Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comprehensive validation of published immunohistochemical prognostic biomarkers of prostate cancer -what has gone wrong? A blueprint for the way forward in biomarker studies.
Huber, F; Montani, M; Sulser, T; Jaggi, R; Wild, P; Moch, H; Gevensleben, H; Schmid, M; Wyder, S; Kristiansen, G.
Afiliação
  • Huber F; Institute of Surgical Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Montani M; Institute of Surgical Pathology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
  • Sulser T; Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Jaggi R; Department of Clinical Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
  • Wild P; Institute of Surgical Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Moch H; Institute of Surgical Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Gevensleben H; Institute for Medical Biometry, Informatics and Epidemiology, Bonn, Germany.
  • Schmid M; Institute for Medical Biometry, Informatics and Epidemiology, Bonn, Germany.
  • Wyder S; Department of Clinical Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
  • Kristiansen G; Institute of Pathology, University Hospital of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Br J Cancer ; 112(1): 140-8, 2015 Jan 06.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25422912
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Treatment planning of localised prostate cancer remains challenging. Besides conventional parameters, a wealth of prognostic biomarkers has been proposed so far. None of which, however, have successfully been implemented in a routine setting so far. The aim of our study was to systematically verify a set of published prognostic markers for prostate cancer.

METHODS:

Following an in-depth PubMed search, 28 markers were selected that have been proposed as multivariate prognostic markers for primary prostate cancer. Their prognostic validity was examined in a radical prostatectomy cohort of 238 patients with a median follow-up of 60 months and biochemical progression as endpoint of the analysis. Immunohistochemical evaluation was performed using previously published cut-off values, but allowing for optimisation if necessary. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression were used to determine the prognostic value of biomarkers included in this study.

RESULTS:

Despite the application of various cut-offs in the analysis, only four (14%) markers were verified as independently prognostic (AKT1, stromal AR, EZH2, and PSMA) for PSA relapse following radical prostatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS:

Apparently, many immunohistochemistry-based studies on prognostic markers seem to be over-optimistic. Codes of best practice, such as the REMARK guidelines, may facilitate the performance of conclusive and transparent future studies.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias da Próstata / Biomarcadores Tumorais Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Guideline / Incidence_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Aged / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Br J Cancer Ano de publicação: 2015 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Suíça

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias da Próstata / Biomarcadores Tumorais Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Guideline / Incidence_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Aged / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Br J Cancer Ano de publicação: 2015 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Suíça