» Articles » PMID: 22361632

Prognostic Value of a Cell Cycle Progression Signature for Prostate Cancer Death in a Conservatively Managed Needle Biopsy Cohort

Overview
Journal Br J Cancer
Specialty Oncology
Date 2012 Feb 25
PMID 22361632
Citations 167
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The natural history of prostate cancer is highly variable and it is difficult to predict. We showed previously that a cell cycle progression (CCP) score was a robust predictor of outcome in a conservatively managed cohort diagnosed by transurethral resection of the prostate. A greater need is to predict outcome in patients diagnosed by needle biopsy.

Methods: Total RNA was extracted from paraffin specimens. A CCP score was calculated from expression levels of 31 genes. Clinical variables consisted of centrally re-reviewed Gleason score, baseline prostate-specific antigen level, age, clinical stage, and extent of disease. The primary endpoint was death from prostate cancer.

Results: In univariate analysis (n=349), the hazard ratio (HR) for death from prostate cancer was 2.02 (95% CI (1.62, 2.53), P<10(-9)) for a one-unit increase in CCP score. The CCP score was only weakly correlated with standard prognostic factors and in a multivariate analysis, CCP score dominated (HR for one-unit increase=1.65, 95% CI (1.31, 2.09), P=3 × 10(-5)), with Gleason score (P=5 × 10(-4)) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (P=0.017) providing significant additional contributions.

Conclusion: For conservatively managed patients, the CCP score is the strongest independent predictor of cancer death outcome yet described and may prove valuable in managing clinically localised prostate cancer.

Citing Articles

Unveiling the molecular profile of a prostate carcinoma: implications for personalized medicine.

Agostini M, Giacobbi E, Servadei F, Bishof J, Funke L, Sica G Biol Direct. 2024; 19(1):146.

PMID: 39741346 PMC: 11686862. DOI: 10.1186/s13062-024-00492-z.


Analysis of the Performance and Accuracy of a PSA and PSA Ratio-Based Nomogram to Predict the Probability of Prostate Cancer in a Cohort of Patients with PIRADS 3 Findings at Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Palmisano F, Lorusso V, Legnani R, Martorello V, Nedbal C, Tramanzoli P Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(17).

PMID: 39272942 PMC: 11394649. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16173084.


Elevated RACGAP1 Expression Enhances Malignant Potential in Lung Adenocarcinoma and Serves as a Prognostic Factor.

Lai W, Su Y, Li Y, Zuo Y, He K, Zhang T J Cancer. 2024; 15(13):4244-4258.

PMID: 38947404 PMC: 11212091. DOI: 10.7150/jca.96334.


Analysis of the Gene Networks and Pathways Correlated with Tissue Differentiation in Prostate Cancer.

Filippi A, Aurelian J, Mocanu M Int J Mol Sci. 2024; 25(7).

PMID: 38612439 PMC: 11011430. DOI: 10.3390/ijms25073626.


Tissue-Based Genomic Testing in Prostate Cancer: 10-Year Analysis of National Trends on the Use of Prolaris, Decipher, ProMark, and Oncotype DX.

Bologna E, Ditonno F, Licari L, Franco A, Manfredi C, Mossack S Clin Pract. 2024; 14(2):508-520.

PMID: 38525718 PMC: 10961791. DOI: 10.3390/clinpract14020039.


References
1.
Jhavar S, Corbishley C, Dearnaley D, Fisher C, Falconer A, Parker C . Construction of tissue microarrays from prostate needle biopsy specimens. Br J Cancer. 2005; 93(4):478-82. PMC: 2361582. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602726. View

2.
Billis A . Latent carcinoma and atypical lesions of prostate. An autopsy study. Urology. 1986; 28(4):324-9. DOI: 10.1016/0090-4295(86)90019-1. View

3.
Cuzick J, Swanson G, Fisher G, Brothman A, Berney D, Reid J . Prognostic value of an RNA expression signature derived from cell cycle proliferation genes in patients with prostate cancer: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2011; 12(3):245-55. PMC: 3091030. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70295-3. View

4.
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun M . Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009; 59(4):225-49. DOI: 10.3322/caac.20006. View

5.
Chou R, Croswell J, Dana T, Bougatsos C, Blazina I, Fu R . Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155(11):762-71. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-11-201112060-00375. View