Tissue and Plasma Endocan and Endoglin Levels in Patients with Bladder Cancer

Year 2016, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 195 - 199, 16.06.2016

Omer Kurt

https://doi.org/10.5799/ahinjs.01.2016.02.0596

Abstract

Objective: In this study, we aimed to compare plasma
endoglin and endocan levels between bladder cancer patients and the
control group. The secondary aim of the study was to compare plasma and
tissue endoglin and endocan levels between high grade and low grade
bladder cancers.

Methods: A total of 36 patients with bladder cancer
and 20 patients as control group were included. Eight milliliters of
peripheral venous blood sample was taken from both study and control
group to determine plasma Endocan and Endoglin levels. A tissue sample
of 0.5 cm3 was obtained by cystoscopy and resection of papillary lesion
of bladder to determine tissue Endocan and Endoglin levels. Results were
compared between bladder cancer and control group.

Result: The mean plasma Endoglin levels were 10.2
(4.5-13.7) ng/mL in low grade bladder cancer, 14.6 (8.4-22.3) ng/mL in
high grade bladder cancer and 8.8 (6.3-19.4) ng/mL in the control group.
The mean plasma Endocan levels were 520.4 (346.9-647.6) ng/L in low
grade bladder tumors; 728.5 (311.4-1518.1) ng/L in high grade bladder
tumors and 479.9 (140.6-864.7) ng/L in the control group. Plasma
Endoglin level of control group was significantly lower than bladder
cancer group (p<0.001). Plasma Endocan level was not different
between bladder cancer and control group (p=0.117).

Conclusions: Plasma Endoglin level was up-regulated in bladder cancer patients whereas plasma Endocan level did not show any difference. J Clin Exp Invest 2016; 7 (2): 195-199

Keywords

Bladder cancer, endocan, endoglin, diagnosis

References

• 1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu JQ, Ward E. Cancer Statistics, 2010. Ca-Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:277-300. 2. Sexton WJ, Wiegand LR, Correa JJ, et al. Bladder cancer: a review of nonmuscle invasive disease. Cancer Control. 2010;17:256-68. 3. Franekova M, Halasova E, Bukovska E, et al. Gene polymor - phisms in bladder cancer. Urol Oncol. 2008;26:1-8. 4. Cheng L, Montironi R, Davidson DD, Lopez-Beltran A. Staging and reporting of urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder. Mod Pathol. 2009;22 Suppl 2:70-95. 5. Falke J, Witjes JA. Contemporary management of low-risk bladder cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2011;8:42-9. 6. Abid MR, Yi X, Yano K, et al. Vascular endocan is prefer - entially expressed in tumor endothelium. Microvasc Res. 2006;72:136-45. 7. Fonsatti E, Nicolay HJM, Altomonte M, et al. Targeting cancer vasculature via endoglin/CD105: a novel antibody- based diagnostic and therapeutic strategy in solid tumours. Cardiovasc Res. 2010;86:12-9. 8. Mossanen M, Gore JL. The burden of bladder cancer care: Direct and indirect costs. Curr Opin Urol. 2014;24:487-91. 9. Brems-Eskildsen AS, Zieger K, Toldbod H, et al. Predic - tion and diagnosis of bladder cancer recurrence based on urinary content of hTERT, SENP1, PPP1CA, and MCM5 transcripts. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:646. 10. R. S. Kerbel, “Tumor angiogenesis, NEJM. 2008; 358: 2039-49. 11. Tsai JC, Zhang J, Minami T, et al.: Cloning and character - ization of the human lung endothelial cell specific molecule 1 promoter. J Vasc Res 2002;39:148-159. 12. Aitkenhead M, Wang SJ, Nakatsu MN, et al: Identification of endothelial cell genes expressed in an in vitro model of angiogenesis: Induction of ESM 1, (beta)ig h3, and NrCAM. Microvasc Res 2002;63:159 171. 13. Bechard D, Meignin V, Scherpereel A, et al.: Character - ization of the secreted form of endothelial cell specific molecule 1 by specific monoclonal antibodies. J Vasc Res 2000;37:417 425. 14. Nault JC, Guyot E, Laguillier C, et al. Serum Proteoglycans as Prognostic Biomarkers of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Alcoholic Cirrhosis. Cancer Epidem Biomar. 2013;22:1343-52. 15. Leroy X, Aubert S, Zini L, et al. Vascular endocan (ESM- 1) is markedly overexpressed in clear cell renal cell carci - noma. Histopathology 2010;56:180-7. 16. Matano F, Yoshida D, Ishii Y, et al. Endocan, a new invasion and angiogenesis marker of pituitary adenomas. J Neuro- Oncol. 2014;117:485-91. 17. El Behery MM, Seksaka MA, Ibrahiem MA, et al. Clini - copathological correlation of endocan expression and sur - vival in epithelial ovarian cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288:1371-6. 18. Roudnicky F, Poyet C, Wild P, et al. Endocan is upregu - lated on tumor vessels in invasive bladder cancer where it mediates VEGF-A-induced angiogenesis. Cancer Res 2013;73:1097-1106. 19. Santos L, Costa C, Pereira S, et al: Neovascularisation is a prognostic factor of early recurrence in T1/G2 urothelial bladder tumours. Ann Oncol 2003;14:1419-1424. 20. Agrawal U, Mishra AK, Salgia P, et al: Role of tumor sup - pressor and angiogenesis markers in prediction of recur - rence of non muscle invasive bladder cancer. Pathol Oncol Res 2011;17:91-101. 21. Salvesen HB, Gulluoglu MG, Stefansson I, Akslen LA: Significance of CD 105 expression for tumour angiogen - esis and prognosis in endometrial carcinomas. APMIS. 2003;111:1011-8. 22. Nikiteas NI, Tzanakis N, Theodoropoulos G, et al: Vascular endothelial growth factor and endoglin (CD-105) in gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2007;10:12-7. 23. Saad RS, Liu YL, Nathan G, et al Endoglin (CD105) and vascular endothelial growth factor as prognostic markers in colorectal cancer. Mod Pathol. 2004;17:197-203. 24. Mineo TC, Ambrogi V, Baldi A, et al. Prognostic impact of VEGF, CD31, CD34, and CD105 expression and tumour vessel invasion after radical surgery for IB-IIA non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2004;57:591-7.