Literature DB >> 29853306

The Diverse Genomic Landscape of Clinically Low-risk Prostate Cancer.

Matthew R Cooperberg1, Nicholas Erho2, June M Chan3, Felix Y Feng4, Nick Fishbane2, Shuang G Zhao5, Jeffry P Simko6, Janet E Cowan7, Jonathan Lehrer2, Mohammed Alshalalfa2, Tyler Kolisnik2, Jijumon Chelliserry2, Jennifer Margrave2, Maria Aranes2, Marguerite du Plessis2, Christine Buerki2, Imelda Tenggara7, Elai Davicioni2, Peter R Carroll7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Among men with clinically low-risk prostate cancer, we have previously documented heterogeneity in terms of clinical characteristics and genomic risk scores.
OBJECTIVE: To further study the underlying tumor biology of this patient population, by interrogating broader patterns of gene expression among men with clinically low-risk tumors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prostate biopsies from 427 patients considered potentially suitable for active surveillance underwent central pathology review and genome-wide expression profiling. These cases were compared with 1290 higher-risk biopsy cases with diverse clinical features from a prospective genomic registry. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Average genomic risk (AGR) was determined from 18 published prognostic signatures, and MSigDB hallmark gene sets were analyzed using bootstrapped clustering methods. These sets were examined in relation to clinical variables and pathological and biochemical outcomes using multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 408 (96%) biopsies passed RNA quality control. Based on AGR quartiles defined by the high-risk multicenter cases, the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) low-risk patients were distributed across the quartiles as 219 (54%), 107 (26%), 61 (15%), and 21 (5%). Unsupervised clustering analysis of the hallmark gene set scores revealed three clusters, which were enriched for the previously described PAM50 luminal A, luminal B, and basal subtypes. AGR, but not the clusters, was associated with both pathological (odds ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.58) and biochemical outcomes (hazard ratio 1.53, 95% CI 1.19-1.93). These results may underestimate within-prostate genomic heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancers that are homogeneously low risk by traditional characteristics demonstrate substantial diversity at the level of genomic expression. Molecular substratification of low-risk prostate cancer will yield a better understanding of its divergent biology and, in the future may help personalize treatment recommendations. PATIENT
SUMMARY: We studied the genomic characteristics of tumors from men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. We found three main subtypes of prostate cancer with divergent tumor biology, similar to what has previously been found in women with breast cancer. In addition, we found that genomic risk scores were associated with worse pathology findings and prostate-specific antigen recurrence after surgery. These results suggest even greater genomic diversity among low-risk patients than has previously been documented with more limited signatures.
Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active surveillance; Biomarkers; Genomics; Low-risk prostate cancer; Prognosis; Prostate cancer biopsy; Subtyping; Tumor biology

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29853306      PMCID: PMC6586429          DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.05.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  14 in total

1.  Comparative analysis of 1152 African-American and European-American men with prostate cancer identifies distinct genomic and immunological differences.

Authors:  Walter Rayford; Alp Tuna Beksac; Jordan Alger; Mohammed Alshalalfa; Mohsen Ahmed; Irtaza Khan; Ugo G Falagario; Yang Liu; Elai Davicioni; Daniel E Spratt; Edward M Schaeffer; Felix Y Feng; Brandon Mahal; Paul L Nguyen; Robert B Den; Mark D Greenberger; Randy Bradley; Justin M Watson; Matthew Beamer; Lambros Stamatakis; Darrell J Carmen; Shivanshu Awasthi; Jonathan Hwang; Rachel Weil; Harri Merisaari; Nihal Mohamed; Leslie A Deane; Dimple Chakravarty; Kamlesh K Yadav; Kosj Yamoah; Sujit S Nair; Ashutosh K Tewari
Journal:  Commun Biol       Date:  2021-06-03

Review 2.  Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms Underlying Prostate Cancer Development: Therapeutic Implications.

Authors:  Ugo Testa; Germana Castelli; Elvira Pelosi
Journal:  Medicines (Basel)       Date:  2019-07-30

3.  Correlation between MRI phenotypes and a genomic classifier of prostate cancer: preliminary findings.

Authors:  Andrei S Purysko; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Omar Y Mian; Sarah Sittenfeld; Elai Davicioni; Marguerite du Plessis; Christine Buerki; Jennifer Bullen; Lin Li; Anant Madabhushi; Andrew Stephenson; Eric A Klein
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: selection criteria, guidelines, and outcomes.

Authors:  Colton H Walker; Kathryn A Marchetti; Udit Singhal; Todd M Morgan
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Should Grade Group 1 (GG1) be called cancer?

Authors:  Craig V Labbate; Gladell P Paner; Scott E Eggener
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Cancer-associated fibroblasts stimulate primary tumor growth and metastatic spread in an orthotopic prostate cancer xenograft model.

Authors:  Kerstin Junker; Matthias Saar; Johannes Linxweiler; Turkan Hajili; Christina Körbel; Carolina Berchem; Philip Zeuschner; Andreas Müller; Michael Stöckle; Michael D Menger
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Development and internal validation of a novel model and markers to identify the candidates for lymph node metastasis in patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hai-Ming Cao; Zi Wan; Yu Wu; Hong-Yang Wang; Chao Guan
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 1.817

8.  Tailoring Intensity of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Based on Individualized Prediction of Risk Stability.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Yingye Zheng; Anna V Faino; Lisa F Newcomb; Kehao Zhu; Janet E Cowan; James D Brooks; Atreya Dash; Martin E Gleave; Frances Martin; Todd M Morgan; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Andrew A Wagner; Peter R Carroll; Daniel W Lin
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 31.777

9.  Impact of Decipher Biopsy testing on clinical outcomes in localized prostate cancer in a prospective statewide collaborative.

Authors:  Randy A Vince; Ralph Jiang; Daniel E Spratt; Todd M Morgan; Ji Qi; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Rebecca Takele; Felix Y Feng; Susan Linsell; Anna Johnson; Sughand Shetty; Patrick Hurley; David C Miller; Arvin George; Khurshid Ghani; Fionna Sun; Mariana Seymore; Robert T Dess; William C Jackson; Matthew Schipper
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2021-07-20       Impact factor: 5.554

10.  Transcriptomic Heterogeneity of Gleason Grade Group 5 Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Amar U Kishan; Tahmineh Romero; Mohammed Alshalalfa; Yang Liu; Phuoc T Tran; Nicholas G Nickols; Huihui Ye; Dipti Sajed; Matthew B Rettig; Robert E Reiter; Isla P Garraway; Daniel E Spratt; Steven J Freedland; Xin Zhao; Ziwen Li; Matthew Deek; Julie Livingstone; Brandon A Mahal; Paul L Nguyen; Felix Y Feng; Robert B Den; Edward M Schaeffer; Tamara L Lotan; R Jeffrey Karnes; Eric A Klein; Ashley E Ross; Tristan Grogan; Elai Davicioni; David Elashoff; Paul C Boutros; Joanne B Weidhaas
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2020-05-24       Impact factor: 20.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.