| Literature DB >> 23792811 |
Emma Killick1, Richard Morgan, Francesca Launchbury, Elizabeth Bancroft, Elizabeth Page, Elena Castro, Zsofia Kote-Jarai, Armen Aprikian, Ignacio Blanco, Virginia Clowes, Susan Domchek, Fiona Douglas, Diana Eccles, D Gareth Evans, Marion Harris, Judy Kirk, Jimmy Lam, Geoffrey Lindeman, Gillian Mitchell, Nicholas Pachter, Christina Selkirk, Kathy Tucker, Janaz Zgajnar, Rosalind Eeles, Hardev Pandha.
Abstract
Controversy surrounds the use of PSA as a biomarker for prostate cancer detection, leaving an unmet need for a novel biomarker in this setting; urinary EN2 may identify individuals with clinically relevant prostate cancer. Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers are at increased risk of clinically significant prostate cancer and may benefit from screening. Urine samples from 413 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and controls were evaluated. Subjects underwent annual PSA screening with diagnostic biopsy triggered by PSA > 3.0 ng/ml; 21 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Urinary EN2 levels were measured by ELISA and had a sensitivity of 66.7% and specificity of 89.3% for cancer detection. There was no statistically significant difference in EN2 levels according to genetic status or Gleason score. Urinary EN2 may be useful as a non-invasive early biomarker for prostate cancer detection in genetically high-risk individuals.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23792811 PMCID: PMC3690389 DOI: 10.1038/srep02059
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Summary of participant characteristics
| Controls | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| N | 267 | 140 | |
| Mean age (range) | 53.0 years (40–69) | 54.3 years (40–69) | 0.106 |
| Caucasion (%) | 253/266 (95.1) | 134/140 (95.7) | 0.665 |
| Current or ex-smokers (%) | 95/263 (36.1) | 56/138 (40.6) | 0.381 |
| >14 units alcohol/week (%) | 64/257 (24.9) | 40/136 (29.4) | 0.469 |
| BMI > 25 (%) | 199/244 (81.6) | 104/122 (85.0) | 0.621 |
| Median EN2 (range) | 0 ng/ml (0–3694) | 0 ng/ml (0–3045) | 0.717 |
| Prostate biopsy undertaken (%) | 35 (13.1) | 15 (10.7) | 0.485 |
| Prostate Cancer diagnosed (%) | 16 (6.0) | 5 (3.6) | 0.548 |
| Tumour T stage ≤ T2a (%) | 6 (37.5) | 3 (60) | 0.375 |
Gleason score by genetic status
| Gleason 3 + 3 | Gleason 3 + 4 | Gleason 4 + 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| BRCA1 | 5 | 1 | |
| BRCA2 | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Controls | 2 | 1 | 2 |
Summary of EN2 results by cancer status
Logistic regression results for the effect of EN2 and BRCA1/2 status on cancer status
| Variable | Estimate (β) | P value | Odds ratio (eβ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| EN2 | 2.7877 (1.82–3.75) | <0.001 | 16.24 |
| Genetic status | 0.1349 (−0.92–1.19) | 0.798 | 1.14 |
†Coefficient associated with each variable.
*EN2 analysed as a binary variable, using 42.5 ng/ml as cut-off.
Figure 1Association between serum PSA and urinary EN2.
Effect of BRCA mutation status on sensitivity and specificity of EN2
| Controls | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cancer | no cancer | cancer | no cancer | cancer | no cancer | |
| EN2 positive | 4 (66.7%) | 13 | 8 (80%) | 16 | 2 (40%) | 13 |
| EN2 negative | 2 | 110 (89.4) | 2 | 112 (87.5%) | 3 | 122 (90.4%) |