Purpose:TP53 missense mutations may help to identify prostate cancer with lethal potential. Here, we preanalytically, analytically, and clinically validated a robust IHC assay to detect subclonal and focal TP53 missense mutations in prostate cancer.

Experimental Design: The p53 IHC assay was performed in a CLIA-accredited laboratory on the Ventana Benchmark immunostaining system. p53 protein nuclear accumulation was defined as any p53 nuclear labeling in >10% of tumor cells. Fifty-four formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) cell lines from the NCI-60 panel and 103 FFPE prostate cancer tissues (88 primary adenocarcinomas, 15 metastases) with known TP53 mutation status were studied. DU145 and VCaP xenografts were subjected to varying fixation conditions to investigate the effects of preanalytic variables. Clinical validation was performed in two partially overlapping radical prostatectomy cohorts.

Results: p53 nuclear accumulation by IHC was 100% sensitive for detection of TP53 missense mutations in the NCI-60 panel (25/25 missense mutations correctly identified). Lack of p53 nuclear accumulation was 86% (25/29) specific for absence of TP53 missense mutation. In FFPE prostate tumors, the positive predictive value of p53 nuclear accumulation for underlying missense mutation was 84% (38/45), whereas the negative predictive value was 97% (56/58). In a cohort of men who experienced biochemical recurrence after RP, the multivariable HR for metastasis among cases with p53 nuclear accumulation compared with those without was 2.55 (95% confidence interval, 1.1–5.91).

Conclusions: IHC is widely available method to assess for the presence of deleterious and heterogeneous TP53 missense mutations in clinical prostate cancer specimens. Clin Cancer Res; 23(16); 4693–703. ©2017 AACR.

Translational Relevance

TP53 mutations are among the most highly enriched genomic alterations among castrate-resistant prostate cancers (CRPC) compared with primary tumors and recent preclinical data suggests that TP53 inactivation may cooperate with other alterations to confer lineage plasticity and androgen independence in the prostate. We validated an in situ assay to sensitively and specifically detect TP53 missense mutations in prostate cancer using IHC. This assay, which is robust to fixation conditions, is particularly useful to screen for focal or subclonal mutations that could be missed by sequencing and which were present in nearly half of all primary tumors. In two overlapping radical prostatectomy cohorts, presence of TP53 missense mutation by IHC was associated with development of metastasis, clinically validating the assay for use in high risk prostate cancer or future clinical trials.

Both older and more recent sequencing studies of castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) metastases have revealed a high frequency of TP53 mutations in advanced disease, making these genomic alterations among the most enriched when comparing primary and advanced metastatic prostate cancer (1–4). Although TP53 aberrations are relatively rare in primary tumors, occurring in less than 10% (5), there is a 4- to 5-fold increase in alterations in CRPC (4) and TP53 and RB1 mutations are considered key drivers of small-cell neuroendocrine carcinomas in the prostate and other organs (6, 7). The reason for this striking and unanticipated enrichment of TP53 loss in aggressive prostate cancer is currently being scrutinized by a number of groups. In two recent studies, combined loss of TP53 and RB1 facilitated prostate cell lineage plasticity and anti-androgen resistance in vitro and in vivo, in part due to downstream SOX2 activation (8, 9); however, these mechanistic studies focused on genomic deletion of TP53, rather than mutation. Interestingly, in both primary and metastatic prostate tumors, TP53 alterations are relatively evenly split between those resulting in pure loss-of-function for the tumor suppressor protein (nonsense, frameshift, splice site mutations, and homozygous deletion) and missense mutations which result in potential gain-of-function, loss-of-function, and/or dominant negative phenotypes (4, 5). The differing cellular effects of these disparate types of alterations in TP53 remains a hotly debated topic in cancer (10) and whether each has different associations with prostate cancer clinical outcomes remains unknown. Further, although TP53 is thought to be a relatively early occurring mutation in primary prostate cancer (11–14), the chronicity of this alteration with respect to other common genomic changes in prostate cancer, and its potential heterogeneity in primary tumors has not been elucidated.

Underlying these knowledge gaps in prostate cancer is the fact that few validated assays exist to query TP53 status in prostate cancer. Although sequencing will clearly remain a gold-standard technique, recent work has shown that TP53 mutations can be heterogeneous and extremely focal in primary prostate tumors, requiring ultra-deep sequencing to detect (12). Thus, a less expensive in situ assay to rapidly assess TP53 status in large portions of tissue would be useful, both for routine clinical screening of primary tumors where alterations may be focal, and to begin to address some of the biological questions outlined above. Importantly, missense mutations in TP53 generally occur in a few hotspots in the DNA-binding domain of the protein, and have long been recognized to result in stabilization and resultant nuclear accumulation of the p53 protein in tumor cells (15–18). Although a complete mechanistic understanding has been elusive (19, 20), this phenomenon is useful because p53 nuclear accumulation by IHC can be a surrogate to predict TP53 gene status in situ (21). p53 IHC assays have been used previously in other tumor types (22, 23) and prostate cancer (2, 24–31) for some time to screen for TP53 missense mutations; however, genetically validated assays for use in prostate cancer have not been developed using contemporary, automated, and clinical-grade IHC platforms.

Here, we extensively analytically, preanalytically, and clinically validated a clinical-grade IHC assay to screen for presence of stabilizing TP53 missense mutations in prostate cancer in a CLIA-accredited laboratory environment. We show that this assay is highly sensitive and specific for detection of TP53 missense mutations in cell lines and primary prostate tumors, the assay is robust to preanalytic fixation conditions and could be of particular use to identify heterogeneous, subclonal TP53 aberrations in the setting of prostate biopsies that may be difficult to detect without ultradeep sequencing. Finally, we show that TP53 status, as determined by this assay, is associated with risk of metastasis in two large cohorts of surgically treated prostate cancer patients.

Patients and tissue samples

In accordance with the U.S. Common Rule and after IRB approval with a waiver of consent, a total of 103 prostate tumors with known TP53 sequencing results (including 90 primary tumors at radical prostatectomy, transurethral resection of prostate or needle biopsy and 13 autopsy specimens) from several different cohorts were utilized for the validation study. The first group consisted of 28 cases from a radical prostatectomy case–cohort design (described below as used for outcomes analysis; refs. 32, 33). These samples were immunostained for p53 on tissue microarrays (TMA; see below) and 28 cases (including four negative for p53 nuclear accumulation and 24 positive for nuclear accumulation) were selected for sequencing as described below after examination of immunostaining for p53. The second cohort included metastatic tissue from 13 autopsy cases sampled on TMA for immunostaining, for which previously published TP53 sequencing data were available (11, 34). The third cohort included four small cell carcinoma of the prostate cases sampled on TMA for which previously collected TP53 sequencing data were available (6). The fourth cohort included two radical prostatectomy cases (standard slides) with known homozygous deletions of TP53 from prior studies (35). Finally, the last cohort included 56 radical prostatectomy cases from patients who subsequently developed castration-resistant metastatic disease and received enzalutamide and/or abiraterone at Johns Hopkins between 2010 and 2015. These 56 patients included all patients with a radical prostatectomy at Johns Hopkins and available tissue for sequencing, selected from a retrospective analysis of 309 consecutive patients treated with first-line abiraterone or enzalutamide at Johns Hopkins during this time period. (Maughan and colleagues; unpublished data). For these cases, all tumors were sequenced irrespective of p53 immunostaining status. The details of each cohort are included in Supplementary Table S1.

To assess the frequency of p53 nuclear accumulation by IHC in prostate needle biopsies, we examined p53 IHC in a cohort of 40 Gleason score 9 or higher needle biopsies described previously (36).

For outcomes analysis, we selected a total of 456 primary prostate tumors from two overlapping and previously published radical prostatectomy cohorts at Johns Hopkins (including 28 tumors with sequencing data as described above; refs. 32, 33). One cohort included 322 patients using a nested case–cohort design for metastasis, where the time to clinical metastasis was measured from the time of diagnosis. An additional and highly overlapping cohort (∼55% overlap) contained 195 men who all experienced biochemical recurrence (defined as a PSA measurement of ≥0.2 ng/mL on two separate occasions) after radical prostatectomy. Here, time to metastasis was measured from time of biochemical recurrence. These cohorts were originally designed to test for prognostic tumor biomarkers and were accordingly highly enriched for adverse oncologic outcomes. Tumor tissue from the dominant tumor nodule and benign tissue were sampled in quadruplicate on 16 individual TMAs utilizing 0.6 mm cores.

Cell line TMA

A total of 56 cell lines from the NCI-60 cell line panel (Developmental Therapeutics Program, NCI) were used to evaluate p53 IHC staining. All cell lines were pelleted, fixed in 10% neutral-buffered formalin, and processed and cut as tissue. Cell lines were punched and TMAs created as previously described (37). Additional prostate cell lines with known TP53 gene status were also studied, including RWPE-1, VCaP, DU145, and PC-3 (ATCC). RWPE-1 cells have wild-type TP53. VCaP and PC3 cells harbor one deleted allele of TP53 and one missense mutation or frameshift mutation, respectively (R428W and A138fs; refs. 38, 39). DU145 cells harbor missense mutations on both alleles (V274F and P223L; ref. 38). For all prostate cancer cell lines, cell line authenticity and mycoplasma contamination were routinely assessed in 6- to 10-month intervals by short tandem repeat (STR) genotyping and PCR-based testing, respectively (last tested December 2015). For the remaining NCI-60 cell lines, STR genotyping was completed once prior to creation of the cell line TMA.

Xenograft TMA

VCaP and Du145 cell line xenografts were established as previously described (40) and subjected to different fixation conditions after excision to evaluate the effect of preanalytic variables on the performance of the p53 IHC stain. After harvesting, the xenograft tumors were sectioned into three fragments and then divided in five groups, each subjected to varying intervals of cold ischemia at room temperature (0, 2, 4, 12 or 24 hours) prior to fixation. After the appropriate period of cold ischemia elapsed, the thirds of the tumor specimen with up to 4 hours of ischemia were put into 10% neutral-buffered formalin and fixed for 4, 12, or 24 hours. The thirds of the specimen with periods of ischemia longer than 12 hours were left in fixation for 12, 24, 36, or 48 hours intervals. The processed samples were arranged in a TMA and stained for p53 as below.

Detection of p53 nuclear accumulation by IHC

p53 IHC was performed on the Ventana Benchmark autostaining system using a mouse monoclonal antibody (BP53-11) after antigen retrieval in CC1 buffer followed by detection with the iView HRP system (Roche/Ventana Medical Systems). This protocol was previously validated for detection of p53 mutations in ovarian carcinoma (22) and the BP53-11 clone was tested in prostate and showed very low background staining in benign glands in comparison with another available clone from Ventana (D07), facilitating detection of nuclear p53 accumulation. Each TMA spot containing tumor cells was visually dichotomously scored for presence or absence of nuclear p53 signal by a urologic pathologist blinded to the gene expression data (TLL). A spot was considered to show p53 nuclear accumulation if >10% of tumor nuclei showed p53 positivity. This cutoff value was chosen because it was the most correlated with presence of wild-type TP53 in a prior genomic validation of this staining protocol in ovarian carcinoma (22) and the most commonly chosen cutoff in a meta-analysis of p53 staining in other tumor types (23). A tumor was considered to show p53 nuclear accumulation if any sampled spot was scored as p53 positive, and as p53 negative if all sampled spots were scored as p53 negative.

TP53 sequencing

For samples from the TMAs, a total of five 0.6 μm punches were procured from the same area in the paraffin block sampled on the TMA. DNA was extracted from these FFPE cores using the Qiagen AllPrep DNA Extraction Kit (Hilden) according to the manufacturer's directions. DNA concentrations were quantified with the Qubit fluorometer, using a Quant-iT dsDNA High Sensitivity Assay Kit (Invitrogen). Mutations were screened by next-generation sequencing (NGS) using multiplexed PCR (AmpliSeq Hotspot Panel) to generate libraries. Adapters were ligated to the PCR products, where the sequences are tagged with a specific barcodes. The barcoded libraries were clonally amplified using emulsion PCR (emPCR). The emPCR product was purified using magnetic bead purification followed by semiconductor-based sequencing on an Ion Torrent PGM (Thermo Fisher). For each gene, the minimum required coverage was 500 sequence reads based on bidirectional sequencing. The minimum acceptable allelic frequency was 5%, as any lower values may be background noise. Each variant was analyzed manually using variant caller from Ion Torrent software and cross-referenced with Ingenuity software for bioinformatics (Qiagen). The amplicons included for sequencing in the Ampliseq Hotspot panel included 91% (68/75) of the missense mutations detected in the AACR Project GENIE data for prostate cancer (41), although seven of these detectable mutations (9%) were only detectable at the end of the amplicon so would require sequencing validation for reporting by a CLIA laboratory.

Disruptive versus nondisruptive TP53 mutation categorization

As defined by Poeta and colleagues (42, 43), disruptive mutations include (i) any mutation that originates a stop codon (nonsense, frameshift, and intronic); (ii) missense mutations located inside the L2 or L3 loops (codons 163–195 or 236–251) replacing one residue by another of a different polarity or charge; and (iii) in-frame deletions within the L2 or L3 loops. Nondisruptive mutations are all those not classified as disruptive and include (i) missense mutations and in-frame deletions located outside the L2–L3 loops and (ii) missense mutations within the L2–L3 loops but replacing one residue with another of the same polarity or charge. Disruptive TP53 mutations lead to complete or almost complete predicted loss of activity of the p53 protein, in contrast to nondisruptive mutations that may retain some p53 function or have gain-of-function properties. The Poeta and colleagues criteria were used to categorize all discovered TP53 mutations in FFPE samples by disruptive versus nondisruptive status and this classification is indicated in Supplementary Table S3.

Statistical analysis

The significance level was 0.05 for all statistical tests and analyses were performed in R v3.1 (R Foundation). Primary endpoint of the study was defined as metastases evidenced by axial imaging (CT or MRI) or nuclear medicine bone scan. To determine the association of clinicopathologic variables with p53 status, Fisher exact test was used. For the intermediate/high risk cohort, time to event was defined as time from radical prostatectomy to last follow-up or metastasis. For the biochemical recurrence (BCR) cohort, time to event was defined as time from BCR to last follow-up or metastasis. Because of the case–cohort nature of our study, univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards model using the Lin-Ying method was used to evaluate the performance of p53 status in predicting metastasis (44, 45). Cumulative incidence curves were constructed using Fine-Gray competing risks (where deaths from other causes was considered as a competing risk) analysis with appropriate weighting of the controls to account for the case–cohort study design (44, 45).

p53 nuclear accumulation by IHC correlates with presence of underlying TP53 missense mutation in NCI-60 cancer cell line panel

To begin to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the p53 IHC assay, we first examined a previously described TMA composed of 54 of the 56 cell lines from the NCI-60 cell line panel (IGROV-1 and CAKI-1 were missing). In the cell line TMA, p53 protein nuclear accumulation was 100% sensitive for detection of deleterious TP53 missense mutations, detecting 25 of 25 missense mutations correctly (Fig. 1A; Tables 1A and 2 and Supplementary Table S2). The specificity of the IHC assay was 86%, with lack of p53 nuclear accumulation in 25 of 29 cell lines that lacked missense mutations (i.e., wild-type TP53 or loss-of-function mutations in TP53). Of the four discordant cell lines, two had possible frameshift mutations in TP53 (COLO-205 and SF-539) with additional missense mutations also reported in some studies. Both of these cell lines were classified as having inconclusive TP53 status (http://p53.free.fr/Database/Cancer_cell_lines/p53_cell_lines.html). The other two discordant lines with p53 nuclear accumulation had reported wild-type TP53 status (UO-31) and a reported splice-site mutation (OVCAR-8, p.Y126_splice; ref. 46). The positive predictive power (PPV) of p53 IHC for detecting TP53 missense mutation was 86% (25/29) and the negative predictive power (NPV) of lack of p53 nuclear accumulation for lack of underlying TP53 mutation was 100% (25/25).

Figure 1.

Representative p53 immunostaining in FFPE prostate cell lines and primary and CRPC prostate tumors. A, RWPE-1 cells, which are TP53 wild-type (WT), show rare positive nuclei comprising less than 10% of the tumor on p53 immunostaining. In contrast, DU145 cells (with two mutations, p.V274 and p.P223L) and VCaP cells (p.R248W) with missense mutations show robust nuclear accumulation of p53. PC3 cells, which have a loss-of-function frameshift mutation (p.A138fs) and LOH are entirely negative for p53 expression. All photomicrographs are reduced from 200×. B, Only rare, weakly positive nuclear immunostaining for p53 is seen in benign prostate tissues and primary and CRPC tumors that are TP53 WT, although some cytoplasmic staining is seen specifically in these tumors of unknown significance. The lack of nuclear positivity in benign prostate tissue and TP53 WT tumors meant that the IHC assay cannot distinguish tumors that are TP53 WT from those with loss-of-function alterations (homozygous deletion, frameshift, splice site, or nonsense mutations). In contrast, tumors with missense mutations of TP53 (p.R175H, p.R273C, p.V157A, p.131N) are readily distinguishable from WT and show robust nuclear accumulation of p53 protein in the majority of cells. All photomicrographs are reduced from 200×.

Figure 1.

Representative p53 immunostaining in FFPE prostate cell lines and primary and CRPC prostate tumors. A, RWPE-1 cells, which are TP53 wild-type (WT), show rare positive nuclei comprising less than 10% of the tumor on p53 immunostaining. In contrast, DU145 cells (with two mutations, p.V274 and p.P223L) and VCaP cells (p.R248W) with missense mutations show robust nuclear accumulation of p53. PC3 cells, which have a loss-of-function frameshift mutation (p.A138fs) and LOH are entirely negative for p53 expression. All photomicrographs are reduced from 200×. B, Only rare, weakly positive nuclear immunostaining for p53 is seen in benign prostate tissues and primary and CRPC tumors that are TP53 WT, although some cytoplasmic staining is seen specifically in these tumors of unknown significance. The lack of nuclear positivity in benign prostate tissue and TP53 WT tumors meant that the IHC assay cannot distinguish tumors that are TP53 WT from those with loss-of-function alterations (homozygous deletion, frameshift, splice site, or nonsense mutations). In contrast, tumors with missense mutations of TP53 (p.R175H, p.R273C, p.V157A, p.131N) are readily distinguishable from WT and show robust nuclear accumulation of p53 protein in the majority of cells. All photomicrographs are reduced from 200×.

Close modal
Table 1A.

Correlation between p53 nuclear accumulation by IHC and presence of TP53 missense mutation in NCI-60 cell line panel

p53 nuclear accumulationNormal p53 IHC
TP53 missense mutation 25 
Absence of TP53 missense mutation 25 
p53 nuclear accumulationNormal p53 IHC
TP53 missense mutation 25 
Absence of TP53 missense mutation 25 

Of note, in cell lines, complete lack of p53 expression by IHC generally did distinguish tumors with loss-of-function mutations and/or homozygous deletion in TP53 (n = 8) from those with wild-type TP53, which showed nuclear staining for p53 in fewer than 10% of cells (n = 13; Fig. 1A, compare RWPE-1 and PC3 cells; Supplementary Table S2). However, there were a few exceptions to this observation. Two cell lines (CAKI-1 and OVCAR-5) showed complete absence of p53 by IHC despite a reported wild-type TP53 locus (46). In addition, two other cell lines (MOLT-4 and SN12C) showed some weak nuclear positivity for p53 despite the presence of reported underlying nonsense mutations (p.306* and p.E336*, respectively; ref. 46).

p53 nuclear accumulation by IHC is highly associated with presence of underlying TP53 missense mutation in formalin-fixed paraffin embedded prostate tumors

The sensitivity and specificity of the p53 IHC assay were then evaluated in 103 formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) prostate tumors (88 primaries and 15 metastases) with paired DNA sequencing and IHC results in FFPE material. Importantly, for 101 of 108 tumors, p53 immunostaining was initially evaluated on TMA spots, whereas the remainder were evaluated on standard histologic sections. The sensitivity of p53 IHC nuclear accumulation was 95% for missense mutation detection, with IHC nuclear accumulation detecting 38 out of 40 missense mutations (Fig. 1B; Tables 1B and 2; Supplementary Table S3). Using IHC, one of two missed mutations was p.R282W in a radical prostatectomy specimen where tissue preservation appeared to be poor (Supplementary Fig. S1). Of interest, that same mutation was present and successfully detected by IHC in a separate, unrelated sample, where the p53 immunostaining showed heterogeneous p53 overexpression (Supplementary Fig. S2). The other discordant case was an unusual case with eight individual missense mutations in a single radical prostatectomy specimen, including p.R267W, G226D, M160I, E349K, E339K, A129T, E11K and V10I (Supplementary Fig. S1; Supplementary Table S2). This tumor was Gleason Score 3 + 5 = 8 (using ISUP 2005 criteria) and pT3a and occurring in a 59-year-old white male. The tumor itself did not look morphologically unusual, although did have a very high-grade tumor component. It is tempting to speculate that it could be a hypermutated tumor, however it was MSH2 intact by IHC as well. We also cannot rule out the possibility of a sequencing artifact in this case. Indeed, only one other sample had more than one TP53 mutation detected (with 4 total, also a radical prostatectomy). Most mutations detected by the IHC assay were in the DNA-binding domain of p53 as expected (Supplementary Fig. S3).

Table 1B.

Correlation between p53 nuclear accumulation by IHC and presence of TP53 missense mutation in formalin fixed paraffin embedded prostate tumors

p53 nuclear accumulationNormal p53 IHC
TP53 missense mutation 38 
Absence of TP53 missense mutation 56 
p53 nuclear accumulationNormal p53 IHC
TP53 missense mutation 38 
Absence of TP53 missense mutation 56 
Table 2.

Performance characteristics of p53 IHC compared to TP53 sequencing results

SensitivitySpecificityPPVNPV
NCI-60 cell lines 100% (25/25) 86% (25/29) 86% (25/29) 100% (25/25) 
FFPE prostate tumors 95% (38/40) 89% (56/63) 84% (38/45) 97% (56/58) 
SensitivitySpecificityPPVNPV
NCI-60 cell lines 100% (25/25) 86% (25/29) 86% (25/29) 100% (25/25) 
FFPE prostate tumors 95% (38/40) 89% (56/63) 84% (38/45) 97% (56/58) 

Taken together, the specificity of the IHC assay was 89%, with 56/63 tumors lacking TP53 missense mutations by sequencing also lacking p53 nuclear accumulation by IHC. Of the seven discordant cases lacking TP53 missense mutations, but showing nuclear accumulation of p53 on IHC, five had wild-type TP53 by sequencing and two had in-frame deletions in the DNA binding domain (p.I255delI, and p.V203_D207del15; Supplementary Fig. S1 and Supplementary Table S3). Of the five cases that showed p53 nuclear accumulation with wild-type TP53, three tumors had p53 immunostaining reexamined on standard sections to evaluate whether tumor heterogeneity could account for discordance. Of note, in all of these cases, heterogeneity of p53 expression could be observed, raising the possibility of focal TP53 mutations in a tumor subclone that may not have been detected by the sequencing assays (Fig. 2). Although we cannot entirely exclude the possibility that the Ampliseq sequencing assay failed to detect underlying missense mutations in these cases due to its hotspot design, it is notable that this assay was designed to thoroughly cover the TP53 gene, capable of detecting 91% of the missense mutations detected in the AACR Project GENIE prostate cancer sequencing database (41). Overall, the negative predictive value (NPV) of lack of IHC nuclear accumulation for lack of TP53 missense mutation was 97% (56/58) and the positive predictive value of p53 nuclear accumulation for presence of underlying TP53 mutation was 84% (38/45). In contrast to our observations in cell lines above, complete lack of p53 expression by IHC did not distinguish tumors with loss-of-function mutations and/or homozygous deletion in TP53 (n = 12) from those with wild-type TP53 (n = 44) because the basal level of nuclear p53 protein expression in most wild-type prostate tumors was extremely low to undetectable (Fig. 1; Supplementary Fig. S1).

Figure 2.

Heterogeneous p53 immunostaining on standard histologic sections was common in primary tumors with discordant TP53 sequencing and p53 immunostaining results. A, A tumor that was TP53 WT by sequencing shows focal p53 nuclear accumulation on standard section (arrow, top left) with an adjacent area lacking nuclear accumulation (arrow, bottom right). B, A tumor that was TP53 WT by sequencing because a p.C135Y mutation was detected in <5% of cells, shows focal p53 nuclear accumulation on standard section (arrow, top right) with an adjacent area lacking nuclear accumulation (arrow, lower left). C and D, Gleason score 9 biopsies with clear focal nuclear accumulation of p53 in some, but not all tumor cells (arrows). All photomicrographs are reduced from 200×.

Figure 2.

Heterogeneous p53 immunostaining on standard histologic sections was common in primary tumors with discordant TP53 sequencing and p53 immunostaining results. A, A tumor that was TP53 WT by sequencing shows focal p53 nuclear accumulation on standard section (arrow, top left) with an adjacent area lacking nuclear accumulation (arrow, bottom right). B, A tumor that was TP53 WT by sequencing because a p.C135Y mutation was detected in <5% of cells, shows focal p53 nuclear accumulation on standard section (arrow, top right) with an adjacent area lacking nuclear accumulation (arrow, lower left). C and D, Gleason score 9 biopsies with clear focal nuclear accumulation of p53 in some, but not all tumor cells (arrows). All photomicrographs are reduced from 200×.

Close modal

Previous work has categorized TP53 mutations as “disruptive” versus “nondisruptive” (42, 43), Disruptive TP53 mutations lead to complete or almost complete predicted loss of activity of the p53 protein, in contrast to nondisruptive mutations that may retain some p53 function or have gain-of-function properties. Interestingly, the majority of the nondetected alterations by p53 IHC accumulation were disruptive (80% or 8/10; Supplementary Table S3), whereas the majority of the detected mutations were nondisruptive by these criteria (76% or 19/25), suggesting that our assay is biased towards mutations that may have gain-of-function properties (as has been previously described for many of these missense mutations).

Frequency of p53 nuclear accumulation among Gleason score 9 prostate biopsies

Finally, because the biopsy setting is likely the most clinically useful context to apply the p53 IHC assay, we assessed the frequency of p53 nuclear accumulation among a cohort of 40 high-risk biopsies with Gleason score 9 or higher tumor. Of the 40 tumors selected for IHC, 39 (97.5%) had sufficient tumor for analysis. Of these, 13% (5/39) had p53 nuclear accumulation present. Interestingly, of the positive cases, 80% (4/5) had focal nuclear accumulation at biopsy (Fig. 2C and D).

p53 nuclear accumulation by IHC is minimally affected by different preanalytic variables of delay of fixation or time in fixation

VCaP and Du145 cell line xenografts, which both have missense mutation of TP53 (38, 39) and nuclear accumulation of p53 protein, were used to validate the robustness of the p53 IHC assay to preanalytic variables, including time of fixation and cold ischemia time. Time in formalin fixation did not markedly affect intensity of nuclear accumulation of p53 on IHC in DU145 xenografts, although minimal decrease in intensity was noted for VCaP xenografts. Similarly, cold ischemia time did not appreciably affect intensity of the p53 IHC signal or number of cells staining in either xenograft, although increased fixation delay did result in apparent tissue degeneration and autolysis and increased background signaling in both lines (Fig. 3).

Figure 3.

Effect of preanalytic tissue fixation conditions (cold ischemia time and time in fixation) on p53 immunostaining in two xenograft models with known TP53 missense mutations. A, Effect of variation of fixation duration (4, 12, and 24 hours in 10% neutral-buffered formalin with immediate fixation) on p53 immunostaining in DU145 and VCaP xenografts. Minimal variation in p53 nuclear accumulation is seen in DU145 cells (left panels), whereas VCaP cells show a slight decrease in intensity of staining with longer fixation conditions (right), although number of cells staining is not markedly affected. B, Effect of variation of cold ischemia duration (4, 12, 24 hours without fixation at room temperature with 24-hour fixation in 10% neutral-buffered formalin) on p53 immunostaining in DU145 and VCaP xenografts. Minimal variation in intensity of p53 nuclear accumulation is seen in DU145 cells (left) or VCaP cells (right) with variation of cold ischemia time, although tissue quality clearly decreases with increased autolysis and background staining compared with 0 hours old ischemia time (compare with last row of both panels in A).

Figure 3.

Effect of preanalytic tissue fixation conditions (cold ischemia time and time in fixation) on p53 immunostaining in two xenograft models with known TP53 missense mutations. A, Effect of variation of fixation duration (4, 12, and 24 hours in 10% neutral-buffered formalin with immediate fixation) on p53 immunostaining in DU145 and VCaP xenografts. Minimal variation in p53 nuclear accumulation is seen in DU145 cells (left panels), whereas VCaP cells show a slight decrease in intensity of staining with longer fixation conditions (right), although number of cells staining is not markedly affected. B, Effect of variation of cold ischemia duration (4, 12, 24 hours without fixation at room temperature with 24-hour fixation in 10% neutral-buffered formalin) on p53 immunostaining in DU145 and VCaP xenografts. Minimal variation in intensity of p53 nuclear accumulation is seen in DU145 cells (left) or VCaP cells (right) with variation of cold ischemia time, although tissue quality clearly decreases with increased autolysis and background staining compared with 0 hours old ischemia time (compare with last row of both panels in A).

Close modal

p53 nuclear accumulation by IHC correlates with risk of metastasis in two cohorts of surgically treated patients

Having fully analytically validated the p53 IHC assay, we next sought to clinically validate it. We assessed whether p53 nuclear accumulation by IHC is associated with metastatic progression in two partially overlapping and previously reported radical prostatectomy cohorts with clinical follow-up (32, 33). The first cohort included 322 patients in a nested case–cohort design for metastasis. Demographic and clinical–pathologic characteristics of the cohort are reported in Supplementary Table S4. This cohort included 27 tumors with p53 nuclear accumulation (8%). Because the immunostains were performed on TMAs, we first examined whether tumor sampling in TMA format might miss p53 nuclear accumulation in comparison to immunostaining on standard slides. We immunostained 49 cases from the cohort that lacked p53 nuclear accumulation on TMA spots, examining the same dominant nodule that was punched for the TMA using standard sections. None of the cases showed focal p53 nuclear accumulation in standard sections, suggesting that TMA sampling is reasonably sensitive to detect p53 nuclear accumulation and suitable for using in outcome studies. In the TMA cohort, p53 nuclear accumulation was highly enriched among high Gleason score tumors compared with lower Gleason score tumors, with nuclear accumulation in 20% of Gleason score 9–10 tumors (P < 0.001). In univariable analyses, Gleason score, positive surgical margin status, tumor stage, and p53 IHC status (Fig. 4A) were all associated with risk of metastasis, whereas patient age and preoperative PSA were not significantly associated with outcome (Table 3). The univariable HR for metastasis among cases with p53 nuclear accumulation compared with those without was 4.84 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.44–9.61]. In multivariable models, only Gleason score, surgical margin status, seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node involvement remained significantly associated with risk of metastasis. The HR for metastasis among men with p53 nuclear accumulation compared with those without was 1.87; however, this trend did not reach statistical significance (95% CI, 0.83–4.23; P = 0.13; Table 3).

Figure 4.

Cumulative incidence of metastasis in patients from intermediate and high risk prostate cancer case-cohort study (A) or post-biochemical recurrence case–cohort study (B), stratified by p53 immunostaining status. Note that the case–cohort design makes a random sampling of the cohort and then is enriched with all the metastatic patients (not selected randomly). Thus, to get the full cohort, the controls are reweighted by the inverse of sampling fraction (32, 33).

Figure 4.

Cumulative incidence of metastasis in patients from intermediate and high risk prostate cancer case-cohort study (A) or post-biochemical recurrence case–cohort study (B), stratified by p53 immunostaining status. Note that the case–cohort design makes a random sampling of the cohort and then is enriched with all the metastatic patients (not selected randomly). Thus, to get the full cohort, the controls are reweighted by the inverse of sampling fraction (32, 33).

Close modal
Table 3.

Univariable (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) models of association of p53 and clinicopathologic risk factors with metastasis in intermediate/high risk radical prostatectomy cohort

UVAMVA
VariablesHR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)P
Patient age at RP 0.99 (0.96–1.02) 0.52 1.00 (0.96–1.04) 0.93 
Log2 preoperative PSA (ng/mL) 1.23 (0.94–1.61) 0.13 1.10 (0.84–1.42) 0.49 
RP Gleason score ≤3+4 Ref ref 
RP Gleason score 4+3 1.90 (0.89–4.04) 0.1 1.81 (0.83–3.95) 0.14 
RP Gleason score 8 4.70 (2.24–9.89) <0.001 3.09 (1.26–7.56) 0.01 
RP Gleason score ≥9 13.00 (7.19–23.51) <0.001 7.12 (3.82–13.29) <0.001 
Positive surgical margins 2.08 (1.34–3.24) 0.001 1.79 (1.07–2.99) 0.03 
Extraprostatic extension 3.95 (2.17–7.19) <0.001 1.43 (0.72–2.86) 0.31 
Seminal vesicle invasion 7.96 (5.04–12.58) <0.001 3.32 (1.91–5.77) <0.001 
Lymph node invasion 6.66 (4.12–10.75) <0.001 2.63 (1.43–4.83) 0.002 
p53 normal Ref Ref 
p53 nuclear accumulation 4.84 (2.44 -9.61) <0.001 1.87 (0.83–4.23) 0.13 
UVAMVA
VariablesHR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)P
Patient age at RP 0.99 (0.96–1.02) 0.52 1.00 (0.96–1.04) 0.93 
Log2 preoperative PSA (ng/mL) 1.23 (0.94–1.61) 0.13 1.10 (0.84–1.42) 0.49 
RP Gleason score ≤3+4 Ref ref 
RP Gleason score 4+3 1.90 (0.89–4.04) 0.1 1.81 (0.83–3.95) 0.14 
RP Gleason score 8 4.70 (2.24–9.89) <0.001 3.09 (1.26–7.56) 0.01 
RP Gleason score ≥9 13.00 (7.19–23.51) <0.001 7.12 (3.82–13.29) <0.001 
Positive surgical margins 2.08 (1.34–3.24) 0.001 1.79 (1.07–2.99) 0.03 
Extraprostatic extension 3.95 (2.17–7.19) <0.001 1.43 (0.72–2.86) 0.31 
Seminal vesicle invasion 7.96 (5.04–12.58) <0.001 3.32 (1.91–5.77) <0.001 
Lymph node invasion 6.66 (4.12–10.75) <0.001 2.63 (1.43–4.83) 0.002 
p53 normal Ref Ref 
p53 nuclear accumulation 4.84 (2.44 -9.61) <0.001 1.87 (0.83–4.23) 0.13 

We next examined the association of p53 IHC status with metastasis in a partially overlapping cohort of 195 men who underwent radical prostatectomy followed by biochemical recurrence (Supplementary Table S5). In this cohort, p53 nuclear accumulation was present in 9% (17/195) of cases, and was again enriched among Gleason score 9–10 tumors (seen in 20%) compared with lower Gleason score tumors. In this cohort, univariable analyses showed that Gleason score, seminal vesicle invasion, lymph node involvement, and p53 IHC status (Fig. 4B) were associated with risk of metastasis, while patient age, preoperative PSA, extraprostatic extension, and surgical margins were not significantly associated with outcome (Table 4). The univariable HR for metastasis among cases with p53 nuclear accumulation compared with those without was 4.14 (95% CI, 2.41–7.11). In multivariable analyses, only Gleason score, seminal vesicle invasion, and p53 nuclear accumulation remained significantly associated with risk of metastasis. The multivariable HR for metastasis among cases with p53 nuclear accumulation compared with those without was 2.55 (95% CI, 1.1–5.91; P = 0.03; Table 4).

Table 4.

Univariable (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) models of association of p53 and clinicopathologic risk factors for prediction of metastasis in post-biochemical recurrence cohort

UVAMVA
VariablesHR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)P
Patient age at RP 0.99 (0.95–1.02) 0.47 0.99 (0.95–1.03) 0.55 
Log2 preoperative PSA (ng/mL) 1.05 (0.83–1.32) 0.68 0.97 (0.76–1.23) 0.79 
RP Gleason score ≤3+4 Ref Ref 
RP Gleason score 4+3 2.41 (1.18–4.94) 0.02 2.43 (1.15–5.13) 0.02 
RP Gleason score 8 4.27 (2.33–7.81) <0.001 4.13 (2.24–7.59) <0.001 
RP Gleason score ≥9 4.84 (2.78–8.41) <0.001 3.99 (2.27–7) <0.001 
Positive surgical margins 0.73 (0.46–1.16) 0.18 0.71 (0.45–1.11) 0.14 
Extraprostatic extension 1.72 (0.93–3.18) 0.09 0.87 (0.45–1.7) 0.68 
Seminal vesicle invasion 2.91 (1.87–4.53) <0.001 2.2 (1.35–3.57) 0.001 
Lymph node invasion 1.78 (1.12–2.81) 0.01 0.95 (0.55–1.63) 0.86 
p53 normal Ref Ref 
p53 nuclear accumulation 4.14 (2.41–7.11) <0.001 2.55 (1.1–5.91) 0.03 
UVAMVA
VariablesHR (95% CI)PHR (95% CI)P
Patient age at RP 0.99 (0.95–1.02) 0.47 0.99 (0.95–1.03) 0.55 
Log2 preoperative PSA (ng/mL) 1.05 (0.83–1.32) 0.68 0.97 (0.76–1.23) 0.79 
RP Gleason score ≤3+4 Ref Ref 
RP Gleason score 4+3 2.41 (1.18–4.94) 0.02 2.43 (1.15–5.13) 0.02 
RP Gleason score 8 4.27 (2.33–7.81) <0.001 4.13 (2.24–7.59) <0.001 
RP Gleason score ≥9 4.84 (2.78–8.41) <0.001 3.99 (2.27–7) <0.001 
Positive surgical margins 0.73 (0.46–1.16) 0.18 0.71 (0.45–1.11) 0.14 
Extraprostatic extension 1.72 (0.93–3.18) 0.09 0.87 (0.45–1.7) 0.68 
Seminal vesicle invasion 2.91 (1.87–4.53) <0.001 2.2 (1.35–3.57) 0.001 
Lymph node invasion 1.78 (1.12–2.81) 0.01 0.95 (0.55–1.63) 0.86 
p53 normal Ref Ref 
p53 nuclear accumulation 4.14 (2.41–7.11) <0.001 2.55 (1.1–5.91) 0.03 

Herein, we have extensively preanalytically, analytically, and clinically validated a clinical-grade and automated IHC assay for identifying the presence of deleterious TP53 missense mutations in primary prostate tumors. In one of the largest studies in prostate cancer to compare an IHC assay with NGS data, we found that p53 IHC is 95% sensitive and nearly 90% specific for TP53 missense mutation detection compared to TP53 sequencing in over 100 prostate tumors. Importantly, the IHC assay is fairly robust to preanalytic variables such as cold ischemia time and tissue fixation duration. For clinical validation of the assay, we show that nuclear accumulation of p53 protein is robustly associated with poor outcomes in two overlapping clinical cohorts of surgically treated primary prostate tumors. Given the high sensitivity and specificity of the IHC assay with respect to sequencing, we propose that p53 IHC is a cost-effective and widely available method to screen primary prostate tumors for prediction of aggressiveness and outcome and is feasible to perform in high risk prostate biopsies. In addition, IHC provides an invaluable in situ technology to screen for focal TP53 mutations. Recent ultra-deep sequencing and clonal evolution studies have suggested that TP53 mutations, although generally occurring early in the primary tumor (11–14), may be quite focal and heterogeneous in primary prostate tumors (12, 13, 47). Indeed, in this study, we have also observed frequent heterogeneity of p53 nuclear accumulation in as many as 40% of tumors. Although tumor heterogeneity is a challenge for any genomic technology, IHC is perfectly suited to screen large areas of tumor for focal alterations at a low cost, and thus would be quite useful in this regard in heterogeneous tumors.

The TP53 gene is altered in nearly 50% of human tumors overall, giving it the dubious distinction of being the most frequently mutated gene in human cancer (48). However, compared with other epithelial tumors, TP53 mutation is actually relatively infrequent in prostate cancer, with the prevalence hovering around 7% of contemporary surgical cohorts such as the TCGA cohort, with an additional 1% or so of tumors harboring homozygous deletions involving TP53 (5). The low rate of TP53 alteration in prostate cancer may be a reflection of the generally lower mutational burden seen in this tumor type compared with other carcinomas. Interestingly, however, in recent sequencing efforts in CRPC, the rate of TP53 mutations was dramatically increased compared with what was observed in the primary setting, with up to 40% of CRPC tumors showing TP53 mutations and another 10% or so showing homozygous deletions or genomic rearrangements involving TP53 (4). This significant enrichment of TP53 alterations in CRPC compared with primary tumors was rivaled only by that seen with alterations in the androgen receptor (AR), where genomic alterations are directly and heavily selected for after the imposition of hormonal therapies. Given that TP53 mutations generally occur early in tumor progression, occurring in the primary tumor before clonal divergence in the metastatic setting, these data suggest that primary tumors with TP53 alterations very likely have an unusually aggressive clinical course, which could potentially be predicted from an early timepoint in clinical care.

Of interest, in both the primary and metastatic settings, TP53 mutations are fairly evenly split in prostate cancer between missense mutations and nonsense/frameshift/indel mutations (4, 5). This is in stark contrast to other carcinomas, where missense mutations are more heavily favored, comprising over three quarters of catalogued mutations, compared with nonsense/frameshift/indel alterations (49). Although it has been debated for some time, it is increasingly clear in other tumor types that TP53 missense mutations may be a fairly unique class of alteration associated with gain-of-function, rather than simple loss-of-function or dominant-negative phenotypes as was originally thought (10, 50–53). Indeed, even the subtype of missense mutation may confer specific transcriptional or other gain-of-function activities (10, 54). However, this remains to be proven for prostate cancer, and it is currently unknown whether the clinical outcomes of patients with TP53 nonsense/frameshift/indel alterations differ significantly from those with missense mutations. p53 missense mutation, as detected by the IHC assay described in this study, is clearly associated with adverse outcomes in surgical cohorts of prostate cancer patients. Whether TP53 loss-of-function alterations (such as nonsense/frameshift/indel mutations that are not detected by the current IHC assay) have a similar prognosis is unclear. Future studies will examine these questions in cohorts with extensive clinical follow-up.

One clear limitation of the IHC assay described herein is its inability to detect nonsense/frameshift/indel alterations in TP53, likely due to the relatively low overall expression of p53 protein in benign prostate glands and those tumors lacking missense mutations. Of interest, the same assay did successfully detect mutations resulting in loss of protein in ovarian carcinomas, perhaps because the endogenous expression of wild-type p53 protein in the ovary is relatively higher than that seen in the prostate, enabling more sensitive detection of protein loss (22). Along the same lines, we also found that cell lines seemed to have relatively high basal levels of p53 protein expression, enabling us to successfully distinguish those with nonsense/frameshift/indel alterations or homozygous deletions from those with wild-type TP53 in most cases. However, prostate tumor tissue showed low basal expression of p53, making it impossible to detect loss of the protein in intermingled tumor cells. With this limitation in mind, it will be of particular interest to determine whether tumors with p53 protein loss due to nonsense/frameshift/indel alterations or homozygous deletions, have similarly poor outcomes as tumors with TP53 missense mutations which are detected by our IHC assay. If so, then it may be preferable to do NGS on prostate tumors, either alone or after IHC screening to rule out or enrich for focal alterations. If not, then IHC alone may be a convenient and inexpensive assay that is easily deployed to community pathology practices to test for clinically significant and heterogeneous TP53 alterations in primary prostate tumors.

Our objective in this study was to analytically, preanalytically and clinically validate p53 nuclear accumulation as a prognostic biomarker in prostate cancer. Additional large cohorts and future studies are required to examine the clinical utility of p53 nuclear accumulation and these studies will discern whether the IHC assay described herein adds substantially to current clinical–pathologic parameters for prognostication in primary prostate cancer. Because p53 nuclear accumulation was far more frequent in high grade (Gleason score 9–10) carcinomas compared with all other grades, performing p53 immunostaining on all primary prostate cancers at diagnosis is unlikely to be efficient. Rather, we would propose that evaluation by p53 IHC be limited to high grade, high risk tumors at diagnosis. In this group, it will be important to evaluate in future studies and clinical trials whether p53 nuclear accumulation predicts duration of response to hormonal therapies and/or a greater risk of neuroendocrine transdifferentiation, adding to current prognostic algorithms.

A.E. Ross has ownership interests (including patents) in and is a consultant/advisory board member for GenomeDx. E. Schaeffer is a consultant/advisory board member for GenomeDx and OPKO. T.L. Lotan reports receiving commercial research support from Ventana/Roche. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Conception and design: M.C. Haffner, A.M. De Marzo, G.J. Netto, E.M. Schaeffer, T.L. Lotan

Development of methodology: R. Sharma, A.M. De Marzo, T.L. Lotan

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): L.B. Guedes, F. Almutairi, M.C. Haffner, A.M. De Marzo, G.J. Netto, W.B. Isaacs, A.E. Ross, T.L. Lotan

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): L.B. Guedes, G. Rajoria, Z. Liu, S. Klimek, R. Zoino, K. Yousefi, W.B. Isaacs, E.M. Schaeffer, T.L. Lotan

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: L.B. Guedes, K. Yousefi, G.J. Netto, A.E. Ross, E.M. Schaeffer, T.L. Lotan

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): G. Rajoria, Z. Liu, T.L. Lotan

Study supervision: Z. Liu, A.M. De Marzo, E.M. Schaeffer, T.L. Lotan

The authors thank Nicole Castagna for assistance with xenograft studies. The authors would like to acknowledge the American Association for Cancer Research and its financial and material support in the development of the AACR Project GENIE registry, as well as members of the consortium for their commitment to data sharing. Interpretations are the responsibility of study authors.

Funding for this research was provided in part by a Transformative Impact Award from the CDMRP (W81XWH-12-PCRP-TIA, to T.L. Lotan) and the NIH/NCI Prostate SPORE P50CA58236.

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.
Effert
PJ
,
McCoy
RH
,
Walther
PJ
,
Liu
ET
. 
p53 gene alterations in human prostate carcinoma
.
J Urol
1993
;
150
:
257
61
.
2.
Brooks
JD
,
Bova
GS
,
Ewing
CM
,
Piantadosi
S
,
Carter
BS
,
Robinson
JC
, et al
An uncertain role for p53 gene alterations in human prostate cancers
.
Cancer Res
1996
;
56
:
3814
22
.
3.
Meyers
FJ
,
Gumerlock
PH
,
Chi
SG
,
Borchers
H
,
Deitch
AD
,
deVere White
RW
. 
Very frequent p53 mutations in metastatic prostate carcinoma and in matched primary tumors
.
Cancer
1998
;
83
:
2534
9
.
4.
Robinson
D
,
Van Allen
EM
,
Wu
YM
,
Schultz
N
,
Lonigro
RJ
,
Mosquera
JM
, et al
Integrative clinical genomics of advanced prostate cancer
.
Cell
2015
;
161
:
1215
28
.
5.
Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network
. 
The molecular taxonomy of primary prostate cancer
.
Cell
2015
;
163
:
1011
25
.
6.
Tan
HL
,
Sood
A
,
Rahimi
HA
,
Wang
W
,
Gupta
N
,
Hicks
J
, et al
Rb loss is characteristic of prostatic small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma
.
Clin Cancer Res
2014
;
20
:
890
903
.
7.
Peifer
M
,
Fernandez-Cuesta
L
,
Sos
ML
,
George
J
,
Seidel
D
,
Kasper
LH
, et al
Integrative genome analyses identify key somatic driver mutations of small-cell lung cancer
.
Nat Genet
2012
;
44
:
1104
10
.
8.
Mu
P
,
Zhang
Z
,
Benelli
M
,
Karthaus
WR
,
Hoover
E
,
Chen
CC
, et al
SOX2 promotes lineage plasticity and antiandrogen resistance in TP53- and RB1-deficient prostate cancer
.
Science
2017
;
355
:
84
8
.
9.
Ku
SY
,
Rosario
S
,
Wang
Y
,
Mu
P
,
Seshadri
M
,
Goodrich
ZW
, et al
Rb1 and Trp53 cooperate to suppress prostate cancer lineage plasticity, metastasis, and antiandrogen resistance
.
Science
2017
;
355
:
78
83
.
10.
Brosh
R
,
Rotter
V
. 
When mutants gain new powers: news from the mutant p53 field
.
Nat Rev Cancer
2009
;
9
:
701
13
.
11.
Gundem
G
,
Van Loo
P
,
Kremeyer
B
,
Alexandrov
LB
,
Tubio
JM
,
Papaemmanuil
E
, et al
The evolutionary history of lethal metastatic prostate cancer
.
Nature
2015
;
520
:
353
7
.
12.
Hong
MK
,
Macintyre
G
,
Wedge
DC
,
Van Loo
P
,
Patel
K
,
Lunke
S
, et al
Tracking the origins and drivers of subclonal metastatic expansion in prostate cancer
.
Nat Commun
2015
;
6
:
6605
.
13.
Haffner
MC
,
Mosbruger
T
,
Esopi
DM
,
Fedor
H
,
Heaphy
CM
,
Walker
DA
, et al
Tracking the clonal origin of lethal prostate cancer
.
J Clin Invest
2013
;
123
:
4918
22
.
14.
Navone
NM
,
Labate
ME
,
Troncoso
P
,
Pisters
LL
,
Conti
CJ
,
von Eschenbach
AC
, et al
p53 mutations in prostate cancer bone metastases suggest that selected p53 mutants in the primary site define foci with metastatic potential
.
J Urol
1999
;
161
:
304
8
.
15.
Linzer
DI
,
Levine
AJ
. 
Characterization of a 54K dalton cellular SV40 tumor antigen present in SV40-transformed cells and uninfected embryonal carcinoma cells
.
Cell
1979
;
17
:
43
52
.
16.
DeLeo
AB
,
Jay
G
,
Appella
E
,
Dubois
GC
,
Law
LW
,
Old
LJ
. 
Detection of a transformation-related antigen in chemically induced sarcomas and other transformed cells of the mouse
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
1979
;
76
:
2420
4
.
17.
Rotter
V
,
Witte
ON
,
Coffman
R
,
Baltimore
D
. 
Abelson murine leukemia virus-induced tumors elicit antibodies against a host cell protein, P50
.
J Virol
1980
;
36
:
547
55
.
18.
Rotter
V
,
Boss
MA
,
Baltimore
D
. 
Increased concentration of an apparently identical cellular protein in cells transformed by either Abelson murine leukemia virus or other transforming agents
.
J Virol
1981
;
38
:
336
46
.
19.
Kubbutat
MH
,
Jones
SN
,
Vousden
KH
. 
Regulation of p53 stability by Mdm2
.
Nature
1997
;
387
:
299
303
.
20.
Finlay
CA
,
Hinds
PW
,
Tan
TH
,
Eliyahu
D
,
Oren
M
,
Levine
AJ
. 
Activating mutations for transformation by p53 produce a gene product that forms an hsc70-p53 complex with an altered half-life
.
Mol Cell Biol
1988
;
8
:
531
9
.
21.
Iggo
R
,
Gatter
K
,
Bartek
J
,
Lane
D
,
Harris
AL
. 
Increased expression of mutant forms of p53 oncogene in primary lung cancer
.
Lancet
1990
;
335
:
675
9
.
22.
Yemelyanova
A
,
Vang
R
,
Kshirsagar
M
,
Lu
D
,
Marks
MA
,
Shih Ie
M
, et al
Immunohistochemical staining patterns of p53 can serve as a surrogate marker for TP53 mutations in ovarian carcinoma: an immunohistochemical and nucleotide sequencing analysis
.
Mod Pathol
2011
;
24
:
1248
53
.
23.
Liu
J
,
Li
W
,
Deng
M
,
Liu
D
,
Ma
Q
,
Feng
X
. 
Immunohistochemical determination of p53 protein overexpression for predicting p53 gene mutations in hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis
.
PLoS One
2016
;
11
:
e0159636
.
24.
Navone
NM
,
Troncoso
P
,
Pisters
LL
,
Goodrow
TL
,
Palmer
JL
,
Nichols
WW
, et al
p53 protein accumulation and gene mutation in the progression of human prostate carcinoma
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
1993
;
85
:
1657
69
.
25.
Eastham
JA
,
Stapleton
AM
,
Gousse
AE
,
Timme
TL
,
Yang
G
,
Slawin
KM
, et al
Association of p53 mutations with metastatic prostate cancer
.
Clin Cancer Res
1995
;
1
:
1111
8
.
26.
Hall
MC
,
Navone
NM
,
Troncoso
P
,
Pollack
A
,
Zagars
GK
,
von Eschenbach
AC
, et al
Frequency and characterization of p53 mutations in clinically localized prostate cancer
.
Urology
1995
;
45
:
470
5
.
27.
Bauer
JJ
,
Sesterhenn
IA
,
Mostofi
KF
,
McLeod
DG
,
Srivastava
S
,
Moul
JW
. 
p53 nuclear protein expression is an independent prognostic marker in clinically localized prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy
.
Clin Cancer Res
1995
;
1
:
1295
300
.
28.
Heidenberg
HB
,
Sesterhenn
IA
,
Gaddipati
JP
,
Weghorst
CM
,
Buzard
GS
,
Moul
JW
, et al
Alteration of the tumor suppressor gene p53 in a high fraction of hormone refractory prostate cancer
.
J Urol
1995
;
154
:
414
21
.
29.
Bauer
JJ
,
Sesterhenn
IA
,
Mostofi
FK
,
McLeod
DG
,
Srivastava
S
,
Moul
JW
. 
Elevated levels of apoptosis regulator proteins p53 and bcl-2 are independent prognostic biomarkers in surgically treated clinically localized prostate cancer
.
J Urol
1996
;
156
:
1511
6
.
30.
Griewe
GL
,
Dean
RC
,
Zhang
W
,
Young
D
,
Sesterhenn
IA
,
Shanmugam
N
, et al
p53 Immunostaining guided laser capture microdissection (p53-LCM) defines the presence of p53 gene mutations in focal regions of primary prostate cancer positive for p53 protein
.
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
2003
;
6
:
281
5
.
31.
Kluth
M
,
Harasimowicz
S
,
Burkhardt
L
,
Grupp
K
,
Krohn
A
,
Prien
K
, et al
Clinical significance of different types of p53 gene alteration in surgically treated prostate cancer
.
Int J Cancer
2014
;
135
:
1369
80
.
32.
Ross
AE
,
Johnson
MH
,
Yousefi
K
,
Davicioni
E
,
Netto
GJ
,
Marchionni
L
, et al
Tissue-based genomics augments post-prostatectomy risk stratification in a natural history cohort of intermediate- and high-risk men
.
J Urol
2016
;
196
:
1436
44
.
33.
Johnson
MH
,
Ross
AE
,
Alshalalfa
M
,
Erho
N
,
Yousefi
K
,
Glavaris
S
, et al
SPINK1 defines a molecular subtype of prostate cancer in men with more rapid progression in an at risk, natural history radical prostatectomy cohort
.
J Urol
2016
;
196
:
1436
44
.
34.
Liu
W
,
Laitinen
S
,
Khan
S
,
Vihinen
M
,
Kowalski
J
,
Yu
G
, et al
Copy number analysis indicates monoclonal origin of lethal metastatic prostate cancer
.
Nat Med
2009
;
15
:
559
65
.
35.
Liu
W
,
Xie
CC
,
Thomas
CY
,
Kim
ST
,
Lindberg
J
,
Egevad
L
, et al
Genetic markers associated with early cancer-specific mortality following prostatectomy
.
Cancer
2013
;
119
:
2405
12
.
36.
Tsai
H
,
Morais
CL
,
Alshalalfa
M
,
Tan
HL
,
Haddad
Z
,
Hicks
J
, et al
Cyclin D1 loss distinguishes prostatic small-cell carcinoma from most prostatic adenocarcinomas
.
Clin Cancer Res
2015
;
21
:
5619
29
.
37.
Lotan
TL
,
Gurel
B
,
Sutcliffe
S
,
Esopi
D
,
Liu
W
,
Xu
J
, et al
PTEN protein loss by immunostaining: analytic validation and prognostic indicator for a high risk surgical cohort of prostate cancer patients
.
Clin Cancer Res
2011
;
17
:
6563
73
.
38.
Isaacs
WB
,
Carter
BS
,
Ewing
CM
. 
Wild-type p53 suppresses growth of human prostate cancer cells containing mutant p53 alleles
.
Cancer Res
1991
;
51
:
4716
20
.
39.
van Bokhoven
A
,
Varella-Garcia
M
,
Korch
C
,
Johannes
WU
,
Smith
EE
,
Miller
HL
, et al
Molecular characterization of human prostate carcinoma cell lines
.
Prostate
2003
;
57
:
205
25
.
40.
Hedayati
M
,
Haffner
MC
,
Coulter
JB
,
Raval
RR
,
Zhang
Y
,
Zhou
H
, et al
Androgen deprivation followed by acute androgen stimulation selectively sensitizes AR-positive prostate cancer cells to ionizing radiation
.
Clin Cancer Res
2016
;
22
:
3310
9
.
41.
The AACR Project GENIE Consortium
. 
AACR Project GENIE: powering precision medicine through an international consortium
,
in press
.
42.
Poeta
ML
,
Manola
J
,
Goldwasser
MA
,
Forastiere
A
,
Benoit
N
,
Califano
JA
, et al
TP53 mutations and survival in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck
.
N Engl J Med
2007
;
357
:
2552
61
.
43.
Molina-Vila
MA
,
Bertran-Alamillo
J
,
Gasco
A
,
Mayo-de-las-Casas
C
,
Sanchez-Ronco
M
,
Pujantell-Pastor
L
, et al
Nondisruptive p53 mutations are associated with shorter survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer
.
Clin Cancer Res
2014
;
20
:
4647
59
.
44.
Therneau
TM
,
Li
H
. 
Computing the Cox model for case cohort designs
.
Lifetime Data Anal
1999
;
5
:
99
112
.
45.
Barlow
WE
,
Ichikawa
L
,
Rosner
D
,
Izumi
S
. 
Analysis of case-cohort designs
.
J Clin Epidemiol
1999
;
52
:
1165
72
.
46.
Ikediobi
ON
,
Davies
H
,
Bignell
G
,
Edkins
S
,
Stevens
C
,
O'Meara
S
, et al
Mutation analysis of 24 known cancer genes in the NCI-60 cell line set
.
Mol Cancer Ther
2006
;
5
:
2606
12
.
47.
Mirchandani
D
,
Zheng
J
,
Miller
GJ
,
Ghosh
AK
,
Shibata
DK
,
Cote
RJ
, et al
Heterogeneity in intratumor distribution of p53 mutations in human prostate cancer
.
Am J Pathol
1995
;
147
:
92
101
.
48.
Kandoth
C
,
McLellan
MD
,
Vandin
F
,
Ye
K
,
Niu
B
,
Lu
C
, et al
Mutational landscape and significance across 12 major cancer types
.
Nature
2013
;
502
:
333
9
.
49.
Petitjean
A
,
Mathe
E
,
Kato
S
,
Ishioka
C
,
Tavtigian
SV
,
Hainaut
P
, et al
Impact of mutant p53 functional properties on TP53 mutation patterns and tumor phenotype: lessons from recent developments in the IARC TP53 database
.
Hum Mutat
2007
;
28
:
622
9
.
50.
Wolf
D
,
Harris
N
,
Rotter
V
. 
Reconstitution of p53 expression in a nonproducer Ab-MuLV-transformed cell line by transfection of a functional p53 gene
.
Cell
1984
;
38
:
119
26
.
51.
Shaulsky
G
,
Goldfinger
N
,
Rotter
V
. 
Alterations in tumor development in vivo mediated by expression of wild type or mutant p53 proteins
.
Cancer Res
1991
;
51
:
5232
7
.
52.
Dittmer
D
,
Pati
S
,
Zambetti
G
,
Chu
S
,
Teresky
AK
,
Moore
M
, et al
Gain of function mutations in p53
.
Nat Genet
1993
;
4
:
42
6
.
53.
Song
H
,
Hollstein
M
,
Xu
Y
. 
p53 gain-of-function cancer mutants induce genetic instability by inactivating ATM
.
Nat Cell Biol
2007
;
9
:
573
80
.
54.
Walerych
D
,
Lisek
K
,
Del Sal
G
. 
Mutant p53: one, no one, and one hundred thousand
.
Front Oncol
2015
;
5
:
289
.

Supplementary data