Medical Oncology

, 35:152 | Cite as

Association of ERG/PTEN status with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer

  • Rohit MehraEmail author
  • Simpa S. Salami
  • Robert Lonigro
  • Ritu Bhalla
  • Javed Siddiqui
  • Xuhong Cao
  • Daniel E. Spratt
  • Ganesh S. Palapattu
  • Nallasivam Palanisamy
  • John T. Wei
  • Arul M. Chinnaiyan
  • Scott A. TomlinsEmail author
Original Paper


We have previously demonstrated a significant correlative relationship between PTEN deletion and ERG rearrangement, both in the development of clinically localized prostate cancers and metastases. Herein, we evaluate the cooperative role of ERG and PTEN in oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. We evaluated ERG and PTEN status using three previously described cohorts. The first cohort included 235 clinically localized prostate cancer cases represented on tissue microarrays (TMA), evaluated using previously validated FISH assays for ERG and PTEN. The second cohort included 167 cases of clinically localized prostate cancer on TMAs evaluated for PTEN by FISH, and for PTEN and ERG by dual IHC. The third cohort comprised 59 clinically localized prostate cancer cases assessed by array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH). Kaplan–Meir plots and long rank tests were used to assess the association of ERG and PTEN status with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Of the 317 cases eligible for analyses with evaluable ERG and PTEN status, 88 (27.8%) patients developed biochemical recurrence over a median follow-up of 5.7 years. Overall, 45% (142/317) of cases demonstrated ERG rearrangement and 20% (62/317) of cases demonstrated PTEN loss. Hemizygous and homozygous deletion of PTEN was seen in 10% (18/175) and 3% (5/175) of ERG-negative cases, respectively. In contrast, hemizygous and homozygous deletion of PTEN was seen in 11% (15/142) and 17% (24/123) of ERG-positive cases, respectively. PTEN loss (heterozygous or homozygous) was significantly associated with shorter time to biochemical recurrence compared to no PTEN loss (p < 0.001). However, ERG rearrangement versus no rearrangement was not associated with time to PSA recurrence (p = 0.15). Patients who exhibited ERG rearrangement and loss of PTEN had no significant difference in time to recurrence compared to patients with wild-type ERG and loss of PTEN (p = 0.30). Our findings confirm a mutual cooperative role of ERG and PTEN in the pathogenesis of prostate cancer, particularly for homozygous PTEN deletion. ERG did not stratify outcome either alone or in combination with PTEN in this cohort.


ERG PTEN Prostate cancer Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) Immunohistochemistry 



S.S.S. is supported by the Urology Care Foundation and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. S.A.T. is supported by the A. Alfred Taubman Medical Institute and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Supported in part by the National Institutes of Health U01 CA214170 to A.M.C. and the University of Michigan Prostate Specialized Program of Research Excellence [S.P.O.R.E.] P50 CA186786-05. D.E.S. has been supported by the Department of Defense.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The University of Michigan has been issued a patent on the detection of ETS gene fusions in prostate cancer, in which R.M., S.A.T., and A.M.C. are listed as co-inventors. The University of Michigan has licensed the diagnostic field of use to Gen-Probe, Inc. (Bedford, MA), which has sublicensed some rights to Ventana Medical Systems. S.A.T. serves as a consultant to and has received honoraria from Ventana Medical Systems. A.M.C. has served as a consultant for Gen-Probe, Inc. and Ventana Medical Systems. All other authors have no disclosures.


  1. 1.
    Roychowdhury S, Iyer MK, Robinson DR, et al. Personalized oncology through integrative high-throughput sequencing: a pilot study. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3:111ra121–1. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jiang B-H, Liu L-Z. PI3K/PTEN signaling in tumorigenesis and angiogenesis. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2008;1784:150–8. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chalhoub N, Baker SJ. PTEN and the PI3-kinase pathway in cancer. Annu Rev Pathol. 2009;4:127–50. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morgan TM, Koreckij TD, Corey E. Targeted therapy for advanced prostate cancer: inhibition of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2009;9:237–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tomlins SA, Rhodes DR, Perner S, et al. Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Science. 2005;310:644–8. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tomlins SA, Mehra R, Rhodes DR, et al. TMPRSS2:ETV4 gene fusions define a third molecular subtype of prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2006;66:3396–400. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tomlins SA, Laxman B, Dhanasekaran SM, et al. Distinct classes of chromosomal rearrangements create oncogenic ETS gene fusions in prostate cancer. Nature. 2007;448:595–9. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Helgeson BE, Tomlins SA, Shah N, et al. Characterization of TMPRSS2:ETV5 and SLC45A3:ETV5 gene fusions in prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2008;68:73–80. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mehra R, Tomlins SA, Shen R, et al. Comprehensive assessment of TMPRSS2 and ETS family gene aberrations in clinically localized prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2007;20:538–44. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mehra R, Tomlins SA, Yu J, et al. Characterization of TMPRSS2-ETS gene aberrations in androgen-independent metastatic prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2008;68:3584–90. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tomlins SA, Laxman B, Varambally S, et al. Role of the TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion in prostate cancer. Neoplasia. 2008;10:177–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klezovitch O, Risk M, Coleman I, et al. A causal role for ERG in neoplastic transformation of prostate epithelium. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:2105–10. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carver BS, Tran J, Gopalan A, et al. Aberrant ERG expression cooperates with loss of PTEN to promote cancer progression in the prostate. Nat Genet. 2009;41:619–24. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zong Y, Xin L, Goldstein AS, et al. ETS family transcription factors collaborate with alternative signaling pathways to induce carcinoma from adult murine prostate cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:12465–70. Scholar
  15. 15.
    King JC, Xu J, Wongvipat J, et al. Cooperativity of TMPRSS2-ERG with PI3-kinase pathway activation in prostate oncogenesis. Nat Genet. 2009;41:524–6. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krohn A, Diedler T, Burkhardt L, et al. Genomic deletion of PTEN is associated with tumor progression and early PSA recurrence in ERG fusion-positive and fusion-negative prostate cancer. Am J Pathol. 2012;181:401–12. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Han B, Mehra R, Lonigro RJ, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization study shows association of PTEN deletion with ERG rearrangement during prostate cancer progression. Mod Pathol. 2009;22:1083–93. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yoshimoto M, Ding K, Sweet JM, et al. PTEN losses exhibit heterogeneity in multifocal prostatic adenocarcinoma and are associated with higher Gleason grade. Mod Pathol. 2013;26:435–47. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bismar TA, Yoshimoto M, Vollmer RT, et al. PTEN genomic deletion is an early event associated with ERG gene rearrangements in prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2011;107:477–85. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bhalla R, Kunju LP, Tomlins SA, et al. Novel dual-color immunohistochemical methods for detecting ERG-PTEN and ERG-SPINK1 status in prostate carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2013;26:835–48. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Korshunov A, Sycheva R, Gorelyshev S, et al. Clinical utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in nonbrainstem glioblastomas of childhood. Mod Pathol. 2005;18:1258–63. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yoshimoto M, Cunha IW, Coudry RA, et al. FISH analysis of 107 prostate cancers shows that PTEN genomic deletion is associated with poor clinical outcome. Br J Cancer. 2007;97:678–85. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yoshimoto M, Joshua AM, Cunha IW, et al. Absence of TMPRSS2:ERG fusions and PTEN losses in prostate cancer is associated with a favorable outcome. Mod Pathol. 2008;21:1451–60. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grasso CS, Wu Y-M, Robinson DR, et al. The mutational landscape of lethal castration-resistant prostate cancer. Nature. 2012;487:239–43. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grasso CS, Cani AK, Hovelson DH, et al. Integrative molecular profiling of routine clinical prostate cancer specimens. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1110–8. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Di Cristofano A, Pandolfi PP. The multiple roles of PTEN in tumor suppression. Cell. 2000;100:387–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kumar-Sinha C, Tomlins SA, Chinnaiyan AM. Recurrent gene fusions in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2008;8:497–511. Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bismar TA, Yoshimoto M, Duan Q, et al. Interactions and relationships of PTEN, ERG, SPINK1 and AR in castration-resistant prostate cancer. Histopathology. 2012;60:645–52. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liu S, Yoshimoto M, Trpkov K, et al. Detection of ERG gene rearrangements and PTEN deletions in unsuspected prostate cancer of the transition zone. Cancer Biol Ther. 2011;11:562–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lahdensuo K, Erickson A, Saarinen I, et al. Loss of PTEN expression in ERG-negative prostate cancer predicts secondary therapies and leads to shorter disease-specific survival time after radical prostatectomy. Mod Pathol. 2016;29:1565–74. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chaux A, Peskoe SB, Gonzalez-Roibon N, et al. Loss of PTEN expression is associated with increased risk of recurrence after prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2012;25:1543–9. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lotan TL, Gumuskaya B, Rahimi H, et al. Cytoplasmic PTEN protein loss distinguishes intraductal carcinoma of the prostate from high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Mod Pathol. 2013;26:587–603. Scholar
  33. 33.
    Trotman LC, Niki M, Dotan ZA, et al. PTEN dose dictates cancer progression in the prostate. PLoS Biol. 2003;1:E59. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Udager AM, Alva A, Mehra R. Current and proposed molecular diagnostics in a genitourinary service line laboratory at a tertiary clinical institution. Cancer J. 2014;20:29–42. Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brenner JC, Ateeq B, Li Y, et al. Mechanistic rationale for inhibition of poly(ADP-Ribose) polymerase in ETS gene fusion-positive prostate cancer. Cancer Cell. 2011;19:664–78. Scholar
  36. 36.
    Feng FY, Brenner JC, Hussain M, et al. Molecular pathways: targeting ETS gene fusions in cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:4442–8. Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hussain M, Daignault-Newton S, Twardowski PW, et al. Targeting androgen receptor and DNA repair in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from NCI 9012. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(10):991–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Li J, Yen C, Liaw D, et al. PTEN, a putative protein tyrosine phosphatase gene mutated in human brain, breast, and prostate cancer. Science. 1997;275:1943–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sansal I, Sellers WR. The biology and clinical relevance of the PTEN tumor suppressor pathway. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2954–63. Scholar
  40. 40.
    Arkenau H-T, Mateo J, Lemech CR, et al. A phase I/II, first-in-human dose-escalation study of GSK2636771 in patients (pts) with PTEN-deficient advanced tumors. ASCO Meeting Abstracts. 2014;32:2514.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Blackman SC, Gainer SD, Suttle BB, et al. Abstract 1752: a phase I/IIa, first time in human, open-label dose-escalation study of GSK2636771 in subjects with advanced solid tumors with PTEN deficiency. Cancer Res. 2012;72:1752–2. Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jamaspishvili T, Berman DM, Ross AE, et al. Clinical implications of PTEN loss in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2018;15(4):222–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rohit Mehra
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  • Simpa S. Salami
    • 3
    • 5
  • Robert Lonigro
    • 2
  • Ritu Bhalla
    • 6
  • Javed Siddiqui
    • 2
  • Xuhong Cao
    • 2
  • Daniel E. Spratt
    • 3
    • 7
  • Ganesh S. Palapattu
    • 3
    • 5
  • Nallasivam Palanisamy
    • 8
  • John T. Wei
    • 5
  • Arul M. Chinnaiyan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 5
    • 9
  • Scott A. Tomlins
    • 1
    • 2
    • 10
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of PathologyUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Michigan Center for Translational PathologyAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.University of Michigan Rogel Cancer CenterAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.Ann ArborUSA
  5. 5.Department of UrologyUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  6. 6.LSU Health Sciences CenterNew OrleansUSA
  7. 7.Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  8. 8.Department of Urology, Vattikuti Urology InstituteHenry Ford Health SystemDetroitUSA
  9. 9.Howard Hughes Medical InstituteAnn ArborUSA
  10. 10.Ann ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations