Huber, F; Montani, Matteo; Sulser, T; Jaggi, Rolf; Wild, P; Moch, H; Gevensleben, H; Schmid-Maurer, Christine; Wyder, Stefan; Kristiansen, G (2015). Comprehensive validation of published immunohistochemical prognostic biomarkers of prostate cancer-what has gone wrong? A blueprint for the way forward in biomarker studies. British journal of cancer, 112(1), pp. 140-148. Nature Publishing Group 10.1038/bjc.2014.588
|
Text
bjc2014588a.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike (CC-BY-NC-SA). This work is published under the standard license to publish agreement. After 12 months the work will become freely available and the license terms will switch to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Download (2MB) | Preview |
BACKGROUND
Treatment planning of localised prostate cancer remains challenging. Besides conventional parameters, a wealth of prognostic biomarkers has been proposed so far. None of which, however, have successfully been implemented in a routine setting so far. The aim of our study was to systematically verify a set of published prognostic markers for prostate cancer.
METHODS
Following an in-depth PubMed search, 28 markers were selected that have been proposed as multivariate prognostic markers for primary prostate cancer. Their prognostic validity was examined in a radical prostatectomy cohort of 238 patients with a median follow-up of 60 months and biochemical progression as endpoint of the analysis. Immunohistochemical evaluation was performed using previously published cut-off values, but allowing for optimisation if necessary. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression were used to determine the prognostic value of biomarkers included in this study.
RESULTS
Despite the application of various cut-offs in the analysis, only four (14%) markers were verified as independently prognostic (AKT1, stromal AR, EZH2, and PSMA) for PSA relapse following radical prostatectomy.
CONCLUSIONS
Apparently, many immunohistochemistry-based studies on prognostic markers seem to be over-optimistic. Codes of best practice, such as the REMARK guidelines, may facilitate the performance of conclusive and transparent future studies.
Item Type: |
Journal Article (Original Article) |
|---|---|
Division/Institute: |
04 Faculty of Medicine > Pre-clinic Human Medicine > BioMedical Research (DBMR) > Forschungsbereich Pathologie > Forschungsgruppe Molekularbiologie 04 Faculty of Medicine > Service Sector > Institute of Pathology 04 Faculty of Medicine > Pre-clinic Human Medicine > BioMedical Research (DBMR) 04 Faculty of Medicine > Service Sector > Institute of Pathology > Clinical Pathology |
UniBE Contributor: |
Montani, Matteo, Jaggi, Rolf, Schmid-Maurer, Christine, Wyder, Stefan (B) |
Subjects: |
500 Science > 570 Life sciences; biology 600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health |
ISSN: |
0007-0920 |
Publisher: |
Nature Publishing Group |
Language: |
English |
Submitter: |
Doris Haefelin |
Date Deposited: |
20 Feb 2015 16:41 |
Last Modified: |
29 Mar 2023 23:34 |
Publisher DOI: |
10.1038/bjc.2014.588 |
PubMed ID: |
25422912 |
BORIS DOI: |
10.7892/boris.63542 |
URI: |
https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/63542 |
Actions (login required)
 |
Edit item |