Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Genomic risk model to implement precision prostate cancer screening in clinical care: the ProGRESS study

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

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Translating prostate cancer genomic risk discovery to clinical trial implementation.
Fig. 2: Positive predictive value of PSA in ProtecT by P-CARE values.
Fig. 3: Prostate cancer cause-specific cumulative incidence in MVP by P-CARE strata.

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

  1. Khan, S. S. et al. Development and validation of the American Heart Association’s PREVENT equations. Circulation 149, 430–449 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Huntley, C. et al. Utility of polygenic risk scores in UK cancer screening: a modelling analysis. Lancet Oncol. 24, 658–668 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Barkas, F. et al. Advancements in risk stratification and management strategies in primary cardiovascular prevention. Atherosclerosis 395, 117579 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hao, L. et al. Development of a clinical polygenic risk score assay and reporting workflow. Nat. Med. 28, 1006–1013 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 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).

  7. Mucci, L. A. et al. Familial risk and heritability of cancer among twins in Nordic countries. JAMA 315, 68–76 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Grossman, D. C. et al. Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 319, 1901–1913 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Garraway, I. P. et al. Prostate cancer foundation screening guidelines for black men in the United States. NEJM Evid. 3, EVIDoa2300289 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Loeb, S. et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 65, 1046–1055 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Iyer, H. S. et al. Access to prostate-specific antigen testing and mortality among men with prostate cancer. JAMA Netw. Open 7, e2414582 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, version 2 (NCCN, 2024).

  21. Wei, J. T. et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA/SUO guideline part I: prostate cancer screening. J. Urol. 210, 46–53 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Parker, C. et al. Prostate cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 31, 1119–1134 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hou, K. et al. Calibrated prediction intervals for polygenic scores across diverse contexts. Nat. Genet. 56, 1386–1396 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Moreno-Grau, S. et al. Polygenic risk score portability for common diseases across genetically diverse populations. Hum. Genomics 18, 93 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Bergengren, O. et al. 2022 Update on prostate cancer epidemiology and risk factors-a systematic review. Eur. Urol. 84, 191–206 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Das, H. & Rodriguez, R. Health care disparities in urologic oncology: a systematic review. Urology 136, 9–18 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Dess, R. T. et al. Association of black race with prostate cancer-specific and other-cause mortality. JAMA Oncol. 5, 975–983 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Kachuri, L. et al. Genetically adjusted PSA levels for prostate cancer screening. Nat. Med. 29, 1412–1423 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Huynh-Le, M.-P. et al. Polygenic hazard score is associated with prostate cancer in multi-ethnic populations. Nat. Commun. 12, 1236 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Mavaddat, N. et al. Incorporating alternative polygenic risk scores into the BOADICEA breast cancer risk prediction model. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. 32, 422–427 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Callender, T. et al. Polygenic risk-tailored screening for prostate cancer: a benefit–harm and cost-effectiveness modelling study. PLoS Med. 16, e1002998 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Guzauskas, G. F. et al. Population genomic screening for three common hereditary conditions: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann. Intern. Med. 176, 585–595 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Lacaze, P. et al. Combined population genomic screening for three high-risk conditions in Australia: a modelling study. eClinicalMedicine 66, 102297 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Loef, B. et al. Using random forest to identify longitudinal predictors of health in a 30-year cohort study. Sci. Rep. 12, 10372 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Bick, A. G. et al. Genomic data in the All of Us Research Program. Nature 627, 340–346 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Hamdy, F. C. et al. Fifteen-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 388, 1547–1558 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Tibshirani, R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the LASSO. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 58, 267–288 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Tibshirani, R. The LASSO method for variable selection in the Cox model. Stat. Med. 16, 385–395 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Li, Y. et al. FastPop: a rapid principal component derived method to infer intercontinental ancestry using genetic data. BMC Bioinform. 17, 122 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Auton, A. et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 526, 68–74 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Friedman, J. H., Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J. Stat. Softw. 33, 1–22 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Wendt, F. R. et al. Modeling the longitudinal changes of ancestry diversity in the Million Veteran Program. Hum. Genomics 17, 46 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 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).

  77. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. 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).

  79. Babadi, M. et al. GATK-gCNV enables the discovery of rare copy number variants from exome sequencing data. Nat. Genet. 55, 1589–1597 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines: Genetic/familial High-risk Assessment: Colorectal, version 2 (NCCN, 2023).

  81. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines: Genetic/familial High-risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, And Pancreatic, version 3 (NCCN, 2024).

  82. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

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

Correspondence to Jason L. Vassy or Tyler M. Seibert.

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.

Source data

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.

Source data

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.

Source data

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Template of laboratory report package for ProGRESS clinical trial, and MVP Consortium Members

Reporting Summary

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43018-025-01103-0

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer