Cargando…
Comparing diagnostic and prognostic performance of two-gene promoter methylation panels in tissue biopsies and urines of prostate cancer patients
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers among men worldwide. Current screening methods for PCa display limited sensitivity and specificity, not stratifying for disease aggressiveness. Hence, development and validation of new molecular markers is needed. Aberrant gene prom...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6206889/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30373654 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13148-018-0564-2 |
_version_ | 1783366440539127808 |
---|---|
author | Moreira-Barbosa, Catarina Barros-Silva, Daniela Costa-Pinheiro, Pedro Torres-Ferreira, Jorge Constâncio, Vera Freitas, Rui Oliveira, Jorge Antunes, Luís Henrique, Rui Jerónimo, Carmen |
author_facet | Moreira-Barbosa, Catarina Barros-Silva, Daniela Costa-Pinheiro, Pedro Torres-Ferreira, Jorge Constâncio, Vera Freitas, Rui Oliveira, Jorge Antunes, Luís Henrique, Rui Jerónimo, Carmen |
author_sort | Moreira-Barbosa, Catarina |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers among men worldwide. Current screening methods for PCa display limited sensitivity and specificity, not stratifying for disease aggressiveness. Hence, development and validation of new molecular markers is needed. Aberrant gene promoter methylation is common in PCa and has shown promise as clinical biomarker. Herein, we assessed and compared the diagnostic and prognostic performance of two-gene panel promoter methylation in the same sample sets. METHODS: Promoter methylation of panel #1 (singleplex-miR-34b/c and miR-193b) and panel #2 (multiplex-APC, GSTP1, and RARβ2) was evaluated using MethyLight methodology in two different cohorts [prostate biopsy (#1) and urine sediment (#2)]. Biomarkers’ diagnostic (validity estimates) and prognostic (disease-specific survival, disease-free survival, and progression-free survival) performance was assessed. RESULTS: Promoter methylation levels of both panels showed the highest levels in PCa samples in both cohorts. In tissue samples, methylation panel #1 and panel #2 detected PCa with AUC of 0.9775 and 1.0, respectively, whereas in urine samples, panel #2 demonstrated superior performance although a combination of miR-34b/c, miR-193b, APC, and RARβ2 disclosed the best results (AUC = 0.9817). Furthermore, higher mir-34b/c and panel #2 methylation independently predicted for shorter DSS. Furthermore, time-dependent ROC curves showed that both miR-34b/c and GSTP1 methylation levels identify with impressive performance patients that relapse up to 15 years after diagnosis (AUC = 0.751 and AUC = 0.765, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that quantitative gene panel promoter methylation might be a clinically useful tool for PCa non-invasive detection and risk stratification for disease aggressiveness in both tissue biopsies and urines. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13148-018-0564-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6206889 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62068892018-10-31 Comparing diagnostic and prognostic performance of two-gene promoter methylation panels in tissue biopsies and urines of prostate cancer patients Moreira-Barbosa, Catarina Barros-Silva, Daniela Costa-Pinheiro, Pedro Torres-Ferreira, Jorge Constâncio, Vera Freitas, Rui Oliveira, Jorge Antunes, Luís Henrique, Rui Jerónimo, Carmen Clin Epigenetics Research BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers among men worldwide. Current screening methods for PCa display limited sensitivity and specificity, not stratifying for disease aggressiveness. Hence, development and validation of new molecular markers is needed. Aberrant gene promoter methylation is common in PCa and has shown promise as clinical biomarker. Herein, we assessed and compared the diagnostic and prognostic performance of two-gene panel promoter methylation in the same sample sets. METHODS: Promoter methylation of panel #1 (singleplex-miR-34b/c and miR-193b) and panel #2 (multiplex-APC, GSTP1, and RARβ2) was evaluated using MethyLight methodology in two different cohorts [prostate biopsy (#1) and urine sediment (#2)]. Biomarkers’ diagnostic (validity estimates) and prognostic (disease-specific survival, disease-free survival, and progression-free survival) performance was assessed. RESULTS: Promoter methylation levels of both panels showed the highest levels in PCa samples in both cohorts. In tissue samples, methylation panel #1 and panel #2 detected PCa with AUC of 0.9775 and 1.0, respectively, whereas in urine samples, panel #2 demonstrated superior performance although a combination of miR-34b/c, miR-193b, APC, and RARβ2 disclosed the best results (AUC = 0.9817). Furthermore, higher mir-34b/c and panel #2 methylation independently predicted for shorter DSS. Furthermore, time-dependent ROC curves showed that both miR-34b/c and GSTP1 methylation levels identify with impressive performance patients that relapse up to 15 years after diagnosis (AUC = 0.751 and AUC = 0.765, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that quantitative gene panel promoter methylation might be a clinically useful tool for PCa non-invasive detection and risk stratification for disease aggressiveness in both tissue biopsies and urines. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13148-018-0564-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-10-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6206889/ /pubmed/30373654 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13148-018-0564-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Moreira-Barbosa, Catarina Barros-Silva, Daniela Costa-Pinheiro, Pedro Torres-Ferreira, Jorge Constâncio, Vera Freitas, Rui Oliveira, Jorge Antunes, Luís Henrique, Rui Jerónimo, Carmen Comparing diagnostic and prognostic performance of two-gene promoter methylation panels in tissue biopsies and urines of prostate cancer patients |
title | Comparing diagnostic and prognostic performance of two-gene promoter methylation panels in tissue biopsies and urines of prostate cancer patients |
title_full | Comparing diagnostic and prognostic performance of two-gene promoter methylation panels in tissue biopsies and urines of prostate cancer patients |
title_fullStr | Comparing diagnostic and prognostic performance of two-gene promoter methylation panels in tissue biopsies and urines of prostate cancer patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparing diagnostic and prognostic performance of two-gene promoter methylation panels in tissue biopsies and urines of prostate cancer patients |
title_short | Comparing diagnostic and prognostic performance of two-gene promoter methylation panels in tissue biopsies and urines of prostate cancer patients |
title_sort | comparing diagnostic and prognostic performance of two-gene promoter methylation panels in tissue biopsies and urines of prostate cancer patients |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6206889/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30373654 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13148-018-0564-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT moreirabarbosacatarina comparingdiagnosticandprognosticperformanceoftwogenepromotermethylationpanelsintissuebiopsiesandurinesofprostatecancerpatients AT barrossilvadaniela comparingdiagnosticandprognosticperformanceoftwogenepromotermethylationpanelsintissuebiopsiesandurinesofprostatecancerpatients AT costapinheiropedro comparingdiagnosticandprognosticperformanceoftwogenepromotermethylationpanelsintissuebiopsiesandurinesofprostatecancerpatients AT torresferreirajorge comparingdiagnosticandprognosticperformanceoftwogenepromotermethylationpanelsintissuebiopsiesandurinesofprostatecancerpatients AT constanciovera comparingdiagnosticandprognosticperformanceoftwogenepromotermethylationpanelsintissuebiopsiesandurinesofprostatecancerpatients AT freitasrui comparingdiagnosticandprognosticperformanceoftwogenepromotermethylationpanelsintissuebiopsiesandurinesofprostatecancerpatients AT oliveirajorge comparingdiagnosticandprognosticperformanceoftwogenepromotermethylationpanelsintissuebiopsiesandurinesofprostatecancerpatients AT antunesluis comparingdiagnosticandprognosticperformanceoftwogenepromotermethylationpanelsintissuebiopsiesandurinesofprostatecancerpatients AT henriquerui comparingdiagnosticandprognosticperformanceoftwogenepromotermethylationpanelsintissuebiopsiesandurinesofprostatecancerpatients AT jeronimocarmen comparingdiagnosticandprognosticperformanceoftwogenepromotermethylationpanelsintissuebiopsiesandurinesofprostatecancerpatients |