BACKGROUND: Serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) concentrations lack the specificity to differentiate prostate cancer from benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), resulting in unnecessary biopsies. We identified 5 autoantibody signatures to specific cancer targets which might be able to differentiate prostate cancer from BPH in patients with increased serum PSA. METHODS: To identify autoantibody signatures as biomarkers, a native antigen reverse capture microarray platform was used. Briefly, well-characterized monoclonal antibodies were arrayed onto nanoparticle slides to capture native antigens from prostate cancer cells. Prostate cancer patient serum samples (n=41) and BPH patient samples (collected starting at the time of initial diagnosis) with a mean follow-up of 6.56 y without the diagnosis of cancer (n=39) were obtained. One hundred micrograms of IgGs were purified and labeled with a Cy3 dye and incubated on the arrays. The arrays were scanned for fluorescence and the intensity was quantified. Receiver operating characteristic curves were produced and the area under the curve (AUC) was determined. RESULTS: Using our microarray platform, we identified autoantibody signatures capable of distinguishing between prostate cancer and BPH. The top 5 autoantibody signatures were TARDBP, TLN1, PARK7, LEDGF/PSIP1, and CALD1. Combining these signatures resulted in an AUC of 0.95 (sensitivity of 95% at 80% specificity) compared to AUC of 0.5 for serum concentration PSA (sensitivity of 12.2% at 80% specificity). CONCLUSION: Our preliminary results showed that we were able to identify specific autoantibody signatures that can differentiate prostate cancer from BPH, and may result in the reduction of unnecessary biopsies in patients with increased serum PSA.
BACKGROUND: Serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) concentrations lack the specificity to differentiate prostate cancer from benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), resulting in unnecessary biopsies. We identified 5 autoantibody signatures to specific cancer targets which might be able to differentiate prostate cancer from BPH in patients with increased serum PSA. METHODS: To identify autoantibody signatures as biomarkers, a native antigen reverse capture microarray platform was used. Briefly, well-characterized monoclonal antibodies were arrayed onto nanoparticle slides to capture native antigens from prostate cancer cells. Prostate cancerpatient serum samples (n=41) and BPH patient samples (collected starting at the time of initial diagnosis) with a mean follow-up of 6.56 y without the diagnosis of cancer (n=39) were obtained. One hundred micrograms of IgGs were purified and labeled with a Cy3 dye and incubated on the arrays. The arrays were scanned for fluorescence and the intensity was quantified. Receiver operating characteristic curves were produced and the area under the curve (AUC) was determined. RESULTS: Using our microarray platform, we identified autoantibody signatures capable of distinguishing between prostate cancer and BPH. The top 5 autoantibody signatures were TARDBP, TLN1, PARK7, LEDGF/PSIP1, and CALD1. Combining these signatures resulted in an AUC of 0.95 (sensitivity of 95% at 80% specificity) compared to AUC of 0.5 for serum concentration PSA (sensitivity of 12.2% at 80% specificity). CONCLUSION: Our preliminary results showed that we were able to identify specific autoantibody signatures that can differentiate prostate cancer from BPH, and may result in the reduction of unnecessary biopsies in patients with increased serum PSA.
Authors: Xiaoju Wang; Jianjun Yu; Arun Sreekumar; Sooryanarayana Varambally; Ronglai Shen; Donald Giacherio; Rohit Mehra; James E Montie; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin G Sanda; Philip W Kantoff; Mark A Rubin; John T Wei; Debashis Ghosh; Arul M Chinnaiyan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-09-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joshua R Ehrlich; Robert J Caiazzo; Weiliang Qiu; Oliver W Tassinari; Michael P O'Leary; Jerome P Richie; Brian C-S Liu Journal: Proteomics Clin Appl Date: 2007-04-19 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Tracy Daniels; Jianying Zhang; Israel Gutierrez; Max L Elliot; Brian Yamada; Mary Jo Heeb; Shaun M Sheets; Xiwei Wu; Carlos A Casiano Journal: Prostate Date: 2005-01-01 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Barry S Taylor; Manoj Pal; Jianjun Yu; Bharathi Laxman; Shanker Kalyana-Sundaram; Rong Zhao; Anjana Menon; John T Wei; Alexey I Nesvizhskii; Debashis Ghosh; Gilbert S Omenn; David M Lubman; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Arun Sreekumar Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2007-12-11 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Benedict J Kang; Minhong Jeun; Gun Hyuk Jang; Sang Hoon Song; In Gab Jeong; Choung-Soo Kim; Peter C Searson; Kwan Hyi Lee Journal: Int J Nanomedicine Date: 2015-10-19
Authors: Bettina Schlick; Petra Massoner; Angelika Lueking; Pornpimol Charoentong; Mirjam Blattner; Georg Schaefer; Klaus Marquart; Carmen Theek; Peter Amersdorfer; Dirk Zielinski; Matthias Kirchner; Zlatko Trajanoski; Mark A Rubin; Stefan Müllner; Peter Schulz-Knappe; Helmut Klocker Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Robert L Ochs; Michael Mahler; Anamika Basu; Leslimar Rios-Colon; Tino W Sanchez; Luis E Andrade; Marvin J Fritzler; Carlos A Casiano Journal: Clin Exp Med Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 3.984
Authors: Kaisa-Mari Launonen; Ville Paakinaho; Gianluca Sigismondo; Marjo Malinen; Reijo Sironen; Jaana M Hartikainen; Hanna Laakso; Tapio Visakorpi; Jeroen Krijgsveld; Einari A Niskanen; Jorma J Palvimo Journal: Oncogene Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 9.867