Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 308

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Associations of Luminal and Basal Subtyping of Prostate Cancer With Prognosis and Response to Androgen Deprivation Therapy

Open access
Zhao, Shuang G., Chang, S. Laura, Erho, Nicholas, Yu, Menggang, Lehrer, Jonathan, Alshalalfa, Mohammed, Speers, Corey, Cooperberg, Matthew R., Kim, Won, Ryan, Charles J., Den, Robert B., Freedland, Stephen J., Posadas, Edwin, Sandler, Howard, Klein, Eric A., Black, Peter, Seiler, Roland, Tomlins, Scott A., Chinnaiyan, Arul M., Jenkins, Robert B., Davicioni, Elai, Ross, Ashley E., Schaeffer, Edward M., Nguyen, Paul L., Carroll, Peter R., Karnes, R. Jeffrey, Spratt, Daniel E., Feng, Felix Y.·2017·JAMA Oncology

Abstract

Importance: There is a clear need for a molecular subtyping approach in prostate cancer to identify clinically distinct subgroups that benefit from specific therapies. Objectives: To identify prostate cancer subtypes based on luminal and basal lineage and to determine associations with clinical outcomes and response to treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: The PAM50 classifier was used to subtype 1567 retrospectively collected (median follow-up, 10 years) and 2215 prospectively collected prostate cancer samples into luminal- and basal-like subtypes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Metastasis, biochemical recurrence, overall survival, prostate cancer–specific survival, associations with biological pathways, and clinicopathologic variables were the main outcomes. Results: Among the 3782 samples, the PAM50 classifier consistently segregated prostate cancer into 3 subtypes in both the retrospective and prospective cohorts: luminal A (retrospective, 538 [34.3%]; prospective, 737 [33.3%]), luminal B (retrospective, 447 [28.5%]; prospective, 723 [32.6%]), and basal (retrospective, 582 [37.1%]; prospective, 755 [34.1%]). Known luminal lineage markers, such as NKX3.1 and KRT18, were enriched in luminal-like cancers, and the basal lineage CD49f signature was enriched in basal-like cancers, demonstrating the connection between these subtypes and established prostate cancer biology. In the retrospective cohort, luminal B prostate cancers exhibited the poorest clinical prognoses on both univariable and multivariable analyses accounting for standard clinicopathologic prognostic factors (10-year biochemical recurrence-free survival [bRFS], 29%; distant metastasis-free survival [DMFS], 53%; prostate cancer-specific survival [PCSS], 78%; overall survival [OS], 69%), followed by basal prostate cancers (10-year bRFS, 39%; DMFS, 73%; PCSS, 86%; OS, 80%) and luminal A prostate cancers (10-year bRFS, 41%; DMFS, 73%; PCSS, 89%; OS, 82%). Although both luminal-like subtypes were associated with increased androgen receptor expression and signaling, only luminal B prostate cancers were significantly associated with postoperative response to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in a subset analysis in our retrospective cohorts (n = 315) matching patients based on clinicopathologic variables (luminal B 10-year metastasis: treated, 33% vs untreated, 55%; nonluminal B 10-year metastasis: treated, 37% vs untreated, 21%; P = .006 for interaction). Conclusions and Relevance: Luminal- and basal-like prostate cancers demonstrate divergent clinical behavior, and patients with luminal B tumors respond better to postoperative ADT than do patients with non–luminal B tumors. These findings contribute novel insight into prostate cancer biology, providing a potential clinical tool to personalize ADT treatment for prostate cancer by predicting which men may benefit from ADT after surgery.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0751

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 48 references

Cited by

See all 308

Metadata

Authors
Zhao, S. G., Chang, S. L., Erho, N., Yu, M., Lehrer, J., Alshalalfa, M., Speers, C., Cooperberg, M. R., Kim, W., Ryan, C. J., Den, R. B., Freedland, S. J., Posadas, E., Sandler, H., Klein, E. A., Black, P., Seiler, R., Tomlins, S. A., Chinnaiyan, A. M., Jenkins, R. B., Davicioni, E., Ross, A. E., Schaeffer, E. M., Nguyen, P. L., Carroll, P. R., Karnes, R. J., Spratt, D. E., & Feng, F. Y.
Venue
JAMA Oncology
Published
2017-12-01
Volume
3
Issue
12
Pages
1663
ISSN
2374-2437 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2613162682
Cited by
308
References
48
FWCI
19.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Associations of Luminal and Basal Subtyping of Prostate Cancer With Prognosis and Response to Androgen Deprivation Therapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0751
The paper
Zhao, S. G., Chang, S. L., Erho, N., Yu, M., Lehrer, J., Alshalalfa, M., Speers, C., Cooperberg, M. R., Kim, W., Ryan, C. J., Den, R. B., Freedland, S. J., Posadas, E., Sandler, H., Klein, E. A., Black, P., Seiler, R., Tomlins, S. A., Chinnaiyan, A. M., . . . Feng, F. Y. (2017). Associations of Luminal and Basal Subtyping of Prostate Cancer With Prognosis and Response to Androgen Deprivation Therapy. JAMA Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0751

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.