Marc Gillard1, Justin Lack2, Andrea Pontier3, Divya Gandla4, David Hatcher5, Adam G Sowalsky4, Jose Rodriguez-Nieves4, Donald Vander Griend5, Gladell Paner6, David VanderWeele7. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. Center for Cancer Research Collaborative Bioinformatics Resource, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Laboratory for Genitourinary Cancer Pathogenesis, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Department of Pathology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA; Laboratory for Genitourinary Cancer Pathogenesis, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. Electronic address: david.vanderweele@nih.gov.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate is an aggressive subtype, with high rates of biochemical recurrence and overall poor prognosis. It is frequently found coincident with conventional acinar adenocarcinoma. The genomic features driving evolution to its ductal histology and the biology associated with its poor prognosis remain unknown. OBJECTIVE: To characterize genomic features distinguishing ductal adenocarcinoma from coincident acinar adenocarcinoma foci from the same patient. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Ten patients with coincident acinar and ductal prostate cancer underwent prostatectomy. Laser microdissection was used to separately isolate acinar and ductal foci. DNA and RNA were extracted, and used for integrative genomic and transcriptomic analyses. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Single nucleotide mutations, small indels, copy number estimates, and expression profiles were identified. Phylogenetic relationships between coincident foci were determined, and characteristics distinguishing ductal from acinar foci were identified. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Exome sequencing, copy number estimates, and fusion genes demonstrated coincident ductal and acinar adenocarcinoma diverged from a common progenitor, yet they harbored distinct alterations unique to each focus. AR expression and activity were similar in both histologies. Nine of 10 cases had mutually exclusive CTNNB1 hotspot mutations or phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) alterations in the ductal component, and these were absent in the acinar foci. These alterations were associated with changes in expression in WNT- and PI3K-pathway genes. CONCLUSIONS: Coincident ductal and acinar histologies typically are clonally related and thus arise from the same cell of origin. Ductal foci are enriched for cases with either a CTNNB1 hotspot mutation or a PTEN alteration, and are associated with WNT- or PI3K-pathway activation. These alterations are mutually exclusive and may represent distinct subtypes. PATIENT SUMMARY: The aggressive subtype ductal adenocarcinoma is closely related to conventional acinar prostate cancer. Ductal foci contain additional alterations, however, leading to frequent activation of two targetable pathways. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND:Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate is an aggressive subtype, with high rates of biochemical recurrence and overall poor prognosis. It is frequently found coincident with conventional acinar adenocarcinoma. The genomic features driving evolution to its ductal histology and the biology associated with its poor prognosis remain unknown. OBJECTIVE: To characterize genomic features distinguishing ductal adenocarcinoma from coincident acinar adenocarcinoma foci from the same patient. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Ten patients with coincident acinar and ductal prostate cancer underwent prostatectomy. Laser microdissection was used to separately isolate acinar and ductal foci. DNA and RNA were extracted, and used for integrative genomic and transcriptomic analyses. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Single nucleotide mutations, small indels, copy number estimates, and expression profiles were identified. Phylogenetic relationships between coincident foci were determined, and characteristics distinguishing ductal from acinar foci were identified. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Exome sequencing, copy number estimates, and fusion genes demonstrated coincident ductal and acinar adenocarcinoma diverged from a common progenitor, yet they harbored distinct alterations unique to each focus. AR expression and activity were similar in both histologies. Nine of 10 cases had mutually exclusive CTNNB1 hotspot mutations or phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) alterations in the ductal component, and these were absent in the acinar foci. These alterations were associated with changes in expression in WNT- and PI3K-pathway genes. CONCLUSIONS: Coincident ductal and acinar histologies typically are clonally related and thus arise from the same cell of origin. Ductal foci are enriched for cases with either a CTNNB1 hotspot mutation or a PTEN alteration, and are associated with WNT- or PI3K-pathway activation. These alterations are mutually exclusive and may represent distinct subtypes. PATIENT SUMMARY: The aggressive subtype ductal adenocarcinoma is closely related to conventional acinar prostate cancer. Ductal foci contain additional alterations, however, leading to frequent activation of two targetable pathways. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Authors: Prateek Mendiratta; Elahe Mostaghel; Justin Guinney; Alok K Tewari; Alessandro Porrello; William T Barry; Peter S Nelson; Phillip G Febbo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tamara L Lotan; Antoun Toubaji; Roula Albadine; Mathieu Latour; Mehsati Herawi; Alan K Meeker; Angelo M DeMarzo; Elizabeth A Platz; Jonathan I Epstein; George J Netto Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2009-01-16 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Bo Han; Rohit Mehra; Khalid Suleman; Scott A Tomlins; Lei Wang; Nishi Singhal; Katherine A Linetzky; Nallasivam Palanisamy; Ming Zhou; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Rajal B Shah Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2009-05-22 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Michael F Berger; Michael S Lawrence; Francesca Demichelis; Yotam Drier; Kristian Cibulskis; Andrey Y Sivachenko; Andrea Sboner; Raquel Esgueva; Dorothee Pflueger; Carrie Sougnez; Robert Onofrio; Scott L Carter; Kyung Park; Lukas Habegger; Lauren Ambrogio; Timothy Fennell; Melissa Parkin; Gordon Saksena; Douglas Voet; Alex H Ramos; Trevor J Pugh; Jane Wilkinson; Sheila Fisher; Wendy Winckler; Scott Mahan; Kristin Ardlie; Jennifer Baldwin; Jonathan W Simons; Naoki Kitabayashi; Theresa Y MacDonald; Philip W Kantoff; Lynda Chin; Stacey B Gabriel; Mark B Gerstein; Todd R Golub; Matthew Meyerson; Ashutosh Tewari; Eric S Lander; Gad Getz; Mark A Rubin; Levi A Garraway Journal: Nature Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Brett S Carver; Caren Chapinski; John Wongvipat; Haley Hieronymus; Yu Chen; Sarat Chandarlapaty; Vivek K Arora; Carl Le; Jason Koutcher; Howard Scher; Peter T Scardino; Neal Rosen; Charles L Sawyers Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Nithesh Ranasinha; Altan Omer; Yiannis Philippou; Eli Harriss; Lucy Davies; Ken Chow; Paolo M Chetta; Andrew Erickson; Timothy Rajakumar; Ian G Mills; Richard J Bryant; Freddie C Hamdy; Declan G Murphy; Massimo Loda; Christopher M Hovens; Niall M Corcoran; Clare Verrill; Alastair D Lamb Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2021-01-05
Authors: Weranja Ranasinghe; Daniel D Shapiro; Miao Zhang; Tharakeswara Bathala; Nora Navone; Timothy C Thompson; Bradley Broom; Ana Aparicio; Shi-Ming Tu; Chad Tang; John W Davis; Louis Pisters; Brian F Chapin Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Laura J Lee; David Papadopoli; Michael Jewer; Sonia Del Rincon; Ivan Topisirovic; Mitchell G Lawrence; Lynne-Marie Postovit Journal: Trends Cancer Date: 2020-10-13
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