Abstract 7320: Expression of circadian rhythm genes and lethal prostate cancer
Authors: Vaselkiv Jane Bailey , Markt Sarah C. , Guard Hannah E. , Wang Anqi , Penney Kathryn L. , Stopsack Konrad H. , Mucci Lorelei A. 
Published: March 2024

Background: The circadian rhythm regulates diverse physiological and oncologic processes. We have previously shown in epidemiology studies that disruption of the circadian rhythm may be associated with increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer, including germline polymorphisms in certain circadian rhythm genes. This study sought to investigate the relationship between tumor circadian rhythm gene expression and lethal prostate cancer.

Methods: We studied patients with primary prostate cancer in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) and Physicians’ Health Study (PHS). We created a composite score of mRNA expression using principal components that incorporated 11 circadian rhythm genes: AANAT, ARNTL, CLOCK, CRY1, CSNK1E, MTNR1A, MTNR1B, NPAS2, PER1, PER2, PER3. An age-stratified analysis was performed, and the mean differences of the score both by Gleason score and compared to normal tissue were calculated. The relationship between the score in prostate tumor tissue and lethal prostate cancer (metastases/prostate cancer-specific death) vs. indolent disease (no metastases after &gt;8 years of follow-up) was assessed using logistic regression. The contribution of each gene was evaluated by leave-one-out analysis, generating scores leaving out one gene and assessing the relationship between the modified score and lethal disease.

Results: Among 404 cancer patients in HPFS/PHS, there were 119 lethal events over 30 years of follow-up (median: 17 years). The circadian rhythm gene score was lower in tumor tissue compared to tumor-adjacent, histologically normal tissue (mean difference in units of standard deviation [SD] of gene score: -0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.48 to -0.15). In addition, the score was lower in Gleason 9-10 compared to Gleason 6 tumors (mean difference in SD units: -1.05, 95% CI: -1.55 to -0.54). The three PER genes were the most strongly correlated with each other and with the score (Spearman correlation coefficients from 0.52-0.88 for the score and 0.31-0.63 between PER genes). Higher circadian rhythm gene scores were inversely associated with lethal prostate cancer (odds ratio [OR] for highest vs. lowest quartile: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.90) in a dose-response fashion and after adjusting for clinical and pathologic factors. The association appeared to be stronger in patients aged ≥65 years (OR for highest vs. lowest quartile: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.47) compared to &lt;65 years at diagnosis (OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.29, 2.17). Results were consistent in the leave-one-out analysis for all genes except PER2 (OR for highest vs. lowest quartile: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.83) and PER1 (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.30 to 1).

Conclusion: This study examining intratumoral circadian rhythm gene expression contributes further evidence in support of the relationship between circadian rhythm disruption and aggressive prostate cancer. Tumor expression of PER1 and PER2 may be a predominant factor in the association.

Citation Format: Jane Bailey Vaselkiv, Sarah C. Markt, Hannah E. Guard, Anqi Wang, Kathryn L. Penney, Konrad H. Stopsack, Lorelei A. Mucci. Expression of circadian rhythm genes and lethal prostate cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 7320.