| Literature DB >> 35097136 |
Rodolfo Pacheco de Moraes1, Ruan Pimenta1,2, Fernando Noboru Cabral Mori1, Gabriel Arantes Dos Santos1,2, Nayara Izabel Viana1, Vanessa Ribeiro Guimarães1, Juliana Alves de Camargo1, Katia Ramos Moreira Leite1, Miguel Srougi1,2, William Carlos Nahas3, Sabrina T Reis1.
Abstract
Prostate cancer is the most frequent malignancy affecting men worldwide. Due to the low sensitivity and specificity of the prostate-specific antigen test and the digital rectal exam as screening modalities, several alternatives are being studied. This study aimed to evaluate the application of MMP-9 and its regulators (TIMP-1, RECK, and miR-338-3p) as diagnostic and prognostic indicators of prostate cancer. A total of 134 randomly selected patients under investigation for prostate cancer submitted to a transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy were enrolled in the study; of these, 61 were positive for the disease (cases), and 73 were negative (control group). The tissue samples were further analyzed by gene and miR-338-3p expression analysis using qRT-PCR (one randomly selected fragment of each patient). Approximately 58% of the patients with prostate cancer presented MMP9 upregulation, while 73%, 65%, and 69% downregulated IMP-1, RECK, and miR-338-3p, respectively. MiR-338-3p was expressed at lower levels in patients with PSA concentrations exceeding 20 ng/mL (p=0.045) and abnormal DRE (p=0.006), while the RECK was more expressed in patients with abnormal DRE (p=0.01). We found that most patients with prostate cancer overexpressed MMP-9; on the other hand, most of them underexpressed TIMP-1, RECK, and miR-338-3p. MiR-338-3p presented as a possible predictor of poor prognosis. Further studies are warranted to evaluate these biomarkers as prognosis factors better.Entities:
Keywords: Biomarkers; Image-guided biopsy; Matrix metalloproteinases; MicroRNA; TIMP proteins
Year: 2021 PMID: 35097136 PMCID: PMC8798274 DOI: 10.22099/mbrc.2021.40912.1646
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Biol Res Commun ISSN: 2322-181X
Figure 1Distribution of patients with prostate cancer according to the tissue expression of the genes and miRNA
Demographic, clinical, and pathological characteristics of the study sample
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| |||
| <60 | 13 (21.3) | 12 (18.5) | 0.167 * |
| 60-70 | 22 (36.1) | 34 (52.3) | |
| >70 | 26 (42.6) | 19 (29.2) | |
|
| |||
| <10 | 40 (69.0) | 39 (60.0) | 0.262 * |
| 10-20 | 9 (15.5) | 18 (27.7) | |
| >20 | 9 (15.5) | 8 (12.3) | |
|
| |||
| 6 | 29 (47.5) | --- | --- |
| ≥7 | 32 (52.5) | --- | |
|
| |||
| Normal | 37 (75.5) | 32 (78.0) | 0.777 * |
| Abnormal/suspect | 12 (24.5) | 9 (22.0) | |
|
|
| ||
|
| 67.66 ± 8.73 | 65.69 ± 6.85 | 0.165 ** |
|
| 26.81 ± 106.94 | 10.24 ± 8.46 | 0.570 *** |
(*) Chi-square test (**) Student’s t-test (***) Mann-Whitney U test
Comparison of the expression of the genes and miR-338-3p in prostate tissue samples from patients diagnosed with rrostate cancer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||
| < 60 | 1.60 ± 1.82 | 0.63 ± 0.34 | 0.77 ± 0.75 | 1.48 ± 1.19 |
| 60-70 | 1.66 ± 1.60 | 0.75 ± 0.66 | 0.91 ± 0.73 | 1.11 ± 1.58 |
| >70 | 2.76 ± 2.49 | 0.73 ± 0.52 | 0.96 ± 0.81 | 0.95 ± 1.14 |
| p-value | 0.160 * | 0.852 * | 0.876 * | 0.668 ** |
|
| ||||
| < 10 | 2.02 ± 2.01 | 0.76 ± 0.54 | 0.82 ± 0.70 | 1.04 ± 1.13 |
| 10-20 | 1.41 ± 1.86 | 0.52 ± 0.56 | 0.90 ± 0.88 | 2.28 ± 1.92 |
| > 20 | 2.92 ± 2.65 | 0.84 ± 0.63 | 1.19 ± 0.86 | 0.41 ± 0.66 |
| p-value | 0.404 * | 0.480 * | 0.491 * |
|
|
| ||||
| 6 | 2.33 ± 1.91 | 0.65 ± 0.53 | 0.71 ± 0.69 | 0.93 ± 1.30 |
| ≥ 7 | 1.87 ± 2.29 | 0.77 ± 0.55 | 1.12 ± 0.77 | 1.28 ± 1.34 |
| p-value | 0.431 ¥ | 0.428 ¥ | 0.078 ¥ | 0.247 € |
|
| ||||
| Normal | 2.11 ± 2.19 | 0.68 ± 0.48 | 0.84 ± 0.66 | 1.58 ± 1.50 |
| abnormal | 2.69 ± 2.29 | 1.05 ± 0.65 | 1.59 ± 0.81 | 0.39 ± 0.66 |
| p-value | 0.483 ¥ | 0.091 ¥ |
|
|
(*) ANOVA (**) Kruskal-Wallis (¥) Student t-test (€) Mann-Whitney U test