You have accessJournal of UrologyOutstanding Posters: Research1 Apr 2014OP1-06 IN MOLECULAR DETECTION OF OCCULT LYMPH NODE METASTASES EPITHELIAL MARKERS ARE HERE TO STAY Antoinette Wetterwald, Achim Fleischmann, Janine Hensel, Berna Özdemir, Irena Klima, Marco G. Cecchini, and George N. Thalmann Antoinette WetterwaldAntoinette Wetterwald More articles by this author , Achim FleischmannAchim Fleischmann More articles by this author , Janine HenselJanine Hensel More articles by this author , Berna ÖzdemirBerna Özdemir More articles by this author , Irena KlimaIrena Klima More articles by this author , Marco G. CecchiniMarco G. Cecchini More articles by this author , and George N. ThalmannGeorge N. Thalmann More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.614AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES In prostate cancer patients the presence of pelvic lymph node metastases is a relevant prognostic factor for disease progression. Thus detection of occult lymph node metastases might be of prognostic value. While most previous studies have focused on the detection of epithelial markers, we hypothesized that micrometastatic cells may express markers of stemness and/or of EMT, or induce a stroma reaction in the lymph node. METHODS Individual lymph nodes (n=1023) collected from 60 prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymph node dissection for clinical organ-confined disease were cut in halves, one being processed for histology, the second stored in RNALater prior to RNA extraction and real-time PCR analysis. The mRNA expression of epithelial markers, markers of stemness and EMT, as well as markers of stromal activation was tested by real-time PCR and compared to histopathological results for each lymph node and compared to negative controls. Immunohistochemical controls were performed. RESULTS The suitability of the different markers for detecting micrometastases was established by comparing their expression in lymph nodes with overt metastases and negative controls. The epithelial markers PSA, EpCAM, PSCA, PSMA, NKX3-1 and AGR2 were differentially expressed in positive lymph nodes as compared to controls. In contrast, the levels of expression of the EMT markers SNAIL, TWIST and CXCR4 were either higher in control patients or no difference was observed. Similar results were obtained for the markers of reactive stroma (ASPN, POSTN, SPARCL1 and MCAM). The following proven or putative stem cell/self-renewal markers ALDH1A1, NANOG, SOX2, OCT4, KLF4, EGR1, BMI1, LGR5, LGR6, LRIG1, TSPAN7, TSPAN13, and TROP2 were tested. With the exception of TROP2, all those markers were expressed in lymph nodes from control patients to similar or even higher levels than in prostate cancer patients. TROP2 expression was barely detectable in lymph nodes from controls but could be measured in lymph nodes from prostate cancer patients. TMPRSS2-ERG fusion gene was detected in lymph node metastases of a few patients only. Detectable expression of epithelial markers in histopathologically negative lymph nodes was predictable of biological recurrence in several patients in spite of a relatively short follow up. CONCLUSIONS In lymph nodes epithelial markers are the only markers indicative of lymph node metastasis, as other potential markers are expressed by the different lymph node cells as well. © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e164 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Antoinette Wetterwald More articles by this author Achim Fleischmann More articles by this author Janine Hensel More articles by this author Berna Özdemir More articles by this author Irena Klima More articles by this author Marco G. Cecchini More articles by this author George N. Thalmann More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract