“
“Purpose: The specificity of current screening methods for prostate cancer is limited and it results in approximately 75% to 80% of patients who undergo biopsy having findings negative for cancer. We used electrical impedance spectroscopy to
evaluate how significantly the electrical properties of benign and malignant prostatic tissues differ with the goal of providing clinicians with a new biomarker to aid in diagnosis.
Materials and Methods: We collected freshly excised prostates from 14 men immediately following radical prostatectomy. The prostates were sectioned into 3 selleck mm slices. Electrical property measurements of conductivity and relative permittivity were recorded from each slice using a coaxially configured probe over the frequency range of 1 kHz to 1 MHz. The area probed was marked so that following tissue fixation and slide preparation histological assessment could be correlated directly with the recorded electrical impedance spectroscopy spectra.
Results: selleck screening library Prostatic adenocarcinoma, benign prostatic hyperplasia, nonhyperplastic glandular tissue and stroma were the primary tissue types probed with electrical impedance spectroscopy. Conductivity
ranged from 0.093 S/m at 1 kHz to 0.277 S/m at 1 MHz. Relative permittivity ranged from 8.5 x 10(5) at 1 kHz down to 1.3 x 10(3) at 1 MHz. There were significant conductivity differences between cancer and stroma at all frequencies (p<0.01). There were significant permittivity
differences between cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia at frequencies greater that 92 kHz (p<0.01). Significant correlations were observed between electrical properties, and the concentration of stromal and glandular tissues present in the tissue area histologically assessed.
Conclusions: The electrical properties of benign and malignant prostate tissues differ significantly. This should be Selleckchem I BET 762 considered for use as a diagnostic tool. The differences observed between cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia are especially important since current screening methods do not reliably differentiate between the 2 conditions.”
“Purpose: A urinary assay for PCA3, an mRNA that is highly over expressed in prostate cancer cells, has shown usefulness as a diagnostic test for this common malignancy. We further characterized PCA3 performance in different groups of men and determined whether the PCA3 score could synergize with other clinical information to predict biopsy outcome.
Materials and Methods: Prospectively urine was collected following standardized digital rectal examination in 570 men immediately before prostate biopsy. Urinary PCA3 mRNA levels were quantified and then normalized to the amount of prostate derived RNA to generate a PCA3 score.
Results: The percent of biopsy positive men identified increased directly with the PCA3 score.