Background: The effect of the adenoviral early region 2 binding factors (E2Fs) target pathway on prostate cancer is not clear. It is necessary to establish an E2F target-related gene signature to predict prognosis and facilitate clinical decision-making.Methods: An E2F target-related gene signature was established by univariate and LASSO Cox regression analyses, and its predictive ability was verified in multiple cohorts. Moreover, the enrichment pathway, immune microenvironment, and drug sensitivity of the activated E2F target pathway were also explored.Results: The E2F target-related gene signature consisted of MXD3, PLK1, EPHA10, and KIF4A. The patients with high-risk scores showed poor prognosis, therapeutic resistance, and immunosuppression, along with abnormal growth characteristics of cells. Tinib drugs showed high sensitivity to the expression of MXD3 and EPHA10 genes.Conclusion: Our research established an E2F target-related signature for predicting the prognosis of prostate cancer. This study provides insights into formulating individualized detection and treatment as well as provides a theoretical basis for future research.

Objective. UPOINT clinical phenotype system was used to estimate the type III prostatitis patients. Put in the erectile dysfunction (ED) domain and analysis the ED domain’s effect towards the UPOINT system. Methods. A total of 126 patients with type III prostatitis were prospectively collected and classified in each domain of the UPOINT system, including urinary, psychosocial, organ-specific, infection, neurological/systemic, and tenderness. Symptom severity was measured using the national institutes of health chronic prostatitis symptom index (NIH-CPSI) and the international prostate symptom score (IPSS). The erectile function was evaluated using the international index of erectile function (IIEF-5). Mental state was evaluated using the Symptom Checklist 90 (SCL-90). The quality of life of patients was assessed by the Quality of Life scale (QoL). Results. The percentage of patients positive for each domain was 60.32%, 43.65%, 53.17%, 11.11%, 42.06%, and 33.33% for the urinary, psychosocial, organ-specific, infection, neurological/systemic, and tenderness, respectively. There were significant correlations between the number of positive UPOINT domains and total NIH-CPSI ( r = 0.630 , P < 0.001 ) and IPSS ( r = 0.429 , P < 0.001 ). Symptom duration was associated with a number of positive domains ( r = 0.194 , P < 0.05 ). After adding an ED domain to establish a modified UPOINT system, the correlation between the number of positive domains and symptom severity was not improved (0.630 to 0.590, P < 0.001 ). The percentage of the patients who suffered psychosocial problems was 43.65%. Conclusions. In our cohort, the number of positive domains was correlated with symptom severity. Inclusion of the ED phenotype in the UPOINT phenotype classification system did not significantly enhance the association of positive presentation with symptom severity. Our findings presented do not support the utility of using ED as a stand-alone item in the UPOINT domain. Psychological problems should be considered when treating type III prostatitis patients.

PurposeThe efficacy of local treatments (LTs) in selected patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) had been demonstrated. However, the comparative effectiveness between LTs is unclear. Here, we compared the impact of radical prostatectomy (RP) and brachytherapy (RT) on the survival outcomes of mPCa patients.Materials and MethodsmPCa patients who received RT or RP between 2004 and 2016 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to evaluate the comparative risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM) between LTs. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) and adjusted standardized mortality ratio weighting (SMRW) were performed to balance the clinicopathological characteristics of the groups.ResultsOf 684 mPCa patients, 481 underwent RP and 203 received RT. After PSM, both groups included 148 cases, and RT resulted in comparable CSM versus RP [CSM: hazard ratio (HR) = 0.77, p = 0.325; ACM: HR = 0.73, p = 0.138], which was consistent with the SMRW model [CSM: HR = 0.83, p = 0.138; overall survival (OS): HR = 0.75, p = 0.132]. However, RP was associated with a lower CSM in the T1–2 subgroup (HR = 0.42, p = 0.048) and a lower ACM in the T1–2 (HR = 0.55, p = 0.031) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤20ng/ml (HR = 0.48, p = 0.022) subgroups. Besides, the results showed that the mortality risk was similar between the two groups in the T3–4, Gleason score (GS) &gt;7, PSA &gt;20 ng/ml, and all metastatic subgroups (all p &gt; 0.100).ConclusionsRP could confer better survival outcomes than could RT in mPCa patients with favorable primary tumor features, but not in those with advanced primary tumor features. Moreover, the metastatic substage has limited impact on the comparative effectiveness between RP and RT. Further clinical trials are necessary to confirm the present results.