Proteomics Analysis On Prostate Cancer

In the case for PSA screening, PCa is the leading internal malignancy in US men and the second leading cause of cancer death in American men. Early detection of prostate cancers offers the best chance of cure. The PSA blood test is the best chance of cure. Currently, the PSA blood test is the best currently available way to detect PCa and it is easy, safe and inexpensive. PSA test results is a piece of information, it is what doctors do with the information that becomes the issue. However, the great majority of PSA detected tumors have the histologic characteristics of clinically important cancers. Also, PSA detection has found tumors early advancing the diagnosis by Seeral years (5-13) and prostate cancer mortality rates in U.S have decreased by 4% (patho book) since 1992, which is 5 years after initiation of prostate screenings. The dilemma is over treating the clinically unimportant disease versus under

Another method to detect this cancer is with a Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA). Protein in the blood that is produced only by prostate cells is reflected the volume of both benign and malignant prostate tissue in the PSA. The higher the PSA level is the more likely it is that Prostate Cancer present. (“Prostate

Prostate cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer and the sixth leading cause of cancer death in males. Incidence rates vary more than 25-fold worldwide, with the highest rates in the developed countries this may be due to the widespread use of prostate-specific antigen testing and subsequent prostate biopsy in these regions [1]. Overall, the complex morphology, histologic heterogeneity, and the early signs of high malignant potential preclude a straightforward assessment of the metastatic potential of localized prostate carcinoma and show the requirement for extra clinical and pathologic tests for the evaluation of prostate carcinoma stage and clinical behavior[2]

The study was publishes in 2015. This study determined the optimum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value coupled with free PSA% (FPSA%) to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies performed on benign prostate disease while identifying significant tumors of prostate cancer (PCa). The study involved 2,225 Caucasian patients who experienced biopsies between the years of 1995 and 2012 and were in the Biobank. The patients were stratified into four age groups: < or = 49 years, 50-60 years, 60-69 years, and > or = 70 years. To determine the new PSA cutoff values, scenarios were simulated with sensitivity and specificity calculated for all PSA cutoff values from 1.25 ng/ml to 6 ng/ml in increments of 0.5 ng/ml and FPSA% values of 15%, 18%, and 20% were compared and contrasted for all groups. Sensitivity was determined to be 88% in all groups, this value was utilized as the lower limit for the new cutoff values and among that group of > or = 88% those with the highest specificity and sensitivity were utilized as the new PSA cutoff values. Statistical analysis was calculated for the new cutoffs, including a 95% confidence interval. The receiver operating characteristic curves with stratified FPSA% values of < or = 18% vs. > 18% and < or = 21% vs. 21% were noted. The proposed new cutoffs for PSA, the FPSA% and the reduced number of biopsies

Arguably the most essential and indispensable aspect of life is the attainment and preservation of good health. Individuals with health-related complications are often prevented from leading what many would consider to be a normal lifestyle. One of the several ailments that impedes typical human functioning is prostate cancer. The community of experts and professionals who have dedicated their lives to this field of study are, at this time, engaged in a substantive yet divisive and strongly opinionated dispute regarding a test considered by some to aid in the detection of this cancer. This highly scrutinized test is known as the prostate-specific antigen test, more commonly referred to as the PSA test. In the United States and more broadly

A blood test that tests for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) may also be done. Normally a small amount of PSA is in the blood for healthy men; a higher amount can indicate abnormalities with the prostate. The PSA combined with the DRE test has the highest rate of discovering prostate cancer in its early stages.

An advantage of the test was that the blood samples used are one of the leading analysis preferences chosen to identify biomarkers, and easily obtainable from patients. However, as direct assay was unavailable, Bromocresol green solution was used which changed the electronic structure thus specific whilst binding to albumin. As a result, this generates accurate results with no anomalies for both serum and blood. Moreover, within the expense limitations of University of Chester, a simple assay was used (Rehm, 2006) expands that BCA assay may have been used

Acid Phosphatase is an enzyme found in seminal fluid. It comes from the prostate gland (Johnson 2009). Typically, the more Prostatic Acid Phosphatase found in a sample of semen is a sign of prostate cancer. This is important because the Acid Phosphatase Color Test was once used to determine of a male had prostate cancer. It was later replaced by Prostate Specific Antigen, aka PSA. Forensic scientists still use this test to identify semen, however. In 1938, Gutman and Gutman reported increased levels of acid phosphatase in patients with metastatic prostate cancer (Taira, Merrick, Wallner, and Dattoli, “Reviving the Acid Phosphatase Test for Prostate Cancer”). It was later replaced by the Prostate Specific Antigen in 1971 (Taira, Merrick, Wallner, and Dattoli, “Reviving the Acid Phosphatase Test

The discovery cohort demonstrated that 4 biomarkers (C-reactive protein, prolactin, hepatocyte growth factor, and NY-ESO-1 autoantibody) in serum samples were significantly different in

Summary: Two decades after its discovery PCR have completely changed clinical practice. PCR is a gold standard method for detecting and identifying pathogen. By observing viral load it allows to predict disease progression and therefore design a better treatment. It is allowing non invasive prenatal diagnosis of many genetic defects. There are few limitations however at the rate PCR is advancing, no doubt in future whole clinical practice will be dependent on PCR.

As immuno-oncology takes the spotlight in cancer therapeutics, pharma companies race to develop new treatments or improvements in the detection of cancers may be just as impactful. Liquid biopsies, top ten technology MIT Technology Review 2015 breakthroughs, are diagnostic tests to detect cancer

p16INK4a methylation could thus have a diagnostic application; it can be used in the differential diagnosis from pre-malignant and malignant lesions (Feng 2015).

While, Predictive biomarkers identifies the possible benefit of a particular treatment to a particular patient, and subsequently are used to make clinical choices. Pharmacodynamic biomarkers measure the impact of a medication on the disease, whereas diagnostic biomarkers are used to set up the particular disease present in the patient sample. Yet, the “prognostic” and “predictive” biomarkers are responsible for patient outcome. (Bentzen et al. 2008)

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a protein produced by cells of the prostate gland called a biological marker or a tumor marker. It is normal for men to have a low level of PSA in their blood; however, prostate cancer or benign (not cancerous) conditions can increase a man’s PSA level.

Impact Statement: The potential impact of our research study on the reduction or elimination of the disproportionate effects of prostate cancer in AA population is on several grounds. Using our innovative molecular screening approaches it is for the first time we are evaluating the prevalence of prostate cancer specific molecular markers using the whole-mount prostate tissue of AA population on a large cohort of 500 AA men with prostate cancer. So far, no study has included such a large number of cases to interrogate the prevalence of known molecular markers, particularly using whole-mount tissue. Given the unique tumor resources available at the Henry Ford Health system we will be able to accomplish the proposed goal within the stipulated time. Conventional approaches using dominant/index nodule and decisions made on single marker screening may not provide the actual incidence of the molecular markers and attempts to make clinical correlations often fail to establish meaningful associations. In our study we will be evaluating all tumor foci, including atypical foci, high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN), HGPIN mimics, and variant morphological forms irrespective of size and Gleason grade on whole-mount tissue to estimate the overall prevalence of molecular markers in AA prostate cancer compared with EA prostate cancer. Our approach preserves the spatial architecture and distribution of each tumor foci, which will provide meaningful observations on clonal