ERG rearrangement for predicting subsequent cancer diagnosis in high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and lymph node metastasis.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to analyze whether ERG rearrangement in biopsies could be used to assess subsequent cancer diagnosis in high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and the risk of lymph node metastasis in early prostate cancer.


METHODS
Samples from 523 patients (361 with early prostate cancer and 162 with HGPIN) were collected prospectively. On the basis of the cutoff value established previously, the 162 patients with HGPIN were stratified to two groups: one with an ERG rearrangements rate ≥1.6% (n = 59) and the other with an ERG rearrangements rate <1.6% (n = 103). For the 361 prostate cancer cases undergoing radical prostatectomy, 143 had pelvic lymph node dissection (node-positive, n = 56 and node-negative, n = 87). All ERG rearrangement FISH data were validated with ERG immunohistochemistry.


RESULTS
A total of 56 (of 59, 94.9%) HGPIN cases with an ERG rearrangements rate ≥1.6% and 5 (of 103, 4.9%) HGPIN cases with an ERG rearrangements rate <1.6% were diagnosed with prostate cancer during repeat biopsy follow-ups (P < 0.001). There were significant differences in ERG rearrangement rates between lymph node-positive and -negative prostate cancer (P < 0.001). The optimal cutoff value to predict lymph node metastasis by ERG rearrangement was established, being 2.6% with a sensitivity at 80.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 67.6-89.8] and a specificity at 85.1% (95% CI, 75.8-91.8). ERG protein expression by immunohistochemistry was highly concordant with ERG rearrangement by FISH.


CONCLUSIONS
The presence of ERG rearrangement in HGPIN lesions detected on initial biopsy warrants repeat biopsies and measuring ERG rearrangement could be used for assessing the risk of lymph node metastasis in early prostate cancer.
Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. billurology@126.com
Xin
X
Gao
Liao-Yuan
LY
Li
Fang-Jian
FJ
Zhou
Ke-Ji
KJ
Xie
Chun-Kui
CK
Shao
Zu-Lan
ZL
Su
Qi-Peng
QP
Sun
Ming-Kun
MK
Chen
Jun
J
Pang
Xiang-Fu
XF
Zhou
Jian-Guang
JG
Qiu
Xing-Qiao
XQ
Wen
Ming
M
Yang
Xian-Zhong
XZ
Bai
Hao
H
Zhang
Li
L
Ling
Zhong
Z
Chen
D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001706:Biopsy; D015321:Gene Rearrangement; D006801:Humans; D007150:Immunohistochemistry; D017404:In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence; D008207:Lymphatic Metastasis; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D060787:Neoplasm Grading; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011379:Prognosis; D011468:Prostatectomy / Q000379:methods; D019048:Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000235:genetics* / Q000473:pathology; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000235:genetics* / Q000473:pathology; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012307:Risk Factors; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D015534:Trans-Activators / Q000235:genetics* / Q000378:metabolism; D000071230:Transcriptional Regulator ERG
C072312:ERG protein, human; D015534:Trans-Activators; D000071230:Transcriptional Regulator ERG