Purpose: Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression have been associated with disease progression in patients with prostate cancer. We tested the hypothesis that plasma levels of HER2 and/or EGFR are associated with prostate cancer stage and prognosis in patients with clinically localized disease.

Experimental Design: We measured preoperative plasma HER2 and EGFR levels using commercially available ELISAs on banked plasma from 227 patients treated with radical prostatectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy for clinically localized prostate adenocarcinoma.

Results: Median preoperative plasma EGFR and HER2 levels were 31.4 ng/mL (interquartile range, 19.2 ng/mL) and 10.0 ng/mL (interquartile range, 2.7 ng/mL), respectively. HER2 was elevated in patients with seminal vesicle invasion (P = 0.033). In separate multivariate analyses that adjusted for the effects of standard preoperative predictors, lower EGFR, higher HER2, and higher HER2/EGFR ratio were associated with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (P = 0.003, P < 0.001, and P < 0.001, respectively). In separate multivariate analyses that adjusted for the effects of standard postoperative predictors, lower EGFR and higher HER2/EGFR ratio were associated with PSA progression (P = 0.027 and P < 0.001, respectively). Among the patients who experienced PSA progression, HER2 was significantly higher (P = 0.023) and EGFR was lower (P = 0.04) in those with features of aggressive disease (i.e., development of metastasis, PSA doubling time <10 months, and/or failure to respond to local salvage radiation therapy).

Conclusion: Preoperative plasma HER2 and EGFR were associated with prostate cancer progression after radical prostatectomy. Plasma HER2 and EGFR may provide a tool for predicting long-term recurrence-free survival and early metastasis.

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men and the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the United States (1). Whereas local therapies with curative intent such as radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy result in durable disease control, up to 40% of patients experience disease progression (2). Disease progression in these patients is often due to early dissemination of microscopic metastatic disease that remains undetected by standard pretreatment staging modalities. Identification of patients who are likely to fail definitive local therapy would be helpful for selecting patients best suited for local adjuvant radiation therapy or clinical trials of early systemic intervention (3). Therefore, there is a clear need for novel biomarkers that are specifically associated with biologically aggressive prostate cancer for improved staging and prognostication. In addition, the emergence of new therapeutic approaches for prostate cancer cannot flourish without a set of markers to serve as prognosticators and/or targets.

The ErbB family of receptor tyrosine kinases, which includes epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/ErbB1) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2/neu/ErbB2), plays a crucial role in growth, differentiation, and motility of normal and cancer cells. Receptor activation induces dimerization and initiates a signaling cascade that results in phosphorylation and activation of downstream targets. HER2 and EGFR expression have been associated with advanced disease stage, metastasis, shortened survival, poor response to chemotherapy, and even failure of endocrine therapy (47). In breast cancer, for example, the gene encoding the HER2 protein is amplified in 20% to 25% of breast cancer patients, and anti-HER2 antibodies have proved to be extremely useful in their treatment (8, 9). In prostate cancer, tissue levels of both HER2 and EGFR are overexpressed (10) with the highest levels in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer (5, 11, 12). In addition, HER2 and EGFR expression have been reported to be associated with disease progression after androgen deprivation in patients with metastatic prostate cancer (12, 13). The extracelullar domains of the HER2 and EGFR proteins are frequently cleaved and released into the circulation, where they can be detected by ELISA. Similar to tissue levels, circulating levels of HER2 and EGFR have been associated with progression to metastasis and response to hormonal and chemotherapy (1416). Elevated circulating levels of HER2 have been associated with progression to hormone refractory prostate cancer (5). However, the predictive value of circulating levels of HER2 and EGFR for prognosis of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer has not yet been studied.

We hypothesized that men with apparently clinically localized prostate cancer harboring aggressive disease would have altered plasma levels of HER2 and EGFR that would be associated with a higher risk of biochemical progression despite effective local control of disease. Therefore, we assessed preoperative plasma levels of HER2 and EGFR in a consecutive cohort of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy.

Patient population. All studies were undertaken with the approval and oversight of the Institutional Review Board. The study consisted of 227 patients treated with radical prostatectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy for clinically localized prostate adenocarcinoma. All 671 patients with the intent to treat their clinically localized prostate cancer (cT1c-3a, NX, M0) with radical prostatectomy from 7/1994 to 11/1997 were potential candidates for this analysis. After consent was gained, preoperative plasma specimens were obtained for 587 of these men. Sixty-four men initially treated with hormonal therapy, 19 who were treated with definitive radiotherapy, and 7 who were treated with cryotherapy before surgery were excluded from the analysis. No disease follow-up information was available for 43 men and they were also excluded. The cohort was randomly divided into two using S-Plus software. This left 227 men for analysis.

No patients were treated preoperatively with either hormonal or radiation therapy and none had secondary cancer. Serum total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was measured by the Hybritech Tandem-R assay (Hybritech, Inc.). Staff pathologists from our institutions, who were blinded to clinical outcome, examined all prostatectomy specimens. Evaluation of the radical prostatectomy specimen was done as previously described (17) in accordance with the guidelines of the College of American Pathologists (18).

Plasma HER2 and EGFR measurements. Plasma samples were collected after a preoperative overnight fast on the morning of the day of surgery, at least 4 weeks after transrectal ultrasound–guided needle biopsy of the prostate. Blood was collected into Vacutainer CPT 8-mL tubes containing 0.1 mL of molar sodium citrate (Becton Dickinson Vacutainer Systems) and centrifuged at room temperature for 20 min at 1,500 × g. The top layer corresponding to plasma was decanted using sterile transfer pipettes. The plasma was immediately frozen and stored at −80°C in polypropylene cryopreservation vials (Nalgene, Nalge Nunc). For quantitative measurements of HER2 and EGFR levels, we used commercially available microtiter ELISAs (Oncogene Science/Bayer Corp.). Every sample was run in duplicate and the mean was calculated for data analysis. Differences between the two measurements were minimal (intra-assay precision coefficient of variation, 6.4 ± 5.3% for HER2 and 5.9 ± 5.2% for EGFR). The capture antibodies specifically recognize the extracellular domain fragments of each HER2 and EGFR and do not cross-react.

Postoperative follow-up. Patients were generally scheduled to have a digital rectal examination and serum total PSA evaluation postoperatively approximately every 3 months for the first year, semiannually from the second through the fifth year, and annually thereafter. PSA progression was defined as a sustained elevation, on two or more occasions, of total PSA >0.2 ng/mL and was assigned to the date of the first value >0.2 ng/mL. Post-progression serum PSA doubling time (DT) was calculated using the formula DT = log(2) × T / [log(final PSA) − log(initial PSA)] (ref. 19). All patients had at least three PSA measurements available post-progression. Sixteen patients were treated with salvage radiation therapy. A complete response to salvage radiation therapy was defined as the achievement and maintenance of an undetectable serum total PSA level (0.2 ng/mL). Patients were categorized into those with features of aggressive progression and those without. Features of aggressive progression included evidence of metastases (positive bone scan), PSA doubling time <10 months, and/or failure to respond to local salvage radiation therapy as previously described (2, 2023).

Statistical analysis. Differences in variables with a continuous distribution across categorical variables were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test and the Kruskal-Wallis test. Logistic regression was used for multivariate analysis of binary outcome variables. Estimates of the probability of remaining free from biochemical recurrence were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable analysis was done using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. The proportional hazards assumption was verified by tests of correlations with time and examination of residual plots. HER2, EGFR, and HER2/EGFR ratio had a skewed distribution. HER2, EGFR, and HER2/EGFR ratio were analyzed as categorical variables on the basis of their tertile distribution. The lowest category was used as the referent category when calculating the hazards ratios. The accuracy of each tested multivariate models was quantified with receiver operating characteristic–derived area under the curve (AUC; ref. 24). The Hanley and Hajian-Tilaki adaptation (25) of the DeLong et al. (26) method and the associated SAS macro were used.3

In Cox regression models, the AUC is substituted with Harrell's concordance index (24, 27). A value of 100% indicates perfect predictions, whereas 50% is equivalent to a toss of a coin. Internal validation of the accuracy estimates was done using 200 bootstrap resamples (28). The comparisons of accuracy estimates were done using the nonparametric method of DeLong et al. (26). Statistical significance in this study was set as P ≤ 0.050. All reported P values are two sided. Analyses were done in the SAS and S-Plus environments (PC Version 2000 Professional, Insightful Corp.). The S-Plus design library was used.

Association of preoperative plasma EGFR and HER2 with clinical and pathologic characteristics. Median patient age was 61.7 years (range, 39.4-75.5 years). Median preoperative serum total PSA was 6.1 ng/mL (range, 0.5-49.0 ng/mL). The clinical and pathologic characteristics of the 227 consecutive prostatectomy patients and their association with preoperative plasma EGFR and HER2 levels as well as HER2/EGFR ratio are shown in Table 1. Preoperative plasma EGFR was significantly lower in patients with higher biopsy and pathologic Gleason sum (P = 0.014 and P < 0.01, respectively). Preoperative plasma HER2 was significantly elevated in patients with seminal vesicle invasion and higher pathologic Gleason sum (P = 0.033 and P = 0.028, respectively). Ratio of preoperative HER2/EGFR was significantly higher in patients with higher biopsy and pathologic Gleason sum (P = 0.006 and P < 0.001, respectively).

Table 1.

Association of preoperative plasma EGFR and HER2 levels with clinical and pathologic features of 227 consecutive patients treated with radical prostatectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy for clinically localized disease

No. patients (%)EGFR, median (range)PHER2, median (range)PHER2/EGFR ratio, median (range)P
Total (%) 227 (100) 31.4 (11.0-96.7)  10.0 (4.4-21.1)  0.30 (0.08-1.73)  
Clinical stage        
    T1 142 (62.6) 29.9 (12.2-94.8)  10.1 (4.4-18.7)  0.30 (0.09-1.63)  
    T2 85 (37.4) 32.4 (11.0-96.7) 0.856* 9.9 (5.1-21.1) 0.980* 0.30 (0.08-1.73) 0.967* 
Extraprostatic extension        
    Negative 150 (66.7) 32.2 (11.6-96.7)  9.9 (4.4-18.7)  0.28 (0.08-1.73)  
    Positive 75 (33.3) 30.6 (11.0-94.8) 0.211* 10.3 (5.5-21.1) 0.257* 0.30 (0.09-1.63) 0.331* 
Seminal vesicle involvement        
    Negative 189 (84.0) 31.4 (11.0-94.8)  9.9 (4.4-18.7)  0.30 (0.08-1.63)  
    Positive 36 (16.0) 30.8 (12.2-96.7) 0.416* 11.4 (5.8-21.1) 0.033* 0.33 (0.10-1.73) 0.922* 
Surgical margin status        
    Negative 170 (75.6) 31.2 (11.0-94.8)  9.9 (4.7-18.75)  0.26 (0.10-1.73)  
    Positive 55 (24.4) 32.0 (11.6-96.7) 0.393* 10.2 (4.4-21.1) 0.621* 0.30 (0.08-1.63) 0.259* 
Organ-confined disease        
    Yes 149 (66.3) 32.5 (11.6-96.7)  9.9 (4.4-18.7)  0.28 (0.08-1.73)  
    No 76 (33.7) 30.5 (11.0-94.8) 0.197* 10.3 (5.5-21.1) 0.271* 0.36 (0.09-1.63) 0.314* 
Biopsy Gleason sum        
    2-6 161 (72.2) 35.4 (13.0-96.7)  10.0 (4.4-21.1)  0.26 (0.10-0.86)  
    7 48 (21.5) 30.4 (13.7-94.2)  9.9 (4.7-19.9)  0.27 (0.17-1.35)  
    8-10 14 (6.3) 29.5 (11.0-91.0) 0.014§ 11.4 (5.8-18.5) 0.513§ 0.32 (0.08-1.73) 0.006§ 
Pathologic Gleason sum        
    2-6 109 (48.7) 38.9 (19.1-96.7)  9.7 (4.4-19.9)  0.25 (0.08-0.88)  
    7 95 (42.4) 25.7 (11.0-81.7)  10.2 (5.1-18.7)  0.42 (0.09-1.63)  
    8-10 20 (8.9) 25.0 (13.1-94.2) <0.001§ 11.9 (5.8-18.5) 0.028§ 0.44 (0.17-1.35) <0.001§ 
Preoperative PSA        
    0-2.49 22 (9.7) 33.4 (11.0-96.7)  9.3 (5.5-21.1)  0.28 (0.11-1.73)  
    2.50-3.99 31 (13.7) 32.0 (12.2-73.9)  9.9 (5.6-18.2)  0.29 (0.08-1.61)  
    4.00-9.99 128 (56.6) 26.9 (11.3-94.8)  10.2 (7.3-14.2)  0.30 (0.09-1.63)  
    ≥10.00 45 (19.9) 24.4 (14.3-92.9) 0.239§ 10.4 (4.4-19.9) 0.178§ 0.42 (0.11-0.70) 0.205§ 
Lymphovascular invasion        
    Negative 128 (89.5) 25.5 (11.0-96.7)  10.4 (5.0-18.7)  0.42 (0.08-1.63)  
    Positive 15 (10.5) 27.3 (12.2-94.2) 0.787* 12.0 (5.8-21.1) 0.408* 0.44 (0.10-1.73) 0.635* 
Lymph node metastases*        
    Negative 217 (96.4) 32.0 (11.0-96.7)  10.0 (4.4-18.7)  0.30 (0.08-1.63)  
    Positive 8 (3.6) 25.3 (12.2-94.2) 0.154* 12.0 (5.8-21.1) 0.646* 0.45 (0.17-1.73) 0.317* 
No. patients (%)EGFR, median (range)PHER2, median (range)PHER2/EGFR ratio, median (range)P
Total (%) 227 (100) 31.4 (11.0-96.7)  10.0 (4.4-21.1)  0.30 (0.08-1.73)  
Clinical stage        
    T1 142 (62.6) 29.9 (12.2-94.8)  10.1 (4.4-18.7)  0.30 (0.09-1.63)  
    T2 85 (37.4) 32.4 (11.0-96.7) 0.856* 9.9 (5.1-21.1) 0.980* 0.30 (0.08-1.73) 0.967* 
Extraprostatic extension        
    Negative 150 (66.7) 32.2 (11.6-96.7)  9.9 (4.4-18.7)  0.28 (0.08-1.73)  
    Positive 75 (33.3) 30.6 (11.0-94.8) 0.211* 10.3 (5.5-21.1) 0.257* 0.30 (0.09-1.63) 0.331* 
Seminal vesicle involvement        
    Negative 189 (84.0) 31.4 (11.0-94.8)  9.9 (4.4-18.7)  0.30 (0.08-1.63)  
    Positive 36 (16.0) 30.8 (12.2-96.7) 0.416* 11.4 (5.8-21.1) 0.033* 0.33 (0.10-1.73) 0.922* 
Surgical margin status        
    Negative 170 (75.6) 31.2 (11.0-94.8)  9.9 (4.7-18.75)  0.26 (0.10-1.73)  
    Positive 55 (24.4) 32.0 (11.6-96.7) 0.393* 10.2 (4.4-21.1) 0.621* 0.30 (0.08-1.63) 0.259* 
Organ-confined disease        
    Yes 149 (66.3) 32.5 (11.6-96.7)  9.9 (4.4-18.7)  0.28 (0.08-1.73)  
    No 76 (33.7) 30.5 (11.0-94.8) 0.197* 10.3 (5.5-21.1) 0.271* 0.36 (0.09-1.63) 0.314* 
Biopsy Gleason sum        
    2-6 161 (72.2) 35.4 (13.0-96.7)  10.0 (4.4-21.1)  0.26 (0.10-0.86)  
    7 48 (21.5) 30.4 (13.7-94.2)  9.9 (4.7-19.9)  0.27 (0.17-1.35)  
    8-10 14 (6.3) 29.5 (11.0-91.0) 0.014§ 11.4 (5.8-18.5) 0.513§ 0.32 (0.08-1.73) 0.006§ 
Pathologic Gleason sum        
    2-6 109 (48.7) 38.9 (19.1-96.7)  9.7 (4.4-19.9)  0.25 (0.08-0.88)  
    7 95 (42.4) 25.7 (11.0-81.7)  10.2 (5.1-18.7)  0.42 (0.09-1.63)  
    8-10 20 (8.9) 25.0 (13.1-94.2) <0.001§ 11.9 (5.8-18.5) 0.028§ 0.44 (0.17-1.35) <0.001§ 
Preoperative PSA        
    0-2.49 22 (9.7) 33.4 (11.0-96.7)  9.3 (5.5-21.1)  0.28 (0.11-1.73)  
    2.50-3.99 31 (13.7) 32.0 (12.2-73.9)  9.9 (5.6-18.2)  0.29 (0.08-1.61)  
    4.00-9.99 128 (56.6) 26.9 (11.3-94.8)  10.2 (7.3-14.2)  0.30 (0.09-1.63)  
    ≥10.00 45 (19.9) 24.4 (14.3-92.9) 0.239§ 10.4 (4.4-19.9) 0.178§ 0.42 (0.11-0.70) 0.205§ 
Lymphovascular invasion        
    Negative 128 (89.5) 25.5 (11.0-96.7)  10.4 (5.0-18.7)  0.42 (0.08-1.63)  
    Positive 15 (10.5) 27.3 (12.2-94.2) 0.787* 12.0 (5.8-21.1) 0.408* 0.44 (0.10-1.73) 0.635* 
Lymph node metastases*        
    Negative 217 (96.4) 32.0 (11.0-96.7)  10.0 (4.4-18.7)  0.30 (0.08-1.63)  
    Positive 8 (3.6) 25.3 (12.2-94.2) 0.154* 12.0 (5.8-21.1) 0.646* 0.45 (0.17-1.73) 0.317* 
*

Mann-Whitney U test.

Data on extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, surgical margin status, organ-confined disease and lymph node status were not available in 2 patients, in whom prostatectomy was aborted due to positive lymph nodes on intraoperative frozen sections.

Biopsy Gleason sum was not available in 4 patients.

§

Kruskal-Wallis test.

Pathologic Gleason sum was not available in 3 patients.

Data on lymphovascular were not available in 84 patients.

Association of preoperative plasma EGFR and HER2 with PSA progression after surgery. Of the 227 patients, 42 (18.7%) experienced PSA progression after radical prostatectomy. Median follow-up for patients alive at the time of analysis was 42.7 months (interquartile range, 43.4 months). PSA progression-free survival estimates were 81.3 ± 2.9% (± SE) at 3 years, 77.2 ± 3.5% at 5 years, and 68.6 ± 5.6% at 7 years. The distribution of HER2 and HER2/EGFR ratio in patients who experienced biochemical progression was skewed toward the highest third compared with patients who did not experience biochemical progression (Fig. 1A and C). The distribution of EGFR in patients who experienced biochemical progression was skewed toward the lowest third compared with patients who did not experience biochemical progression (Fig. 1B).

Fig. 1.

Kaplan-Meier estimates of biochemical progression-free probability for the 227 patients treated with radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer stratified by preoperative plasma HER2 (A), EGFR (B), and HER2/EGFR ratio (C) tertiles.

Fig. 1.

Kaplan-Meier estimates of biochemical progression-free probability for the 227 patients treated with radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer stratified by preoperative plasma HER2 (A), EGFR (B), and HER2/EGFR ratio (C) tertiles.

Close modal

In separate preoperative multivariable analyses that adjusted for the effects of standard preoperative predictors (Table 2), preoperative plasma EGFR, HER2, and HER2/EGFR ratio were associated with PSA progression (P = 0.003, P < 0.001, and P < 0.001, respectively). The standard preoperative multivariable model based on preoperative PSA, biopsy Gleason sum, and clinical stage achieved an AUC of 71.1%. Addition of either EGFR or HER2 improved the predictive accuracy of the standard preoperative multivariable model by 2.6% (P < 0.001) and 5.3% (P < 0.001), respectively. Conversely, the addition of the HER2/EGFR ratio did not improve the predictive accuracy (decrease in accuracy of 0.4%).

Table 2.

Preoperative multivariate Cox regression analyses of clinical and pathologic features for the prediction of PSA progression in 227 consecutive patients treated with radical prostatectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer

Base model + HER2
Base model + EGFR
Base model + HER2/EGFR ratio
HR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)P
HER2       
    2nd vs 1st third 1.551 (0.745-3.119) 0.735     
    3rd vs 1st third 3.020 (1.402-6.507) 0.005     
    Test for trend — (—) 0.003     
EGFR       
    2nd vs 1st third   0.836 (0.281-1.138) 0.057   
    3rd vs 1st third   0.424 (0.177-0.904) 0.013   
    Test for trend   — (—) <0.001   
HER2/EGFR ratio       
    2nd vs 1st third     2.280 (0.908-5.226) 0.060 
    3rd vs 1st third     5.550 (2.274-13.543) <0.001 
    Test for trend     — (—) <0.001 
Preoperative serum PSA 2.752 (1.698-4.461) <0.001 2.635 (1.765-3.933) <0.001 3.125 (2.009-4.861) <0.001 
Biopsy Gleason sum       
    7 vs 2-6 0.938 (0.432-2.033) 0.870 1.182 (0.543-2.569) 0.674 1.404 (0.615-3.204) 0.420 
    8-10 vs 2-6 1.338 (0.522-3.425) 0.544 2.201 (0.902-5.369) 0.083 2.086 (0.850-5.123) 0.109 
    Test for trend — (—) 0.788 — (—) 0.223 — (—) 0.260 
Clinical stage T2 vs T1 1.968 (1.052-3.681) 0.034 2.009 (1.051-3.842) 0.035 1.473 (0.756-2.872) 0.255 
Base model + HER2
Base model + EGFR
Base model + HER2/EGFR ratio
HR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)P
HER2       
    2nd vs 1st third 1.551 (0.745-3.119) 0.735     
    3rd vs 1st third 3.020 (1.402-6.507) 0.005     
    Test for trend — (—) 0.003     
EGFR       
    2nd vs 1st third   0.836 (0.281-1.138) 0.057   
    3rd vs 1st third   0.424 (0.177-0.904) 0.013   
    Test for trend   — (—) <0.001   
HER2/EGFR ratio       
    2nd vs 1st third     2.280 (0.908-5.226) 0.060 
    3rd vs 1st third     5.550 (2.274-13.543) <0.001 
    Test for trend     — (—) <0.001 
Preoperative serum PSA 2.752 (1.698-4.461) <0.001 2.635 (1.765-3.933) <0.001 3.125 (2.009-4.861) <0.001 
Biopsy Gleason sum       
    7 vs 2-6 0.938 (0.432-2.033) 0.870 1.182 (0.543-2.569) 0.674 1.404 (0.615-3.204) 0.420 
    8-10 vs 2-6 1.338 (0.522-3.425) 0.544 2.201 (0.902-5.369) 0.083 2.086 (0.850-5.123) 0.109 
    Test for trend — (—) 0.788 — (—) 0.223 — (—) 0.260 
Clinical stage T2 vs T1 1.968 (1.052-3.681) 0.034 2.009 (1.051-3.842) 0.035 1.473 (0.756-2.872) 0.255 

Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio. CI, confidence interval.

In separate postoperative multivariable analyses that adjusted for the effects of standard postoperative predictors (Table 3), preoperative plasma EGFR and HER2/EGFR ratio (P = 0.025 and P = 0.007, respectively), but not HER2 (P = 0.176), were associated with PSA progression. The standard postoperative multivariable model based on preoperative PSA, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, lymph node invasion, surgical margin status, and pathologic Gleason sum achieved an AUC of 82.3%. Addition of either HER2 or EGFR improved the predictive accuracy of the standard postoperative multivariable model by 1.2% (P < 0.001) and 3.7% (P < 0.001), respectively. Addition of the HER2/EGFR ratio marginally improved predictive accuracy (0.1%; P = 0.3).

Table 3.

Postoperative multivariate Cox regression analyses of clinical and pathologic features for the prediction of PSA progression in 227 consecutive patients treated with radical prostatectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer

Base model + HER2
Base model + EGFR
Base model + HER2/EGFR ratio
HR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)P
HER2       
    2nd vs 1st third 1.046 (0.410-2.667) 0.925     
    3rd vs 1st third 2.017 (0.883-4.607) 0.096     
    Test for trend — (—) 0.176     
EGFR       
    2nd vs 1st third   0.918 (0.344-1.961) 0.407   
    3rd vs 1st third   0.448 (0.103-0.985) 0.046   
    Test for trend   — (—) 0.025   
HER2/EGFR ratio       
    2nd vs 1st third     2.036 (0.767-5.400) 0.153 
    3rd vs 1st third     5.364 (1.869-15.398) 0.002 
    Test for trend     — (—) 0.007 
Preoperative serum PSA 2.016 (1.142-3.560) 0.016 2.042 (1.245-3.348) 0.005 1.981 (1.159-3.384) 0.012 
Pathologic Gleason sum       
    7 vs 2-6 1.837 (0.711-4.750) 0.209 1.887 (0.725-4.917) 0.193 2.706 (0.978-7.490) 0.055 
    8-10 vs 2-6 4.485 (1.476-13.631) 0.008 7.045 (2.265-21.913) 0.001 3.547 (1.118-10.685) 0.031 
    Test for trend — (—) 0.020 — (—) 0.001 — (—) 0.072 
Extraprostatic extension 1.243 (0.504-3.063) 0.637 1.120 (0.456-2.756) 0.804 1.348 (0.554-3.279) 0.510 
Seminal vesicle invasion 0.568 (0.231-1.397) 0.218 0.585 (0.228-1.503) 0.266 0.488 (0.199-1.197) 0.117 
Surgical margin positivity 2.750 (1.266-5.972) 0.011 1.745 (0.766-3.976) 0.185 3.001 (1.358-6.632) 0.007 
Lymph node metastasis 1.871 (0.570-6.137) 0.302 3.623 (1.038-12.646) 0.044 2.588 (0.811-8.251) 0.108 
Base model + HER2
Base model + EGFR
Base model + HER2/EGFR ratio
HR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)P
HER2       
    2nd vs 1st third 1.046 (0.410-2.667) 0.925     
    3rd vs 1st third 2.017 (0.883-4.607) 0.096     
    Test for trend — (—) 0.176     
EGFR       
    2nd vs 1st third   0.918 (0.344-1.961) 0.407   
    3rd vs 1st third   0.448 (0.103-0.985) 0.046   
    Test for trend   — (—) 0.025   
HER2/EGFR ratio       
    2nd vs 1st third     2.036 (0.767-5.400) 0.153 
    3rd vs 1st third     5.364 (1.869-15.398) 0.002 
    Test for trend     — (—) 0.007 
Preoperative serum PSA 2.016 (1.142-3.560) 0.016 2.042 (1.245-3.348) 0.005 1.981 (1.159-3.384) 0.012 
Pathologic Gleason sum       
    7 vs 2-6 1.837 (0.711-4.750) 0.209 1.887 (0.725-4.917) 0.193 2.706 (0.978-7.490) 0.055 
    8-10 vs 2-6 4.485 (1.476-13.631) 0.008 7.045 (2.265-21.913) 0.001 3.547 (1.118-10.685) 0.031 
    Test for trend — (—) 0.020 — (—) 0.001 — (—) 0.072 
Extraprostatic extension 1.243 (0.504-3.063) 0.637 1.120 (0.456-2.756) 0.804 1.348 (0.554-3.279) 0.510 
Seminal vesicle invasion 0.568 (0.231-1.397) 0.218 0.585 (0.228-1.503) 0.266 0.488 (0.199-1.197) 0.117 
Surgical margin positivity 2.750 (1.266-5.972) 0.011 1.745 (0.766-3.976) 0.185 3.001 (1.358-6.632) 0.007 
Lymph node metastasis 1.871 (0.570-6.137) 0.302 3.623 (1.038-12.646) 0.044 2.588 (0.811-8.251) 0.108 

Association of preoperative plasma EGFR and HER2 with features of aggressive progression. Of the 42 patients who experienced PSA-progression, 18 (42.9%) patients were categorized as having features of nonaggressive progression because their PSA doubling times were ≥10 months (n = 16; median, 25; range, 14-242) and/or because they achieved a complete response to local salvage radiation therapy (n = 11). Twenty-four (57.1%) patients were categorized as having features of aggressive progression because of presence of metastases (positive bone scan; n = 4), their PSA doubling times <10 months (n = 17; median, 8; range, 3-9), and/or they failed to respond to local salvage radiation therapy (n = 5). Preoperative plasma HER2 levels were significantly higher in patients with features of aggressive disease progression (median, 11.7 ng/mL; range, 6.8-21.1 ng/mL) compared with those with features of nonaggressive disease progression (median, 9.3 ng/mL; range, 5.0-13.3 ng/mL; P = 0.023). Preoperative plasma EGFR levels were significantly lower in patients with features of aggressive disease progression (median, 21.5 ng/mL; range, 12.2-94.2 ng/mL) compared with those with features of nonaggressive disease progression (median, 32.2 ng/mL; range, 19.1-55.1 ng/mL; P = 0.040). In multivariable logistic regression analyses that adjusted for the effects of clinical stage, biopsy Gleason sum, and preoperative serum PSA, HER2 and HER2/EGFR ratio were positively associated with features of aggressive disease progression (test for trend: P = 0.037 and P = 0.011, respectively). In multivariable logistic regression analysis that adjusted for the effects of clinical stage, biopsy Gleason sum, and preoperative serum PSA, EGFR was inversely associated with features of aggressive disease progression (test for trend: P = 0.042).

Biological markers that can identify patients who will fail primary local prostate cancer treatment would be helpful for consideration of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy as well as for patient counseling. EGFR and HER2 are tyrosine kinase receptor transmembrane proteins that are activated in various cancers. Preclinical and clinical data show that the activation of EGFR and HER2 may be important for the progression of prostate cancer to androgen-independent disease (2931). Whereas blood levels of EGFR and HER2 have been studied in metastatic prostate cancer, to our knowledge, no previous study has evaluated the predictive value of blood levels of HER2 and EGFR in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

Preoperative plasma levels of HER2 were elevated in patients with features of biologically aggressive prostate cancer such as seminal vesicle involvement and, more importantly, PSA progression after controlling for the effects of standard preoperative predictors. Preoperative HER2 was not associated with PSA progression in standard postoperative multivariate analysis but it still improved the predictive accuracy by 1.2%. Only 19% of our patient cohort experienced PSA progression after a median follow-up of ∼43 months. In addition, most of the patients in our study had favorable clinicopathologic features. PSA progression may result from local failure related to residual disease present after radical prostatectomy, occult nodal or distant metastatic disease present at the time of surgery, or a combination of these (2, 2023). These forms of PSA progression have variable progression rates with regard to metastases and eventual death. Thus, the lack of independent association of preoperative plasma HER2 with PSA progression in standard postoperative analysis may be due to a lack of association with local and/or biologically more “indolent” disease. In support of this hypothesis, we found that patients with features of aggressive disease progression had higher levels of HER2 than those with features of nonaggressive disease progression.

Three previous studies have shown that serum HER2 is elevated in patients with metastatic prostate cancer compared with nonmetastatic disease (5, 32, 33). Furthermore, Osman et al. (5) found that higher serum HER2 was associated with prostate cancer–related death in patients with metastatic, castrate disease. At the tissue level, HER2 is overexpressed in many nonmetastatic prostate cancers, but HER2 amplification is a rare event (34). In contrast, the HER2 gene has been shown to be amplified and its protein to be overexpressed in the androgen-independent phase of the disease (11, 30, 31). Overexpression of HER2 is shown to not only stimulate proliferation but also enhance androgen receptor signaling by modulating its transcriptional activity and degradation in the presence of low androgen levels (3537). Moreover, activation of the HER2 kinase signaling cascade can constitutively activate the androgen receptor and render prostate cancer cells refractory to androgen receptor inhibition in different model systems (29, 34, 37, 38). Circulating levels of HER2 have been correlated with gene amplification and tissue overexpression (39, 40). Taken together, these data suggest that preoperative plasma HER2 is a marker of early, clinically occult prostate cancer metastasis.

Lower preoperative plasma level of EGFR was an independent predictor of PSA progression after controlling for the effects of standard preoperative and postoperative predictors. Activation of EGFR generates complex signal transduction pathways that modulate many normal cellular processes such as proliferation, survival, adhesion, migration, and differentiation. Aberrant activation of EGFR has been shown to be critical for the maintenance of malignancy in a number of solid tumors including prostate cancer (7, 41, 42). To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the prognostic role of circulating levels of EGFR patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Circulating levels of EGFR have been reported to be decreased in patients with pancreatic, gastric, colon, lung, renal, prostate, and breast cancer (6, 43). Souder et al. (6) reported that decreased serum EGFR was associated with significantly reduced overall survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

The finding that circulating EGFR levels are decreased in aggressive cancer is not in contradiction with the fact that tissue levels are elevated. EGFR is released in the circulation either by proteolytic cleavage of the extracellular domain or alternate transcription of primary mRNA (44). EGFR can be activated as a homodimer or as a heterodimer with one of the other three members of the ErbB family. Increased circulating levels of its ligands, such as EGF and transforming growth factor α, may form complexes with circulating EGFR and, subsequently, may be cleared more rapidly from the circulation. Another explanation is that internal autocrine mechanisms activate EGFR, resulting in less available EGFR for proteolysis at the tumor cell surface. With either of these mechanisms, activation of the EGFR pathway may explain the decreased serum EGFR levels observed in patients with biologically and clinically aggressive prostate cancer.

When activated, EGFR can pair with another EGFR, forming a homodimer, or with another member of the ErbB receptor family, such as HER2, to form a heterodimer. In patients with metastatic breast cancer, Souder et al. (6) found that the combination of serum EGFR and HER2 helped identify a subgroup of patients with decreased EGFR and normal HER2 who had significantly reduced survival. Another report of 807 patients with primary breast cancer showed that those with overexpression of both HER2 and EGFR by immunohistochemistry had the shortest survival (45). In colon cancer cell lines, inhibition of EGFR has been shown to increase activation of HER2 (46). These data suggest that HER2 and EGFR may have a cooperative/synergistic effect and that combining them into a ratio may improve prostate cancer prognostication. However, combination of HER2 and EGFR into a ratio did not improve the predictive accuracy for PSA progression after radical prostatectomy.

The findings of our study could lead to several applications. In addition to improving prognostication in patients with apparent clinically localized disease, plasma levels of HER2 and/or EGFR may help select patients for clinical trials of anti-HER2 and/or anti-EGFR therapies. Both HER2 and EGFR have been validated as therapeutic targets in breast, lung, and colon cancer. However, whereas HER2 and EGFR monoclonal antibodies and kinase inhibitors have shown promising activity in patients with these malignancies, they have failed to show significant activity in prostate cancer (4750). Solit and Rosen (51) have given various explanations for the lack of efficacy of anti-HER2 and anti-EGFR therapies in prostate cancer. One explanation is that these therapies have been given to either all patients or those with HER2 or EGFR overexpression. HER2 and EGFR amplification are, however, rare events in prostate cancer, and thus the target may not be as important in this disease. In addition, the therapies were given in advanced cancer and metastatic setting, but the HER2/EGFR status was determined from the original tumor, which had been removed many years earlier. Furthermore, the tissue tests for protein overexpression by immunohistochemistry and gene amplification (i.e., fluorescence in situ hybridization) are both subject to technical problems. For immunohistochemistry, these include, but are not limited to, differences in the methods between laboratories and between operators and variation in reagents. Although the fluorescence in situ hybridization technology seems to be reproducible, the standardization of fixative solutions, fixation times, and digestion conditions remains a technical issue. Moreover, the fluorescence in situ hybridization instrumentation is expensive and not widely available in diagnostic pathology laboratories. The conversion of these assays from tests that require tumor tissue specimens to assays that can be done on blood would significantly increase their clinical value. Lipton et al. (15) reported that patients with metastatic breast cancer who had elevated pretreatment serum HER2 levels had a decreased response to first-line hormone therapy and decreased survival. Moreover, they found that serum conversion to HER2-positive status at the time of disease progression in patients with breast carcinoma on hormone therapy was an independent risk factor for decreased survival (52). This, together with the findings of the current study, supports the evaluation of anti-HER2 and/or anti-EGFR therapies in multidrug combinations for the treatment of prostate cancer patients with altered plasma HER2 and/or EGFR levels. Moreover, these markers could be followed to evaluate response to treatment/progression of disease.

This study has several limitations. First and foremost are the limitations inherent to sample size, relatively short follow-up, and small number of patients with PSA progression and aggressive disease progression, which may have limited our ability to detect small differences attributed to other variables. Although addition of preoperative plasma HER2 or EGFR improved the predictive accuracy of the standard preoperative and postoperative models by statistical significant margin, the clinical significance of a 1% to 5% improvement remains subtle. Therefore, prospective well-done studies are necessary to further delineate the clinical benefit of these biomarkers before clinical application. Moreover, correlation with tissue levels would help understand the biological and clinical relevance of plasma levels. Another potential limitation is the large variability of HER2 and EGFR levels among prostate cancer patients. It is unclear what mechanisms account for such a wide variation in shedding and what is the biological or clinical significance of the shedding.

Preoperative plasma levels of HER2 and EGFR each improved the accuracy of standard preoperative and postoperative models for prediction of PSA progression in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. Together with established clinical and pathologic features, HER2 and EGFR may help identify patients who may benefit from adjuvant targeted therapy and monitor treatment response. Larger studies with more events and longer follow-up are required for a more definitive statement about the association of preoperative circulating levels of HER2 and EGFR with prostate cancer progression and, more importantly, profound clinical end points such as metastases and survival.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2007.
CA Cancer J Clin
2007
;
57
:
43
–66.
2
Stephenson AJ, Shariat SF, Zelefsky MJ, et al. Salvage radiotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.
JAMA
2004
;
291
:
1325
–32.
3
Gomella LG, Zeltser I, Valicenti RK. Use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy to prevent or delay recurrence of prostate cancer in patients undergoing surgical treatment for prostate cancer.
Urology
2003
;
62
Suppl 1:
46
–54.
4
Oh MJ, Choi JH, Lee YH, et al. Mutant p53 protein in the serum of patients with cervical carcinoma: correlation with the level of serum epidermal growth factor receptor and prognostic significance.
Cancer Lett
2004
;
203
:
107
–12.
5
Osman I, Mikhail M, Shuch B, et al. Serum levels of shed Her2/neu protein in men with prostate cancer correlate with disease progression.
J Urol
2005
;
174
:
2174
–7.
6
Souder C, Leitzel K, Ali SM, et al. Serum epidermal growth factor receptor/HER-2 predicts poor survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer.
Cancer
2006
;
107
:
2337
–45.
7
Tsigris C, Karayiannakis AJ, Zbar A, et al. Clinical significance of serum and urinary c-erbB-2 levels in colorectal cancer.
Cancer Lett
2002
;
184
:
215
–22.
8
Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2.
N Engl J Med
2001
;
344
:
783
–92.
9
Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A, McGuire WL. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene.
Science
1987
;
235
:
177
–82.
10
Salomon DS, Brandt R, Ciardiello F, Normanno N. Epidermal growth factor-related peptides and their receptors in human malignancies.
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol
1995
;
19
:
183
–232.
11
Shi Y, Brands FH, Chatterjee S, et al. Her-2/neu expression in prostate cancer: high level of expression associated with exposure to hormone therapy and androgen independent disease.
J Urol
2001
;
166
:
1514
–9.
12
Shah RB, Ghosh D, Elder JT. Epidermal growth factor receptor (ErbB1) expression in prostate cancer progression: correlation with androgen independence.
Prostate
2006
;
66
:
1437
–44.
13
Nishio Y, Yamada Y, Kokubo H, et al. Prognostic significance of immunohistochemical expression of the HER-2/neu oncoprotein in bone metastatic prostate cancer.
Urology
2006
;
68
:
110
–5.
14
Baselga J. Is circulating HER-2 more than just a tumor marker?
Clin Cancer Res
2001
;
7
:
2605
–7.
15
Lipton A, Ali SM, Leitzel K, et al. Serum HER-2/neu and response to the aromatase inhibitor letrozole versus tamoxifen.
J Clin Oncol
2003
;
21
:
1967
–72.
16
Kostler WJ, Schwab B, Singer CF, et al. Monitoring of serum Her-2/neu predicts response and progression-free survival to trastuzumab-based treatment in patients with metastatic breast cancer.
Clin Cancer Res
2004
;
10
:
1618
–24.
17
Shariat SF, Khoddami SM, Saboorian H, et al. Lymphovascular invasion is a pathological feature of biologically aggressive disease in patients treated with radical prostatectomy.
J Urol
2004
;
171
:
1122
–7.
18
Henson DE, Hutter RV, Farrow G. Practice protocol for the examination of specimens removed from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland. A publication of the cancer committee, college of american pathologists. Task Force on the Examination of Specimens Removed From Patients With Prostate Cancer.
Arch Pathol Lab Med
1994
;
118
:
779
–83.
19
Schmid HP, McNeal JE, Stamey TA. Observations on the doubling time of prostate cancer. The use of serial prostate-specific antigen in patients with untreated disease as a measure of increasing cancer volume.
Cancer
1993
;
71
:
2031
–40.
20
Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD, Walsh PC. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy.
JAMA
1999
;
281
:
1591
–7.
21
Leventis AK, Shariat SF, Kattan MW, Butler EB, Wheeler TM, Slawin KM. Prediction of response to salvage radiation therapy in patients with prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
J Clin Oncol
2001
;
19
:
1030
–9.
22
Lee AK, D'Amico AV. Utility of prostate-specific antigen kinetics in addition to clinical factors in the selection of patients for salvage local therapy.
J Clin Oncol
2005
;
23
:
8192
–7.
23
Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, et al. Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
JAMA
2005
;
294
:
433
–9.
24
Harrell FE, Jr., Califf RM, Pryor DB, Lee KL, Rosati RA. Evaluating the yield of medical tests.
JAMA
1982
;
247
:
2543
–6.
25
Hajian-Tilaki KO, Hanley JA. Comparison of three methods for estimating the standard error of the area under the curve in ROC analysis of quantitative data.
Acad Radiol
2002
;
9
:
1278
–85.
26
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach.
Biometrics
1988
;
44
:
837
–45.
27
Harrell FE, Jr., Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors.
Stat Med
1996
;
15
:
361
–87.
28
Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. Monographs on statistics and applied probability: an introduction to the bootstrap. Champman and Hall/CRC; 1993.
29
Craft N, Shostak Y, Carey M, Sawyers CL. A mechanism for hormone-independent prostate cancer through modulation of androgen receptor signaling by the HER-2/neu tyrosine kinase.
Nat Med
1999
;
5
:
280
–5.
30
Oxley JD, Winkler MH, Gillatt DA, Peat DS. Her-2/neu oncogene amplification in clinically localised prostate cancer.
J Clin Pathol
2002
;
55
:
118
–20.
31
Reese DM, Small EJ, Magrane G, Waldman FM, Chew K, Sudilovsky D. HER2 protein expression and gene amplification in androgen-independent prostate cancer.
Am J Clin Pathol
2001
;
116
:
234
–9.
32
Okegawa T, Kinjo M, Nutahara K, Higashihara E. Pretreatment serum level of HER2/nue as a prognostic factor in metastatic prostate cancer patients about to undergo endocrine therapy.
Int J Urol
2006
;
13
:
1197
–201.
33
Lara PN, Jr., Meyers FJ, Gray CR, et al. HER-2/neu is overexpressed infrequently in patients with prostate carcinoma. Results from the California Cancer Consortium Screening Trial.
Cancer
2002
;
94
:
2584
–9.
34
Signoretti S, Montironi R, Manola J, et al. Her-2-neu expression and progression toward androgen independence in human prostate cancer.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2000
;
92
:
1918
–25.
35
Gregory CW, Whang YE, McCall W, et al. Heregulin-induced activation of HER2 and HER3 increases androgen receptor transactivation and CWR-R1 human recurrent prostate cancer cell growth.
Clin Cancer Res
2005
;
11
:
1704
–12.
36
Liu Y, Majumder S, McCall W, et al. Inhibition of HER-2/neu kinase impairs androgen receptor recruitment to the androgen responsive enhancer.
Cancer Res
2005
;
65
:
3404
–9.
37
Mellinghoff IK, Vivanco I, Kwon A, Tran C, Wongvipat J, Sawyers CL. HER2/neu kinase-dependent modulation of androgen receptor function through effects on DNA binding and stability.
Cancer Cell
2004
;
6
:
517
–27.
38
Thalmann GN, Sikes RA, Wu TT, et al. LNCaP progression model of human prostate cancer: androgen-independence and osseous metastasis.
Prostate
2000
;
44
:
91
–103.
39
Andersen TI, Paus E, Nesland JM, McKenzie SJ, Borresen AL. Detection of c-erbB-2 related protein in sera from breast cancer patients. Relationship to ERBB2 gene amplification and c-erbB-2 protein overexpression in tumour.
Acta Oncol
1995
;
34
:
499
–504.
40
Wu JT, Astill ME, Gagon SD, Bryson L. Measurement of c-erbB-2 proteins in sera from patients with carcinomas and in breast tumor tissue cytosols: correlation with serum tumor markers and membrane-bound oncoprotein.
J Clin Lab Anal
1995
;
9
:
151
–65.
41
Colomer R, Montero S, Lluch A, et al. Circulating HER2 extracellular domain and resistance to chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer.
Clin Cancer Res
2000
;
6
:
2356
–62.
42
Meden H, Marx D, Schauer A, Wuttke W, Kuhn W. Prognostic significance of p105 (c-erbB-2 HER2/neu) serum levels in patients with ovarian cancer.
Anticancer Res
1997
;
17
:
757
–60.
43
Baron AT, Lafky JM, Boardman CH, et al. Serum sErbB1 and epidermal growth factor levels as tumor biomarkers in women with stage III or IV epithelial ovarian cancer.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
1999
;
8
:
129
–37.
44
Maihle NJ, Baron AT, Barrette BA, et al. EGF/ErbB receptor family in ovarian cancer.
Cancer Treat Res
2002
;
107
:
247
–58.
45
DiGiovanna MP, Stern DF, Edgerton SM, Whalen SG, Moore D II, Thor AD. Relationship of epidermal growth factor receptor expression to ErbB-2 signaling activity and prognosis in breast cancer patients.
J Clin Oncol
2005
;
23
:
1152
–60.
46
Learn PA, Krishnegowda N, Talamantez J, Kahlenberg MS. Compensatory increases in Her-2/neu activation in response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibition in colon cancer cell lines.
J Surg Res
2006
;
136
:
227
–31.
47
Lara PN, Jr., Chee KG, Longmate J, et al. Trastuzumab plus docetaxel in HER-2/neu-positive prostate carcinoma: final results from the California Cancer Consortium Screening and Phase II Trial.
Cancer
2004
;
100
:
2125
–31.
48
Morris MJ, Reuter VE, Kelly WK, et al. HER-2 profiling and targeting in prostate carcinoma.
Cancer
2002
;
94
:
980
–6.
49
Canil CM, Moore MJ, Winquist E, et al. Randomized phase II study of two doses of gefitinib in hormone-refractory prostate cancer: a trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada-Clinical Trials Group.
J Clin Oncol
2005
;
23
:
455
–60.
50
de Bono JS, Bellmunt J, Attard G, et al. Open-label phase II study evaluating the efficacy and safety of two doses of pertuzumab in castrate chemotherapy-naive patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.
J Clin Oncol
2007
;
25
:
257
–62.
51
Solit DB, Rosen N. Targeting HER2 in prostate cancer: where to next?
J Clin Oncol
2007
;
25
:
241
–3.
52
Lipton A, Leitzel K, Ali SM, et al. Serum HER-2/neu conversion to positive at the time of disease progression in patients with breast carcinoma on hormone therapy.
Cancer
2005
;
104
:
257
–63.