Predicting Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness through a Nanoparticle Test

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer death in American men. Due to the lack of accurate tests to distinguish aggressive cancer from indolent tumor, prostate cancer is often over-treated. Post-surgery pathology analysis revealed that 30% of tumors removed by radical prostatectomy are deemed clinically insignificant and would not have required such invasive treatment.^1^ Over-diagnosis and treatment of low-risk prostate cancer has serious and long-lasting side effect: as high as 70% of the patients who receive radical prostatectomy treatment will suffer a loss of sexual potency that cannot be remedied by drugs such as sildenafil citrate.^2^ We herein report a simple nanoparticle-serum protein adsorption test that not only can distinguish prostate cancer from normal and benign conditions, but also is capable of predicting the aggressiveness of prostate cancer quantitatively. This new test could potentially deliver the long-expected and very much needed solution for better individualization of prostate cancer treatment

Prostate cancer incidence in Golestan province, Iran (2004)

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and therefore represents a major problem in public health.The aim of this study was to find and evaluate province-specific estimate of incidence in males by age groups for prostate cancer in Golestan province, Iran. The data used in this study were collected in a cancer registry program that was conducted by Health Deputy of Golestan province in IRAN for a period of 1 year (2004). Prostate cancer data was identified and collected in the population based cancer registries through the 18 Pathology Laboratories (where male populations referred to these centers) and using a structured questionnaire, trained personnel conducted in-person interviews to collect information on prostate cancer in Golestan province. Prostate cancer incidence among males in Golestan province was 5.17/100000 in gerenal. But the highest rate (ASR: 215.87/100,000) among males were showen to be in age 80-85. The incidence of prostate cancer in age 80-84 has risen sharply and it was the lowest in age 50-54 (ASR: 5.18/100,000). According to this information Golestan province harbor a rather incidence for prostate cancer (in age 80-84), comparable to the lower incidence rate reported in the world. For the present time it can be said that prostate cancer in males appear to be one of the most prevalent and serious type of cancer in Golestan province. © 2008 Science Publications

Periacinar clefting and p63 immunostaining in prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and prostatic carcinoma

The aim of the present study was to correlate the presence and extent of retraction clefting and the expression of p63 in neoplastic glands and glands with prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) in needle core biopsies. We analyzed needle core biopsies from 28 patients with PIN and 41 patients with adenocarcinoma. Neoplastic glands and those with PIN were analyzed on high power field (400x) and classified in three groups according to the extent of clefting. Immunohistochemical staining was performed following Microwave Streptavidin ImmunoPeroxidase (MSIP) protocol on DAKO TechMate Horizon automated immunostainer. Periacinar retraction clefting was significantly more prominent in prostatic carcinoma compared to PIN (p<0.0001) and nonneoplastic glands (p<0.0001). There was no difference between normal glands and PIN regarding clefting (p=0.8064). p63 was positive around the whole circumference in 12 out of 28 cases with PIN, and discontinuously positive in remaining 16 PIN cases suggesting initial disruption of the basal cell layer. p63 immunostaining was also positive in all nonneoplastic glands, and negative in all carcinomas. We conclude that retraction clefting was associated with cancer and lack of basal cells, but not with PIN. The relationship between clefting and p63 immunostaining in prostatic cancer should be further analyzed

Inflammation in benign prostate tissue and prostate cancer in the finasteride arm of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial

BACKGROUND: A previous analysis of the placebo arm of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) reported 82% overall prevalence of intraprostatic inflammation and identified a link between inflammation and higher-grade prostate cancer and serum PSA. Here we studied these associations in the PCPT finasteride arm. METHODS: Prostate cancer cases (N=197) detected either on a clinically indicated biopsy or on protocol-directed end-of-study biopsy, and frequency-matched controls (N=248) with no cancer on an end-of-study biopsy were sampled from the finasteride arm. Inflammation in benign prostate tissue was visually assessed using digital images of H&E stained sections. Logistic regression was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: In the finasteride arm, 91.6% of prostate cancer cases and 92.4% of controls had at least one biopsy core with inflammation in benign areas; p < 0.001 for difference compared to placebo arm. Overall, the odds of prostate cancer did not differ by prevalence (OR=0.90, 95% CI 0.44-1.84) or extent (P-trend=0.68) of inflammation. Inflammation was not associated with higher-grade disease (prevalence: OR=1.07, 95% CI 0.43-2.69). Furthermore, mean PSA concentration did not differ by the prevalence or extent of inflammationin either cases or controls. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of intraprostatic inflammation was higher in the finasteride than placebo arm of the PCPT, with no association with higher-grade prostate cancer. IMPACT: Finasteride may attenuate the association between inflammation and higher-grade prostate cancer. Moreover, the missing link between intraprostatic inflammation and PSA suggests that finasteride may reduce inflammation-associated PSA elevation

Genomic biomarkers in prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous cancer among men in the United States. In the last decade there has been a rapid expansion in the field of biomarker assays for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment prediction in prostate cancer. The evidence base for these assays is rapidly evolving. With several commercial assays available at each stage of the disease, deciding which genomic assays are appropriate for which patients can be nuanced for physicians. In an effort to help guide these decisions in clinical practice, we aim to give an update on the current status of the biomarker field of prostate cancer