4.6 Article

A study of circulating microRNAs identifies a new potential biomarker panel to distinguish aggressive prostate cancer

Journal

CARCINOGENESIS
Volume 39, Issue 4, Pages 556-561

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgy025

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs [W81XWH-10-2-0068, W81XWH-13-1-0477]
  2. Michigan Fund for Cancer Research
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P30CA022453] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in men worldwide. Currently available diagnostic and prognostic tools for this disease, such as prostate specific antigen, suffer from lack of specificity and sensitivity, resulting in over- and misdiagnosis. Hence, there is an urgent need for clinically relevant biomarkers capable of distinguishing between aggressive and nonaggressive forms of prostate cancer to aid in stratification, management and therapeutic decisions. To address this unmet need, we investigated the patterns of expression of a panel of 68 plasma-derived microRNAs (miRNAs) in a cohort of African American (AA) and European American (EA) prostate cancer patients (n = 114). miRNA qPCR results were analyzed using in-depth statistical methods, and a bioinformatics analysis was conducted to identify potential targets of the differentially expressed miRNAs. Our data demonstrate that a new previously unreported circulating miRNA signature consisting of a combination of interacting miRNAs (miR-17/miR-192) and an independent miRNA (miR-181a) are capable of segregating aggressive and nonaggressive prostate cancer in both AA and EA patients. The interacting miRNAs outperformed independent miRNAs in identifying aggressiveness. Our results suggest that these circulating miRNAs may constitute novel biomarkers of prostate cancer aggressiveness in both races and warrant further investigation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available