PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to examine whether TMPRSS2:ERG fusion or SPINK1 protein expression is associated with hormone responsiveness of prostate cancer and can thus be used as a biomarker. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Diagnostic needle biopsies from prostate cancer patients primarily treated by endocrine therapy were evaluated for TMPRSS2:ERG fusion with fluorescence in situ hybridization and SPINK1 protein expression with immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: The frequency of TMPRSS2:ERG fusion in 178 biopsies of hormonally treated patients was 34%. Of the fusion-positive cases, 71% showed deletion between the two genes, and 23% showed gain of the fusion. The fusion was associated with high Ki-67 staining (P=0.001), age at diagnosis (P=0.024), and tumor area (P=0.006), but not with Gleason score, T stage, M stage, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), or progression-free survival. Strong positive SPINK1 expression was found in 11% (21 of 186) of the biopsies. SPINK1-positive cases had significantly shorter progression-free survival compared with SPINK1-negative cases (P=0.001). The expression was not associated with any other clinicopathologic variables studied. In a multivariate analysis, SPINK1 expression showed independent prognostic value, with a relative risk of 2.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.6). SPINK1 expression and the fusion were not associated with each other. CONCLUSIONS: There was no association between TMPRSS2:ERG fusion and prognosis, suggesting that TMPRSS2:ERG rearrangement does not implicate hormone dependence of the cancer. SPINK1 expression, found in approximately 10% of prostate cancers, was associated with aggressive form of the disease and could serve as a biomarker in endocrine-treated prostate cancer. Copyright (c) 2010 AACR.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to examine whether TMPRSS2:ERG fusion or SPINK1 protein expression is associated with hormone responsiveness of prostate cancer and can thus be used as a biomarker. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Diagnostic needle biopsies from prostate cancerpatients primarily treated by endocrine therapy were evaluated for TMPRSS2:ERG fusion with fluorescence in situ hybridization and SPINK1 protein expression with immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: The frequency of TMPRSS2:ERG fusion in 178 biopsies of hormonally treated patients was 34%. Of the fusion-positive cases, 71% showed deletion between the two genes, and 23% showed gain of the fusion. The fusion was associated with high Ki-67 staining (P=0.001), age at diagnosis (P=0.024), and tumor area (P=0.006), but not with Gleason score, T stage, M stage, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), or progression-free survival. Strong positive SPINK1 expression was found in 11% (21 of 186) of the biopsies. SPINK1-positive cases had significantly shorter progression-free survival compared with SPINK1-negative cases (P=0.001). The expression was not associated with any other clinicopathologic variables studied. In a multivariate analysis, SPINK1 expression showed independent prognostic value, with a relative risk of 2.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.6). SPINK1 expression and the fusion were not associated with each other. CONCLUSIONS: There was no association between TMPRSS2:ERG fusion and prognosis, suggesting that TMPRSS2:ERG rearrangement does not implicate hormone dependence of the cancer. SPINK1 expression, found in approximately 10% of prostate cancers, was associated with aggressive form of the disease and could serve as a biomarker in endocrine-treated prostate cancer. Copyright (c) 2010 AACR.
Authors: Richard Flavin; Andreas Pettersson; Whitney K Hendrickson; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Stephen Finn; Lauren Kunz; Gregory L Judson; Rosina Lis; Dyane Bailey; Christopher Fiore; Elizabeth Nuttall; Neil E Martin; Edward Stack; Kathryn L Penney; Jennifer R Rider; Jennifer Sinnott; Christopher Sweeney; Howard D Sesso; Katja Fall; Edward Giovannucci; Philip Kantoff; Meir Stampfer; Massimo Loda; Lorelei A Mucci Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Rebecca E Graff; Andreas Pettersson; Rosina T Lis; Natalie DuPre; Kristina M Jordahl; Elizabeth Nuttall; Jennifer R Rider; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Howard D Sesso; Stacey A Kenfield; Massimo Loda; Edward L Giovannucci; Bernard Rosner; Paul L Nguyen; Christopher J Sweeney; Lorelei A Mucci Journal: Prostate Date: 2015-03-01 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Ramy A Abdelsalam; Ibrahim Khalifeh; Alan Box; Maria Kalantarian; Sunita Ghosh; Hatem Abou-Ouf; Tamara Lotfi; Mohammed Shahait; Nallasivam Palanisamy; Tarek A Bismar Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Cindy Ke Zhou; Denise Young; Edward D Yeboah; Sally B Coburn; Yao Tettey; Richard B Biritwum; Andrew A Adjei; Evelyn Tay; Shelley Niwa; Ann Truelove; Judith Welsh; James E Mensah; Robert N Hoover; Isabell A Sesterhenn; Ann W Hsing; Shiv Srivastava; Michael B Cook Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Gina M Sizemore; Jason R Pitarresi; Subhasree Balakrishnan; Michael C Ostrowski Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 60.716
Authors: Oliver Patschan; Shahrokh F Shariat; Daher C Chade; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Raheela Ashfaq; Yair Lotan; Kristina Hotakainen; Ulf-Håkan Stenman; Anders Bjartell Journal: World J Urol Date: 2011-07-08 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Riina-Minna Väänänen; Hans Lilja; Leni Kauko; Pauliina Helo; Henna Kekki; Angel M Cronin; Andrew J Vickers; Martti Nurmi; Kalle Alanen; Anders Bjartell; Kim Pettersson Journal: Urology Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 2.649