Immunoexpression of HSPA9 and CUL2 in prostatic tissue and adenocarcinoma.

CUL2 plays a crucial role in proteolysis by preserving the balance between normal growth and uncontrolled proliferation. HSPA9 safeguards the integrity of protein interactions and supports cellular homeostasis. In carcinomas, HSPA9 and CUL2 appear to protect neoplastic cells from internal and external damage. In prostate tumors they are apparently associated with increased risk of unfavorable outcomes, but information remains scarce. In this study we evaluated CUL2 and HSPA9 expression in neoplastic and non-neoplastic prostate tissue and Gleason pattern 3 and 4 adenocarcinoma to identify associations with ISUP prognostic groups and postoperative disease progression. The records of 636 radical prostatectomy patients were reviewed retrospectively and microarrays were mounted with paraffin-embedded adenocarcinoma and non-neoplastic tissue. We evaluated the ability of HSPA9 and CUL2 to predict postoperative PSA outcomes, response to adjuvant/salvage therapy and systemic disease. HSPA9 and CUL2 were diffusely expressed. HSPA9 expression was associated with increased risk of high-grade adenocarcinoma, while HSPA9 and CUL2 were associated with biochemical failure after salvage therapy. In conclusion, HSPA9 and CUL2 were highly expressed in prostate tissue, especially in neoplastic cells. HSPA9 and CUL2-positive Gleason pattern 3 adenocarcinoma was more likely to be associated with Gleason pattern 4 or 5, while HSPA9 and CUL2-positive Gleason pattern 4 adenocarcinoma was less likely to belong to ISUP groups 1 and 2. Staining for HSPA9 and CUL2 can help identify patients at increased risk of recurrence after salvage therapy.

Prognostic value of FUS immunoexpression for Gleason patterns and prostatic adenocarcinoma progression.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment is important when planning treatment for prostatic adenocarcinoma. Gleason score is a strong predictor of disease progression, despite the possibility of mismatches between biopsy and prostatectomy. In order to increase the accuracy of Gleason scores, several markers have been proposed. One of these, FUS (fused in sarcoma), plays a role in RNA processing, chromosome stability and gene transcription. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Non-neoplastic tissue and Gleason pattern 3, 4 and 5 adenocarcinoma samples were submitted to tissue microarrays. Gleason pattern 3 and 4 were compared to the final Gleason score. We also conducted univariate and multivariate tests to probe the association between FUS expression in adenocarcinoma samples and outcome: biochemical persistence and biochemical recurrence (separately or pooled as biochemical progression), biochemical failure after salvage radiotherapy, and systemic progression. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 636 patients. Non-neoplastic tissue stained less frequently (36.5%) than neoplastic tissue (47.4%), with expression increasing from Gleason pattern 3 towards pattern 5. FUS-positive Gleason pattern 3 was significantly associated with final Gleason scores >6 (HR = 1.765 [1.203-2.589]; p = 0.004). Likewise, FUS-positive Gleason pattern 4 was significantly associated with final Gleason scores ≥7 (4 + 3). The association between FUS positivity and biochemical persistence and recurrence observed in the univariate analysis was not maintained in the multivariate analysis (HR = 1.147 [0.878-1.499]; p = 0.313). CONCLUSION: Non-neoplastic tissue was less frequently FUS-positive than neoplastic tissue. FUS positivity in Gleason pattern 3 and 4 increased the risk of high grade adenocarcinoma and was associated with clinical/laboratory progression in the univariate, but not in multivariate analysis.