Background: Enhanced activity of histone deacetylases (HDAC) is associated with more aggressive tumour behaviour and tumour progression in various solid tumours. The over-expression of these proteins and their known functions in malignant neoplasms has led to the development of HDAC inhibitors (HDI) as new anti-neoplastic drugs. However, little is known about HDAC expression in renal cell cancer. Methods: We investigated the expression of HDAC 1, 2 and 3 in 106 renal cell carcinomas and corresponding normal renal tissue by immunohistochemistry on tissue micro arrays and correlated expression data with clinico-pathological parameters including patient survival. Results: Almost 60% of renal cell carcinomas expressed the HDAC isoforms 1 and 2. In contrast, HDAC 3 was only detected in 13% of all renal tumours, with particular low expression rates in the clear cell subtype. HDAC 3 was significantly higher expressed in pT1/2 tumours in comparison to pT3/4 tumours. Expression of class I HDAC isoforms correlated with each other and with the proliferative activity of the tumours. We found no prognostic value of the expression of any of the HDAC isoforms in this tumour entity. Conclusion: Class I HDAC isoforms 1 and 2 are highly expressed in renal cell cancer, while HDAC 3 shows low, histology dependent expression rates. These unexpected differences in the expression patterns suggests alternative regulatory mechanisms of class I HDACs in renal cell cancer and should be taken into account when trials with isoform selective HDI are being planned. Whether HDAC expression in renal cancers is predictive of responsiveness for HDI will have to be tested in further studies.

BACKGROUND: Total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) is flawed for prostate cancer (PCa) detection. [−2]proprostate-specific antigen (p2PSA), a molecular isoform of free PSA (fPSA), shows higher specificity compared with tPSA or percentage of free PSA (%fPSA). The prostate health index (Phi), a measure based on p2PSA and calculated as p2PSA/fPSA × √tPSA, was evaluated in a multicenter study for detecting PCa. METHODS: A total of 1362 patients from 4 different study sites who had tPSA values of 1.6–8.0 μg/L (668 patients with PCa, 694 without PCa) underwent ≥10 core biopsies. Serum concentrations of tPSA, fPSA (both calibrated against a WHO reference material), and p2PSA were measured on Access2 or DxI800 analyzers (Beckman Coulter). RESULTS: The percentage ratio of p2PSA to fPSA (%p2PSA) and Phi were significantly higher in all PCa subcohorts (positive initial or repeat biopsy result or negative digital rectal examination) (P < 0.0001) compared with patients without PCa. Phi had the largest area under the ROC curve (AUC) (AUC = 0.74) and provided significantly better clinical performance for predicting PCa compared with %p2PSA (AUC = 0.72, P = 0.018), p2PSA (AUC = 0.63, P < 0.0001), %fPSA (AUC = 0.61) or tPSA (AUC = 0.56). Significantly higher median values of Phi were observed for patients with a Gleason score ≥7 (Phi = 60) compared with a Gleason score <7 (Phi = 53; P = 0.0018). The proportion of aggressive PCa (Gleason score ≥7) increased with the Phi score. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this multicenter study show that Phi, compared with tPSA or %fPSA, demonstrated superior clinical performance in detecting PCa at tPSA 1.6–8.0 μg/L (i.e., approximately 2–10 μg/L in traditional calibration) and is better able to detect aggressive PCa.

Background: The percentage of free prostate-specific antigen (%fPSA) has been shown to improve specificity for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) over total PSA (tPSA). A multicenter study was performed to evaluate the diagnostic value of a %fPSA-based artificial neural network (ANN) in men with tPSA concentrations between 2 and 20 μg/L for detecting patients with increased risk of a positive prostate biopsy for cancer. Methods: We enrolled 1188 men from six different hospitals with PCa or benign prostates between 1996 and 2001. We used a newly developed ANN with input data of tPSA, %fPSA, patient age, prostate volume, and digital rectal examination (DRE) status to calculate the risk for the presence of PCa within different tPSA ranges (2–4, 4.1–10, 2–10, 10.1–20, and 2–20 μg/L) at the 90% and 95% specificity or sensitivity cutoffs, depending on the tPSA concentration. ROC analysis and cutoff calculations were used to estimate the diagnostic improvement of the ANN compared with %fPSA alone. Results: In the low tPSA range (2–4 μg/L), the ANN detected 72% and 65% of cancers at specificities of 90% or 95%, respectively. At 4–10 μg/L tPSA, the ANN detected 90% and 95% of cancers with specificities of 62% and 41%, respectively. Use of the ANN with 2–10 μg/L tPSA enhanced the specificity of %fPSA by 20–22%, thus reducing the number of unnecessary biopsies. Conclusions: Enhanced accuracy of PCa detection over that obtained using %fPSA alone can be achieved with a %fPSA-based ANN that also includes clinical information from DRE and prostate volume measurements.

BACKGROUND: We compared urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3), transmembrane protease, serine 2 (TMPRSS2):v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (avian) (ERG) gene fusion (T2:ERG), and the serum [−2]proprostate-specific antigen ([−2]proPSA)-based prostate health index (Phi) for predicting biopsy outcome. METHODS: Serum samples and first-catch urine samples were collected after digital rectal examination (DRE) from consented outpatients with PSA 0.5–20 μg/L who were scheduled for prostate biopsy. The PCA3 score (PROGENSA PCA3, Hologic Gen-Probe) and T2:ERG score (Hologic Gen-Probe) were determined. Measurements of serum PSA, free PSA, and [−2]proPSA (Beckman Coulter) were performed, and the percentages of free PSA (%fPSA) and Phi ([−2]proPSA/fPSA × √PSA) were determined. RESULTS: Of 246 enrolled men, prostate cancer (PCa) was diagnosed in 110 (45%) and there was no evidence of malignancy (NEM) in 136 (55%). A first set of biopsies was performed in 136 (55%) of all men, and 110 (45%) had ≥1 repeat biopsies. PCA3, Phi, and T2:ERG differed significantly between men with PCa and NEM, and these markers showed the largest areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) (0.74, 0.68, and 0.63, respectively). PCA3 had the largest AUC of all parameters, albeit not statistically different from Phi. Phi showed somewhat lower specificities than PCA3 at 90% sensitivity. Combination of both markers enhanced diagnostic power with modest AUC gains of 0.01–0.04. Although PCA3 had the highest AUC in the repeat-biopsy cohort, the highest AUC for Phi was observed in DRE-negative patients with PSA in the 2–10 μg/L range. CONCLUSIONS: PCA3 and Phi were superior to the other evaluated parameters but their combination gave only moderate enhancements in diagnostic accuracy for PCa at first or repeat prostate biopsy.