Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30385730›Full record

ArticleJCI insight2018

Transcriptomic heterogeneity in multifocal prostate cancer.

Simpa S Salami, Daniel H Hovelson, Jeremy B Kaplan, Romain Mathieu, Aaron M Udager, Nicole E Curci, Matthew Lee, Komal R Plouffe, Lorena Lazo de la Vega, Martin Susani and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JCI insight, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Immunohistochemical markers as predictors of prognosis in multifocal prostate cancer.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Advances in Prostate Cancer Biomarkers and Probes.Cyborg and bionic systems (Washington, D.C.) · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Simpa S SalamiDepartment of Urology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Daniel H HovelsonDepartment of Pathology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Jeremy B KaplanDepartment of Pathology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Romain MathieuDepartment of Urology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Aaron M UdagerDepartment of Pathology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Nicole E CurciDepartment of Radiology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Matthew LeeDepartment of Urology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Komal R PlouffeDepartment of Pathology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Lorena Lazo de la VegaDepartment of Pathology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Martin SusaniDepartment of Pathology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Nathalie Rioux-LeclercqDepartment of Pathology, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France.
Daniel E SprattUniversity of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Todd M MorganDepartment of Urology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Matthew S DavenportDepartment of Urology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Arul M ChinnaiyanDepartment of Urology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Joanna CyrtaDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA.
Mark A RubinDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Scott A TomlinsDepartment of Urology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Ganesh S PalapattuDepartment of Urology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Michigan Medicine · USUniversity of Michigan · USCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes · FRMedical University of Vienna · ATCornell University · USUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

XenograftP30CA046592 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Alexey I Nesvizhskii · 1988 to 2026
$178.2M
Tissue/InformaticsP50CA186786 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Ganesh S Palapattu · 2014 to 2026
$27.6M
Weill Cornell Medicine (WCM) SPORE in Prostate CancerP50CA211024 · NCI · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI LODA, MASSIMO · 2017 to 2021
$10.9M
Discovery and qualification of transcriptomic biomarkers for the early detection of aggressive prostate cancerU01CA214170 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI CHINNAIYAN, ARUL M · 2016 to 2021
$3.3M
Exploiting drivers of androgen receptor signaling negative prostate cancer for prR01CA183857 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI TOMLINS, SCOTT A · 2014 to 2018
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA046592NCI NIH HHS P50 CA186786NCI NIH HHS P50 CA211024NCI NIH HHS R01 CA183857NCI NIH HHS U01 CA214170
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommercial gene expression assays are guiding clinical decision making in patients with prostate cancer, particularly when considering active surveillance. Given heterogeneity and multifocality of primary prostate cancer, such assays should ideally be robust to the coexistence of unsampled higher grade disease elsewhere in the prostate in order to have clinical utility. Herein, we comprehensively evaluated transcriptomic profiles of primary multifocal prostate cancer to assess robustness to clinically relevant multifocality.

methodsWe designed a comprehensive, multiplexed targeted RNA-sequencing assay capable of assessing multiple transcriptional classes and deriving commercially available prognostic signatures, including the Myriad Prolaris Cell Cycle Progression score, the Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score, and the GenomeDX Decipher Genomic Classifier. We applied this assay to a retrospective, multi-institutional cohort of 156 prostate cancer samples. Derived commercial biomarker scores for 120 informative primary prostate cancer samples from 44 cases were determined and compared.

resultsDerived expression scores were positively correlated with tumor grade (rS = 0.53-0.73; all P < 0.001), both within the same case and across the entire cohort. In cases of extreme grade-discordant multifocality (co-occurrence of grade group 1 [GG1] and ≥GG4 foci], gene expression scores were significantly lower in low- (GG1) versus high-grade (≥GG4) foci (all P < 0.001). No significant differences in expression scores, however, were observed between GG1 foci from prostates with and without coexisting higher grade cancer (all P > 0.05).

conclusionsMultifocal, low-grade and high-grade prostate cancer foci exhibit distinct prognostic expression signatures. These findings demonstrate that prognostic RNA expression assays performed on low-grade prostate cancer biopsy tissue may not provide meaningful information on the presence of coexisting unsampled aggressive disease.

fundingProstate Cancer Foundation, National Institutes of Health (U01 CA214170, R01 CA183857, University of Michigan Prostate Specialized Program of Research Excellence [S.P.O.R.E.] P50 CA186786-05, Weill Cornell Medicine S.P.O.R.E. P50 CA211024-01A1), Men of Michigan Prostate Cancer Research Fund, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center core grant (2-P30-CA-046592-24), A. Alfred Taubman Biomedical Research Institute, and Department of Defense.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingGene ExpressionGenomicsHumansMaleMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNeoplasm GradingPrognosisProstateProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesSequence Analysis, RNATranscriptomeCancerMolecular diagnosisOncologyProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID30385730
PMCPMC6238741
OpenAlexW2898704741

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.