| Literature DB >> 35804887 |
Carmen Ortiz-Sánchez1, Jarline Encarnación-Medina1, Jong Y Park2, Natasha Moreno3, Gilberto Ruiz-Deya3,4, Jaime Matta1.
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) accounts for 22% of the new cases diagnosed in Hispanic men in the US. Among Hispanics, Puerto Rican (PR) men show the highest PCa-specific mortality. Epidemiological studies using functional assays in lymphocytes have demonstrated that having low DRC is a significant risk factor for cancer development. The aim of this study was to evaluate variations in DRC in PR men with PCa. Lymphocytes were isolated from blood samples from PCa cases (n = 41) and controls (n = 14) recruited at a hospital setting. DRC levels through the nucleotide excision repair (NER) pathway were measured with the CometChip using UVC as a NER inductor. The mean DRC for controls and PCa cases were 20.66% (±7.96) and 8.41 (±4.88), respectively (p < 0.001). The relationship between DRC and tumor aggressiveness was also evaluated. Additional comparisons were performed to evaluate the contributions of age, anthropometric measurements, and prostate-specific antigen levels to the DRC. This is the first study to apply the CometChip in a clinical cancer study. Our results represent an innovative step in the development of a blood-based screening test for PCa based on DRC levels. Our data also suggest that DRC levels may have the potential to discriminate between aggressive and indolent cases.Entities:
Keywords: CometChip; DNA repair capacity; nucleotide excision repair; prostate cancer
Year: 2022 PMID: 35804887 PMCID: PMC9264934 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14133117
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Epidemiological characteristics of the study population of men with and without prostate cancer.
| Variables | Controls PCa | PCa Patients | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.41 | ||
| <55 | 7 (50.0) | 15 (36.6) | |
| ≥55 | 7 (50.0) | 25 (61.0) | |
| Missing | 0 (0.00) | 1 (2.43) | |
| BMI | 0.08 | ||
| <25 kg/m2 | 4 (28.6) | 5 (12.8) | |
| ≥25 kg/m2 | 7 (50.0) | 33 (84.6) | |
| Missing | 3 (21.4) | 1 (2.56) | |
| Family history of cancer | 1.00 | ||
| Yes | 7 (50.0) | 19 (46.3) | |
| No | 6 (42.9) | 19 (46.3) | |
| Missing | 1 (7.1) | 3 (7.32) | |
| Hypertension | 0.76 | ||
| Yes | 8 (57.1) | 21 (53.8) | |
| No | 5 (35.7) | 17 (43.6) | |
| Missing | 1 (7.1) | 1 (2.56) | |
| Diabetes | 0.04 | ||
| Yes | 7 (50.0) | 9 (22.0) | |
| No | 6 (42.9) | 29 (70.7) | |
| Missing | 1 (7.1) | 3 (7.32) | |
| Urological conditions (not PCa) | 1.00 | ||
| Yes | 2 (14.3) | 6 (14.6) | |
| No | 11 (78.6) | 32 (78.0) | |
| Missing | 1 (7.1) | 3 (7.32) | |
| Alcohol consumption | 0.82 | ||
| Yes | 7 (50.0) | 23 (60.5) | |
| No | 6 (42.9) | 15 (39.5) | |
| Missing | 1 (7.1) | 0 (0.00) | |
| Frequency (alcohol consumption) | 1.00 | ||
| Occasionally | 6 (85.7) | 21 (91.3) | |
| Daily | 1 (14.3) | 2 (8.70) | |
| Smoking | 0.25 | ||
| Yes | 6 (42.9) | 11 (26.8) | |
| No | 7 (50.0) | 27 (65.9) | |
| Missing | 1 (7.1) | 3 (7.32) | |
| Frequency (smoking) | 1.00 | ||
| Former smoker | 5 (83.3) | 9 (81.8) | |
| Active smoker | 1 (16.7) | 2 (18.2) | |
| Caffeine consumption | 0.11 | ||
| Yes | 9 (64.3) | 16 (40.0) | |
| No | 4 (28.6) | 21 (52.5) | |
| Missing | 1 (7.1) | 3 (7.5) | |
| Frequency (caffeine consumption) | 1.00 | ||
| 1 cup/day | 3 (33.3) | 7 (43.8) | |
| ≥2 cup/day | 5 (55.6) | 8 (50.0) | |
| Missing | 1 (11.1) | 1 (6.25) | |
p-value was obtained from Fisher’s exact test.
Figure 1DNA repair capacity levels in prostate cancer cases and controls measured in terms of NER pathway. Sample distributions using the DRC values for PCa cases (n = 41) and controls (n = 14). Each box and whiskers represent the median and range values for a study group. Dots and squares represent the individual DRC values for PCa cases (green circles) and controls (blue squares). Mean DRC value for each group is represented with a plus (+) sign. Asterisk (***) represents significant results based on a Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.001.
Clinicopathological variables for the study group of men with prostate cancer.
| Variables | Indolent PCa | Aggressive PCa | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (mean ± SD) | 59.5 ± 6.3 | 66.0 ± 9.7 | 0.04 |
| Gleason Score | <0.0001 | ||
| 6 | 7 (41.2) | 0 (0.0) | |
| 7 (3 + 4) | 10 (58.8) | 0 (0.0) | |
| 7 (4 + 3) | 0 (0.0) | 8 (34.8) | |
| 8–9 | 0 (0.0) | 15 (65.2) | |
| Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) | 0.10 | ||
| <4 ng/mL | 5 (29.4) | 2 (8.7) | |
| ≥4 ng/mL | 12 (70.6) | 20 (87.0) | |
| Missing | 0 (0.0) | 1 (4.3) | |
| Prostatectomy | 0.01 | ||
| Yes | 14 (82.4) | 10 (43.5) | |
| No | 3 (17.6) | 13 (56.5) | |
| Grade Group | <0.0001 | ||
| 1 | 7 (41.2) | 0 (0.0) | |
| 2 | 10 (58.8) | 0 (0.0) | |
| 3 | 0 (0.0) | 7 (30.4) | |
| 4 | 0 (0.0) | 7 (30.4) | |
| 5 | 0 (0.0) | 9 (39.2) | |
| Pathological staging | 0.0008 | ||
| pT2, pN0 | 12 (70.6) | 5 (21.7) | |
| pT3, pN0 | 0 (0.0) | 1 (4.3) | |
| pT3a, pN0 | 1 (5.9) | 1 (4.3) | |
| pT3b, pN0 | 1 (5.9) | 0 (0.0) | |
| pT3b, pN1 | 0 (0.0) | 1 (4.3) | |
| Missing | 3 (17.6) | 15 (65.2) | |
| Androgen deprivation therapy | 0.11 | ||
| Yes | 0 (0.0) | 4 (17.4) | |
| No | 17 (100.0) | 17 (73.9) | |
| Missing | 0 (0.0) | 2 (8.70) |
p-value was obtained from Chi-squared and Fisher’s exact test.
Figure 2DNA repair capacity in prostate cancer patients with indolent and aggressive tumors. Based on their Gleason scores, the tumors from PCa cases were stratified into indolent (n = 17) and aggressive (n = 23). Symbols represent individual DRC values. Mean DRC value for each group is represented with a plus (+) sign. Asterisk (****) denotes statistical significance (p = 0.001, Kruskal–Wallis test).
DNA repair capacity covariance analyses using age, BMI, and PSA levels.
| Descriptive Statistics | Controls | PCa Cases | Pairwise | Indolent | Aggressive PCa Cases | Pairwise |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of subjects | 14 | 41 | - | 17 | 23 | - |
| Dispersion Analysis | ||||||
| Minimum | 13.37 | 1.44 | - | 1.69 | 1.44 | - |
| 25% Percentile | 13.90 | 5.04 | - | 4.68 | 4.99 | - |
| Median | 16.90 | 6.74 | - | 9.01 | 6.74 | - |
| 75% Percentile | 24.86 | 11.65 | - | 11.65 | 11.91 | - |
| Maximum | 38.88 | 21.90 | - | 21.90 | 17.07 | - |
| Analysis of covariance | ||||||
| Mean | 20.66 (7.96) | 8.41 (4.88) | <0.0001 | 8.51 (5.14) | 8.43 (4.88) | 0.40 |
| Estimated Mean a,b | 20.55 (1.60) a | 8.45 (0.89) a | <0.0001 | 9.28 (1.23) b | 7.86 (1.04) b | 0.40 |
| Lower 95% CI | 16.06 | 6.87 | - | 5.86 | 6.32 | - |
| Upper 95% CI | 25.26 | 9.95 | - | 11.15 | 10.54 | - |
| Estimated Lower 95% CI | 17.41 | 6.66 | - | 6.79 | 5.74 | - |
| Estimated Upper 95% CI | 23.69 | 10.23 | - | 11.77 | 9.97 | - |
a Case–control: Covariates appearing in the model were evaluated at the following values: age = 62.13, PSA = 38.22, BMI = 27.22. b Indolent–aggressive: Covariates appearing in the model were evaluated at the following values: age = 63.25, BMI = 29.24, PSA = 51.99. A mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level (Mann–Whitney test). Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Figure 3Assessment of the DNA repair capacity of human lymphocyte cell lines using the CometChip. Each bar represents the mean ± SD of three independent experiments. Asterisks denote statistical significance: (**) p < 0.01 and (***) p < 0.001.