Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Regulators of PLZF mRNA expression. A, PLZF copy number and PLZF mRNA expression in TCGA (n = 333). B, Androgen receptor signature and PLZF mRNA expression in HPFS and PHS combined (n = 404). C, PTEN copy number and PLZF mRNA expression in TCGA (n = 333). D, PTEN by IHC and PLZF mRNA expression in HPFS and PHS (n = 260). A–E, Horizontal lines indicate the medians; boxes reach from the first to the third quartiles; and whiskers extend 1.5 times the interquartile range. Regulators of PLZF expression in multivariable models in the TCGA primary prostate cancer cohort (E) and in HPFS and PHS combined (F). All units of tumor PLZF expression are standard deviations.
- Figure 2.
Downstream consequences of low PLZF in HPFS and PHS. A, PLZF mRNA expression and a signature of MAPK signaling (n = 404). Horizontal lines indicate the medians; boxes reach from the first to the third quartiles; and whiskers extend 1.5 times the interquartile range. B, PLZF mRNA expression and risk of lethal disease over long-term follow-up in a multivariable model adjusting for patient, histologic, and genomic covariates.
- Figure 3.
Schematic overview of PLZF regulation and downstream consequences.
Tables
- Table 1.
Baseline characteristics at cancer diagnosis of men with prostate cancer and tumor transcriptome profiling in TCGA, HPFS, and PHS, by PLZF mRNA expression (low: first quartile; normal: all higher quartiles)
TCGA HPFS PHS PLZF expressiona Low Normal Low Normal Low Normal n 84 249 68 186 33 117 Age, median (range) 64 (46–74) 61 (43–76) 65 (47–76) 66 (49–80) 65 (55–79) 66 (51–81) Gleason score in grade groups, n (%) 5–6 9 (11) 56 (22) 4 (6) 20 (11) 3 (9) 30 (26) 3+4 30 (36) 72 (29) 20 (29) 71 (38) 11 (33) 37 (32) 4+3 23 (27) 55 (22) 22 (32) 52 (28) 10 (30) 18 (15) 8 10 (12) 35 (14) 8 (12) 13 (7) 5 (15) 17 (15) 9–10 12 (14) 31 (12) 14 (21) 30 (16) 4 (12) 15 (13) Clinical stage, n (%) T1/T2 84 (100) 249 (100) 56 (85) 158 (86) 29 (88) 107 (93) T3 — — 5 (8) 16 (9) 3 (9) 3 (3) T4/N1/M1 — — 5 (8) 9 (5) 1 (3) 5 (4) PSA,b n (%) <4 7 (15) 12 (9) 7 (12) 17 (11) 5 (19) 12 (12) 4–10 30 (65) 78 (55) 27 (47) 90 (58) 15 (58) 64 (62) 10–20 7 (15) 30 (21) 13 (22) 30 (19) 3 (12) 17 (17) >20 2 (4) 21 (15) 11 (19) 17 (11) 3 (12) 10 (10) Missing 38 108 10 32 7 14 Tissue source, n (%) Prostatectomy 84 (100) 249 (100) 64 (94) 172 (92) 29 (88) 104 (89) TURPc — — 4 (6) 14 (8) 4 (12) 13 (11) PLZF copy number — — Not available Not available Gaind 3 (4) 16 (6) — — — — Diploid 63 (75) 215 (86) — — — — Heterozygous deletion 11 (13) 11 (4) — — — — Homozygous deletion 7 (8) 7 (3) — — — — PTEN status Intact/diploid 43 (51) 197 (79) 32 (68) 97 (82) 11 (50) 55 (79) Loss/any deletion 41 (49) 52 (21) 15 (32) 21 (18) 11 (50) 15 (21) ↵aCategorized as: low, first quartile of mRNA expression; normal, all higher quartiles combined.
↵bSerum prostate specific antigen, in ng/mL.
↵cTransurethral resection of the prostate. Includes one lymph node sample in a patient from PHS.
↵dIncludes one amplification event in the mRNA expression category “normal.”
- Table 2.
PLZF expression and ORs for lethal prostate cancer (with 95% CIs) in patients from the HPFS and the PHS
Quartile of PLZF 1st (lowest) 2nd 3rd 4th (highest) Cases Lethal Nonlethal Lethal Nonlethal Lethal Nonlethal Lethal Nonlethal 40 61 22 79 27 74 24 77 Model OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI Ptrenda A Age-adjusted 2.43 1.30–4.53 1.00 0.51–1.96 1.24 0.65–2.38 1.00 (ref.) 0.011 B A+clinicalb 2.53 1.20–5.33 1.30 0.58–2.89 1.56 0.70–3.47 1.00 (ref.) 0.026 C B+ARc 3.17 1.32–7.60 1.42 0.62–3.22 1.68 0.75–3.79 1.00 (ref.) 0.021 D C in PTEN subsetd 3.39 1.06–10.9 1.62 0.55–4.73 1.39 0.46–4.23 1.00 (ref.) 0.041 E C+PTENd 3.51 1.03–12.0 1.64 0.55–4.84 1.42 0.46–4.39 1.00 (ref.) 0.046 ↵aTrend for linear trend across quartiles.
↵bDemographics and clinical factors: age, calendar year, and Gleason score.
↵cHieronymus and colleagues (2006) AR signature (16).
↵dPTEN status was available only in a subset of 253 patients. Models D and E are both estimated in this subset of patients. Model D includes the same predictors as model C. Model E additionally adjusts for PTEN status. To gauge the change in estimates due to adjusting for PTEN status, compare results from model E with results from model D.
Volume 28, Issue 4
