Immunohistochemical expression of somatostatin receptor subtypes in prostate tissue from cystoprostatectomies with incidental prostate cancer

Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol

Santinelli

et al. 2010

The first two authors contributed equally to this workThe aim of the study is to examine the tissue expression and localization of the somatostatin receptors (SSTRs) in prostate cancer (PCa) with neuroendocrine (NE) differentiation. The five SSTR subtypes (SSTRI to 5) were evaluated immunohistochemically in the secretory cells of normal-looking epithelium (Nep), high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and PCa in 20 radical prostatectomies (RPs) with Gleason score 3+3=6 acinar PCa; 20 RPs with GS 4+4=8 and 4+5=9 PCa; and 20 RPs with PCa with NE differentiation. The basal cells were evaluated in Nep and HGPIN. In all groups the stromal smooth muscle and endothelial cells were also analyzed. Concerning the secretory cells, (i) the greatest mean proportions of cells with strong cytoplasmic staining in PCa were seen for SSTR2, mainly in the group of RP with NE differentiation, and for SSTR4 in all three groups; the mean values in HGPIN were intermediate between Nep and PCa; (ii) Membrane staining was seen for SSTR3 and SSTR4; the mean percentages of positive cells, higher in SSTR3 than in SSTR4, decreased from Nep to HGPIN and PCa in all three RP groups; in the latter two, the mean percentages were similar; and (iii) Nuclear staining was seen with SSTR4 and SSTR5; for SSTR4, the mean percentages in the PCa of the three groups were higher than in HGPIN and Nep, the highest proportion being with PCa with NE differentiation. Concerning the basal cells, in Nep the mean proportions of cells with strong staining intensity were greater for SSTRI and SSTR3 than for the other subtypes, the lowest being with SSTR2; in HGPIN the highest mean propositions of positive cells was with SSTR3, the proportions in the three RP groups being similar. Concerning the stromal smooth muscle and endothelial cells, the highest mean values being in SSTRI and the lowest in SSTR5; for the former subtype the highest proportion of endothelial cells with strong intensity was seen in the RP NE group. In conclusion, this immunohistochemical study expands our knowledge on the expression and localization of five SSTRs in the various tissue components in the prostate with PCa with NE differentiation, compared with conventional PCa. Typing somatostatin receptor expression in NE tumours could be of relevance to target somatostatin analogue-based diagnostic approach and treatment.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Immunohistochemical Expression and Localization of Somatostatin Receptor Subtypes in Prostate Cancer with Neuroendocrine Differentiation

Morichetti

Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol

Santinelli

et al. 2010

“…Some differences in marker expression between CyPs and RPs were observed. Such an observation suggested that there are differences in the field effects in terms of carcinogenesis between the two types of specimens (9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is There a Role for Prostate Tumour Overexpressed-1 in the Diagnosis of HGPIN and of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma? A Comparison with α-Methylacyl CoA Racemase

Scarpelli

Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol

Barbisan

et al. 2012

Prostate Tumour Overexpressed-1 (PTOV1) was recently identified as a novel gene and protein during a differential display screening for genes overexpressed in prostate cancer (PCa). α-Methyl-CoA racemose (AMACR) mRNA was identified as being overexpressed in PCa. PTOV1 and racemase were immunohistochemically evaluated in PCa, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN), atrophy and normal-looking epithelium (NEp) in 20 radical prostatectomies (RPs) with pT2a Gleason score 6 prostate cancer with the aim of analyzing the differences in marker expression between PTOV1 and AMACR. The level of expression of PTOV1 and AMACR increased from NEp and atrophy through HGPIN, away from and adjacent to prostate cancer, to PCa. With the ROC curve analysis the overall accuracy in distinguishing PCa vs HGPIN away from and adjacent to cancer was higher for AMACR than for PTOV1. In conclusion, AMACR can be considered a more accurate marker than PTOV1 in the identification of HGPIN and of PCa. However, PTOV1 may aid in the diagnosis of PCa, at least to supplement AMACR as another positive marker of carcinoma and to potentially increase diagnostic accuracy.

“…Detailed information on the expression and localization of the five SSTR subtypes in epithelial cells in normal prostate, HGPIN and PCa, including cancers with NE differentiation, as well as in the smooth muscle and endothelial cells from hormonally untreated prostates has been reported in a number of studies [3,4,[6][7][8]15,16,20,23] (Table 8). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…None of them was under androgen manipulation before surgery. This group, used as control, was included in a previous investigation [16].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immunohistochemical Expression and Localization of Somatostatin Receptor Subtypes in Androgen Ablated Prostate Cancer

Analytical Cellular Pathology

Morichetti

Santinelli

et al. 2010

Self Cite

Abstract. Objective:The aim was to examine the expression and localization of the five somatostatin receptors (termed SSTR1-5) in radical prostatectomies (RPs) from patients with prostatic adenocarcinoma (PCa) under complete androgen ablation (CAA) before operation.Material: The five SSTRs were evaluated in the epithelial, smooth muscle and endothelial cells of normal-looking epithelium (Nep), high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and PCa in 20 RPs with clinically detected PCa from patients under CAA. 20 RPs with clinically detected PCa from hormonally untreated patients were used as control group.Results: Concerning the secretory cells (i) membrane staining was seen for SSTR3 and SSTR4; the mean percentages of positive cells, higher in SSTR3 than in SSTR4, decreased sharply in HGPIN and PCa compared with Nep; the mean percentages in the androgen ablated group were 30-90% lower than in the untreated; (ii) cytoplasmic staining was seen for all 5 SSTRs; the mean percentages of positive cells in Nep, HGPIN and PCa of the untreated group were similar, and in general as high as 80% or more; in the treated group, the Nep values were similar to those in the untreated, whereas the values in HGPIN and PCa were lower for SSTR1, 3 and 5, with a decrease of 30% for SSTR1; (iii) nuclear staining was seen with SSTR4 and SSTR5, the mean percentages for the former being much lower than for the latter; treatment affected both HGPIN and PCa, whose proportions of stained cells were 30-55% lower than in the untreated group. Cytoplasmic staining in the basal cells was seen for all 5 SSTRs, both in Nep and HGPIN. The values in the treated group were lower than in the other, the difference between the two group being in general comprised between 10 and 40%. Treatment did not affect SSTR staining in the smooth muscle and endothelial cells.Conclusions: The present study expands our knowledge on the expression and localization of the five SSTRs in the prostate following CAA.