The expression profile and heterogeneity analysis of ERG in 633 consecutive prostate cancers from a single center. Issue 8 (22nd March 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nie, Ling; Pan, Xiuyi; Zhang, Mengni; Yin, Xiaoxue; Gong, Jing; Chen, Xueqin; Xu, Miao; Zhou, Qiao; Chen, Ni
• Is Part Of: Prostate. Volume 79:Issue 8(2019)
• Page Start: 819
• Page End: 825
• Publication Date: 2019-03-22
• Subjects: ERG -- heterogeneity -- prostate cancer -- rearrangement; Prostate -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1002/pros.23785
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0270-4137

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Overexpression of ERG protein resulting from TMPRSS2:ERG rearrangement is highly specific for prostate cancer (PCa). However, the biological function of this fusion protein and its relationship with clinicopathological features still remain controversial. Method: In this study, we evaluated ERG protein expression/gene rearrangement and heterogeneity by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in a cohort of 633 consecutive PCa initially diagnosed by core‐needle biopsy in the West China Hospital. Result: Overall, ERG protein expression was detected in 16.7% (106 of 633) cases, and frequently observed in PCa patients less than 60 years of age (31.9% vs 15.5%, P = 0.004) and in PCa with Gleason score less than 8 (20.0% vs 13.4%, P = 0.027), but infrequently observed in cases with intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC‐P) (10.0% vs 18.6%, P = 0.012). Follow‐up analysis found that patients who progressed to castration‐resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) have a lower frequency of ERG protein expression at initial biopsies compared to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)‐sensitive cases (14.1% vs 23.5%, P = 0.042), but Kaplan‐Meier curve showed that ERG protein expression was not an independent prognostic marker. Of all the 106 ERG‐positive cases, eight cases (7.5%) exhibited heterogeneous expression of ERG protein, in which ERG was only positive in tumors with Gleason pattern 3, but negative in Gleason pattern 4. The FISH analysis was consistent with IHC in six of these cases. In the other two cases, ERG rearrangement was detected in tumors with both Gleason pattern 3 and 4 by FISH, despite the negative protein expression in Gleason pattern 4. In case 1, a repeated biopsy was performed when the disease progressed to CRPC, and no ERG‐positive cells were identified neither by IHC nor FISH. Conclusion: This was by far the largest series of ERG expression and heterogeneity analysis in Chinese PCa. The ERG rearrangement seemed to be frequently expressed in patients with relatively younger age and lower Gleason score and infrequently expressed in PCa with the IDC‐P. PCa with positive ERG were less frequently to progress to CRPC, but there was no prognostic significance of ERG expression. In heterogeneous cases, ERG protein was detectable only in tumors with Gleason pattern 3 but not in pattern 4. Tumor cells with positive ERG expression/rearrangement seemed easily response to ADT.