Prostate Cancer Translational Research in Europe meeting: Search for biomarkers continues

	Tweet

Collaboration in prostate cancer translational research in Europe is not only vital to sustain the progress achieved in recent years but also to streamline current efforts between researchers and clinicians and avoid duplication or overlaps. This was amongst the goals of the two-day Prostate Cancer Translational Research in Europe (PCTRE) Meeting which opened today in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

“It is important that people with research background can communicate with clinicians and vice versa. By doing so we maximise the interaction amongst specialists. It is essential that we show our results to each other,” said Prof. Peter Mulders (Nijmegen, The Netherlands), chairman of the European Association of Urology Research Foundation (EAU-RF), organiser of the PCTRE meeting.

With more than 170 participants, the conference opened with lectures and updates on the work of prostate cancer consortia based in Europe. Within the European Community based framework programme these consortia received around €40 million in funding covering scientific topics such as the search for diagnostic and prognostic markers for prostate cancer. 

Dr. Thorunn Rafnar (Reykjavic, IS) spoke on the current work regarding the identification of common genetic variants that affect the risk of prostate cancer. 42% of prostate cancer has a genetic cause. The lifetime risk of a man in the European Union to acquire prostate cancer is 10% and it is the third leading cause of death from cancer in men.

“First risk models including low risk variants are appearing,” Rafnar said as she added that “the search for genetic determinants of disease severity is ongoing.”

Polygene, one of the participating consortia, uses Genome-wide Association studies (see http://www.genome.gov) to analyse genomes responsible for cancers of the prostate and breast. However, current genetic risk models do not predict who will get progressive disease. Promark, another consortium, searches for genetic variants that do associate with aggressive cancer forms.

She also noted that the information on PSA genetics may improve utility in screening. Rafnar also pointed out that although “...much work remains…. finding causative variants at known loci define functions.”

The lecture by Prof. Freddie Hamdy (Oxford, UK), ‘What is the best practice in bio-banking?’ focussed on the dilemmas in prostate cancer (how to identify the population at risk, how to prevent overtreatment and treatment failure). “We can treat, we can cure, but who should we treat and cure?”, he said. Collection and cohorts of prostate cancer samples are important in order to look for new biomarkers. But the search for prognostic markers needs a multi-targeted approach. “The focus should be on the benefit to the patient; it should result in e.g. a reduction in mortality or of side effects”, says Hamdy.

Dr Schenk-Braat (Rotterdam, NL) says: “The incidence of prostate cancer will increase and PSA is not a sensitive enough tool to identify men at risk”. The P-Mark project evaluates promising biomarkers and has selected 3: osteoprotegerin (a bone turnover protein discovered by the group of Prof Hamdy), PCA3 (Jacques Schalkens (Nijmegen, NL) group) and multikallikreins (project of Profs Lilja (New York, US) and Petterson). An across marker validation study is ongoing. “We can name the European prostate biobank, increased support of the validation of biomakers and the prostate risk indicator as a few results from the P-Mark project”, says Schenk-Braat.

In another update lecture, Dr. O. Kallioniemi (Helsinki, Finland) discussed the integration of high-throughput technologies to identify drug targets and new therapeutic options for prostate cancer. Amongst his conclusions are:

* Majority of anti-cancer drugs are equally effective in cancer and control cells.
* TSA, thiram, disalfiram and monensin (are) identified as cancer selective compounds inhibiting VCaP cell growth at nanomolar concentrations.
* In vivo studies using VCaP cell xenografts showed reduced tumour growth in response to disulfiram exposure; disulfiram was not able to block tumour growth indicating the need for combined approaches.
* Disulfiram induced metallothionein expression, knockdown of MTI increased efficiency by five-fold.

###

Contact: Lindy Brouwer

European Association of Urology

RELATED STORIES:
Inhibiting Prostate Cancer without Disturbing Regular Body Processes   MicroRNA suppresses prostate cancer stem cells and metastasis   Prostate technique provides new insights   Closely monitoring low-risk prostate cancer, with biopsy, does not raise risk of death   Diet may make a difference in prostate cancer   Moderate exercise may lower prostate cancer risk   Pre-surgery sessions boost prostate patients’ mood   MRI findings help forecast prostate cancer prognosis   Why are African Americans less Likely to Survive Certain Cancers?   Proton Therapy Effective Prostate Cancer Treatment   Artificial Light at Night: Higher Risk of Prostate Cancer   Researchers Uncover How Prostate Cancer Cells Defy Death   Obese Prostate Cancer Patients may benefit More from Brachytherapy   Biomarkers Help Predict Prostate Cancer Progression   PSA retesting interval can be individualized   Prostate cancer risk increased in obese men: study   Common painkillers lower levels of prostate cancer biomarker   Prostate cancer vaccine improves survival   New data show benefit of finasteride in preventing prostate cancer   Prostate Cancer Surgeons “Feel” With Their Eyes   Prostate Cancer Risk Among Users of Finasteride and Alpha-Blockers   Obesity linked to higher risk of prostate cancer progression

Comments

[ + Post Your Own ]

Now you're in the public comment zone. What follows is not Armenian Medical Network's stuff; it comes from other people and we don't vouch for it. A reminder: By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

There are no comments for this entry yet. [ + Comment here + ]