Yue Wang1, Bo Dai2. 1. Department of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center Shanghai 20032, China. 2. Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University Shanghai 20032, China.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: PTEN (10q23.3) is a negative regulator of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PIK3)/Akt survival pathway and a tumor suppressor frequently deleted in prostate cancer. PTEN genomic deletion is among the most common genetic aberrations in human prostate cancer. At present, the prognostic value of PTEN genomic deletion is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the association between PTEN genomic deletion and a higher Gleason score or a higher possibility of capsular penetration. A comprehensive, computerized literature search of PubMed was carried out until May 27, 2014. Studies were included according to specific inclusion criteria. Pooled hazard ratio was estimated using the fixed effects model or random effects model according to heterogeneity between studies. Seven eligible studies meeting the specific inclusion criteria were selected for further analysis; all were retrospective studies. Overall meta-analysis demonstrated that PTEN genomic deletion was associated with a higher Gleason score (OR 0.319; 95% confidence interval: 0.153-0.666; P = 0.000) and a higher possibility of capsular penetration (OR 0.393; 95% confidence interval: 0.185-0.837; P = 0.015). None of the studies materially altered the original results and no evidence of publication bias was found. CONCLUSION: PTEN genomic deletion in operable localized prostate cancer indicates a higher Gleason score and a higher probability of capsular penetration, indicating a worse prognosis. Further studies should be conducted in order to investigate the effect of PTEN genomic deletion on clinical outcomes in different histological types of prostate cancer or its function in castration-resistant prostate cancer.
UNLABELLED: PTEN (10q23.3) is a negative regulator of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PIK3)/Akt survival pathway and a tumor suppressor frequently deleted in prostate cancer. PTEN genomic deletion is among the most common genetic aberrations in humanprostate cancer. At present, the prognostic value of PTEN genomic deletion is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the association between PTEN genomic deletion and a higher Gleason score or a higher possibility of capsular penetration. A comprehensive, computerized literature search of PubMed was carried out until May 27, 2014. Studies were included according to specific inclusion criteria. Pooled hazard ratio was estimated using the fixed effects model or random effects model according to heterogeneity between studies. Seven eligible studies meeting the specific inclusion criteria were selected for further analysis; all were retrospective studies. Overall meta-analysis demonstrated that PTEN genomic deletion was associated with a higher Gleason score (OR 0.319; 95% confidence interval: 0.153-0.666; P = 0.000) and a higher possibility of capsular penetration (OR 0.393; 95% confidence interval: 0.185-0.837; P = 0.015). None of the studies materially altered the original results and no evidence of publication bias was found. CONCLUSION:PTEN genomic deletion in operable localized prostate cancer indicates a higher Gleason score and a higher probability of capsular penetration, indicating a worse prognosis. Further studies should be conducted in order to investigate the effect of PTEN genomic deletion on clinical outcomes in different histological types of prostate cancer or its function in castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Authors: Agnes Marije Hoogland; Anna Dahlman; Kees J Vissers; Tineke Wolters; Fritz H Schröder; Monique J Roobol; Anders S Bjartell; Geert J L H van Leenders Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-03-16 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Kanishka Sircar; Maisa Yoshimoto; Federico A Monzon; Ismael H Koumakpayi; Ruth L Katz; Abha Khanna; Karla Alvarez; Guanyong Chen; Andrew D Darnel; Armen G Aprikian; Fred Saad; Tarek A Bismar; Jeremy A Squire Journal: J Pathol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: V Stambolic; A Suzuki; J L de la Pompa; G M Brothers; C Mirtsos; T Sasaki; J Ruland; J M Penninger; D P Siderovski; T W Mak Journal: Cell Date: 1998-10-02 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Brett S Carver; Jennifer Tran; Anuradha Gopalan; Zhenbang Chen; Safa Shaikh; Arkaitz Carracedo; Andrea Alimonti; Caterina Nardella; Shohreh Varmeh; Peter T Scardino; Carlos Cordon-Cardo; William Gerald; Pier Paolo Pandolfi Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2009-04-26 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Samir Al Bashir; Mohammed Alshalalfa; Samar A Hegazy; Michael Dolph; Bryan Donnelly; Tarek A Bismar Journal: J Hematol Oncol Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 17.388
Authors: Wennuan Liu; Sari Laitinen; Sofia Khan; Mauno Vihinen; Jeanne Kowalski; Guoqiang Yu; Li Chen; Charles M Ewing; Mario A Eisenberger; Michael A Carducci; William G Nelson; Srinivasan Yegnasubramanian; Jun Luo; Yue Wang; Jianfeng Xu; William B Isaacs; Tapio Visakorpi; G Steven Bova Journal: Nat Med Date: 2009-04-12 Impact factor: 53.440
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: M Yoshimoto; I W Cunha; R A Coudry; F P Fonseca; C H Torres; F A Soares; J A Squire Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2007-08-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Tamara Jamaspishvili; David M Berman; Ashley E Ross; Howard I Scher; Angelo M De Marzo; Jeremy A Squire; Tamara L Lotan Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Ericka M Ebot; Lorelei A Mucci; Xiaoshuang Feng; Cindy Ke Zhou; Clary B Clish; Kathryn M Wilson; Claire H Pernar; Barbra A Dickerman; Massimo Loda; Stephen P Finn; Kathryn L Penney; Daniel R Schmidt; Matthew G Vander Heiden; Edward L Giovannucci Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 4.090