Seung-Hyun Jung1, Sun Shin1, Min Sung Kim2, In-Pyo Baek1, Ji Youl Lee3, Sung Hak Lee4, Tae-Min Kim5, Sug Hyung Lee6, Yeun-Jun Chung7. 1. Department of Microbiology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea; Integrated Research Center for Genome Polymorphism, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Urology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. 4. Department of Hospital Pathology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. 5. Department of Medical Informatics, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. 6. Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: suhulee@catholic.ac.kr. 7. Department of Microbiology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea; Integrated Research Center for Genome Polymorphism, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: yejun@catholic.ac.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) is considered a neoplastic lesion that precedes prostate cancer (PCA), the genomic structures of HGPIN remain unknown. OBJECTIVE: Identification of the genomic landscape of HGPIN and the genomic differences between HGPIN and PCA that may drive the progression to PCA. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed 20 regions of paired HGPIN and PCA from six patients using whole-exome sequencing and array-comparative genomic hybridization. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Somatic mutation and copy number alteration (CNA) profiles of paired HGPIN and PCA were measured and compared. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The number of total mutations and CNAs of HGPINs were significantly fewer than those of PCAs. Mutations in FOXA1 and CNAs (1q and 8q gains) were detected in both HGPIN and PCA ('common'), suggesting their roles in early PCA development. Mutations in SPOP, KDM6A, and KMT2D were 'PCA-specific', suggesting their roles in HGPIN progression to PCA. The 8p loss was either 'common' or 'PCA-specific'. In-silico estimation of evolutionary ages predicted that HGPIN genomes were much younger than PCA genomes. Our data show that PCAs are direct descendants of HGPINs in most cases that require more genomic alterations to progress to PCA. The nature of heterogeneous HGPIN population that might attenuate genomic signals should further be studied. CONCLUSIONS: HGPIN genomes harbor relatively fewer mutations and CNAs than PCA but require additional hits for the progression. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we suggest a systemic diagram from high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) to prostate cancer (PCA). Our results provide a clue to explain the long latency from HGPIN to PCA and provide useful information for the genetic diagnosis of HGPIN and PCA.
BACKGROUND: Although high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) is considered a neoplastic lesion that precedes prostate cancer (PCA), the genomic structures of HGPIN remain unknown. OBJECTIVE: Identification of the genomic landscape of HGPIN and the genomic differences between HGPIN and PCA that may drive the progression to PCA. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed 20 regions of paired HGPIN and PCA from six patients using whole-exome sequencing and array-comparative genomic hybridization. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Somatic mutation and copy number alteration (CNA) profiles of paired HGPIN and PCA were measured and compared. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The number of total mutations and CNAs of HGPINs were significantly fewer than those of PCAs. Mutations in FOXA1 and CNAs (1q and 8q gains) were detected in both HGPIN and PCA ('common'), suggesting their roles in early PCA development. Mutations in SPOP, KDM6A, and KMT2D were 'PCA-specific', suggesting their roles in HGPIN progression to PCA. The 8p loss was either 'common' or 'PCA-specific'. In-silico estimation of evolutionary ages predicted that HGPIN genomes were much younger than PCA genomes. Our data show that PCAs are direct descendants of HGPINs in most cases that require more genomic alterations to progress to PCA. The nature of heterogeneous HGPIN population that might attenuate genomic signals should further be studied. CONCLUSIONS: HGPIN genomes harbor relatively fewer mutations and CNAs than PCA but require additional hits for the progression. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we suggest a systemic diagram from high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) to prostate cancer (PCA). Our results provide a clue to explain the long latency from HGPIN to PCA and provide useful information for the genetic diagnosis of HGPIN and PCA.
Authors: Seung-Hyun Jung; Min Sung Kim; Sung-Hak Lee; Hyun-Chun Park; Hyun Joo Choi; Leeso Maeng; Ki Ouk Min; Jeana Kim; Tae In Park; Ok Ran Shin; Tae-Jung Kim; Haidong Xu; Kyo Young Lee; Tae-Min Kim; Sang Yong Song; Charles Lee; Yeun-Jun Chung; Sug Hyung Lee Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Amita Shukla-Dave; Mireia Castillo-Martin; Ming Chen; Jose Lobo; Nataliya Gladoun; Ana Collazo-Lorduy; Faisal M Khan; Vladimir Ponomarev; Zhengzi Yi; Weijia Zhang; Pier P Pandolfi; Hedvig Hricak; Carlos Cordon-Cardo Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Nima C Emami; Lancelote Leong; Eunice Wan; Erin L Van Blarigan; Matthew R Cooperberg; Imelda Tenggara; Peter R Carroll; June M Chan; John S Witte; Jeffry P Simko Journal: Prostate Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Levent Trabzonlu; Ibrahim Kulac; Qizhi Zheng; Jessica L Hicks; Michael C Haffner; William G Nelson; Karen S Sfanos; Onur Ertunc; Tamara L Lotan; Christopher M Heaphy; Alan K Meeker; Srinivasan Yegnasubramanian; Angelo M De Marzo Journal: Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 6.915
Authors: Harsimar B Kaur; Daniela C Salles; Adina Paulk; Jonathan I Epstein; James R Eshleman; Tamara L Lotan Journal: Histopathology Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 5.087