Biology of Prostate Cancer

Biology of prostatic crab lousePDGThe biologic basis of illness and therapeutics crab louse of the prostaticIntroductionMalignancies be shortly responsible for more deaths in the UK than ischaemic heart disease (Cummings et al 1998). Half of these malignant deaths are from the big four Lung, Bowel, Breast and prostate gland gland gland (World Cancer reticuloendothelial systemearch Fund 1997). These genus Cancers are close unknown in developing countries but the incidence reverts to the UK norm within one and only(a) or two generations of immigration, which argues strongly for the presence of environmental factors. If this is true then these malignancies should be theoretically preventable.Prostate pubic louse is the current most prevalent potent genus Cancer, accounting for nearly 30% of all new cases and also for about 14% of all malignant deaths (Montironi 2001). The incidence is increasing, this may, in part, be payable to the increasing age of the male populati on. Increasing consumption of red mall and fats are associated with an increase in risk, and a diet of vegetables and salads (especially tomatoes) is associated with a scorn risk. It appears that Vit E supplements signifi minttly reduce the risk of developing the disease (Heinonen et al 1998)Pathophysiology of the diseaseThe prostate gland is a walnut sized gland which is hardened just below the male bladder. It is primarily responsible for producing the seminal mollify and it also produces some hormones.In malignancy, there are some(prenominal) divers(prenominal) readys. The neuro turn backocrine form (small cell type) can occur but it is non as common as the focal neuroendocrine type.(Di SantAgnese 2000)Prostate genus Cancer is thought to arise primarily from one or more (usually a series) of transmissible mutations in the deoxyribonucleic acid. This can either be inherited or acquired. (Hague et al 1996)In the UK the majority of prostatic malignancies are thought to b e mutations occurring at directly at the tumor site rather than organism genically inherited.(Bingham et al 1998)The genetic mechanisms can involve either the activating of an oncogene or the inhibition of a tumour supressor gene. The mechanism is not simple, and it is thought that about four to six stepwise mutations in the DNA are responsible for the genesis of prostate cancer.The actual mechanism of the acquired genetic mutation is thought to be when an oncogene is translocated and fused with the practise plugger of anformer(a) gene, this mechanism is often found when particular(prenominal) tumour markers are detected in the blood (viz. prostate special antigen). A similar mechanism is regard in the more aggressive forms of prostatic cancer where the oncogene combines (and thereby inhibits) a tumour supressor gene. Demonstration of abnormal amounts of proteins such(prenominal) as PSA are useful in detecting the presence of micro-metastases when the disease carry out is thought to be in remission.The original sequence of the DNA is thereby changed. The actual mechanism can be by translocation (as described above) or by insertions or inversions which are more usually due to errors of ribonucleic acid translation. All of these mechanisms ultimately exert their effect by interfering with the straight-laced regulatory controls of the protein manufacturing abilities of the cellOne of the main pathological features of malignancy is the neovascularisation that almost universally occurs. It is thought to begin in Benign Prostatatic Hypertrophy (BPH), and feeleres by the pre-malignant into the frank malignant state. (Bostwick et al 2000)This is thought to be a exit of the increase in detectable levels of Vascular Endothelial Growth performer (VEGF). The levels of VEGF are risqueest in the most malignant forms of the disease, and is amenable to external hormonal manipulation. The commonest sites of metastatic disease are in the bone and the liver. (Maz zucchelli et al 2000) on that point is con sloperable evidence to support the implication of oncogenes in the aetiology of this cancer. Oncogenes such as c-myc and c-erb-B of watch been found, as pitch supressor genes such as p27(Kip1) and pp32R1/2. Oncogenes have also been implicated in the formation and regression of the metastatic form of the disease. (Lijovic et al 2000)There appears to be a genetic association with the cancer as 10% of consumeers have a family history of the disease (Selley et al 1997)Modern management of prostate cancerThe management of prostate cancer is primarily dependent on the clinical staging. There are several different types of staging currently employed. The commonest is the Gleason staging (I-IV) with III being the clinically commonest bribeation.Significant factors in the staging areNeuroendocrine differentiationAngiogenesisPerineural intrusionProliferation markersOther factors also play a part including the PSA and other blood borne entities. The first two factors are arguably the most important.We have learned a great deal about the detection and preaching of prostate cancer in the recent past, but the mortality figures do not reflect the increase in our knowledge. The two overriding clinical factors are early detection (ideally in the pre-invasive state) and the identification of the other prognostic factors.Chemo ginmill is a field that is gaining in momentum at the present, but it is unperturbed largely experimental. (Montironi et al 1999)The current mainstay of intervention at present is hormonal manipulationA recent paper by Armstrong (et al 2001) looks at the current role of cellular immunotherapy in the field of prostate cancer management. This is a field which also holds exciting practical prospects for tumour management. It involves giving the patient vaccines prepared from antigenically active tumour cells or aroused lymphocytes. Specifically cytotoxic T-lymphocytes are used to identify and then land the tumour cells. They do this by being programmed to recognise a specific protein on the surface of the malignant prostate cell.Clinical trials have shown that this manner of treatment is at its most effective when first line (hormonal) treatment has reduced the size of the tumour to a residual amount, which is at high risk of relapse. For reasons that are not yet fully understood, this method appears to suffer from a developing tolerance to the malignancy by the lymphocytes. This is currently the boil down of intense research activity. ( Hwu et al.1999)A more recent development still is an offshoot of this type of treatment and that is the use of gene modified vaccines. This involves vaccines which turn back genetically modified cells. The most effective found so far are those which work by making cells increase the production of cytokines in close proximity to the tumour cells.(Alvarez-Vallina et al 1996)This appears to increase the antigenic put forward of those cells and there by render them more amenable to attack from the immune system. This avoids the difficulties with the side effects that were seen when cytokines were given systemically. (Gao et al 2000)Other mechanisms for gene therapy involve the slick use of viruses to transfer the altered DNA into the malignant cell. In prostate malignancies, their use has been disappointing because of problems with side effects, but the scheme is also vivid (Relph et al 2004)PSA and related proteins such as prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) are commonly helpful in monitoring the progress or relapse of the disease(Montie 1997)PSA is being experimentally work by being coupled to enzymes such as thymidine kinease. This can be placed in the body by a retrovirus and wherefore infects all cells but is only activated in prostate cells. They are refered to as the Trojan Horse Vectors and appear to very successful in early trials. Proponents of the technique refer to it as performing a genetic prostatectomy .More modern techniques still involves the detection of prostate cells in the blood stream using a reverse transcriptase and polymerase chain reaction. This is thought to be a particularly sensitive assay for the prediction of surgical ill fortune (Olsson et al 2003)The downside to these treatments involving genes, is that the mechanisms of protein synthesis and regulation are unimaginably complex. Attempts to cure one malignancy may unwittingly cause another by a process called Insertional mutagenesis, where the desired effect in one cell is hindered by an unwanted malignant change in another. (Armstrong 2001)ConclusionsThe advances in our understanding of the molecular(a) basis of prostate cancer have been spectacular in the rifle decade. Interventional genetics now are on the brink of offering a real chance of survival to patients with resistant disease. Patients with widespread disease are usually desperate to try any form of novel treatment. Although the theory and understa nding of many of the oncogenic processes are already well advanced, it is vital not to give a patient false hope of cure. (Bingham et al 1998)To this end the Dept. of Health has set up a new governing body in the shape of he Genetic Therapy Advisory Committee (GTAC) to turn over and oversee all new and proposed treatments.The major hurdles that remain in this field are how to effect the stable and specific transfer of genes into tumour cells, how to ensure the safety of both patients and staff and to define exactly where the scoop out place is for gene therapy alongside the mainstream treatments today. (Montironi 2001)ReferencesAlvarez-Vallina L, Hawkins RE.2002Antigen-specific targeting of CD28-mediated T cell co-stimulation using chimerical single-chain antibody variable fragment-CD28 receptors.Eur J Immunol 2002 26 2304-2309Armstrong, David Eaton, and Joanne C Ewing 2001 Science, medicine, and the future Cellular immunotherapy for cancer BMJ, Dec 2001 323 1289 1293.Bingham SA, Atkinson C, Liggins J, Bluck L, Coward A. 1998Phytoestrogens where are we now?Br J Nutr 1998 79 393-406Bostwick DG, Grignon D, Hammond EH, Amin MB, Cohen M, Crawford D, et al. 1999 prognostic factors in prostate cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statements 1999.Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000 124 996-1000.Cummings JH and Sheila A Bingham 1998 Fortnightly review Diet and the prevention of cancer BMJ, Dec 1998 317 1636 1640.Di SantAgnese PA. 2000 divergent neuroendocrine differentiation in prostatic carcinoma.Sem Diagn Pathol 2000 17 149-161Gao L, Bellantuono I, Elsasser A, Marley SB, Gordon MY, Goldman JM, et al. 2000Selective settlement of leukemic CD34(+) progenitor cells by cytotoxic T lymphocytes specific for WT1.Blood 2000 95 2198-2203Hague A, Butt AJ, Paraskeva C. 1996The role of butyrate in human colonic epithelial cells an dexterity source or inducer of differentiation and apoptosis?Proc Nutr Soc 1996 55 937-943Heinonen OP, Albanes D, Virtamo J, Taylor PR, Huttu nen JK, Hartman AM, et al. 1998Prostate cancer and supplementation with alpha-tocopherol and beta-carotene incidence and mortality in a controlled trial.J Natl Cancer Inst 1998 90 440-446Hwu P, Yang JC, Cowherd R, Treisman J, Shafer GE, Eshhar Z, et al. 1999In vivo antitumor activity of T cells redirected with chimeric antibody/T cell receptor genes.Cancer Res 1999 55 3369-3373Lijovic M, Fabiani ME, Bader J, Frauman AG. 2000Prostate cancer are new prognostic markers on the horizon? Prostate Cancer Prostatic Diseases 2000 3 62-65Mazzucchelli R, Montironi R, Santinelli A, Lucarini G, Pugnaloni A, Biagini G. 2000Vascular endothelial growth factor expression and capillary architecture in best PIN and prostate cancer in untreated and androgen wear thin patients.Prostate 2000 45 72-79Montie JE, Meyers SE. 1997Defining the ideal tumor marker for prostate cancer.Urol Clin North Am 1997 24 247-252Montironi R, Mazzucchelli R, Marshall JR, Bartels PH. 1999Prostate cancer prevention. brush u p of target populations, pathological biomarkers and chemopreventive agents.J Clin Pathol 1999 52 793-803Montironi 2001 Prognostic factors in prostate cancer BMJ, Feb 2001 322 378 379. 1997.Olsson CA, Devries GM, Raffo AJ, Benson MC, OToole K, Cao Y, et al. 2003Preoperative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction for prostate-specific antigen predicts treatment failure following radical prostatectomy.J Urol 2003 155 1557-1562Relph K, Kevin Harrington, and Hardev Pandha 2004 new developments and current status of gene therapy using viral vectors in the unite Kingdom BMJ, Oct 2004 329 839 842.Selley S, Donovan J, Faulkner A, Coast J, Gillat D. 1997Diagnosis, management and screening of early localised prostate cancer.Health Technology Assessment 1997Sikora K 1994 Current Issues in Cancer Genes dreams and cancer BMJ, May 1994 308 1217 1221.World Cancer Research Fund. 2003Food, nutrition and the prevention of cancer a global perspective.Washington, DC WCRF, American Institu te for Cancer Research 2003PDG 12.9.05Word count 2,206