Search

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers worldwide and a leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Although the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer has improved substantially in recent years, new molecular biomarkers are needed to further prolong survival and improve the quality of life in these patients. This review analyzes the current evidence for prognostic and predictive molecular biomarkers that can be applied across different clinical scenarios, ranging from localized disease to metastatic castration-resistant PCa, with a particular emphasis on the biomarkers likely to become available in routine clinical practice in the near future. There is a growing need for molecular testing to identify the most indolent types of prostate cancer to help optimize treatment strategies and spare treatment in these patients when possible. Current trends in the treatment of prostate cancer underscore the unmet clinical need for biomarkers to improve decision-making in a challenging clinical setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prostate cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors and a leading cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Irrespective of the method that allows for risk stratification of prostate cancer suspects, diagnosis relies on tissue sampling through prostate biopsy and subsequent histopathological evaluation. This provides critical information about disease aggressiveness, which is required for adequate patient management. Prostate biopsy methods have significantly evolved over the years, including the definition of indications, sampling schemes and use of imaging techniques (ultrasound and MRI) that allow for more accurate tissue sampling. In response to the challenges emerging from more precise collection of minute prostate tissue samples for analysis, histopathological assessment should include not only the observation of routinely stained sections, but also, and increasingly so, a series of ancillary techniques, especially immunohistochemistry, which increment the accuracy of prostate cancer diagnosis and may provide relevant information to guide patient management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Identification of biomarkers that can accurately and reliably diagnose prostate cancer is clinically highly desirable. A novel classification method, K-closest resemblance was applied to several high-quality transcriptomic datasets of prostate cancer leading to the discovery of a panel of eight gene biomarkers that can detect prostate cancer with over 96% specificity and sensitivity in leave-one-out cross-validation. Independent validation on clinical samples confirmed the discriminatory power of this gene panel, yielding over 95% accuracy of diagnosis based on receiver-operating characteristic curve analyses. Different levels of validation of the proposed biomarker panel have shown that it allows extremely accurate diagnosis of prostate cancer. Application of this panel can possibly add a fast and objective tool to the pathologist's arsenal following further clinical testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A brief history of human genetics and genomics is provided, comparing recent progress in those fields with that in pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics, which are subsets of genetics and genomics, respectively. Sequencing of the entire human genome, the mapping of common haplotypes of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and cost-effective genotyping technologies leading to genome-wide association (GWA) studies - have combined convincingly in the past several years to demonstrate the requirements needed to separate true associations from the plethora of false positives. While research in human genetics has moved from monogenic to oligogenic to complex diseases, its pharmacogenetics branch has followed, usually a few years behind. The continuous discoveries, even today, of new surprises about our genome cause us to question reviews declaring that "personalized medicine is almost here" or that "individualized drug therapy will soon be a reality." As summarized herein, numerous reasons exist to show that an "unequivocal genotype" or even an "unequivocal phenotype" is virtually impossible to achieve in current limited-size studies of human populations. This problem (of insufficiently stringent criteria) leads to a decrease in statistical power and, consequently, equivocal interpretation of most genotype-phenotype association studies. It remains unclear whether personalized medicine or individualized drug therapy will ever be achievable by means of DNA testing alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]