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. 1. Department of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: matthew.cooperberg@ucsf.edu. 2. GenomeDx Biosciences, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. Department of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Department of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 6. Department of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Pathology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. 7. Department of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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