Predicting Return of Prostate Cancer

At about the same time that I received Dr. Whitaker's Newsletter on Bypass and Angioplasty, I also received my July 16,/09 Life Extension Bulletin email on "Predicting the return of Prostate Cancer ".

According to the John Hopkins investigators the best way of making this predication was by using their " 3 way combination ", viz. time taken for PSA measurement to double, Gleason score (a measure of tumor aggressiveness ) and the interval between surgical removal of the prostate and the first detectable PSA level.

Maybe there are another criteria these investigators should be considering like the property of tumors to undergo heteroploid transformation . It seems to me that most oncologists are either not aware of this transformation property of tumors or its significance. From chromosomal analysis and/or DNA cytophotometry tumor biologists have shown tumors to possess cells with different karyotypes some more others less genetic material than the diploid number (amounts) of a normal karyotype. Such heteroploidy obviously results in genetic diversity and may account for the resistance of cancers to chemotherapy and or radiotherapy. Although there is this genetic diversity most tumors appear to have a predominant karyotype which presumably gives the tumor its characteristics and is called the stem line

Another feature of tumors demonstrated at least for tumors propagated in tissue culture is that this genetic diversity of heteroploidy can occur using cultures derived from a single cell. It is possible that aggressiveness of tumors- Gleason's score - may reflect this phenomenon of heteroploid transformation. Using DNA cytophotometry, Hrushovetz publication in Acta Cytologica in the late 1960's demonstrated such heteroploidy in histological specimens previously diagnosed as cancer of the uterine cervix as well as in exfoliated cells from the uterine cervix. Emson and Kirk using Hrushovetz technique and equipment found similar data for ductal carcinoma of breast tissue which they published in Cancer Research. I have already commented of how DNA cytophotometry can remove the subjective component presently used in cancer screening and especially in making cancer diagnosis of questionable biopsy specimens using qualitative subjective criteria.

Maybe what our oncologists require is a refresher course ( ? Tumor Biology 101). Such a course should also include analysis of stages of the cell cycle (G1,S, G2,M, and Go) - using combined cellular auto-radiography and DNA cytophotometry and should stress the importance of such data for rationale cancer treatment by non surgical techniques like radio and/or chemotherapy.

I would venture to guess that most oncologists are not exposed to such a basic course in their highly specialized training.