Molecular margin status after radical prostatectomy using glutathione S‐transferase P1 ( GSTP1 ) promoter hypermethylation

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential for molecular staging in biopsies of the prostatic fossa after radical prostatectomy (RP) by searching for occult tumour cells through analysis of glutathione S-transferase P1 (GSTP1) methylation status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analysed 2446 biopsies: 2286 biopsies from a group of 254 patients with clinically organ-confined prostate cancer who underwent RP and 160 biopsies from a control group of 32 patients. After prostate gland excision, biopsies were obtained from defined areas of the prostatic fossa and bisected for histopathological and molecular genetics analyses. Results were related to clinicopathological data including tumour stage, lymph node status, resection status, tumour grading, initial PSA level, and biochemical recurrence. RESULTS: In total, 34 patients (13.4%) had at least one core positive for the GSTP1 promoter hypermethylation, six of whom (17.6%) were characterised as having a clinically localised tumour stage (pT2, pN0) and 28 (82.4%) as an advanced tumour stage (≥pT3 and/or pN1). GSTP1 promoter hypermethylation significantly correlated with tumour stage (P < 0.001), International Society of Urological Pathology grading (P = 0.001), lymph node status (P < 0.001), surgical margin status (P < 0.001), and biochemical recurrence (P = 0.001). Furthermore, in 46 patients (18.1%) further analysis led to a down- or upgrading of conventional surgical margin status. Classical R-status (margins of the specimen) is significantly superior to histological sampling from the fossa (P = 0.006) but not to GSTP1 analysis from the fossa (P = 0.227). CONCLUSION: For the detection of residual tumour in the fossa after RP in order to better predict recurrence, molecular GSTP1 promoter hypermethylation has some value; however, the classical R-status (margins of the specimen) is simpler and more widely applicable with similar results.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.