4.5 Article

Prostate biopsies from black men express higher levels of aggressive disease biomarkers than prostate biopsies from white men

Journal

PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES
Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages 262-265

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2011.18

Keywords

biopsy; race; biomarker

Funding

  1. Aureon Biosciences
  2. Department of Veterans Affairs
  3. Department of Defense
  4. American Urological Association Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A wide array of biomarkers is being investigated as predictors of prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis and recurrence. We compared the expression of a small panel of these biomarkers as a function of race among men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). Prostate needle biopsy specimens from 131 patients treated with RP at the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center were hematoxylin and eosin stained and immunofluorescent assayed for alpha-methylacyl CoA racemase (AMACR), androgen receptor (AR) and Ki67. Proprietary image analysis was used to identify six biometric feature combinations that were significantly associated with progression in a previous study. Analysis of population characteristics, stratified by race, was performed using rank-sum and chi(2)-test. The effect of race on expression of these biomarker profiles was analyzed using multivariate linear regression. All six biomarker features were expressed at higher levels in black men than white men, with Norm AR (P = 0.006) and Ki67 (P = 0.02) attaining statistical significance. On multivariate analysis, all markers were expressed at higher levels in black men, with Norm AR (P = 0.001), Ki67 (P = 0.007) and Ki67/lum (P = 0.022) reaching significance. These data support the hypothesis that PCa may be biologically more aggressive among black men. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases (2011) 14, 262-265; doi:10.1038/pcan.2011.18; published online 26 April 2011

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available