Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29956356›Full record

ArticleThe Prostate2018

A five-CpG DNA methylation score to predict metastatic-lethal outcomes in men treated with radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer.

Shanshan Zhao, Amy Leonardson, Milan S Geybels, Andrew S McDaniel, Ming Yu, Suzanne Kolb, Hong Zong, Kelly Carter, Javed Siddiqui, Anqi Cheng and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Prostate, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Methylation Subtypes of Primary Prostate Cancer Predict Poor Prognosis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

20 authors.

Shanshan ZhaoNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, Research Triangle Park, Durham, North Carolina.
Amy LeonardsonDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Milan S GeybelsDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Andrew S McDanielDepartments of Pathology and Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Ming YuDivision of Clinical Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Suzanne KolbDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Hong ZongDivision of Clinical Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Kelly CarterDivision of Clinical Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Javed SiddiquiDepartments of Pathology and Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Anqi ChengDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Jonathan L WrightDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Colin C PritchardDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington.
Raymond LanceDepartment of Urology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia.
Dean TroyerDepartments of Pathology, Microbiology, and Molecular Cell Biology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia.
Jian-Bing FanDepartment of Oncology, Illumina, Inc., San Diego, California.
Elaine A OstranderCancer Genetics and Comparative Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland.
James Y DaiDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Scott A TomlinsDepartments of Pathology and Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Ziding FengDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Janet L StanfordDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5062-4784

Funding

Translational Bioimaging Core Shared ResourceP30CA015704 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Eric Collisson · 1985 to 2026
$296.4M
TRANSCRIPTOME AND PROTEOME STRATIFICATION OF PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA PHENOTYPESP50CA097186 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI PETER S NELSON · 2002 to 2026
$58.1M
Tissue/InformaticsP50CA186786 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Ganesh S Palapattu · 2014 to 2026
$27.6M
NSAIDS and Other Medications in Prostate Cancer EtiologyR01CA092579 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI STANFORD, JANET L · 2001 to 2005
$3.2M
Aggressive Prostate Cancer: Linking Epigenomics and Genetics for PreventionK05CA175147 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI STANFORD, JANET L · 2014 to 2018
$445k
PROSTATE CANCER IN RELATION TO VASECTOMYR01CA056678 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI STANFORD, JANET L · 1993 to 1997
–
NCI NIH HHS K05 CA175147NCI NIH HHS P30 CA015704NCI NIH HHS P50 CA097186NCI NIH HHS P50 CA186786NCI NIH HHS R01 CA056678NCI NIH HHS R01 CA092579
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrognostic biomarkers for localized prostate cancer (PCa) could improve personalized medicine. Our group previously identified a panel of differentially methylated CpGs in primary tumor tissue that predict disease aggressiveness, and here we further validate these biomarkers.

methodsPyrosequencing was used to assess CpG methylation of eight biomarkers previously identified using the HumanMethylation450 array; CpGs with strongly correlated (r >0.70) results were considered technically validated. Logistic regression incorporating the validated CpGs and Gleason sum was used to define and lock a final model to stratify men with metastatic-lethal versus non-recurrent PCa in a training dataset. Coefficients from the final model were then used to construct a DNA methylation score, which was evaluated by logistic regression and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses in an independent testing dataset.

resultsFive CpGs were technically validated and all were retained (P < 0.05) in the final model. The 5-CpG and Gleason sum coefficients were used to calculate a methylation score, which was higher in men with metastatic-lethal progression (P = 6.8 × 10

conclusionsThe DNA methylation score improved upon Gleason sum for predicting metastatic-lethal progression and holds promise for risk stratification of men with aggressive tumors. This prognostic score warrants further evaluation as a tool for improving patient outcomes.

Indexed as

biomarker validationDNA methylation scoremetastatic-lethalprognosticprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID29956356
PMCPMC6120526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.