Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30101374›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2018

Clinical utility of assessing PTEN and ERG protein expression in prostate cancer patients: a proposed method for risk stratification.

Tarek A Bismar, Samar Hegazy, Zhaoyong Feng, Darryl Yu, Bryan Donnelly, Nallasivam Palanisamy, Bruce J Trock

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Exploring therapeutic applications ofFrontiers in oncology · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Association BetweenCancer diagnosis & prognosis
    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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Tarek A BismarDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary-Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, AB, Canada. tabismar@ucalgary.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9190-5088
Samar HegazyDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary-Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Zhaoyong FengBrady Urological Institute, John Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Darryl YuDepartment of Pathology, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Bryan DonnellyDepartment of Urology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Nallasivam PalanisamyDepartment of Urology, Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA.
Bruce J TrockBrady Urological Institute, John Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
University of Calgary · CAHenry Ford Health System · USOntario Institute for Cancer Research · CAUniversity of Saskatchewan · CA

Funding

Prostate Cancer Canada B2013-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the prognostic value of ERG and PTEN protein expression as two of the most common genetic aberration in men with prostate cancer managed non-surgically by androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). MATERIALS AND

methods463 tumor samples were assessed by double immunohistochemistry stains for ERG and PTEN and data correlated with clinical pathological features including, Gleason score, patients' outcome and ADT.

resultsERG expression and PTEN protein loss were present in 28.2% and 38% of total patients respectively. There was a significant interplay between ERG and PTEN expression with 21.8% PTEN negative tumors being ERG positive (p < 0.001). Both ERG and PTEN showed significant association with lethal disease in all patients and those treated with prior ADT representing castrate-resistant disease. However, only PTEN remained significant in multivariable proportional hazards regression analysis, when including Gleason score and patients' age. Depending on patient's subgroup, intact positive PTEN intensity showed better cancer-specific survival with HR ranging from 0.25 to 0.4 compared to tumors with loss of PTEN expression. Assessing combined marker status, patients with decreased PTEN intensity without ERG positivity showed the worst clinical outcome compared to those with no PTEN loss and no ERG expression, where they had best clinical outcome. Patients with ERG expression with or without PTEN loss showed intermediate risk in relation to lethal disease.

conclusionThis study confirms a significant prognostic role for assessing ERG and PTEN in men with prostate cancer. It supports a role for utilizing combined ERG/PTEN status clinically and prospectively for stratifying PCa patients into different prognostic groups.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAndrogen AntagonistsBiomarkers, TumorHumansImmunohistochemistryKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsProstatic NeoplasmsPTEN PhosphohydrolaseRisk AssessmentTranscriptional Regulator ERGAndrogen AntagonistsBiomarkers, TumorERG protein, humanPTEN PhosphohydrolasePTEN protein, humanTranscriptional Regulator ERGAndrogen deprivation therapyCancer-specific mortalityERG protein expressionGleason scoreImmunohistochemistryPTEN expression

Identifiers

PMID30101374
PMCPMC11813292
OpenAlexW2887867165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.