4.7 Article

Combined Tumor Suppressor Defects Characterize Clinically Defined Aggressive Variant Prostate Cancers

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 1520-1530

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1259

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIH/NCI [P30CA016672, P50CA140388]
  2. Prostate Cancer Foundation
  3. Joan Stanford Alexander Family Fund
  4. Michael and Susan Dell Foundation
  5. University of Texas MD Anderson Prostate Cancer Moon Shot Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Morphologically heterogeneous prostate cancers that behave clinically like small-cell prostate cancers (SCPC) share their chemotherapy responsiveness. We asked whether these clinically defined, morphologically diverse, aggressive variant prostate cancer (AVPC) also share molecular features with SCPC. Experimental Design: Fifty-nine prostate cancer samples from 40 clinical trial participants meeting AVPC criteria, and 8 patient-tumor derived xenografts (PDX) from 6 of them, were stained for markers aberrantly expressed in SCPC. DNA from 36 and 8 PDX was analyzed by Oncoscan for copy number gains (CNG) and losses (CNL). We used the AVPC PDX to expand observations and referenced publicly available datasets to arrive at a candidate molecular signature for the AVPC. Results: Irrespective of morphology, Ki67 and Tp53 stained >= 10% cells in 80% and 41% of samples, respectively. RB1 stained <10% cells in 61% of samples and AR in 36%. MYC (surrogate for 8q) CNG and RB1 CNL showed in 54% of 44 samples each and PTEN CNL in 48%. All but 1 of 8 PDX bore Tp53 missense mutations. RB1 CNL was the strongest discriminator between unselected castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and the AVPC. Combined alterations in RB1, Tp53, and/or PTEN were more frequent in the AVPC than in unselected CRPC and in The Cancer Genome Atlas samples. Conclusions: Clinically defined AVPC share molecular features with SCPC and are characterized by combined alterations in RB1, Tp53, and/or PTEN. (C) 2015 AACR.

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

4.7
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