Prostate cancer biomarkers are enriched in urine after prostatic manipulation, suggesting that whole cells might also be detectable for diagnosis. We tested multiplex staining of urinary sediments as a minimally invasive method to detect prostate cancer. Urine samples were collected from 35 men who had prostatic massage (attentive digital rectal examination) in a urology clinic and from 15 control men without urologic disease and without massage, for a total of 50 specimens (27 cancer-positive cases and 23 cancer-negative cases). LNCaP prostate cancer cells spiked into urine were used for initial marker optimization. Urine sediments were cytospun onto glass slides and stained. Multiplex urine cytology was compared with conventional urine cytology for cancer detection; anti-alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase antibody was used as a marker of prostate cancer cells, anti-Nkx3.1 as a marker of prostate epithelial cells, anti-nucleolin as a marker of nucleoli, and 4'-6-diamidino-2-phenylindole to highlight nuclei. Prostate cancer cells were successfully visualized by combined staining for alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase, Nkx3.1, and nucleolin. Of the 25 informative cases with biopsy-proven prostate cancer, 9 were diagnosed as suspicious or positive by multiplex immunofluorescence urine cytology, but only 4 were similarly judged by conventional cytology. All cases without cancer were read as negative by both methods. The multiplex cytology sensitivity for cancer detection in informative cases was 36% (9/25), and specificity was 100% (8/8). In conclusion, we have successfully achieved multiple staining for alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase, Nkx3.1, nucleolin, and 4'-6-diamidino-2-phenylindole to detect prostate cancer cells in urine. Further refinements in marker selection and technique may increase sensitivity and applicability for prostate cancer diagnosis.
Prostate cancer biomarkers are enriched in urine after prostatic manipulation, suggesting that whole cells might also be detectable for diagnosis. We tested multiplex staining of urinary sedin class="Species">ments as a minimally invasive method to detect prostate cancer. Urine samples were collected from 35 men who had prostatic massage (attentive digital rectal examination) in a urology clinic and from 15 control men without urologic disease and without massage, for a total of 50 specimens (27 cancer-positive cases and 23 cancer-negative cases). LNCaPprostate cancer cells spiked into urine were used for initial marker optimization. Urine sediments were cytospun onto glass slides and stained. Multiplex urine cytology was compared with conventional urine cytology for cancer detection; anti-alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase antibody was used as a marker of prostate cancer cells, anti-Nkx3.1 as a marker of prostate epithelial cells, anti-nucleolin as a marker of nucleoli, and 4'-6-diamidino-2-phenylindole to highlight nuclei. Prostate cancer cells were successfully visualized by combined staining for alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase, Nkx3.1, and nucleolin. Of the 25 informative cases with biopsy-proven prostate cancer, 9 were diagnosed as suspicious or positive by multiplex immunofluorescence urine cytology, but only 4 were similarly judged by conventional cytology. All cases without cancer were read as negative by both methods. The multiplex cytology sensitivity for cancer detection in informative cases was 36% (9/25), and specificity was 100% (8/8). In conclusion, we have successfully achieved multiple staining for alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase, Nkx3.1, nucleolin, and 4'-6-diamidino-2-phenylindole to detect prostate cancer cells in urine. Further refinements in marker selection and technique may increase sensitivity and applicability for prostate cancer diagnosis.
Authors: Alan K Meeker; Jessica L Hicks; Elizabeth A Platz; Gerrun E March; Christina J Bennett; Michael J Delannoy; Angelo M De Marzo Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Carlise R Bethel; Dennis Faith; Xiang Li; Bin Guan; Jessica L Hicks; Fusheng Lan; Robert B Jenkins; Charles J Bieberich; Angelo M De Marzo Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Craig G Rogers; Gai Yan; Shan Zha; Mark L Gonzalgo; William B Isaacs; Jun Luo; Angelo M De Marzo; William G Nelson; Christian P Pavlovich Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: T G Ntouroupi; S Q Ashraf; S B McGregor; B W Turney; A Seppo; Y Kim; X Wang; M W Kilpatrick; P Tsipouras; T Tafas; W F Bodmer Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2008-09-02 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Tariq A Khemees; Bing Yang; Adam Schultz; Glenn O Allen; Joseph Gawdzik; Aman Nihal; Kyle A Richards; E Jason Abel; David F Jarrard Journal: Am J Clin Exp Urol Date: 2021-12-15
Authors: Kristen P Nickens; Amina Ali; Tatiana Scoggin; Shyh-Han Tan; Lakshmi Ravindranath; David G McLeod; Albert Dobi; David Tacha; Isabell A Sesterhenn; Shiv Srivastava; Gyorgy Petrovics Journal: Prostate Date: 2015-03-23 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Douglas H Campbell; Maria E Lund; Aline L Nocon; Paul J Cozzi; Mark Frydenberg; Paul De Souza; Belinda Schiller; Jennifer L Beebe-Dimmer; Julie J Ruterbusch; Bradley J Walsh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 3.240