Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Translational Oncology logoLink to Translational Oncology
. 2016 Dec 2;9(6):575–582. doi: 10.1016/j.tranon.2016.08.005

Cancer Prognosis Defined by the Combined Analysis of 8q, PTEN and ERG

Maria P Silva *,†, João D Barros-Silva *,†, Elin Ersvær ‡,§, Wanja Kildal ‡,§, Tarjei Sveinsgjerd Hveem ‡,§,#, Manohar Pradhan ‡,§, Joana Vieira *, Manuel R Teixeira *,†,¶,⁎,1, Håvard E Danielsen ‡,§,#,**,⁎,1
PMCID: PMC5143339  PMID: 27916292

Abstract

Overtreatment is a major concern in men diagnosed with prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the combined prognostic role of three frequent molecular alterations in prostate cancer, namely relative 8q gain, ERG overexpression, and loss of PTEN expression, in a series of 136 patients with prostate cancer treated with prostatectomy and with a long follow-up. Fluorescent in situ hybridization was used to detect the relative copy number of 8q and immunohistochemistry was used for quantitative assessment of ERG and PTEN expression. During a median follow-up period of 117.8 months, 66 (49%) patients had disease recurrence. Relative 8q gain, ERG overexpression, and loss of PTEN expression were observed in 18%, 56%, and 33% of the cases, respectively. No association with patient recurrence-free survival was found for relative 8q gain or ERG overexpression on their own, whereas loss of PTEN expression was associated with worse recurrence-free survival (P = .006). Interestingly, in the subgroup of patients with normal PTEN expression, we found that the combined relative 8q gain/ERG overexpression is associated with high risk of recurrence (P = .008), suggesting that alternative mechanisms exist for progression into clinically aggressive disease. Additionally, in intermediate-risk patients with normal PTEN expression in their tumors, the combination of 8q gain/ERG overexpression was associated with a poor recurrence-free survival (P < .001), thus indicating independent prognostic value. This study shows that the combined analysis of 8q, ERG and PTEN contributes to an improved clinical outcome stratification of prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy.

Introduction

Prostate cancer (PCa) remains a major health burden in men, being the second most common non-skin cancer and the fifth leading cause of death from cancer worldwide [1]. These tumors display a heterogeneous spectrum of molecular abnormalities that arguably explains the variable clinical outcome [2]. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is an important clinical tool for early PCa detection, but has poor specificity and limited prognostic value [3], [4], [5]. Additionally, no tissue markers of aggressiveness other than Gleason score (GS) are available at diagnosis and many non-lethal cancers are treated aggressively [6], [7]. Therefore, there is a need for more reliable diagnostic markers to complement PSA, as well as better prognostic markers to differentiate aggressive from indolent disease.

Gene fusions involving the erythroblastosis virus E26 transformation-specific (ETS) family of transcription factors are a highly specific and early molecular event in PCa [8], [9] and studies have shown that about 50% of localized PCa patients harbor the TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion [10], [11], [12]. The impact of ERG rearrangements in PCa prognosis remains controversial to date, both for authors using biochemical recurrence (BCR) as a clinical endpoint [13], [14], [15] and those using disease-specific survival [16], [17], [18]. On the other hand, ETS gene fusions seem to be insufficient to induce cancer formation on their own, and secondary chromosomal changes appear to be important in clinically aggressive PCa [19]. Chromosomal 8q gain has been associated with tumors in advanced stage [20] and a worse clinical outcome [21]. We have previously shown that PCa with relative 8q gain is associated with poor disease-specific survival, independently of Gleason score (GS) [22] and TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion status [23]. Relative 8q gain was also strongly predictive of BCR in radical prostatectomy (RP) treated patients, independently of GS and TNM stage [24], thus supporting the role of relative 8q gain as a biomarker for aggressive PCa.

Genomic deletion of phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), a tumor suppressor gene located at 10q23, is another commonly observed event associated with the prognosis of PCa [25]. In vivo studies have shown that complete loss of this gene recapitulates the major hallmarks of aggressive PCa, namely local tumor invasion, metastases and castration resistance [26]. Moreover, the role of PTEN in PCa progression has been supported by multiple studies showing that loss of the PTEN gene is a frequent event in castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer [27], [28], [29]. Furthermore, loss of PTEN gene has been associated with TMPRSS2-ERG positive PCa tumors [30], [31] and these genetic alterations combined have been suggested as a biomarker of early recurrence [32]. Nevertheless, it is unknown whether loss of PTEN in apparently localized tumors can help to identify which men are at increased risk of future castration-resistant PCa.

In the present work, we assessed the relative 8q copy number status and the expression profiles of ERG and PTEN in 136 RP treated PCa patients with long-term follow-up to evaluate their combined prognostic value.

Material and Methods

Prostatectomy Specimens and Clinical Data

The studied cohort consisted of 170 patients that underwent retropubic radical prostatectomy at the Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital HF (between 1988 and 1996). A tissue microarray (TMA) block including two 0.6 μm punches from each of these patients was constructed. Of the 170 patients of the initial series, tumor material enough for the combined analysis of 8q, ERG and PTEN was available for 136 patients. Relevant clinical data at diagnosis was obtained from clinical records and are summarized in Table 1. Patient age ranged from 47 to 74 (mean and median 64) and pre-operative PSA levels from 1 to 96 ng/mL (median 17). Of the 136 prostatectomy specimens, 1.5% had GS lower than 7, 57.3% GS = 7, and 41.2% GS>7. After prostatectomy, 13% of the patients had the disease classified as pathological stage pT2, 74% as pT3, and 13% as pT4. The clinical endpoint of this study, assessed after a median of 117.8 months of follow-up (range, 8.6 to 226.3), was disease recurrence, which was defined as local recurrence, distant metastasis or prostate cancer death (death cause registry) and was assessed with biopsy, digital rectal examination or imaging modalities.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the 136 Prostate Cancer Patients Treated by Radical Prostatectomy

Parameters Recurrence
Yes No
Age, mean (range) 63 (47–73) 65 (50–74)
PSA (ng/mL), median
 ≤ 6 9 16
 ≥ 6.01 and ≤10 5 10
 ≥ 10.01 and ≤20 22 22
 > 20 27 22
Gleason score
 < 7 0 2
 7 (3 + 4) 6 26
 7 (4 + 3) 21 25
 > 7 39 17
Pathological stage
 pT2 4 13
 pT3 49 52
 pT4 13 5
Time to recurrence (months), median (range) 72 (12–64) 155 (9–226)
Open in a new tab

To stratify the patients in different risk groups of disease recurrence, we calculated the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment post-Surgical (CAPRA)-S score [33]. Beyond preoperative PSA, this postoperative analogue to the CAPRA score incorporates additional pathological data, such as GS, surgical margin (SM) status, presence or absence of extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), and lymph node involvement (LNI). The CAPRA-S score was categorized in three groups: low (CAPRA-S 0 to 2), intermediate (CAPRA-S 3 to 5), and high (CAPRA-S≥6) risk of recurrence [33].

Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization (FISH)

Five-micrometer-thick sections of formalin fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) prostatectomy specimens were processed and hybridized as previously described [22], [23], [34]. For the relative 8q24 gain assessment, a commercial dual-color break-apart probe flanking MYC at 8q24 (ZytoVision, Bremerhaven, Germany) and a centromeric probe for chromosome 18 (CEP18) labeled with SpectrumAqua (Vysis, Downers Grove, IL, USA) were used, as previously described [22], [23], [34]. Slides were counterstained with DAPI (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA, USA) and fluorescent signals were captured in a Zeiss Axioplan fluorescence microscope (Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) coupled with a Cohu 4900 CCD camera using a Cytovision system version 7.4 (Leica Biosystems Richmond, Inc., USA). A ratio between MYC and CEP18 signals within individualized nuclei of a representative cancer cell population was computed for each sample. A sample was categorized as negative for relative 8q gain whenever MYC/CEP18<1.5 and as positive when MYC/CEP18≥1.5 [22]. Additionally, cases with MYC/CEP18≥2 were deemed amplified. An abnormal signal pattern was considered representative when present in a minimum of 50 morphologically intact, non-overlapping nuclei. FISH analysis was performed at the Department of Genetics of IPO Porto.

Immunohistochemistry

Staining for ERG and PTEN was performed on 3 μm tissue sections using the Dako Envison FLEX+ system (K8002; Dako, Glostrup, Denmark) and Dako Autostainer Link 48. The sections were incubated for 30 minutes with the rabbit anti-ERG monoclonal antibody (1:400, EPR 3864, Epitomics, Burlingame, CA, USA), or for 120 minutes with the rabbit anti-PTEN monoclonal antibody (1:200, 138G6, Cell Signaling Technology, Danvers, MA, USA). The slides were dehydrated and counterstained with hematoxylin for 10 seconds before mounting. The slides were scanned by the NanoZoomer 2.0 Digital Slide Scanner (Hamamatsu Photonics KK, Japan).

The ERG expression was classified according to a four-tier grading system: negative, weak positive, moderate positive and strong positive expression, with the later three categories being lamped as positive (ERG+) for statistical analysis. The PTEN expression was evaluated manually as either positive (PTEN+) or negative (PTEN−). Both ERG and PTEN scores were performed by a pathologist (MP) at Oslo University Hospital.

Statistical Analysis

Pearson's chi-squared test was used to evaluate associations between categorical variables and Student's ttest was used to compare continuous variables. Comparison of recurrence-free survival among subgroups of patients defined by different molecular alterations was performed using the log-rank test and plotted as Kaplan-Meier curves. Statistical significance was defined as two-sided P < .05. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS, version 22.0 (Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

8q Copy Number Status

FISH analysis was successful in 124 of the 136 prostatectomy specimens analyzed. Tumor cell populations with 8q24 copy number increase were found in 65 of 124 (52%) of the specimens (Supplementary Table 1). Twenty-two (18%) specimens had a relative 8q24 copy number gain (8q+; MYC/CEP18≥1.5) (Figure 1A), with six of these samples displaying MYC amplification (MYC/CEP18 ≥ 2) (Figure 1B). Additionally, a putative structural rearrangement involving the MYC gene was found in one prostatectomy specimen (case P148T), showing a split of 3´and 5´MYC flanking probes (Figure 1C).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Representative FISH images from selected prostatectomy specimens analyzed with a commercial dual-color break-apart probe flanking MYC at 8q24 and with a chromosome 18 centromeric probe. A) Case P051T with nuclei displaying relative copy number increase of MYC (MYC/CEP18 = 1.5), illustrated by three co-localized signals of MYC (red and green for 5´and 3´, respectively) and two centromeric signals of chromosome 18 (aqua). B) Case P150T presenting MYC amplification (MYC/CEP18 ≥ 2). C) Case P148T showing nuclei with one co-localized signal of MYC, an additional split between red and green signals, indicating a MYC structural rearrangement, and two centromeric signals of chromosome 18 (aqua) (MYC/CEP18 = 1.5).

ERG and PTEN Expression

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed in 136 PCa samples, of which seven and four were deemed not analyzable for ERG and PTEN protein expression, respectively. ERG expression was evaluated in the nucleus of tumor cells, with 57 (44%) of the cases showing a negative (ERG-) protein expression (Figure 2A). Positive expression of ERG (ERG+) was detected in the remaining 72 (56%) cases (17 weakly positive, 22 moderately positive and 33 strongly positive) (Figure 2B). Loss of PTEN expression, considered when it was not detected in both nucleus and cytoplasm of tumor cells, was found in 44 (33%) of the cases (Figure 2C), whereas normal PTEN expression was observed in 88 (67%) of the cases (Figure 2D).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Illustrative IHC patterns of ERG and PTEN expression in the TMA of prostatectomy specimens. A) Negative ERG expression. B) Positive ERG expression. C) Negative PTEN expression. D) Positive PTEN expression.

Prognostic Value of 8q, ERG, and PTEN

After a median follow-up time of 117.8 months post-surgery, no evidence of disease was observed in 70 of the 136 patients (51%). The remaining 66 patients (49%) relapsed within a median follow-up time of 72 months, occurring significantly earlier in those with higher disease grade (P < .001, Supplementary Figure 1A) and more advanced disease (P = .027 Supplementary Figure 1B).

When assessing the prognostic value of the studied markers individually, no significant association with recurrence-free survival was found for either 8q + (P = .489, Supplementary Figure 2A) or ERG+ (P = .514, Supplementary Figure 2B), whereas patients displaying loss of PTEN expression had higher recurrence rate (P = .006, Supplementary Figure 2C) (Table 2). Additionally, in the subgroups of patients with GS = 4 + 3 and pT3/T4 tumors, loss of PTEN expression predicted a worse outcome (P = .009 and P = .003, respectively, Supplementary Figure 3). When patients were stratified into subgroups according to relative 8q copy number alterations and ERG expression status, those patients with 8q + and ERG+ showed a tendency towards worse recurrence-free survival (P = .104, Supplementary Figure 4). Among the patients with normal PTEN expression, the 8q+/ERG+ patients had significantly worse prognosis (P = .008, Figure 3A) (Table 2), an association that was also statistically significant when comparing 8q+/ERG+/PTEN+ patients with all the other (P = .047, Supplementary Figure 5), but not in the subgroup with loss of PTEN expression (data not shown).

Table 2.

Association Between Disease Recurrence and Relative 8q Copy Number Gain, ERG Overexpression, and Loss of PTEN Expression in Prostate Cancer Patients

Markers Number of Cases (%) Number of Cases With Recurrence (%) P Value
8q+ yes 22 (18%) 13 (59%) 0.489
no 102 (82%) 47 (46%)
ERG+ yes 72 (56%) 36 (50%) 0.514
no 57 (44%) 26 (46%)
PTEN- yes 44 (33%) 27 (61%) 0.006
no 88 (67%) 35 (40%)
8q+/ERG+ yes 15 (13%) 10 (67%) 0.104
othera 102 (87%) 47 (46%)
PTEN- 8q+/ERG+ 6 (16%) 3 (50%) 0.633
othera 32 (84%) 22 (69%)
PTEN+ 8q+/ERG+ 9 (12%) 7 (78%) 0.008
othera 69 (88%) 27 (39%)
Open in a new tab

8q+: relative 8q copy number gain; ERG+: ERG overexpression; PTEN-: loss of PTEN expression; PTEN+: PTEN normal expression.

a

Includes all possible combinations regarding relative 8q gain and ERG expression status besides 8q+/ERG+.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Kaplan–Meier curves illustrating recurrence-free survival. A) Comparison of patients with both relative 8q + and ERG+ with all other cases, among the patients with normal PTEN expression. B) Overall recurrence-free survival stratified by grouped CAPRA-S score: 0–2 indicates low risk, 3–5 intermediate-risk, and ≥6 high-risk of disease progression. C) Comparison of patients with both relative 8q + and ERG+ with all other cases, among the patients with normal PTEN expression and with an intermediate-risk of recurrence.

The patients were categorized by CAPRA-S score in groups of low (n = 5), intermediate (n = 41) and high (n = 87) risk of progression. We observed a significantly higher relapse rate in patients with higher CAPRA-S score (CAPRA-S ≥ 6, P < .001, Figure 3B). When we evaluated the prognostic value of isolated 8q, ERG and PTEN changes in the three risk groups defined by CAPRA-S, we found that intermediate risk patients with 8q + and high-risk patients with PTEN- showed a trend towards worse clinical outcome (P = .059 and P = .077, respectively, Supplementary Figure 6, A and B).

Interestingly, the combination of the two molecular markers 8q + and ERG+ added prognostic value in the intermediate-risk group (P = .026, Supplementary Figure 6C), with statistical significance being even more evident when considering only patients having a normal PTEN expression (P < .001, Figure 3C; P = .001, Supplementary Figure 7).

Other Clinicopathological Associations

Both relative 8q copy number gain and loss of PTEN expression were significantly associated with seminal vesicle infiltration (P = .047 and P = .033, respectively) and loss of PTEN expression was associated with GS>7 tumors (P = .017). Associations were also found between high-risk CAPRA-S score and tumors with PTEN- or 8q+/ERG+/PTEN+ (P = .028 and P = .004, respectively). No other statistically significant associations were found between clinicopathological variables and molecular features (Table 3 and Supplementary Table 2).

Table 3.

Clinicopathological Associations with Relative 8q Copy Number Gain, ERG Overexpression and PTEN Loss of Expression in Prostate Cancer Patients

8q + (n = 124)
 ERG (n = 129)
 PTEN (n = 132)
Clinicopathological Parameter No Yes No Yes No Yes
Age (y), mean (range) 64 (48–73) 63 (47–74) 65 (48–73) 63(47–74) 63 (49–74) 64 (47–73)
P = .486 P = .193 P = .610
PSA (ng/mL), median
 ≤6 16 5 7 17 7 17
 ≥6.01 and ≤10 14 1 7 6 3 11
 ≥10.01 and ≤20 35 7 16 27 18 26
 >20 34 9 26 21 16 31
P = .559 P = .117 P = .538
Gleason score
 <7 0 1 1 1 0 2
 7 (3 + 4) 23 6 12 17 5 26
 7 (4 + 3) 35 8 21 22 13 31
 >7 44 7 22 31 26 29
P = .145 P = .885 P = .017
Pathological stage
 pT2 11 4 7 10 5 12
 pT3 74 17 44 51 36 62
 pT4 17 1 6 11 3 14
P = .259 P = .676 P = .285
Surgical margins
 Negative 39 5 16 25 16 28
 Positive 63 17 40 46 28 60
P = .168 P = .427 P = .602
Extraprostatic extension
 Negative 12 4 7 11 5 13
 Positive 90 18 50 61 39 75
P = .415 P = .626 P = .591
Seminal vesicle infiltration
 Negative 66 19 40 47 25 66
 Positive 36 3 16 24 19 22
P = .047 P = .529 P = .033
Lymph node invasion
 Negative 95 20 55 65 40 83
 Positive 7 2 2 7 4 5
P = .715 P = .169 P = .464
CAPRA-S score
 0–2 (low) 4 1 3 2 2 3
 3–5 (intermediate) 29 8 13 26 7 33
 ≥ 6 (high) 66 13 40 43 35 49
P = .793 P = .233 P = .028
Open in a new tab

8q+: Relative 8q gain; ERG+: ERG overexpression; PTEN-: loss of PTEN expression; PTEN+: PTEN normal expression; CAPRA-S score: Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment.

Discussion

In this study, we investigated the prognostic significance of the combination of three common molecular alterations in PCa, namely relative 8q copy number gain, ERG overexpression and loss of PTEN expression. Relative 8q copy number gain (MYC/CEP18≥1.5) was found in 18% of PCa patients, six of which harbored MYC amplification (MYC/CEP18≥2). Our results are therefore in agreement with other studies showing that relative 8q copy number gain is relatively frequent in PCa [23], [24], [35]. Although we have previously shown that relative 8q gain is a marker of poor prognosis in diagnostic prostate cancer biopsies [22], [23], [34], the present data in prostatectomy specimens from patients with long-term follow-up showed no overall differences in recurrence-free survival in 8q+patients, although intermediate risk 8q + patients showed a trend to worse prognosis. Contrarily, Fromont and colleagues [24] found that relative copy number increase of MYC (MYC/CEN8≥1.5) was a strong predictive marker of BCR after RP, being independent of other known prognostic factors such as TNM stage and GS. In addition to differences related to the control probe used (CEN8) and the number of cases analyzed (n = 242), perhaps the most relevant explanation for the different conclusions regarding relative 8q copy number gain as an independent prognostic marker in patients treated with RP is related to the study design: in the study of Fromont et al. [24], all the patients that recurred were matched with patients free of recurrence according to age, PSA, GS and pT stage.

It has previously been demonstrated that, by using a specific antibody, overexpression of ERG can be used as surrogate marker for the presence of an ERG fusion gene [36], [37]. We observed ERG+ expression in 72 cases (56%), which is in accordance with the rearrangement frequency of 44–65% reported by previous IHC studies on RP specimens [38], [39]. We further observed that positive ERG expression was not associated with any of the clinicopathological variables analyzed (GS and pT stage) and had no prognostic value evaluated by recurrence. This lack of prognostic significance in surgically treated patients was observed in some reports [39], [40], [41] but not in others [15], [42], [43], which might be explained by differences in the endpoint used. When we stratified patients by relative 8q copy number and ERG protein status in the entire series, the patients with 8q+/ERG+ tumors did not show a significant difference in disease relapse compared to the other groups, indicating that the 8q+/ERG+ combination by itself is not an independent prognostic factor.

Earlier findings showed a strong link between deletion of PTEN and adverse tumor features, suggesting that PTEN down-regulation confers substantial malignant potential to PCa cells [25]. Reid and co-workers [44] combined IHC and FISH to detect alterations at the PTEN locus and reported a complete loss of PTEN protein expression in 58% of the tumors that had normal PTEN copy number by FISH. As alternative mechanisms could result in PTEN protein loss [45] and this molecular feature has been shown to be associated with PCa survival [28], we performed IHC in our series of patients who presented clinical criteria to be surgically treated by RP. We showed that 33% of the cases had loss of PTEN expression, which is within the range of 16 to 44% reported in previous studies [15], [39], [46] Furthermore, we observed that loss of expression of PTEN was associated with markers of aggressive disease, including higher GS and seminal vesicle infiltration (Table 3), which is in line with previous reports [27], [47]. PTEN down-regulation, alone or stratified for GS and pT stage, independently predicts worse recurrence-free survival. Our data is in agreement with that of others [48], [49], [50], but observations have been conflicting on whether PTEN inactivation is a prognostic marker in PCa [15], [29], [51], even when using the same clinical endpoint. This might in part be explained by the type of tumor samples used, as two of the studies reporting no significant association between loss of PTEN expression and BCR [29], [51] were performed in biopsy samples. Furthermore, PTEN genomic loss has been identified as one of the most common concomitant events with TMPRSS2-ERG rearrangement [2], [25], [44], an interaction that has been validated by in vivo studies in mice [30], [31], [52]. The combination of these two alterations was described as predictor of early recurrence [32], something that we could not validate in this study.

Interestingly, although patients with normal PTEN expression in general presented better prognosis than those showing loss of PTEN expression, we here show for the first time that among the former there seems to be a subgroup of patients with tumors showing combined relative 8q gain and ERG overexpression (strongly associated with the TMPRSS2-ERG fusion gene) who are at high risk of recurrence. Moreover, for the patients that have an intermediate CAPRA-S score, the combination of these two molecular markers adds prognostic value, thus allowing differentiating a subgroup of patients that are at high risk of recurrence and another with good prognosis. The reason for the poor prognosis for the 8q+/ERG+ combination specifically in the background of normal PTEN expression is unknown, but may represent alternative mechanisms of PCa progression, one associated with loss of PTEN expression and another with overexpression of one or more target genes at 8q in a background of ERG rearrangement and normal PTEN expression. This study further indicates that it is unlikely that a single molecular prognostic marker is able to fully capture the clinically aggressive PCa cases, as alternative progression pathways and interactions between molecular alterations exist. Although further studies are necessary to fully characterize the molecular mechanisms of clinically aggressive PCa, the data we here present contribute significantly to molecular subtyping of the disease, with significant prognostic information that, if validated in biopsy specimens in large prospective studies with current standard treatment strategies, may allow better treatment stratification if confirmed in independent studies.

Disclosure/Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Prof. Luis Antunes from the Department of Epidemiology of the Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto), for kindly helping with the statistical analyses. This work was partially supported by the IPO Porto Research Centre (CI-IPOP-16-2012). MPS is a research fellow from Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro, Núcleo Regional do Norte.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranon.2016.08.005.

Contributor Information

Manuel R. Teixeira, Email: manuel.teixeira@ipoporto.min-saude.pt.

Håvard E. Danielsen, Email: hdaniels@ifi.uio.no.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary Figure 1 – Kaplan–Meier curves illustrating overall recurrence-free survival between groups of PCa patients defined by Gleason score (A) and by pathological stage (B). Supplementary Figure 2 – Kaplan–Meier curves illustrating overall recurrence-free survival according to the isolated status of relative 8q gain, ERG overexpression and loss of PTEN expression. Comparison of patients with (+) or without (−) relative 8q gain (A), with (+) and without (−) ERG expression (B) and with normal (+) and loss (−) of PTEN expression (C). Supplementary Figure 3 – Kaplan–Meier curves illustrating recurrence-free survival according to the presence (+) or absence (−) of PTEN expression, in patients with Gleason score 7 (4 + 3) (A) and pathological stages pT3 and pT4 tumors (B). Supplementary Figure 4 – Kaplan–Meier curve illustrating overall recurrence-free survival comparing of patients with both relative 8q + and ERG overexpression (8q+/ERG+) with all other cases, among the whole prostatectomy series. Supplementary Figure 5 – Kaplan–Meier curve illustrating overall recurrence-free survival comparing patients with both relative 8q + and ERG overexpression (8q+/ERG+) and normal PTEN expression (+) with all other cases, among the whole prostatectomy series. Supplementary Figure 6 – Kaplan–Meier curves illustrating recurrence-free survival comparing patients with (+) or without (−) relative 8q gain in the CAPRA-S intermediate-risk (A), with normal (+) and loss (−) of PTEN expression in the CAPRA-S high-risk group (B), and with both relative 8q gain and ERG overexpression with all other cases in the intermediate-risk group (C). Supplementary Figure 7 – Kaplan–Meier curve illustrating recurrence-free survival comparing patients with both relative 8q gain and ERG overexpression and normal PTEN expression (8q+/ERG+/PTEN+) with all other cases among patients in the intermediate CAPRA-S risk score. Supplementary Table 1 – Summary of experimental findings obtained by FISH analysis for relative 8q24 copy number status in 136 prostate carcinomas. Supplementary Table 2 – Clinicopathological associations with the combinatory status of relative 8q gain and ERG overexpression (8q+/ERG+) and presence (+) or absence (−) of PTEN expression in prostate cancer patients.

mmc1.docx (3.8MB, docx)

References

  • 1.Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:E359–E386. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.The Cancer Genome Atlas Network The molecular taxonomy of primary prostate cancer. Cell. 2015;163:1011–1025. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.10.025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wolf AM, Wender RC, Etzioni RB, Thompson IM, D'Amico AV, Volk RJ, Brooks DD, Dash C, Guessous I, Andrews K. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:70–98. doi: 10.3322/caac.20066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ladjevardi S, Berglund A, Varenhorst E, Bratt O, Widmark A, Sandblom G. Treatment with curative intent and survival in men with high-risk prostate cancer. A population-based study of 11 380 men with serum PSA level 20-100 ng/mL. BJU Int. 2013;111:381–388. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11320.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Izumi K, Lin WJ, Miyamoto H, Huang CK, Maolake A, Kitagawa Y, Kadono Y, Konaka H, Mizokami A, Namiki M. Outcomes and predictive factors of prostate cancer patients with extremely high prostate-specific antigen level. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2014;140:1413–1419. doi: 10.1007/s00432-014-1681-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1019–1024. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Severi G, FitzGerald LM, Muller DC, Pedersen J, Longano A, Southey MC, Hopper JL, English DR, Giles GG, Mills J. A three-protein biomarker panel assessed in diagnostic tissue predicts death from prostate cancer for men with localized disease. Cancer Med. 2014;3:1266–1274. doi: 10.1002/cam4.281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ribeiro FR, Diep CB, Jeronimo C, Henrique R, Lopes C, Eknaes M, Lingjaerde OC, Lothe RA, Teixeira MR. Statistical dissection of genetic pathways involved in prostate carcinogenesis. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2006;45:154–163. doi: 10.1002/gcc.20279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Perner S, Mosquera JM, Demichelis F, Hofer MD, Paris PL, Simko J, Collins C, Bismar TA, Chinnaiyan AM, De Marzo AM. TMPRSS2-ERG fusion prostate cancer: an early molecular event associated with invasion. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:882–888. doi: 10.1097/01.pas.0000213424.38503.aa. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tomlins SA, Rhodes DR, Perner S, Dhanasekaran SM, Mehra R, Sun XW, Varambally S, Cao X, Tchinda J, Kuefer R. Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Science. 2005;310:644–648. doi: 10.1126/science.1117679. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Clark JP, Cooper CS. ETS gene fusions in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2009;6:429–439. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2009.127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Paulo P, Barros-Silva JD, Ribeiro FR, Ramalho-Carvalho J, Jeronimo C, Henrique R, Lind GE, Skotheim RI, Lothe RA, Teixeira MR. FLI1 is a novel ETS transcription factor involved in gene fusions in prostate cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2012;51:240–249. doi: 10.1002/gcc.20948. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Saramaki OR, Harjula AE, Martikainen PM, Vessella RL, Tammela TL, Visakorpi T. TMPRSS2:ERG fusion identifies a subgroup of prostate cancers with a favorable prognosis. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:3395–3400. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-2051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gopalan A, Leversha MA, Satagopan JM, Zhou Q, Al-Ahmadie HA, Fine SW, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Scher HI, Tickoo SK. TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion is not associated with outcome in patients treated by prostatectomy. Cancer Res. 2009;69:1400–1406. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-2467. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kim SH, Kim SH, Joung JY, Lee GK, Hong EK, Kang KM, Yu A, Nam BH, Chung J, Seo HK. Overexpression of ERG and wild-type PTEN are associated with favorable clinical prognosis and low biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0122498. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Demichelis F, Fall K, Perner S, Andren O, Schmidt F, Setlur SR, Hoshida Y, Mosquera JM, Pawitan Y, Lee C. TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion associated with lethal prostate cancer in a watchful waiting cohort. Oncogene. 2007;26:4596–4599. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1210237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Attard G, Clark J, Ambroisine L, Fisher G, Kovacs G, Flohr P, Berney D, Foster CS, Fletcher A, Gerald WL. Duplication of the fusion of TMPRSS2 to ERG sequences identifies fatal human prostate cancer. Oncogene. 2008;27:253–263. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1210640. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.FitzGerald LM, Agalliu I, Johnson K, Miller MA, Kwon EM, Hurtado-Coll A, Fazli L, Rajput AB, Gleave ME, Cox ME. Association of TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion with clinical characteristics and outcomes: results from a population-based study of prostate cancer. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:230. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-8-230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Squire JA, Park PC, Yoshimoto M, Alami J, Williams JL, Evans A, Joshua AM. Prostate cancer as a model system for genetic diversity in tumors. Adv Cancer Res. 2011;112:183–216. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-387688-1.00007-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Alers JC, Rochat J, Krijtenburg PJ, Hop WC, Kranse R, Rosenberg C, Tanke HJ, Schroder FH, van Dekken H. Identification of genetic markers for prostatic cancer progression. Lab Invest. 2000;80:931–942. doi: 10.1038/labinvest.3780096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Macoska JA, Trybus TM, Wojno KJ. 8p22 loss concurrent with 8c gain is associated with poor outcome in prostate cancer. Urology. 2000;55:776–782. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00468-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ribeiro FR, Henrique R, Martins AT, Jeronimo C, Teixeira MR. Relative copy number gain of MYC in diagnostic needle biopsies is an independent prognostic factor for prostate cancer patients. Eur Urol. 2007;52:116–125. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.09.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Barros-Silva JD, Ribeiro FR, Rodrigues A, Cruz R, Martins AT, Jeronimo C, Henrique R, Teixeira MR. Relative 8q gain predicts disease-specific survival irrespective of the TMPRSS2-ERG fusion status in diagnostic biopsies of prostate cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2011;50:662–671. doi: 10.1002/gcc.20888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fromont G, Godet J, Peyret A, Irani J, Celhay O, Rozet F, Cathelineau X, Cussenot O. 8q24 amplification is associated with Myc expression and prostate cancer progression and is an independent predictor of recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Hum Pathol. 2013;44:1617–1623. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2013.01.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Al Bashir S, Alshalalfa M, Hegazy SA, Dolph M, Donnelly B, Bismar TA. Cysteine- rich secretory protein 3 (CRISP3), ERG and PTEN define a molecular subtype of prostate cancer with implication to patients' prognosis. J Hematol Oncol. 2014;7:21. doi: 10.1186/1756-8722-7-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.De Velasco MA, Uemura H. Preclinical Remodeling of Human Prostate Cancer through the PTEN/AKT Pathway. Adv Urol. 2012;2012:419348. doi: 10.1155/2012/419348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Han B, Mehra R, Lonigro RJ, Wang L, Suleman K, Menon A, Palanisamy N, Tomlins SA, Chinnaiyan AM, Shah RB. Fluorescence in situ hybridization study shows association of PTEN deletion with ERG rearrangement during prostate cancer progression. Mod Pathol. 2009;22:1083–1093. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2009.69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sircar K, Yoshimoto M, Monzon FA, Koumakpayi IH, Katz RL, Khanna A, Alvarez K, Chen G, Darnel AD, Aprikian AG. PTEN genomic deletion is associated with p-Akt and AR signalling in poorer outcome, hormone refractory prostate cancer. J Pathol. 2009;218:505–513. doi: 10.1002/path.2559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Mithal P, Allott E, Gerber L, Reid J, Welbourn W, Tikishvili E, Park J, Younus A, Sangale Z, Lanchbury JS. PTEN loss in biopsy tissue predicts poor clinical outcomes in prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2014;21:1209–1214. doi: 10.1111/iju.12571. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Carver BS, Tran J, Gopalan A, Chen Z, Shaikh S, Carracedo A, Alimonti A, Nardella C, Varmeh S, Scardino PT. Aberrant ERG expression cooperates with loss of PTEN to promote cancer progression in the prostate. Nat Genet. 2009;41:619–624. doi: 10.1038/ng.370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.King JC, Xu J, Wongvipat J, Hieronymus H, Carver BS, Leung DH, Taylor BS, Sander C, Cardiff RD, Couto SS. Cooperativity of TMPRSS2-ERG with PI3-kinase pathway activation in prostate oncogenesis. Nat Genet. 2009;41:524–526. doi: 10.1038/ng.371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yoshimoto M, Joshua AM, Cunha IW, Coudry RA, Fonseca FP, Ludkovski O, Zielenska M, Soares FA, Squire JA. Absence of TMPRSS2:ERG fusions and PTEN losses in prostate cancer is associated with a favorable outcome. Mod Pathol. 2008;21:1451–1460. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2008.96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cooperberg MR, Hilton JF, Carroll PR. The CAPRA-S score: a straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2011;117:5039–5046. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ribeiro FR, Jeronimo C, Henrique R, Fonseca D, Oliveira J, Lothe RA, Teixeira MR. 8q gain is an independent predictor of poor survival in diagnostic needle biopsies from prostate cancer suspects. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:3961–3970. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-1977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jenkins RB, Qian J, Lieber MM, Bostwick DG. Detection of c-myc oncogene amplification and chromosomal anomalies in metastatic prostatic carcinoma by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Cancer Res. 1997;57:524–531. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Suh JH, Park JW, Lee C, Moon KC. ERG immunohistochemistry and clinicopathologic characteristics in Korean prostate adenocarcinoma patients. Korean J Pathol. 2012;46:423–428. doi: 10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2012.46.5.423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Tomlins SA, Palanisamy N, Siddiqui J, Chinnaiyan AM, Kunju LP. Antibody-based detection of ERG rearrangements in prostate core biopsies, including diagnostically challenging cases: ERG staining in prostate core biopsies. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136:935–946. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2011-0424-OA. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Park K, Tomlins SA, Mudaliar KM, Chiu YL, Esgueva R, Mehra R, Suleman K, Varambally S, Brenner JC, MacDonald T. Antibody-based detection of ERG rearrangement-positive prostate cancer. Neoplasia. 2010;12:590–598. doi: 10.1593/neo.10726. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hoogland AM, Jenster G, van Weerden WM, Trapman J, van der Kwast T, Roobol MJ, Schroder FH, Wildhagen MF, van Leenders GJ. ERG immunohistochemistry is not predictive for PSA recurrence, local recurrence or overall survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2012;25:471–479. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2011.176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kim J, Yu J. Interrogating genomic and epigenomic data to understand prostate cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1825:186–196. doi: 10.1016/j.bbcan.2011.12.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Pettersson A, Graff RE, Bauer SR, Pitt MJ, Lis RT, Stack EC, Martin NE, Kunz L, Penney KL, Ligon AH. The TMPRSS2:ERG rearrangement, ERG expression, and prostate cancer outcomes: a cohort study and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21:1497–1509. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bismar TA, Dolph M, Teng LH, Liu S, Donnelly B. ERG protein expression reflects hormonal treatment response and is associated with Gleason score and prostate cancer specific mortality. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:538–546. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Krohn A, Diedler T, Burkhardt L, Mayer PS, De Silva C, Meyer-Kornblum M, Kotschau D, Tennstedt P, Huang J, Gerhauser C. Genomic deletion of PTEN is associated with tumor progression and early PSA recurrence in ERG fusion-positive and fusion-negative prostate cancer. Am J Pathol. 2012;181:401–412. doi: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2012.04.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Reid AH, Attard G, Brewer D, Miranda S, Riisnaes R, Clark J, Hylands L, Merson S, Vergis R, Jameson C. Novel, gross chromosomal alterations involving PTEN cooperate with allelic loss in prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2012;25:902–910. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2011.207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Salmena L, Carracedo A, Pandolfi PP. Tenets of PTEN tumor suppression. Cell. 2008;133:403–414. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.04.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lotan TL, Gurel B, Sutcliffe S, Esopi D, Liu W, Xu J, Hicks JL, Park BH, Humphreys E, Partin AW. PTEN protein loss by immunostaining: analytic validation and prognostic indicator for a high risk surgical cohort of prostate cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:6563–6573. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1244. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Leinonen KA, Saramaki OR, Furusato B, Kimura T, Takahashi H, Egawa S, Suzuki H, Keiger K, Ho Hahm S, Isaacs WB. Loss of PTEN is associated with aggressive behavior in ERG-positive prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22:2333–2344. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0333-T. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Yoshimoto M, Cunha IW, Coudry RA, Fonseca FP, Torres CH, Soares FA, Squire JA. FISH analysis of 107 prostate cancers shows that PTEN genomic deletion is associated with poor clinical outcome. Br J Cancer. 2007;97:678–685. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603924. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.McCall P, Witton CJ, Grimsley S, Nielsen KV, Edwards J. Is PTEN loss associated with clinical outcome measures in human prostate cancer? Br J Cancer. 2008;99:1296–1301. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604680. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Chaux A, Peskoe SB, Gonzalez-Roibon N, Schultz L, Albadine R, Hicks J, De Marzo AM, Platz EA, Netto GJ. Loss of PTEN expression is associated with increased risk of recurrence after prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2012;25:1543–1549. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2012.104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Zafarana G, Ishkanian AS, Malloff CA, Locke JA, Sykes J, Thoms J, Lam WL, Squire JA, Yoshimoto M, Ramnarine VR. Copy number alterations of c-MYC and PTEN are prognostic factors for relapse after prostate cancer radiotherapy. Cancer. 2012;118:4053–4062. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26729. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Zong Y, Xin L, Goldstein AS, Lawson DA, Teitell MA, Witte ON. ETS family transcription factors collaborate with alternative signaling pathways to induce carcinoma from adult murine prostate cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106:12465–12470. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0905931106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Figure 1 – Kaplan–Meier curves illustrating overall recurrence-free survival between groups of PCa patients defined by Gleason score (A) and by pathological stage (B). Supplementary Figure 2 – Kaplan–Meier curves illustrating overall recurrence-free survival according to the isolated status of relative 8q gain, ERG overexpression and loss of PTEN expression. Comparison of patients with (+) or without (−) relative 8q gain (A), with (+) and without (−) ERG expression (B) and with normal (+) and loss (−) of PTEN expression (C). Supplementary Figure 3 – Kaplan–Meier curves illustrating recurrence-free survival according to the presence (+) or absence (−) of PTEN expression, in patients with Gleason score 7 (4 + 3) (A) and pathological stages pT3 and pT4 tumors (B). Supplementary Figure 4 – Kaplan–Meier curve illustrating overall recurrence-free survival comparing of patients with both relative 8q + and ERG overexpression (8q+/ERG+) with all other cases, among the whole prostatectomy series. Supplementary Figure 5 – Kaplan–Meier curve illustrating overall recurrence-free survival comparing patients with both relative 8q + and ERG overexpression (8q+/ERG+) and normal PTEN expression (+) with all other cases, among the whole prostatectomy series. Supplementary Figure 6 – Kaplan–Meier curves illustrating recurrence-free survival comparing patients with (+) or without (−) relative 8q gain in the CAPRA-S intermediate-risk (A), with normal (+) and loss (−) of PTEN expression in the CAPRA-S high-risk group (B), and with both relative 8q gain and ERG overexpression with all other cases in the intermediate-risk group (C). Supplementary Figure 7 – Kaplan–Meier curve illustrating recurrence-free survival comparing patients with both relative 8q gain and ERG overexpression and normal PTEN expression (8q+/ERG+/PTEN+) with all other cases among patients in the intermediate CAPRA-S risk score. Supplementary Table 1 – Summary of experimental findings obtained by FISH analysis for relative 8q24 copy number status in 136 prostate carcinomas. Supplementary Table 2 – Clinicopathological associations with the combinatory status of relative 8q gain and ERG overexpression (8q+/ERG+) and presence (+) or absence (−) of PTEN expression in prostate cancer patients.

mmc1.docx (3.8MB, docx)

Articles from Translational Oncology are provided here courtesy of Neoplasia Press

RESOURCES