Scott A Tomlins1, Mohammed Alshalalfa2, Elai Davicioni2, Nicholas Erho2, Kasra Yousefi2, Shuang Zhao3, Zaid Haddad2, Robert B Den4, Adam P Dicker4, Bruce J Trock5, Angelo M DeMarzo5, Ashley E Ross5, Edward M Schaeffer5, Eric A Klein6, Cristina Magi-Galluzzi6, R Jeffrey Karnes7, Robert B Jenkins8, Felix Y Feng9. 1. Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Department of Pathology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Department of Urology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: tomlinss@umich.edu. 2. GenomeDx Bioscience Inc., Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Kimmel Cancer Center, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Glickman Urological & Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 7. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 8. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 9. Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: ffeng@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) molecular subtypes have been defined by essentially mutually exclusive events, including ETS gene fusions (most commonly involving ERG) and SPINK1 overexpression. Clinical assessment may aid in disease stratification, complementing available prognostic tests. OBJECTIVE: To determine the analytical validity and clinicopatholgic associations of microarray-based molecular subtyping. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed Affymetrix GeneChip expression profiles for 1577 patients from eight radical prostatectomy cohorts, including 1351 cases assessed using the Decipher prognostic assay (GenomeDx Biosciences, San Diego, CA, USA) performed in a laboratory with Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendment certification. A microarray-based (m-) random forest ERG classification model was trained and validated. Outlier expression analysis was used to predict other mutually exclusive non-ERG ETS gene rearrangements (ETS(+)) or SPINK1 overexpression (SPINK1(+)). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Associations with clinical features and outcomes by multivariate logistic regression analysis and receiver operating curves. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The m-ERG classifier showed 95% accuracy in an independent validation subset (155 samples). Across cohorts, 45% of PCas were classified as m-ERG(+), 9% as m-ETS(+), 8% as m-SPINK1(+), and 38% as triple negative (m-ERG(-)/m-ETS(-)/m-SPINK1(-)). Gene expression profiling supports three underlying molecularly defined groups: m-ERG(+), m-ETS(+), and m-SPINK1(+)/triple negative. On multivariate analysis, m-ERG(+) tumors were associated with lower preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen and Gleason scores, but greater extraprostatic extension (p<0.001). m-ETS(+) tumors were associated with seminal vesicle invasion (p=0.01), while m-SPINK1(+)/triple negative tumors had higher Gleason scores and were more frequent in Black/African American patients (p<0.001). Clinical outcomes were not significantly different among subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: A clinically available prognostic test (Decipher) can also assess PCa molecular subtypes, obviating the need for additional testing. Clinicopathologic differences were found among subtypes based on global expression patterns. PATIENT SUMMARY: Molecular subtyping of prostate cancer can be achieved using extra data generated from a clinical-grade, genome-wide expression-profiling prognostic assay (Decipher). Transcriptomic and clinical analysis support three distinct molecular subtypes: (1) m-ERG(+), (2) m-ETS(+), and (3) m-SPINK1(+)/triple negative (m-ERG(-)/m-ETS(-)/m-SPINK1(-)). Incorporation of subtyping into a clinically available assay may facilitate additional applications beyond routine prognosis.
BACKGROUND:Prostate cancer (PCa) molecular subtypes have been defined by essentially mutually exclusive events, including ETS gene fusions (most commonly involving ERG) and SPINK1 overexpression. Clinical assessment may aid in disease stratification, complementing available prognostic tests. OBJECTIVE: To determine the analytical validity and clinicopatholgic associations of microarray-based molecular subtyping. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed Affymetrix GeneChip expression profiles for 1577 patients from eight radical prostatectomy cohorts, including 1351 cases assessed using the Decipher prognostic assay (GenomeDx Biosciences, San Diego, CA, USA) performed in a laboratory with Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendment certification. A microarray-based (m-) random forest ERG classification model was trained and validated. Outlier expression analysis was used to predict other mutually exclusive non-ERG ETS gene rearrangements (ETS(+)) or SPINK1 overexpression (SPINK1(+)). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Associations with clinical features and outcomes by multivariate logistic regression analysis and receiver operating curves. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The m-ERG classifier showed 95% accuracy in an independent validation subset (155 samples). Across cohorts, 45% of PCas were classified as m-ERG(+), 9% as m-ETS(+), 8% as m-SPINK1(+), and 38% as triple negative (m-ERG(-)/m-ETS(-)/m-SPINK1(-)). Gene expression profiling supports three underlying molecularly defined groups: m-ERG(+), m-ETS(+), and m-SPINK1(+)/triple negative. On multivariate analysis, m-ERG(+) tumors were associated with lower preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen and Gleason scores, but greater extraprostatic extension (p<0.001). m-ETS(+) tumors were associated with seminal vesicle invasion (p=0.01), while m-SPINK1(+)/triple negative tumors had higher Gleason scores and were more frequent in Black/African American patients (p<0.001). Clinical outcomes were not significantly different among subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: A clinically available prognostic test (Decipher) can also assess PCa molecular subtypes, obviating the need for additional testing. Clinicopathologic differences were found among subtypes based on global expression patterns. PATIENT SUMMARY: Molecular subtyping of prostate cancer can be achieved using extra data generated from a clinical-grade, genome-wide expression-profiling prognostic assay (Decipher). Transcriptomic and clinical analysis support three distinct molecular subtypes: (1) m-ERG(+), (2) m-ETS(+), and (3) m-SPINK1(+)/triple negative (m-ERG(-)/m-ETS(-)/m-SPINK1(-)). Incorporation of subtyping into a clinically available assay may facilitate additional applications beyond routine prognosis.
Authors: Rohit Mehra; Bo Han; Scott A Tomlins; Lei Wang; Anjana Menon; Matthew J Wasco; Ronglai Shen; James E Montie; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Rajal B Shah Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2007-09-01 Impact factor: 12.701
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: Scott A Tomlins; Daniel R Rhodes; Jianjun Yu; Sooryanarayana Varambally; Rohit Mehra; Sven Perner; Francesca Demichelis; Beth E Helgeson; Bharathi Laxman; David S Morris; Qi Cao; Xuhong Cao; Ove Andrén; Katja Fall; Laura Johnson; John T Wei; Rajal B Shah; Hikmat Al-Ahmadie; James A Eastham; Scott E Eggener; Samson W Fine; Kristina Hotakainen; Ulf-Håkan Stenman; Alex Tsodikov; William L Gerald; Hans Lilja; Victor E Reuter; Phillip W Kantoff; Peter T Scardino; Mark A Rubin; Anders S Bjartell; Arul M Chinnaiyan Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Tohru Nakagawa; Thomas M Kollmeyer; Bruce W Morlan; S Keith Anderson; Eric J Bergstralh; Brian J Davis; Yan W Asmann; George G Klee; Karla V Ballman; Robert B Jenkins Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-05-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Wei Liu; Yue Zhang; Shi Wei; Sejong Bae; Wei-Hsiung Yang; Gary J Smith; James L Mohler; Elizabeth T H Fontham; Jeannette T Bensen; Guru P Sonpavde; Guo-Yun Chen; Runhua Liu; Lizhong Wang Journal: Prostate Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: William S Chen; Rahul Aggarwal; Li Zhang; Shuang G Zhao; George V Thomas; Tomasz M Beer; David A Quigley; Adam Foye; Denise Playdle; Jiaoti Huang; Paul Lloyd; Eric Lu; Duanchen Sun; Xiangnan Guan; Matthew Rettig; Martin Gleave; Christopher P Evans; Jack Youngren; Lawrence True; Primo Lara; Vishal Kothari; Zheng Xia; Kim N Chi; Robert E Reiter; Christopher A Maher; Felix Y Feng; Eric J Small; Joshi J Alumkal Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-03-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jennifer A Sinnott; Sam F Peisch; Svitlana Tyekucheva; Travis Gerke; Rosina Lis; Jennifer R Rider; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Meir J Stampfer; Lorelei A Mucci; Massimo Loda; Kathryn L Penney Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Lei Wei; Jianmin Wang; Erika Lampert; Simon Schlanger; Adam D DePriest; Qiang Hu; Eduardo Cortes Gomez; Mitsuko Murakam; Sean T Glenn; Jeffrey Conroy; Carl Morrison; Gissou Azabdaftari; James L Mohler; Song Liu; Hannelore V Heemers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 20.096