Background/Objectives: Recently, many researchers have evaluated various viruses, including polyomaviruses (JCV, BKV) and EBV, as potential factors playing a role in the development and/or progression of prostate cancer (PCa), one of the most common cancers in men. Therefore, we aimed to assess the frequency of the JCPyV DNA in tissue collected from PCa patients. Methods: We detected the presence of viral DNA (PCR) in 49.6% of clinical samples, including 71.9% with single EBV infection and 28.1% with EBV/JCV co-infection. We did not detect BKV or a single JCV infection. Therefore, we compared patients with EBV mono-infection with EBV/JCV co-infected patients in the context of risk group, Gleason score, and TNM classification. Results: Our results showed differences in clinicopathological features between single EBV infection and EBV/JCV co-infection. In the group of patients with single EBV infection, most patients were classified as medium/high risk, while in the group with EBV/JCV co-infection, most patients were classified as low risk. Conclusions: Among patients with single EBV infection, a more advanced stage of cancer was observed than in EBV/JCV co-infection. Moreover, the level of anti-EBVCA and anti-EBNA antibodies as well as EBV load was higher in the case of single infection compared to EBV/JCV co-infection. Higher antibody levels were detected in more advanced tumor stages in single EBV infection. Does JCV only “reside” in prostate cells or is it a co-factor in EBV infection? In light of these studies, there is a need to clarify the role of JCV virus in the development and/or progression of prostate cancer.

The discovery of EBV over 60 years ago was a breakthrough in understanding the development of many cancers, including head and neck cancers, but many processes remain to be explained. Scientists, looking for new biomarkers, have recently been paying a lot of attention to salivary EBV DNA load. Oral EBV DNA load may indicate not only EBV lytic replication activity but also potentially correlate with EBV-related disease progression. Numerous studies indicate that saliva may be an alternative clinical material for both early diagnosis and prognosis of head and neck cancer (HNC). Therefore, we assessed salivary EBV DNA in oropharyngeal cancer patients (OPSCC). We observed that the EBV DNA level was higher in the group of EBV-positive OPSCC than in EBV-negative subjects and was also higher in more advanced clinical stages. In addition, the salivary EBV DNA load was positively correlated with the concentration of anti-EBV antibodies, MMP3, MMP9, and NF-κB. The ROC analysis confirmed the diagnostic accuracy of salivary EBV DNA load. Our preliminary results indicate the usefulness of determining EBV DNA load in saliva as a non-invasive prognostic biomarker in EBV-positive oropharyngeal cancer, but confirmation in larger cohort studies is required.

Recently, many researchers have evaluated various viruses, including polyomaviruses (JCV, BKV) and EBV, as potential factors playing a role in the development of prostatę cancer (PCa), one of the most common cancers in men. Therefore, we aimed to assess the frequency of the JCPyV DNA in tissue collected from PCa patients. We detected the presence of viral DNA in 49.6% of clinical samples, including 71.9% with single EBV infection and 28.1% with EBV/JCV co-infection. We did not detect BKV or a single JCV infection. Therefore, we compared patients with EBV monoinfection with EBV/JCV coinfected patients in the context of risk group, Gleason score and TNM classification. Our results showed differences in clinicopathological features between single EBV infection and EBV/JCV co-infection. In the group of patients with single EBV infection, most patients were classified as medium/high risk, while in the group with EBV/JCV co-infection, most patients were classified as low risk. Among patients with single EBV infection, a more advanced stage of cancer was observed than in EBV/JCV co-infection. Moreover, the level of anti-EBVCA and anti-EBNA antibodies as well as EBV load was higher in the case of single infection compared to EBV/JCV co-infection. Higher antibody levels were detected in more advanced tumor stages in single EBV infection. Does JCV only “reside” in prostate cells or is it a co-factor in EBV infection? In the light of these studies, there is a need to clarify the role of the JCV virus in the development of prostate cancer.