Distinguishing Indolent from Aggressive Prostate Cancer

  • Zoran CuligEmail author
Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 202)


Prostate cancer natural course is variable and it is difficult to determine prognosis on the basis of limited clinical information. In order to distinguish between aggressive and indolent tumors, genomic analysis, proteomic studies, and biomarker measurement were applied. Identification of single nucleotide polymorphisms may help to assess prostate cancer risk, however, it is questionable whether single nucleotide polymorphisms may predict a good or bad prognosis. Results of genomic and proteomic analyses between different laboratories may be difficult to compare because of non-standardized procedures which may be responsible for variant results. One of the early changes in prostate tumor tissues which may indicate a bad prognosis is high phosphorylation of Akt. A biomarker which is specific for prostate cancer is the TMPRSS2-ERG fusion which occurs in about 50% of tumors. Experimental studies indicate that this gene fusion may promote malignant phenotype. Biomarkers which could distinguish between latent and aggressive tumors may be detected in prostate tissue, serum, and urine. In summary, there is a limited progress in the field of prognostic biomarkers because of prostate cancer heterogeneity and missing unification of diagnostic procedures.


Prostate Cancer Androgen Receptor Prostate Cancer Risk Laser Capture Microdissection Androgen Receptor Expression 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agoulnik IU, Vaid A, Bingman WE 3rd et al (2005) Role of SRC-1 in the promotion of prostate cancer cell growth and tumor progression. Cancer Res 65:7959–7967PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Amundadottir LT, Sulem P, Gudmundsson J et al (2006) A common variant associated with prostate cancer in European and African populations. Nat Genet 38:628–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheung PK, Woolcock B, Adomat H (2004) Protein profiling of micro dissected prostate tissue links growth differentiation factor 15 to prostate carcinogenesis. Cancer Res 64:5929–5933PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Culig Z, Bartsch G (2006) Androgen axis in prostate cancer. J Cell Biochem 99:373–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Demichelis F, Rubin MA (2007) TMPRSS2-ETS fusion in prostate cancer: biological and clinical implications. J Clin Pathol 60:1185–1186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gudmundsson J, Sulem P, Steinhorsdottier V et al (2007) Two variants on chromosome 17 confer prostate cancer risk, and the one in TCF2 potents against type 2 diabetes. Nat Genet 39:977–983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hara T, Miyazaki J, Araki H et al (2003) Novel mutations of androgen receptor: a possible mechanism of bicalutamide withdrawal syndrome. Cancer Res 63:149–153PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Ishteiwy RA, Ward TM, Dykxhoorn et al (2012) The microRNA-23b/-27b cluster suppresses the metastatic phenotype of castration resistant prostate cancer. PLoS One 7(12):e52106Google Scholar
  9. Kader AK, Sun J, Isaacs SD et al (2009) Individual and cumulative effect of prostate cancer risk-associated variants on clinicopathologic variables in 5895 prostate cancer patients. Prostate 69:1195–1205PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kote-Jarai Z, Easton DF, Stanford JL et al (2008) Multiple novel prostate cancer predisposition loci confirmed by an international study the PRACTICAL consortium. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 17:2052–2061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kreisberg JI, Malik SN, Priboda TJ et al (2004) Phosphorylation of Akt (Ser473) is an excellent predictor of poor clinical outcome in prostate cancer. Cancer Res 64:5232–5236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nanni S, Priolo C, Grasselli A et al (2006) Epithelial-restricted gene profile of primary cultures from human prostate tumors: a molecular approach to predict clinical behavior of prostate cancer. Mol Cancer Res 4:79–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pin E, Fredolini C, Petricoi E III (2013) The role of proteomics in prostate cancer research: Biomarker discovery and validation. Clin Biochem 46(6):524–538Google Scholar
  14. Puhr M, Hoefer J, Schäfer G et al (2012) Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition leads to docetaxel resistance in prostate cancer and is mediated by reduced expression of miR-200c and miR-205. Am J Pathol 181:2188–2201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Saramaki OR, Harjula AE, Martikainen PM (2008) TMPRSS2:ERG fusion identifies a subgroup with favourable prognosis. Clin Cancer Res 14:3395–3400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Xu J, Zheng SL, Isaacs SD (2010) Inherited genetic variant predisposes to aggressive but not indolent prostate cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:2136–2140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zheng Y, Xu Y, Ye B et al (2003) Prostate cancer tissue proteomics for biomarker discovery. Cancer 98:2576–2582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Experimental Urology, Department of UrologyInnsbruck Medical UniversityInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations