Prostate cancer biomarkers and the emerging proteomic techniques used in biomarker research

Prostate cancer (CaP) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in North American males and the most common newly diagnosed cancer in men world wide. Biomarkers are widely used for both early detection and prognostic tests for cancer. The current, commonly used biomarker for CaP is serum prostate specific antigen (PSA). However, the specificity of this biomarker is low as its serum level is not only increased in CaP but also in various other diseases, with age and even body mass index. Human body fluids provide an excellent resource for the discovery of biomarkers, with the advantage over tissue/biopsy samples of their ease of access, due to the less invasive nature of collection. However, their analysis presents challenges in terms of variability and validation. Blood and urine are two human body fluids commonly used for CaP research, but their proteomic analyses are limited both by the large dynamic range of protein abundance making detection of low abundance proteins difficult and in the case of urine, by the high salt concentration. To overcome these challenges, different techniques for removal of high abundance proteins and enrichment of low abundance proteins are used. Their applications and limitations are discussed in this review. A number of innovative proteomic techniques have improved detection of biomarkers. They include two dimensional differential gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE), quantitative mass spectrometry (MS) and functional proteomic studies, i.e., investigating the association of post translational modifications (PTMs) such as phosphorylation, glycosylation and protein degradation. The recent development of quantitative MS techniques such as stable isotope labeling with amino acids in cell culture (SILAC), isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ) and multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) have allowed proteomic researchers to quantitatively compare data from different samples. 2D-DIGE has greatly improved the statistical power of classical 2D gel analysis by introducing an internal control. This chapter aims to review novel CaP biomarkers as well as to discuss current trends in biomarker research from two angles: the source of biomarkers (particularly human body fluids such as blood and urine), and emerging proteomic approaches for biomarker research.

Molecular pathology of prostate cancer:the key to identifying new biomarkers of disease

Microarray technology has recently accelerated the study of the molecular events involved in prostate cancer, offering the prospect of more precise prognosis and new therapeutic strategies. This review summarises current knowledge of the molecular pathology of prostate cancer. The expression and function of numerous genes have been shown to be altered in prostate cancer. Many of these genes are involved in cell cycle regulation, steroid hormone metabolism or regulation of gene expression. The mechanisms by which androgen independence arises are discussed, including cross-activation, gene amplification and point mutations of the androgen receptor. Analysis of changes in the levels of expression of large numbers of genes during prostate cancer progression have provided a better understanding of the basis of the disease, yielding new molecular markers, such as hepsin, with potential use in diagnosis and prognosis.

Eight-plex iTRAQ analysis of variant metastatic human prostate cancer cells identifies candidate biomarkers of progression: an exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Due to the heterogeneity in the biological behavior of prostate cancer, biomarkers that can reliably distinguish indolent from aggressive disease are urgently needed to inform treatment choices. METHODS: We employed 8-plex isobaric Tags for Relative and Absolute Quantitation (iTRAQ), to profile the proteomes of two distinct panels of isogenic prostate cancer cells with varying growth and metastatic potentials, in order to identify novel biomarkers associated with progression. The LNCaP, LNCaP-Pro5, and LNCaP-LN3 panel of cells represent a model of androgen-responsive prostate cancer, while the PC-3, PC-3M, and PC-3M-LN4 panel represent a model of androgen-insensitive disease. RESULTS: Of the 245 unique proteins identified and quantified (>or=95% confidence; >or=2 peptides/protein), 17 showed significant differential expression (>or=+/-1.5), in at least one of the variant LNCaP cells relative to parental cells. Similarly, comparisons within the PC-3 panel identified 45 proteins to show significant differential expression in at least one of the variant PC-3 cells compared with parental cells. Differential expression of selected candidates was verified by Western blotting or immunocytochemistry, and corresponding mRNA expression was determined by quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR). Immunostaining of prostate tissue microarrays for ERp5, one of the candidates identified, showed a significant higher immunoexpression in pre-malignant lesions compared with non-malignant epithelium (P < 0.0001, Mann-Whitney U-test), and in high Gleason grade (4-5) versus low grade (2-3) cancers (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides proof of principle for the application of an 8-plex iTRAQ approach to uncover clinically relevant candidate biomarkers for prostate cancer progression.

PTRF/cavin-1 neutralizes non-caveolar caveolin-1 microdomains in prostate cancer

Caveolin-1 has a complex role in prostate cancer and has been suggested to be a potential biomarker and therapeutic target. As mature caveolin-1 resides in caveolae, invaginated lipid raft domains at the plasma membrane, caveolae have been suggested as a tumor-promoting signaling platform in prostate cancer. However, caveola formation requires both caveolin-1 and cavin-1 (also known as PTRF; polymerase I and transcript release factor). Here, we examined the expression of cavin-1 in prostate epithelia and stroma using tissue microarray including normal, non-malignant and malignant prostate tissues. We found that caveolin-1 was induced without the presence of cavin-1 in advanced prostate carcinoma, an expression pattern mirrored in the PC-3 cell line. In contrast, normal prostate epithelia expressed neither caveolin-1 nor cavin-1, while prostate stroma highly expressed both caveolin-1 and cavin-1. Utilizing PC-3 cells as a suitable model for caveolin-1-positive advanced prostate cancer, we found that cavin-1 expression in PC-3 cells inhibits anchorage-independent growth, and reduces in vivo tumor growth and metastasis in an orthotopic prostate cancer xenograft mouse model. The expression of α-smooth muscle actin in stroma along with interleukin-6 (IL-6) in cancer cells was also decreased in tumors of mice bearing PC-3-cavin-1 tumor cells. To determine whether cavin-1 acts by neutralizing caveolin-1, we expressed cavin-1 in caveolin-1-negative prostate cancer LNCaP and 22Rv1 cells. Caveolin-1 but not cavin-1 expression increased anchorage-independent growth in LNCaP and 22Rv1 cells. Cavin-1 co-expression reversed caveolin-1 effects in caveolin-1-positive LNCaP cells. Taken together, these results suggest that caveolin-1 in advanced prostate cancer is present outside of caveolae, because of the lack of cavin-1 expression. Cavin-1 expression attenuates the effects of non-caveolar caveolin-1 microdomains partly via reduced IL-6 microenvironmental function. With circulating caveolin-1 as a potential biomarker for advanced prostate cancer, identification of the molecular pathways affected by cavin-1 could provide novel therapeutic targets.

Kallikrein-related peptidases in prostate cancer: From molecular function to clinical application

Prostate cancer is a leading contributor to male cancer-related deaths worldwide. Kallikrein-related peptidases (KLKs) are serine proteases that exhibit deregulated expression in prostate cancer, with KLK3, or prostate specific antigen (PSA), being the widely-employed clinical biomarker for prostate cancer. Other KLKs, such as KLK2, show promise as prostate cancer biomarkers and, additionally, their altered expression has been utilised for the design of KLK-targeted therapies. There is also a large body of in vitro and in vivo evidence supporting their role in cancer-related processes. Here, we review the literature on studies to date investigating the potential of other KLKs, in addition to PSA, as biomarkers and in therapeutic options, as well as their current known functional roles in cancer progression. Increased knowledge of these KLK-mediated functions, including degradation of the extracellular matrix, local invasion, cancer cell proliferation, interactions with fibroblasts, angiogenesis, migration, bone metastasis and tumour growth in vivo, may help define new roles as prognostic biomarkers and novel therapeutic targets for this cancer.

A population-based study of adverse physical effects following prostate cancer treatments: Results from the PiCTure (Prostate cancer treatment – your experience) study

Background:

Men and clinicians need reliable population based information when making decisions about investigation and treatment of prostate cancer. In the absence of clearly preferred treatments, differences in outcomes become more important.

Aim:

To investigate rates of adverse physical effects among prostate cancer survivors 2-15 years post diagnosis by treatment, and estimate population burden.

Methods:

A cross sectional, postal survey to 6,559 survivors (all ages) diagnosed with primary, invasive prostate cancer (ICD10-C61), identified in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland via cancer registries. Questions included symptoms at diagnosis, treatments received and adverse physical effects (impotence, urinary incontinence, bowel problems, breast changes, libido loss, hot flashes, fatigue) experienced ‘ever’ and ‘current’ i.e. at questionnaire completion. Physical effect levels were weighted by age, country and time since diagnosis for all prostate cancer survivors. Bonferroni corrections were applied to account for multiple comparisons.

Results:

Adjusted response rate 54%, (n=3,348). 75% reported at least one current physical effect (90% ever), with 29% reporting at least three. These varied by treatment. Current impotence was reported by 76% post-prostatectomy, 64% post-external beam radiotherapy with hormone therapy, with average for all survivors of 57%. Urinary incontinence (overall current level: 16%) was highest post-prostatectomy (current 28%, ever 70%). 42% of brachytherapy patients reported no current adverse physical effects; however 43% reported current impotence and 8% current incontinence. Current hot flashes (41%), breast changes (18%) and fatigue (28%) were reported more commonly by patients on hormone therapy.

Conclusions:

This study provides evidence that adverse physical effects following prostate cancer represent a significant public health burden; an estimated 1.6% of men over 45 is a prostate cancer survivor with a current adverse physical effect. This information should facilitate investigation and treatment decision-making and follow-up care of patients.

Patient-reported 'ever had' and 'current' long term physical symptoms following prostate cancer treatments

OBJECTIVE: To document prostate cancer patient reported 'ever experienced' and 'current' prevalence of disease specific physical symptoms stratified by primary treatment received.
PATIENTS: 3,348 prostate cancer survivors 2-15 years post diagnosis.
METHODS: Cross-sectional, postal survey of 6,559 survivors diagnosed 2-15 years ago with primary, invasive PCa (ICD10-C61) identified via national, population based cancer registries in Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland. Questions included symptoms at diagnosis, primary treatments and physical symptoms (impotence/urinary incontinence/bowel problems/breast changes/loss of libido/hot flashes/fatigue) experienced 'ever' and at questionnaire completion ("current"). Symptom proportions were weighted by age, country and time since diagnosis. Bonferroni corrections were applied for multiple comparisons.
RESULTS: Adjusted response rate 54%; 75% reported at least one 'current' physical symptom ('ever':90%), with 29% reporting at least three. Prevalence varied by treatment; overall 57% reported current impotence; this was highest following radical prostatectomy (RP)76% followed by external beam radiotherapy with concurrent hormone therapy (HT); 64%. Urinary incontinence (overall 'current' 16%) was highest following RP ('current'28%, 'ever'70%). While 42% of brachytherapy patients reported no 'current' symptoms; 43% reported 'current' impotence and 8% 'current' incontinence. 'Current' hot flashes (41%), breast changes (18%) and fatigue (28%) were reported more often by patients on HT.
CONCLUSION: Symptoms following prostate cancer are common, often multiple, persist long-term and vary by treatment. They represent a significant health burden. An estimated 1.6% of men over 45 is a prostate cancer survivor currently experiencing an adverse physical symptom. Recognition and treatment of physical symptoms should be prioritised in patient follow-up. This information should facilitate men and clinicians when deciding about treatment as differences in survival between radical treatments is minimal.

Improving the early diagnostic of prostate cancer by multiple biomarker detection with new biosensing devices

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common form of cancer in men, in Europe (World Health Organization data). The most recent statistics, in Portuguese territory, confirm this scenario, which states that about 50% of Portuguese men may suffer from prostate cancer and 15% of these will die from this condition. Its early detection is therefore fundamental. This is currently being done by Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) screening in urine but false positive and negative results are quite often obtained and many patients are sent to unnecessary biopsy procedures. This early detection protocol may be improved, by the development of point-of-care cancer detection devices, not only to PSA but also to other biomarkers recently identified. Thus, the present work aims to screen several biomarkers in cultured human prostate cell lines, serum and urine samples, developing low cost sensors based on new synthetic biomaterials. Biomarkers considered in this study are the following: prostate specific antigen (PSA), annexin A3 (ANXA3), microseminoprotein-beta (MSMB) and sarcosine (SAR). The biomarker recognition may occurs by means of molecularly imprinted polymers (MIP), which are a kind of plastic antibodies, and enzymatic approaches. The growth of a rigid polymer, chemically stable, using the biomarker as a template allows the synthesis of the plastic antibody. MIPs show high sensitivity/selectivity and present much longer stability and much lower price than natural antibodies. This nanostructured material was prepared on a carbon solid. The interaction between the biomarker and the sensing-material produces electrical signals generating quantitative or semi-quantitative data. These devices allow inexpensive and portable detection in point-of-care testing.

An exploration of men’s experiences of undergoing active surveillance for favourable-risk prostate cancer: A mixed methods study protocol

Background
Prostate cancer is one of the most common male cancers worldwide. Active Surveillance (AS) has been developed to allow men with lower risk disease to postpone or avoid the adverse side effects associated with curative treatments until the disease progresses. Despite the medical benefits of AS, it is reported that living with untreated cancer can create a significant emotional burden for patients.

Methods/design
The aim of this study is to gain insight into the experiences of men eligible to undergo AS for favourable-risk PCa.

This study has a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design consisting of two phases: quantitative followed by qualitative. Phase 1 has a multiple point, prospective, longitudinal exploratory design. Ninety men diagnosed with favourable-risk prostate cancer will be assessed immediately post-diagnosis (baseline) and followed over a period of 12 months, in intervals of 3 month. Ninety age-matched men with no cancer diagnosis will also be recruited using peer nomination and followed up in the same 3 month intervals. Following completion of Phase 1, 10–15 AS participants who have reported both the best and worst psychological functioning will be invited to participate in semi-structured qualitative interviews. Phase 2 will facilitate further exploration of the quantitative results and obtain a richer understanding of participants’ personal interpretations of their illness and psychological wellbeing.

Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study to utilise early baseline measures; include a healthy comparison group; calculate sample size through power calculations; and use a mixed methods approach to gain a deeper more holistic insight into the experiences of men diagnosed with favourable-risk prostate cancer.

MALDI mass spectrometry in prostate cancer biomarker discovery

Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionisation (MALDI) mass spectrometry (MS) is a highly versatile and sensitive analytical technique, which is known for its soft ionisation of biomolecules such as peptides and proteins. Generally, MALDI MS analysis requires little sample preparation, and in some cases like MS profiling it can be automated through the use of robotic liquid-handling systems. For more than a decade now, MALDI MS has been extensively utilised in the search for biomarkers that could aid clinicians in diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment decision making. This review examines the various MALDI-based MS techniques like MS imaging, MS profiling and proteomics in-depth analysis where MALDI MS follows fractionation and separation methods such as gel electrophoresis, and how these have contributed to prostate cancer biomarker research. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Biomarkers: A Proteomic Challenge.

Use of multiple biomarkers for a molecular diagnosis of prostate cancer

The identification of biomarkers capable of providing a reliable molecular diagnostic test for prostate cancer (PCa) is highly desirabie clinically. We describe here 4 biomarkers, UDP-N-Acetyl-alpha-D-galactosamine transferase (GalNAc-T3; not previously associated with PCa), PSMA, Hepsin and DD3/PCA3, which, in combination, distinguish prostate cancer from benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). GalNAc-T3 was identified as overexpressed in PCa tissues by microarray analysis, confirmed by quantitative real-time PCR and shown immunohistochemically to be localised to prostate epithelial cells with higher expression in malignant cells. Real-time quantitative PCR analysis across 21 PCa and 34 BPH tissues showed 4.6-fold overexpression of GalNAc-T3 (p = 0.005). The noncoding mRNA (DD3/PCA3) was overexpressed 140-fold (p = 0.007) in the cancer samples compared to BPH tissues. Hepsin was overexpressed 21-fold (p = 0.049, whereas the overexpression for PSMA was 66-fold (p = 0.047). When the gene expression data for these 4 biomarkers was combined in a logistic regression model, a predictive index was obtained that distinguished 100% of the PCa samples from all of the BPH samples. Therefore, combining these genes in a real-time PCR assay represents a powerful new approach to diagnosing PCa by molecular profiling. (c) 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Eph receptors and their ligands : promising molecular biomarkers and therapeutic targets in prostate cancer

Although at present, there is a high incidence of prostate cancer, particularly in the Western world, mortality from this disease is declining and occurs primarily only from clinically significant late stage tumors with a poor prognosis. A major current focus of this field is the identification of new biomarkers which can detect earlier, and more effectively, clinically significant tumors from those deemed “low risk”, as well as predict the prognostic course of a particular cancer. This strategy can in turn offer novel avenues for targeted therapies. The large family of Receptor Tyrosine Kinases, the Ephs, and their binding partners, the ephrins, has been implicated in many cancers of epithelial origin through stimulation of oncogenic transformation, tumor angiogenesis, and promotion of increased cell survival, invasion and migration. They also show promise as both biomarkers of diagnostic and prognostic value and as targeted therapies in cancer. This review will briefly discuss the complex roles and biological mechanisms of action of these receptors and ligands and, with regard to prostate cancer, highlight their potential as biomarkers for both diagnosis and prognosis, their application as imaging agents, and current approaches to assessing them as therapeutic targets. This review demonstrates the need for future studies into those particular family members that will prove helpful in understanding the biology and potential as targets for treatment of prostate cancer.