Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 1.736
5-Year Impact Factor – 2.135
Index Copernicus  – 168.52
MEiN – 70 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2017, vol. 26, nr 7, October, p. 1085–1090

doi: 10.17219/acem/65432

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Tumor marker α-fetoprotein receptor does not discriminate between benign prostatic disease and prostate cancer

Tomaž Smrkolj1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Borut Gubina1,B,E,F, Jure Bizjak1,B,E,F, Kristina Kumer2,C,F, Teja Fabjan2,C,F, Joško Osredkar2,A,D,E,F

1 Department of Urology, Ljubljana University Medical Centre, Slovenia

2 Institute of Clinical Chemistry and Biochemistry, Ljubljana University Medical Centre, Slovenia


Background. The α-fetoprotein receptor (RECAF) is a proposed novel tumor marker for detecting several different types of tumors, including prostate cancer (PCa).
Objectives. The aim of the study was to evaluate RECAF in discriminating benign prostatic conditions from PCa and to compare it with prostate-specific antigen (PSA).
Material and Methods. A total of 64 patients with elevated serum PSA levels and/or abnormal digital rectal examination of the prostate referred to a tertiary center for transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy of the prostate were prospectively enrolled in the study from January 2009 to April 2010. Serum RECAF, total PSA (tPSA) and free PSA (fPSA) concentrations were measured. The results were correlated with histopathologic findings using the Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis χ2 test.
Results. The median RECAF concentration was 5.34 U/L in the benign pathology group of patients and 4.72 U/L in the malignant pathology group. The difference was not statistically significant. RECAF density, tPSA and fPSA concentrations and tPSA density were significantly different between the benign and malignant pathology groups (p = 0.033, p = 0.000, p = 0.002 and p = 0.000, respectively). RECAF concentration and RECAF density did not differ significantly in the subgroups of PCa patients stratified according to Gleason score, predominant primary Gleason grade or maximum primary Gleason grade, but in predominant secondary Gleason grade and maximum secondary Gleason grade, significant differences were found (p = 0.007 and p = 0.004, respectively).
Conclusion. The results of the study did not confirm the RECAF tumor marker as an alternative way to discriminate between groups of patients with benign prostatic conditions and PCa, and its concentration and density do not differ among PCa histopathologic groups.

Key words

prostate cancer, histopathology, prostate-specific antigen, tumor marker, α-fetoprotein receptor

References (15)

  1. Boyle P, Ferlay J. Cancer incidence and mortality in Europe, 2004. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:481–488.
  2. Stamey TA, Yang N, Hay AR, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Redwine E. Prostate-specific antigen as a serum marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:909–916.
  3. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol. 2011;59:61–71.
  4. Hara R, Jo Y, Fujii T, et al. Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy: Prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy. Urology. 2008;71:191–195.
  5. Okotie OT, Roehl KA, Han M, Loeb S, Gashti SN, Catalona WJ. Characteristics of prostate cancer detected by digital rectal examination only. Urology. 2007;70:1117–1120.
  6. Catalona WJ, Richie JP, Ahmann FR, et al. Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: Results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men. J Urol. 1994;151:1283–1290.
  7. Deras IL, Aubin SM, Blase A, et al. PCA3: A molecular urine assay for predicting prostate biopsy outcome. J Urol. 2008;179:1587–1592.
  8. Hessels D, Klein Gunnewiek JM, van Oort I, et al. DD3(PCA3)-based molecular urine analysis for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2003;44:8–15.
  9. Moro R, Tamaoki T, Wegmann TG, Longenecker BM, Laderoute MP. Monoclonal antibodies directed against a widespread oncofetal antigen: The alpha-fetoprotein receptor. Tumour Biol. 1993;14:116–130.
  10. Newby D, Dalgliesh G, Lyall F, Aitken DA. Alphafetoprotein and alphafetoprotein receptor expression in the normal human placenta at term. Placenta. 2005;26:190–200.
  11. Moro R, Tcherkassova J, Song E, et al. A new broad-spectrum cancer marker. IVD Technology Magazine 2005;59.
  12. Tsuboi S, Taketa K, Nouso K, et al. High level of expression of alpha-fetoprotein receptor in gastric cancers. Tumour Biol. 2006;27:283–288.
  13. Moro R, Gulyaeva-Tcherkassova J, Stieber P. Increased alpha-fetoprotein receptor in the serum of patients with early-stage breast cancer. Curr Oncol. 2012;19:e1–8.
  14. Lekili M, Zengin M, Postaci H, Ayder AR. Relationship between histologic grading and serum prostate specific antigen in prostatic carcinoma. Int Urol Nephrol. 1994;26:665–668.
  15. Douglas TH, Morgan TO, McLeod DG, et al. Comparison of serum prostate specific membrane antigen, prostate specific antigen, and free prostate specific antigen levels in radical prostatectomy patients. Cancer. 1997;80:107–114.