1
|
Su Q, Liu Z, Chen C, Gao H, Zhu Y, Wang L, Pan M, Liu J, Yang X, Tian J. Gene signatures predict biochemical recurrence-free survival in primary prostate cancer patients after radical therapy. Cancer Med 2021; 10:6492-6502. [PMID: 34453418 PMCID: PMC8446568 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4092] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2020] [Revised: 04/16/2021] [Accepted: 06/05/2021] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Background This study evaluated the predictive value of gene signatures for biochemical recurrence (BCR) in primary prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Methods Clinical features and gene expression profiles of PCa patients were attained from Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) datasets, which were further classified into a training set (n = 419), a validation set (n = 403). The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator Cox (LASSO‐Cox) method was used to select discriminative gene signatures in training set for biochemical recurrence‐free survival (BCRFS). Selected gene signatures established a risk score system. Univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors about BCRFS were performed using the Cox proportional hazards regression models. A nomogram based on multivariate analysis was plotted to facilitate clinical application. Kyoto Encyclopedia of Gene and Genomes (KEGG) and Gene Ontology (GO) analyses were then executed for differentially expressed genes (DEGs). Results Notably, the risk score could significantly identify BCRFS by time‐dependent receiver operating characteristic (t‐ROC) curves in the training set (3‐year area under the curve (AUC) = 0.820, 5‐year AUC = 0.809) and the validation set (3‐year AUC = 0.723, 5‐year AUC = 0.733). Conclusions Clinically, the nomogram model, which incorporates Gleason score and the risk score, could effectively predict BCRFS and potentially be utilized as a useful tool for the screening of BCRFS in PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qiang Su
- Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data-Based Precision Medicine, School of Medicine and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.,Clinical Laboratory Medicine, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.,Beijing Key Laboratory of Urinary Cellular Molecular Diagnostics, Beijing, China.,Key Laboratory of Big Data-Based Precision Medicine (Beihang University), Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Beijing, China
| | - Zhenyu Liu
- CAS Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, the State Key Laboratory of Management and Control for Complex Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.,CAS Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.,School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Chi Chen
- Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data-Based Precision Medicine, School of Medicine and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.,Key Laboratory of Big Data-Based Precision Medicine (Beihang University), Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Beijing, China
| | - Han Gao
- Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data-Based Precision Medicine, School of Medicine and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.,Key Laboratory of Big Data-Based Precision Medicine (Beihang University), Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Beijing, China
| | - Yongbei Zhu
- Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data-Based Precision Medicine, School of Medicine and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.,Key Laboratory of Big Data-Based Precision Medicine (Beihang University), Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Beijing, China
| | - Liusu Wang
- Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data-Based Precision Medicine, School of Medicine and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.,Key Laboratory of Big Data-Based Precision Medicine (Beihang University), Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Beijing, China
| | - Meiqing Pan
- Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data-Based Precision Medicine, School of Medicine and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.,Key Laboratory of Big Data-Based Precision Medicine (Beihang University), Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Beijing, China
| | - Jiangang Liu
- Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data-Based Precision Medicine, School of Medicine and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.,Key Laboratory of Big Data-Based Precision Medicine (Beihang University), Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Beijing, China
| | - Xin Yang
- CAS Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, the State Key Laboratory of Management and Control for Complex Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.,School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Jie Tian
- Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data-Based Precision Medicine, School of Medicine and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.,Key Laboratory of Big Data-Based Precision Medicine (Beihang University), Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Beijing, China.,CAS Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, the State Key Laboratory of Management and Control for Complex Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.,CAS Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.,Engineering Research Center of Molecular and Neuro Imaging of Ministry of Education, School of Life Science and Technology, Xidian University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Meijer D, Jansen BHE, Wondergem M, Bodar YJL, Srbljin S, Vellekoop AE, Keizer B, van der Zant FM, Hoekstra OS, Nieuwenhuijzen JA, Dahele M, Vis AN, Oprea-Lager DE. Clinical verification of 18F-DCFPyL PET-detected lesions in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0239414. [PMID: 33021980 PMCID: PMC7537873 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239414] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2020] [Accepted: 09/06/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Radiolabeled Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) PET/CT is the current standard-of-care for lesion detection in patients with biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer (PCa). However, rigorous verification of detected lesions is not always performed in routine clinical practice. To aid future 18F-radiolabeled PSMA PET/CT interpretation, we aimed to identify clinical/imaging characteristics that increase the likelihood that a PSMA-avid lesion is malignant. Materials and methods 262 patients with BCR, who underwent 18F-DCFPyL PSMA PET/CT, were retrospectively analyzed. The malignant nature of 18F-DCFPyL PET-detected lesions was verified through any of the following metrics: (1) positive histopathological examination; (2) additional positive imaging; (3) a ≥50% decrease in Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) following irradiation of the lesion(s). Results In 226/262 PET scans (86.3%) at least one lesion suspicious for recurrent PCa was detected (‘positive scan’). In 84/226 positive scans (37.2%), at least one independent verification metric was available. PSMA PET-detected lesions were most often confirmed to be malignant (PCa) in the presence of a CT-substrate (96.5% vs. 55.6% without CT-substrate), with SUVpeak ≥3.5 (91.4% vs. 60.0% with SUVpeak<3.5), in patients with a PSA-level ≥2.0 ng/mL (83.7% vs. 65.7% in patients with PSA <2.0ng/mL) and in patients with >2 PET-positive lesions (94.1% vs. 64.2% in patients with 1–2 PET-positive lesions; p<0.001–0.03). Conclusions In this study, the clinical verification of 18F-DCFPyL PET-positive lesions in patients with BCR was performed. Diagnostic certainty of PET-detected lesions increases in the presence of characteristic abnormalities on CT, when SUVpeak is ≥3.5, when PSA-levels exceed 2.0 ng/mL or in patients with more than two PET-positive lesions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dennie Meijer
- Department of Urology, Prostate Cancer Network Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- * E-mail:
| | - Bernard H. E. Jansen
- Department of Urology, Prostate Cancer Network Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maurits Wondergem
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| | - Yves J. L. Bodar
- Department of Urology, Prostate Cancer Network Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sandra Srbljin
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Zaans Medical Center, Zaandam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Bram Keizer
- Department of Urology, Dijklander Hospital, Hoorn, The Netherlands
| | | | - Otto S. Hoekstra
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jakko A. Nieuwenhuijzen
- Department of Urology, Prostate Cancer Network Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Max Dahele
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - André N. Vis
- Department of Urology, Prostate Cancer Network Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Daniela E. Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Park J, Suh B, Shin DW, Hong JH, Ahn H. Cause of Death in Korean Men with Prostate Cancer: an Analysis of Time Trends in a Nationwide Cohort. J Korean Med Sci 2016; 31:1802-1807. [PMID: 27709860 PMCID: PMC5056214 DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.11.1802] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2016] [Accepted: 07/11/2016] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Despite rapid increase in incidence of prostate cancer (PC) and PC survivors, there are few studies regarding competing causes of death and time trends in Asian population. We conducted a cohort study of 2% nationwide random sample of Korean National Health Insurance employees. A total of 873 patients who had received active treatments, including surgery, radiation therapy (RT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), for newly diagnosed PC between 2003 and 2010 were included. The cause of death was categorized as PC, other cancers, cardiovascular disease, and other causes. During a median follow-up of 4.75 years, 29.4% (257/873) of the study population died. PC, other cancers, cardiovascular disease, and other causes were responsible for 46.3%, 35.4%, 6.6%, and 11.7%, respectively, of the decedents. Significant differences existed in the cause of death among treatment groups (P < 0.001). Only 20% and 9.5% of surgery and RT group died of PC, whereas 63.9% of ADT group died of PC. Other cancers were responsible for 56%, 74.6% and 17.8% of death in the surgery, RT and ADT group, respectively, while cardiovascular disease accounted for 4%, 6.3%, and 7.1% of death in the treatment groups. Analysis of time trends showed that PC-specific death tended to decrease (from 42.9% in 2003 to 23.1% in 2010), whereas non-PC causes tended to increase over the 8 years. Our results are valuable in overviewing causes of death and time trends in Korean PC patients, and planning future health policy for PC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jinsung Park
- Department of Urology, Eulji University Hospital, Eulji University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea
| | - Beomseok Suh
- Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Dong Wook Shin
- Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jun Hyuk Hong
- Department of Urology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hanjong Ahn
- Department of Urology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
| |
Collapse
|