Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jun 28;78(14):1084-1091.
doi: 10.1002/pros.23667. Online ahead of print.

A five-CpG DNA methylation score to predict metastatic-lethal outcomes in men treated with radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer

Affiliations

A five-CpG DNA methylation score to predict metastatic-lethal outcomes in men treated with radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer

Shanshan Zhao et al. Prostate. .

Abstract

Background: Prognostic biomarkers for localized prostate cancer (PCa) could improve personalized medicine. Our group previously identified a panel of differentially methylated CpGs in primary tumor tissue that predict disease aggressiveness, and here we further validate these biomarkers.

Methods: Pyrosequencing was used to assess CpG methylation of eight biomarkers previously identified using the HumanMethylation450 array; CpGs with strongly correlated (r >0.70) results were considered technically validated. Logistic regression incorporating the validated CpGs and Gleason sum was used to define and lock a final model to stratify men with metastatic-lethal versus non-recurrent PCa in a training dataset. Coefficients from the final model were then used to construct a DNA methylation score, which was evaluated by logistic regression and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses in an independent testing dataset.

Results: Five CpGs were technically validated and all were retained (P < 0.05) in the final model. The 5-CpG and Gleason sum coefficients were used to calculate a methylation score, which was higher in men with metastatic-lethal progression (P = 6.8 × 10-6 ) in the testing dataset. For each unit increase in the score there was a four-fold increase in risk of metastatic-lethal events (odds ratio, OR = 4.0, 95%CI = 1.8-14.3). At 95% specificity, sensitivity was 74% for the score compared to 53% for Gleason sum alone. The score demonstrated better prediction performance (AUC = 0.91; pAUC = 0.037) compared to Gleason sum alone (AUC = 0.87; pAUC = 0.025).

Conclusions: The DNA methylation score improved upon Gleason sum for predicting metastatic-lethal progression and holds promise for risk stratification of men with aggressive tumors. This prognostic score warrants further evaluation as a tool for improving patient outcomes.

Keywords: DNA methylation score; biomarker validation; metastatic-lethal; prognostic; prostate cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Box plots of the DNA methylation score in the UM testing dataset stratified by prostate cancer outcome status (no recurrence or metastatic‐lethal progression)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Receiver Operating Characteristic curves for predicting metastatic‐lethal versus non‐recurrent prostate cancer outcomes in the UM testing dataset. The dashed vertical line indicates 95% specificity, which corresponds to a sensitivity of 53% for Gleason sum alone compared to a sensitivity of 74% for the DNA methylation score. The red line shows the prediction performance of Gleason sum alone (AUC = 0.87; pAUC = 0.025), and the blue line shows the prediction performance of the DNA methylation score based on Gleason sum plus five CpGs (AUC = 0.91; pAUC = 0.037)

References

    1. Patrikidou A, Loriot Y, Eymard J‐C, et al. Who dies from prostate cancer? Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014; 17:348–352. - PubMed
    1. Howlader N NA, Krapcho M, Garshell J, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975– 2013. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD Available from: http://seercancergov/csr/1975 2013.
    1. Gray PJ, Lin CC, Cooperberg MR, Jemal A, JA E. Temporal trends and the impact of race, insurance, and socioeconomic status in the management of localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017; 71:729–737. - PubMed
    1. DeSantis CE, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014; 64:252–271. - PubMed
    1. Boorjian SA, Eastham JA, Graefen M, et al. A critical analysis of the long‐term impact of radical prostatectomy on cancer control and function outcomes. Eur Urol. 2012; 61:664–675. - PubMed