Re: A 17-Gene Panel for Prediction of Adverse Prostate Cancer Pathologic Features: Prospective Clinical Validation and Utility

2019 ◽  
Vol 202 (2) ◽  
pp. 212-212
Author(s):  
Samir S. Taneja
Urology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 126 ◽  
pp. 76-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Eggener ◽  
Lawrence I. Karsh ◽  
Tim Richardson ◽  
Alan W. Shindel ◽  
Ruixiao Lu ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yunfeng Liu ◽  
Simei Qiu ◽  
Dongshan Sun ◽  
Shan Li ◽  
Qiuling Xiang ◽  
...  

Genes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 257
Author(s):  
Yan Gu ◽  
Mathilda Jing Chow ◽  
Anil Kapoor ◽  
Xiaozeng Lin ◽  
Wenjuan Mei ◽  
...  

Contactin 1 (CNTN1) is a new oncogenic protein of prostate cancer (PC); its impact on PC remains incompletely understood. We observed CNTN1 upregulation in LNCaP cell-derived castration-resistant PCs (CRPC) and CNTN1-mediated enhancement of LNCaP cell proliferation. CNTN1 overexpression in LNCaP cells resulted in enrichment of the CREIGHTON_ENDOCRINE_THERAPY_RESISTANCE_3 gene set that facilitates endocrine resistance in breast cancer. The leading-edge (LE) genes (n = 10) of this enrichment consist of four genes with limited knowledge on PC and six genes novel to PC. These LE genes display differential expression during PC initiation, metastatic progression, and CRPC development, and they predict PC relapse following curative therapies at hazard ratio (HR) 2.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.96–3.77, and p = 1.77 × 10−9 in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) PanCancer cohort (n = 492) and HR 2.72, 95% CI 1.84–4.01, and p = 4.99 × 10−7 in Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) cohort (n = 140). The LE gene panel classifies high-, moderate-, and low-risk of PC relapse in both cohorts. Additionally, the gene panel robustly predicts poor overall survival in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC, p = 1.13 × 10−11), consistent with ccRCC and PC both being urogenital cancers. Collectively, we report multiple CNTN1-related genes relevant to PC and their biomarker values in predicting PC relapse.


2014 ◽  
Vol 113 (3) ◽  
pp. 385-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonella Fogliata ◽  
Francesca Belosi ◽  
Alessandro Clivio ◽  
Piera Navarria ◽  
Giorgia Nicolini ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (11) ◽  
pp. 2591-2600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Blume-Jensen ◽  
David M. Berman ◽  
David L. Rimm ◽  
Michail Shipitsin ◽  
Mathew Putzi ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-273
Author(s):  
Chang Wook Jeong ◽  
Sangchul Lee ◽  
Seong Jin Jeong ◽  
Sung Kyu Hong ◽  
Seok-Soo Byun ◽  
...  

The Prostate ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannes Steiner ◽  
Patrizia Moser ◽  
Martina Hager ◽  
Andreas P. Berger ◽  
Helmut Klocker ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Young Suk Suk Kwon ◽  
Wei Wang ◽  
Arnav Srivast ◽  
Thomas L Jang ◽  
Singer A Eric ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: While early radiotherapy (eRT) after radical prostatectomy (RP) has shown to improve oncologic outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) in a recent clinical trial, controversy remains regarding its benefit. We aimed to illustrate national trends of post-RP radiotherapy and compare outcomes and toxicities in patients receiving eRT vs. observation with or without late radiotherapy (lRT). Methods: Utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data from 2001 to 2011, we identified 7557 patients with high-risk pathologic features after RP (≥ pT3N0 and/or positive surgical margins). Our study cohort was consisted of patients receiving RT within 6 months of surgery (eRT), those receiving RT after 6 months (IRT), and those never receiving RT (observation). Another subcohort, delayed RT (dRT), encompassed both IRT and observation. Trends of post-RP radiotherapy were compared using the Cochran-Armitage trend test. Cox regression models identified factors predictive of worse survival outcomes. Kaplan-Meier analyses compared the eRT and the dRT groups. Results: Among those with pathologically confirmed high-risk PCa after RP, 12.7% (n=959), 13.2% (n=1710), and 74.1% (n=4888) underwent eRT, lRT, and observation without RT, respectively. Of these strategies, the proportion of men on observation without RT increased significantly over time (p=0.004). Multivariable Cox regression model demonstrated similar outcomes between the eRT and the dRT groups. At a median follow up of 5.9 years, five-year overall and cancer-specific survival outcomes were more favorable in the dRT group, when compared to the eRT group. Radiation related toxicities, including urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and urethral stricture, were higher in the eRT group when compared to the lRT group. Conclusions: Our results suggest that a blanket adoption of the eRT in high-risk PCa based on clinical trials with limited follow up may result in overtreatment of a significant number of men and expose them to unnecessary radiation toxicity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document