Abstract:Prostate cancer is a major cause of disease for men globally. Inflammation, an established hallmark of cancer, is frequently observed in the prostate, though its contribution to prostate cancer risks and outcomes is not fully understood. Prostate cancer is biologically and clinically heterogeneous, and there is now evidence that inflammation and immunological characteristics vary by the genomic and mutational landscape of the tumor. Moreover, it is now recognized that risk factor profiles vary between tumor su… Show more
“…Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most frequently diagnosed neoplasms in men, diagnosed mostly after the age of 60 and with peak incidence after the age of 75 [ 1 ]. It can be asymptomatic for a very long time [ 2 ]. A patient’s nutritional status (i.e., malnutrition) is a factor that significantly influences therapeutic decisions and treatments for cancer.…”
Computed tomography (CT) scans used in treatment response assessment in prostate cancer (PCa) patients are a useful tool for nutritional status evaluation. The aim of this study was to assess the nutritional status, including sarcopenia development based on CT scans, in PCa patients and its association with progression-free survival (PFS). Sixty-four PCa patients were included (group 1: 34 patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with docetaxel due to newly diagnosed, hormone-sensitive, metastatic PCa and group 2: 30 patients with castration-resistant metastatic PCa continuing ADT therapy with enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate). Nutritional status was evaluated with anthropometrical parameters, Nutritional Risk Score (NRS), and CT scans at the L3 vertebrae. Survival analyses were performed. According to NRS, nutritional status was significantly related to PFS. In both groups, there was a significant reduction in muscle tissue (total muscle tissue and skeletal muscle index). A significant increase in the distribution of adipose tissue (subcutaneous fat, visceral fat, subcutaneous adipose tissue index, and visceral adipose tissue index) in group one was observed. Sarcopenia was diagnosed in patients but with no influence on PFS. Significant reduction in muscle mass and increase in fat mass was observed in patients treated for PCa with no impact on PFS. The NRS was related to PFS in PCa patients and associated with body composition, assessed by CT after the castration therapy. Long-term castration combined with abiraterone therapy with prednisone or enzalutamide significantly influenced muscle tissue and may lead to sarcopenia development.
“…Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most frequently diagnosed neoplasms in men, diagnosed mostly after the age of 60 and with peak incidence after the age of 75 [ 1 ]. It can be asymptomatic for a very long time [ 2 ]. A patient’s nutritional status (i.e., malnutrition) is a factor that significantly influences therapeutic decisions and treatments for cancer.…”
Computed tomography (CT) scans used in treatment response assessment in prostate cancer (PCa) patients are a useful tool for nutritional status evaluation. The aim of this study was to assess the nutritional status, including sarcopenia development based on CT scans, in PCa patients and its association with progression-free survival (PFS). Sixty-four PCa patients were included (group 1: 34 patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with docetaxel due to newly diagnosed, hormone-sensitive, metastatic PCa and group 2: 30 patients with castration-resistant metastatic PCa continuing ADT therapy with enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate). Nutritional status was evaluated with anthropometrical parameters, Nutritional Risk Score (NRS), and CT scans at the L3 vertebrae. Survival analyses were performed. According to NRS, nutritional status was significantly related to PFS. In both groups, there was a significant reduction in muscle tissue (total muscle tissue and skeletal muscle index). A significant increase in the distribution of adipose tissue (subcutaneous fat, visceral fat, subcutaneous adipose tissue index, and visceral adipose tissue index) in group one was observed. Sarcopenia was diagnosed in patients but with no influence on PFS. Significant reduction in muscle mass and increase in fat mass was observed in patients treated for PCa with no impact on PFS. The NRS was related to PFS in PCa patients and associated with body composition, assessed by CT after the castration therapy. Long-term castration combined with abiraterone therapy with prednisone or enzalutamide significantly influenced muscle tissue and may lead to sarcopenia development.
“…De novo metastatic PCa (mPCa) constitutes about 6% and 25% to 44% of the total PCa cases in the United States and Asia, respectively (1,2). Among the many factors promoting tumorigenesis and progression of PCa, inflammation plays a crucial role (3)(4)(5).…”
Background
The lung immune prognostic index (LIPI) was first reported to predict the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and there are no studies investigating the predictive value of LIPI for patients with PCa. This study explores the prognostic value of the LIPI in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
Methods
Data from 502 patients with mHSPC primarily treated with maximal androgen blockade (MAB; 89% of patients received MAB) and 158 patients with mCRPC who received abiraterone were retrospectively analyzed. All cases were classified into LIPI-good, LIPI-intermediate, and LIPI-poor groups based on their LIPI score as calculated with the derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and lactate dehydrogenase level. The potential for LIPI to be used in predicting mCRPC-free survival (CFS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, PSA-progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), and overall survival (OS) was analyzed. A propensity score matching (PSM) methodology was performed to balance the baseline factors of the different groups.
Results
In the mHSPC cohort, patients of the LIPI-good (mCFS: 25.7 months; mOS: 93.3 months), LIPI-intermediate (mCFS: 14.8 months; mOS: 51.9 months), and LIPI-poor group (mCFS: 6.8 months; mOS: 18.5 months) had sequentially worse clinical outcomes (P<0.001 for all pairwise comparisons). The results remained consistent after PSM. Multivariate Cox regression further confirmed that LIPI was an independent predictor of survival outcomes. Subgroup analysis verified that LIPI was associated with an unfavorable prognosis in all subgroups except for cases with visceral metastases or those receiving abiraterone or docetaxel. As for patients with mCRPC receiving abiraterone, LIPI was also an indicator of poor prognosis. Specifically, cases in the LIPI-good, LIPI-intermediate, and LIPI-poor groups had a ladder-shaped worse PSA response [71.4% (50/70)
vs.
56.5% (39/69)
vs.
36.8% (7/19); P=0.015], PSA-PFS (14.9
vs.
9.3
vs.
3.1 months; P<0.001), and OS (14.6
vs.
32.3
vs.
53.4 months; P<0.001). The results were robust even after PSM. Multivariate Cox regression confirmed that LIPI was an independent prognosticator of PSA-PFS and OS in patients with mCRPC treated with abiraterone.
Conclusions
This study demonstrated that the baseline LIPI was a significant prognostic biomarker for patients with both mHSPC and mCRPC and could potentially facilitate risk classification and clinical decision-making.
“…The significant association between chronic gingivitis and prostate cancer raises the question of a pathophysiological basis for this mere descriptive observation. Interestingly, both local inflammation (prostatitis) as well as systemic inflammation have been associated with the pathophysiology of prostate cancer development [ 27 , 28 ]. In this line of thinking, it is of importance that periodontitis has been previously associated with prostatitis [ 29 ], which could point towards a link between gingivitis and prostatitis potentially representing an underlying cause for the association between gingivitis and prostate cancer that we observed in our cohort of patients.…”
Purpose: Recent data argue for the involvement of inflammatory and infectious diseases in cancer development. However, clinical data on the association between chronic gingivitis and cancer have been less conclusive. Here, we systematically evaluated the cancer incidence in a population-based cohort of outpatients with chronic gingivitis from the United Kingdom. Methods: 9891 patients with chronic gingivitis and an identical number of people without gingivitis matched by age, gender, index year, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index were identified from the Disease Analyzer database (IQVIA) between January 2000 and December 2016. Cox regression models were used to study the association between gingivitis and cancer. Results: The probability of cancer was significantly higher among patients with diagnosed chronic gingivitis compared to non-gingivitis individuals (HR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.15–1.62). In cancer site-stratified analyses, we observed a trend towards higher rates of cancer in almost all cancers (breast cancer, lymphoid system cancer, digestive tract cancers, skin cancer); however, a significant association was only observed for prostate cancer (HR: 3.38; 95% CI: 1.57–7.27). Notably, the largest increase in cancer rates was observed in male patients (HR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.13–1.89) between 41 and 60 years old (HR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.30–2.32). Conclusions: Our data suggest that chronic gingivitis represents an important risk factor for the development of cancer. Therefore, in the context of patient dental care, awareness should be raised to refer gingivitis patients to existing screening programs, especially for prostate cancer. Moreover, the consistent treatment of gingivitis could potentially have a positive impact on the morbidity of certain cancers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.