Identification of UAP1L1 as a critical factor for prostate cancer and underlying molecular mechanism in tumorigenicity.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men, and some new target genes are needed to predict the risk of prostate cancer progression and the treatment. METHODS: In this study, the effects of UAP1L1 (UAP1-like-1) on prostate cancer were investigated by detecting the proliferation, migration, invasion and apoptosis of prostate cancer cells in vitro using MTT, wound healing, Transwell and flow cytometry assay, and the tumor growth in vivo. The downstream genes and pathways of UAP1L1 were explored using Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA), and screened by qRT-PCR and western blot. The effects of CDCA8 on prostate cancer cells were also verified in vitro, which was through detecting the change of proliferation, migration, invasion and apoptosis of prostate cancer cells after CDCA8 knockdown. RESULTS: The results indicated that UAP1L1 promoted the proliferation, migration and invasion of prostate cancer cells, which was inhibited by downregulating CDCA8. Furthermore, the promotion of CDCA8 knockdown on cell apoptosis was reduced when UAP1L1 was simultaneously overexpressed. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the results in this study revealed that UAP1L1 promoted the progression of prostate cancer through the downstream gene CDCA8.

A Multicenter Single-Arm Objective Performance Criteria Trial to Determine the Efficacy and Safety of High-Frequency Irreversible Electroporation as Primary Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Study Protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The classical pathway for the therapy of low- to intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer is radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy, which has shown a high incidence of complications, including erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and bowel injury. An alternative pathway is to perform an ablation by some energy to the localized lesion, known as focal therapy. High-frequency irreversible electroporation (H-FIRE) is nonthermal energy that can be used in cancer ablation to deliver pulsed high-voltage but low-energy electric current to the cell membrane and to invoke cell death. An H-FIRE pathway has been reported to be tissue-selective, which leads to fewer side effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicenter and single-arm objective performance criteria (OPC) study, in which all men with localized prostate cancer are allocated to H-FIRE ablation. This trial will assess the efficacy and safety of the H-FIRE ablation for prostate cancer. Efficacy will be assessed by prostate biopsy 6 months after treatment while safety will be assessed by adverse event reports and questionnaires. The main inclusion criteria are moderate to low-risk prostate cancer in NCCN risk classification and had no previous therapy for prostate cancer. A sample size of 110 participants is required. The primary objective is to determine whether the detection rate of clinically significant cancer by prostate biopsy is less than 20% after the H-FIRE ablation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has obtained ethical approval by the ethics committee of all participating centers. The results of the study will be submitted for dissemination and publication in peer-reviewed journals. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter single-arm objective performance criteria trial will evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of high-frequency irreversible electroporation in treating prostate cancer. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY: A comprehensive evaluation of imaging and histopathology is used to determine the effect of treatment. Questionnaires were used to assess the treatment side effects. Multicenter and pragmatic designs capacitate higher generalizability. A limitation of this trial is that the prostate biopsy as an endpoint may not be as accurate as of the specimen from prostate prostatectomy. Another limitation is the 6-month follow-up time, making this trial challenging to come to firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of IRE in the long term. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03838432.

Unexpected hemorrhage of a rare vessel, a pubic branch of the external iliac artery, after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Case report.

RATIONALE: Postoperative hemorrhage is a rare complication after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), with no case reports of bleeding from the external iliac artery in the literature. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 73-year-old man diagnosed with clinical stage 2c prostate cancer underwent LRP successfully with only approximately 200 mL of intraoperative blood loss. However, his blood pressure dropped from 135/74 to 80/49 mm Hg and his hemoglobin decreased by 66 g/L compared with the preoperative level within 5 hours. DIAGNOSES: Active hemorrhage from a pubic branch of the external iliac artery was found by digital subtraction angiography (DSA). INTERVENTIONS: The patient was treated with superselective intraarterial embolization. OUTCOMES: The bleeding stopped and the patient recovered uneventfully with no further hemorrhage or other complications. LESSONS: Although postoperative hemorrhage after LRP is exceptionally rare, it can occur not only in the internal iliac artery but also in the external iliac artery. In addition, contracted pelvis cases should be addressed with more caution by the laparoscope holder in case external iliac artery is injured.

Outcomes of T3a Prostate Cancer with Unfavorable Prognostic Factors Treated with Brachytherapy Combined with External Radiotherapy and Hormone Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of T3a prostate cancer with unfavorable prognostic factors treated with permanent interstitial brachytherapy combined with external radiotherapy and hormone therapy. METHODS: From January 2003 to December 2008, 38 patients classified as T3a prostate cancer with unfavorable prognostic factors were treated with trimodality therapy (brachytherapy + external radiotherapy + hormone therapy). The prescription dose of brachytherapy and external radiotherapy were 110 Gy and 45 Gy, respectively. The duration of hormone therapy was 2-3 years. The endpoints of this study included biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Log-rank test was used to identify the prognostic predictors for univariate analysis. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 71 months. The serum pre-treatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level ranged from 10.0 to 99.8 ng/ml (mean 56.3 ng/ml), the Gleason score ranged from 5 to 9 (median 8), and the percentage of positive biopsy cores ranged from 10% to 100% (mean 65%). The 5-year BFFS, DMFS, CSS, and OS rates were 44%, 69%, 82%, and 76%, respectively. All biochemical failures occurred within 40 months. The percentage of positive biopsy cores was significantly correlated with BFFS, DMFS, and OS (all P=0.000), and the Gleason score with DMFS (P=0.000) and OS (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: T3a prostate cancer with unfavorable prognostic factors presents not so optimistic outcome. Hormone therapy should be applied to prolong the biochemical progression-free or metastasis-free survival. The percentage of positive biopsy cores and the Gleason score are significant prognostic factors.

Long-term outcome of high-risk prostate cancer treated with brachytherapy combined with external-beam radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: To evaluate long-term outcome and biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) in high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with brachytherapy combined with external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively analyzed 97 high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with brachytherapy combined with EBRT and ADT. During follow-up, the post-operation prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was monitored regularly and biochemical relapse, progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer or metastases, and causes of death were documented. We evaluated bPFS, cause-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The bPFS, CSS and OS of the patients were 81.4%, 88.7% and 81.4%, respectively. The bPFS of the subcategories of patients stratified based on the presence or absence of a Gleason pattern 5 were 55.6% and 87.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Brachytherapy combined with EBRT and ADT can effectively control PSA level and delay biochemical relapse in localized high-risk prostate cancer. However, patients presenting with a Gleason pattern 5 should be managed with further treatment intensification.

[Carbon source apportionment of PM2.5 in Chongqing based on local carbon profiles].

PM2.5 was sampled from commercial, industrial and residential areas in Chongqing urban city from 2nd May to 10th May 2012 in order to find out characteristics and sources of carbon in PM2.5. Eight kinds of carbons were analyzed by the TOR method. Characteristics of carbon pollution in PM2.5 from three kinds of functional areas and six kinds of sources, including coal-combustion, exhausts (vehicle, boat and construction machine), biomass burning, cooking smoke, were analyzed. Based on carbon source profiles, local indicating components of carbon sources in PM2.5 were obtained used the chemical mass balance (CMB) model. Contribution rate of different sources to PM2.5 carbon were parsed out by factor analysis. The results showed the OC/EC of coal-combustion, vehicle exhausts, boat exhausts, construction machine exhausts, biomass burning and cooking smoke were 6.3, 3.0, 1.9, 1.4, 12.7 and 31.3, respectively. High loads of EC2 and EC3 indicated diesel vehicle exhaust emissions, high loads of OC2, OC3, OC4 and OPC indicated coal-combustion emissions, OC1, OC2, OC3, OC4 and EC1 indicated gasoline vehicle exhaust emissions, OC3 indicated cooking emissions, and OPC indicated biomass burning emissions. OC/PM2.5, EC/PM2.5, secondary organic carbon (SOC)/OC in the commercial area were 17.4%, 6.9% and 40.0%, respectively. OC/PM2.5, EC/PM2.5 and SOC/OC in the industrial area were 15.5%, 6.6% and 37.4%, respectively. OC/PM2.5, EC/PM2.5 and SOC/OC in the residential area were 14.6% 5.6% and 42.8%, respectively. In the industrial area, the main sources of carbon in PM2.5 were coal combustion, gasoline vehicle exhausts and diesel exhaust. In the commercial area, the main sources of carbon were gasoline vehicle exhausts, diesel exhausts and cooking. In the residential area, the main sources of carbon were gasoline vehicle exhausts, cooking smoke and diesel exhausts.