Giovanni Ponti1, Monia Maccaferri2, Marco Manfredini2, Salvatore Micali3, Federica Torricelli4, Riccardo Milandri3, Chiara Del Prete3, Alessia Ciarrocchi4, Cristel Ruini5, Luisa Benassi2, Stefania Bettelli6, Shaniko Kaleci2, Tomris Ozben7, Aldo Tomasi2. 1. Department of Surgical, Medical, Dental and Morphological Sciences with Interest transplant, Oncological and Regenerative Medicine, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. Electronic address: giovanni.ponti@unimore.it. 2. Department of Surgical, Medical, Dental and Morphological Sciences with Interest transplant, Oncological and Regenerative Medicine, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. 3. Department of Urology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. 4. Division of Translational Research, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy. 5. Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. 6. Department of Pathology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. 7. Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsy consists in the quantification and qualification of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and tumor-derived DNA (ctDNA) for cancer recognition. Recently, the characterization of seminal cfDNA (scfDNA) has been reported as a possible biomarker for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. METHODS: Thirty patients with histologically proven PCa, 33 with benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) and 21 healthy controls were enrolled. cfDNA was extracted from seminal fluid samples. cfDNA quantification and analysis were performed using Qubit ssDNA Kit and Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer. Statistical analysis included: Levene's test, Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Kruskal Wallis tests. RESULTS: Median cfDNA was significantly higher in PCa patients 428.45 ng/mL (173.93-1159.62) compared to BPH patients 77.4 ng/mL (18.23-501) and healthy controls 25.4 ng/mL (15.37-76.62). scfDNA fragments longer than 1000 base-pairs were more common in patients with PCa compared to those with BPH and controls. CONCLUSIONS: scfDNA concentration and fragment size differed significantly in the three groups of PCa, BPH and healthy controls. Both parameters are potential clinical biomarkers for PCa and can be used in both early diagnosis and follow-up. Using automated systems for high-throughput cfDNA quantification could improve the reproducibility of the method and facilitate the implementation of liquid biopsies in the clinical setting.
BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsy consists in the quantification and qualification of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and tumor-derived DNA (ctDNA) for cancer recognition. Recently, the characterization of seminal cfDNA (scfDNA) has been reported as a possible biomarker for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. METHODS: Thirty patients with histologically proven PCa, 33 with benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) and 21 healthy controls were enrolled. cfDNA was extracted from seminal fluid samples. cfDNA quantification and analysis were performed using Qubit ssDNA Kit and Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer. Statistical analysis included: Levene's test, Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Kruskal Wallis tests. RESULTS: Median cfDNA was significantly higher in PCa patients 428.45 ng/mL (173.93-1159.62) compared to BPH patients 77.4 ng/mL (18.23-501) and healthy controls 25.4 ng/mL (15.37-76.62). scfDNA fragments longer than 1000 base-pairs were more common in patients with PCa compared to those with BPH and controls. CONCLUSIONS: scfDNA concentration and fragment size differed significantly in the three groups of PCa, BPH and healthy controls. Both parameters are potential clinical biomarkers for PCa and can be used in both early diagnosis and follow-up. Using automated systems for high-throughput cfDNA quantification could improve the reproducibility of the method and facilitate the implementation of liquid biopsies in the clinical setting.
Authors: Olga Golubnitschaja; Peter Kubatka; Alena Mazurakova; Marek Samec; Abdullah Alajati; Frank A Giordano; Vincenzo Costigliola; Jörg Ellinger; Manuel Ritter Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Zuzana Pös; Ondrej Pös; Jakub Styk; Angelika Mocova; Lucia Strieskova; Jaroslav Budis; Ludevit Kadasi; Jan Radvanszky; Tomas Szemes Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Devika Ganesamoorthy; Alan James Robertson; Wenhan Chen; Michael B Hall; Minh Duc Cao; Kaltin Ferguson; Sunil R Lakhani; Katia Nones; Peter T Simpson; Lachlan J M Coin Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 4.430