Nuclear Morphometry, Epigenetic Changes, and Clinical Relevance in Prostate Cancer

Chapter
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 773)

Abstract

Nuclear structure alterations in cancer involve global genetic (mutations, amplifications, copy number variations, translocations, etc.) and epigenetic (DNA methylation and histone modifications) events that dramatically and dynamically spatially change chromatin, nuclear body, and chromosome organization. In prostate cancer (CaP) there appears to be early (<50 years) versus late (>60 years) onset clinically significant cancers, and we have yet to clearly understand the hereditary and somatic-based molecular pathways involved. We do know that once cancer is initiated, dedifferentiation of the prostate gland occurs with significant changes in nuclear structure driven by numerous genetic and epigenetic processes. This review focuses upon the nuclear architecture and epigenetic dynamics with potential translational clinically relevant applications to CaP. Further, the review correlates changes in the cancer-driven epigenetic process at the molecular level and correlates these alterations to nuclear morphological quantitative measurements. Finally, we address how we can best utilize this knowledge to improve the efficacy of personalized treatment of cancer.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Epigenetics Nuclear morphology Nuclear roundness 

Abbreviations

AR

Androgen receptor

CaP

Prostate cancer

CT

Chromosome territory

CCD

Charge coupled device

HGPIN

High-grade prostate intraepithelial neoplasia

IHC

Immunohistochemistry

NE

Nuclear envelope

NET

Nuclear envelope transmembrane protein

NMD

Nuclear morphometric descriptor

NRF

Nuclear roundness factor

NRV

Nuclear roundness variance

PRC2

Polycomb repressive complex 2

PSA

Prostate-specific antigen

QNG

Quantitative nuclear grade

RP

Radical prostatectomy

TSA

Trichostatin A

References

  1. 1.
    Virchow R (1863) Cellular pathology as based upon physiological and pathological histology. J B Lippincott, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beale L (1860) Examination of sputum from a case of cancer of the pharynx and the adjacent parts. Arch Med (Lond) 2:44–46Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Long SR, Cohen MB (1993) Classics in cytology. VI: the early cytologic discoveries of Lionel S. Beale. Diagn Cytopathol 9(5):595–598PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cremer T, Cremer C (2006) Rise, fall and resurrection of chromosome territories: a historical perspective. Part II. Fall and resurrection of chromosome territories during the 1950s to 1980s. Part III. Chromosome territories and the functional nuclear architecture: experiments and models from the 1990s to the present. Eur J Histochem 50(4):223–272PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cremer T, Cremer C (2006) Rise, fall and resurrection of chromosome territories: a historical perspective. Part I. The rise of chromosome territories. Eur J Histochem 50(3):161–176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boveri T (2008) Concerning the origin of malignant tumours by Theodor Boveri. Translated and annotated by Henry Harris. J Cell Sci 121(Suppl 1):1–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Veltri RW, Christudass CS, Isharwal S (2012) Nuclear morphometry, nucleomics and prostate cancer progression. Asian J Androl 14(3):375–384PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cremer T, Cremer M (2010) Chromosome territories. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2(3):a003889PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Veltri RW, Partin AW, Miller CM (2005) Quantitative nuclear grade (QNG): the clinical applications of the quantitative measurement of nuclear structure using image analysis. In: Kelloff GJ, Hawk ET, Sigman CC (eds) Cancer chemoprevention. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp 97–108Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sheehan DC, Hrapchak BB (1980) Theory and practice of histotechnology, 2nd edn. Battelle, Columbus, OHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF (1997) The diagnostic value of vaginal smears in carcinoma of the uterus. 1941. Arch Pathol Lab Med 121(3):211–224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gill JE, Jotz MM (1976) Further observations on the chemistry of pararosaniline-Feulgen staining. Histochemistry 46(2):147–160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schulte E, Wittekind D (1989) Standardization of the Feulgen-Schiff technique. Staining characteristics of pure fuchsin dyes; a cytophotometric investigation. Histochemistry 91(4):321–331PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gleason DF (1966) Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 50(3):125–128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gleason DF (1992) Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol 23(3):273–279PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Epstein JI (2010) An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol 183(2):433–440PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brimo F et al (2013) Contemporary grading for prostate cancer: implications for patient care. Eur Urol 63(5):892–901PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Diamond DA et al (1982) Computerized image analysis of nuclear shape as a prognostic factor for prostatic cancer. Prostate 3(4):321–332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Benson MC, McDougal DC, Coffey DS (1984) The application of perpendicular and forward light scatter to assess nuclear and cellular morphology. Cytometry 5(5):515–522PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benson MC, McDougal DC, Coffey DS (1984) The use of multiparameter flow cytometry to assess tumor cell heterogeneity and grade prostate cancer. Prostate 5(1):27–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mohler JL et al (1988) Nuclear roundness factor measurement for assessment of prognosis of patients with prostatic carcinoma. II. Standardization of methodology for histologic sections. J Urol 139(5):1085–1090PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mohler JL et al (1988) Nuclear roundness factor measurement for assessment of prognosis of patients with prostatic carcinoma. I. Testing of a digitization system. J Urol 139(5):1080–1084PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Partin AW et al (1989) A comparison of nuclear morphometry and Gleason grade as a predictor of prognosis in stage A2 prostate cancer: a critical analysis. J Urol 142(5):1254–1258PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Isharwal S et al (2008) p300 (histone acetyltransferase) biomarker predicts prostate cancer biochemical recurrence and correlates with changes in epithelia nuclear size and shape. Prostate 68(10):1097–1104PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Badalament RA et al (1996) An algorithm for predicting nonorgan confined prostate cancer using the results obtained from sextant core biopsies with prostate specific antigen level. J Urol 156(4):1375–1380PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Veltri RW et al (2002) Prediction of pathological stage in patients with clinical stage T1c prostate cancer: the new challenge. J Urol 168(1):100–104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Veltri RW et al (1996) Ability to predict biochemical progression using Gleason score and a computer-generated quantitative nuclear grade derived from cancer cell nuclei. Urology 48(5):685–691PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Khan MA et al (2003) Quantitative alterations in nuclear structure predict prostate carcinoma distant metastasis and death in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 98(12):2583–2591PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Veltri RW et al (2004) Ability to predict metastasis based on pathology findings and alterations in nuclear structure of normal-appearing and cancer peripheral zone epithelium in the prostate. Clin Cancer Res 10(10):3465–3473PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kortenhorst MS et al (2009) Valproic acid causes dose- and time-dependent changes in nuclear structure in prostate cancer cells in vitro and in vivo. Mol Cancer Ther 8(4):802–808PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Doyle S et al (2010) A boosted Bayesian multiresolution classifier for prostate cancer detection from digitized needle biopsies. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 59(5):1205–1218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Madabhushi A et al (2011) Computer-aided prognosis: predicting patient and disease outcome via quantitative fusion of multi-scale, multi-modal data. Comput Med Imaging Graph 35(7–8):506–514PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gao M, Bridgman P, Kumar S (2003) Computer aided prostate cancer diagnosis using image enhancement and JPEG2000. In: Proceedings of the SPIE Annual Meeting, 2003, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tiwari P et al (2011) Multi-modal data fusion schemes for integrated classification of imaging and non-imaging biomedical data. In: ISBI, 2011, Chicago, IL, pp 165–168Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ali S et al (2011) Adaptive energy selective active contour with shape priors for nuclear segmentation and Gleason grading of prostate cancer. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 14(Pt 1):661–669PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Doyle S et al (2007) Automated grading of prostate cancer using architectural and textural image features. In: ISBI, 2007, Arlington, VA, pp 1284–1287Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Huang PW, Lee CH (2009) Automatic classification for pathological prostate images based on fractal analysis. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 28(7):1037–1050PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Khurd P et al (2010) Computer-aided Gleason grading of prostate cancer histopathological images using texton forests. In: ISBI, 2010, Rotterdam, pp 636–639Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Khurd P et al (2011) Network cycle features: application to computer-aided Gleason grading of prostate cancer histopathological images. In: ISBI, 2011, Chicago, IL, pp 1632–1636Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Naik S et al (2008) Automated gland and nuclei segmentation for grading of prostate and breast cancer histopathology. In: ISBI, Paris, 2008, pp 284–287Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nguyen K, Jain AK, Allen RL (2010) Automated gland segmentation and classification for gleason grading of prostate tissue images. In: 20th international conference on pattern recognition (ICPR), 2010, Istanbul, pp 1497–1500Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ou Y et al (2009) Sampling the spatial patterns of cancer: optimized biopsy procedures for estimating prostate cancer volume and Gleason Score. Med Image Anal 13(4):609–620PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tabesh A et al (2007) Multifeature prostate cancer diagnosis and Gleason grading of histological images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 26(10):1366–1378PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yoon HY et al (2011) Cardinal multiridgelet-based prostate cancer histological image classification for Gleason grading. In: BIBM, 2011, Atlanta, GA, pp 315–320Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chow KH, Factor RE, Ullman KS (2012) The nuclear envelope environment and its cancer connections. Nat Rev Cancer 12(3):196–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    de Las Heras JI, Batrakou DG, Schirmer EC (2013) Cancer biology and the nuclear envelope: a convoluted relationship. Semin Cancer Biol 23(2):125–137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Verstraeten VL et al (2007) The nuclear envelope, a key structure in cellular integrity and gene expression. Curr Med Chem 14(11):1231–1248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hozák P et al (1995) Lamin proteins form an internal nucleoskeleton as well as a peripheral lamina in human cells. J Cell Sci 108(Pt 2):635–644PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Naetar N, Foisner R (2009) Lamin complexes in the nuclear interior control progenitor cell proliferation and tissue homeostasis. Cell Cycle 8(10):1488–1493PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Berezney R, Coffey DS (1974) Identification of a nuclear protein matrix. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 60(4):1410–1417PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Coffey DS (2002) Nuclear matrix proteins as proteomic markers of preneoplastic and cancer lesions: commentary re: G. Brunagel et al., nuclear matrix protein alterations associated with colon cancer metastasis to the liver. Clin. Cancer Res., 8: 3039–3045, 2002. Clin Cancer Res 8(10):3031–3033PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Getzenberg RH, Coffey DS (2011) Changing the energy habitat of the cancer cell in order to impact therapeutic resistance. Mol Pharm 8(6):2089–2093PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hanahan D, Weinberg RA (2011) Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144(5):646–674PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    He S et al (2008) Chromatin organization and nuclear microenvironments in cancer cells. J Cell Biochem 104(6):2004–2015PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Podlaha O et al (2012) Evolution of the cancer genome. Trends Genet 28(4):155–163PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Schetter AJ, Heegaard NH, Harris CC (2010) Inflammation and cancer: interweaving microRNA, free radical, cytokine and p53 pathways. Carcinogenesis 31(1):37–49PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Strahl BD, Allis CD (2000) The language of covalent histone modifications. Nature 403(6765):41–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Turner BM (2011) Environmental sensing by chromatin: an epigenetic contribution to evolutionary change. FEBS Lett 585(13):2032–2040PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wu JI, Lessard J, Crabtree GR (2009) Understanding the words of chromatin regulation. Cell 136(2):200–206PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zhang Y, Reinberg D (2001) Transcription regulation by histone methylation: interplay between different covalent modifications of the core histone tails. Genes Dev 15(18): 2343–2360PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sasaki M et al (2002) Methylation and inactivation of estrogen, progesterone, and androgen receptors in prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(5):384–390PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Suzuki H, Ito H (1999) Role of androgen receptor in prostate cancer. Asian J Androl 1(3):81–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Tropberger P et al (2013) Regulation of transcription through acetylation of H3K122 on the lateral surface of the histone octamer. Cell 152(4):859–872PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Jones PA, Baylin SB (2002) The fundamental role of epigenetic events in cancer. Nat Rev Genet 3(6):415–428PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Cai C et al (2011) Androgen receptor gene expression in prostate cancer is directly suppressed by the androgen receptor through recruitment of lysine-specific demethylase 1. Cancer Cell 20(4):457–471PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Chlenski A et al (2001) Androgen receptor expression in androgen-independent prostate cancer cell lines. Prostate 47(1):66–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Aryee MJ et al (2013) DNA methylation alterations exhibit intraindividual stability and interindividual heterogeneity in prostate cancer metastases. Sci Transl Med 5(169):169ra10PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Jarrard DF et al (1998) Methylation of the androgen receptor promoter CpG island is associated with loss of androgen receptor expression in prostate cancer cells. Cancer Res 58(23):5310–5314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Izbicka E et al (1999) 5,6 Dihydro-5′-azacytidine (DHAC) restores androgen responsiveness in androgen-insensitive prostate cancer cells. Anticancer Res 19(2A):1285–1291PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Seligson DB et al (2005) Global histone modification patterns predict risk of prostate cancer recurrence. Nature 435(7046):1262–1266PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Bianco-Miotto T et al (2010) Global levels of specific histone modifications and an epigenetic gene signature predict prostate cancer progression and development. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19(10):2611–2622PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Watson JA et al (2010) Hyperacetylation in prostate cancer induces cell cycle aberrations, chromatin reorganization and altered gene expression profiles. J Cell Mol Med 14(6B): 1668–1682PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Malik G et al (2007) SELDI protein profiling of dunning R-3327 derived cell lines: identification of molecular markers of prostate cancer progression. Prostate 67(14):1565–1575PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Huisman A et al (2007) Discrimination between benign and malignant prostate tissue using chromatin texture analysis in 3-D by confocal laser scanning microscopy. Prostate 67(3):248–254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Li LC, Carroll PR, Dahiya R (2005) Epigenetic changes in prostate cancer: implication for diagnosis and treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst 97(2):103–115PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Brock HW, van Lohuizen M (2001) The Polycomb group–no longer an exclusive club? Curr Opin Genet Dev 11(2):175–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Jacobs JJ, van Lohuizen M (2002) Polycomb repression: from cellular memory to cellular proliferation and cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta 1602(2):151–161PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Czermin B et al (2002) Drosophila enhancer of Zeste/ESC complexes have a histone H3 methyltransferase activity that marks chromosomal Polycomb sites. Cell 111(2):185–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Varambally S et al (2002) The polycomb group protein EZH2 is involved in progression of prostate cancer. Nature 419(6907):624–629PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    van der Vlag J, Otte AP (1999) Transcriptional repression mediated by the human polycomb-group protein EED involves histone deacetylation. Nat Genet 23(4):474–478PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Yu J et al (2007) A polycomb repression signature in metastatic prostate cancer predicts cancer outcome. Cancer Res 67(22):10657–10663PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Bryant RJ et al (2008) The Polycomb Group protein EZH2 regulates actin polymerization in human prostate cancer cells. Prostate 68(3):255–263PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Bettinger BT, Gilbert DM, Amberg DC (2004) Actin up in the nucleus. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 5(5):410–415PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Su IH et al (2005) Polycomb group protein ezh2 controls actin polymerization and cell signaling. Cell 121(3):425–436PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Tan J et al (2007) Pharmacologic disruption of Polycomb-repressive complex 2-mediated gene repression selectively induces apoptosis in cancer cells. Genes Dev 21(9):1050–1063PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Chase A, Cross NC (2011) Aberrations of EZH2 in cancer. Clin Cancer Res 17(9): 2613–2618PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Laitinen S et al (2008) EZH2, Ki-67 and MCM7 are prognostic markers in prostatectomy treated patients. Int J Cancer 122(3):595–602PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Jhavar S et al (2009) Biopsy tissue microarray study of Ki-67 expression in untreated, localized prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 12(2):143–147PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Veltri RW et al (2010) Nuclear roundness variance predicts prostate cancer progression, metastasis, and death: a prospective evaluation with up to 25 years of follow-up after radical prostatectomy. Prostate 70(12):1333–1339PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Cao R et al (2002) Role of histone H3 lysine 27 methylation in Polycomb-group silencing. Science 298(5595):1039–1043PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Bektas S et al (2009) The relation between Gleason score, and nuclear size and shape factors in prostatic adenocarcinoma. Turk J Med Sci 39(3):381–387Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Debes JD et al (2005) p300 modulates nuclear morphology in prostate cancer. Cancer Res 65(3):708–712PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Wang Z et al (2008) Combinatorial patterns of histone acetylations and methylations in the human genome. Nat Genet 40(7):897–903PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Imbalzano KM et al (2013) Nuclear shape changes are induced by knockdown of the SWI/SNF ATPase BRG1 and are independent of cytoskeletal connections. PLoS One 8(2):e55628PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Chernov IP, Akopov SB, Nikolaev LG (2004) Structure and functions of nuclear matrix associated regions (S/MARs). Russ J Bioorg Chem 30(1):1–11Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Elcock LS, Bridger JM (2008) Exploring the effects of a dysfunctional nuclear matrix. Biochem Soc Trans 36(Pt 6):1378–1383PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Nickerson J (2001) Experimental observations of a nuclear matrix. J Cell Sci 114(Pt 3): 463–474PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Postnikov Y, Bustin M (2010) Regulation of chromatin structure and function by HMGN proteins. Biochim Biophys Acta 1799(1–2):62–68PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Dechat T et al (2008) Nuclear lamins: major factors in the structural organization and function of the nucleus and chromatin. Genes Dev 22(7):832–853PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Prokocimer M et al (2009) Nuclear lamins: key regulators of nuclear structure and activities. J Cell Mol Med 13(6):1059–1085PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Stuurman N, Heins S, Aebi U (1998) Nuclear lamins: their structure, assembly, and interactions. J Struct Biol 122(1–2):42–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Gonzalez-Suarez I et al (2009) Novel roles for A-type lamins in telomere biology and the DNA damage response pathway. EMBO J 28(16):2414–2427PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Butler JT et al (2009) Changing nuclear landscape and unique PML structures during early epigenetic transitions of human embryonic stem cells. J Cell Biochem 107(4):609–621PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Goldman RD et al (2002) Nuclear lamins: building blocks of nuclear architecture. Genes Dev 16(5):533–547PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Coradeghini R et al (2006) Differential expression of nuclear lamins in normal and cancerous prostate tissues. Oncol Rep 15(3):609–613PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Skvortsov S et al (2011) Proteomics profiling of microdissected low- and high-grade prostate tumors identifies Lamin A as a discriminatory biomarker. J Proteome Res 10(1):259–268PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Kong L et al (2012) Lamin A/C protein is overexpressed in tissue-invading prostate cancer and promotes prostate cancer cell growth, migration and invasion through the PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway. Carcinogenesis 33(4):751–759PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Foster CR et al (2010) Lamins as cancer biomarkers. Biochem Soc Trans 38(Pt 1):297–300PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Reddy KL, Feinberg AP (2013) Higher order chromatin organization in cancer. Semin Cancer Biol 23(2):109–115PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert W. Veltri
    • 1
  • Christhunesa S. Christudass
    • 1
  1. 1.The Brady Urological Research InstituteBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations