| Literature DB >> 29308052 |
Zheng Chen1, Qiong Liang2, Jue Wang3, Qun-Xiong Huang1, Jian-Ning Chen2, Zi-Jin Weng2, Chun-Kui Shao2, Xin Gao1, Jun Pang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary malignant lymphoma of the prostate (PMLP) is prone to occur in the elderly, and it has no significant correlation with lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and prostate specific antigen (PSA). Clinical symptoms and imaging data of PMLP remain unspecific, and its prognosis is poor. A previous result showed that collapsin response mediator protein 4 (CRMP4) promotor methylation can be used as a predictor for lymph node metastases in prostate biopsies. However, the relationship between CRMP4 promotor methylation and PMLP has not been studied.Entities:
Keywords: Collapsin response mediator protein 4 (CRMP4); Methylation; Predictor; Primary malignant lymphoma prostate (PMLP); ROC curve
Year: 2018 PMID: 29308052 PMCID: PMC5753574 DOI: 10.1186/s12935-017-0484-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Cell Int ISSN: 1475-2867 Impact factor: 5.722
PCR primers of CRMP4 promoter and sequencing primers
| CPG1 | |
| CZ-G1-F1 | ATAGGGAATGGTTGAGTTTATTGT |
| CZ-G1-R1-Bio | Biotin-ACCCCCTCTCCTCTACCATA |
| CZ-G1-S1 | GTTTTTTGTAGTTTTTGAGA |
| CZ-G1-S2 | AGTTTTTTTTTAGAATAAAG |
| CZ-G1-S3 | TTTAGGAGTTTGAAGGG |
| CZ-G1-S4 | GTTTAGGGTTTGGGGA |
| CZ-G1-S5 | GGGAATGGTTGAGTTTA |
| CPG2 | |
| CZ-G2-F2 | AGGGTTTGGGGATTTTAGTAGGT |
| CZ-G2-R2-Bio | Biotin-TCCCCAAAATAAAAACATCAACT |
| CZ-G2-S6 | TAGAGTTATGGTAGAGGAGAG |
Clinicopathological characteristics of the patients
| Items | PMLP | PCa with LN (−) | PCa with LN (+) |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of cases | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Median age (y, range) | 69 (57–82) | 67 (46–79) | 68 (52–83) |
| Mean PSA (ng/ml, range) | 2.8 (0.54–4.82) | 12.63 (8.86–38.46) | 16.86 (10.07–87.22) |
| Mean LDH (U/l, range) | 320.4 (153–560) | – | – |
| Biopsy Gleason sum n | |||
| ≤ 6 | – | 3 | 1 |
| 3 + 4 | – | 3 | 3 |
| 4 + 3 | – | 2 | 3 |
| 8–10 | – | 2 | 3 |
| Pathological Gleason sum n | |||
| ≤ 6 | – | 2 | 0 |
| 3 + 4 | – | 2 | 2 |
| 4 + 3 | – | 3 | 4 |
| 8–10 | – | 3 | 4 |
| Pathological T stage n | |||
| T2a | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| T2b | 4 | 2 | 0 |
| T2c | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| ≥ T3a | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| Lymph node invasion n | |||
| Negative | 10 | 10 | 0 |
| Positive | 0 | 0 | 10 |
Fig. 1Preoperative diagnosis was performed by pelvic CT or MRI examination. The results suggested that the prostate was significantly augmented, the internal density of the prostate was uneven and spot-like calcified. Pelvic CT figure: a plane scan, b curve arterial phase, c curve vein; MRI figure: d T1W1, e T2W1, f DWI
Nine cases of PMLP immunohistochemical information
| Surgical procedures | Pathological types | Immunophenotype | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | TURP | DLBCL | CK(−), LCA(+), CD45RO(−), CD20(+), CD79a(+), CyclinD1(−), CD10(−), MUM1(+), Bcl2(+), Bcl6(+), CD30(−), Ki-67(70% +) |
| 2 | TURP | DLBCL | CK(−), LCA(+), CD3(−), CD20(+), CD79a(+), CD5(−), CyclinD1(−), CD10(−), MUM1(+), Bcl2(+), Bcl6(+), Ki-67(55% +) |
| 3 | LRP | DLBCL | CK(−), LCA(+), CD3(−), CD45RO(−), CD20(+), CD79a(+), CyclinD1(−), CD10(+), CD30(−), Ki-67(40%) |
| 4 | TURP | MCL | CK(−), LCA(+), CD3(−), CD20(+), CD79a(+), CD5(+), CyclinD1(+), CD10(−), MUM1(+), Bcl2(+), Bcl6(−), CD30(−), Ki-67(30%) |
| 5 | LRP | DLBCL | CK(−), LCA(+), CD3(−), CD20(−), CD79a(+), CD5(−), CyclinD1(−), CD10(−), MUM1(−), Bcl2(+), Bcl6(+), CD30(−), Ki-67(90% +) |
| 6 | TURP | DLBCL | CK(−), LCA(+), CD45RO(−), CD20(+), CD79a(+), CD5(−), CyclinD1(−), CD10(−), MUM1(+), Bcl2(+), Ki-67(80% +) |
| 7 | TURP | DLBCL | CK(−), LCA(+), CD45RO(−), CD20(+), CD79a(+), CyclinD1(−), CD10(+), MUM1(−), Bcl2(+), Ki-67(80% +) |
| 8 | LRP | DLBCL | CK(−), LCA(+), CD45RO(−), CD20(−), CD79a(+), CD5(−), CyclinD1(−), CD10(+), MUM1(−), Bcl2(+), Bcl6(+), Ki-67(45% +) |
| 9 | TURP | DLBCL | CK(−), LCA(+), CD3(−), CD20(+), CD79a(+), CD5(−), CyclinD1(−), CD10(−), MUM1(−), Bcl2(+), Bcl6(+), CD30(−), Ki-67(80% +) |
| 10 | LRP | DLBCL | CK(−), LCA(+), CD45RO(−), CD20(−), CD79a(+), CD5(−), CyclinD1(−), CD10(−), MUM1(+), Bcl2(+), Bcl6(−), Ki-67(35% +) |
Fig. 2IHC results of DLBCL. a Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stain, ×200. b CD20 (positive), IHC, ×200, c CD10 (negative), IHC, ×200. d CD3 (background small lymphocytes positive, tumor cell negative). IHC, ×200. e MUM1 (positive), IHC, ×200; f Ki-67 (70% +), IHC, ×200
Fig. 3IHC results of MCL. a H&E stain, ×200. b CD20 (positive), IHC, ×200. c CD5 (negative), IHC, ×200. d CD10 (negative), IHC, ×200. e Cyclin D1 (positive), IHC, ×200; f Ki-67 (30% +), IHC, ×200
Fig. 4Quantitative pyrosequencing of methylation sites within CRMP4 promoter region. The CRMP4 gene promoter region A S1 (methylation sites − 848 and − 841) and region B S2 (methylation sites − 680, − 678, − 674, − 671, − 665, − 660, and − 658) was significantly methylated, and the methylation of site S3–S6 was not significant
Fig. 5The CRMP4 methylation site was detected in each group. A1/A2 methylation values of the unmethylated control group. B1/B2 was histometric methylation values of 10 cases of PMLP tissue. C1/C2 was histometric methylation values of 20 patients with prostate adenocarcinoma (10 patients with LPCa and 10 patients with mPCa). D1/D2 was histometric methylation value of 10 cases of LPCa-LN (−). E1/E2 was histometric methylation value of 10 cases of mPCa-LN (+). F1/F2 was the methylation value of the control group. The red dotted frame represents S1 and S2 and is listed in the analyzed methylation site of CRMP4
Fig. 6The box pattern shows the difference in CRMP4 methylation values for each group. The average methylation of CRMP4 promoter at nine sites (methylation sites − 680, − 678, − 674, − 671, − 665, − 660, − 658, − 848, and − 841) in PMLP, prostate adenocarcinoma (including LPCa and mPCa), LPCa-LN (−) and mPCa-LN (+) were 42.3, 30.6, 6.7, 20.3%, respectively. The difference was clear. PMLP Primary malignant lymphoma of the prostate, LPCa localized prostate cancer, LPCa-LN (−) negative lymph nodes of the localized prostate cancer, mPCa metastatic prostate cancer, and mPCa-LN (+) positive lymph nodes of the metastatic prostate cancer
Fig. 7ROC curve analysis of predictive value of CRMP4 methylation in PMLP diagnosis. ROC curve analysis showed that the sensitivity of predicting PMLP was 90% when CRMP4 methylation > 40.9%. The predictive specificity was 95% and the area under curve (AUC) was 0.957
ROC curve analysis optimal cut value of CRMP4 methylation prediction PMLP
| Criterion | Sensitivity | 95% CI | Specificity | 95% CI | Sensitivity + specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≥ 13.2 | 100 | 69.2–100.0 | 0 | 0.0–16.8 | 100 |
| > 30.1 | 90.0 | 55.5–99.7 | 70.0 | 45.7–88.1 | 160.0 |
| > 39.4 | 90.0 | 55.5–99.7 | 85.0 | 62.1–96.8 | 175.0 |
| > |
|
|
|
|
|
| > 41.4 | 80.0 | 44.4–97.5 | 95.0 | 75.1–99.9 | 175.0 |
| > 42 | 70.0 | 34.8–93.3 | 100 | 83.2–100.0 | 170.0 |
| > 44.8 | 30.0 | 6.7–65.2 | 100 | 83.2–100.0 | 130.0 |
| > 48.6 | 0 | 0.0–30.8 | 100 | 83.2–100.0 | 100 |
D-S-C-F test multiple comparisons between the two groups
| Group | Wilcoxon Z | DSCF-value | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| PMLP vs LPCa | 3.74 | 5.29 | < 0.001 |
| PMLP vs LPCa-LN (−) | 3.78 | 5.35 | < 0.001 |
| PMLP vs mPCa | 3.33 | 4.70 | 0.01 |
| PMLP vs mPCa-LN (+) | 3.78 | 5.35 | < 0.001 |
| LPCa vs LPCa-LN (−) | 3.78 | 5.35 | < 0.001 |
| LPCa vs mPCa | − 1.74 | 2.46 | 0.41 |
| LPCa vs LPCa-LN (+) | 1.06 | 1.50 | 0.83 |
| LPCa-LN (−) vs mPCa | − 3.78 | 5.35 | < 0.001 |
| LPCa-LN (−) vs LPCa-LN (+) | − 3.78 | 5.35 | < 0.001 |
| mPCa vs LPCa-LN (+) | 1.36 | 1.93 | 0.65 |