title: Low Frequency of the ERG Oncogene Alterations in Prostate Cancer Patients from India.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  ERG oncogene fusions (predominantly TMPRSS2-ERG) represent the most common (50-70% frequency) and validated prostate cancer (CaP) genome alteration in the Western countries. A common TMPRSS2-ERG fusion type leads to the androgen dependent tumor cell specific expression of the TMPRSS2-ERG fusion transcript and amino terminally truncated ERG oncoprotein. CaP prevalence and aggressiveness, as well as genomic alterations vary in different geographic locations in the world. Recent studies from our group highlighted significantly lower frequency of ERG alterations in prostate index tumors of African American men (~30%) in comparison to Caucasian Americans (~60%). Further, much lower frequencies (10 -25%) of ERG alterations have been reported in studies from China and Japan. There is no study on ERG alterations in CaP patients from India, representing a significant portion of the world male population. This study focuses on the frequency of ERG oncoprotein expression in CaP patients from India.
  
  
  METHODS
  De-identified formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) specimens from radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens of 51 patients from the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre (RGCI), New Delhi, India, were analyzed for ERG alterations. The ERG oncoprotein expression as a surrogate of ERG gene fusions was analyzed by using a highly specific ERG monoclonal antibody (9FY). TMPRSS2-ERG fusion was assessed by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) assays using the break-apart ERG probes.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Specimens reflecting prior hormonal treatment, or lacking any tumor content, were excluded from the analyses. Of the thirty evaluable specimens, ERG positive tumors were present in 8 cases (27%) and one tumor specimen exhibited rare ERG positive cells. None of the benign glands were positive for ERG supporting previous studies showing complete specificity of the ERG oncoprotein for detection of tumors cells in prostate.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Frequency of ERG oncoprotein expression is much lower in CaP patients from India in comparison to higher frequency of ERG alterations noted in Western countries. ERG frequency in Indian CaP is similar to observations from Japan and China. Since ERG oncogenic activation is a promising biomarker and therapeutic target for CaP, careful evaluation of ERG is needed in CaP patients from different parts of the world.
authors.affiliation: 1. Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, India.
authors.forename: Sudhir
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Rawal
authors.forename: Denise
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Young
authors.forename: Molly
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Williams
authors.forename: Monica
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Colombo
authors.forename: Raghunath
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Krishnappa
authors.forename: Gyorgy
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Petrovics
authors.forename: David G
authors.initials: DG
authors.lastname: McLeod
authors.forename: Shiv
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Srivastava
authors.forename: Isabell A
authors.initials: IA
authors.lastname: Sesterhenn
keywords: ERG oncogene; India.; prostate cancer
references.citation: Cancer Res. 2006 Sep 1;66(17):8337-41
references.pmid: 16951139
references.citation: Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Dec 15;18(24):6648-57
references.pmid: 23052253
references.citation: Mod Pathol. 2010 Nov;23(11):1492-8
references.pmid: 20693979
references.citation: Eur J Cancer. 2005 Apr;41(6):834-45
references.pmid: 15808953
references.citation: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2010 Sep;13(3):228-37
references.pmid: 20585344
references.citation: Urology. 2012 Oct;80(4):749-53
references.pmid: 22950997
references.citation: Pathol Int. 2011 Jul;61(7):409-14
references.pmid: 21707844
references.citation: Mod Pathol. 2007 Apr;20(4):467-73
references.pmid: 17334351
references.citation: Cancer Res. 2009 Feb 15;69(4):1400-6
references.pmid: 19190343
references.citation: J Carcinog. 2011;10:37
references.pmid: 22279422
references.citation: Prostate. 2011 Apr;71(5):489-97
references.pmid: 20878952
references.citation: BJU Int. 2005 Jan;95(1):170-3
references.pmid: 15638917
references.citation: Cancer Cell. 2011 May 17;19(5):664-78
references.pmid: 21575865
references.citation: Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Jul 15;15(14):4706-11
references.pmid: 19584163
references.citation: Oncogene. 2005 May 26;24(23):3847-52
references.pmid: 15750627
references.citation: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 Sep;17(9):2431-5
references.pmid: 18768513
references.citation: Arch Toxicol. 2000 Nov;74(9):521-6
references.pmid: 11131031
references.citation: Mod Pathol. 2007 Sep;20(9):921-8
references.pmid: 17632455
references.citation: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1999 Apr;8(4 Pt 1):283-7
references.pmid: 10207629
references.citation: J Urol. 2009 Dec;182(6):2938-43
references.pmid: 19846139
references.citation: Lancet. 2003 Mar 8;361(9360):859-64
references.pmid: 12642065
references.citation: Oncogene. 2008 Sep 11;27(40):5348-53
references.pmid: 18542058
references.citation: Int J Cancer. 2001 May 20;95(3):152-5
references.pmid: 11307147
references.citation: Science. 2005 Oct 28;310(5748):644-8
references.pmid: 16254181
references.citation: Jpn J Clin Oncol. 1998 Nov;28(11):657-60
references.pmid: 9861231
references.citation: Mod Pathol. 2008 Dec;21(12):1451-60
references.pmid: 18500259
references.citation: J Clin Pathol. 2007 Nov;60(11):1238-43
references.pmid: 17259299
references.citation: CA Cancer J Clin. 2013 Jan;63(1):11-30
references.pmid: 23335087
references.citation: Cancer Res. 2010 Jul 1;70(13):5207-12
references.pmid: 20516122
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2011 Sep 20;29(27):3659-68
references.pmid: 21859993