Brooks James D, Wei Wei, Hawley Sarah, Auman Heidi, Newcomb Lisa, Boyer Hilary, Fazli Ladan, Simko Jeff, Hurtado-Coll Antonio, Troyer Dean A, Carroll Peter R, Gleave Martin, Lance Raymond, Lin Daniel W, Nelson Peter S, Thompson Ian M, True Lawrence D, Feng Ziding, McKenney Jesse K
Department of Urology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
The Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 14;10(7):e0132343. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132343. eCollection 2015.
Distinguishing between patients with early stage, screen detected prostate cancer who must be treated from those that can be safely watched has become a major issue in prostate cancer care. Identification of molecular subtypes of prostate cancer has opened the opportunity for testing whether biomarkers that characterize these subtypes can be used as biomarkers of prognosis. Two established molecular subtypes are identified by high expression of the ERG oncoprotein, due to structural DNA alterations that encode for fusion transcripts in approximately ½ of prostate cancers, and over-expression of SPINK1, which is purportedly found only in ERG-negative tumors. We used a multi-institutional prostate cancer tissue microarray constructed from radical prostatectomy samples with associated detailed clinical data and with rigorous selection of recurrent and non-recurrent cases to test the prognostic value of immunohistochemistry staining results for the ERG and SPINK1 proteins. In univariate analysis, ERG positive cases (419/1067; 39%) were associated with lower patient age, pre-operative serum PSA levels, lower Gleason scores (≤ 3+4=7) and improved recurrence free survival (RFS). On multivariate analysis, ERG status was not correlated with RFS, disease specific survival (DSS) or overall survival (OS). High-level SPINK1 protein expression (33/1067 cases; 3%) was associated with improved RFS on univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis. Over-expression of either protein was not associated with clinical outcome. While expression of ERG and SPINK1 proteins was inversely correlated, it was not mutually exclusive since 3 (0.28%) cases showed high expression of both. While ERG and SPINK1 appear to identify discrete molecular subtypes of prostate cancer, only high expression of SPINK1 was associated with improved clinical outcome. However, by themselves, neither ERG nor SPINK1 appear to be useful biomarkers for prognostication of early stage prostate cancer.
区分早期经筛查发现的前列腺癌患者中哪些必须接受治疗,哪些可以安全观察,已成为前列腺癌治疗中的一个主要问题。前列腺癌分子亚型的鉴定为测试表征这些亚型的生物标志物是否可作为预后生物标志物提供了机会。两种已确定的分子亚型通过ERG癌蛋白的高表达来识别,这是由于DNA结构改变导致约一半的前列腺癌中编码融合转录本,以及SPINK1的过表达,据称仅在ERG阴性肿瘤中发现。我们使用了一个多机构前列腺癌组织微阵列,该阵列由根治性前列腺切除术样本构建而成,具有相关的详细临床数据,并对复发和非复发病例进行了严格筛选,以测试ERG和SPINK1蛋白免疫组化染色结果的预后价值。在单变量分析中,ERG阳性病例(419/1067;39%)与患者年龄较低、术前血清PSA水平较低、Gleason评分较低(≤3+4=7)以及无复发生存期(RFS)改善相关。在多变量分析中,ERG状态与RFS、疾病特异性生存期(DSS)或总生存期(OS)无关。在单变量和多变量Cox回归分析中,高水平的SPINK1蛋白表达(33/1067例;3%)与RFS改善相关。两种蛋白的过表达均与临床结果无关。虽然ERG和SPINK1蛋白的表达呈负相关,但并非相互排斥,因为有3例(0.28%)病例显示两者均高表达。虽然ERG和SPINK1似乎可以识别前列腺癌的离散分子亚型,但只有SPINK1的高表达与改善的临床结果相关。然而,就其本身而言,ERG和SPINK1似乎都不是早期前列腺癌预后的有用生物标志物。