Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34961766›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

SATB1, genomic instability and Gleason grading constitute a novel risk score for prostate cancer.

Christoph Dumke, Timo Gemoll, Martina Oberländer, Sandra Freitag-Wolf, Christoph Thorns, Axel Glaessgen, Rinse Klooster, Silvère M van der Maarel, Jerker Widengren, Christian Doehn and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Christoph Dumke *Section for Translational Surgical Oncology and Biobanking, Department of Surgery, University of Lübeck and University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Timo Gemoll *Section for Translational Surgical Oncology and Biobanking, Department of Surgery, University of Lübeck and University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Martina OberländerSection for Translational Surgical Oncology and Biobanking, Department of Surgery, University of Lübeck and University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Sandra Freitag-WolfInstitute of Medical Informatics and Statistics, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Christoph ThornsInstitute of Pathology, University of Lübeck and University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Axel GlaessgenDepartment of Clinical Pathology and Cytology, Unilabs AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Rinse KloosterDepartment of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Silvère M van der MaarelDepartment of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jerker WidengrenDepartment of Applied Physics, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden.
Christian DoehnUrologikum Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Gert AuerDepartment of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jens K HabermannSection for Translational Surgical Oncology and Biobanking, Department of Surgery, University of Lübeck and University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany. Jens.Habermann@uni-luebeck.de.
University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEUniversity of Lübeck · DEKarolinska Institutet · SELeiden University Medical Center · NLKTH Royal Institute of Technology · SEStatistics Sweden · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current prostate cancer risk classifications rely on clinicopathological parameters resulting in uncertainties for prognostication. To improve individual risk stratification, we examined the predictive value of selected proteins with respect to tumor heterogeneity and genomic instability. We assessed the degree of genomic instability in 50 radical prostatectomy specimens by DNA-Image-Cytometry and evaluated protein expression in related 199 tissue-microarray (TMA) cores. Immunohistochemical data of SATB1, SPIN1, TPM4, VIME and TBB5 were correlated with the degree of genomic instability, established clinical risk factors and overall survival. Genomic instability was associated with a GS ≥ 7 (p = 0.001) and worse overall survival (p = 0.008). A positive SATB1 expression was associated with a GS ≤ 6 (p = 0.040), genomic stability (p = 0.027), and was a predictor for increased overall survival (p = 0.023). High expression of SPIN1 was also associated with longer overall survival (p = 0.048) and lower preoperative PSA-values (p = 0.047). The combination of SATB1 expression, genomic instability, and GS lead to a novel Prostate Cancer Prediction Score (PCP-Score) which outperforms the current D'Amico et al. stratification for predicting overall survival. Low SATB1 expression, genomic instability and GS ≥ 7 were identified as markers for poor prognosis. Their combination overcomes current clinical risk stratification regimes.

Indexed as

Genomic InstabilityAgedGene ExpressionHumansMaleMatrix Attachment Region Binding ProteinsMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingPrognosisProstateProstatic NeoplasmsSurvival AnalysisMatrix Attachment Region Binding ProteinsSATB1 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID34961766
PMCPMC8712510
OpenAlexW4200030939

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.