Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37349736›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2023

Characterization and evaluation of gene fusions as a measure of genetic instability and disease prognosis in prostate cancer.

Carolin Schimmelpfennig, Michael Rade, Susanne Füssel, Dennis Löffler, Conny Blumert, Catharina Bertram, Angelika Borkowetz, Dominik J Otto, Sven-Holger Puppel, Pia Hönscheid and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2023. 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
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  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

18 authors.

Carolin SchimmelpfennigDepartment of Diagnostics, Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Leipzig, Germany.
Michael RadeDepartment of Diagnostics, Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Leipzig, Germany.
Susanne FüsselDepartment of Urology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Dennis LöfflerDepartment of Diagnostics, Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Leipzig, Germany.
Conny BlumertDepartment of Diagnostics, Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Leipzig, Germany.
Catharina BertramDepartment of Diagnostics, Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Leipzig, Germany.
Angelika BorkowetzDepartment of Urology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Dominik J OttoDepartment of Diagnostics, Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Leipzig, Germany.
Sven-Holger PuppelDepartment of Diagnostics, Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Leipzig, Germany.
Pia HönscheidInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Ulrich SommerInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Gustavo B BarettonInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Ulrike KöhlDepartment of Diagnostics, Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Leipzig, Germany.
Manfred WirthDepartment of Urology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Christian ThomasDepartment of Urology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Friedemann HornDepartment of Diagnostics, Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Leipzig, Germany.
Markus KreuzDepartment of Diagnostics, Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Leipzig, Germany.
Kristin ReicheDepartment of Diagnostics, Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Leipzig, Germany. kristin.reiche@izi.fraunhofer.de.

Funding

EFRE grants from the EU SAB 100382213
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstate cancer (PCa) is one of the most prevalent cancers worldwide. The clinical manifestations and molecular characteristics of PCa are highly variable. Aggressive types require radical treatment, whereas indolent ones may be suitable for active surveillance or organ-preserving focal therapies. Patient stratification by clinical or pathological risk categories still lacks sufficient precision. Incorporating molecular biomarkers, such as transcriptome-wide expression signatures, improves patient stratification but so far excludes chromosomal rearrangements. In this study, we investigated gene fusions in PCa, characterized potential novel candidates, and explored their role as prognostic markers for PCa progression.

methodsWe analyzed 630 patients in four cohorts with varying traits regarding sequencing protocols, sample conservation, and PCa risk group. The datasets included transcriptome-wide expression and matched clinical follow-up data to detect and characterize gene fusions in PCa. With the fusion calling software Arriba, we computationally predicted gene fusions. Following detection, we annotated the gene fusions using published databases for gene fusions in cancer. To relate the occurrence of gene fusions to Gleason Grading Groups and disease prognosis, we performed survival analyses using the Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and Cox regression.

resultsOur analyses identified two potential novel gene fusions, MBTTPS2,L0XNC01::SMS and AMACR::AMACR. These fusions were detected in all four studied cohorts, providing compelling evidence for the validity of these fusions and their relevance in PCa. We also found that the number of gene fusions detected in a patient sample was significantly associated with the time to biochemical recurrence in two of the four cohorts (log-rank test, p-value < 0.05 for both cohorts). This was also confirmed after adjusting the prognostic model for Gleason Grading Groups (Cox regression, p-values < 0.05).

conclusionsOur gene fusion characterization workflow revealed two potential novel fusions specific for PCa. We found evidence that the number of gene fusions was associated with the prognosis of PCa. However, as the quantitative correlations were only moderately strong, further validation and assessment of clinical value is required before potential application.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorGene FusionHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingPrognosisTranscriptomeBiomarkers, TumorBiomarkerGene fusionGenomic instabilityMolecular diagnostic testingMolecular pathologyNext-generation sequencingPrognosisProstate cancerTranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID37349736
PMCPMC10286324

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.