{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.054524361948955914, 'fraction_numerical': 0.06264501160092807, 'mean_word_length': 4.769230769230769, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 6, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Macrophage Scavenger Receptor 1 999C>T (R293X) Mutation and Risk of Prostate Cancer

Background: Variants in the gene encoding the macrophage scavenger receptor 1 (MSR14) protein have been identified in men with prostate cancer, and several small studies have suggested that the 999C>T (R293X) protein-truncating mutation may be associated with an increased risk for this disease. Methods: Using large case-control, cohort, and prostate cancer family studies conducted in several Western countries, we tested for the 999C>T mutation in 2,943 men with invasive prostate carcinoma, including 401 males from multiple-case families, 1,982 cases unselected for age, and 575 men diagnosed before the age of 56 years, and in 2,870 male controls. Risk ratios were estimated by unconditional logistic regression adjusting for country and by a modified segregation analysis. A meta-analysis was conducted pooling our data with published data. Results: The prevalence of MSR1*999C>T mutation carriers was 0.027 (SE, 0.003) in cases and 0.022 (SE, 0.002) in controls, and did not differ by country, ethnicity, or source. The adjusted risk ratio for prostate cancer associated with being a 999C>T carrier was 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.93-1.84; P = 0.16]. The modified segregation analysis estimated the risk ratio to be 1.20 (95% CI, 0.87-1.66; P = 0.16). The risk ratio estimated from the meta-analysis was 1.34 (95% CI, 0.94-1.89; P = 0.10). Conclusion: Our large-scale analysis of case and controls from several countries found no evidence that the 999C>T mutation is associated with increased risk of prostate cancer. The meta-analysis suggests it is unlikely that this mutation confers more than a 2-fold increased risk.