PreImplantation Factor immunohistochemical expression correlates with prostate cancer aggressiveness

• Published in: The International journal of biological markers 2020-06, Vol.35 (2), p.82-90
• Main Authors: Raspollini, Maria Rosaria, Montagnani, Ilaria, Cirri, Paolo, Baroni, Gianna, Cimadamore, Alessia, Scarpelli, Marina, Cheng, Liang, Lopez-Beltran, Antonio, Montironi, Rodolfo, Barnea, Eytan R.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animals; Biomarkers; Cancer surgery; Cell culture; Cell Line, Tumor; Cell Proliferation; Embryos; Endometrium; Glands; Graft-versus-host reaction; Graft-versus-leukemia reaction; Humans; Immunohistochemistry; Immunohistochemistry - methods; Leukocytes (mononuclear); Male; Mice; Oxidative stress; Peptides - metabolism; Peripheral blood mononuclear cells; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy; Prostatectomy - methods; Prostatic Neoplasms - immunology; Protein folding; Uterine cancer
• ISSN: 1724-6008; 0393-6155; 1724-6008
• DOI: 10.1177/1724600820919969

Background: The PreImplantation Factor (PIF)—a peptide secreted by viable embryos—exerts autotrophic protective effects, promotes endometrial receptivity and controls trophoblast invasion. Synthetic PIF (sPIF) has both immune-protective and regenerative properties, and reduces oxidative stress and protein misfolding. PIF is detected by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in hyperplastic endometriotic lesions and advanced uterine cancer. sPIF reduces graft-versus-host disease while maintaining a graft-versus-leukemia effect. Methods: PIF detection in prostate cancer was assessed in 50 human prostate samples following radical prostatectomy using tumor-microarray-based IHC correlating PIF immune staining with Gleason score (GS) and cancer aggressiveness. Results: PIF was detected in moderate-to-high risk prostate cancer (GS 4+3 and beyond, prognostic groups 3 to 5). In prostate cancer (GS (WHO Grade Group (GG)5), PIF was detected in 50% of cases; in prostate cancer (GS 4+4 GG4), PIF was observed in 62.5% of cases; in prostate cancer (GS 4+3 GG3), PIF immunostaining was observed in 57.1% of cases. In prostate cancer, (GS 3+4 GG2) and (GS 3+3 GG1) cases where PIF staining was negative to weak, membranous staining was observed in 20% of cases (staining pattern considered negative). High-grade prostate intraepithelial neoplasia PIF positive stain in 28.57% of cases (6 of 21) was observed. In contrast, PIF was not detected in normal prostate glands. Importantly, sPIF added to the PC3 cell line alone or combined with prostate cancer fibroblast feeder-cells did not affect proliferation. Only when peripheral blood mononuclear cells were added to the culture, a minor increase in cell proliferation was noted, reflecting local proliferation control. Conclusions: Collectively, PIF assessment could be a valuable, simple-to-use immunohistochemical biomarker to evaluate aggressiveness/prognosis in specimens from prostate cancer patients.