Francesca Carozzi1, Lara Tamburrino2, Simonetta Bisanzi1, Sara Marchiani2, Milena Paglierani3, Simonetta Di Lollo4, Emanuele Crocetti5, Carlotta Buzzoni5, Elena Burroni1, Luana Greco1, Elisabetta Baldi2, Cristina Sani6. 1. Laboratory Cancer Prevention, Cancer Prevention and Research Institute (ISPO), Via Cosimo il Vecchio 2, 50139, Florence, Italy. 2. Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. 3. DAI Biomedicina SOD Istologia Patologica e Diagnostica Molecolare, AOU Careggi, Florence, Italy. 4. Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. 5. Clinical and Descriptive Epidemiology Unit, Cancer Prevention and Research Institute (ISPO), Florence, Italy. 6. Laboratory Cancer Prevention, Cancer Prevention and Research Institute (ISPO), Via Cosimo il Vecchio 2, 50139, Florence, Italy. c.sani@ispo.toscana.it.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate biomarkers involved in biological pathways for prostate cancer (PCa) progression, measured in biopsy specimens, in order to distinguish patients at higher risk for fatal PCa and thus improve the initial management of disease. METHODS: Retrospective case-control study. In 129 PCa patients who underwent ultrasound-guided needle prostate biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy from 1987 to 1999 at the University Hospital of Careggi, we evaluated: (1) mRNA expression of the serine 2 (TMPRSS2): erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (ERG); (2) expression of matrix metalloproteinases (MMP)-2 and 9 (epithelial and stromal); (3) expression of androgen receptor; (4) expression of prognostic marker Ki67 (MIB1); (5) presence and typing of human papilloma virus; (6) DNA methylation of CpG islands of several genes involved in PCa progression. RESULTS: The cohort consists of 38 cases (patients with PCa and died of PCa within 10 years from diagnosis) and 91 controls (patients with PCa but alive 10 years after diagnosis). Gleason bioptic score, epithelial MMP expression and SERPINB5 methylation correlated with statistically significant increase in death risk OR. Compared with patients with high level of MMP, patients with low level of MMP had OR for specific death 4.78 times higher (p = 0.0066). After adjustment for age and Gleason score, none of the investigated biomarkers showed increased OR for PCa death. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results suggest that evaluation, in prostate biopsy specimens, of a panel of biomarkers known to be involved in PCa progression is poorly indicative of tumor outcome.
PURPOSE: To evaluate biomarkers involved in biological pathways for prostate cancer (PCa) progression, measured in biopsy specimens, in order to distinguish patients at higher risk for fatal PCa and thus improve the initial management of disease. METHODS: Retrospective case-control study. In 129 PCa patients who underwent ultrasound-guided needle prostate biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy from 1987 to 1999 at the University Hospital of Careggi, we evaluated: (1) mRNA expression of the serine 2 (TMPRSS2): erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (ERG); (2) expression of matrix metalloproteinases (MMP)-2 and 9 (epithelial and stromal); (3) expression of androgen receptor; (4) expression of prognostic marker Ki67 (MIB1); (5) presence and typing of human papilloma virus; (6) DNA methylation of CpG islands of several genes involved in PCa progression. RESULTS: The cohort consists of 38 cases (patients with PCa and died of PCa within 10 years from diagnosis) and 91 controls (patients with PCa but alive 10 years after diagnosis). Gleason bioptic score, epithelial MMP expression and SERPINB5 methylation correlated with statistically significant increase in death risk OR. Compared with patients with high level of MMP, patients with low level of MMP had OR for specific death 4.78 times higher (p = 0.0066). After adjustment for age and Gleason score, none of the investigated biomarkers showed increased OR for PCa death. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results suggest that evaluation, in prostate biopsy specimens, of a panel of biomarkers known to be involved in PCa progression is poorly indicative of tumor outcome.
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Mangesh A Thorat; Gerald Andriole; Otis W Brawley; Powel H Brown; Zoran Culig; Rosalind A Eeles; Leslie G Ford; Freddie C Hamdy; Lars Holmberg; Dragan Ilic; Timothy J Key; Carlo La Vecchia; Hans Lilja; Michael Marberger; Frank L Meyskens; Lori M Minasian; Chris Parker; Howard L Parnes; Sven Perner; Harry Rittenhouse; Jack Schalken; Hans-Peter Schmid; Bernd J Schmitz-Dräger; Fritz H Schröder; Arnulf Stenzl; Bertrand Tombal; Timothy J Wilt; Alicja Wolk Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Sarah Minner; Malaika Enodien; Hüseyin Sirma; Andreas M Luebke; Antje Krohn; Pascale S Mayer; Ronald Simon; Pierre Tennstedt; Julia Müller; Laura Scholz; Jan C Brase; Alvin Y Liu; Hartmut Schlüter; Klaus Pantel; Udo Schumacher; Carsten Bokemeyer; Thomas Steuber; Markus Graefen; Guido Sauter; Thorsten Schlomm Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: S Escaff; J M Fernández; L O González; A Suárez; S González-Reyes; J M González; F J Vizoso Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Jo Vandesompele; Katleen De Preter; Filip Pattyn; Bruce Poppe; Nadine Van Roy; Anne De Paepe; Frank Speleman Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2002-06-18 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Cindy Ke Zhou; Denise Young; Edward D Yeboah; Sally B Coburn; Yao Tettey; Richard B Biritwum; Andrew A Adjei; Evelyn Tay; Shelley Niwa; Ann Truelove; Judith Welsh; James E Mensah; Robert N Hoover; Isabell A Sesterhenn; Ann W Hsing; Shiv Srivastava; Michael B Cook Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 4.897