Faraz Ahmed Baig1, Talat Mirza1, Rafiq Khanani2, Saeed Khan3. 1. Departments of Histopathology, Dow Diagnostic Research and Reference Laboratory, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi. 2. Departments of Microbiology, Dow Diagnostic Research and Reference Laboratory, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi. 3. Departments of Molecular Pathology, Dow Diagnostic Research and Reference Laboratory, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of Xenotropic murine leukemia virus related virus (XMRV) infection with prostate cancer and compare it with benign prostate hyperplasia. STUDY DESIGN: Case control study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Department of Histopathology and Molecular Pathology, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, from January 2009 to December 2012. METHODOLOGY: XMRV was screened in 50 prostate cancer and 50 benign prostatic hyperplasia biopsies using conventional end-point PCR. Other studied variables were family history of prostate cancer, patients age and Gleason score. RESULTS: XMRV was detected in 4 (8%) of the 50 prostate cancer biopsy specimens compared to none in biopsies with benign prostatic hyperplasia. However, there was no significant statistical association of XMRV infection with the other variables. CONCLUSION: A low frequency of XMRV infection was found in this case-control study. Men, who harbor XMRV infection, may be at increased risk of prostate cancer but this needs to be investigated further at a larger scale.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of Xenotropic murine leukemia virus related virus (XMRV) infection with prostate cancer and compare it with benign prostate hyperplasia. STUDY DESIGN: Case control study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Department of Histopathology and Molecular Pathology, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, from January 2009 to December 2012. METHODOLOGY:XMRV was screened in 50 prostate cancer and 50 benign prostatic hyperplasia biopsies using conventional end-point PCR. Other studied variables were family history of prostate cancer, patients age and Gleason score. RESULTS:XMRV was detected in 4 (8%) of the 50 prostate cancer biopsy specimens compared to none in biopsies with benign prostatic hyperplasia. However, there was no significant statistical association of XMRV infection with the other variables. CONCLUSION: A low frequency of XMRV infection was found in this case-control study. Men, who harbor XMRV infection, may be at increased risk of prostate cancer but this needs to be investigated further at a larger scale.