4.4 Article

Blood and tissue nitric oxide and malondialdehyde are prognostic indicators of localized prostate cancer

期刊

INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY
卷 44, 期 6, 页码 1691-1696

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11255-012-0221-1

关键词

Prostate cancer; Malondialdehyde; Nitric oxide; PSA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Our objective was to examine blood and tissue levels of nitric oxide (NO) and malondialdehyde (MDA), and their correlations with well-known prognostic indicators [total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA), % free/total PSA (% f/t PSA), pathological stage (pT), and Gleason sum] in patients who had radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) without metastasis. Patients and methods Preoperatively 31 patients' bloods were obtained for determination of NO, MDA, fPSA, tPSA, and %f/tPSA ratios. Tissues were obtained from RRP specimens for determination of NO and MDA. Gleason sum was assigned for each patient, and pT was determined according to 2002 TNM staging system. pTs were as follows: 10 pT2a, 7 pT2b, 8 pT2c, 4 pT3a, and 2 pT3b. Gleason sum of the PCa in the RRP specimens was as follows: 5 in 1, 6 in 14, 7 in 14, and 9 in 2 patients. Results There were strong correlations between blood and tissue levels of NO (r = 0.83, p < 0.001) and MDA (r = 0.63, p < 0.001), between serum NO and plasma MDA (r = 0.88, p < 0.001), and finally between tissue NO and tissue MDA (r = 0.83, p < 0.001). There was also a significant (p < 0.05) relationship between all well-known prognostic indicators of PCa (tPSA, %f/tPSA, Gleason sum, and pT) and blood and tissue NO and MDA levels, with single exception of correlation between tissue MDA and Gleason sum (p = 0.073). Conclusion Clinically appropriate correlations shown in this study indicates that NO and MDA may be used for prognostic assessment of localized PCa, especially if supported with other well-designed studies including higher number of patients through multi-institutional collaboration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据