| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Penney, K. L., et al.
(författare)
-
mRNA expression signature of Gleason grade predicts lethal prostate cancer
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - : American Society of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 29:17, s. 2391-2396
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: Prostate-specific antigen screening has led to enormous overtreatment of prostate cancer because of the inability to distinguish potentially lethal disease at diagnosis. We reasoned that by identifying an mRNA signature of Gleason grade, the best predictor of prognosis, we could improve prediction of lethal disease among men with moderate Gleason 7 tumors, the most common grade, and the most indeterminate in terms of prognosis.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the complementary DNA-mediated annealing, selection, extension, and ligation assay, we measured the mRNA expression of 6,100 genes in prostate tumor tissue in the Swedish Watchful Waiting cohort (n = 358) and Physicians' Health Study (PHS; n = 109). We developed an mRNA signature of Gleason grade comparing individuals with Gleason ≤ 6 to those with Gleason ≥ 8 tumors and applied the model among patients with Gleason 7 to discriminate lethal cases.RESULTS: We built a 157-gene signature using the Swedish data that predicted Gleason with low misclassification (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.91); when this signature was tested in the PHS, the discriminatory ability remained high (AUC = 0.94). In men with Gleason 7 tumors, who were excluded from the model building, the signature significantly improved the prediction of lethal disease beyond knowing whether the Gleason score was 4 + 3 or 3 + 4 (P = .006).CONCLUSION: Our expression signature and the genes identified may improve our understanding of the de-differentiation process of prostate tumors. Additionally, the signature may have clinical applications among men with Gleason 7, by further estimating their risk of lethal prostate cancer and thereby guiding therapy decisions to improve outcomes and reduce overtreatment.
|
|
| 3. |
- Flavin, Richard, et al.
(författare)
-
SPINK1 protein expression and prostate cancer progression
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Clinical Cancer Research. - Philadelphia, USA : American Association for Cancer Research. - 1078-0432 .- 1557-3265. ; 20:18, s. 4904-11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: SPINK1 overexpression has been described in prostate cancer and is linked with poor prognosis in many cancers. The objective of this study was to characterize the association between SPINK1 overexpression and prostate cancer-specific survival.Experimental design: The study included 879 participants in the U.S. Physicians' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, diagnosed with prostate cancer (1983-2004) and treated by radical prostatectomy. Protein tumor expression of SPINK1 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry on tumor tissue microarrays.Results: Seventy-four of 879 (8%) prostate cancer tumors were SPINK1 positive. Immunohistochemical data were available for PTEN, p-Akt, pS6, stathmin, androgen receptor (AR), and ERG (as a measure of the TMPRSS2:ERG translocation). Compared with SPINK1-negative tumors, SPINK1-positive tumors showed higher PTEN and stathmin expression, and lower expression of AR (P < 0.01). SPINK1 overexpression was seen in 47 of 427 (11%) ERG-negative samples and in 19 of 427 (4%) ERG-positive cases (P = 0.0003). We found no significant associations between SPINK1 status and Gleason grade or tumor stage. There was no association between SPINK1 expression and biochemical recurrence (P = 0.56). Moreover, there was no association between SPINK1 expression and prostate cancer mortality (there were 75 lethal cases of prostate cancer during a mean of 13.5 years follow-up; HR = 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-1.76).Conclusions: Our results suggest that SPINK1 protein expression may not be a predictor of recurrence or lethal prostate cancer amongst men treated by radical prostatectomy. SPINK1 and ERG protein expression do not seem to be entirely mutually exclusive, as some previous studies have suggested.
|
|
