Abstract
Introduction:
The presence of intraductal prostate cancer in a sample is often associated with large tumor volume, an advanced stage of the disease, a high Gleason score and an increased risk of recurrence, and resistance to androgen suppression and chemotherapy, which are also correlated with reduced progression-free survival and with postoperative, biochemical relapse.
Methods:
The aim of our study was to investigate whether carbonic anhydrase IX (CA IX) is upregulated in prostate cancer and to investigate ERG and EZH2 as potential markers for cancer aggression in aggressive acinar disease with intraductal component prostate cancer. The series consisted of 79 cases of prostate cancer. Immunohistochemical staining was performed for EZH2 ERG and CA IX.
Results:
The results of this study underline the fact that EZH2 protein expression is a powerful predictor of PSA relapse in prostate cancer and that this effect is stronger in ERG-positive cancers than in ERG-negative cancers. Evident EZH2 nuclear expression was found in prostatic tumor, proposing increased EZH2 expression important for the spread of prostate cancer.
Conclusions:
The relationship to tumor phenotype and prognosis was more considerable in ERG-positive tumors than in ERG-negative tumors. EZH2 has gained great interest as a target for epigenetic cancer therapy. Although prostate cancer is a hypoxic tumor, it does not express CA IX and cannot be used as an endogenous marker for hypoxia.
Keywords: Carbonic anhydrase IX, ERG, EZH2, intraductal prostate cancer, prostate cancer
INTRODUCTION
Intraductal prostate cancer (IDC-P) is a malignant lesion characterized by an expansive growth of malignant epithelial cells in the prostate ducts that present significant architectural and cytological atypia.[1] The presence of IDC-P in a sample is often associated with a large volume of cancer, an advanced stage of the disease, a high Gleason score and an increased risk of recurrence, and resistance to androgen suppression and chemotherapy.[2,3,4,5]
Well, IDC-P is a term that specifically refers to prostate adenocarcinomas that grow and spread in the prostate ducts, as described by Kovi et al.[6] The definition of IDC-P is based on a series of morphological criteria which have been evaluated by various authors.[7,8,9] It can have different growth models: solid, micropapillary, and rarely, flat architecture. The cells can be cubic or columnar with a considerable increase in the size of the nucleus.[10] Numerous studies report that the presence of IDC-P in radical prostatectomy (RP) is related to other adverse pathological features: higher Gleason score, higher tumor volume, and greater probability of extraprostatic infiltration, vesicular invasion, and metastasis from the pelvic lymph nodes (LNs). A correlation with reduced progression-free survival and postoperative biochemical recurrence was also highlighted.[11,12,13] Cohen et al.[14] after examining a small series of RP specimens concluded that reporting the presence of IDC-P in preoperative prostate biopsies could be useful in predicting the pathological stage before RP; also because the presence of IDC-P in the biopsy was strongly correlated to the biochemical failure. Recurrent ERG fusions represent the most common genetic modification in prostate cancer, TMPRSS2-ERG occurs in about 40%–50% of tumors.[15,16] The presence of this gene fusion is an early clonal event in the progression of prostate cancer, especially for IDC-P.
Basal layer cells are absent in prostate adenocarcinoma; immunohistochemical staining for p63, a high molecular-weight cytokeratin, is important for identifying the presence of basal cells.[17,18,19,20,21,22] This is especially true of the small areas of cancer that are common in needle biopsies. From a biological point of view, it has been hypothesized that the basal cells represent the compartment of the reserve cells within the prostate epithelium;[23,24,25,26] therefore, the loss represents an important step in the development of invasive carcinoma and intraepithelial prostate neoplasia of IDC-P.[27] Thus, the presence of clearly identifiable basal cells in a gland or duct excludes the diagnosis of carcinoma. Varambally et al.[28] showed a positive relationship between EZH2 protein expression levels and the increased aggressiveness of prostate cancer. Surprisingly, overexpression of EZH2, after RP, is not only associated with metastasis but also associated with a higher risk of recurrence in the prostate lodge. Therefore, EZH2 is considered a potential diagnostic and prognostic biomarker in prostate cancer; therefore, immunohistochemical evaluation of EZH2 could be useful in the presence of IDC-P in prostate biopsy. Finally, we know that hypoxia is a feature of a wide range of solid tumors important in promoting tumor progression[29] and treatment resistance[30] by reducing apoptosis. Carbonic anhydrase IX (CA IX) has been used as an endogenous marker for the assessment of hypoxia in numerous solid tumors, including bladder, kidney, lung, and head-and-neck cancers.[31,32,33] Usually, the expression of CA IX is associated with a more aggressive tumor phenotype and greater resistance to treatment.
Our study aims to investigate whether CA IX is upregulated in prostate cancer and to evaluate the expression of ERG and EZH2 as potential markers of aggressiveness of prostate cancer with an intraductal component.
CASES AND CLINICAL INFORMATION
The series included 79 cases of prostate cancer retrieved from the Department of Surgical, Medical, Molecular Pathology, and Critical Areas at the University of Pisa. For each case, a representative section of the tumor was selected for immunohistochemistry and 4 μ thick sections were obtained from each selected formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue block. All patients who underwent a RP in this series were operated on by a single surgeon in urological surgery between 2004 and 2015 and received adjuvant or neoadjuvant hormone therapy or adjuvant radiation therapy.
HISTOLOGICAL EVALUATION
Hematoxylin and eosin-stained (HE) slides made from RP specimens were re-evaluated by a pathologist specializing in urological pathology. The following pathological parameters were analyzed for each patient: pathological staging (Tumor node metastasis), Gleason score, surgical margin (SM), presence of IDC-P, extraprostatic infiltration, seminal vesicular invasion, and LN metastasis. The Biopsy Gleason Score was also re-evaluated according to the rating system of the International Society for Urological Pathology 2016.
INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA
IDC-P was defined according to McNeal criteria: Which are well-defined lesions with basal cells present but consisting of a population of clearly malignant epithelial cells, usually present around the invasive carcinoma [Figure 1].
Figure 1.

Histological features of intraductal cancer of the prostate. Large caliber smooth-contoured ducts surrounded by basal cells
IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY
Four tissue sections were used for immunohistochemical analysis and stained with anti-p63 antibody (4A4, Ventana), anti-TMPRSS2-ERG antibody (EPR3864-anti-ERG Ventana), anti-EZH2 antibody (SP129), and anti-CA IX antibody (VENTANA EP161 Rabbit Monoclonal Primary Antibody). The colors for EZH2, ERG, and CA IX were performed with Benchmark Ultra, Ventana Medical Systems (Tucson, AZ). All IHC staining slides were assessed with a light microscope. The nuclear staining for p63 [Figure 2] was complete positive or focal or negative if completely absent. EZH2 [Figure 3] and ERG [Figure 4] were evaluated positive or negative based on nuclear expression, tissue samples with a percentage of positive cells >10% were considered positiv, while for CA IX, it was assessed positive or negative based on cytoplasmic staining.
Figure 2.

An example of complete positive P63
Figure 3.

EZH2 nuclear expression
Figure 4.

Strong expression nuclear ERG
EZH2 and ERG immunohistochemistry
PCa specimens were assessed for ERG, EZH2, and CA IX protein expression by immunohistochemistry. Thirty-four samples showed ERG expression (34/79, 43.04%), while EZH2 expression was found in 36/79 cases (45.57%) [Figures 3 and 4]. Chi-square test displayed a strong correlation between ERG and EZH2 expression (P < 0.0001) [Figure 5]. All the samples were negative for CA IX, with a kidney sample used as a positive control in immunostaining [Figure 6]. ERG positivity was statistically associated with high Gleason (P < 0.0001) [Table 1 and Figure 7]; t-test showed that elevated ERG expression was significantly decreased with the Gleason score (P < 0.0001); mean ERG value was 0.5 in Gleason 9 samples, 0.46 in score 8, 0.44 in score 7 (4 + 3), and 0.11 in score 7 (3 + 4) [Figure 5]. Figure 8 and Table 1 show a similar association between EZH2 positivity and Gleason score (Chi-square test; P = 0.0002), with EZH2 expression levels lowering as Gleason score decreasing (t-test; P < 0.0001).
Figure 5.

ERG/EZH2
Figure 6.

Absence of Carbonic anhydrase IX expression
Table 1.
Comparison between erg and ezh2 expression and clinico-pathological data (Values are shown as n. bp-values are assessed by χ2test)
| ERG expression | P | EZH2 expression | P | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||||
| Negative | Positive | Negative | Positive | |||
| AGE | ||||||
| ≤69 years (TOT: 40 CASES) | 50% (20/40) | 50% (20/40) | 0,2 | 48% (19/40) | 52%(21/40) | 0,210 |
| >69 years (TOT: 39 CASES) | 64% (25/39) | 36% (14/39) | 62% (24/39) | 38%(15/39) | ||
| PAHOLOGICAL STAGE T | ||||||
| T2a | 100% (2/2) | 0% (0/2) | 50%(1/2) | 50%(1/2) | ||
| T2b | 100% (4/4) | 0% (0/4) | 0,0002 | 100%(4/4) | 0%(0/4) | 0,0014 |
| T2c | 74%(28/38) | 26%(10/38) | 71%(27/38) | 29%(11/38) | ||
| T3a | 39%(7/18) | 61%(11/18) | 39%(7/18) | 61%(11/18) | ||
| T3b | 24%(4/17) | 76%(13/17) | 24%(4/17) | 76%(13/17) | ||
| PATHOLOGICAL STAGE N | ||||||
| N0 (TOT: 26 cases) | 38% (10/26) | 62% (16/26) | <0,0001 | 0.0001 | ||
| N1 (TOT: 17 cases) | 24% (4/17) | 76% (13/17) | ||||
| NX (TOT: 36 cases) | 86% (31/36) | 14% (5/36) | ||||
| GLEASON SCORE | ||||||
| 6 (3+3) | 100% (18/18) | 0% (0/18) | <0,0001 | 83% (15/18) | 17% (3/18) | 0,0002 |
| 7 (3+4) | 79% (15/19) | 21% (4/19) | 79% (15/19) | 21% (4/19) | ||
| 7 (4+3) | 29% (4/14) | 71% (10/14) | 36% (5/14) | 64% (9/14) | ||
| 8 (4+4) | 28% (5/18) | 72% (13/18) | 33% (6/18) | 67% (12/18) | ||
| 9 (4+5 or 5+4) | 0% (0/7) | 100% (7/7) | 20% (2/10) | 80% (8/10) | ||
| MARGINS | ||||||
| NEGATIVE (TOT: 34 cases) | 85% (29/34) | 15% (5/34) | <0,0001 | |||
| POSITIVE (TOT: 45 cases) | 38% (17/45) | 62% (28/45) | ||||
| RELAPSE | ||||||
| ABSENT (TOT: 59 cases) | 69% (41/59) | 31% (18/59) | <0,0001 | |||
| PRESENT (TOT: 20 cases) | 20% (4/20) | 80% (16/20) | ||||
| IDC-P | ||||||
| ABSENT (TOT: 45 cases) | 100% (45/45) | 0% (0/45) | <0,0001 | |||
| PRESENT (TOT: 34 cases) | 0% (0/34) | 100% (34/34) | ||||
Values are shown as n. bP-values are assessed by test
Figure 7.

Correlation between ERG expression and Gleason score
Figure 8.

Correlation between EZH2 and Gleason Score
DISCUSSION
IDC-P is usually associated with invasive and biologically aggressive prostate cancer. Recent reports have highlighted the importance of recognizing IDC-P in RP to predict biochemical recurrence-free survival.[34] Epstein, from a morphological point of view, has proposed specific criteria to identify intraductal carcinoma of the prostate:[10] Malignant epithelial cells fill large acini and prostate ducts, with preservation of basal cells that form solid or dense cribriform models or loose cribriform or micropapillary models with marked nuclear atypia (nuclei six times the normal or larger size) or comedonecrosis. In our study, in addition to the morphological aspect, we wanted to evaluate whether the expression of ERG and EZH2 was related to the aggressiveness of prostate cancer with an intraductal component. In recent years, the TMPRSS2/ERG (T/E) fusion gene has been shown to be present in approximately 50% of prostate cancers. Experiments on prostate cancer cells containing a T/E fusion[16] show that the promoter TMPRSS2, which contains promoter elements that respond to the androgen receptor, increases the expression of ERG in response to androgens. The T/E fusion gene has also been shown to act on the proliferation, invasion, and motility of prostate epithelial cells and it activates various proteins and pathways such as Ezh2, Wnts, TGFB, and Sox9.[35] In 2002, it was discovered by a cDNA microarray study that EZH2 is associated with prostate cancer and it would be significantly upregulated in metastatic prostate cancer. The result indicated a positive relationship between the level of EZH2 protein and the aggressiveness of the disease.[28] In our study, a positive correlation was found between the expression of ERG and EZH2 in tumors with an intraductal component and a high Gleason score; we also highlighted significant correlations with the tumor stage and the presence of LN metastases.[36,37,38,39] The expression of the EZH2 protein was more evident in the positive ERG samples than in the negative ERG samples, confirming that both the proteins play a fundamental role in recognizing the more aggressive variants of prostate cancer such as IDC-P. We also wanted to verify whether the expression of ERG and EZH2 could be favored by the presence of a hypoxic environment by evaluating the presence, in our samples, of CA IX. CA IX usually stains heterogeneously. Stok et al. have shown that monocarboxylate transporters (MCTs) are involved in the outflow of lactic acid, pyruvate, acetate, and butyrate from the cell,[40] through the co-transport of H + with anions on monocarboxylates.[41] There are four known members (MCT1-4), MCT 4 is the most common in cells with a high glycolytic rate such as cancer cells[42] and is shown to accumulate on the migratory surface of cells. It is known to be inducible to hypoxia in bladder cancer cells[43] and could play a role in pH acidification in prostate cancer. Although further studies are needed to elucidate the exact pH regulation mechanism involved in prostate cancer, we have clearly demonstrated that CA IX is not expressed in prostate cancer.
Although prostate cancer is a hypoxic tumor, it does not express CA IX and cannot be used as an endogenous marker of hypoxia which in the prostate may depend on alternative mechanisms for pH regulation.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1.Rhamy RK, Buchanan RD, Spalding MJ. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate gland. J Urol. 1973;109:457–60. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)60451-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Porter LH, Lawrence MG, Ilic D, Clouston D, Bolton DM, Frydenberg M, et al. Systematic review links the prevalence of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate to prostate cancer risk categories. Eur Urol. 2017;72:492–495. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Robinson BD, Epstein JI. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate without invasive carcinoma on needle biopsy:emphasis on radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol. 2010;184:1328–33. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.06.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kimura K, Tsuzuki T, Kato M, Saito AM, Sassa N, Ishida R, et al. Prognostic value of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate in radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate. 2014;74:680–7. doi: 10.1002/pros.22786. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Magers M, Kunju LP, Wu A. Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate:Morphologic Features, Differential Diagnoses, Significance, and Reporting Practices. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015;139:1234–41. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2015-0206-RA. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kovi J, Jackson MA, Heshmat MY. Ductal spread in prostatic carcinoma. Cancer. 1985;56:1566–73. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19851001)56:7<1566::aid-cncr2820560717>3.0.co;2-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.McNeal JE, Yemoto CE. Spread of adenocarcinoma within prostatic ducts and acini. Morphologic and clinical correlations. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20:802–814. doi: 10.1097/00000478-199607000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Robinson B, Magi-Galluzzi C, Zhou M. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. Archives of pathology &laboratory medicine. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136:418–425. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2011-0519-RA. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Cohen RJ, O’Brien BA, Wheeler TM. Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Hum Pathol. 2011;42:605–606. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2010.07.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Guo CC, Epstein JI. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy:histologic features and clinical significance. Mod Pathol. 2006;19:1528–35. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.3800702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.De Marzo AM, Haffner MC, Lotan TL, Yegnasubramanian S, Nelson WG. Premalignancy in Prostate Cancer:Rethinking What we Know. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2016;9:648–656. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-15-0431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Zhou M. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate:the whole story. Pathology. 2013;45:533–9. doi: 10.1097/PAT.0b013e3283653322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Haffner MC, Weier C, Xu MM, Vaghasia A, Gürel B, Gümüşkaya B, et al. Molecular evidence that invasive adenocarcinoma can mimic prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) and intraductal carcinoma through retrograde glandular colonization. J Pathol. 2016;238:31–41. doi: 10.1002/path.4628. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Cohen RJ, Chan WC, Edgar SG, Robinson E, Dodd N, Hoscek S, et al. Prediction of pathological stage and clinical outcome in prostate cancer:an improved preoperative model incorporating biopsy-determined intraductal carcinoma. Br J Urol. 1998;81:413–8. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1998.00530.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Tomlins SA, Laxman B, Dhanasekaran SM, Helgeson BE, Cao X, Morris DS, et al. Distinct classes of chromosomal rearrangements create oncogenic ETS gene fusions in prostate cancer. Nature. 2007;448:595–9. doi: 10.1038/nature06024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Tomlins SA, Rhodes DR, Perner S, Dhanasekaran SM, Mehra R, Sun XW, et al. Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Science. 2005;310:644–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1117679. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Brawer KB, Peehl DM, Stamey TA, Bostwick DG. Keratin immunoreactivity in the benign and neoplastic human prostate. Cancer Res. 1985;45:3663–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Compérat E, Varinot J, Srigley JR. Lésions bénignes mimant le cancer de la prostate. Challenges diagnostiques [Benign mimickers of the prostate cancer. Diagnostic challenges]. Ann Pathol. 2013;33:237–46. doi: 10.1016/j.annpat.2013.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Hedrick L, Epstein JI. Use of keratin 903 as an adjunct in the diagnosis of prostate carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1989;13:389–396. doi: 10.1097/00000478-198905000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Wojno KJ, Epstein JI. The utility of basal cell-specific anticytokeratin antibody (34 beta E12) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. A review of 228 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1995:1–4. doi: 10.1097/00000478-199503000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Robinson EJ, Neal DE, Collins AT. Basal cells are progenitors of luminal cells in primary cultures of differentiating human prostatic epithelium. Prostate. 1998;37:149–60. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0045(19981101)37:3<149::aid-pros4>3.0.co;2-e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Verhagen AP, Aalders TW, Ramaekers FC, Debruyne FM, Schalken JA. Differential expression of keratins in the basal and luminal compartments of rat prostatic epithelium during degeneration and regeneration. Prostate. 1988;13:25–38. doi: 10.1002/pros.2990130104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Jones EG, Harper ME. Studies on the proliferation, secretory activities, and epidermal growth factor receptor expression in benign prostatic hyperplasia explant cultures. Prostate. 1992;20:133–49. doi: 10.1002/pros.2990200209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Peehl DM, Leung GK, Wong ST. Keratin expression:a measure of phenotypic modulation of human prostatic epithelial cells by growth inhibitory factors. Cell Tissue Res. 277:11–18. doi: 10.1007/BF00303075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Bostwick DG, Brawer KB. Prostatic intra-epithelial neoplasia and early invasion in prostate cancer. Cancer. 1987;59:788–94. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19870215)59:4<788::aid-cncr2820590421>3.0.co;2-i. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Kovi J, Jackson MA, Heshmat MY. Ductal spread in prostatic carcinoma. Cancer. 1985;56:1566–73. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19851001)56:7<1566::aid-cncr2820560717>3.0.co;2-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Efstathiou E, Abrahams NA, Tibbs RF, Wang X, Pettaway CA, Pisters LL, Mathew PF, Do KA, Logothetis CJ, Troncoso P. Morphologic characterization of preoperatively treated prostate cancer:Toward a post-therapy histologic classification. Eur Urol. 2010;57:1030–8. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.10.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Varambally S, Dhanasekaran SM, Zhou M, Barrette TR, Kumar-Sinha C, Sanda MG, Ghosh D, Pienta KJ, Sewalt RG, Otte AP, Rubin MA, Chinnaiyan AM. The polycomb group protein EZH2 is involved in progression of prostate cancer. Nature. 2002;419:624–629. doi: 10.1038/nature01075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Hoeckel M., Vaupel P. Biological consequences of tumour hypoxia. Semin Oncol. 2001;28:26–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Harris A. Hypoxia a key regulatory factor in tumour growth. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002:38–47. doi: 10.1038/nrc704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Sherwood B., Colquhoun AJ., Richardson D., Bowman KJ, O’Byrne KJ, et al. Carbonic anhydrase IX expression and outcome after radiotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2007;19:777–83. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2007.06.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Swinson D, Jones JL, Richardson D. Carbonic anhydrase IX expression, a novel surrogate marker of tumour hypoxia, is associated with a poor prognosis in non-small- cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:473–82. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.11.132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Bui M, Seligson D, Han KR, Pantuck AJ, Dorey FJ, Huang Y, et al. Carbonic anhydrase IX is an independent predictor of survival in advanced renal clear cell carcinoma:implications for prognosis and therapy. Clinical Cancer Research. 2003:802–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Laitinen S, Martikainen PM, Tolonen T, Isola J, Tammela TL, Visakorpi T. EZH2, Ki-67 and MCM7 are prognostic markers in prostatectomy treated patients. J Cancer. 2008;122:595–602. doi: 10.1002/ijc.23145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Rhodes DR, Sanda MG, Otte AP, Chinnaiyan AM, Rubin MA. Multiplex biomarker approach for determining risk of prostate-specific antigen-defined recurrence of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:661–8. doi: 10.1093/jnci/95.9.661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Bachmann IM, Halvorsen OJ, Collett K, Stefansson IM , Straume O, Haukaas SA, et al. EZH2 expression is associated with high proliferation rate and aggressive tumor subgroups in cutaneous melanoma and cancers of the endometrium, prostate, and breast. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:268–73. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.5180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.amaguchi H, Hung MC. Regulation and Role of EZH2 in Cancer. Cancer Res Treat. 2014;46:209–22. doi: 10.4143/crt.2014.46.3.209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Fillmore CM, Xu C, Desai PT, Berry JM, Rowbotham SP, Lin Yi-Jang, et al. Author Correction:EZH2 inhibition sensitizes BRG1 and EGFR mutant lung tumours to TopoII inhibitors. Nature. 2018;563(7732):E27. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0580-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Bitler BG, Aird KM, Garipov A, Li H, Amatangelo M, Kossenkov AV, et al. Synthetic lethality by targeting EZH2 methyltransferase activity in ARID1A-mutated cancers. Nat Med. 2015;21:231–8. doi: 10.1038/nm.3799. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Zingg D, Debbache J, Schaefer SM, Tuncer E, Frommel SC, Cheng P, et al. The epigenetic modifier EZH2 controls melanoma growth and metastasis through silencing of distinct tumour suppressors. Nat Commun. 2015;6:6051. doi: 10.1038/ncomms7051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.McCabe MT, Ott HM, Ganji G, Korenchuk S, Thompson C, Van Aller GS, et al. EZH2 inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for lymphoma with EZH2-activating mutations. Nature. 2012;492:108–12. doi: 10.1038/nature11606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Sarkar S, Abujamra AL, Loew JE, Forman LW, Perrine SP, Faller DV. Histone deacetylase inhibitors reverse CpG methylation by regulating DNMT1 through ERK signaling. Anticancer Res. 2011;31:2723–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Ord JJ, Streeter EH, Roberts IS, Cranston D, Harris AL. Comparison of hypoxia transcriptome in vitro with in vivo gene expression in human bladder cancer. Br J Cancer. 2005;93:346–54. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
