BACKGROUND: TMPRSS2:ERG fusions are promising prostate cancer biomarkers. Because they can occur in multiple forms in a single cancer specimen, we developed a quantitative PCR test that detects both type III and type VI TMPRSS2:ERG fusions. The assay is quantified from a standard curve determined with a plasmid-cloned type III TMPRSS2:ERG fusion target. METHODS: We collected expressed prostatic secretion (EPS) under an institutional review board-approved, blinded, prospective study from 74 patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy for prostate cancer. We compared the characteristic performance of the test for type III and type VI TMPRSS2:ERG fusions in predicting biopsy outcome and distinguishing between high and low Gleason scores with similar tests for the expression of PCA3 and DNA methylation levels of the APC, RARB, RASSF1, and GSTP1 genes. We used logistic regression to analyze the effects of multiple biomarkers in linear combinations. RESULTS: Each test provided a significant improvement in characteristic performance over baseline digital rectal examination (DRE) plus serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA); however, the test for type III and type VI TMPRSS2:ERG fusions yielded the best performance in predicting biopsy outcome [area under the curve (AUC) 0.823, 95% CI 0.728-0.919, P < 0.001] and Gleason grade >7 (AUC 0.844, 95% CI 0.740-0.948, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although each test appears to have diagnostic value, PSA plus DRE plus type III and type VI TMPRSS2:ERG provided the best diagnostic performance in EPS specimens.
BACKGROUND:TMPRSS2:ERG fusions are promising prostate cancer biomarkers. Because they can occur in multiple forms in a single cancer specimen, we developed a quantitative PCR test that detects both type III and type VI TMPRSS2:ERG fusions. The assay is quantified from a standard curve determined with a plasmid-cloned type III TMPRSS2:ERG fusion target. METHODS: We collected expressed prostatic secretion (EPS) under an institutional review board-approved, blinded, prospective study from 74 patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy for prostate cancer. We compared the characteristic performance of the test for type III and type VI TMPRSS2:ERG fusions in predicting biopsy outcome and distinguishing between high and low Gleason scores with similar tests for the expression of PCA3 and DNA methylation levels of the APC, RARB, RASSF1, and GSTP1 genes. We used logistic regression to analyze the effects of multiple biomarkers in linear combinations. RESULTS: Each test provided a significant improvement in characteristic performance over baseline digital rectal examination (DRE) plus serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA); however, the test for type III and type VI TMPRSS2:ERG fusions yielded the best performance in predicting biopsy outcome [area under the curve (AUC) 0.823, 95% CI 0.728-0.919, P < 0.001] and Gleason grade >7 (AUC 0.844, 95% CI 0.740-0.948, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although each test appears to have diagnostic value, PSA plus DRE plus type III and type VI TMPRSS2:ERG provided the best diagnostic performance in EPS specimens.
Authors: Scott A Tomlins; Daniel R Rhodes; Sven Perner; Saravana M Dhanasekaran; Rohit Mehra; Xiao-Wei Sun; Sooryanarayana Varambally; Xuhong Cao; Joelle Tchinda; Rainer Kuefer; Charles Lee; James E Montie; Rajal B Shah; Kenneth J Pienta; Mark A Rubin; Arul M Chinnaiyan Journal: Science Date: 2005-10-28 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Mohammad Obaidul Hoque; Ozlem Topaloglu; Shahnaz Begum; Rui Henrique; Eli Rosenbaum; Wim Van Criekinge; William H Westra; David Sidransky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bharathi Laxman; Scott A Tomlins; Rohit Mehra; David S Morris; Lei Wang; Beth E Helgeson; Rajal B Shah; Mark A Rubin; John T Wei; Arul M Chinnaiyan Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: Sven Perner; Francesca Demichelis; Rameen Beroukhim; Folke H Schmidt; Juan-Miguel Mosquera; Sunita Setlur; Joelle Tchinda; Scott A Tomlins; Matthias D Hofer; Kenneth G Pienta; Rainer Kuefer; Robert Vessella; Xiao-Wei Sun; Matthew Meyerson; Charles Lee; William R Sellers; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Mark A Rubin Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-09-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Laura E Crocitto; Darlynn Korns; Leo Kretzner; Taras Shevchuk; Sarah L Blair; Timothy G Wilson; Soroush A Ramin; Mark H Kawachi; Steven S Smith Journal: Urology Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Bharathi Laxman; David S Morris; Jianjun Yu; Javed Siddiqui; Jie Cao; Rohit Mehra; Robert J Lonigro; Alex Tsodikov; John T Wei; Scott A Tomlins; Arul M Chinnaiyan Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Christopher Whelan; Laura Crocitto; Mark Kawachi; Kevin Chan; David Smith; Timothy Wilson; Steven Smith Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Andreas Pettersson; Rebecca E Graff; Scott R Bauer; Michael J Pitt; Rosina T Lis; Edward C Stack; Neil E Martin; Lauren Kunz; Kathryn L Penney; Azra H Ligon; Catherine Suppan; Richard Flavin; Howard D Sesso; Jennifer R Rider; Christopher Sweeney; Meir J Stampfer; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Philip W Kantoff; Martin G Sanda; Edward L Giovannucci; Eric L Ding; Massimo Loda; Lorelei A Mucci Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Simpa S Salami; Folke Schmidt; Bharathi Laxman; Meredith M Regan; David S Rickman; Douglas Scherr; Gerardina Bueti; Javed Siddiqui; Scott A Tomlins; John T Wei; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Mark A Rubin; Martin G Sanda Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2011-05-19 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Nicolas Barry Delongchamps; Patrick Younes; Lydie Denjean; Marc Zerbib; Phuong-Nhi Bories Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-07-05 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Kristina Wittig; Johnathan L Yamzon; David D Smith; Daniel R Jeske; Steven S Smith Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-08-19 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: B G Barwick; M Abramovitz; M Kodani; C S Moreno; R Nam; W Tang; M Bouzyk; A Seth; B Leyland-Jones Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-01-12 Impact factor: 7.640