K-C Huang1, M Dolph, B Donnelly, T A Bismar. 1. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary and Calgary Laboratory Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: ERG expression has been proposed to signify molecular subtype of PCA. However, its significance in early onset prostate cancer (PCA) is not characterized. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ERG protein expression was investigated in a cohort of 121 men diagnosed with localized PCA at <50 years of age with a mean follow-up time of 65.7 months. ERG was correlated to patients' outcome and clinical-pathological parameters using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: ERG expression was detected in 76/118 (64.4 %) analyzable patients' samples and showed interfocal heterogeneity (differences between foci) in 17/118 (14.4 %) patients. There was significant association between ERG expression and Gleason score (p = 0.022), but not with any other clinical-pathologic parameter, including pre-surgical PSA levels, tumor volume, pathological stage, surgical margin or lymph-vascular invasion. ERG had significant effect on the rate of biochemical relapse following radical prostatectomy, with ERG positive patients showing higher relapse rates vs. ERG negative patients (p = 0.007). However, considering time till biochemical relapse post-radical prostatectomy, ERG expression showed positive insignificant trends (p = 0.071). Notably, and of great significance, in this cohort of early onset disease, none of the ERG negative PCA patients exhibited biochemical relapse. CONCLUSION: The study results suggest that ERG expression may be of added prognostic value in localized prostate cancer in patients with early onset PCA. However, the issue of ERG interfocal heterogeneity observed may require the evaluation of several tumor foci to assess ERG status per case. Incorporating ERG status into existing nomograms may be of added prognostic value in patients with early onset PCA.
PURPOSE:ERG expression has been proposed to signify molecular subtype of PCA. However, its significance in early onset prostate cancer (PCA) is not characterized. MATERIALS AND METHODS:ERG protein expression was investigated in a cohort of 121 men diagnosed with localized PCA at <50 years of age with a mean follow-up time of 65.7 months. ERG was correlated to patients' outcome and clinical-pathological parameters using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS:ERG expression was detected in 76/118 (64.4 %) analyzable patients' samples and showed interfocal heterogeneity (differences between foci) in 17/118 (14.4 %) patients. There was significant association between ERG expression and Gleason score (p = 0.022), but not with any other clinical-pathologic parameter, including pre-surgical PSA levels, tumor volume, pathological stage, surgical margin or lymph-vascular invasion. ERG had significant effect on the rate of biochemical relapse following radical prostatectomy, with ERG positive patients showing higher relapse rates vs. ERG negative patients (p = 0.007). However, considering time till biochemical relapse post-radical prostatectomy, ERG expression showed positive insignificant trends (p = 0.071). Notably, and of great significance, in this cohort of early onset disease, none of the ERG negative PCA patients exhibited biochemical relapse. CONCLUSION: The study results suggest that ERG expression may be of added prognostic value in localized prostate cancer in patients with early onset PCA. However, the issue of ERG interfocal heterogeneity observed may require the evaluation of several tumor foci to assess ERG status per case. Incorporating ERG status into existing nomograms may be of added prognostic value in patients with early onset PCA.
Authors: Maisa Yoshimoto; Anthony M Joshua; Isabela W Cunha; Renata A Coudry; Francisco P Fonseca; Olga Ludkovski; Maria Zielenska; Fernando A Soares; Jeremy A Squire Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2008-05-23 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Outi R Saramäki; Anna E Harjula; Paula M Martikainen; Robert L Vessella; Teuvo L J Tammela; Tapio Visakorpi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-06-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Sven Perner; Juan-Miguel Mosquera; Francesca Demichelis; Matthias D Hofer; Pamela L Paris; Jeff Simko; Colin Collins; Tarek A Bismar; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Angelo M De Marzo; Mark A Rubin Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Andrew D Darnel; Christopher J Lafargue; Robin T Vollmer; Jacques Corcos; Tarek A Bismar Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2009-02-04 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Anuradha Gopalan; Margaret A Leversha; Jaya M Satagopan; Qin Zhou; Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie; Samson W Fine; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Howard I Scher; Satish K Tickoo; Victor E Reuter; William L Gerald Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-02-03 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: A H M Reid; G Attard; L Ambroisine; G Fisher; G Kovacs; D Brewer; J Clark; P Flohr; S Edwards; D M Berney; C S Foster; A Fletcher; W L Gerald; H Møller; V E Reuter; P T Scardino; J Cuzick; J S de Bono; C S Cooper Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: G Schaefer; J-M Mosquera; R Ramoner; K Park; A Romanel; E Steiner; W Horninger; J Bektic; M Ladurner-Rennau; M A Rubin; F Demichelis; H Klocker Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 5.554
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: Kuo-Cheng Huang; Mohammed Alshalalfa; Samar A Hegazy; Michael Dolph; Bryan Donnelly; Tarek A Bismar Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2014-06-27 Impact factor: 4.742