PR92 antigen in human prostate fluid: Elevated levels in prostate cancer

Abstract

In this preliminary study, we report that an enzyme-linked immunofluorescence assay (EFLA) was developed for the determination of PR92 antigen in prostatic fluid, utilizing anti-PR92 monoclonal antibody. Fluid samples from 64 patients were assayed. PR92 antigen was expressed as unit per microgram (U/microgram) of prostatic fluid proteins. One hundred percent of men (7 out of 7) less than 50 years of age demonstrated concentrations less than 25 U/micrograms; 91% of men (10 out of 11) with documented carcinoma, and only 9.5% of men (2 out of 21) with benign prostatic hyperplasia, demonstrated concentrations above 230 U/micrograms. The mean concentration of PR92 antigen in prostatic fluid of a group of patients suspected of having prostate cancer (high-risk group; 227 +/- 42 U/micrograms) was significantly greater than that of those with benign prostatic hyperplasia (87 +/- 23 U/micrograms; P = 0.05). Further evaluation of this potential marker and of other antigens within the prostatic fluid is warranted.

Diagnostic and prognostic markers for human prostate cancer

“…However, only 1 (1%) of 79 serum specimens from age-matched men with no evidence of prostate cancer had an elevated level of PR92. Recently, an enzyme-linked immunofluorescence assay (ELIFA) has been developed to measure PR92 level in prostatic fluid by using PR92 mAb [108]. In this study, it was found that normal controls, BPH patients, high-risk patients (for prostate cancer), and prostate cancer patients had progressively increasing levels of PR92 in the prostatic fluid [108].…”

“…Recently, an enzyme-linked immunofluorescence assay (ELIFA) has been developed to measure PR92 level in prostatic fluid by using PR92 mAb [108]. In this study, it was found that normal controls, BPH patients, high-risk patients (for prostate cancer), and prostate cancer patients had progressively increasing levels of PR92 in the prostatic fluid [108]. The mean value of PR92 in the prostatic fluid for the cancer group was significantly greater than that of all three other groups.…”