Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27880722›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2017

Deletion of 8p is an independent prognostic parameter in prostate cancer.

Martina Kluth, Nina Nadine Amschler, Rami Galal, Christina Möller-Koop, Phillipp Barrow, Maria Christina Tsourlakis, Frank Jacobsen, Andrea Hinsch, Corinna Wittmer, Stefan Steurer and 11 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Deletions ofBiomolecules · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

21 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Martina KluthInstitute of Pathology, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Nina Nadine AmschlerInstitute of Pathology, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Rami GalalInstitute of Pathology, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Christina Möller-KoopInstitute of Pathology, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Phillipp BarrowInstitute of Pathology, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Maria Christina TsourlakisInstitute of Pathology, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Frank JacobsenInstitute of Pathology, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Andrea HinschInstitute of Pathology, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Corinna WittmerInstitute of Pathology, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Stefan SteurerInstitute of Pathology, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Till KrechInstitute of Pathology, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Franziska BüscheckInstitute of Pathology, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Till Sebastian ClauditzInstitute of Pathology, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Burkhard BeyerMartini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Waldemar WilczakInstitute of Pathology, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Markus GraefenMartini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Hartwig HulandMartini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Sarah MinnerInstitute of Pathology, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Thorsten SchlommMartini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Guido SauterInstitute of Pathology, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Ronald SimonInstitute of Pathology, Prostate Cancer Center at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Martini-Klinik · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DEUniversität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deletion of chromosome 8p is the second most frequent genomic alteration in prostate cancer. To better understand its clinical significance, 8p deletion was analyzed by fluorescence in-situ hybridization on a prostate cancer tissue microarray. 8p deletion was found in 2,581 of 7,017 cancers (36.8%), and was linked to unfavorable tumor phenotype. 8p deletion increased from 29.5% in 4,456 pT2 and 47.8% in 1,598 pT3a to 53.0% in 931 pT3b-pT4 cancers (P < 0,0001). Deletions of 8p were detected in 25.5% of 1,653 Gleason ≤ 3 + 3, 36.6% of 3,880 Gleason 3 + 4, 50.2% of 1,090 Gleason 4 + 3, and 51.1% of 354 Gleason ≥ 4 + 4 tumors (P < 0,0001). 8p deletions were strongly linked to biochemical recurrence (P < 0.0001) independently from established pre- and postoperative prognostic factors (P = 0.0100). However, analysis of morphologically defined subgroups revealed, that 8p deletion lacked prognostic significance in subgroups with very good (Gleason ≤ 3 + 3, 3 + 4 with ≤ 5% Gleason 4) or very poor prognosis (pT3b, Gleason ≥ 8, pN1). 8p deletions were markedly more frequent in cancers with (53.5%) than without PTEN deletions (36.4%; P < 0,0001) and were slightly more frequent in ERG-positive (40.9%) than in ERG-negative cancers (34.7%, P < 0.0001) due to the association with the ERG-associated PTEN deletion. Cancers with 8p/PTEN co-deletions had a strikingly worse prognosis than cancers with deletion of PTEN or 8p alone (P ≤ 0.0003). In summary, 8p deletion is an independent prognostic parameter in prostate cancer that may act synergistically with PTEN deletions. Even statistically independent prognostic biomarkers like 8p may have limited clinical impact in morphologically well defined high or low risk cancers.

Indexed as

Chromosome DeletionAgedBiomarkers, TumorChromosomes, Human, Pair 8Disease ProgressionFollow-Up StudiesGene DeletionHumansImmunohistochemistryIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceKallikreinsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingPrognosisBiomarkers, TumorERG protein, humanKallikreinsKLK3 protein, humanProstate-Specific AntigenPTEN PhosphohydrolasePTEN protein, humanTranscriptional Regulator ERGNKX3.1prostate cancerPTENtissue microarrayTMPRSS2:ERG

Identifiers

PMID27880722
PMCPMC5352127
OpenAlexW2552660393

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.