Upregulation of the transcription factor TFAP2D is associated with aggressive tumor phenotype in prostate cancer lacking the TMPRSS2:ERG fusion.

BACKGROUND: TFAP2D is a transcription factor important for modulating gene expression in embryogenesis. Its expression and prognostic role in prostate cancer has not been evaluated. METHODS: Therefore, a tissue microarray containing 17,747 prostate cancer specimens with associated pathological, clinical, and molecular data was analyzed by immunohistochemistry to assess the role of TFAP2D. RESULTS: TFAP2D expression was typically increased in prostate cancer as compared to adjacent non-neoplastic glands. TFAP2D staining was considered negative in 24.3% and positive in 75.7% of 13,545 interpretable cancers. TFAP2D staining was significantly linked to advanced tumor stage, high classical and quantitative Gleason grade, lymph node metastasis, and a positive surgical margin (p ≤ 0.0045). TFAP2D positivity was more common in ERG fusion positive (88.7%) than in ERG negative cancers (66.8%; p < 0.0001). Subset analyses in 3776 cancers with and 4722 cancers without TMPRSS2:ERG fusion revealed that associations with tumor phenotype and patient outcome were largely driven by the subset of ERG negative tumors. Multivariate analysis did not identify TFAP2D protein expression levels as a robust independent prognostic parameter. Positive TFAP2D immunostaining was significantly associated with 10 of 11 previously analyzed chromosomal deletions in ERG negative cancers (p ≤ 0.0244 each) indicating that elevated TFAP2D expression parallels genomic instability in prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that TFAP2D protein overexpression is linked to prostate cancer progression and genomic instability in ERG negative prostate cancers.

Integrating Tertiary Gleason 5 Patterns into Quantitative Gleason Grading in Prostate Biopsies and Prostatectomy Specimens.

BACKGROUND: Presence of small (tertiary) Gleason 5 pattern is linked to a higher risk of biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer. It is unclear, however, how to integrate small Gleason 5 elements into clinically relevant Gleason grade groups. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the prognostic impact of Gleason 5 patterns in prostate cancer and to develop a method for integrating tertiary Gleason 5 patterns into a quantitative Gleason grading system. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prostatectomy specimens from 13 261 consecutive patients and of 3295 matched preoperative biopsies were available. Percentages of Gleason 3, 4, and 5 had been recorded for each cancer. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Our data demonstrate that minimal Gleason 5 areas have strong prognostic impact in Gleason 7 carcinomas, while further expansion of the Gleason 5 pattern population has less impact. We thus defined an integrated quantitative Gleason score (IQ-Gleason) by adding a lump score of 10 to the percentage of unfavorable Gleason pattern (Gleason 4/5) if any Gleason 5 was present and by adding another 7.5 points in case of a Gleason 5 fraction >20%. There was a continuous increase of the risk of prostate-specific antigen recurrence with increasing IQ-Gleason. This was also true for subgroups with identical Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Postsurgical scores (p<0.0001) or Gleason grade groups (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The IQ-Gleason represents a simple and efficient approach for combining both quantitative Gleason grading and tertiary Gleason grades in one highly prognostic numerical variable. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prostatectomy specimens (13 261) were analyzed to estimate the relevance of small Gleason 5 elements in prostate cancers. Even the smallest Gleason 5 areas markedly increased the risk of prostate-specific antigen recurrence after surgery. Larger fractions of Gleason 5 patterns had less further impact on prognosis. Based on this, a numerical Gleason score (integrated quantitative Gleason score) was defined by the percentages of Gleason 4 and 5 patterns, enabling a refined estimate of patient prognosis.

Marked Prognostic Impact of Minimal Lymphatic Tumor Spread in Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nodal metastasis (N1) is a strong prognostic parameter in prostate cancer; however, lymph node evaluation is always incomplete. OBJECTIVE: To study the prognostic value of lymphatic invasion (L1) and whether it might complement or even replace lymph node analysis in clinical practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of pathological and clinical data from 14 528 consecutive patients. INTERVENTION: Radical prostatectomy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The impact of L1 and N1 on patient prognosis was measured with time to biochemical recurrence as the primary endpoint. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Nodal metastases were found in 1602 (12%) of 13 070 patients with lymph node dissection. L1 was seen in 2027 of 14 528 patients (14%) for whom lymphatic vessels had been visualized by immunohistochemistry. N1 and L1 continuously increased with unfavorable Gleason grade, advanced pT stage, and preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values (p<0.0001 each). N1 was found in 4.3% of 12 501 L0 and in 41% of 2027 L1 carcinomas (p<0.0001). L1 was seen in 11% of 9868 N0 and in 61% of 1360 N1 carcinomas (p<0.0001). Both N1 and L1 were linked to PSA recurrence (p<0.0001 each). This was also true for 17 patients with isolated tumor cells (ie, <200 unequivocal cancer cells without invasive growth) and 193 metastases ≤1mm. Combined analysis of N and L status showed that L1 had no prognostic effect in N1 patients but L1 was strikingly linked to PSA recurrence in N0 patients. N0L1 patients showed a similar outcome as N1 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of lymphatic invasion provides comparable prognostic information than lymph node analysis. Even minimal involvement of the lymphatic system has pivotal prognostic impact in prostate cancer. Thus, a thorough search for lymphatic involvement helps to identify more patients with an increased risk for disease recurrence. PATIENT SUMMARY: Already minimal amounts of tumor cells inside the lymph nodes or intraprostatic lymphatic vessels have a severe impact on patient prognosis.