Joseph R Evans1, Shuang G Zhao2, S Laura Chang1, Scott A Tomlins3, Nicholas Erho4, Andrea Sboner5, Matthew J Schiewer6, Daniel E Spratt1, Vishal Kothari1, Eric A Klein7, Robert B Den8, Adam P Dicker8, R Jeffrey Karnes9, Xiaochun Yu10, Paul L Nguyen11, Mark A Rubin5, Johann de Bono12, Karen E Knudsen6, Elai Davicioni4, Felix Y Feng13. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor2Beaumont Hospital - Dearborn, Transitional Year Program, Dearborn, Michigan. 3. Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 4. GenomeDx Biosciences Inc, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 5. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York Presbyterian Hospitals, New York, New York. 6. Kimmel Cancer Center, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 9. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 10. City of Hope, Duarte, California. 11. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 12. Drug Development Unit and Prostate Cancer Targeted Therapy Group, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England. 13. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor13Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor14Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: A substantial number of patients diagnosed with high-risk prostate cancer are at risk for metastatic progression after primary treatment. Better biomarkers are needed to identify patients at the highest risk to guide therapy intensification. OBJECTIVE: To create a DNA damage and repair (DDR) pathway profiling method for use as a prognostic signature biomarker in high-risk prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 1090 patients with high-risk prostate cancer who underwent prostatectomy and were treated at 3 different academic institutions were divided into a training cohort (n = 545) and 3 pooled validation cohorts (n = 232, 130, and 183) assembled for case-control or case-cohort studies. Profiling of 9 DDR pathways using 17 gene sets for GSEA (Gene Set Enrichment Analysis) of high-density microarray gene expression data from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded prostatectomy samples with median 10.3 years follow-up was performed. Prognostic signature development from DDR pathway profiles was studied, and DDR pathway gene mutation in published cohorts was analyzed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Biochemical recurrence-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival. RESULTS: Across the training cohort and pooled validation cohorts, 1090 men were studied; mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 65.3 (6.4) years. We found that there are distinct clusters of DDR pathways within the cohort, and DDR pathway enrichment is only weakly correlated with clinical variables such as age (Spearman ρ [ρ], range, -0.07 to 0.24), Gleason score (ρ, range, 0.03 to 0.20), prostate-specific antigen level (ρ, range, -0.07 to 0.10), while 13 of 17 DDR gene sets are strongly correlated with androgen receptor pathway enrichment (ρ, range, 0.33 to 0.82). In published cohorts, DDR pathway genes are rarely mutated. A DDR pathway profile prognostic signature built in the training cohort was significantly associated with biochemical recurrence-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival in the pooled validation cohorts independent of standard clinicopathological variables. The prognostic performance of the signature for metastasis-free survival appears to be stronger in the younger patients (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.12-2.50) than in the older patients (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.29-2.07) on multivariate Cox analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: DNA damage and repair pathway profiling revealed patient-level variations and the DDR pathways are rarely affected by mutation. A DDR pathway signature showed strong prognostic performance with the long-term outcomes of metastasis-free and overall survival that may be useful for risk stratification of high-risk prostate cancer patients.
IMPORTANCE: A substantial number of patients diagnosed with high-risk prostate cancer are at risk for metastatic progression after primary treatment. Better biomarkers are needed to identify patients at the highest risk to guide therapy intensification. OBJECTIVE: To create a DNA damage and repair (DDR) pathway profiling method for use as a prognostic signature biomarker in high-risk prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 1090 patients with high-risk prostate cancer who underwent prostatectomy and were treated at 3 different academic institutions were divided into a training cohort (n = 545) and 3 pooled validation cohorts (n = 232, 130, and 183) assembled for case-control or case-cohort studies. Profiling of 9 DDR pathways using 17 gene sets for GSEA (Gene Set Enrichment Analysis) of high-density microarray gene expression data from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded prostatectomy samples with median 10.3 years follow-up was performed. Prognostic signature development from DDR pathway profiles was studied, and DDR pathway gene mutation in published cohorts was analyzed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Biochemical recurrence-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival. RESULTS: Across the training cohort and pooled validation cohorts, 1090 men were studied; mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 65.3 (6.4) years. We found that there are distinct clusters of DDR pathways within the cohort, and DDR pathway enrichment is only weakly correlated with clinical variables such as age (Spearman ρ [ρ], range, -0.07 to 0.24), Gleason score (ρ, range, 0.03 to 0.20), prostate-specific antigen level (ρ, range, -0.07 to 0.10), while 13 of 17 DDR gene sets are strongly correlated with androgen receptor pathway enrichment (ρ, range, 0.33 to 0.82). In published cohorts, DDR pathway genes are rarely mutated. A DDR pathway profile prognostic signature built in the training cohort was significantly associated with biochemical recurrence-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival in the pooled validation cohorts independent of standard clinicopathological variables. The prognostic performance of the signature for metastasis-free survival appears to be stronger in the younger patients (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.12-2.50) than in the older patients (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.29-2.07) on multivariate Cox analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: DNA damage and repair pathway profiling revealed patient-level variations and the DDR pathways are rarely affected by mutation. A DDR pathway signature showed strong prognostic performance with the long-term outcomes of metastasis-free and overall survival that may be useful for risk stratification of high-risk prostate cancerpatients.
Authors: J Chad Brenner; Bushra Ateeq; Yong Li; Anastasia K Yocum; Qi Cao; Irfan A Asangani; Sonam Patel; Xiaoju Wang; Hallie Liang; Jindan Yu; Nallasivam Palanisamy; Javed Siddiqui; Wei Yan; Xuhong Cao; Rohit Mehra; Aaron Sabolch; Venkatesha Basrur; Robert J Lonigro; Jun Yang; Scott A Tomlins; Christopher A Maher; Kojo S J Elenitoba-Johnson; Maha Hussain; Nora M Navone; Kenneth J Pienta; Sooryanarayana Varambally; Felix Y Feng; Arul M Chinnaiyan Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Daniel A Hamstra; Kyounghwa Bae; Miljenko V Pilepich; Gerald E Hanks; David J Grignon; David G McGowan; Mack Roach; Colleen Lawton; R Jeffrey Lee; Howard Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Aravind Subramanian; Pablo Tamayo; Vamsi K Mootha; Sayan Mukherjee; Benjamin L Ebert; Michael A Gillette; Amanda Paulovich; Scott L Pomeroy; Todd R Golub; Eric S Lander; Jill P Mesirov Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-09-30 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Nizar K Wehbi; Ashley L Dugger; Rebecca B Bonner; Jan V Pitha; Robert E Hurst; George P Hemstreet Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Usama Mahmood; Lawrence B Levy; Paul L Nguyen; Andrew K Lee; Deborah A Kuban; Karen E Hoffman Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: R Jeffrey Karnes; Eric J Bergstralh; Elai Davicioni; Mercedeh Ghadessi; Christine Buerki; Anirban P Mitra; Anamaria Crisan; Nicholas Erho; Ismael A Vergara; Lucia L Lam; Rachel Carlson; Darby J S Thompson; Zaid Haddad; Benedikt Zimmermann; Thomas Sierocinski; Timothy J Triche; Thomas Kollmeyer; Karla V Ballman; Peter C Black; George G Klee; Robert B Jenkins Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Vamsi K Mootha; Cecilia M Lindgren; Karl-Fredrik Eriksson; Aravind Subramanian; Smita Sihag; Joseph Lehar; Pere Puigserver; Emma Carlsson; Martin Ridderstråle; Esa Laurila; Nicholas Houstis; Mark J Daly; Nick Patterson; Jill P Mesirov; Todd R Golub; Pablo Tamayo; Bruce Spiegelman; Eric S Lander; Joel N Hirschhorn; David Altshuler; Leif C Groop Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: William R Polkinghorn; Joel S Parker; Man X Lee; Elizabeth M Kass; Daniel E Spratt; Phillip J Iaquinta; Vivek K Arora; Wei-Feng Yen; Ling Cai; Deyou Zheng; Brett S Carver; Yu Chen; Philip A Watson; Neel P Shah; Sho Fujisawa; Alexander G Goglia; Anuradha Gopalan; Haley Hieronymus; John Wongvipat; Peter T Scardino; Michael J Zelefsky; Maria Jasin; Jayanta Chaudhuri; Simon N Powell; Charles L Sawyers Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Robert B Den; Felix Y Feng; Timothy N Showalter; Mark V Mishra; Edouard J Trabulsi; Costas D Lallas; Leonard G Gomella; W Kevin Kelly; Ruth C Birbe; Peter A McCue; Mercedeh Ghadessi; Kasra Yousefi; Elai Davicioni; Karen E Knudsen; Adam P Dicker Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David G Kirsch; Max Diehn; Aparna H Kesarwala; Amit Maity; Meredith A Morgan; Julie K Schwarz; Robert Bristow; Sandra Demaria; Iris Eke; Robert J Griffin; Daphne Haas-Kogan; Geoff S Higgins; Alec C Kimmelman; Randall J Kimple; Isabelle M Lombaert; Li Ma; Brian Marples; Frank Pajonk; Catherine C Park; Dörthe Schaue; Phuoc T Tran; Eric J Bernhard Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jeffry L Dean; Q Jay Zhao; Jason C Lambert; Belinda S Hawkins; Russell S Thomas; Scott C Wesselkamper Journal: Toxicol Sci Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Alexander P Glaser; Damiano Fantini; Yiduo Wang; Yanni Yu; Kalen J Rimar; Joseph R Podojil; Stephen D Miller; Joshua J Meeks Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-12-16
Authors: Kasey Jividen; Katarzyna Z Kedzierska; Chun-Song Yang; Karol Szlachta; Aakrosh Ratan; Bryce M Paschal Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Caleb R Dulaney; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Debra Della Manna; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Jeffrey W Nix; Eddy S Yang Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-07-10