Kailash C Chadha1, Austin Miller2, Bindukumar B Nair3, Stanley A Schwartz4, Donald L Trump5, Willie Underwood6. 1. Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. 3. Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA ; Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy/Immunology and Rheumatology, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy/Immunology and Rheumatology, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. 6. Department of Urologic Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is currently used as a biomarker for diagnosis and management of prostate cancer (CaP). However, PSA typically lacks the sensitivity and specificity desired of a diagnostic marker. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to identify an additional biomarker or a panel of biomarkers that is more sensitive and specific than PSA in differentiating benign versus malignant prostate disease and/or localized CaP versus metastatic CaP. METHODS: Concurrent measurements of circulating interleukin-8 (IL-8), Tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and soluble tumor necrosis factor-α receptors 1 (sTNFR1) were obtained from four groups of men: (1) Controls (2) with elevated prostate-specific antigen with a negative prostate biopsy (elPSA_negBx) (3) with clinically localized CaP and (4) with castration resistant prostate cancer. RESULTS: TNF-α Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC = 0.93) and sTNFR1 (AUC = 0.97) were strong predictors of elPSA_negBx (vs. CaP). The best predictor of elPSA_negBx vs CaP was sTNFR1 and IL-8 combined (AUC = 0.997). The strongest single predictors of localized versus metastatic CaP were TNF-α (AUC = 0.992) and PSA (AUC = 0.963) levels. CONCLUSIONS: The specificity and sensitivity of a PSA-based CaP diagnosis can be significantly enhanced by concurrent serum measurements of IL-8, TNF-α and sTNFR1. In view of the concerns about the ability of PSA to distinguish clinically relevant CaP from indolent disease, assessment of these biomarkers in the larger cohort is warranted.
BACKGROUND:Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is currently used as a biomarker for diagnosis and management of prostate cancer (CaP). However, PSA typically lacks the sensitivity and specificity desired of a diagnostic marker. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to identify an additional biomarker or a panel of biomarkers that is more sensitive and specific than PSA in differentiating benign versus malignant prostate disease and/or localized CaP versus metastatic CaP. METHODS: Concurrent measurements of circulating interleukin-8 (IL-8), Tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and soluble tumor necrosis factor-α receptors 1 (sTNFR1) were obtained from four groups of men: (1) Controls (2) with elevated prostate-specific antigen with a negative prostate biopsy (elPSA_negBx) (3) with clinically localized CaP and (4) with castration resistant prostate cancer. RESULTS: TNF-α Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC = 0.93) and sTNFR1 (AUC = 0.97) were strong predictors of elPSA_negBx (vs. CaP). The best predictor of elPSA_negBx vs CaP was sTNFR1 and IL-8 combined (AUC = 0.997). The strongest single predictors of localized versus metastatic CaP were TNF-α (AUC = 0.992) and PSA (AUC = 0.963) levels. CONCLUSIONS: The specificity and sensitivity of a PSA-based CaP diagnosis can be significantly enhanced by concurrent serum measurements of IL-8, TNF-α and sTNFR1. In view of the concerns about the ability of PSA to distinguish clinically relevant CaP from indolent disease, assessment of these biomarkers in the larger cohort is warranted.
Authors: Mark H Kawachi; Robert R Bahnson; Michael Barry; J Erik Busby; Peter R Carroll; H Ballentine Carter; William J Catalona; Michael S Cookson; Jonathan I Epstein; Ruth B Etzioni; Veda N Giri; George P Hemstreet; Richard J Howe; Paul H Lange; Hans Lilja; Kevin R Loughlin; James Mohler; Judd Moul; Robert B Nadler; Stephen G Patterson; Joseph C Presti; Antoinette M Stroup; Robert Wake; John T Wei Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Jesco Pfitzenmaier; Robert Vessella; Celestia S Higano; Jennifer L Noteboom; David Wallace; Eva Corey Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-03-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Claudio Jeldres; Nazareno Suardi; Jochen Walz; Georg C Hutterer; Sascha Ahyai; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Alexander Haese; Markus Graefen; Andreas Erbersdobler; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-12-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Donna K Pauler; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Howard L Parnes; Lori M Minasian; Leslie G Ford; Scott M Lippman; E David Crawford; John J Crowley; Charles A Coltman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ravikumar Aalinkeel; Bindukumar Nair; Chih-Kuang Chen; Supriya D Mahajan; Jessica L Reynolds; Hanguang Zhang; Haotian Sun; Donald E Sykes; Kailash C Chadha; Steven G Turowski; Katelyn D Bothwell; Mukund Seshadri; Chong Cheng; Stanley A Schwartz Journal: Immunology Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 7.397
Authors: Renee E Vickman; Jiang Yang; Nadia A Lanman; Gregory M Cresswell; Faye Zheng; Chi Zhang; R W Doerge; Scott A Crist; Andrew D Mesecar; Chang-Deng Hu; Timothy L Ratliff Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Christopher J McNally; Joanne Watt; Mary Jo Kurth; John V Lamont; Tara Moore; Peter Fitzgerald; Hardev Pandha; Declan J McKenna; Mark W Ruddock Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 5.738