PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-5 (5)
 

Clipboard (0)
None
Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Photodynamic diagnosis of shed prostate cancer cells in voided urine treated with 5-aminolevulinic acid 
BMC Urology  2014;14:59.
Background
Past attempts at detecting prostate cancer (PCa) cells in voided urine by traditional cytology have been impeded by undesirably low sensitivities but high specificities. To improve the sensitivities, we evaluate the feasibility and clinical utility of photodynamic diagnosis (PDD) of prostate cancer by using 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) to examine shed prostate cancer cells in voided urine samples.
Methods
One hundred thirty-eight patients with an abnormal digital rectal exam (DRE) and/or abnormal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were recruited between April 2009 and December 2010. Voided urine specimens were collected before prostate biopsy. Urine specimens were treated with 5-ALA and imaged by fluorescence microscopy and reported as protoporphyrin IX (PPIX) positive (presence of cells demonstrating simultaneous PPIX fluorescence) or PPIX negative (lack of cells demonstrating fluorescence).
Results
Of the 138 patients, PCa was detected on needle biopsy in 81 patients (58.7%); of these 81 patients with PCa, 60 were PPIX-positive (sensitivity: 74.1%). Although 57 patients did not harbor PCa by conventional diagnostic procedures, 17 of these at-risk patients were found to be PPIX-positive (specificity: 70.2%). PPIX–PDD was more sensitive compared with DRE and transrectal ultrasound and more specific compared with PSA and PSA density. The incidence of PPIX–PDD positivity did not increase with increasing total PSA levels, tumor stage or Gleason score.
Conclusions
To our knowledge, this is the first successful demonstration of PPIX in urine sediments treated with 5-ALA used to detect PCa in a noninvasive yet highly sensitive manner. However, further studies are warranted to determine the role of PPIX–PPD for PCa detection.
doi:10.1186/1471-2490-14-59
PMCID: PMC4130698  PMID: 25086448
5-aminolevulinic acid; Prostate cancer; Photodynamic diagnosis; Urine cytology
2.  Nadir PSA level and time to nadir PSA are prognostic factors in patients with metastatic prostate cancer 
BMC Urology  2014;14:33.
Background
Primary androgen deprivation therapy (PADT) is the most effective systemic therapy for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Nevertheless, once PSA progression develops, the prognosis is serious and mortal. We sought to identify factors that predicted the prognosis in a series of patients with metastatic prostate cancer.
Methods
Two-hundred eighty-six metastatic prostate cancer patients who received PADT from 1998 to 2005 in Nara Uro-Oncology Research Group were enrolled. The log-rank test and Cox’s proportional hazards model were used to determine the predictive factors for prognosis; rate of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and overall survival.
Results
The median age, follow-up period and PSA level at diagnosis were 73 years, 47 months and 174 ng/mL, respectively. The 5-year overall survival rate was 63.0%. The multivariable analysis showed that Gleason score (Hazard ratio [HR]:1.362; 95% confidence interval [C.I.], 1.023-1.813), nadir PSA (HR:6.332; 95% C.I., 4.006-9.861) and time from PADT to nadir (HR:4.408; 95% C.I., 3.099-6.271) were independent prognostic factors of the incidence of CRPC. The independent parameters in the multivariate analysis that predicted overall survival were nadir PSA (HR:5.221; 95% C.I., 2.757-9.889) and time from PADT to nadir (HR:4.008; 95% C.I., 2.137-7.517).
Conclusions
Nadir PSA and time from PADT to nadir were factors that affect both CRPC and overall survival in a cohort of patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Lower nadir PSA level and longer time from PADT to nadir were good for survival and progression.
doi:10.1186/1471-2490-14-33
PMCID: PMC4018264  PMID: 24773608
Prostate cancer; Metastasis; Risk factors
3.  Inhibition of COX-2 expression by topical diclofenac enhanced radiation sensitivity via enhancement of TRAIL in human prostate adenocarcinoma xenograft model 
BMC Urology  2013;13:1.
Background
COX-2 inhibitors have an antitumor potential and have been verified by many researchers. Treatment of cancer cells with external stressors such as irradiation can stimulate the over-expression of COX-2 and possibly confer radiation resistance. In this study, we tested if topical diclofenac, which inhibits both COX-1 and COX-2, administration rendered prostate tumor cells sensitize to the effects of radiation.
Methods
LNCaP-COX-2 and LNCaP-Neo cells were treated with 0 to 1000 μM diclofenac. Next, a clonogenic assay was performed in which cells were subjected to irradiation (0 to 4 Gy) with or without diclofenac. COX-2 expression and other relevant molecules were measured by real-time PCR and immunohistochemistry after irradiation and diclofenac treatment. In addition, we assessed the tumor volumes of xenograft LNCaP-COX-2 cells treated with topical diclofenac with or without radiation therapy (RT).
Results
LNCaP-COX-2 and LNCaP-Neo cell lines experienced cytotoxic effects of diclofenac in a dose related manner. Clonogenic assays demonstrated that LNCaP-COX-2 cells were significantly more resistant to RT than LNCaP-Neo cells. Furthermore, the addition of diclofenac sensitized LNCaP-COX-2 not but LNCaP-Neo cells to the cytocidal effects of radiation. In LNCaP-COX-2 cells, diclofenac enhanced radiation-induced apoptosis compared with RT alone. This phenomenon might be attributed to enhancement of RT-induced TRAIL expression as demonstrated by real-time PCR analysis. Lastly, tumor volumes of LNCaP-COX-2 cells xenograft treated with diclofenac or RT alone was >4-fold higher than in mice treated with combined diclofenac and radiation (p<0.05).
Conclusions
These in vitro and in vivo findings suggest that conventional COX inhibitor, diclofenac enhances the effect of RT on prostate cancer cells that express COX-2. Thus, diclofenac may have potential as radiosensitizer for treatment of prostate cancer.
doi:10.1186/1471-2490-13-1
PMCID: PMC3561196  PMID: 23289871
Prostate cancer; Radiation therapy; COX-2; TRAIL; Apoptosis; Topical therapy; Radiosensitizer; Diclofenac; Radioresistance
4.  Minimal percentage of dose received by 90% of the urethra (%UD90) is the most significant predictor of PSA bounce in patients who underwent low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-brachytherapy) for prostate cancer 
BMC Urology  2012;12:28.
Background
To clarify the significant clinicopathological and postdosimetric parameters to predict PSA bounce in patients who underwent low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-brachytherapy) for prostate cancer.
Methods
We studied 200 consecutive patients who received LDR-brachytherapy between July 2004 and November 2008. Of them, 137 patients did not receive neoadjuvant or adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. One hundred and forty-two patients were treated with LDR-brachytherapy alone, and 58 were treated with LDR-brachytherapy in combination with external beam radiation therapy. The cut-off value of PSA bounce was 0.1 ng/mL. The incidence, time, height, and duration of PSA bounce were investigated. Clinicopathological and postdosimetric parameters were evaluated to elucidate independent factors to predict PSA bounce in hormone-naïve patients who underwent LDR-brachytherapy alone.
Results
Fifty patients (25%) showed PSA bounce and 10 patients (5%) showed PSA failure. The median time, height, and duration of PSA bounce were 17 months, 0.29 ng/mL, and 7.0 months, respectively. In 103 hormone-naïve patients treated with LDR-brachytherapy alone, and univariate Cox proportional regression hazard model indicated that age and minimal percentage of the dose received by 30% and 90% of the urethra were independent predictors of PSA bounce. With a multivariate Cox proportional regression hazard model, minimal percentage of the dose received by 90% of the urethra was the most significant parameter of PSA bounce.
Conclusions
Minimal percentage of the dose received by 90% of the urethra was the most significant predictor of PSA bounce in hormone-naïve patients treated with LDR-brachytherapy alone.
doi:10.1186/1471-2490-12-28
PMCID: PMC3487947  PMID: 22974428
Prostate cancer; Brachytherapy; PSA bounce; Post-dosimetry; UD90 (%)
5.  The primary therapy chosen for patients with localized prostate cancer between the university hospital and its affiliated hospitals in Nara Uro-oncological research group registration 
BMC Urology  2011;11:6.
Background
We investigated the differences between the preferential primary therapy conceived by the primary doctors and the primary therapy actually conducted for prostate cancer patients in Nara, Japan.
Methods
The distribution of primary therapy and clinical characteristics of 2303 prostate cancer patients - diagnosed between 2004 and 2006 at Nara Medical University and its 23 affiliated hospitals - were assessed. Moreover, the preferential primary therapy for the patients at each clinical stage (cT1-T3bN0M0) conceived by the primary doctors was investigated and compared to the actual therapy.
Results
Of all patients, 51% received primary androgen deprivation therapy (PADT), 30% underwent radical prostatectomy (RP), and 14% received radiation therapy (RT). The preferential primary therapy for cT1-2N0M0 was RP (92%) while 38% of the patients actually received PADT (RP: 40%). For cT3aN0M0, the preferential primary therapy was both RP and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) while 58% of the patients actually received PADT (RP: 16%, EBRT: 24%). For cT3bN0M0, the most preferential primary therapy was EBRT (46%) while 67% of the patients actually received PADT (EBRT: 21%). This trend was more notable in the affiliated hospitals than in the University hospital. The hospitals with lower volume of RP per year significantly conducted PADT compared with those with higher volume of RP.
Conclusions
PADT was commonly used to treat localized prostate cancer as well as locally advanced prostate cancer in Japan. There was a definite discrepancy between the preferential primary therapy conceived by the primary doctors and the actual therapy provided to the patients.
doi:10.1186/1471-2490-11-6
PMCID: PMC3095576  PMID: 21524283

Results 1-5 (5)