BACKGROUND: Biomarkers are urgently needed to dissect the heterogeneity of prostate cancer between patients to improve treatment and accelerate drug development. We analysed blood mRNA expression arrays to identify patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with poorer outcome. METHODS: Whole blood was collected into PAXgene tubes from patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and patients with prostate cancer selected for active surveillance. In stage I (derivation set), patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer were used as cases and patients under active surveillance were used as controls. These patients were recruited from The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (Sutton, UK) and The Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre (Glasgow, UK). In stage II (validation-set), patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer recruited from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (New York, USA) were assessed. Whole-blood RNA was hybridised to Affymetrix U133plus2 microarrays. Expression profiles were analysed with Bayesian latent process decomposition (LPD) to identify RNA expression profiles associated with castration-resistant prostate cancer subgroups; these profiles were then confirmed by quantative reverse transcriptase (qRT) PCR studies and correlated with overall survival in both the test-set and validation-set. FINDINGS: LPD analyses of the mRNA expression data divided the evaluable patients in stage I (n=94) into four groups. All patients in LPD1 (14 of 14) and most in LPD2 (17 of 18) had castration-resistant prostate cancer. Patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and those under active surveillance comprised LPD3 (15 of 31 castration-resistant prostate cancer) and LDP4 (12 of 21 castration-resistant prostate cancer). Patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer in the LPD1 subgroup had features associated with worse prognosis and poorer overall survival than patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer in other LPD subgroups (LPD1 overall survival 10·7 months [95% CI 4·1-17·2] vs non-LPD1 25·6 months [18·0-33·4]; p<0·0001). A nine-gene signature verified by qRT-PCR classified patients into this LPD1 subgroup with a very low percentage of misclassification (1·2%). The ten patients who were initially unclassifiable by the LPD analyses were subclassified by this signature. We confirmed the prognostic utility of this nine-gene signature in the validation castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort, where LPD1 membership was also associated with worse overall survival (LPD1 9·2 months [95% CI 2·1-16·4] vs non-LPD1 21·6 months [7·5-35·6]; p=0·001), and remained an independent prognostic factor in multivariable analyses for both cohorts. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that whole-blood gene profiling could identify gene-expression signatures that stratify patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer into distinct prognostic groups. FUNDING: AstraZeneca, Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, Prostate Cancer Charity, Prostate Cancer Foundation.
BACKGROUND: Biomarkers are urgently needed to dissect the heterogeneity of prostate cancer between patients to improve treatment and accelerate drug development. We analysed blood mRNA expression arrays to identify patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with poorer outcome. METHODS: Whole blood was collected into PAXgene tubes from patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and patients with prostate cancer selected for active surveillance. In stage I (derivation set), patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer were used as cases and patients under active surveillance were used as controls. These patients were recruited from The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (Sutton, UK) and The Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre (Glasgow, UK). In stage II (validation-set), patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer recruited from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (New York, USA) were assessed. Whole-blood RNA was hybridised to Affymetrix U133plus2 microarrays. Expression profiles were analysed with Bayesian latent process decomposition (LPD) to identify RNA expression profiles associated with castration-resistant prostate cancer subgroups; these profiles were then confirmed by quantative reverse transcriptase (qRT) PCR studies and correlated with overall survival in both the test-set and validation-set. FINDINGS: LPD analyses of the mRNA expression data divided the evaluable patients in stage I (n=94) into four groups. All patients in LPD1 (14 of 14) and most in LPD2 (17 of 18) had castration-resistant prostate cancer. Patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and those under active surveillance comprised LPD3 (15 of 31 castration-resistant prostate cancer) and LDP4 (12 of 21 castration-resistant prostate cancer). Patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer in the LPD1 subgroup had features associated with worse prognosis and poorer overall survival than patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer in other LPD subgroups (LPD1 overall survival 10·7 months [95% CI 4·1-17·2] vs non-LPD1 25·6 months [18·0-33·4]; p<0·0001). A nine-gene signature verified by qRT-PCR classified patients into this LPD1 subgroup with a very low percentage of misclassification (1·2%). The ten patients who were initially unclassifiable by the LPD analyses were subclassified by this signature. We confirmed the prognostic utility of this nine-gene signature in the validation castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort, where LPD1 membership was also associated with worse overall survival (LPD1 9·2 months [95% CI 2·1-16·4] vs non-LPD1 21·6 months [7·5-35·6]; p=0·001), and remained an independent prognostic factor in multivariable analyses for both cohorts. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that whole-blood gene profiling could identify gene-expression signatures that stratify patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer into distinct prognostic groups. FUNDING: AstraZeneca, Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, Prostate Cancer Charity, Prostate Cancer Foundation.
Authors: A Brazma; P Hingamp; J Quackenbush; G Sherlock; P Spellman; C Stoeckert; J Aach; W Ansorge; C A Ball; H C Causton; T Gaasterland; P Glenisson; F C Holstege; I F Kim; V Markowitz; J C Matese; H Parkinson; A Robinson; U Sarkans; S Schulze-Kremer; J Stewart; R Taylor; J Vilo; M Vingron Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Lisa M McShane; Douglas G Altman; Willi Sauerbrei; Sheila E Taube; Massimo Gion; Gary M Clark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-09-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Robert W Ross; Matthew D Galsky; Howard I Scher; Jay Magidson; Karl Wassmann; Gwo-Shu Mary Lee; Leah Katz; Sumit K Subudhi; Aseem Anand; Martin Fleisher; Philip W Kantoff; William K Oh Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-10-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Yusuke Shiozawa; Elisabeth A Pedersen; Aaron M Havens; Younghun Jung; Anjali Mishra; Jeena Joseph; Jin Koo Kim; Lalit R Patel; Chi Ying; Anne M Ziegler; Michael J Pienta; Junhui Song; Jingcheng Wang; Robert D Loberg; Paul H Krebsbach; Kenneth J Pienta; Russell S Taichman Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 14.808
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: Paul C Boutros; Michael Fraser; Nicholas J Harding; Richard de Borja; Dominique Trudel; Emilie Lalonde; Alice Meng; Pablo H Hennings-Yeomans; Andrew McPherson; Veronica Y Sabelnykova; Amin Zia; Natalie S Fox; Julie Livingstone; Yu-Jia Shiah; Jianxin Wang; Timothy A Beck; Cherry L Have; Taryne Chong; Michelle Sam; Jeremy Johns; Lee Timms; Nicholas Buchner; Ada Wong; John D Watson; Trent T Simmons; Christine P'ng; Gaetano Zafarana; Francis Nguyen; Xuemei Luo; Kenneth C Chu; Stephenie D Prokopec; Jenna Sykes; Alan Dal Pra; Alejandro Berlin; Andrew Brown; Michelle A Chan-Seng-Yue; Fouad Yousif; Robert E Denroche; Lauren C Chong; Gregory M Chen; Esther Jung; Clement Fung; Maud H W Starmans; Hanbo Chen; Shaylan K Govind; James Hawley; Alister D'Costa; Melania Pintilie; Daryl Waggott; Faraz Hach; Philippe Lambin; Lakshmi B Muthuswamy; Colin Cooper; Rosalind Eeles; David Neal; Bernard Tetu; Cenk Sahinalp; Lincoln D Stein; Neil Fleshner; Sohrab P Shah; Colin C Collins; Thomas J Hudson; John D McPherson; Theodorus van der Kwast; Robert G Bristow Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2015-05-25 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Varadha Balaji Venkadakrishnan; Adam D DePriest; Sangeeta Kumari; Dhirodatta Senapati; Salma Ben-Salem; Yixue Su; Giridhar Mudduluru; Qiang Hu; Eduardo Cortes; Elena Pop; James L Mohler; Gissou Azabdaftari; Kristopher Attwood; Rajal B Shah; Christina Jamieson; Scott M Dehm; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Eric Klein; Nima Sharifi; Song Liu; Hannelore V Heemers Journal: Oncogene Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Rachel S Kelly; Matthew G Vander Heiden; Edward Giovannucci; Lorelei A Mucci Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 4.254