4.7 Article

A prognostic hypoxia gene signature with low heterogeneity within the dominant tumour lesion in prostate cancer patients

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 127, Issue 2, Pages 321-328

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-022-01782-x

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A 32-gene signature in the index lesion of prostate cancer correlates with hypoxia fraction, shows prognostic significance, and is not affected by intra-tumor heterogeneity.
Background Gene signatures measured in a biopsy have been proposed as hypoxia biomarkers in prostate cancer. We assessed a previously developed signature, and aimed to determine its relationship to hypoxia and its heterogeneity within the dominant (index) lesion of prostate cancer. Methods The 32-gene signature was assessed from gene expression data of 141 biopsies from the index lesion of 94 patients treated with prostatectomy. A gene score calculated from the expression levels was applied in the analyses. Hypoxic fraction from pimonidazole immunostained whole-mount and biopsy sections was used as reference standard for hypoxia. Results The gene score was correlated with pimonidazole-defined hypoxic fraction in whole-mount sections, and the two parameters showed almost equal association with clinical markers of tumour aggressiveness. Based on the gene score, incorrect classification according to hypoxic fraction in whole-mount sections was seen in one third of the patients. The incorrect classifications were apparently not due to intra-tumour heterogeneity, since the score had low heterogeneity compared to pimonidazole-defined hypoxic fraction in biopsies. The score showed prognostic significance in uni-and multivariate analysis in independent cohorts. Conclusions Our signature from the index lesion reflects tumour hypoxia and predicts prognosis in prostate cancer, independent of intra-tumour heterogeneity in pimonidazole-defined hypoxia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available