Abstract
Precision healthcare aims to tailor disease prevention and early detection to individual risk. Prostate cancer screening may benefit from genomics-informed approaches. We developed and validated the P-CARE model, a prostate cancer risk prediction tool combining a polygenic score, family history and genetic ancestry, using data from over 585,000 male participants in the Million Veteran Program. The model was externally validated in diverse cohorts and implemented via a blended genome–exome assay for clinical use. Here we show that the P-CARE model identifies clinically meaningful gradients of prostate cancer risk among men, with higher scores associated with increased risk of any, metastatic and fatal prostate cancer. The model is now being used in a clinical trial of precision prostate cancer screening. This work demonstrates the potential for genomics-enabled health systems to improve prostate cancer screening and prevention in men. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05926102.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$32.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout



Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data generated from our analyses are included in the text, tables, figures and supplementary information. The genetic loci included in the polygenic score and their effect sizes are included in the Supplementary information. Source data for Figs. 2 and 3 and Extended Data Figs. 1 and 2 have been provided as Source Data files. All other data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. It is not possible for the authors to share individual-level data from the MVP due to constraints stipulated in the informed consent. Anyone wishing to gain access to this data should inquire directly to MVP (MVPLOI@va.gov). Prostate Cancer Association Group to Investigate Cancer-Associated Alterations in the Genome (PRACTICAL) Consortium data are available upon request to the Data Access Committee (http://practical.icr.ac.uk/blog). Data from the AoU Research Program are accessible through the Researcher Workbench to researchers with an approved Data Use and Registration Agreement. Source data are provided with this paper.
Code availability
The code used for analyses is available at https://github.com/precimed/MVP-PCa-PHS.
References
Khan, S. S. et al. Development and validation of the American Heart Association’s PREVENT equations. Circulation 149, 430–449 (2024).
Huntley, C. et al. Utility of polygenic risk scores in UK cancer screening: a modelling analysis. Lancet Oncol. 24, 658–668 (2023).
Barkas, F. et al. Advancements in risk stratification and management strategies in primary cardiovascular prevention. Atherosclerosis 395, 117579 (2024).
Hao, L. et al. Development of a clinical polygenic risk score assay and reporting workflow. Nat. Med. 28, 1006–1013 (2022).
Lennon, N. J. et al. Selection, optimization and validation of ten chronic disease polygenic risk scores for clinical implementation in diverse US populations. Nat. Med. 30, 480–487 (2024).
Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health; Board on Health Sciences Policy; Institute of Medicine. Genomics-Enabled Learning Health Care Systems: Gathering and Using Genomic Information to Improve Patient Care and Research: Workshop Summary (National Academies Press, 2015).
Mucci, L. A. et al. Familial risk and heritability of cancer among twins in Nordic countries. JAMA 315, 68–76 (2016).
Hall, R., Bancroft, E., Pashayan, N., Kote-Jarai, Z. & Eeles, R. A. Genetics of prostate cancer: a review of latest evidence. J. Med. Genet. 61, 915–926 (2024).
Grossman, D. C. et al. Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 319, 1901–1913 (2018).
Garraway, I. P. et al. Prostate cancer foundation screening guidelines for black men in the United States. NEJM Evid. 3, EVIDoa2300289 (2024).
Jackson, S. D. et al. Screening asymptomatic men for prostate cancer: a comparison of international guidelines on prostate-specific antigen testing. J. Med. Screen. 29, 268–271 (2022).
Loeb, S. et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 65, 1046–1055 (2014).
Ilic, D. et al. Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brit. Med. J. 362, k3519 (2018).
Hugosson, J. et al. A 16-yr follow-up of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 76, 43–51 (2019).
Paschen, U. et al. Assessment of prostate-specific antigen screening: an evidence-based report by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. BJU Int 129, 280–289 (2022).
Stone, B. V. et al. The association of county-level prostate-specific antigen screening with metastatic prostate cancer and prostate cancer mortality. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 7, 563–569 (2024).
Iyer, H. S. et al. Access to prostate-specific antigen testing and mortality among men with prostate cancer. JAMA Netw. Open 7, e2414582 (2024).
Pagadala, M. S. et al. Polygenic risk of any, metastatic, and fatal prostate cancer in the Million Veteran Program. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 115, 190–199 (2023).
Martin, R. M. et al. Prostate-specific antigen screening and 15-year prostate cancer mortality: a secondary analysis of the CAP randomized clinical trial. JAMA 331, 1460–1470 (2024).
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, version 2 (NCCN, 2024).
Wei, J. T. et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA/SUO guideline part I: prostate cancer screening. J. Urol. 210, 46–53 (2023).
Parker, C. et al. Prostate cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 31, 1119–1134 (2020).
Mottet, N. et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur. Urol. 79, 243–262 (2021).
Huynh-Le, M.-P. et al. Age dependence of modern clinical risk groups for localized prostate cancer: a population-based study. Cancer 126, 1691–1699 (2020).
Hou, K. et al. Calibrated prediction intervals for polygenic scores across diverse contexts. Nat. Genet. 56, 1386–1396 (2024).
Moreno-Grau, S. et al. Polygenic risk score portability for common diseases across genetically diverse populations. Hum. Genomics 18, 93 (2024).
Roth, J. A., Gulati, R., Gore, J. L., Cooperberg, M. R. & Etzioni, R. Economic analysis of prostate-specific antigen screening and selective treatment strategies. JAMA Oncol. 2, 890–898 (2016).
Shoag, J. E., Nyame, Y. A., Gulati, R., Etzioni, R. & Hu, J. C. Reconsidering the trade-offs of prostate cancer screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 382, 2465–2468 (2020).
Bergengren, O. et al. 2022 Update on prostate cancer epidemiology and risk factors-a systematic review. Eur. Urol. 84, 191–206 (2023).
Das, H. & Rodriguez, R. Health care disparities in urologic oncology: a systematic review. Urology 136, 9–18 (2020).
Riviere, P. et al. Survival of African American and non-Hispanic white men with prostate cancer in an equal-access health care system. Cancer 126, 1683–1690 (2020).
Dess, R. T. et al. Association of black race with prostate cancer-specific and other-cause mortality. JAMA Oncol. 5, 975–983 (2019).
Huynh-Le, M.-P. et al. Prostate cancer risk stratification improvement across multiple ancestries with new polygenic hazard score. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 25, 755–761 (2022).
Karunamuni, R. A. et al. Performance of African-ancestry-specific polygenic hazard score varies according to local ancestry in 8q24. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 25, 229–237 (2022).
Wang, A. et al. Characterizing prostate cancer risk through multi-ancestry genome-wide discovery of 187 novel risk variants. Nat. Genet. 55, 2065–2074 (2023).
Kachuri, L. et al. Genetically adjusted PSA levels for prostate cancer screening. Nat. Med. 29, 1412–1423 (2023).
Huynh-Le, M.-P. et al. Polygenic hazard score is associated with prostate cancer in multi-ethnic populations. Nat. Commun. 12, 1236 (2021).
Mavaddat, N. et al. Incorporating alternative polygenic risk scores into the BOADICEA breast cancer risk prediction model. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. 32, 422–427 (2023).
Yang, X. et al. Prospective validation of the BOADICEA multifactorial breast cancer risk prediction model in a large prospective cohort study. J. Med. Genet. 59, 1196–1205 (2022).
Darst, B. F. et al. Combined effect of a polygenic risk score and rare genetic variants on prostate cancer risk. Eur. Urol. 80, 134–138 (2021).
Hughley, R. W. et al. Polygenic risk score modifies prostate cancer risk of pathogenic variants in men of African ancestry. Cancer Res. Commun. 3, 2544–2550 (2023).
Kang, J. H. et al. Polygenic risk and rare variant gene clustering enhance cancer risk stratification for breast and prostate cancers. Commun. Biol. 7, 1289 (2024).
Callender, T. et al. Polygenic risk-tailored screening for prostate cancer: a benefit–harm and cost-effectiveness modelling study. PLoS Med. 16, e1002998 (2019).
Callender, T., Emberton, M., Morris, S., Pharoah, P. D. P. & Pashayan, N. Benefit, harm, and cost-effectiveness associated with magnetic resonance imaging before biopsy in age-based and risk-stratified screening for prostate cancer. JAMA Netw. Open 4, e2037657 (2021).
Dixon, P., Keeney, E., Taylor, J., Wordsworth, S. & Martin, R. Can polygenic risk scores contribute to cost-effective cancer screening? A systematic review. Genet. Med. 24, 1604–1617 (2022).
Jiang, S. et al. Cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for Lynch syndrome and polygenic risk scores to inform colorectal cancer screening. Genet. Med. 27, 101285 (2025).
Guzauskas, G. F. et al. Population genomic screening for three common hereditary conditions: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann. Intern. Med. 176, 585–595 (2023).
Lacaze, P. et al. Combined population genomic screening for three high-risk conditions in Australia: a modelling study. eClinicalMedicine 66, 102297 (2023).
Wongvibulsin, S., Wu, K. C. & Zeger, S. L. Clinical risk prediction with random forests for survival, longitudinal, and multivariate (RF-SLAM) data analysis. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 20, 1 (2019).
Loef, B. et al. Using random forest to identify longitudinal predictors of health in a 30-year cohort study. Sci. Rep. 12, 10372 (2022).
Gaziano, J. M. et al. Million Veteran Program: a mega-biobank to study genetic influences on health and disease. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 70, 214–223 (2016).
Bick, A. G. et al. Genomic data in the All of Us Research Program. Nature 627, 340–346 (2024).
Hunter-Zinck, H. et al. Genotyping array design and data quality control in the Million Veteran Program. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 106, 535–548 (2020).
Pagadala, M. S. et al. Agent orange exposure and prostate cancer risk in the Million Veteran Program. Acta Oncol. Stockh. Swed. 63, 373–378 (2024).
Alba, P. R. et al. Ascertainment of veterans with metastatic prostate cancer in electronic health records: demonstrating the case for natural language processing. JCO Clin. Cancer Inform. 5, 1005–1014 (2021).
Amos, C. I. et al. The OncoArray Consortium: a network for understanding the genetic architecture of common cancers. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. 26, 126–135 (2017).
Eeles, R. A. et al. Identification of 23 new prostate cancer susceptibility loci using the iCOGS custom genotyping array. Nat. Genet. 45, 385–391. e1–2 (2013).
Huynh-Le, M.-P. et al. Common genetic and clinical risk factors: association with fatal prostate cancer in the Cohort of Swedish Men. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 24, 845–851 (2021).
Discacciati, A. et al. Coffee consumption and risk of localized, advanced and fatal prostate cancer: a population-based prospective study. Ann. Oncol. 24, 1912–1918 (2013).
Hamdy, F. C. et al. Fifteen-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 388, 1547–1558 (2023).
Gudmundsson, J. et al. Genome-wide associations for benign prostatic hyperplasia reveal a genetic correlation with serum levels of PSA. Nat. Commun. 9, 4568 (2018).
Chen, F. et al. Evidence of novel susceptibility variants for prostate cancer and a multiancestry polygenic risk score associated with aggressive disease in men of African ancestry. Eur. Urol. 84, 13–21 (2023).
Karunamuni, R. A. et al. Additional SNPs improve risk stratification of a polygenic hazard score for prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 24, 532–541 (2021).
Tibshirani, R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the LASSO. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 58, 267–288 (1996).
Tibshirani, R. The LASSO method for variable selection in the Cox model. Stat. Med. 16, 385–395 (1997).
Li, Y. et al. FastPop: a rapid principal component derived method to infer intercontinental ancestry using genetic data. BMC Bioinform. 17, 122 (2016).
Auton, A. et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 526, 68–74 (2015).
Friedman, J. H., Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J. Stat. Softw. 33, 1–22 (2010).
Wendt, F. R. et al. Modeling the longitudinal changes of ancestry diversity in the Million Veteran Program. Hum. Genomics 17, 46 (2023).
Huynh-Le, M.-P. et al. A genetic risk score to personalize prostate cancer screening, applied to population data. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 29, 1731–1738 (2020).
Seibert, T. M. et al. Polygenic hazard score to guide screening for aggressive prostate cancer: development and validation in large scale cohorts. Brit. Med. J. 360, j5757 (2018).
Karunamuni, R. A. et al. African-specific improvement of a polygenic hazard score for age at diagnosis of prostate cancer. Int. J. Cancer 148, 99–105 (2021).
Yeh, H. C., Duncan, B. B., Schmidt, M. I., Wang, N. Y. & Brancati, F. L. Smoking, smoking cessation, and risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cohort study. Ann. Intern. Med. 152, 10–17 (2010).
Brentnall, A. R., Cuzick, J., Buist, D. S. M. & Bowles, E. J. A. Long-term accuracy of breast cancer risk assessment combining classic risk factors and breast density. JAMA Oncol. 4, e180174 (2018).
Wang, T. J. et al. Plasma natriuretic peptide levels and the risk of cardiovascular events and death. N. Engl. J. Med. 350, 655–663 (2004).
DeFelice, M. et al. Blended genome exome (BGE) as a cost efficient alternative to deep whole genomes or arrays. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.03.587209 (2024).
Rubinacci, S., Hofmeister, R. J., Sousa da Mota, B. & Delaneau, O. Imputation of low-coverage sequencing data from 150,119 UK Biobank genomes. Nat. Genet. 55, 1088–1090 (2023).
Tiao, G. & Goodrich, J. gnomAD v3.1 new content, methods, annotations, and data availability. https://gnomad.broadinstitute.org/news/2020-10-gnomad-v3-1-new-content-methods-annotations-and-data-availability/#the-gnomad-hgdp-and-1000-genomes-callset (2023).
Babadi, M. et al. GATK-gCNV enables the discovery of rare copy number variants from exome sequencing data. Nat. Genet. 55, 1589–1597 (2023).
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines: Genetic/familial High-risk Assessment: Colorectal, version 2 (NCCN, 2023).
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines: Genetic/familial High-risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, And Pancreatic, version 3 (NCCN, 2024).
Farmer, G. D., Gray, H., Chandratillake, G., Raymond, F. L. & Freeman, A. L. J. Recommendations for designing genetic test reports to be understood by patients and non-specialists. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 28, 885–895 (2020).
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development (I01 CX002635 to J.L.V. and I01 CX001727 to R.L.H.), which played no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. It was supported using resources and facilities of the Department of VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) ORD 24-VINCI-01, including writing support from K. Pridgen, under the research priority to Put VA Data to Work for Veterans (VA ORD 24-D4V). Funding for salaries includes Department of VA (VISN22 Veterans Center of Excellence for Stress and Mental Health to R.L.H.), VA Office of Research and Development (1I01CX002709 and 1I01CX002622 to K.N.M.), National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01AG050595 to R.L.H. and K08CA215312 to K.N.M.), the Department of Defense (DOD/CDMRP PC220521 to T.M.S.), the Prostate Cancer Foundation (23CHAL12 to T.M.S., 20YOUN02 to K.N.M., 22CHAL02 to I.P.G., B.S.R. and K.N.M.), the Burroughs Wellcome Foundation (no. 1017184 to K.N.M.), Basser Center for BRCA (K.N.M.). The authors thank the MVP staff, researchers, and volunteers, who have contributed to MVP, and especially who previously served their country in the military and now generously agreed to enroll in the study (see mvp.va.gov for more information). The underlying work was based on data from the MVP, Office of Research and Development, Veterans Health Administration, and was supported by the Veterans Administration MVP award no. 000. This publication does not represent the views of the Department of VA or the US Government.
CAP: The CAP trial was funded by grants C11043/A4286, C18281/A8145, C18281/A11326, C18281/A15064 and C18281/A24432 from Cancer Research UK. The UK Department of Health, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) provided partial funding.
ProtecT: The ProtecT trial was funded by project grants 96/20/06 and 96/20/99 from the UK National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme. R.M.M. is an NIHR Senior Investigator (NIHR202411). R.M.M. is supported by a Cancer Research UK 25 (C18281/A29019) programme grant (the Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme). R.M.M. is also supported by the NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre which is funded by the NIHR (BRC-1215-20011) and is a partnership between University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. Department of Health and Social Care disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. A.V. is supported by Spanish Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) funding, an initiative of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Innovation partially supported by European Regional Development FEDER Funds (PI22/00589, INT24/00023, DTS24/00083 and PI25/00744); and by the AECC (PRYES211091VEGA). A.S.K. is supported by NIH, grant/award numbers U01 - U01CA268810.
CRUK and PRACTICAL Consortium: This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme grant agreement no. 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175), Cancer Research UK grants (C5047/A7357, C1287/A10118, C1287/A16563, C5047/A3354, C5047/A10692 and C16913/A6135) and The NIH Cancer Post-Cancer GWAS initiative grant: no. 1 U19 CA 148537-01 (the GAME-ON initiative). We also 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 PCUK), The Orchid Cancer Appeal, Rosetrees Trust, The National Cancer Research Network UK and 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, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, and Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. The Prostate Cancer Program of Cancer Council Victoria also acknowledge grant support from The National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (126402, 209057, 251533, 396414, 450104, 504700, 504702, 504715, 623204, 940394 and 614296), VicHealth, Cancer Council Victoria, The Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, The Whitten Foundation, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Tattersall’s. E.A.O., D.M.K. and E.M.K. acknowledge the Intramural Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute for their support. Genotyping of the OncoArray was funded by the US NIH (U19 CA 148537 for ELucidating Loci Involved in Prostate cancer SuscEptibility (ELLIPSE) project and X01HG007492 to the Center for Inherited Disease Research under contract number HHSN268201200008I). Additional analytic support was provided by NIH NCI U01 CA188392 (PI: Schumacher). Research reported in this publication also received support from the National Cancer Institute of the NIH under award numbers U10 CA37429 (C.D. Blanke) and UM1 CA182883 (C.M. Tangen/I.M. Thompson). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. Funding for the iCOGS infrastructure came from: the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement no. 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692 and C8197/A16565), the NIH (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA 148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112 - the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the CIHR for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer, Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. PROtEuS received funding from the Canadian Cancer Society, the Cancer Research Society, the Fonds de Recherche du Québec–Santé, the Ministère du Développement Économique, de l’Innovation et de l’Exportation du Québec and the Canada Research Chairs Program
BPC3: The BPC3 was supported by the US NIH, National Cancer Institute (cooperative agreements U01-CA98233 to D.J.H., U01-CA98710 to S.M.G., U01-CA98216 to E.R. and U01-CA98758 to B.E.H., and Intramural Research Program of NIH/National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics).
CAPS: The CAPS GWAS study was supported by the Cancer Risk Prediction Center (CRisP; www.crispcenter.org), a Linneus Centre (Contract ID 70867902) financed by the Swedish Research Council, (grant no K2010-70X-20430-04-3), the Swedish Cancer Foundation (grant no 09-0677), the Hedlund Foundation, the Soederberg Foundation, the Enqvist Foundation, ALF funds from the Stockholm County Council. Stiftelsen Johanna Hagstrand och Sigfrid Linner’s Minne, Karlsson’s Fund for urological and surgical research.
PEGASUS: PEGASUS was supported by the Intramural Research Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Contributions
J.L.V., A.M. Dornisch and T.M.S. conceived and designed the study, oversaw data analysis, interpreted results, and drafted the manuscript. R.K. contributed to study design, supervised analytic workflows and provided domain expertise in polygenic risk modeling. M.G., C.J.K., N.J.L., S.E.H., K.A.L., K.L., E.M., C.J.P. and D.M.T. coordinated sequencing, bioinformatics and data curation. C.A.B., M.E.D. and D.R. assisted with data interpretation, visualization and manuscript preparation. R.L.H., I.P.G., K.M.L., J.A.L., K.N.M., B.S. Rose, C.C.T., A.S.K. and G.J.X. provided expertise in prostate cancer phenotyping and critical review of study design and interpretation. J.L.D., F.H., R.M.M., D.E.N., E.L.T., O.A.A., A.M. Dale, I.G.M., A.A., J.B., J.C., O.C., C.C., R.A.E., J.H.F., E.M.G., H.G., R.J.H., J.L., Y.J.L., R.J.M., C.M., L.A.M., L.M., S.L.N., S.F.N., M.E.P., J.Y.P., G.P., A.P., A.R., B.S. Rosenstein, J.S., K.D.S., P.A.T., R.C.T., A.V., C.M.L.W., F.W. and W.Z. contributed data from consortium studies, performed genotyping and quality control and reviewed the manuscript for intellectual content. J.L.V. served as principal investigator and corresponding author. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
N.L. has received speaking honoraria from Illumina and is an advisory board member for FYR Diagnostics and Everygene; N.L. has also received research collaborative funding (for work unrelated to this publication) from Illumina and PacBio. J.A.L., K.M.L. and C.T.C. report grants from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Biodesix, Celgene Corporation, Cerner Enviza, GSK, IQVIA, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis International and the Parexel International Corporation through the University of Utah or Western Institute for Veteran Research outside the submitted work. A.S.K. reports funding (for work unrelated to this publication) from Janssen, Pfizer, Profound, Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck. S.L.D. reports grants from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Biodesix, Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Parexel, Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline, Cerner Enviza, Janssen Research & Development, Celgene, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, IQVIA, Astellas Pharma and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. R.A.E. reports speaking honoraria from GU-ASCO, Janssen, University of Chicago and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, educational honorarium from Bayer and Ipsen, being a member of external expert committee to AstraZeneca UK and Member of Active Surveillance Movember Committee and is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Our Future Health; she additionally undertakes private practice as a sole trader at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and 90 Sloane Street SW1X 9PQ and 280 Kings Road SW3 4NX, London, UK. L.A.M. reports research funding from AstraZeneca to Harvard University; she holds equity in Convergent Therapeutics. T.M.S. reports honoraria from Varian Medical Systems, WebMD, GE Healthcare and Janssen; he has an equity interest in CorTechs Labs and serves on its Scientific Advisory Board; he receives research funding from GE Healthcare through the University of California, San Diego. These companies might potentially benefit from the research results. The terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by the University of California, San Diego in accordance with its conflict-of-interest policies. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Cancer thanks Irajizad Ehsan, Fumitaka Koga, Shintaro Narita and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Positive predictive value of PSA in ProtecT by P-CARE values stratified by PSA values.
Illustrated are mean PPV (95% CI) for various PSA levels (all ( ≥ 3 ng/mL), 3–4 ng/mL, 4-10 ng/mL, and >10 ng/mL) for clinically significant prostate cancer among three groups of men in the ProtecT study (n = 6,411): all men (regardless of P-CARE value), men in the top 20% of P-CARE values (P-CARE80), and men in the top 5% of P-CARE values (P-CARE95). Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; P-CARE, Prostate CA Risk and Evaluation; PPV, positive predictive value; ProtecT, Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment; PSA, prostate-specific antigen.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Percentage of true positive cases in ProtecT across P-CARE categories.
Illustrated are the percentage of true positive cases for various PSA levels among 6,411 men in the ProtecT Study (all values ≥ 3 ng/mL, 3-4 ng/mL, 4-10 ng/mL, and >10 ng/mL) for clinically significant prostate cancer stratified by P-CARE risk percentiles, with comparisons between the top 5% (P-CARE95) and top 20% (P-CARE80). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Odds of prostate cancer in All of Us Research Program by P-CARE category.
Shown are the odds ratios for an individual to be diagnosed with prostate cancer in the low and high P-CARE categories, relative to the average P-CARE category, derived from logistic regression models controlling for age. Error bars correspond to the 95% confidence intervals, and the shown ancestries are the predictions provided by All of Us. Abbreviations: P-CARE, Prostate CAncer Risk and Evaluation.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Template of laboratory report package for ProGRESS clinical trial, and MVP Consortium Members
Supplementary Table 1–14
Supplementary Tables 1–14
Source data
Source Data Fig. 2
Statistical source data.
Source Data Fig. 3
Statistical source data.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1
Statistical source data.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2
Statistical source data.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3
Statistical source data.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Vassy, J.L., Dornisch, A.M., Karunamuni, R. et al. Genomic risk model to implement precision prostate cancer screening in clinical care: the ProGRESS study. Nat Cancer (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43018-025-01103-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43018-025-01103-0


