MiR-182 Is Upregulated in Prostate Cancer and Contributes to Tumor Progression by Targeting MITF

Altered expression of microRNA-182-5p (miR-182) has been consistently linked with many cancers, but its specific role in prostate cancer remains unclear. In particular, its contribution to epithelial–to–mesenchymal transition (EMT) in this setting has not been well studied. Therefore, this paper profiles the expression of miR-182 in prostate cancer and investigates how it may contribute to progression of this disease. In vitro experiments on prostate cancer cell lines and in silico analyses of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) prostate adenocarcinoma (PRAD) datasets were performed. PCR revealed miR-182 expression was significantly increased in prostate cancer cell lines compared to normal prostate cells. Bioinformatic analysis of TCGA PRAD data similarly showed upregulation of miR-182 was significantly associated with prostate cancer and clinical markers of disease progression. Functional enrichment analysis confirmed a significant association of miR-182 and its target genes with EMT. The EMT-linked gene MITF (melanocyte inducing transcription factor) was subsequently shown to be a novel target of miR-182 in prostate cancer cells. Further TCGA analysis suggested miR-182 expression can be an indicator of patient outcomes and disease progression following therapy. In summary, this is the first study to report that miR-182 over-expression in prostate cancer may contribute to EMT by targeting MITF expression. We propose miR-182 as a potentially useful diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for prostate cancer and other malignancies

Prognostic value of miR-21 for prostate cancer : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Elevated levels of miR-21 expression are associated with many cancers, suggesting it may be a promising clinical biomarker. In prostate cancer (PCa), however, there is still no consensus about the usefulness of miR-21 as an indicator of disease progression. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the value of miR-21 expression as a prognostic measurement in PCa patients. Medline (Ovid), EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for relevant publications between 2010 to 2021. Studies exploring the relationship between miR-21 expression, PCa prognosis and clinicopathological factors were selected for review. Those reporting hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were subject to meta-analyses. Fixed-effect models were employed to calculated pooled HRs and 95% CIs. Risk of bias in each study was assessed using QUIPS tool. Certainty of evidence in each meta-analysis was assessed using GRADE guidelines. A total of 64 studies were included in the systematic review. Of these, 11 were eligible for inclusion in meta-analysis. Meta-analyses revealed that high miR-21 expression was associated with poor prognosis: HR = 1.58 (95% CI = 1.19-2.09) for biochemical recurrence, MODERATE certainty; HR = 1.46 (95% CI = 1.06-2.01) for death, VERY LOW certainty; and HR = 1.26 (95% CI = 0.70-2.27) for disease progression, VERY LOW certainty. Qualitative summary revealed elevated miR-21 expression was significantly positively associated with PCa stage, Gleason score and risk groups. This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that elevated levels of miR-21 are associated with poor prognosis in PCa patients. miR-21 expression may therefore be a useful prognostic biomarker in this disease

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used