4.7 Article

Serum CCL2 Is a Prognostic Biomarker for Non-Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

期刊

BIOMEDICINES
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10102369

关键词

CCL2; biomarker; prostate cancer; survival; prognostic; chemokine

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [22K09495, 21K16728]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the efficacy of serum CCL2 as a prognostic biomarker for non-metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (nmCSPC), and found that high CCL2 levels were associated with worse overall survival and cancer-free survival.
Purpose: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a useful prostate cancer (PC) biomarker, but some cases reported that PSA does not correlate with the Gleason score. Serum chemokine (CC motif) ligand 2 (CCL2) has been reported to be a potential complementary PSA biomarker, but it remains unclear whether it can be applied to non-metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (nmCSPC) or each section of the stages. Serum CCL2 ' s usefulness was investigated as a prognostic nmCSPC biomarker in this study. Methods: Serum samples were collected from 379 patients who underwent prostate biopsy at Kanazawa University Hospital from 2007 to 2013. A total of 230 patients with nmCSPC were included in this study of the 255 patients with histologically diagnosed prostate cancer. The serum CCL2 efficacy as a prognostic nmCSPC biomarker was investigated retrospectively. Results: An independent significant predictor of worse OS was CCL2 >= 280 pg/dL and CRP >= 0.5 mg/dL in multivariate analysis. Gleason score >= 8 and CCL2 >= 280 pg/dL were independent significant predictors of CRPC-free survival (CFS) worsening in multivariate analysis. Serum CCL2 was a predictive biomarker for OS and CFS in nmCSPC. Furthermore, CCL2 >= 280 pg/mL patients had significantly worse visceral metastasis-free survival than those with CCL2 < 280 pg/mL. Conclusion: This study is the first to demonstrate serum CCL2 utility as a biomarker to predict OS and CFS in nmCSPC.

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

4.7
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