4.6 Article

DNA damage levels in prostate cancer cases and controls

Journal

CARCINOGENESIS
Volume 27, Issue 6, Pages 1187-1193

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgi288

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA12197] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [M01-RR07122] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study used the alkaline Comet assay to evaluate whether basal or H2O2-induced DNA damage is associated with prostate cancer (CaP) risk. Using lymphocyte samples from 158 CaP cases and 128 controls, collected in an ongoing case-control study, our results showed that basal DNA damage did not differ between cases and controls. However, the H2O2-induced DNA damage level was significantly higher in incident cases (mean +/- SD; 6.61 +/- 4.43, n = 102) than controls (5.30 +/- 3.60, n = 128) or prevalent cases (4.47 +/- 3.19; n = 56). Incident cases with a positive smoking history had significantly higher H2O2-induced DNA damage than never-smokers (7.57 +/- 4.82 versus 4.52 +/- 2.40; P < 0.001). Above-median H2O2-induced DNA damage was associated with a 1.61-fold increase in CaP risk [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.92-2.81], after adjustment for age, race, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), smoking history and family history (FH). Using the lowest quartile of H2O2-induced DNA damage as the referent group, the adjusted ORs for the 25th, 50th and 75th quartiles were 0.90 (95% CI = 0.39-2.05), 1.06 (95% CI = 0.48-2.35) and 2.05 (95% CI = 0.96-4.37), respectively (P = 0.046, test for linear trend). The association between CaP and DNA damage was modified by age, smoking history, family history and body mass index. Our results suggest that DNA damage may be associated with CaP risk. However, larger case-control and follow-up studies are warranted to further evaluate the potential application of the alkaline Comet assay in CaP risk assessment and prevention.

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