEDER, PI12/00265, PI12/01270, and PI12/00715), by the Fundación Marqués de Valdecilla (API 10/09), by the Spanish Association Against Cancer (AECC) Scientific Foundation and by the Catalan Government DURSI grant 2009SGR1489. Samples: Biological samples were stored at the Parc de Salut MAR Biobank (MARBiobanc; Barcelona) which is supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III FEDER (RD09/0076/00036). Also sample collection was supported by the Xarxa de Bancs de Tumors de Catalunya sponsored by Pla Director d'Oncologia de Catalunya (XBTC). MCC-Spain acknowledges the contribution from Esther Gracia-Lavedan in preparing the data. We thank all the subjects who participated in the study and all MCC-Spain collaborators. MD Anderson: Prostate Cancer Case-Control Studies at MD Anderson (MDA) supported by grants CA68578, ES007784, DAMD W81XWH-07-1-0645, and CA140388. MDACC_AS: None reported MEC: Funding provided by NIH grant U19CA148537 and grant U01CA164973. MIAMI (WFPCS): ACS MOFFITT: The Moffitt group was supported by the US National Cancer Institute (R01CA128813, PI: J.Y. Park). NMHS: Funding for the Nashville Men's Health Study (NMHS) was provided by the National Institutes of Health Grant numbers: RO1CA121060. PCaP only data: The North Carolina - Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP) is carried out as a collaborative study supported by the Department of Defense contract DAMD 17-03-2-0052. For HCaP-NC follow-up data: The Health Care Access and Prostate Cancer Treatment in North Carolina (HCaP-NC) study is carried out as a collaborative study supported by the American Cancer Society award RSGT-08-008-01-CPHPS. For studies using both PCaP and HCaP-NC follow-up data please use: The North Carolina - Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP) and the Health Care Access and Prostate Cancer Treatment in North Carolina (HCaP-NC) study are carried out as collaborative studies supported by the Department of Defense contract DAMD 17-03-2-0052 and the American Cancer Society award RSGT-08-008-01-CPHPS, respectively. For any PCaP data, please include: The authors thank the staff, advisory committees and research subjects participating in the PCaP study for their important contributions. For studies using PCaP DNA/genotyping data, please include: We would like to acknowledge the UNC BioSpecimen Facility and LSUHSC Pathology Lab for our DNA extractions, blood processing, storage and sample disbursement (https://genome.unc.edu/bsp). For studies using PCaP tissue, please include: We would like to acknowledge the RPCI Department of Urology Tissue Microarray and Immunoanalysis Core for our tissue processing, storage and sample disbursement. For studies using HCaP-NC follow-up data, please use: The Health Care Access and Prostate Cancer Treatment in North Carolina (HCaP-NC) study is carried out as a collaborative study supported by the American Cancer Society award RSGT-08-008-01-CPHPS. The authors thank the staff, advisory committees and research subjects participating in the HCaP-NC study for their important contributions. For studies that use both PCaP and HCaP-NC, please use: The authors thank the staff, advisory committees and research subjects participating in the PCaP and HCaP-NC studies for their important contributions. PCMUS: The PCMUS study was supported by the Bulgarian National Science Fund, Ministry of Education and Science (contract DOO-119/2009; DUNK01/2-2009; DFNI-B01/28/2012) with additional support from the Science Fund of Medical University - Sofia (contract 51/2009; 8I/2009; 28/2010). PHS: The Physicians' Health Study was supported by grants CA34944, CA40360, CA097193, HL26490, and HL34595. PHS members are grateful to the participants and staff of the Physicians' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for their valuable contributions, as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, and WY. PLCO: This PLCO study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIHPLCO thanks Drs. Christine Berg and Philip Prorok, Division of Cancer Prevention at the National Cancer Institute, the screening center investigators and staff of the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial for their contributions to the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. We thank Mr. Thomas Riley, Mr. Craig Williams, Mr. Matthew Moore, and Ms. Shannon Merkle at Information Management Services, Inc., for their management of the data and Ms. Barbara O'Brien and staff at Westat, Inc. for their contributions to the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. We also thank the PLCO study participants for their contributions to making this study possible. Poland: None reported PROCAP: PROCAP was supported by the Swedish Cancer Foundation (08-708, 09-0677). PROCAP thanks and acknowledges all of the participants in the PROCAP study. We thank Carin Cavalli-Björkman and Ami Rönnberg Karlsson for their dedicated work in the collection of data. Michael Broms is acknowledged for his skilful work with the databases. KI Biobank is acknowledged for handling the samples and for DNA extraction. We acknowledge The NPCR steering group: Pär Stattin (chair), Anders Widmark, Stefan Karlsson, Magnus Törnblom, Jan Adolfsson, Anna Bill-Axelson, Ove Andrén, David Robinson, Bill Pettersson, Jonas Hugosson, Jan-Erik Damber, Ola Bratt, Göran Ahlgren, Lars Egevad, and Roy Ehrnström. PROGReSS: The PROGReSS study is founded by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Health (INT15/00070; INT16/00154; FIS PI10/00164, FIS PI13/02030; FIS PI16/00046); the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (PTA2014-10228-I), and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER 2007-2013). ProMPT: Founded by CRUK, NIHR, MRC, Cambride Biomedical Research Centre ProtecT: Founded by NIHR. ProtecT and ProMPT would like to acknowledge the support of The University of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK. Cancer Research UK grants (C8197/A10123) and (C8197/A10865) supported the genotyping team. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the National Institute for Health Research which funds the Cambridge Bio-medical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the National Cancer Research Prostate Cancer: Mechanisms of Progression and Treatment (PROMPT) collaborative (grant code G0500966/75466) which has funded tissue and urine collections in Cambridge. We are grateful to staff at the Welcome Trust Clinical Research Facility, Addenbrooke's Clinical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK for their help in conducting the ProtecT study. We also acknowledge the support of the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, the DOH HTA (ProtecT grant), and the NCRI/MRC (ProMPT grant) for help with the bio-repository. The UK Department of Health funded the ProtecT study through the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (projects 96/20/06, 96/20/99). The ProtecT trial and its linked ProMPT and CAP (Comparison Arm for ProtecT) studies are supported by Department of Health, England; Cancer Research UK grant number C522/A8649, Medical Research Council of England grant number G0500966, ID 75466, and The NCRI, UK. The epidemiological data for ProtecT were generated though funding from the Southwest National Health Service Research and Development. DNA extraction in ProtecT was supported by USA Dept of Defense award W81XWH-04-1-0280, Yorkshire Cancer Research and Cancer Research UK. The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of all members of the ProtecT study research group. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health of England. The bio-repository from ProtecT is supported by the NCRI (ProMPT) Prostate Cancer Collaborative and the Cambridge BMRC grant from NIHR. We thank the National Institute for Health Research, Hutchison Whampoa Limited, the Human Research Tissue Bank (Addenbrooke's Hospital), and Cancer Research UK. PROtEuS: PROtEuS was supported financially through grants from the Canadian Cancer Society (13149, 19500, 19864, 19865) and the Cancer Research Society, in partnership with the Ministère de l'enseignement supérieur, de la recherche, de la science et de la technologie du Québec, and the Fonds de la recherche du Québec - Santé.PROtEuS would like to thank its collaborators and research personnel, and the urologists involved in subjects recruitment. We also wish to acknowledge the special contribution made by Ann Hsing and Anand Chokkalingam to the conception of the genetic component of PROtEuS. QLD: The QLD research is supported by The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Australia Project Grants (390130, 1009458) and NHMRC Career Development Fellowship and Cancer Australia PdCCRS funding to J Batra. The QLD team would like to acknowledge and sincerely thank the urologists, pathologists, data managers and patient participants who have generously and altruistically supported the QLD cohort. RAPPER: RAPPER is funded by Cancer Research UK (C1094/A11728; C1094/A18504) and Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre funding (C1467/A7286). The RAPPER group thank Rebecca Elliott for project management. SABOR: The SABOR research is supported by NIH/NCI Early Detection Research Network, grant U01 CA0866402-12. Also supported by the Cancer Center Support Grant to the Cancer Therapy and Research Center from the National Cancer Institute (US) P30 CA054174. SCCS: SCCS is funded by NIH grant R01 CA092447, and SCCS sample preparation was conducted at the Epidemiology Biospecimen Core Lab that is supported in part by the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (P30 CA68485). Data on SCCS cancer cases used in this publication were provided by the Alabama Statewide Cancer Registry; Kentucky Cancer Registry, Lexington, KY; Tennessee Department of Health, Office of Cancer Surveillance; Florida Cancer Data System; North Carolina Central Cancer Registry, North Carolina Division of Public Health; Georgia Comprehensive Cancer Registry; Louisiana Tumor Registry; Mississippi Cancer Registry; South Carolina Central Cancer Registry; Virginia Department of Health, Virginia Cancer Registry; Arkansas Department of Health, Cancer Registry, 4815 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72205. The Arkansas Central Cancer Registry is fully funded by a grant from National Program of Cancer Registries, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Data on SCCS cancer cases from Mississippi were collected by the Mississippi Cancer Registry which participates in the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC or the Mississippi Cancer Registry. SCPCS: SCPCS is funded by CDC grant S1135-19/19, and SCPCS sample preparation was conducted at the Epidemiology Biospecimen Core Lab that is supported in part by the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (P30 CA68485). SEARCH: SEARCH is funded by a program grant from Cancer Research UK (C490/A10124) and supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. SNP_Prostate_Ghent: The study was supported by the National Cancer Plan, financed by the Federal Office of Health and Social Affairs, Belgium. SPAG: Wessex Medical ResearchHope for Guernsey, MUG, HSSD, MSG, Roger Allsopp STHM2: STHM2 was supported by grants from The Strategic Research Programme on Cancer (StratCan), Karolinska Institutet; the Linné Centre for Breast and Prostate Cancer (CRISP, number 70867901), Karolinska Institutet; The Swedish Research Council (number K2010-70X-20430-04-3) and The Swedish Cancer Society (numbers 11-0287 and 11-0624); Stiftelsen Johanna Hagstrand och Sigfrid Linnérs minne; Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS), number 2012-0073STHM2 acknowledges the Karolinska University Laboratory, Aleris Medilab, Unilabs and the Regional Prostate Cancer Registry for performing analyses and help to retrieve data. Carin Cavalli-Björkman and Britt-Marie Hune for their enthusiastic work as research nurses. Astrid Björklund for skilful data management. We wish to thank the BBMRI.se biobank facility at Karolinska Institutet for biobank services. PCPT & SELECT are funded by Public Health Service grants U10CA37429 and 5UM1CA182883 from the National Cancer Institute. SWOG and SELECT thank the site investigators and staff and, most importantly, the participants who donated their time to this trial. TAMPERE: The Tampere (Finland) study was supported by the Academy of Finland (251074), The Finnish Cancer Organisations, Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and the Competitive Research Funding of the Tampere University Hospital (X51003). The PSA screening samples were collected by the Finnish part of ERSPC (European Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer). TAMPERE would like to thank Riina Liikanen, Liisa Maeaettaenen and Kirsi Talala for their work on samples and databases. UGANDA: None reported UKGPCS: UKGPCS would also like to thank the following for funding support: The Institute of Cancer Research and The Everyman Campaign, The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation, Prostate Research Campaign UK (now Prostate Action), The Orchid Cancer Appeal, The National Cancer Research Network UK, The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) UK. We are grateful for support of NIHR funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. UKGPCS should also like to acknowledge the NCRN nurses, data managers, and consultants for their work in the UKGPCS study. UKGPCS would like to thank all urologists and other persons involved in the planning, coordination, and data collection of the study. ULM: The Ulm group received funds from the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe). WUGS/WUPCS: WUGS would like to thank the following for funding support: The Anthony DeNovi Fund, the Donald C. McGraw Foundation, and the St. Louis Men's Group Against Cancer.
