Abstract
Although smoking is not associated with prostate cancer risk overall, smoking is associated with prostate cancer recurrence and mortality. Increased cadmium (Cd) exposure from smoking may play a role in progression of the disease. In this study, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry was used to determine Cd, arsenic (As), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn) levels in formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tumor and tumor-adjacent non-neoplastic tissue of never- and ever-smokers with prostate cancer. In smokers, metal levels were also evaluated with regard to biochemical and distant recurrence of disease. Smokers (N =25) had significantly higher Cd (median ppb, p =0.03) and lower Zn (p =0.002) in non-neoplastic tissue than never-smokers (N =21). Metal levels were not significantly different in tumor tissue of smokers and non-smokers. Among smokers, Cd level did not differ by recurrence status. However, the ratio of Cd ppb to Pb ppb was significantly higher in both tumor and adjacent tissue of cases with distant recurrence when compared with cases without distant recurrence (tumor tissue Cd/Pb, 6.36 vs. 1.19, p =0.009, adjacent nonneoplastic tissue Cd/Pb, 6.36 vs. 1.02, p =0.038). Tissue Zn levels were also higher in smokers with distant recurrence (tumor, p =0.039 and adjacent non-neoplastic, p =0.028). These initial findings suggest that prostate tissue metal levels may differ in smokers with and without recurrence. If these findings are confirmed in larger studies, additional work will be needed to determine whether variations in metal levels are drivers of disease progression or are simply passengers of the disease process.
Keywords: Prostate cancer, Recurrence, Smoking, Heavy metal, Cadmium
Introduction
Although existing evidence suggests that smoking is not related to overall risk of prostate cancer [1, 2], recent reportsimplicate smoking in aggressive [3, 4] and recurrent [5] prostate cancer and in mortality [6, 7] due to the disease. Several mechanisms [3] have been proposed to explain these associations including increased exposure of smokers to the heavy metal cadmium (Cd). Cd is known to inhibit DNA repair, induce oxidative stress, promote aberrant gene expression, and induce, as well as inhibit, apoptosis [8, 9].
Smoking is considered to be one of the predominant sources of non-occupational Cd exposure in the USA. Cd is naturally present in the earth’s crust and is readily taken up from soil by tobacco plants. In addition, fertilizers applied to crops such as tobacco, frequently contain Cd [10]. Cd is recognized as a carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and early animal and human studies, used by the IARC to classify Cd as a level IA carcinogen, suggest a link between the heavy metal and risk of prostate and lung cancer [11]. More recent epidemiological studies of Cd exposure and prostate cancer risk and progression have been mixed and inconclusive, and have relied on indirect measures of exposure such as estimated lifetime occupational exposure [12, 13] or peripheral measures of Cd in blood [14] or toenails [15, 16]. Only a few studies have assessed metals directly in prostate tissue specimens, and even fewer have accounted for smoking status or disease recurrence. In general, these studies have found higher Cd and lower zinc (Zn) levels in prostate cancer cases than in controls [17, 18] and higher Cd levels in smokers compared with non-smokers [19], leading some to suggest that the ratio of Cd to Zn may be more important than considering Cd alone as Cd can replace Zn or may have other indirect effects on Zn proteins. Zn is required for normal prostate development. A study by Sarafanov et al. [20], which assessed metal levels in 40 prostate cancer cases with known biochemical recurrence and 40 matched cases without biochemical recurrence, found significantly lower Zn levels in adjacent non-neoplastic tissue of recurrent cases. There were no differences noted in Cd levels by recurrence status; however, the study did not account for individuals’ smoking history.
In this study, we examine prostate tissue Cd and Zn levels in prostate cancer cases by smoking status. Data on two additional heavy metals associated with smoking [21], arsenic (As) and lead (Pb), are also provided, and we evaluate metal levels by biochemical and distant recurrence status within ever-smokers.
Materials and Methods
Subjects and Tissue Samples
Formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) prostate tissue of a subset of men who participated in the Gene-Environment Interaction in Prostate Cancer Study (GECAP) [22] and underwent prostatectomy for treatment of their cancer were selected for inclusion in this study. As part of the GECAP study, men completed a face-to-face interview to determine lifetime smoking history and occupational exposure to metals (Cd, Pb, and Zn), and completed a food frequency questionnaire. Ever-smokers included cases that had a history of past or current smoking. Detailed clinical information included PSA at diagnosis, Gleason score, stage, margin status, and information on biochemical recurrence. Biochemical recurrence was defined as two consecutive PSA tests greater than 0.02 ng/mL after prostatectomy. In addition, distant recurrence was captured from the certified tumor registry of the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI where the GECAP study took place.
Prostate tissue samples were selected and prepared according to the methods reported by Sarafanov et al. [23]. Areas of interest (tumor and adjacent non-neoplastic) were marked on an H&E slide by the study pathologist (O.N.K.) who was blinded to the smoking and recurrence status of subjects. Designated tissue areas of tumor and non-neoplastic were macro dissected with a titanium knife, using metal-free methods, and placed in tubes that had been pre-washed with Optima grade nitric acid and MilliQ water and dried. Tissue was deparaffinized using hexane (Optima grade, Thermo Fisher) at 20 °C for 1 week with frequent changes of solvent.
Metal Measurement by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry
Tumor and adjacent non-neoplastic prostate tissue levels were measured by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) in the laboratory of (B.M.). In short, samples were dried until a constant tissue weight was achieved. Samples were then digested with concentrated nitric acid (high purity Optima Grade from Thermo Fisher) in pre-washed and dried polypropylene tubes overnight at room temperature. Approximately 10 mg of each sample was digested with nitric acid at 90 °C for 30 min. The samples were then diluted with MilliQ pure water (Sigma) to the appropriate range of metal concentrations. Metal measurements were carried out in a PE Sciex Elan 9000 ICP-MS with a cross flow nebulizer and Scott type spray chamber. The RF power was set at 1000 W and the argon flow optimized at 0.92 l/min. The optimum lens voltage was centered on rhodium sensitivity. Standard external calibrations curves were generated from stock solutions purchased from VWR (Radnor, PA). All samples included internal standards, Yittrium and Indium, also from VWR. The ICP-MS measurements were repeated on duplicate samples. Data for subjects that had both tumor and matched adjacent non-neoplastic tissue are presented.
Statistical Analysis
Chi-sq and t tests were used to determine differences in subject characteristics across smoking status. The average level of As, Cd, Pb, and Zn was determined for each subject using two replicate measurements of two separately digested samples from each tissue sample. To accommodate the data, which was not normally distributed, the median metal level and interquartile range (25th to 75th percentile) are reported for never- and ever-smokers in tumor and adjacent nonneoplastic tissue. The differences across smokers and non-smokers and across smokers with recurrence and without recurrence were evaluated by the Mann–Whitney U test, and statistical significance was set at a p <0.05. Metal levels were also log transformed and ANCOVA was used to account for potential confounders.
Results
The prostate cancer cases in this study included 21 never-smokers and 25 ever-smokers. Smokers and never-smokers (Table 1) were similar in age, PSA at diagnosis, and Gleason grade. In addition, dietary zinc intake and estimated occupational exposure to metals did not differ between ever- and never-smokers. Ever-smokers had a median follow-up period of 47.4 months compared with 48.7 months for never-smokers.
Table 1.
Prostate cancer case characteristics
| Characteristic | Never-smokers N=21 |
Ever-smokers N=25 |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 58.7 (sd 8.2) | 59.9 (sd 5.8) |
| Occupation with metal exposure | 13 (61.9 %) | 15 (60.0 %) |
| Dietary zinc intake (mg/day) | 13.6 (sd 6.9) | 15.0 (sd 6.5) |
| Mean PSA at dx (ng/dl) | 6.8 (sd 7.5) | 6.6 (sd 4.3) |
| Gleason | ||
| 6 | 6 (28.6 %) | 7 (28.0 %) |
| 7 | 13 (61.9 %) | 15 (60.0 %) |
| 8-9 | 2 (9.5 %) | 3 (12.0 %) |
As Table 2 shows, metal levels were evaluated by smoking status in prostate tumor tissue and adjacent normal tissue. Overall, smokers had significantly higher Cd and lower Zn levels in tumor-adjacent non-neoplastic tissue. Cd/Zn and Cd/ As ratios in adjacent non-neoplastic tissue were significantly higher in smokers as well. Metal levels in tumor tissue did not differ significantly between ever- and never-smokers.
Table 2.
Metals in tumor and matched adjacent non-neoplastic prostate tissue of smokers and non-smokers
| Adjacent non-neoplastic tissue |
Tumor tissue |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Never-smokers N=21 |
Ever-smokers N=25 |
p | p Cd ratio | Never-smokers N=21 |
Ever-smokers N=25 |
p | p Cd ratio | |
| Metal | Median (IQR) ppb | Median (IQR) ppb | Median (IQR) ppb | Median (IQR) ppb | ||||
| Cd | 202.9 (163.8) | 308.4 (189.6) | 0.03 | – | 219.9 (260.7) | 266.4 (271.4) | 0.31 | – |
| As | 5.38 (3.96) | 5.12 (6.29) | 0.80 | 0.014* | 6.41 (4.97) | 4.33 (4.58) | 0.10 | 0.06 |
| Pb | 178.7 (213.1) | 268.8 (199.1) | 0.36 | 0.20 | 155.8 (337.1) | 176.1 (339.9) | 0.31 | 0.98 |
| Zn | 441,005.4 (338,391.4) | 263,792.1 (528,864.7) | 0.002 | <0.001* | 484,799.4 (204694.2) | 350,304.1 (380057.9) | 0.20 | 0.21 |
As Arsenic, Cd cadmium, Pb lead, Zn zinc, IQR interquartile range, ppb parts per billion, p difference in metal levels, pCd ratio, difference in Cd/As, Cd/Pb, or Cd/Zn ratio,
, Mann–Whitney U, p <0.05 considered significant
We also assessed metal levels by biochemical recurrence and distant recurrence status within ever-smokers. Eight smokers had biochemical recurrence of disease and four of these had evidence of distant recurrence after prostatectomy. All subjects were pathologically staged as M0 at diagnosis, and there were no significant differences in tumor stage, margin status, or Gleason score among those that recurred or did not recur (e.g., Table 1, smokers within Gleason scores 8 and 9, one subject had recurrence and two subjects did not have recurrence). Compared with cases without biochemical recurrence, those with recurrence had significantly lower median Pb levels in tumor tissue and a significantly higher Cd/Pb ratio in tumor tissue (Table 3). Tumor Pb level was even lower in the smaller group of distant recurrent cases and resulted again in significantly higher Cd/Pb ratios in both tumor and adjacent non-neoplastic tissue of recurrent versus non-recurrent cases (tumor tissue Cd/Pb, 6.36 vs. 1.19, p =0.009, tumor-adjacent normal tissue Cd/Pb, 6.36 vs. 1.02, p =0.038) (Table 4). The median Zn level, on the other hand, was nearly fourfold higher in tumor and adjacent tissue of cases with distant recurrence than levels of Zn found in non-recurrent cases. Results from multivariable analyses of log transformed metal levels adjusting for age, race, zinc intake, packyears of smoking, or occupational metal exposure supported the non-parametric univariate results. Results remained the same when we limited the analyses to current smokers and those who quit most recently (within the past 20 years).
Table 3.
Metal levels in prostate tissue of ever-smokers by biochemical recurrence status
| Adjacent non-neoplastic tissue of ever-smokers |
Tumor tissue of ever-smokers |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No recurrence N=17 |
Biochemical recurrence N=8 |
p | pCd ratio | No recurrence N=17 |
Biochemical recurrence N=8 |
p | pCd ratio | |
| Metal | Median (IQR) ppb | Median (IQR) ppb | Median (IQR) ppb | Median (IQR) ppb | ||||
| Cd | 302.6 (170.0) | 374.1 (612.4) | 0.72 | – | 261.0 (210.0) | 380.3 (402.2) | 0.40 | – |
| As | 4.46 (5.72) | 6.70 (4.25) | 0.53 | 0.73 | 3.71 (5.24) | 5.75 (3.12) | 0.31 | 0.85 |
| Pb | 268.8 (234.8) | 227.5 (567.6) | 0.72 | 0.24 | 292.7 (328.8) | 104.4 (92.7) | 0.005* | 0.017* |
| Zn | 273,903.6 (163580.9) | 216,729.6 (800875.4) | 0.98 | 0.95 | 336,287.4 (300386.9) | 430,700.7 (1,108,278) | 0.34 | 0.73 |
Biochemical recurrence defined as two consecutive PSA >0.02 ng/mL. As, Arsenic, Cd cadmium, Pb lead, Zn zinc, IQR interquartile range, ppb parts per billion, p difference in metal levels, pCd ratio difference in Cd/As, Cd/Pb, or Cd/Zn ratio in those with and those without biochemical recurrence,
Mann–Whitney U, p <0.05 considered significant
Table 4.
Metal levels in prostate tissue of ever-smoker prostate cancer cases by distant recurrence status
| Adjacent non-neoplastic tissue of ever-smokers |
Tumor tissue of ever-smokers |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No distant recurrence N=21 |
Distant recurrence N=4 |
p | p Cd ratio | No distant recurrence N=21 |
Distant recurrence N=4 |
p | pCd ratio | |
| Metal | Median (IQR) ppb | Median (IQR) ppb | Median (IQR) ppb | Median (IQR) ppb | ||||
| Cd | 302.6 (190.3) | 547.9 (1084.9) | 0.23 | – | 261.0 (245.6) | 380.2 (798.1) | 0.18 | – |
| As | 4.46 (4.61) | 7.61 (20.2) | 0.08 | 0.55 | 3.97 (4.72) | 6.08 (4.27) | 0.18 | 0.64 |
| Pb | 296.3 (293.7) | 86.1 (846.4) | 0.29 | 0.038* | 219.2 (330.8) | 76.4 (62.2) | 0.011* | 0.009* |
| Zn | 246,235.4 (147,867.7) | 850,717.4 (1640271.2) | 0.028 | 0.30 | 336,287.4 (275,103.9) | 1,264,243.7 (1,249,075.0) | 0.039* | 0.34 |
As Arsenic, Cd cadmium, Pb lead, Zn zinc, IQR interquartile range, ppb parts per billion, p difference in metal levels, pCd ratio difference in Cd/As, Cd/Pb, or Cd/Zn ratio in those with and those without distant recurrence,
Mann–Whitney U, p <0.05 considered significant
Discussion
In this study, we observed significantly higher Cd to Zn and Cd to As ratios in non-neoplastic tissue of ever-smokers compared with never-smokers. However, with regard to recurrence in ever-smokers, we observed significantly higher Cd to Pb ratios and no difference in Cd to Zn ratio in cases that had evidence of distant recurrence. Specifically, we observed lower Pb levels in tumor tissue of ever-smokers who had biochemical recurrence or distant recurrence and higher Zn levels in both tumor and adjacent non-neoplastic tissue of ever-smokers with distant recurrence. These initial findings, although identified in a small set of prostate cancer cases with a wide range of smoking history, suggest a potential role for metals in both biochemical and distant recurrence of prostate cancer within ever-smokers.
Several mechanisms through which smoking may lead to progression of prostate cancer have been proposed [3] and include (1) increased levels of total and free testosterone, (2) epigenetic changes, (3) genetic variation, which may modify xenobiotic and other pathways, (4) carcinogenic effects of cadmium and/or N-nitroso compounds, and (5) other non-mutagenic effects of carcinogens such as increased neovascularization of tumors. Only a handful of previous studies have measured Cd and other metals directly in prostate tissue, and none to our knowledge have measured metals in recurrent and non-recurrent tumors of smokers. An autopsy study conducted by Anetor et al. [19] in Germany assessed prostate tissue metal levels in 68 smokers and 61 non-smokers without regard for prostate cancer and showed higher Cd to selenium ratios in smokers compared with non-smokers. This is similar to our finding of a higher Cd to Zn ratio in prostate cancer cases who were classified as ever-smokers. Sarafanov et al. [20] found prostate cancer cases with biochemical recurrence to have significantly lower prostate tissue Zn (279 vs. 346 ug/g, p =0.04) and iron (95 vs.111 ug/g, p =0.04) in tumor-adjacent non-neoplastic tissue compared with cases without recurrence. They observed no significant difference in Cd level overall (p =0.40) but did observe a significant difference at the third quartile with recurrent cases having higher prostate tissue Cd than non-recurrent cases. Sarafanov et al. [20] did not report subjects smoking history.
In our smoking-stratified analyses, prostate cancer cases with a history of smoking that progressed to biochemical or distant recurrence had lower levels of Pb in tumor tissue and higher Cd/Pb ratio in tumor and adjacent non-neoplastic tissue when compared with cases that did not recur. The combined effects of Cd and Pb, which can be additive, synergistic, or antagonistic, may differ from that of either metal individually [24]. Our finding that non-recurrent cases had a nearly 1:1 ratio of Cd to Pb while recurrent cases had more than six times the ppb of Cd than ppb of Pb may indicate that Cd and Pb are antagonists in the prostate. Those with high Cd to Pb ratios may be at greater risk of the toxic effects associated with Cd and at greater risk for recurrence of disease. Lower Pb levels in tumor as well as near adjacent non-tumor tissue could be the result of lower Pb exposure in these cases or perhaps a protein or proteins that bind Pb are lost or reduced in tumor and the tumor microenvironment of prostate cancer cases that will progress. Although no predominant Pb binding protein has been reported for the prostate at least three proteins, thymosin β4, acyl-CoA binding inhibitor [25, 26] and delta-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase [27] have been shown to bind a high proportion of Pb in other tissues, and all could theoretically play a role in cancer progression [28–30]. Other proteins could be responsible for binding Pb in the prostate as well. Further work is needed to determine whether our observation of lower Pb levels and higher Cd/Pb in smokers with prostate cancer recurrence is due to differences in Pb exposure, differences in Pb binding proteins, or due to other factors.
We also observed high levels of Zn in ever-smoker smoking cases with recurrent disease. Prostate cancer is considered unusual in that risk of the disease is generally associated with low Zn levels [31]. At least two previous studies, however, found increased risk of advanced or fatal prostate cancer in men using high levels of Zn supplements [32] or multivitamin supplements containing Zn [33], although Zn is generally considered to have protective effects for prostate cancer, overall. Work by Prasad et al. [34] using the transgenic adenocarcinoma of the mouse prostate (TRAMP) model suggests that both high and low Zn levels may be associated with greater tumor weight compared with tumors in mice with normal Zn levels. Zn imbalance, therefore, may play a role in prostate recurrence among smokers.
This study had many strengths including long-term follow-up of recurrence, direct measurement of metals in the tissue of interest, use of ICP-MS for low level detection of metals, and detailed clinical, occupational metal exposure and dietary information. Still, there were several limitations. Our sample size was small, and there was a wide variation in smoking behavior (duration, intensity) within our ever-smokers. As expected, we did observe a higher rate of distant recurrence among our ever-smokers compared with our never-smokers even though PSA and Gleason score at diagnosis did not differ between the two groups. However, with only one recurrence among our never-smokers, metal levels in recurrent cases could only be assessed for ever-smokers. Therefore, we cannot be sure that our observations of low Pb, high Zn, and high Cd/Pb ratio within recurrent cases are unique to smokers. As has been previously reported [23], there is also some loss of Zn due to the paraffin embedding process. Our samples were all processed in the same pathology department during a limited number of years and it is unlikely that the difference we observed can be explained by differences in the embedding process. Further, in order to obtain an adequate amount of tissue for analysis, macro dissection is used, which could introduce variations in the amount of stromal versus epithelial tissue contained in each specimen. Still with these limitations, this is the only study to our knowledge to have assessed metal levels in recurrent and non-recurrent prostate cancer cases taking smoking status into account.
Larger studies of smoking, metals and prostate cancer recurrence with a longer period of follow-up are warranted and should measure metals directly in prostate tissue. If confirmed, these findings may shed new light on the biological mechanisms connecting smoking and prostate cancer progression.
Acknowledgments
Funding Wayne State University, President’s Research Enhancement Program (to C.N.D.), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R01 ES011126 to B.A.R.), and the Department of Defense (W81XWH-07-1-0252 to C.N.D.)
Abbreviations
- ACBP/
acyl-CoA binding inhibitor/diazepam binding
- DBI
inhibitor
- ALAD
Delta-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase
- As
Arsenic
- Cd
Cadmium
- FFPE
Formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue
- ICP-MS
Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
- Pb
Lead
- ppb
Parts per billion
- PSA
Prostate specific antigen
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest None declared
Contributor Information
Christine Neslund-Dudas, Department of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health System, One Ford Place, Suite 5C, Detroit, MI 48202, USA; Population Studies and Disparities Research Program, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA.
Ashoka Kandegedara, Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA.
Oleksandr N. Kryvenko, Department of Pathology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA
Nilesh Gupta, Department of Pathology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA.
Craig Rogers, Department of Urology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA.
Benjamin A. Rybicki, Department of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health System, One Ford Place, Suite 5C, Detroit, MI 48202, USA; Population Studies and Disparities Research Program, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA
Q. Ping Dou, Departments of Pharmacology and Pathology and Oncology, Molecular Therapeutics Program, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA.
Bharati Mitra, Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA.
References
- 1.Colditz G. Consensus conference: smoking and prostate cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 1996;7(5):560–562. doi: 10.1007/BF00051890. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ray G, Henson DE, Schwartz AM. Cigarette smoking as a cause of cancers other than lung cancer: an exploratory study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Chest. 2010;138(3):491–499. doi: 10.1378/chest.09-1909. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Zu K, Giovannucci E. Smoking and aggressive prostate cancer: a review of the epidemiologic evidence. Cancer Causes Control. 2009;20(10):1799–1810. doi: 10.1007/s10552-009-9387-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Moreira DM, Antonelli JA, Presti JC, Jr, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Freedland SJ. Association of cigarette smoking with interval to biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database. Urology. 2010;76(5):1218–1223. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.01.066. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2010.01.066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Joshu CE, Mondul AM, Meinhold CL, Humphreys EB, Han M, Walsh PC, Platz EA. Cigarette smoking and prostate cancer recurrence after prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(10):835–838. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr124. doi:10.1093/jnci/djr124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kenfield SA, Stampfer MJ, Chan JM, Giovannucci E. Smoking and prostate cancer survival and recurrence. JAMA. 2011;305(24):2548–2555. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.879. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.879. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Giovannucci E, Liu Y, Platz EA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. Risk factors for prostate cancer incidence and progression in the health professionals follow-up study. Int J Cancer. 2007;121(7):1571–1578. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22788. doi:10.1002/ijc.22788. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hartwig A. Cadmium and cancer. Metal Ions Life Sci. 2013;11:491–507. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5179-8_15. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5179-8_15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Joseph P. Mechanisms of cadmium carcinogenesis. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2009;238(3):272–279. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2009.01.011. doi:10.1016/j.taap.2009.01.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Toxicological Profile For Cadmium U.S. Department of Health and Human Services PHS; Agency for Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), translator. 2012. (trans:
- 11.Beryllium, Cadmium, Mercury, Exposures in the Glass Manufacturing Industry IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. 1993;58 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Verougstraete V, Lison D, Hotz P. Cadmium, lung and prostate cancer: a systematic review of recent epidemiological data. J ToxicolEnviron Health B Crit Rev. 2003;6(3):227–255. doi: 10.1080/10937400306465. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Sahmoun AE, Case LD, Jackson SA, Schwartz GG. Cadmium and prostate cancer: a critical epidemiologic analysis. Cancer Investig. 2005;23(3):256–263. doi: 10.1081/cnv-200055968. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Chen YC, Pu YS, Wu HC, Wu TT, Lai MK, Yang CY, Sung FC. Cadmium burden and the risk and phenotype of prostate cancer. BMC Cancer. 2009;9:429. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-9-429. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Platz EA, Helzlsouer KJ, Hoffman SC, Morris JS, Baskett CK, Comstock GW. Prediagnostic toenail cadmium and zinc and subsequent prostate cancer risk. Prostate. 2002;52(4):288–296. doi: 10.1002/pros.10115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Vinceti M, Venturelli M, Sighinolfi C, Trerotoli P, Bonvicini F, Ferrari A, Bianchi G, Serio G, Bergomi M, Vivoli G. Case– control study of toenail cadmium and prostate cancer risk in Italy. Sci Total Environ. 2007;373(1):77–81. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.11.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Ogunlewe JO, Osegbe DN. Zinc and cadmium concentrations in indigenous blacks with normal, hypertrophic, and malignant prostate. Cancer. 1989;63(7):1388–1392. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19890401)63:7<1388::aid-cncr2820630725>3.0.co;2-m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Brys M, Nawrocka AD, Miekos E, Zydek C, Foksinski M, Barecki A, Krajewska WM. Zinc and cadmium analysis in human prostate neoplasms. Biol Trace Elem Res. 1997;59(1–3):145–152. doi: 10.1007/BF02783239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Anetor JI, Ajose F, Anetor GO, Iyanda AA, Babalola OO, Adeniyi FA. High cadmium/zinc ratio in cigarette smokers: potential implications as a biomarker of risk of prostate cancer. Niger J Physiol Sci. 2008;23(1–2):41–49. doi: 10.4314/njps.v23i1-2.54921. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Sarafanov AG, Todorov TI, Centeno JA, Macias V, Gao W, Liang WM, Beam C, Gray MA, Kajdacsy-Balla AA. Prostate cancer outcome and tissue levels of metal ions. Prostate. 2011;71(11):1231–1238. doi: 10.1002/pros.21339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Lazarevic K, Nikolic D, Stosic L, Milutinovic S, Videnovic J, Bogdanovic D. Determination of lead and arsenic in tobacco and cigarettes: an important issue of public health. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2012;20(1):62–66. doi: 10.21101/cejph.a3728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Rybicki BA, Neslund-Dudas C, Bock CH, Rundle A, Savera AT, Yang JJ, Nock NL, Tang D. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon– DNA adducts in prostate and biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(3):750–757. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-0986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Sarafanov AG, Todorov TI, Kajdacsy-Balla A, Gray MA, Macias V, Centeno JA. Analysis of iron, zinc, selenium and cadmium in paraffin-embedded prostate tissue specimens using inductively coupled plasma mass-spectrometry. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2008;22(4):305–314. doi: 10.1016/j.jtemb.2008.03.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Bae DS, Gennings C, Carter WH, Jr, Yang RS, Campain JA. Toxicological interactions among arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead in human keratinocytes. Toxicol Sci Off J Soc Toxicol. 2001;63(1):132–142. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/63.1.132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Smith DR, Kahng MW, Quintanilla-Vega B, Fowler BA. High-affinity renal lead-binding proteins in environmentally-exposed humans. Chem Biol Int. 1998;115(1):39–52. doi: 10.1016/s0009-2797(98)00060-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Quintanilla-Vega B, Smith DR, Kahng MW, Hernandez JM, Albores A, Fowler BA. Lead-binding proteins in brain tissue of environmentally lead-exposed humans. Chem Biol Int. 1995;98(3):193–209. doi: 10.1016/0009-2797(95)03646-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Bergdahl IA, Grubb A, Schutz A, Desnick RJ, Wetmur JG, Sassa S, Skerfving S. Lead binding to delta-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase (ALAD) in human erythrocytes. Pharmacol Toxicol. 1997;81(4):153–158. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0773.1997.tb02061.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Iguchi K, Ito M, Usui S, Mizokami A, Namiki M, Hirano K. Downregulation of thymosin beta4 expression by androgen in prostate cancer LNCaP cells. J Androl. 2008;29(2):207–212. doi: 10.2164/jandrol.107.003608. doi:10.2164/ jandrol.107.003608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Ettinger SL, Sobel R, Whitmore TG, Akbari M, Bradley DR, Gleave ME, Nelson CC. Dysregulation of sterol response element-binding proteins and downstream effectors in prostate cancer during progression to androgen independence. Cancer Res. 2004;64(6):2212–2221. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-2148-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.van Bemmel DM, Boffetta P, Liao LM, Berndt SI, Menashe I, Yeager M, Chanock S, Karami S, Zaridze D, Matteev V, Janout V, Kollarova H, Bencko V, Navratilova M, Szeszenia-Dabrowska N, Mates D, Slamova A, Rothman N, Han SS, Rosenberg PS, Brennan P, Chow WH, Moore LE. Comprehensive analysis of 5-aminolevulinic acid dehydrogenase (ALAD) variants and renal cell carcinoma risk among individuals exposed to lead. PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e20432. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020432. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Costello LC, Franklin RB. Zinc is decreased in prostate cancer: an established relationship of prostate cancer! J Biol Inorg Chem. 2011;16(1):3–8. doi: 10.1007/s00775-010-0736-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Leitzmann MF, Stampfer MJ, Wu K, Colditz GA, Willett WC, Giovannucci EL. Zinc supplement use and risk of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(13):1004–1007. doi: 10.1093/jnci/95.13.1004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Lawson KA, Wright ME, Subar A, Mouw T, Hollenbeck A, Schatzkin A, Leitzmann MF. Multivitamin use and risk of prostate cancer in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(10):754–764. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djk177. doi:10.1093/jnci/djk177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Prasad AS, Mukhtar H, Beck FW, Adhami VM, Siddiqui IA, Din M, Hafeez BB, Kucuk O. Dietary zinc and prostate cancer in the TRAMP mouse model. J Med Food. 2010;13(1):70–76. doi: 10.1089/jmf.2009.0042. doi:10.1089/jmf. 2009.0042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
