Search

Prostate and bladder cancer represent the two most frequently diagnosed genito-urinary malignancies. Diet has been implicated in both prostate and bladder cancer. Given their prolonged latency and high prevalence rates, both prostate and bladder cancer represent attractive candidates for dietary preventive measures, including the use of nutritional supplements. Flavonols, a class of flavonoids, are commonly found in fruit and vegetables and are known for their protective effect against diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Furthermore, a higher dietary intake of flavonols was associated with a lower risk of both bladder and prostate cancer in epidemiological studies. In this systematic review, we gathered all available evidence supporting the anti-cancer potential of selected flavonols (kaempferol, fisetin and myricetin) against bladder and prostate cancer. A total of 21, 15 and 7 pre-clinical articles on bladder or prostate cancer reporting on kaempferol, fisetin and myricetin, respectively, were found, while more limited evidence was available from animal models and epidemiological studies or clinical trials. In conclusion, the available evidence supports the potential use of these flavonols in prostate and bladder cancer, with a low expected toxicity, thus providing the rationale for clinical trials that explore dosing, settings for clinical use as well as their use in combination with other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions.

Many efforts to reduce prostate specific antigen (PSA) overdiagnosis and overtreatment have been made. To this aim, Prostate Health Index (Phi) and Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 (PCA3) have been proposed as new more specific biomarkers. We evaluated the ability of phi and PCA3 to identify prostate cancer (PCa) at initial prostate biopsy in men with total PSA range of 2-10 ng/ml. The performance of phi and PCA3 were evaluated in 300 patients undergoing first prostate biopsy. ROC curve analyses tested the accuracy (AUC) of phi and PCA3 in predicting PCa. Decision curve analyses (DCA) were used to compare the clinical benefit of the two biomarkers. We found that the AUC value of phi (0.77) was comparable to those of %p2PSA (0.76) and PCA3 (0.73) with no significant differences in pairwise comparison (%p2PSA vs phi p = 0.673, %p2PSA vs. PCA3 p = 0.417 and phi vs. PCA3 p = 0.247). These three biomarkers significantly outperformed fPSA (AUC = 0.60), %fPSA (AUC = 0.62) and p2PSA (AUC = 0.63). At DCA, phi and PCA3 exhibited a very close net benefit profile until the threshold probability of 25%, then phi index showed higher net benefit than PCA3. Multivariable analysis showed that the addition of phi and PCA3 to the base multivariable model (age, PSA, %fPSA, DRE, prostate volume) increased predictive accuracy, whereas no model improved single biomarker performance. Finally we showed that subjects with active surveillance (AS) compatible cancer had significantly lower phi and PCA3 values (p < 0.001 and p = 0.01, respectively). In conclusion, both phi and PCA3 comparably increase the accuracy in predicting the presence of PCa in total PSA range 2-10 ng/ml at initial biopsy, outperforming currently used %fPSA.