Enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) expression is an independent prognostic factor in renal cell carcinoma

  • Nina Wagener1, 2,

    Affiliated with

    • Stephan Macher-Goeppinger3,

      Affiliated with

      • Maria Pritsch4,

        Affiliated with

        • Johannes Hüsing5,

          Affiliated with

          • Karin Hoppe-Seyler1,

            Affiliated with

            • Peter Schirmacher3,

              Affiliated with

              • Jesco Pfitzenmaier6,

                Affiliated with

                • Axel Haferkamp7,

                  Affiliated with

                  • Felix Hoppe-Seyler1Email author and

                    Affiliated with

                    • Markus Hohenfellner2Email author

                      Affiliated with

                      BMC Cancer201010:524

                      DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-524

                      Received: 1 April 2010

                      Accepted: 4 October 2010

                      Published: 4 October 2010

                      Abstract

                      Background

                      The enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) gene exerts oncogene-like activities and its (over)expression has been linked to several human malignancies. Here, we studied a possible association between EZH2 expression and prognosis in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

                      Methods

                      EZH2 protein expression in RCC specimens was analyzed by immunohistochemistry using a tissue microarray (TMA) containing RCC tumor tissue and corresponding normal tissue samples of 520 patients. For immunohistochemical assessment of EZH2 expression, nuclear staining quantity was evaluated using a semiquantitative score. The effect of EZH2 expression on cancer specific survival (CSS) was assessed by univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses.

                      Results

                      During follow-up, 147 patients (28%) had died of their disease, median follow-up of patients still alive was 6.0 years (range 0-16.1 years). EZH2 nuclear staining was present in tumor cores of 411 (79%) patients. A multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that high nuclear EZH2 expression was an independent predictor of poor CSS (> 25-50% vs. 0%: HR 2.72, p = 0.025) in patients suffering from non-metastatic RCC. Apart from high nuclear EZH2 expression, tumor stage and Fuhrman's grading emerged as significant prognostic markers. In metastatic disease, nuclear EZH2 expression and histopathological subtype were independent predictive parameters of poor CSS (EZH2: 1-5%: HR 2.63, p = 0.043, >5-25%: HR 3.35, p = 0.013, >25%-50%: HR 4.92, p = 0.003, all compared to 0%: HR 0.36, p = 0.025, respectively).

                      Conclusions

                      This study defines EZH2 as a powerful independent unfavourable prognostic marker of CSS in patients with metastatic and non-metastatic RCC.

                      Background

                      Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is estimated to account for more than 57000 new cases and 13000 cancer-related deaths in the United States in 2009, making it the second most lethal of all urological cancers [1]. Defects in von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) tumor suppressor gene function appears to be one key event in clear cell RCC, in both hereditary and sporadic cases [2]. However, the variable clinical picture of the resulting neoplasms is likely to be strongly determined by the complex interplay of additional cellular alterations, among which the role of epigenetic modulation of gene expression is becoming more and more acknowledged [2].

                      The enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) gene encodes a polycomb group (PcG) protein which acts as a histone methyltransferase [3, 4] and also may control DNA methylation [5]. There is accumulating experimental evidence that EZH2 can contribute to the deregulation of cellular growth as a bona fide oncogene. Overexpression of EZH2 conferred cellular growth advantage in vitro [6, 7], promoted invasion [7], and exhibited oncogenic properties in nude mice [8]. Vice versa, inhibition of EZH2 expression by antisense constructs or RNA interference (RNAi) resulted in growth inhibition of cancer cells [9, 10], and induced anoikis in circulating prostate carcinoma precursor cells [11] or apoptotic cell death in breast cancer cells [12]. We recently found that inhibition of endogenous EZH2 expression in RCC cell lines by RNAi was linked to reduced proliferation and increased apoptosis in RCC [13] and cervical carcinoma cells [14].

                      Notably, EZH2 may serve as a novel marker with potential for clinical oncology. EZH2 expression was linked to an increased risk for breast cancer development in females [15, 16], suggesting that EZH2 detection could have diagnostic value for this cancer form. Furthermore, in both prostate [9, 17] and breast cancer [7, 17], EZH2 expression was associated to more aggressive tumor subgroups, indicating that EZH2 expression may also serve as a novel prognostic marker.

                      In view of its growth-promoting activities in RCC cell lines [13], we here investigated the potential of EZH2 to serve as a prognostic marker for RCC. EZH2 protein expression was analyzed in primary RCC specimens and in corresponding non-tumorous tissue, using a tissue microarray (TMA) encompassing tissue cores of 520 patients. In addition, we investigated the association of EZH2 expression with cancer specific survival (CSS) in univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. We show that EZH2 is significantly overexpressed in primary RCC, when compared with histologically normal renal tissue. Moreover, high nuclear EZH2 expression in non-metastatic disease, and nuclear EZH2 expression in metastatic disease are unfavourable independent predictive parameters of CSS. The concordance probability of the Cox regression models including EZH2 was higher compared to models excluding EZH2, for both metastatic and non-metastatic disease. We conclude that EZH2 is a powerful and independent predictor of RCC-related death, which can add to the development of a modified risk stratification system.

                      Methods

                      Patients

                      Clinical data of patients (n = 768) with RCC who underwent radical nephrectomy or nephron-sparing surgery at the Department of Urology, University of Heidelberg, between 1990 and 2005 and had no other malignant tumor before or within one month after surgery were entered into a prospective database. Tumor stage was classified according to the tumor node metastasis staging system of 2002, tumors were graded on the basis the Fuhrman four-tiered nuclear grading system. In patients with metastases, the Motzer criteria (haemoglobin, corrected calcium, and Karnofsky performance scale) [18] were evaluated and patients categorized to one of the following risk groups: low, intermediate or high risk. Patients were prospectively evaluated every 3 months for the first 2 years after surgery, every 6 months for the next 3 years, and yearly thereafter (chest x-ray or thoracic CT scan; abdominal sonography or CT scan or MRI; serum chemistry). No adjuvant therapy was administered after radical surgery. Patients with metastases, a Karnofsky severity rating ≥ 80, and with no medical contraindications received palliative Interferon-alpha- and Interleukin-2-based immunotherapy. No tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been given.

                      The work was covered by a votum of the ethical committee of the University of Heidelberg No. 206/2005. Informed and/or written consent was obtained from each patient.

                      Tissue micro arrays

                      Tissue samples of all 768 patients included in the prospective clinical database were obtained from the Tissue Bank of the National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg and included in a TMA, containing 768 primary tumor and corresponding normal tissue samples, as previously described [19]. Briefly, representative tissue blocks were selected as donor blocks for the TMA. Sections were cut from each donor block and stained with H&E. Then, a morphologically representative region was chosen from each of the RCC and normal renal tissue samples. Two cylindrical core tissue specimen per tumor block (diameter, 0.6 mm) were punched from these regions and arrayed into the recipient paraffin block using a semiautomatic system (Beecher Instruments, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA). In total, 16 tissue array blocks were generated, each containing up to 200 core tissue specimens, matching 50 patients per array.

                      Immunohistochemistry

                      The TMA slides were dewaxed and rehydrated using xylene and a series of graded alcohols, followed by heat induced antigen retrieval using a target retrieval solution (S2031, DakoCytomation, Glostrup, Denmark) in a pressure cooker for 10 min. Immunohistochemical staining was performed on an automated staining system (Techmate 500, DakoCytomation) with a mouse monoclonal anti-EZH2 antibody (1:25, BD Transduction Laboratories, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) for 45 min [15]. An avidin-biotin-complex peroxidase technique using aminoethylcarbazole for visualisation and hematoxylin for counterstaining was applied. In accordance with the manufacturers' instructions, the following solutions were used: ChemMate Detection Kit (K5003, DakoCytomation), ChemMate Buffer Kit (K5006, DakoCytomation), and, for reduction of non-specific avidin/biotin-related staining, the Avidin/Biotin Blocking Kit (SP-2001, Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, USA). Sections were thoroughly washed, glass covered, and analysed by light microscopy (Olympus Vanox-T, Hamburg, Germany), using a magnification of up to × 400. Specificity controls of the anti-EZH2 antibody included iliac lymph node metastases of prostate carcinoma [17] showing typical staining pattern. Moreover, reactive infiltrating lymphocytes, which express detectable amounts of EZH2 protein [20], served as additional internal positive controls. As a negative control for the immunohistochemical staining procedure, the primary antibody was omitted, with all other experimental conditions kept constant. For immunohistochemical assessment of EZH2 expression, frequency of nuclear staining was evaluated using a semiquantitative score: 0 = no expression; 1 = positivity in 1 to 5% = low expression; 2 = positivity in >5 to 25% = intermediate expression; 3 = positivity in >25 to 50% = high expression; and 4 = positivity in more than 50% = very high expression. The arrays were independently scored by two researcher blinded for patient outcomes. For the few instances of discrepant scoring, a consensus score was determined.

                      Study design

                      The study has been conducted on the REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) of the NCI-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics [21]. A retrospective study design was chosen, based on a prospective clinical database. Data analysis commenced in June 2006. Median follow-up of patients still alive was 6.0 years (range 0-16.1 years).

                      Patients' CSS was calculated from the date of renal surgery. The survival endpoint was the date of last follow-up or death. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to describe survival rates including pointwise asymptotic 95%-confidence intervals using Greenwood's formula for standard error. Patients with proven tumor independent death were censored. Furthermore, assuming independence of the occurrence of RCC and other primary tumors in the same patient, patient survival was censored at the time of the occurrence of a second malignoma.

                      The following clinical and pathological features were studied for their prognostic relevance on long term survival of RCC patients: Age (≥65 years vs. <65 years), sex (male vs. female), performance status (Karnofsky severity rating <80 vs. ≥80), tumor stage (Stage II, III, IV vs. I), Fuhrman's grade (grade 2, 3/4 vs. 1), histopathological subtype (clear cell RCC vs. other types), nuclear EZH2 expression (1-5%, >5-25%, >25-50%, >50% vs. 0%).

                      Statistical analysis methods

                      Association between important prognostic factors and EZH2 levels was evaluated by Fisher's exact test, in case of large contingency tables the Monte Carlo Simulation was used.

                      For the evaluation of prognostic factors the study population was divided into subgroups with and without metastatic disease.

                      No data driven combination of adjacent categories related to EZH2 expression was carried out to retain the confirmatory nature of the evaluation of EZH2.

                      Univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors were carried out within the Cox proportional hazards model using complete cases analysis.

                      For each prognostic factor the hazard ratio in the univariate analysis and the adjusted hazard ratio in the multivariate analysis are given, including the 95% confidence interval. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. For further description of the predictive value of EZH2 the concordance probability [22] of the Cox models including EZH2 were calculated and compared to the models excluding EZH2 but retaining all other variables.

                      The statistical analysis system SAS, Version 9.2 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA), the R package, Version 2.8.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria), and StatXact, Version 8.0.0 (Cytel Inc., Cambridge, CA, USA) were used for the analyses. For the calculation of the concordance probability, the CPE package offered by Mo, Goenen and Heller was used with the R programming language.

                      Results

                      In order to identify prognostic markers for RCC in a large cohort of patients, a TMA was constructed which contained RCC tumor tissue and corresponding normal renal tissue samples from 768 patients. Expression of EZH2 was analyzed by immunohistochemistry using a mouse monoclonal anti-EZH2 antibody [15]. Altogether, 520 cases (non-metastatic disease n = 433, metastatic disease n = 87) were scored for expression of EZH2. The remaining cases with insufficient tumor tissue or fixation artefacts were excluded from further analyses.

                      Typical examples are depicted in Figure 1. Negative controls showed no immunohistochemical staining (Figure 1A). Non-tumorous kidney tissue was mainly negative for EZH2 expression (Figure 1B), only sporadically proximal and distal tubular epithelial cells and infiltrating lymphocytes, if present in the tissue sample, stained positive for EZH2. In contrast, EZH2 protein expression was readily detected in 411 (79%) of the cancerous tissues, typically showing nuclear staining (Figures 1C and 1D), without predominately staining of the central or peripheral zone of tumor. Ten (2%) cases exhibited >50% EZH2-positive nuclei (Figure 1C), 36 (7%) >25-50% EZH2-positive nuclei, 99 (19%) >5-25% EZH2-positive nuclei (Figure 1D), and 266 (51%) 1-5% EZH2-positive nuclei. In contrast, 109 samples (21%) did not exhibit EZH2 nuclear staining in the tumorous tissue (Figure 1E).
                      http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2407-10-524/MediaObjects/12885_2010_Article_2323_Fig1_HTML.jpg
                      Figure 1

                      EZH2 protein expression in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and corresponding normal tissue. A Negative control: RCC tissue specimen (clear cell carcinoma), the anti-EZH2 antibody was omitted. B Normal adult kidney tissue, adjacent to the RCC tumor tissue shown in C. C Overview (left panel) and higher resolution (right panel) of the boxed area of an RCC sample (clear cell carcinoma), showing very high (> 50%) nuclear EZH2 expression (arrows). D Overview (left panel) and higher resolution (right panel) of an RCC sample (clear cell carcinoma) showing >5-25% nuclear EZH2 expression (arrows). E Overview (left panel) and higher resolution of an RCC sample (clear cell carcinoma) exhibiting 0% nuclear EZH2 staining. Scale bars, 5 μm.

                      Next, the survival of patients with RCC was calculated from the time of renal surgery. Until June 2006, 147 patients (28%) had died of their disease. The CSS rate at 1 year and at 5 years after surgery for the whole cohort of patients was 88.4% (95 CI 86.1%-90.7%) and 70.8% (95 CI 67.3%-74.4%), respectively. Clinical and pathological features of patients are summarized in Table 1.
                      Table 1

                      Summary of clinical and pathological features (study population n = 520)

                      Feature

                       

                      Number of cases

                      % of cases

                      Sex

                         
                       

                      Male

                      320

                      61.5

                       

                      Female

                      200

                      38.5

                      Age at surgery

                        
                       

                      < 65 years

                      295

                      56.7

                       

                      ≥ 65 years

                      225

                      43.3

                      Karnofsky perfomance status scale

                        
                       

                      ≥ 80%

                      476

                      91.5

                       

                      < 80%

                      44

                      8.5

                      Tumor extent (Robson)

                        
                       

                      Stage I

                      310

                      59.6

                       

                      Stage II

                      37

                      7.1

                       

                      Stage III

                      83

                      16.0

                       

                      Stage IV

                      90

                      17.3

                      Regional lymph node metastasis

                        
                       

                      N0/pN0

                      481

                      92.5

                       

                      pN+

                      39

                      7.5

                      Distant metastasis

                        
                       

                      M0

                      433

                      83.3

                       

                      M+

                      87

                      16.7

                      Fuhrman grade

                        
                       

                      G1/G2

                      417

                      80.2

                       

                      G3/G4

                      98

                      18.8

                       

                      Unclassified

                      5

                      1.0

                      Histopathological subtype

                        
                       

                      Clear cell RCC

                      422

                      81.1

                       

                      Papillary (chromophilic) RCC

                      55

                      10.6

                       

                      Chromophobe RCC

                      23

                      4.4

                       

                      Duct bellini

                      3

                      0.6

                       

                      Unclassified RCC

                      17

                      3.3

                      Patients with advanced tumor stages (3 and 4), with cancer infiltrated lymph nodes, distant metastases and/or a high Fuhrman's grading (grade 3/4) were found to have significantly more often a higher percentage of EZH2 nuclear staining when compared to patients with localized tumor disease or low Fuhrman's grading (grade 1/2). Moreover, nuclear EZH2 expression and the Motzer criteria were found to be independent parameters, whereas a dependency was seen between different histopathological subtypes and nuclear EZH2 expression (Table 2).
                      Table 2

                      Correlation of nuclear EZH2 expression with clinicopathological characteristics

                        

                      Nuclear EZH2 expression

                       
                        

                      0%

                      1-5%

                      > 5-25%

                      > 25-50%

                      > 50%

                       
                        

                      n

                      %

                      n

                      %

                      n

                      %

                      n

                      %

                      n

                      %

                      p

                      Tumor extent (Robson)

                                

                      0.0071

                       

                      Stage I

                      65

                      60

                      167

                      63

                      61

                      62

                      14

                      39

                      3

                      30

                       
                       

                      Stage II

                      9

                      8

                      24

                      9

                      2

                      2

                      2

                      6

                      0

                      0

                       
                       

                      Stage III

                      20

                      18

                      38

                      14

                      15

                      15

                      8

                      22

                      2

                      20

                       
                       

                      Stage IV

                      15

                      14

                      37

                      14

                      21

                      21

                      12

                      33

                      5

                      50

                       

                      Sex

                                 

                      0.984

                       

                      Male

                      67

                      61

                      161

                      61

                      63

                      64

                      23

                      64

                      6

                      60

                       
                       

                      Female

                      42

                      39

                      105

                      39

                      36

                      36

                      13

                      36

                      4

                      40

                       

                      Age at surgery

                                

                      0.746

                       

                      < 65 years

                      58

                      53

                      148

                      56

                      61

                      62

                      22

                      61

                      6

                      60

                       
                       

                      ≥ 65 years

                      51

                      47

                      118

                      44

                      38

                      38

                      14

                      39

                      4

                      40

                       

                      Karnofsky performance status scale

                                

                      0.404

                       

                      ≥ 80%

                      100

                      92

                      241

                      91

                      92

                      93

                      35

                      97

                      8

                      80

                       
                       

                      < 80%

                      9

                      8

                      25

                      9

                      7

                      7

                      1

                      3

                      2

                      20

                       

                      Tumor stage

                                

                      0.019

                       

                      pT1/2

                      72

                      66

                      177

                      67

                      70

                      71

                      17

                      47

                      3

                      30

                       
                       

                      pT3/4

                      37

                      34

                      89

                      33

                      29

                      29

                      19

                      53

                      7

                      70

                       

                      Regional lymph node metastasis

                                

                      0.003

                       

                      N0/pN0

                      103

                      95

                      250

                      94

                      93

                      94

                      28

                      78

                      7

                      70

                       
                       

                      pN+

                      6

                      5

                      16

                      6

                      6

                      6

                      8

                      22

                      3

                      30

                       

                      Distant metastasis

                                

                      0.005

                       

                      M0

                      94

                      86

                      231

                      87

                      78

                      79

                      24

                      67

                      6

                      60

                       
                       

                      M+

                      15

                      14

                      35

                      13

                      21

                      21

                      12

                      33

                      4

                      40

                       

                      Fuhrman grade

                                

                      < 0.0001

                       

                      G1/G2

                      91

                      83

                      224

                      85

                      78

                      80

                      20

                      56

                      4

                      40

                       
                       

                      G3/G4

                      18

                      17

                      39

                      15

                      19

                      20

                      16

                      44

                      6

                      60

                       

                      Histopathological subtype

                                

                      < 0.001**

                       

                      Clear cell RCC

                      88

                      81

                      226

                      85

                      71

                      72

                      31

                      86

                      6

                      60

                       
                       

                      Papillary (chromophilic) RCC

                      7

                      6

                      27

                      10

                      17

                      17

                      3

                      8

                      1

                      10

                       
                       

                      Chromophobe RCC

                      11

                      10

                      8

                      3

                      4

                      4

                      0

                      0

                      0

                      0

                       
                       

                      Duct Bellini

                      0

                      0

                      0

                      0

                      0

                      0

                      2

                      6

                      1

                      10

                       
                       

                      Unclassified RCC

                      3

                      3

                      5

                      2

                      7

                      7

                      0

                      0

                      2

                      20

                       

                      Motzer criteria (metastatic RCC, n = 51)

                                

                      0.731*

                       

                      Favorable

                      1

                      11

                      1

                      6

                      0

                      0

                      2

                      20

                      0

                      0

                       
                       

                      Intermediate

                      6

                      67

                      11

                      61

                      6

                      55

                      5

                      50

                      3

                      100

                       
                       

                      Poor

                      2

                      22

                      6

                      33

                      5

                      45

                      3

                      30

                      0

                      0

                       

                      Fisher's exact test* using Monte Carlo Simulation**

                      As shown in Figures 2A and 2B, Kaplan Meier cancer specific survival curves of the whole cohort of patients and of the non-metastatic subgroup revealed a worse prognosis in patients with more than 25% nuclear EZH2 staining. In patients with metastatic disease, nuclear EZH2 expression above 5% and up to 50% was an independent predictor of poor CSS (Figure 2C).
                      http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2407-10-524/MediaObjects/12885_2010_Article_2323_Fig2_HTML.jpg
                      Figure 2

                      Kaplan Meier survival curves of cancer specific survival (CSS). A CSS rates of RCC patients with non-metastatic and metastatic disease. B CSS rates in non-metastasized RCC. C CSS rates in metastatic RCC.

                      On univariate survival analyses, the risk of death from non-metastasized RCC for patients with high EZH2 positive nuclei (> 25%) was enhanced above that for RCC patients who had no (0%) nuclear EZH2 staining. Apart from EZH2, the following clinical and histopathological features showed a statistically significant impact on CSS in non-metastasized RCC patients in univariate analyses: tumor stage, grading, Karnofsky performance status, and histopathological subtype (Table 3). In metastasized RCCs, the risk of death for patients with EZH2 positive nuclei (> 5% up to 50%) was clearly enhanced above that for RCC patients who had no (0%) nuclear EZH2 staining in the tumor. In patients who had very high (> 50%) nuclear EZH2 staining, only a negative tendency but no statistically significant impact on CSS was seen, possibly due to the small number of cases investigated for this group. The same findings were observed for multivariate analyses, as discussed further below. No other of the investigated clinical or histopathological features showed a statistically significant impact on CSS in univariate analyses (Table 4).
                      Table 3

                      Analysis of cancer specific survival (CSS) in RCC, patients without metastases

                       

                      Univariate Analysis

                      Multivariate Analysis

                      Variable

                      HR

                      95% CI

                      p

                      HR

                      95% CI

                      p

                      Stage II vs. I

                      4.32

                      2.13-8.73

                      < 0.0001

                      3.11

                      1.48-6.54

                      0.003

                      Stage III vs. I

                      8.94

                      5.35-14.93

                      < 0.0001

                      4.84

                      2.66-8.80

                      < 0.0001

                      Grading 2 vs. 1

                      1.42

                      0.73-2.75

                      0.302

                      1.11

                      0.55-2.23

                      0.768

                      Grading 3/4 vs. 1

                      8.91

                      4.51-17.59

                      < 0.0001

                      2.74

                      1.26-5.95

                      0.011

                      Karnofsky < 80 vs. ≥ 80

                      3.02

                      1.66-5.48

                      0.0003

                      1.82

                      0.95-3.51

                      0.072

                      Age ≥ 65 years vs. < 65 years

                      1.50

                      0.95-2.35

                      0.081

                      1.01

                      0.62-1.65

                      0.965

                      Sex (Male vs. Female)

                      1.16

                      0.73-1.84

                      0.527

                      1.37

                      0.83-2.24

                      0.216

                      Clear cell RCC vs. non clear cell RCC

                      5.43

                      1.71-17.24

                      0.004

                      2.82

                      0.87-9.22

                      0.086

                      Nuclear EZH2 1-5% vs. 0%

                      1.16

                      0.64-2.10

                      0.615

                      1.21

                      0.66-2.21

                      0.546

                      Nuclear EZH2 >5-25% vs. 0%

                      0.57

                      0.23-1.39

                      0.215

                      0.60

                      0.22-1.59

                      0.301

                      Nuclear EZH2 >25-50% vs. 0%

                      3.44

                      1.54-7.67

                      0.003

                      2.72

                      1.14-6.50

                      0.025

                      Nuclear EZH2 >50% vs. 0%

                      5.11

                      1.47-17.76

                      0.010

                      2.20

                      0.28-17.42

                      0.456

                      Table 4

                      Analysis of cancer specific survival (CSS) in RCC, patients with metastases

                       

                      Univariate Analysis

                      Multivariate Analysis

                      Variable

                      HR

                      95% CI

                      p

                      HR

                      95% CI

                      p

                      Grading 2 vs. 1

                      0.59

                      0.24-1.44

                      0.247

                      0.65

                      0.25-1.74

                      0.395

                      Grading 3/4 vs. 1

                      1.03

                      0.43-2.45

                      0.950

                      1.18

                      0.47-3.01

                      0.725

                      Karnofsky < 80 vs. ≥ 80

                      1.90

                      0.99-3.64

                      0.054

                      2.24

                      0.99-5.05

                      0.052

                      Age ≥ 65 years vs. < 65 years

                      1.39

                      0.84-2.31

                      0.202

                      1.47

                      0.79-2.73

                      0.228

                      Sex (Male vs. Female)

                      1.28

                      0.75-2.19

                      0.372

                      1.35

                      0.74-2.45

                      0.331

                      Clear cell RCC vs. non clear cell RCC

                      0.59

                      0.25-1.38

                      0.223

                      0.36

                      0.15-0.88

                      0.025

                      Nuclear EZH2 1-5% vs. 0%

                      2.18

                      0.95-5.00

                      0.065

                      2.63

                      1.03-6.71

                      0.043

                      Nuclear EZH2 >5-25% vs. 0%

                      2.92

                      1.22-6.97

                      0.016

                      3.35

                      1.29-8.74

                      0.013

                      Nuclear EZH2 >25-50% vs. 0%

                      3.91

                      1.51-10.16

                      0.005

                      4.92

                      1.72-14.10

                      0.003

                      Nuclear EZH2 >50% vs. 0%

                      0.98

                      0.25-3.91

                      0.978

                      0.70

                      0.13-3.75

                      0.677

                      Next, we investigated whether EZH2 may also independently correlate with CSS in RCC. Multivariate Cox regression analyses on RCC outcome included tumor stage, Fuhrman's grading, Karnofsky performance status, age, sex, histopathological subtype, and EZH2 expression. These analyses revealed that >25-50% nuclear EZH2 expression in the tumor significantly correlated with an increased risk of cancer specific death in patients suffering from non-metastasized RCC (HR 2.72, p = 0.025) (Table 3). Apart from EZH2, tumor stage and high Fuhrman's grading (3/4 vs. 1) emerged as significant prognostic indicators, whereas sex, Karnofsky performance status, age, and histopathological subtype did not independently predict the clinical outcome. For metastasized RCC, 1-5%, >5-25%, and >25-50% nuclear EZH2 expression was linked to decreased CSS when compared with tumors with undetectable EZH2 expression (HR 2.63, p = 0.043, HR 3.35, p = 0.013, HR 4.92, p = 0.003). For the group of very high (> 50%) EZH2 expression no significant influence on survival could be shown in comparison to the group with non-expression of EZH2. Tumor stage, grading, Karnofsky performance status, age, and sex did not predict clinical outcome, whereas clear cell histology showed a positive correlation with CSS (HR 0.36, p = 0.025) (Table 4). In a subgroup of patients with metastatic RCC (n = 51), we included EZH2 expression and the Motzer criteria as the only two factors in a multivariate cox proportional hazards model, which reviewed EZH2 as a borderline significant factor, despite the small number of patients in the analyses (data not shown).

                      Finally, for further evaluation of the predictive value of EZH2 expression, the concordance probability of the Cox regression models including or excluding EZH2 was calculated. In RCC patients without metastases, the concordance probability of the Cox regression models including the EZH2 status was 73.4%, compared to 71.8% in models excluding the EZH2 status but retaining all other variables. In patients with RCC metastatic disease, the concordance probability including EZH2 expression was 68.4%, compared to 63.0% in models excluding EZH2 expression.

                      Discussion

                      The present study defines EZH2 as a powerful and independent negative prognostic marker of CSS in patients with metastasized and non-metastasized RCC. Thus, assessment of EZH2 expression may allow improved patient selection for systemic therapies. Moreover, integration of the EZH2 status into current prognostic models could result in more accurate survival prediction and may also be useful for individualizing follow-up and selecting patients for clinical trials.

                      RCC is commonly characterized by a poor response towards current treatment options. Even after complete resection of the primary tumor, relapse occurs in 20-30% of cases. The overall 5-year survival rate is 60%; in patients with metastases, the median survival is only about 13 months, with a 5-year survival of less than 10% [23, 24]. Cytokine therapy and novel targeted therapies, i.e. tyrosine kinase inhibitors, have been of limited benefit [23, 2529]. Progression and treatment response of the disease are still not sufficiently predictable. Suitable molecular markers could help to refine individual risk stratification and treatment plans [30]. However, for RCC, as for other cancers in general, only few markers have been validated for clinical practice. This may be partly due to the fact that many studies have been small and poorly designed, used inappropriate statistical analysis, and employed different assay methods and outcome measures [31].

                      The present study, defining EZH2 as a novel prognostic marker in RCC, has been conducted according to the REMARK criteria [21]. These include a large sample size, a long prospective follow-up of patients, and a description of the predictive value of the marker. Possible limitations of our study include the lack of external validation using a second cohort of patients with RCC. For analyzing RCC patients without metastases, our Cox regression model-which included tumor stage, grading, Karnofsky performance index, age, sex, histopathological subtype, and EZH2 expression-revealed a concordance probability of 73.4% compared to 71.8% excluding EZH2 expression. In RCC patients with metastatic disease, the concordance probability including EZH2 expression was 68.4%, compared to 63.0% excluding EZH2 expression. These values are in a similar range as obtained by the University of California Los Angeles Integrated Staging System (UISS) [32], a well-accepted prognostic factor model for RCC with good predictive accuracy, which exhibits a concordance index of 76% [32]. Including molecular markers to the clinical models increased the concordance probability, in our model as well as in the UISS model [33, 34]. Therefore, EZH2 should represent a powerful new marker for predicting prognosis in RCC and could be integrated in established prognostic models to provide an even better consultation for patients regarding diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up.

                      Our findings concerning the prognostic value of EZH2 in RCC, are in contrast to a recent study of 119 clear cell carcinoma patients, who reported that high tumor EZH2 levels indicate less aggressive tumor phenotypes with a favorable prognosis, as assessed by real-time RT-PCR [35]. We do not know whether this discrepancy is related to the different detection method for EZH2 expression. Our results are in line with studies in several other tumor forms, including malignant melanoma and cancers of the breast, prostate, endometrium, stomach, and liver, where increased EZH2 expression has been linked to more aggressive tumor behaviour and poor prognosis [7, 9, 17, 36, 37]. EZH2 expression showed significant prognostic impact in melanoma, prostate, and endometrial carcinoma in univariate survival analyses, but revealed independent multivariate prognostic importance only in carcinoma of the endometrium and prostate [17]. In breast cancer, high EZH2 expression was a strong independent predictive parameter of outcome, providing a better information about CSS than other independent prognostic features [7]. Thus, EZH2 may be an interesting novel prognostic marker for a large panel of different cancer types.

                      RCCs exhibited significantly higher EZH2 expression levels than histologically normal kidney, indicating that an increase in EZH2 expression is acquired during RCC tumorigenesis. Increased EZH2 expression in tumorous versus corresponding normal tissue has been also reported for other cancers as well, including malignant melanoma, prostate carcinoma, breast cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma [7, 9, 17, 37]. However, it should be noted that infiltrating lymphocytes and, sporadically, proximal and distal tubule epithelial cells stained positive for EZH2 in normal renal tissue. This indicates that detectable EZH2 expression is not stringently restricted to tumor cells. In line, EZH2 expression could be detected in the proliferating parabasal cell layer in normal cervical epithelium [14] and in proliferating cells of normal mammary gland tissue [38]. Interestingly, the latter study raised the possibility that EZH2 is expressed in mammary stem cells, in line with studies indicating a dual role of the PcG proteins in self-renewal of stem cells and oncogenesis [39, 40].

                      Apart form serving as a novel prognostic marker in RCC, EZH2 expression may also have therapeutic and diagnostic implications. Mechanistically, EZH2 is likely to contribute to the growth of RCC cells, since silencing of EZH2 expression exerts profound anti-proliferative effects in RCC lines [13]. These findings indicate that EZH2 may represent a novel therapeutic target for RCC treatment in that specific EZH2 inhibitors should repress tumor growth. Under diagnostic aspects, it is noteworthy that upregulation of EZH2 expression can be detected very early in breast cancer development, even before atypic cells are histologically evident [15, 16]. Thus, the determination of EZH2 expression may be an important new tool to identify patients at risk for developing breast cancer [15, 16]. In view of the substantial portion of RCCs expressing EZH2, it will be interesting to investigate in future studies whether EZH2 expression is an early event in RCC development and may also have diagnostic potential for RCC detection.

                      Conclusions

                      We here identified EZH2 expression as a novel, powerful, and independent unfavourable prognostic marker for CSS in patients with both metastatic and non-metastatic RCC. Assessment of the EZH2 status could therefore be integrated in established prognostic models in order to improve clinical management of RCC patients. The high proportion of RCCs showing increased EZH2 protein levels may also have therapeutic implications, since targeted inhibition of EZH2 expression has been shown to repress tumor cell growth.

                      Declarations

                      Acknowledgements

                      This study was supported by a "Gerok" scholarship from the German Cancer Research Center to N.W. and by the Tissue Bank of the National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg. We thank Hildegard Jakobi (prospective tumor database, Department of Urology, University of Heidelberg) and Karl-Heinz Ellsässer (Centre for Information and Medical Technology, University of Heidelberg) for excellent help with the patient data and Barbara Schreiber and Bettina Walter for expert technical assistance.

                      Authors’ Affiliations

                      (1)
                      German Cancer Research Center, Molecular Therapy of Virus-Associated Cancers (F065)
                      (2)
                      Department of Urology, University of Heidelberg
                      (3)
                      Institute of Pathology, University of Heidelberg
                      (4)
                      Department of Medical Biometry, University of Heidelberg
                      (5)
                      Coordination Centre for Clinical Trials (KKS), University of Heidelberg
                      (6)
                      Department of Urology, Evangelisches Krankenhaus Bielefeld
                      (7)
                      Department of Urology, University of Frankfurt am Main

                      References

                      1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ: Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009,59(4):225–249.PubMedView Article
                      2. Baldewijns MM, van Vlodrop IJ, Schouten LJ, Soetekouw PM, de Bruine AP, van Engeland M: Genetics and epigenetics of renal cell cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta 2008,1785(2):133–155.PubMed
                      3. Cao R, Wang L, Wang H, Xia L, Erdjument-Bromage H, Tempst P, Jones RS, Zhang Y: Role of histone H3 lysine 27 methylation in Polycomb-group silencing. Science 2002,298(5595):1039–1043.PubMedView Article
                      4. Czermin B, Melfi R, McCabe D, Seitz V, Imhof A, Pirrotta V: Drosophila enhancer of Zeste/ESC complexes have a histone H3 methyltransferase activity that marks chromosomal Polycomb sites. Cell 2002,111(2):185–196.PubMedView Article
                      5. Vire E, Brenner C, Deplus R, Blanchon L, Fraga M, Didelot C, Morey L, Van Eynde A, Bernard D, Vanderwinden JM, Bollen M, Esteller M, Di Croce L, de Launoit Y, Fuks F: The Polycomb group protein EZH2 directly controls DNA methylation. Nature 2006,439(7078):871–874.PubMedView Article
                      6. Bracken AP, Pasini D, Capra M, Prosperini E, Colli E, Helin K: EZH2 is downstream of the pRB-E2F pathway, essential for proliferation and amplified in cancer. Embo J 2003,22(20):5323–5335.PubMedView Article
                      7. Kleer CG, Cao Q, Varambally S, Shen R, Ota I, Tomlins SA, Ghosh D, Sewalt RG, Otte AP, Hayes DF, Sabel MS, Livant D, Weiss SJ, Rubin MA, Chinnaiyan AM: EZH2 is a marker of aggressive breast cancer and promotes neoplastic transformation of breast epithelial cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003,100(20):11606–11611.PubMedView Article
                      8. Croonquist PA, Van Ness B: The polycomb group protein enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH 2) is an oncogene that influences myeloma cell growth and the mutant ras phenotype. Oncogene 2005,24(41):6269–6280.PubMedView Article
                      9. Varambally S, Dhanasekaran SM, Zhou M, Barrette TR, Kumar-Sinha C, Sanda MG, Ghosh D, Pienta KJ, Sewalt RG, Otte AP, Rubin MA, Chinnaiyan AM: The polycomb group protein EZH2 is involved in progression of prostate cancer. Nature 2002,419(6907):624–629.PubMedView Article
                      10. Tang X, Milyavsky M, Shats I, Erez N, Goldfinger N, Rotter V: Activated p53 suppresses the histone methyltransferase EZH2 gene. Oncogene 2004,23(34):5759–5769.PubMedView Article
                      11. Berezovska OP, Glinskii AB, Yang Z, Li XM, Hoffman RM, Glinsky GV: Essential role for activation of the Polycomb group (PcG) protein chromatin silencing pathway in metastatic prostate cancer. Cell Cycle 2006,5(16):1886–1901.PubMedView Article
                      12. Tan J, Yang X, Zhuang L, Jiang X, Chen W, Lee PL, Karuturi RK, Tan PB, Liu ET, Yu Q: Pharmacologic disruption of Polycomb-repressive complex 2-mediated gene repression selectively induces apoptosis in cancer cells. Genes Dev 2007,21(9):1050–1063.PubMedView Article
                      13. Wagener N, Holland D, Bulkescher J, Crnkovic-Mertens I, Hoppe-Seyler K, Zentgraf H, Pritsch M, Buse S, Pfitzenmaier J, Haferkamp A, Hohenfellner M, Hoppe-Seyler F: The enhancer of zeste homolog 2 gene contributes to cell proliferation and apoptosis resistance in renal cell carcinoma cells. Int J Cancer 2008,123(7):1545–1550.PubMedView Article
                      14. Holland D, Hoppe-Seyler K, Schuller B, Lohrey C, Maroldt J, Durst M, Hoppe-Seyler F: Activation of the enhancer of zeste homologue 2 gene by the human papillomavirus E7 oncoprotein. Cancer Res 2008,68(23):9964–9972.PubMedView Article
                      15. Ding L, Erdmann C, Chinnaiyan AM, Merajver SD, Kleer CG: Identification of EZH2 as a molecular marker for a precancerous state in morphologically normal breast tissues. Cancer Res 2006,66(8):4095–4099.PubMedView Article
                      16. Ding L, Kleer CG: Enhancer of zeste 2 as a marker of preneoplastic progression in the breast. Cancer Res 2006,66(19):9352–9355.PubMedView Article
                      17. Bachmann IM, Halvorsen OJ, Collett K, Stefansson IM, Straume O, Haukaas SA, Salvesen HB, Otte AP, Akslen LA: EZH2 expression is associated with high proliferation rate and aggressive tumor subgroups in cutaneous melanoma and cancers of the endometrium, prostate, and breast. J Clin Oncol 2006,24(2):268–273.PubMedView Article
                      18. Motzer RJ, Bacik J, Schwartz LH, Reuter V, Russo P, Marion S, Mazumdar M: Prognostic factors for survival in previously treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2004,22(3):454–463.PubMedView Article
                      19. Macher-Goeppinger S, Aulmann S, Wagener N, Funke B, Tagscherer KE, Haferkamp A, Hohenfellner M, Kim S, Autschbach F, Schirmacher P, Roth W: Decoy receptor 3 is a prognostic factor in renal cell cancer. Neoplasia 2008,10(10):1049–1056.PubMed
                      20. Dukers DF, van Galen JC, Giroth C, Jansen P, Sewalt RG, Otte AP, Kluin-Nelemans HC, Meijer CJ, Raaphorst FM: Unique polycomb gene expression pattern in Hodgkin's lymphoma and Hodgkin's lymphoma-derived cell lines. Am J Pathol 2004,164(3):873–881.PubMedView Article
                      21. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM: REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006,100(2):229–235.PubMedView Article
                      22. Goenen M, Heller G: Concordance probability and discriminatory power in proportional hazards regression. Biometrika 2005,92(4):965–970.View Article
                      23. Cohen HT, McGovern FJ: Renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2005,353(23):2477–2490.PubMedView Article
                      24. Chow WH, Devesa SS, Warren JL, Fraumeni JF Jr: Rising incidence of renal cell cancer in the United States. Jama 1999,281(17):1628–1631.PubMedView Article
                      25. Escudier B, Eisen T, Stadler WM, Szczylik C, Oudard S, Siebels M, Negrier S, Chevreau C, Solska E, Desai AA, Rolland F, Demkow T, Hutson TE, Gore M, Freeman S, Schwartz B, Shan M, Simantov R, Bukowski RM: Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007,356(2):125–134.PubMedView Article
                      26. Fisher RI, Rosenberg SA, Fyfe G: Long-term survival update for high-dose recombinant interleukin-2 in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Cancer J Sci Am 2000,6(Suppl 1):55–57.
                      27. Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Tomczak P, Michaelson MD, Bukowski RM, Rixe O, Oudard S, Negrier S, Szczylik C, Kim ST, Chen I, Bycott PW, Baum CM, Figlin RA: Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007,356(2):115–124.PubMedView Article
                      28. Escudier B, Pluzanska A, Koralewski P, Ravaud A, Bracarda S, Szczylik C, Chevreau C, Filipek M, Melichar B, Bajetta E, Gorbunova V, Bay JO, Bodrogi I, Jagiello-Gruszfeld A, Moore N: Bevacizumab plus interferon alfa-2a for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, double-blind phase III trial. Lancet 2007,370(9605):2103–2111.PubMedView Article
                      29. Motzer RJ, Escudier B, Oudard S, Hutson TE, Porta C, Bracarda S, Grunwald V, Thompson JA, Figlin RA, Hollaender N, Urbanowitz G, Berg WJ, Kay A, Lebwohl D, Ravaud A: Efficacy of everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Lancet 2008,372(9637):449–456.PubMedView Article
                      30. Eichelberg C, Junker K, Ljungberg B, Moch H: Diagnostic and Prognostic Molecular Markers for Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Critical Appraisal of the Current State of Research and Clinical Applicability. Eur Urol 2009,55(4):851–863.PubMedView Article
                      31. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W: Identification of clinically useful cancer prognostic factors: what are we missing? J Natl Cancer Inst 2005,97(14):1023–1025.PubMedView Article
                      32. Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Wieder J, Chao DH, Dorey F, Said JW, deKernion JB, Figlin RA, Belldegrun AS: Risk group assessment and clinical outcome algorithm to predict the natural history of patients with surgically resected renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2002,20(23):4559–4566.PubMedView Article
                      33. Kim HL, Seligson D, Liu X, Janzen N, Bui MH, Yu H, Shi T, Belldegrun AS, Horvath S, Figlin RA: Using tumor markers to predict the survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2005,173(5):1496–1501.PubMedView Article
                      34. Kim HL, Seligson D, Liu X, Janzen N, Bui MH, Yu H, Shi T, Figlin RA, Horvath S, Belldegrun AS: Using protein expressions to predict survival in clear cell renal carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2004,10(16):5464–5471.PubMedView Article
                      35. Hinz S, Weikert S, Magheli A, Hoffmann M, Engers R, Miller K, Kempkensteffen C: Expression profile of the Polycomb group protein Enhancer of zeste homologue 2 and its prognostic relevance in renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2009,182(6):2920–2925.PubMedView Article
                      36. Matsukawa Y, Semba S, Kato H, Ito A, Yanagihara K, Yokozaki H: Expression of the enhancer of zeste homolog 2 is correlated with poor prognosis in human gastric cancer. Cancer Sci 2006,97(6):484–491.PubMedView Article
                      37. Sudo T, Utsunomiya T, Mimori K, Nagahara H, Ogawa K, Inoue H, Wakiyama S, Fujita H, Shirouzu K, Mori M: Clinicopathological significance of EZH2 mRNA expression in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Cancer 2005,92(9):1754–1758.PubMedView Article
                      38. Pietersen AM, Horlings HM, Hauptmann M, Langerod A, Ajouaou A, Cornelissen-Steijger P, Wessels LF, Jonkers J, van de Vijver MJ, van Lohuizen M: EZH2 and BMI1 inversely correlate with prognosis and TP53 mutation in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2008,10(6):R109.PubMedView Article
                      39. Metsuyanim S, Pode-Shakked N, Schmidt-Ott KM, Keshet G, Rechavi G, Blumental D, Dekel B: Accumulation of malignant renal stem cells is associated with epigenetic changes in normal renal progenitor genes. Stem Cells 2008,26(7):1808–1817.PubMedView Article
                      40. Yu J, Yu J, Rhodes DR, Tomlins SA, Cao X, Chen G, Mehra R, Wang X, Ghosh D, Shah RB, Varambally S, Pienta KJ, Chinnaiyan AM: A polycomb repression signature in metastatic prostate cancer predicts cancer outcome. Cancer Res 2007,67(22):10657–10663.PubMedView Article
                      41. Pre-publication history

                        1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://​www.​biomedcentral.​com/​1471-2407/​10/​524/​prepub

                      Copyright

                      © Wagener et al. 2010

                      This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.