1
|
Lavik E, Minasian L. Bioconjugates for Cancer Prevention: Opportunities for Impact. Bioconjug Chem 2024; 35:1148-1153. [PMID: 39116257 DOI: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.4c00283] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/10/2024]
Abstract
Cancer prevention encompasses both screening strategies to find cancers early when they are likely to be most treatable and prevention and interception strategies to reduce the risk of developing cancers. Bioconjugates, here defined broadly as materials and molecules that have synthetic and biological components, have roles to play across the cancer-prevention spectrum. In particular, bioconjugates may be developed as affordable, accessible, and effective screening strategies or as novel vaccines and drugs to reduce one's risk of developing cancers. Developmental programs are available for taking novel technologies and evaluating them for clinical use in cancer screening and prevention. While a variety of different challenges exist in implementing cancer-prevention interventions, a thoughtful approach to bioconjugates could improve the delivery and acceptability of the interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erin Lavik
- Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Dr, Rockville, Maryland 20850, United States
| | - Lori Minasian
- Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Dr, Rockville, Maryland 20850, United States
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Davies A, Foo M, Gan CL, Kourambas J, Redgrave N, Donnellan S, Appu S, Williams S, Coleman A, Segelov E, Bradley J, Soo G, Ramdave S, Kwan EM, Azad AA. 68 Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT as a clinical decision-making tool in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2021; 18:e204-e210. [PMID: 34161628 DOI: 10.1111/ajco.13595] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2021] [Accepted: 03/10/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE PSMA PET/CT has demonstrated superior sensitivity over conventional imaging in the detection of local and distant recurrence in biochemically relapsed (BCR) prostate cancer. We prospectively investigated the management impact of 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging in men with BCR, with the aim of identifying baseline clinicopathological predictors for management change. PATIENTS AND METHODS Men with BCR who met eligibility criteria underwent 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT at Monash Health (Melbourne, Australia). Intended management plans were prospectively documented before and after 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify potential clinicopathological predictors of management change. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the nature of these changes. RESULTS Seventy men underwent 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging. Median age was 67 years (IQR 63-72) and median PSA was 0.48 ng/ml (IQR 0.21-1.9). PSMA-avid disease was observed in 56% (39/70) of patients. Pre-scan management plan was altered following scanning in 43% (30/70) of patients. Management changes were significantly more common in patients with higher baseline PSA levels (PSA≥2 ng/ml, p = 0.01). 18/36 (50%) of the patients initially planned for watchful waiting had their management changed, including the use of salvage pelvic radiotherapy (n = 7) and stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy to oligometastatic disease (n = 6). CONCLUSION Management change after 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT for BCR is common and typically resulted in treatment intensification strategies in those planned for a watchful waiting approach. This study adds to the growing pool of evidence supporting the clinical utility of PSMA PET/CT imaging in the care of patients with BCR after definitive therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy Davies
- Department of Medical Oncology, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Marcus Foo
- GenesisCare, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Chun Loo Gan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Tom Baker Cancer Center, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - John Kourambas
- Department of Urology, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Nicholas Redgrave
- Department of Urology, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Scott Donnellan
- Department of Urology, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Sree Appu
- Department of Surgery, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Scott Williams
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Andrew Coleman
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Eva Segelov
- Department of Medical Oncology, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jason Bradley
- Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Geoffrey Soo
- Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Shakher Ramdave
- Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Edmond M Kwan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Arun A Azad
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Munteanu VC, Munteanu RA, Gulei D, Schitcu VH, Petrut B, Berindan Neagoe I, Achimas Cadariu P, Coman I. PSA Based Biomarkers, Imagistic Techniques and Combined Tests for a Better Diagnostic of Localized Prostate Cancer. Diagnostics (Basel) 2020; 10:E806. [PMID: 33050493 PMCID: PMC7601671 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10100806] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2020] [Revised: 10/07/2020] [Accepted: 10/08/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer represents the most encountered urinary malignancy in males over 50 years old, and the second most diagnosed after lung cancer globally. Digital rectal examination and prostatic specific antigen were the long-time standard tools for diagnosis but with a significant risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Magnetic resonance imaging recently entered the diagnosis process, but to this date, there is no specific biomarker that accurately indicates whether to proceed with the prostate biopsy. Research in this area has gone towards this direction, and recently, serum, urine, imagistic, tissue biomarkers, and Risk Calculators promise to help better diagnose and stratify prostate cancer. In order to eliminate the comorbidities that appear along with the diagnosis and treatment of this disease, there is a constant need to implement new diagnostic strategies. Important uro-oncology associations recommend the use of novel biomarkers in the grey area of prostate cancer, to better distinguish the next step in the diagnostic process. Although it is not that simple, they should be integrated according to the clinical policies, and it should be considered that statistical significance does not always equal clinical significance. In this review, we analyzed the contribution of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based biomarkers (PHI, PHID, 4Kscore, STHLM3), imagistic techniques (mp-MRI and mp-US), and combined tests in the early diagnosis process of localized prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vlad Cristian Munteanu
- Department of Urology, The Oncology Institute “Prof Dr. Ion Chiricuta”, 400015 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; (V.H.S.); (B.P.)
- Department of Urology, “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Raluca Andrada Munteanu
- MedFuture—Research Center for Advanced Medicine, “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400337 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; (R.A.M.); (D.G.)
| | - Diana Gulei
- MedFuture—Research Center for Advanced Medicine, “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400337 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; (R.A.M.); (D.G.)
| | - Vlad Horia Schitcu
- Department of Urology, The Oncology Institute “Prof Dr. Ion Chiricuta”, 400015 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; (V.H.S.); (B.P.)
| | - Bogdan Petrut
- Department of Urology, The Oncology Institute “Prof Dr. Ion Chiricuta”, 400015 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; (V.H.S.); (B.P.)
- Department of Urology, “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Ioana Berindan Neagoe
- Research Center for Functional Genomics, Biomedicine and Translational Medicine, “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400337 Cluj-Napoca, Romania;
- Department of Functional Genomics and Experimental Pathology, The Oncology Institute “Prof. Dr. Ion Chiricuta”, 400015 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Patriciu Achimas Cadariu
- Surgery Department, The Oncology Institute “Prof. Dr. Ion Chiricuţă”, 400015 Cluj-Napoca, Romania;
- Department of Surgery and Gynecological Oncology, the University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu”, 400337 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Ioan Coman
- Department of Urology, “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
- Department of Urology, Clinical Municipal Hospital, 400139 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Xu L, Wen Y, Pandit S, Mokkapati VRSS, Mijakovic I, Li Y, Ding M, Ren S, Li W, Liu G. Graphene-based biosensors for the detection of prostate cancer protein biomarkers: a review. BMC Chem 2019; 13:112. [PMID: 31508598 PMCID: PMC6720397 DOI: 10.1186/s13065-019-0611-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2018] [Accepted: 07/15/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PC) is the sixth most common cancer type in the world, which causes approximately 10% of total cancer fatalities. The detection of protein biomarkers in body fluids is the key topic for the diagnosis and prognosis of PC. Highly sensitive screening of PC is the most effective approach for reducing mortality. Thus, there are a growing number of literature that recognizes the importance of new technologies for early diagnosis of PC. Graphene is playing an important role in the biosensor field with remarkable physical, optical, electrochemical and magnetic properties. Many recent studies demonstrated the potential of graphene materials for sensitive detection of protein biomarkers. In this review, the graphene-based biosensors toward PC analysis are mainly discussed in two groups: Firstly, novel biosensor interfaces were constructed through the modification of graphene materials onto sensor surfaces. Secondly, ingenious signal amplification strategies were developed using graphene materials as catalysts or carriers. Graphene-based biosensors have exhibited remarkable performance with high sensitivities, wide detection ranges, and long-term stabilities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Li Xu
- 1Laboratory of Biometrory, Division of Chemistry and Ionizing Radiation Measurement Technology, Shanghai Institute of Measurement and Testing Technology, Shanghai, 201203 People's Republic of China.,2Division of Systems and Synthetic Biology, Department of Biology and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, 41126 Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Yanli Wen
- 1Laboratory of Biometrory, Division of Chemistry and Ionizing Radiation Measurement Technology, Shanghai Institute of Measurement and Testing Technology, Shanghai, 201203 People's Republic of China
| | - Santosh Pandit
- 2Division of Systems and Synthetic Biology, Department of Biology and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, 41126 Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Venkata R S S Mokkapati
- 2Division of Systems and Synthetic Biology, Department of Biology and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, 41126 Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Ivan Mijakovic
- 2Division of Systems and Synthetic Biology, Department of Biology and Biological Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, 41126 Gothenburg, Sweden.,3The Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Biosustainability, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Yan Li
- 1Laboratory of Biometrory, Division of Chemistry and Ionizing Radiation Measurement Technology, Shanghai Institute of Measurement and Testing Technology, Shanghai, 201203 People's Republic of China
| | - Min Ding
- 1Laboratory of Biometrory, Division of Chemistry and Ionizing Radiation Measurement Technology, Shanghai Institute of Measurement and Testing Technology, Shanghai, 201203 People's Republic of China
| | - Shuzhen Ren
- 1Laboratory of Biometrory, Division of Chemistry and Ionizing Radiation Measurement Technology, Shanghai Institute of Measurement and Testing Technology, Shanghai, 201203 People's Republic of China
| | - Wen Li
- 1Laboratory of Biometrory, Division of Chemistry and Ionizing Radiation Measurement Technology, Shanghai Institute of Measurement and Testing Technology, Shanghai, 201203 People's Republic of China
| | - Gang Liu
- 1Laboratory of Biometrory, Division of Chemistry and Ionizing Radiation Measurement Technology, Shanghai Institute of Measurement and Testing Technology, Shanghai, 201203 People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Abiodun-Ojo OA, Akintayo AA, Akin-Akintayo OO, Tade FI, Nieh PT, Master VA, Alemozaffar M, Osunkoya AO, Goodman MM, Fei B, Schuster DM. 18F-Fluciclovine Parameters on Targeted Prostate Biopsy Associated with True Positivity in Recurrent Prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med 2019; 60:1531-1536. [PMID: 30954940 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.227033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2019] [Accepted: 03/29/2019] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
We evaluated 18F-fluciclovine uptake parameters that correlate with true positivity for local recurrence in non-prostatectomy-treated patients. Methods: Twenty-one patients (prostate-specific antigen level, 7.4 ± 6.8 ng/mL) with biochemical recurrence after nonprostatectomy local therapy (radiotherapy and cryotherapy) underwent dual-time-point 18F-fluciclovine (364.1 ± 37.7 MBq) PET/CT from pelvis to diaphragm. Prostatic uptake over background was delineated and coregistered to a prostate-biopsy-planning ultrasound. Transrectal biopsies of 18F-fluciclovine-defined targets were completed using a 3-dimensional visualization and navigation platform. Histologic analyses of lesions were completed. Lesion characteristics including SUVmax, target-to-background ratio (TBR), uptake pattern, and subjective reader's suspicion level were compared between true-positive (malignant) and false-positive (benign) lesions. Univariate analysis was used to determine the association between PET and histologic findings. Receiver-operating-characteristic curves were plotted to determine discriminatory cutoffs for TBR. Statistical significance was set at a P value of less than 0.05. Results: Fifty lesions were identified in 21 patients on PET. Seventeen of 50 (34.0%) targeted lesions in 10 of 21 patients were positive for malignancy. True-positive lesions had a significantly higher SUVmax (6.62 ± 1.70 vs. 4.92 ± 1.27), marrow TBR (2.57 ± 0.81 vs. 1.69 ± 0.51), and blood-pool TBR (4.10 ± 1.17 vs. 2.99 ± 1.01) than false-positive lesions at the early time point (P < 0.01) and remained significant at the delayed time point, except for blood-pool TBR. Focal uptake (odds ratio, 12.07; 95% confidence interval, 2.98-48.80; P < 0.01) and subjective highest suspicion level (odds ratio, 10.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-99.69; P = 0.03) correlated with true positivity. Using the receiver-operating-characteristic curve, optimal cutoffs for marrow TBR were 1.9 (area under the curve, 0.82) and 1.8 (area under the curve, 0.85) at early and delayed imaging, respectively. With these cutoffs, 15 of 17 malignant lesions were identified at both time points; however, fewer false-positive lesions were detected at the delayed time point (5/33) than at the early time point (11/33). Conclusion: True positivity of 18F-fluciclovine-targeted prostate biopsy in non-prostatectomy-treated patients correlates with focal uptake, TBR (blood pool and marrow), and subjective highest suspicion level. A marrow TBR of 1.9 at the early time point and 1.8 at the delayed time point had optimal discriminating capabilities. Despite the relatively low intraprostate positive predictive value (34.0%) with 18F-fluciclovine, application of these parameters to interpretative criteria may improve true positivity in the treated prostate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olayinka A Abiodun-Ojo
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Akinyemi A Akintayo
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Oladunni O Akin-Akintayo
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Funmilayo I Tade
- Department of Radiology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois
| | - Peter T Nieh
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Viraj A Master
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Mehrdad Alemozaffar
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Adeboye O Osunkoya
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.,Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Mark M Goodman
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.,Emory University Center for Systems Imaging, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Baowei Fei
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.,Bioengineering, Erick Josson School of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas; and.,Radiology and Advanced Imaging Research Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - David M Schuster
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|