RESUMEN
Circulating insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) is consistently associated with prostate cancer risk. IGF-1 binds to IGF-1 receptor (IGF1R) and insulin receptor (IR), activating cancer hallmark pathways. Experimental evidence suggests that TMPRSS2:ERG may interact with IGF/insulin signaling to influence progression. We investigated IGF1R and IR expression and its association with lethal prostate cancer among 769 men. Protein expression of IGF1R, IR and ERG (i.e. a surrogate of ERG fusion genes) were assayed by immunohistochemistry. Cox models estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusted for clinical characteristics. Among patients, 29% had strong tumor IGF1R expression and 10% had strong IR expression. During a mean follow-up of 13.2 years through 2012, 80 men (11%) developed lethal disease. Tumors with strong IGF1R or IR expression showed increased cell proliferation, decreased apoptosis and a higher prevalence of ERG. In multivariable models, strong IGF1R was associated with a borderline increased risk of lethal prostate cancer (HR 1.7; 95% CI 0.9-3.1). The association appeared greater in ERG-positive tumors (HR 2.8; 95% CI 0.9-8.4) than in ERG-negative tumors (HR 1.3; 95% CI 0.6-3.0, p-heterogeneity 0.08). There was no association between IR and lethal prostate cancer (HR 0.8; 95% CI 0.4-1.9). These results suggest that tumor IGF1R expression may play a role in prostate cancer progression to a lethal phenotype and that ERG-positive tumors may be more sensitive to IGF signaling. These data may improve our understanding of IGF signaling in prostate cancer and suggest therapeutic options for disease subtypes.
Asunto(s)
Factor I del Crecimiento Similar a la Insulina/genética , Neoplasias de la Próstata/genética , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Receptor de Insulina/genética , Receptores de Somatomedina/genética , Anciano , Apoptosis/genética , Biomarcadores de Tumor/genética , Proliferación Celular/genética , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Regulación Neoplásica de la Expresión Génica/genética , Humanos , Insulina/genética , Masculino , Proteínas de Fusión Oncogénica/genética , Receptor IGF Tipo 1 , Transducción de Señal/genética , Regulador Transcripcional ERG/genéticaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To review and summarize evidence on the role of diet and lifestyle factors and prostate cancer progression, with a specific focus on habits after diagnosis and the risk of subsequent disease recurrence, progression, or death. METHODS: Given the well-documented heterogeneity of prostate cancer and the long survivorship of the majority of diagnoses, our goal was to summarize and describe modifiable risk factors for clinically relevant prostate cancer. We focused where possible on epidemiologic studies of post-diagnostic habits and prostate cancer progression, defined as recurrence (e.g., PSA risk, secondary treatment), metastasis, or death. Where data were limited, we also describe evidence on risk factors and indicators of prostate cancer aggressiveness at diagnosis. RESULTS: A variety of dietary and lifestyle factors appear to affect prostate cancer progression. Several generally widely recommended lifestyle factors such as not smoking, maintaining a healthy body weight, and regular vigorous physical exercise also appear to affect prostate cancer progression. Several dietary factors, such as tomato sauce/lycopene, cruciferous vegetables, healthy sources of vegetable fats, and coffee, may also have a role in reducing risk of prostate cancer progression. CONCLUSION: Diet and lifestyle factors, in particular exercise and smoking cessation, may reduce the risk of prostate cancer progression and death. These promising findings warrant further investigation, as their overall impact might be large.
Asunto(s)
Dieta Saludable , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Ejercicio Físico/fisiología , Estilo de Vida , Neoplasias de la Próstata/epidemiología , Neoplasias de la Próstata/fisiopatología , Adulto , Anciano , Actitud Frente a la Salud , Humanos , Incidencia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Sobrepeso/epidemiología , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Fumar/efectos adversos , Análisis de SupervivenciaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Gleason score strongly predicts prostate cancer mortality; however, scoring varies among pathologists, and many men are diagnosed with intermediate-risk Gleason score 7. We previously developed a 157-gene signature for Gleason score using a limited gene panel. Using a new whole-transcriptome expression dataset, we verified the previous signature's performance and developed a new Gleason signature to improve lethal outcome prediction among men with Gleason score 7. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We generated mRNA expression data from prostate tumor tissue from men in the Physicians' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (N = 404) using the Affymetrix Human Gene 1.0 ST microarray. The Prediction Analysis for Microarrays method was used to develop a signature to distinguish high (≥8) versus low (≤6) Gleason score. We evaluated the signature's ability to improve prediction of lethality among men with Gleason score 7, adjusting for 3 + 4/4 + 3 status, by quantifying the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). RESULTS: We identified a 30-gene signature that best distinguished Gleason score ≤6 from ≥8. The AUC to predict lethal disease among Gleason score 7 men was 0.76 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67-0.84] compared with 0.68 (95% CI, 0.59-0.76) using 3 + 4/4 + 3 status alone (P = 0.0001). This signature was a nonsignificant (P = 0.09) improvement over our previous signature (AUC = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Our new 30-gene signature improved prediction of lethality among men with Gleason score 7. This signature can potentially become a useful prognostic tool for physicians to improve treatment decision making. Clin Cancer Res; 23(1); 81-87. ©2016 AACRSee related commentary by Yin et al., p. 6.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Neoplasias/genética , Transcriptoma , Anciano , Perfilación de la Expresión Génica , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Clasificación del Tumor , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Neoplasias/mortalidad , Pronóstico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/genética , Neoplasias de la Próstata/mortalidad , Curva ROC , Reproducibilidad de los ResultadosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies and secondary analyses of randomized trials supported the hypothesis that selenium and vitamin E lower prostate cancer risk. However, the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) showed no benefit of either supplement. Genetic variants involved in selenium or vitamin E metabolism or transport may underlie the complex associations of selenium and vitamin E. METHODS: We undertook a case-cohort study of SELECT participants randomized to placebo, selenium, or vitamin E. The subcohort included 1,434 men; our primary outcome was high-grade prostate cancer (N = 278 cases, Gleason 7 or higher cancer). We used weighted Cox regression to examine the association between SNPs and high-grade prostate cancer risk. To assess effect modification, we created interaction terms between randomization arm and genotype and calculated log likelihood statistics. RESULTS: We noted statistically significant (P < 0.05) interactions between selenium assignment, SNPs in CAT, SOD2, PRDX6, SOD3, and TXNRD2, and high-grade prostate cancer risk. Statistically significant SNPs that modified the association of vitamin E assignment and high-grade prostate cancer included SEC14L2, SOD1, and TTPA In the placebo arm, several SNPs, hypothesized to interact with supplement assignment and risk of high-grade prostate cancer, were also directly associated with outcome. CONCLUSION: Variants in selenium and vitamin E metabolism/transport genes may influence risk of overall and high-grade prostate cancer, and may modify an individual man's response to vitamin E or selenium supplementation with regards to these risks. IMPACT: The effect of selenium or vitamin E supplementation on high-grade prostate cancer risk may vary by genotype. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(7); 1050-8. ©2016 AACR.