MP28-07 PREDICTIVE MODEL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PEYRONIE’S DISEASE: GENETIC AND ASSOCIATED RISK FACTORS

Le résumé fourni par la source

You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Peyronie's Disease (MP28)1 May 2024MP28-07 PREDICTIVE MODEL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PEYRONIE'S DISEASE: GENETIC AND ASSOCIATED RISK FACTORS Abrar H. Mian, Zhuqing Shi, Jun Wei, Huy Tran, Tobias Kohler, Matthew Ziegelmann, and Jianfeng Xu Abrar H. MianAbrar H. Mian , Zhuqing ShiZhuqing Shi , Jun WeiJun Wei , Huy TranHuy Tran , Tobias KohlerTobias Kohler , Matthew ZiegelmannMatthew Ziegelmann , and Jianfeng XuJianfeng Xu View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008872.42208.7a.07AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The pathophysiology underlying Peyronie's Disease (PD) is complex and poorly understood but is suspected to include a genetic predisposition. To date, there is a relative paucity of literature discussing clinical risk factors along with genetic roots. We aimed to elucidate these factors within a large population-based cohort from the United Kingdom Biobank (UKB) and investigate the potential genetic predisposition towards PD. METHODS: The UKB includes approximately 500,000 individuals from across the UK aged 40 to 69 at recruitment. Extensive phenotypic and genomic information was available for each participant. PD and other diagnoses were based on respective ICD code from inpatient and outpatient records over a median 12.5 years of follow-up. We identified candidate risk factors for PD reported in the literature and investigated them in 1,227 PD cases and 228,420 PD controls from the UKB. The polygenic scores (PGS), which are sums of the weighted effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms from genomic wide association studies, of various diseases and traits were calculated based on respective scoring files from the PGS catalog. Associations between PD and other clinical and genetic risk factors were tested using the logistic regression model, adjusting for age at recruitment and genetic background. RESULTS: We confirmed that age, obesity, Dupuytren's contractures (DC), type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD), and low testosterone were significantly associated with PD, while smoking and blood type O were not. Importantly, PGS of several PD-associated risk factors, including DC, T2D, and CAD, were significantly associated with PD risk. This implies that the associations between PD and clinical risk factors may stem from shared genetic etiologies, mitigating the effect of external bias. Genetic probability of PD (Gen-ProbPD), measured by PGS of DC, T2D, and CAD, significantly predicted PD risk (p<0.0001), which implicates that there is a genetic predisposition to developing PD. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm the significant association of several clinical and genetic factors with PD. There exists a notable genetic predisposition towards PD, as demonstrated by the significant PGS associations. The comprehensive nature of our study, coupled with robust bias mitigation measures, ensures that the observed associations are more representative of inherent biological factors rather than external biases. Our results may help identify patients at risk of developing PD so that they may be counseled appropriately. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e475 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Abrar H. Mian More articles by this author Zhuqing Shi More articles by this author Jun Wei More articles by this author Huy Tran More articles by this author Tobias Kohler More articles by this author Matthew Ziegelmann More articles by this author Jianfeng Xu More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.