Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27846218›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

MUC1 Expression by Immunohistochemistry Is Associated with Adverse Pathologic Features in Prostate Cancer: A Multi-Institutional Study.

Okyaz Eminaga, Wei Wei, Sarah J Hawley, Heidi Auman, Lisa F Newcomb, Jeff Simko, Antonio Hurtado-Coll, Dean A Troyer, Peter R Carroll, Martin E Gleave and 8 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Dependence on MUC1-C in Progression of Neuroendocrine Prostate Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Okyaz EminagaDepartment of Urology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America.
Wei WeiThe Department of Biostatistics, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States of America.
Sarah J HawleyCanary Foundation, Canary Center at Stanford, 3155 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, CA, United States of America.
Heidi AumanCanary Foundation, Canary Center at Stanford, 3155 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, CA, United States of America.
Lisa F NewcombDepartment of Urology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Jeff SimkoDepartment of Pathology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Antonio Hurtado-CollDepartment of Urologic Sciences and Vancouver Prostate Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Dean A TroyerDepartment of Pathology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, United States of America.
Peter R CarrollDepartment of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Martin E GleaveDepartment of Urologic Sciences and Vancouver Prostate Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Daniel W LinDepartment of Urology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Peter S NelsonDivision of Human Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Ian M ThompsonDepartment of Urology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, United States of America.
Lawrence D TrueDepartment of Pathology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Jesse K McKenneyDepartment of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America.
Ziding FengThe Department of Biostatistics, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States of America.
Ladan FazliDepartment of Urologic Sciences and Vancouver Prostate Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
James D BrooksDepartment of Urology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Stanford Molecular and Cellular Characterization LaboratoryU01CA196387 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BROOKS, JAMES D. · 2015 to 2020
$5.2M
New Tools for Prostate Cancer Detection and PrognosticationU01CA152737 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BROOKS, JAMES D., GAMBHIR, SANJIV S · 2010 to 2015
$2.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS U01 CA152737NCI NIH HHS U01 CA196387
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe uncertainties inherent in clinical measures of prostate cancer (CaP) aggressiveness endorse the investigation of clinically validated tissue biomarkers. MUC1 expression has been previously reported to independently predict aggressive localized prostate cancer. We used a large cohort to validate whether MUC1 protein levels measured by immunohistochemistry (IHC) predict aggressive cancer, recurrence and survival outcomes after radical prostatectomy independent of clinical and pathological parameters. MATERIAL AND

methodsMUC1 IHC was performed on a multi-institutional tissue microarray (TMA) resource including 1,326 men with a median follow-up of 5 years. Associations with clinical and pathological parameters were tested by the Chi-square test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Relationships with outcome were assessed with univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models and the Log-rank test.

resultsThe presence of MUC1 expression was significantly associated with extracapsular extension and higher Gleason score, but not with seminal vesicle invasion, age, positive surgical margins or pre-operative serum PSA levels. In univariable analyses, positive MUC1 staining was significantly associated with a worse recurrence free survival (RFS) (HR: 1.24, CI 1.03-1.49, P = 0.02), although not with disease specific survival (DSS, P>0.5). On multivariable analyses, the presence of positive surgical margins, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, as well as higher pre-operative PSA and increasing Gleason score were independently associated with RFS, while MUC1 expression was not. Positive MUC1 expression was not independently associated with disease specific survival (DSS), but was weakly associated with overall survival (OS).

conclusionIn our large, rigorously designed validation cohort, MUC1 protein expression was associated with adverse pathological features, although it was not an independent predictor of outcome after radical prostatectomy.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overDisease-Free SurvivalHumansImmunohistochemistryMaleMiddle AgedMucin-1Multivariate AnalysisProportional Hazards ModelsProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeMUC1 protein, humanMucin-1

Identifiers

PMID27846218
PMCPMC5112958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.