BACKGROUND: Current prostate cancer prognostic models are based on pre-treatment prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, biopsy Gleason score, and clinical staging but in practice are inadequate to accurately predict disease progression. Hence, we sought to develop a molecular panel for prostate cancer progression by reasoning that molecular profiles might further improve current clinical models. METHODS: We analyzed a Swedish Watchful Waiting cohort with up to 30 years of clinical follow up using a novel method for gene expression profiling. This cDNA-mediated annealing, selection, ligation, and extension (DASL) method enabled the use of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) samples taken at the time of the initial diagnosis. We determined the expression profiles of 6100 genes for 281 men divided in two extreme groups: men who died of prostate cancer and men who survived more than 10 years without metastases (lethals and indolents, respectively). Several statistical and machine learning models using clinical and molecular features were evaluated for their ability to distinguish lethal from indolent cases. RESULTS: Surprisingly, none of the predictive models using molecular profiles significantly improved over models using clinical variables only. Additional computational analysis confirmed that molecular heterogeneity within both the lethal and indolent classes is widespread in prostate cancer as compared to other types of tumors. CONCLUSIONS: The determination of the molecularly dominant tumor nodule may be limited by sampling at time of initial diagnosis, may not be present at time of initial diagnosis, or may occur as the disease progresses making the development of molecular biomarkers for prostate cancer progression challenging.
BACKGROUND: Current prostate cancer prognostic models are based on pre-treatment prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, biopsy Gleason score, and clinical staging but in practice are inadequate to accurately predict disease progression. Hence, we sought to develop a molecular panel for prostate cancer progression by reasoning that molecular profiles might further improve current clinical models. METHODS: We analyzed a Swedish Watchful Waiting cohort with up to 30 years of clinical follow up using a novel method for gene expression profiling. This cDNA-mediated annealing, selection, ligation, and extension (DASL) method enabled the use of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) samples taken at the time of the initial diagnosis. We determined the expression profiles of 6100 genes for 281 men divided in two extreme groups: men who died of prostate cancer and men who survived more than 10 years without metastases (lethals and indolents, respectively). Several statistical and machine learning models using clinical and molecular features were evaluated for their ability to distinguish lethal from indolent cases. RESULTS: Surprisingly, none of the predictive models using molecular profiles significantly improved over models using clinical variables only. Additional computational analysis confirmed that molecular heterogeneity within both the lethal and indolent classes is widespread in prostate cancer as compared to other types of tumors. CONCLUSIONS: The determination of the molecularly dominant tumor nodule may be limited by sampling at time of initial diagnosis, may not be present at time of initial diagnosis, or may occur as the disease progresses making the development of molecular biomarkers for prostate cancer progression challenging.
Authors: L Cheng; S Y Song; T G Pretlow; F W Abdul-Karim; H J Kung; D V Dawson; W S Park; Y W Moon; M L Tsai; W M Linehan; M R Emmert-Buck; L A Liotta; Z Zhuang Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1998-02-04 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: T Sørlie; C M Perou; R Tibshirani; T Aas; S Geisler; H Johnsen; T Hastie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; T Thorsen; H Quist; J C Matese; P O Brown; D Botstein; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-09-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: T R Golub; D K Slonim; P Tamayo; C Huard; M Gaasenbeek; J P Mesirov; H Coller; M L Loh; J R Downing; M A Caligiuri; C D Bloomfield; E S Lander Journal: Science Date: 1999-10-15 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Jacques Lapointe; Chunde Li; John P Higgins; Matt van de Rijn; Eric Bair; Kelli Montgomery; Michelle Ferrari; Lars Egevad; Walter Rayford; Ulf Bergerheim; Peter Ekman; Angelo M DeMarzo; Robert Tibshirani; David Botstein; Patrick O Brown; James D Brooks; Jonathan R Pollack Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2004-01-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Dinesh Singh; Phillip G Febbo; Kenneth Ross; Donald G Jackson; Judith Manola; Christine Ladd; Pablo Tamayo; Andrew A Renshaw; Anthony V D'Amico; Jerome P Richie; Eric S Lander; Massimo Loda; Philip W Kantoff; Todd R Golub; William R Sellers Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Gennadi V Glinsky; Anna B Glinskii; Andrew J Stephenson; Robert M Hoffman; William L Gerald Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Alexandre De la Taille; Annick Viellefond; Nicole Berger; Eric Boucher; Marc De Fromont; Alain Fondimare; Vincent Molinié; Dominique Piron; Mathilde Sibony; Frédéric Staroz; Marie Triller; Eric Peltier; Nicolas Thiounn; Mark A Rubin Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: James L Chen; Jianrong Li; Kyle J Kiriluk; Alex M Rosen; Gladell P Paner; Tatjana Antic; Yves A Lussier; Donald J Vander Griend Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jennifer A Sinnott; Jennifer R Rider; Jessica Carlsson; Travis Gerke; Svitlana Tyekucheva; Kathryn L Penney; Howard D Sesso; Massimo Loda; Katja Fall; Meir J Stampfer; Lorelei A Mucci; Yudi Pawitan; Sven-Olof Andersson; Ove Andrén Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2015-04-13 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: Shazia Irshad; Mukesh Bansal; Mireia Castillo-Martin; Tian Zheng; Alvaro Aytes; Sven Wenske; Clémentine Le Magnen; Paolo Guarnieri; Pavel Sumazin; Mitchell C Benson; Michael M Shen; Andrea Califano; Cory Abate-Shen Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Dorothee Pflueger; Stéphane Terry; Andrea Sboner; Lukas Habegger; Raquel Esgueva; Pei-Chun Lin; Maria A Svensson; Naoki Kitabayashi; Benjamin J Moss; Theresa Y MacDonald; Xuhong Cao; Terrence Barrette; Ashutosh K Tewari; Mark S Chee; Arul M Chinnaiyan; David S Rickman; Francesca Demichelis; Mark B Gerstein; Mark A Rubin Journal: Genome Res Date: 2010-10-29 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Zhihu Ding; Chang-Jiun Wu; Gerald C Chu; Yonghong Xiao; Dennis Ho; Jingfang Zhang; Samuel R Perry; Emma S Labrot; Xiaoqiu Wu; Rosina Lis; Yujin Hoshida; David Hiller; Baoli Hu; Shan Jiang; Hongwu Zheng; Alexander H Stegh; Kenneth L Scott; Sabina Signoretti; Nabeel Bardeesy; Y Alan Wang; David E Hill; Todd R Golub; Meir J Stampfer; Wing H Wong; Massimo Loda; Lorelei Mucci; Lynda Chin; Ronald A DePinho Journal: Nature Date: 2011-02-02 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Chin-Lee Wu; Brock E Schroeder; Xiao-Jun Ma; Christopher J Cutie; Shulin Wu; Ranelle Salunga; Yi Zhang; Michael W Kattan; Catherine A Schnabel; Mark G Erlander; W Scott McDougal Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 11.205