PURPOSE: To confirm our previously obtained results, we genetically characterized prostate cancer from patients undergo radical prostatectomy in a retrospective study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Histological sections were evaluated for 106 patients treated with surgery from 1991 to 2004. With fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) method, the status of LPL (8p22), c-MYC (8q24) genes and 7, 8, X chromosomes was evaluated. RESULTS: Chromosomes 7, 8, X aneusomy was demonstrated in 91.5%, 78.3%, and 51.9% of the samples, respectively, whereas LPL deletion and MYC amplification were found in 76.0% and 1.6%. A genetic profile was considered as unfavorable when at least two aneusomic chromosomes and one altered gene were present. Tumors with an adverse genetic profile were more frequently present in patients with higher stages (P = 0.02), biochemical/clinical progression (P = 0.03), and Gleason grade 4 + 3 (P = 0.02). Multiple correspondence analysis identified one tumor group characterized by chromosome 8 aneusomy, X polysomy, LPL gene deletion, Gleason > 7 and 4 + 3 associated with progression. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we recognized the predictive power of previously identified cytogenetic profiles. Assessment of genetic set may characterize each patient and have influence on postoperative therapeutic strategies.
Genetic profile identification in clinically localized prostate carcinoma
2009
Abstract
PURPOSE: To confirm our previously obtained results, we genetically characterized prostate cancer from patients undergo radical prostatectomy in a retrospective study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Histological sections were evaluated for 106 patients treated with surgery from 1991 to 2004. With fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) method, the status of LPL (8p22), c-MYC (8q24) genes and 7, 8, X chromosomes was evaluated. RESULTS: Chromosomes 7, 8, X aneusomy was demonstrated in 91.5%, 78.3%, and 51.9% of the samples, respectively, whereas LPL deletion and MYC amplification were found in 76.0% and 1.6%. A genetic profile was considered as unfavorable when at least two aneusomic chromosomes and one altered gene were present. Tumors with an adverse genetic profile were more frequently present in patients with higher stages (P = 0.02), biochemical/clinical progression (P = 0.03), and Gleason grade 4 + 3 (P = 0.02). Multiple correspondence analysis identified one tumor group characterized by chromosome 8 aneusomy, X polysomy, LPL gene deletion, Gleason > 7 and 4 + 3 associated with progression. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we recognized the predictive power of previously identified cytogenetic profiles. Assessment of genetic set may characterize each patient and have influence on postoperative therapeutic strategies.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
