Oncology outcomes
Five integrated genomic subgroups track prostate-cancer relapse risk
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Across 259 men (482 samples), integrating copy-number and expression data defined five subgroups on 100 genes that predicted biochemical relapse in discovery, validation, and a third long-follow-up cohort.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Cohort — Discovery/validation integrating CNA and array transcriptomics for risk subgroups
- N
- N=259 · 259 men / 482 samples; discovery 125, validation 103
- Population
- Men with primary prostate cancer with tumour/benign/germline samples
- Outcome
- Integrative molecular subgroups predicting biochemical relapse
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
Five subgroups based on 100 discriminating genes in discovery (n=125) and validation (n=103) consistently predicted biochemical relapse (p=0.0017 and p=0.016) and validated again in a third long-follow-up cohort (p=0.027). Integrative analysis outperformed single-data-type approaches and nominated many progression-linked genes not seen with either modality alone.
Methodology
Authors analysed 482 tumour/benign/germline samples from 259 men with primary prostate cancer, integrating CNA and array transcriptomics (eQTL-style) to define patient subgroups and associate them with future biochemical relapse, comparing integrative models with CNA- or expression-only approaches.
Limitations
Biochemical relapse prediction is not metastasis-free or overall-survival proof for every subgroup. Subgroup labels are cohort-derived classifiers — not a bedside kit by themselves. Integrative gain does not mean every nominated gene is a drug target.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
A 22-marker genomic classifier predicts early metastasis after prostatectomy better than clinical variables alone.
In Mayo radical-prostatectomy men enriched for PSA rise, a 22-marker expression classifier achieved validation AUC 0.75 for early clinical metastasis and was the only significant factor in multivariable models.
Scope note — related risk theme, but five integrative subgroups for biochemical relapse, not the 22-marker GC
Limits the claim's scope: a different population, assay, or outcome.
Five integrative CNA+expression subgroups predict biochemical relapse across cohorts.
In 259 men, five subgroups from 100 discriminating genes predicted biochemical relapse in discovery and validation and again in a third long-follow-up cohort, with integrative analysis outperforming single data types.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
GC discriminates early metastasis after PSA rise; HDAC2 IHC tracks PSA-relapse timing; integrative subgroups stratify biochemical relapse. Shared “aggressive prostate cancer” language does not make the assays interchangeable.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
GC discriminates early metastasis after PSA rise; HDAC2 IHC tracks PSA-relapse timing; integrative subgroups stratify biochemical relapse. Shared “aggressive prostate cancer” language does not make the assays interchangeable.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.