| Literature DB >> 27351011 |
Daniela Küllenberg de Gaudry1, Lenka A Taylor2, Jessica Kluth3, Tobias Hübschle4, Jonas Fritzsche4, Bernd Hildenbrand3, Lars Pletschen3, Karin Schilli5, Arwen Hodina3, Lee S Griffith6, Jürgen Breul4, Clemens Unger7, Ulrich Massing8.
Abstract
High intake of omega-3 fatty acids (n-3 FAs) from fish has shown to reduce metastatic progression of prostate cancer. This clinical trial investigated the influence of high n-3 FA intake (marine phospholipids, MPL) on the FA composition of blood lipids, lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC), and on lipoproteins in prostate cancer patients and elderly men without prostate cancer. MPL supplementation resulted in a significant increase of n-3 FAs (eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acid) in blood lipids, while arachidonic acid (n-6 FA) decreased significantly. Low density lipoprotein (LDL) and high density lipoprotein (HDL) increased significantly, but the LDL increase was observed only in subjects with an inactive tumour. Similarly, LPC plasma concentration increased significantly only in patients without tumour. The missing increase of LDL and LPC after MPL supplementation in patients with actively growing (metastasizing) prostate cancer suggests that tumour cells have an elevated demand for LDL and LPC. Due to the MPL-induced increase of n-3 FAs in these blood lipids, it can be assumed that especially actively growing and metastasizing prostate cancer cells are provided with elevated amounts of these antimetastatic n-3 FAs. A hypothetic model explaining the lower incidence of metastatic progression in prostate cancer patients with high fish consumption is presented.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 27351011 PMCID: PMC4897521 DOI: 10.1155/2014/249204
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Sch Res Notices ISSN: 2356-7872
Figure 1Flow chart of the Prostagen study.
Baseline characteristics of the study population.
| Study population | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | Subjects without PCa | ||
|
|
| ||
| Age (years) | 68 (48–83) | Age (years) | 74 (70–85)a |
| median (min–max) | median (min–max) | ||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 26 (20.6–41.6) | BMI (kg/m2) | 26.3 (22.2–34)b |
| median (min–max) | median (min–max) | ||
| PCa disease ( | Urological condition ( | ||
| Metastasized PCa | 18 | BPH | 21 |
| PCa | 20 | Kidney stones | 2 |
| PCa in remission | 45 | PCa biopsies with neg. result | 2 |
| Unknown PCa status | 10 | High grade PINh | 2 |
| Otheri | 4 | ||
| Gleason score ( | |||
| ≤7a | 56 | ||
| ≥7b | 58 | ||
| Therapy ( | Therapy ( | ||
| Chemotherapyd | 6 | Surgeryf | 22 |
| Radiotherapye | 2 | No therapy | 9 |
| Hormone therapy | 15 | ||
| Surgeryf | 53 | ||
| Active surveillance | 7 | ||
| No therapyg | 10 | ||
aAge difference between both groups was statistically not significant (P = 0.099).
bBMI difference between both groups was statistically not significant (P = 0.46).
cReferred to the ongoing therapy at study enrolment.
dDocetaxel, taxol, folfox, or taxotere.
eIncluding brachytherapy.
fTUR-P or RRP with or without lymphadenectomy.
gNo therapy in the last 6 months.
hHigh-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia.
iStrangury, renal hematoma, bladder neck stenosis, and hematuria.
jTUR-P, transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP), percutaneous nephrolithotomy, bladder neck incision, spermatocelectomy, open adenoma enucleation, transurethral laser vaporization, or placement of prostatic stent.
Figure 2Study population grouped according to PCa diagnosis.
Blood parameters in the study population before and after MPL supplementation.
| Blood parameter | Before MPL | After MPL∗ |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Albumin (g/dL) | 4.1 (2.8–5) | 4.3 (2.6–5) | <0.001 |
| Erythrocytes (Mio/ | 4.2 (2.7–5.7) | 4.6 (2.8–5.7) | <0.001 |
| Haematocrit (%) | 38.7 (22.7–50.3) | 41.9 (24.7–50.3) | <0.001 |
| CRP (mg/L) | 12 (0.7–260) | 2 (0.7–305) | <0.001 |
| PSA ( | 2.3 (0–1085) | 0.4 (0–1117) | <0.001 |
| Thrombocytes (1000/ | 219 (27–481) | 218 (99–484) | n.s. |
| Leucocytes (1000/ | 7.2 (3.2–16.4) | 6.3 (2.8–24.1) | <0.001 |
| CHE (U/L) | 7419 (2185–13950) | 8221 (3959–12635) | <0.001 |
| AST (U/L) | 28.5 (9–316) | 28 (16–79) | n.s. |
| ALT (U/L) | 26 (5–170) | 26 (6–120) | n.s. |
∗Most patients underwent surgery shortly before MPL intervention.
Blood lipids before and after MPL supplementation.
| Before MPL (mg/dL) | After MPL (mg/dL) | Change (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total cholesterol | 194 (80–349) | 221 (115–362) | +14%∗∗ |
| LDL cholesterol | 121 (36–277) | 139 (42–282) | +15%∗∗ |
| HDL cholesterol | 49 (23–106) | 57 (21–125) | +16%∗∗ |
| LDL : HDL | 2.8 ± 1.3 | 2.7 ± 1.4 | — |
Analysis performed with lipid electrophoresis with nonfasting blood samples. Mean ± SD values are shown for normally distributed data, otherwise median (min–max) values were given.
∗∗Significance level P < 0.001.
Figure 3Total cholesterol and LDL change in the different groups of subjects. Left figure: Median relative change of total cholesterol after 3 months of MPL supplementation in each group of subjects. The results show a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) between patients with metastasized PCa (n = 18) and patients with PCa in remission/active surveillance (n = 45). Right figure: Median relative change of LDL cholesterol after 3 months of MPL supplementation in subjects with active PCa (n = 38) and inactive PCa (n = 76). There is a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) between both groups of subjects.
Results of fatty acid analysis with GC.
| Fatty acid | Before MPL (%) | After MPL (%) | Relative change of respective FA† |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TG-fraction | ||||
| Myristic acid-C14:0 | 1.9 (0.5–5.6) | 2.2 (0.7–23.5) | +16% | <0.01 |
| Palmitic acid-C16:0 | 23.9 (14.7–35.7) | 23.2 (14.7–36.9) | −3% | <0.05 |
| Stearic acid-C18:0 | 3.7 (1.5–8) | 3.7 (1.9–7.2) | 0% | n.s. |
| Oleic acid-C18:1 | 34.1 (25.4–43.2) | 32 (23.1–45.3) | −6% | <0.01 |
| Linoleic acid (LA)-C18:2 | 27.6 (12.9–46.1) | 29.6 (15.8–47.9) | +7% | <0.01 |
|
| 0.8 (0.1–9.6) | 1 (0–5) | +25% | <0.001 |
| Arachidonic acid (AA)∗-C20:4 | 4.1 (1.4–7.8) | 3.6 (0.5–8.4) | −12% | <0.01 |
| Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)-C20:5 | 0.6 (0.1–2.1) | 1 (0.2–3.4) | +67% | <0.001 |
| Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)-C22:6 | 0.7 (0.2–2.1) | 1 (0.1–2.1) | +43% | <0.001 |
| ∑ of median values | 97.4 | 97.3 | ||
|
| ||||
| PL-fraction | ||||
| Myristic acid-C14:0 | 0.3 (0.1–0.7) | 0.4 (0.2–0.7) | +33% | <0.001 |
| Palmitic acid-C16:0 | 25.4 (15.9–30) | 24.9 (20.5–28.6) | −2% | <0.01 |
| Stearic acid-C18:0 | 11.7 (8.4–16.3) | 12.1 (8.4–15.8) | +3% | <0.001 |
| Oleic acid-C18:1 | 10.6 (5.6–14.2) | 10.7 (7.4–15.6) | 0% | n.s. |
| Linoleic acid (LA)-C18:2 | 17.4 (11.2–24.3) | 18.5 (8.3–23.9) | +6% | <0.01 |
|
| 0.2 (0–3.4) | 0.3 (0–0.9) | +50% | <0.001 |
| Arachidonic acid (AA)∗-C20:4 | 9.3 (3.2–14.8) | 8.5 (4.3–14.4) | −9% | <0.001 |
| Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)-C20:5 | 0.8 (0.2–3.4) | 1.4 (0.5–4.1) | +75% | <0.001 |
| Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)-C22:6 | 3 (0.9–6.1) | 3.6 (1.5–5.9) | +20% | <0.001 |
| ∑ sum of median values | 78.7 | 75.4 | ||
∗Normal distribution.
†Change of FAs after MPL supplementation based on the median initial values.
Median relative values of each FA before and after MPL supplementation in the study population (n = 123). Since most of the data is not normally distributed, all values are given in median (min–max). Since C:17 lysophosphatidylcholine was used as internal standard, the results of C:17 are not shown in the table. C17 stays mostly in the PL fraction; therefore the values of the shown FAs (% of each FA) are not based on a 100%.
Figure 4Initial values of ALA in the TG and PL fractionsbetween the different groups of subjects. Median relative initial values of ALA in the TG and PL fractions of blood plasma. Significance was tested between each group of subjects. Significant differences (P < 0.05) were observed between the highlighted (∗) groups of subjects.
Figure 5Long chain n-3 and n-6 FAs before and after MPL supplementation in the TG and PL fractions of plasma. Median relative values of the biologically active FAs AA, EPA, and DHA in the TG and PL fractions of plasma before and after 3 months of MPL supplementation in the study population (n = 123). The AA (n-6) decreased significantly after supplementation, whereas EPA and DHA increased significantly in both fractions. Although AA in the TG fraction and DHA in the PL fraction had a normal distribution all FAs are represented in median values for comparison.
Figure 7Hypothetic model explaining the “omega-sensitivity” found in about half of the patients with metastatic PCa.
Figure 6LPC change in the different groups of subjects.