MATERIALS AND METHODS: From a PSA screening initiative, 161 men were shown to have elevated PSA levels in their blood and underwent prostatic tissue biopsy. DNA was extracted from the blood, and exon 1 of the AR gene amplified by PCR and sequenced. The number of CAG repeat sequences were counted and compared to the immunohistochemical expression of ERG and AR in the matched tumour biopsies.
RESULTS: Of men with elevated PSA, 89 were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and 72 with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). There was no significant difference in the length of the CAG repeat in men with prostate cancer and BPH. The CAG repeat length was not associated with; age, PSA or tumour grade, though a longer CAG repeat was associated with tumour stage. ERG and AR were expressed in 36% and 86% of the cancers, respectively. There was no significant association between CAG repeat length and ERG or AR expression. However, there was a significant inverse relationship between ERG and AR expression. In addition, a significantly great proportion of Indian men had ERG positive tumours, compared to men of Malay or Chinese descent.
CONCLUSIONS: CAG repeat length is not associated with prostate cancer or expression of ERG or AR. However, ERG appears to be more common in the prostate cancers of Malaysian Indian men than in the prostate cancers of other Malaysian ethnicities and its expression in this study was inversely related to AR expression.
METHODS: We analysed the expression of AR in 97 TNBC cases from Penang General Hospital for a period of 3 years (2014 to 2017). Androgen receptor immunoreactivity was considered positive if ≥ 1% of tumour cells nuclei were stained irrespective of staining intensity.
RESULTS: The prevalence of AR expression in TNBC was 31% (30/97), with the proportion of AR-positive tumour cells ranged from 1% to 90%. These include 23 invasive carcinomas, no special type (NST) and 7 other invasive carcinoma subtypes (papillary, lobular, clear cell and medullary carcinomas). Sixty-seven cases (69%) that showed AR immunonegativity were invasive carcinomas, NST (n=60), clear cell carcinoma (n=1) and metaplastic carcinoma (n=6). Androgen receptor immunoexpression was inversely correlated with tumour grade (p=0.016), but not the tumour stage, tumour size and nodal status.
CONCLUSION: AR is expressed in about one-third of TNBC and loss of AR immunoexpression does not predict adverse clinical outcomes. Larger cohorts for better characterisation of the role of AR immunoexpression in TNBC are warranted.
OBJECTIVE(S): The present study was aimed to investigate the mechanism of bone-forming capacity of EL using MC3T3-E1 as an in vitro osteoblastic model.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cell differentiation capacity of EL was investigated by evaluating cell growth, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity, collagen deposition and mineralization. Taken together, time-mannered expression of bone-related mediators which include bone morphogenic protein-2 (BMP-2), ALP, runt-related transcription factor-2 (Runx-2), osteocalcin (OCN), type I collagen, osteopontin (OPN), transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1) and androgen receptor (AR) were measured to comprehend bone-forming mechanism of EL.
RESULTS: Results demonstrated a superior cell differentiation efficacy of EL (particularly at a dose of 25 μg/mL) that was evidenced by dramatically increased cell growth, higher ALP activity, collagen deposition and mineralization compared to the testosterone. Results analysis of the bone-related protein biomarkers indicated that the expression of these mediators was well-regulated in EL-treated cell cultures compared to the control groups. These findings revealed potential molecular mechanism of EL for the prevention and treatment of male osteoporosis.
CONCLUSION: The resulting data suggested that EL exhibited superior efficacy in stimulating bone formation via up-regulating the expression of various mitogenic proteins and thus can be considered as a potential natural alternative therapy for the treatment of osteoporosis.
METHODS: DNA samples from 92 patients and 156 healthy controls collected from two medical centers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia were analyzed for four regions located at X-chromosome using the Investigator® Argus X-12 QS Kit.
RESULTS: The results demonstrated that microvariant alleles of (DXS7132, DXS10146, HPRTB, DXS10134, and DXS10135) are overrepresented in the BPH group (p < 0.00001). Allele 28 of DXS10135 and allele 15 of DXS7423 could have a protective effect, OR 0.229 (95%CI, 0.066-0.79); and OR 0.439 (95%CI, 0.208-0.925). On the other hand, patients carrying allele 23 of DXS10079 and allele 26 of DXS10148 presented an increased risk to PrCa OR 4.714 (95%CI, 3.604-6.166).
CONCLUSION: The results are in concordance with the involvement of the X chromosome in PrCa and BPH development. STR allele studies may add further information from the definition of a genetic profile of PrCa resistance or susceptibility. As TBL1, AR, LDOC1, and RPL10 genes are located at regions Xp22.31, Xq11.2-12, Xq26.2, and Xq28, respectively, these genes could play an essential role in PrCa or BPH.
CASE REPORT: An 87-year-old male had a tumour nodule over the left parotid tail for about 20 years. Physical examinations revealed a 4.5 cm soft, non-tender and fixed mass. After the left parotidectomy, pathology confirmed the diagnosis of IDC arising within an intraparotid lymph node. The cystic component of the tumour was lined by single to multilayered ductal cells with micropapillary growth pattern. The solid part showed intraductal proliferation of neoplastic cells in solid, cribriform, micropapillary and Roman bridge-like structure. By immunohistochemistry (IHC), the tumour cells were positive for S-100, CK (AE1/AE3), mammaglobin, SOX10, and estrogen receptor (ER), with myoepithelial cell rimming highlighted by positive p63 and calponin IHC stains. The prognosis of this patient is excellent after complete excision.
DISCUSSION: The mechanism of salivary gland tumour arising in the intra-parotid gland LN was assumed to be related to salivary duct inclusion within the intraparotid gland LN which is a normal occurrence during embryology development. Although the terminology may raise some confusion about the relationship between IDC and conventional salivary duct carcinoma (SDA), they are different in immunophenotype and clinicopathologic features. IDC is characterised by S100 (+) ER (+) with predominant intraductal growth and excellent prognosis; while SDC features S100 (-) androgen receptor (+) with predominant invasive growth and aggressive behavior. Recent discovery of recurrent RET gene rearrangement in IDC but not SDC also supports that IDC is not precursor lesion of the SDC.