| Literature DB >> 28415558 |
Christoph Burdelski1, Laura Borcherding2, Martina Kluth2, Claudia Hube-Magg2, Nathaniel Melling2,1, Ronald Simon2, Christina Möller-Koop2, Philipp Weigand2, Sarah Minner2, Alexander Haese3, Hans Uwe Michl3, Maria Christina Tsourlakis2, Frank Jacobsen2, Andrea Hinsch2, Corinna Wittmer2, Patrick Lebok2, Stefan Steurer2, Jakob R Izbicki1, Guido Sauter2, Till Krech2, Franziska Büscheck2, Till Clauditz2, Thorsten Schlomm3,4, Waldemar Wilczak2.
Abstract
FAM13C, a gene with unknown function is included in several mRNA signatures for prostate cancer aggressiveness. To understand the impact of FAM13C on prognosis and its relationship to molecularly defined subsets, we analyzed FAM13C expression by immunohistochemistry on a tissue microarray containing 12,400 prostate cancer specimens. Results were compared to phenotype, ERG status, genomic deletions of 3p, 5q, 6q and PTEN, and biochemical recurrence. FAM13C was detectable in cell nuclei of cancerous and non-neoplastic prostate cells. 67.5% of 9,633 interpretable cancers showed FAM13C expression: strong in 28.3%, moderate in 24.6% and weak in 14.6%. Strong FAM13C expression was linked to advanced pT stage, high Gleason grade, positive lymph node status, and early biochemical recurrence (p < 0.0001 each). FAM13C expression was associated with TMPRSS2:ERG fusions. It was present in 85% of ERG positive but in only 54% of ERG negative cancers (p < 0.0001), and in 91.1% of PTEN deleted but in only 69.2% of PTEN non-deleted cancers (p < 0.0001). The prognostic role of FAM13C expression was independent of classical and quantitative Gleason grade, pT stage, pN stage, surgical margin status and preoperative PSA. In conclusion, the results of our study demonstrate that expression of FAM13C is an independent prognostic marker in prostate cancer. Finding FAM13C also in non-neoplastic prostate tissues highlights the importance of properly selecting cancer-rich areas for RNA-based FAM13C expression analysis.Entities:
Keywords: FAM13C; immunohistochemistry; prognosis; prostate cancer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28415558 PMCID: PMC5458224 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.16357
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Prognostic impact of (1) tumor stage (pT), (2) lymph node stage (pN), (3) classical Gleason grading and (4) quantitative Gleason grading.
Figure 2Representative pictures of FAM13C immunostaining in prostate cancer (100×)
(1) negative, (2) weak (3) moderate (4) strong staining. The inset in 1) shows a magnification of FAM13C-negative cancer cells (arrowhead) and FAM13C-positive stroma cells (400×).
Association between FAM13C immunostaining results and prostate cancer phenotype
| Parameter | FAM13C (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| negative | weak | moderate | strong | |||
| 9,633 | 32.5 | 14.6 | 24.6 | 28.3 | ||
| pT2 | 6,145 | 37.5 | 14.6 | 23.7 | 24.2 | |
| pT3a | 2,194 | 25.7 | 15.3 | 25.4 | 33.6 | |
| pT3b-4 | 1,257 | 20.3 | 13.1 | 27.7 | 38.9 | |
| ≤ 3 + 3 | 2,125 | 42.2 | 12.1 | 23.2 | 22.5 | |
| 3 + 4 | 5,474 | 33.7 | 15.6 | 24.6 | 26.0 | |
| 4 + 3 | 1,520 | 19.3 | 14.1 | 27.0 | 39.5 | |
| ≥ 4 + 4 | 468 | 17.9 | 14.7 | 23.1 | 44.2 | |
| N0 | 5,542 | 31.1 | 15.6 | 24.6 | 28.7 | |
| N+ | 575 | 19.1 | 12.3 | 26.3 | 42.3 | |
| < 4 | 1,172 | 28.1 | 14.0 | 24.4 | 33.5 | |
| 4–10 | 5,727 | 33.5 | 14.5 | 24.8 | 27.2 | |
| 10–20 | 1,948 | 33.3 | 14.9 | 24.3 | 27.6 | |
| > 20 | 683 | 30.0 | 14.9 | 23.6 | 31.5 | |
| negative | 7,617 | 33.7 | 14.6 | 24.4 | 27.2 | |
| positive | 1,836 | 27.9 | 14.3 | 25.3 | 32.5 | |
Figure 3Association between FAM13C expression and the quantitative Gleason score (p < 0.0001) in 9,183 prostate cancers
Figure 4Associations between positive FAM13C immunostaining and ERG status (IHC/FISH)
Figure 5Associations between positive FAM13C immunostaining and PTEN, 5q21 (CHD1), 6q15 (MAP3K7), 3p13 (FOXP1) – deletion status in (1) all cancers, in (2) ERG fusion negative cancers and (3) ERG fusion positive cancer.
Association between FAM13C expression and Ki67-labeling index in all prostate cancers and subsets defined by Gleason score, ERG fusion, and PTEN deletion status
| FAM13C IHC | Ki67 Li (mean) | Sth.deviation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| all | negative | 1,991 | 2.1 | 0.06 |
| weak | 837 | 2.8 | 0.09 | |
| moderate | 1,368 | 2.9 | 0.07 | |
| strong | 1,615 | 3.6 | 0.07 | |
| pGleason | negative | 549 | 1.7 | 0.09 |
| weak | 158 | 2.5 | 0.16 | |
| moderate | 288 | 2.5 | 0.12 | |
| strong | 298 | 2.7 | 0.12 | |
| pGleason | negative | 1,182 | 2.1 | 0.07 |
| weak | 520 | 2.8 | 0.10 | |
| moderate | 801 | 2.9 | 0.08 | |
| strong | 887 | 3.4 | 0.08 | |
| pGleason | negative | 198 | 2.7 | 0.25 |
| weak | 121 | 2.9 | 0.32 | |
| moderate | 219 | 3.6 | 0.24 | |
| strong | 311 | 4.2 | 0.20 | |
| pGleason | negative | 53 | 3.4 | 0.60 |
| weak | 34 | 3.6 | 0.75 | |
| moderate | 52 | 4.4 | 0.61 | |
| strong | 109 | 5.5 | 0.42 | |
| PTEN normal | negative | 955 | 2.5 | 0.09 |
| weak | 453 | 3.0 | 0.13 | |
| moderate | 711 | 3.1 | 0.10 | |
| strong | 902 | 3.6 | 0.09 | |
| PTEN deleted | negative | 69 | 2.9 | 0.35 |
| weak | 76 | 3.3 | 0.34 | |
| moderate | 187 | 3.3 | 0.21 | |
| strong | 328 | 4.2 | 0.16 | |
| ERG negative | negative | 1,537 | 1.9 | 0.07 |
| weak | 464 | 3.0 | 0.13 | |
| moderate | 589 | 3.2 | 0.11 | |
| strong | 531 | 3.9 | 0.12 | |
| ERG positive | negative | 424 | 2.5 | 0.12 |
| weak | 357 | 2.6 | 0.13 | |
| moderate | 747 | 2.8 | 0.09 | |
| strong | 1,060 | 3.4 | 0.08 |
Figure 6Association between FAM13C expression and biochemical recurrence in (1) all cancers, (2) ERG fusion negative cancers, (3) ERG fusion positive cancers, and (4) tumors without (PTEN norm) and (5) tumors with (PTEN del) PTEN deletion.
Figure 7Prognostic impact of FAM13C expression in subsets of cancers defined by the Gleason score
(1) Impact of negative (red line) and strongly positive (blue line) FAM13C expression as compared to the classical Gleason score categories (indicated by black dotted lines). 2–10) Impact of negative (blue line) and strongly positive (red line) FAM13C expression as compared to the quantitative Gleason score categories (black dotted line) defined by subsets of cancers with 1) ≤ 5% Gleason 4 patterns, (2) 6–10% Gleason 4 patterns, (3) 11–20% Gleason 4 patterns, (4) 21–30% Gleason 4 patterns, (5) 31–49% Gleason 4 patterns, (6) 50–60% Gleason 4 patterns, and (7) 61–100% Gleason 4 patterns. (9–10) Impact of negative (red line) and strongly positive (blue line) FAM13C expression in cancers with a tertiary Gleason 5 pattern, including 9) 3 + 4 tertiary grade 5 and 10) 4 + 3 tertiary grade 5.
Multivariate analysis including FAM13C expression status
| Scenario | FAM13C-Expression | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| preop. PSA-Level | pT Stage | cT Stage | Gleason-grade prostatectomy | Gleason grade biopsy | N-Stage | R-Status | |||
| 1 | 5,354 | ||||||||
| 2 | 8,469 | ||||||||
| 3 | 8,350 | ||||||||
| 4 | 8,239 | ||||||||
p values in brackets indicate that the quantitative Gleason was used instead of the classical Gleason for multivariate modeling.
Composition of the prognosis tissue microarray containing 12,427 prostate cancer specimens
| No. of patients (%) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Study cohort on TMA | Biochemical relapse among categories | |
| ( | ||
| 11,665 (93.9%) | 2,769 (23.7%) | |
| Mean | 48.9 | - |
| Median | 36.4 | - |
| ≤ 50 | 334 (2.7%) | 81 (24.3%) |
| 51–59 | 3,061 (24.8%) | 705 (23%) |
| 60–69 | 7,188 (58.2%) | 1,610 (22.4%) |
| ≥ 70 | 1,761 (14.3%) | 370 (21%) |
| <4 | 1,585 (12.9%) | 242 (15.3%) |
| 4–10 | 7,480 (60.9%) | 1,355 (18.1%) |
| 10–20 | 2,412 (19.6%) | 737 (30.6%) |
| > 20 | 812 (6.6%) | 397 (48.9%) |
| pT2 | 8,187 (66.2%) | 1,095 (13.4%) |
| pT3a | 2,660 (21.5%) | 817 (30.7%) |
| pT3b | 1,465 (11.8%) | 796 (54.3%) |
| pT4 | 63 (0.5%) | 51 (81%) |
| ≤ 3 + 3 | 2,983 (24.1%) | 368 (12.3%) |
| 3 + 4 | 6,945 (56.2%) | 1,289 (18.6%) |
| 4 + 3 | 1,848 (15%) | 788 (42.6%) |
| ≥ 4 + 4 | 584 (4.7%) | 311 (53.3%) |
| pN0 | 6,970 (91%) | 1,636 (23.5%) |
| pN+ | 693 (9%) | 393 (56.7%) |
| Negative | 9,990 (81.9%) | 1,848 (18.5%) |
| Positive | 2,211 (18.1%) | 853 (38.6%) |