4.8 Article

A Molecular Signature Predictive of Indolent Prostate Cancer

期刊

SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
卷 5, 期 202, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3006408

关键词

-

资金

  1. Silico Research Centre of Excellence NCI-caBIG [SAIC 29XS192]
  2. T. J. Martell Foundation for Leukemia, Cancer and AIDS Research
  3. Marie Curie International Outgoing Fellowship [PIOF-GA-2009-253290]
  4. Catalan Institute of Oncology-Bellvitge Institute for Biomedical Research, Barcelona, Spain
  5. Swiss National Science Foundation [PBBSP3-146959]
  6. F. M. Kirby Foundation
  7. [CA154293]
  8. [CA084294]
  9. [CA121852]
  10. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PBBSP3_146959] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many newly diagnosed prostate cancers present as low Gleason score tumors that require no treatment intervention. Distinguishing the many indolent tumors from the minority of lethal ones remains a major clinical challenge. We now show that low Gleason score prostate tumors can be distinguished as indolent and aggressive subgroups on the basis of their expression of genes associated with aging and senescence. Using gene set enrichment analysis, we identified a 19-gene signature enriched in indolent prostate tumors. We then further classified this signature with a decision tree learning model to identify three genes-FGFR1, PMP22, and CDKN1A-that together accurately predicted outcome of low Gleason score tumors. Validation of this three-gene panel on independent cohorts confirmed its independent prognostic value as well as its ability to improve prognosis with currently used clinical nomograms. Furthermore, protein expression of this three-gene panel in biopsy samples distinguished Gleason 6 patients who failed surveillance over a 10-year period. We propose that this signature may be incorporated into prognostic assays for monitoring patients on active surveillance to facilitate appropriate courses of treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据