Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Circulating endothelial cells as biomarkers of prostate cancer

Nature Clinical Practice Urology volume 5, pages 445–454 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Prostate cancer has a wide spectrum of biological aggressiveness, and where an individual tumor lies within this spectrum can be difficult to characterize at diagnosis. The degree of tumor vascularization in prostate cancer correlates with disease progression and, thus, markers of angiogenesis are potential indicators of clinical outcome. Identification of improved prognostic markers would have a substantial effect on patient outcomes. Such markers would also be invaluable in assessments of the effectiveness of experimental chemotherapeutic regimens and antiangiogenic drugs that are currently under investigation. Bone-marrow-derived circulating endothelial progenitors (CEPs) and circulating endothelial cells (CECs) play an integral part in neovascularization and their levels in the circulation correlate with disease progression and therapeutic response in various settings. Although CECs and CEPs are yet to be thoroughly investigated in prostate cancer, the evidence suggests that these markers may be of use in the prostate-cancer setting. We review current understanding of the contributions of CEPs and CECs to tumor progression, and discuss their potential as prognostic markers.

Key Points

  • Pretreatment levels of circulating endothelial progenitors (CEPs) and viable circulating endothelial cells (CECs) might predict disease progression

  • CEP levels during treatment could be used to identify the optimum biological dose and best treatment regimens

  • Levels of apoptotic CECs indicate the efficacy of treatments that target the tumor vasculature

  • Levels of CECs and CEPs could potentially be considered in conjunction with PSA levels

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: The classical angiogenic switch.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hanahan D and Weinberg RA (2000) The hallmarks of cancer. Cell 100: 57–70

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Risau W (1997) Mechanisms of angiogenesis. Nature 386: 671–674

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Risau W and Flamme I (1995) Vasculogenesis. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 11: 73–91

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Tepper OM et al. (2005) Adult vasculogenesis occurs through in situ recruitment, proliferation, and tubulization of circulating bone marrow-derived cells. Blood 105: 1068–1077

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Asahara T et al. (1999) Bone marrow origin of endothelial progenitor cells responsible for postnatal vasculogenesis in physiological and pathological neovascularization. Circ Res 85: 221–228

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Davidoff AM et al. (2001) Bone marrow-derived cells contribute to tumor neovasculature and, when modified to express an angiogenesis inhibitor, can restrict tumor growth in mice. Clin Cancer Res 7: 2870–2879

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Garcia-Barros M et al. (2003) Tumor response to radiotherapy regulated by endothelial cell apoptosis. Science 300: 1155–1159

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Folkman J (1990) What is the evidence that tumors are angiogenesis dependent. J Natl Cancer Inst 82: 4–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bergers G et al. (2000) Matrix metalloproteinase-9 triggers the angiogenic switch during carcinogenesis. Nat Cell Biol 2: 737–744

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hlatky L et al. (2002) Clinical application of antiangiogenic therapy: microvessel density, what it does and doesn't tell us. J Natl Cancer Inst 94: 883–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wakui S et al. (1992) Tumour angiogenesis in prostatic carcinoma with and without bone marrow metastasis: a morphometric study. J Pathol 168: 257–262

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Weidner N et al. (1993) Tumor angiogenesis correlates with metastasis in invasive prostate carcinoma. Am J Pathol 143: 401–409

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Borre M et al. (1998) Microvessel density predicts survival in prostate cancer patients subjected to watchful waiting. Br J Cancer 78: 940–944

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rogatsch H et al. (1997) Microvessel density in core biopsies of prostatic adenocarcinoma: a stage predictor? J Pathol 182: 205–210

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Halvorsen OJ et al. (2000) Independent prognostic importance of microvessel density in clinically localized prostate cancer. Anticancer Res 20: 3791–3799

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Silberman MA et al. (1997) Tumor angiogenesis correlates with progression after radical prostatectomy but not with pathologic stage in Gleason sum 5 to 7 adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 79: 772–779

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Vergis R et al. (2008) Intrinsic markers of tumour hypoxia and angiogenesis in localised prostate cancer and outcome of radical treatment: a retrospective analysis of two randomised radiotherapy trials and one surgical cohort study. Lancet Oncol 9: 342–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lin Y et al. (2000) Origins of circulating endothelial cells and endothelial outgrowth from blood. J Clin Invest 105: 71–77

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Quaini F et al. (2002) Chimerism of the transplanted heart. N Engl J Med 346: 5–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Thiele J et al. (2004) Mixed chimerism of cardiomyocytes and vessels after allogeneic bone marrow and stem-cell transplantation in comparison with cardiac allografts. Transplantation 77: 1902–1905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jiang S et al. (2004) Transplanted human bone marrow contributes to vascular endothelium. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 16891–16896

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hocht-Zeisberg E et al. (2004) Cellular repopulation of myocardial infarction in patients with sex-mismatched heart transplantation. Eur Heart J 25: 749–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Murry CE et al. (2004) Haematopoietic stem cells do not transdifferentiate into cardiac myocytes in myocardial infarcts. Nature 428: 664–668

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ziegelhoeffer T et al. (2004) Bone marrow-derived cells do not incorporate into the adult growing vasculature. Circ Res 94: 230–238

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Reyes M et al. (2002) Origin of endothelial progenitors in human postnatal bone marrow. J Clin Invest 109: 337–346

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Dwenger A et al. (2004) Transplanted bone marrow cells preferentially home to the vessels of in situ generated murine tumors rather than of normal organs. Stem Cells 22: 86–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Li H et al. (2004) Utilization of bone marrow-derived endothelial cell precursors in spontaneous prostate tumors varies with tumor grade. Cancer Res 64: 6137–6143

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. De Palma M et al. (2003) Targeting exogenous genes to tumor angiogenesis by transplantation of genetically modified hematopoietic stem cells. Nat Med 9: 789–795

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Gothert JR et al. (2004) Genetically tagging endothelial cells in vivo: bone marrow-derived cells do not contribute to tumor endothelium. Blood 104: 1769–1777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lyden D et al. (2001) Impaired recruitment of bone-marrow-derived endothelial and hematopoietic precursor cells blocks tumor angiogenesis and growth. Nat Med 7: 1194–1201

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Peters BA et al. (2005) Contribution of bone marrow-derived endothelial cells to human tumor vasculature. Nat Med 11: 261–262

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Sangai T et al. (2005) Effect of differences in cancer cells and tumor growth sites on recruiting bone marrow-derived endothelial cells and myofibroblasts in cancer-induced stroma. Int J Cancer 115: 885–892

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Tuxhorn JA et al. (2001) Reactive stroma in prostate cancer progression. J Urol 166: 2472–2483

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Stoll BR et al. (2003) A mathematical model of the contribution of endothelial progenitor cells to angiogenesis in tumors: implications for antiangiogenic therapy. Blood 102: 2555–2561

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ferrara N and Davis-Smyth T (1997) The biology of vascular endothelial growth factor. Endocr Rev 18: 4–25

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Duda DG et al. (2006) Evidence for incorporation of bone marrow-derived endothelial cells into perfused blood vessels in tumors. Blood 107: 2774–2776

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Shaked Y et al. (2006) Therapy-induced acute recruitment of circulating endothelial progenitor cells to tumors. Science 313: 1785–1787

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Loomans CJM et al. (2006) Angiogenic murine endothelial progenitor cells are derived from a myeloid bone marrow fraction and can be identified by endothelial NO synthase expression. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 26: 1760–1767

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Pelosi E et al. (2002) Identification of the hemangioblast in postnatal life. Blood 100: 3203–3208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Schofield R (1983) The stem cell system. Biomed Pharmacother 37: 375–380

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bertolini F et al. (2003) Maximum tolerable dose and low-dose metronomic chemotherapy have opposite effects on the mobilization and viability of circulating endothelial progenitor cells. Cancer Res 63: 4342–4346

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Shaked Y et al. (2005) Genetic heterogeneity of the vasculogenic phenotype parallels angiogenesis; implications for cellular surrogate marker analysis of antiangiogenesis. Cancer Cell 7: 101–111

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mancuso P et al. (2001) Resting and activated endothelial cells are increased in the peripheral blood of cancer patients. Blood 97: 3658–3661

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Beerepoot LV et al. (2004) Increased levels of viable circulating endothelial cells are an indicator of progressive disease in cancer patients. Ann Oncol 15: 139–145

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Zhang H et al. (2005) Circulating endothelial progenitor cells in multiple myeloma: implications and significance. Blood 105: 3286–3294

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Lin EH et al. (2007) Elevated circulating endothelial progenitor marker CD133 messenger RNA levels predict colon cancer recurrence. Cancer 110: 534–542

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Tanaka F et al. (2001) Evaluation of angiogenesis in non-small cell lung cancer: comparison between anti-CD34 antibody and anti-CD105 antibody. Clin Cancer Res 7: 3410–3415

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tomisaki S et al. (1996) Microvessel quantification and its possible relation with liver metastasis in colorectal cancer. Cancer 77: 1722–1728

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Ridell B and Norrby K (2001) Intratumoral microvascular density in malignant lymphomas of B-cell origin. APMIS 109: 66–72

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Mancuso P et al. (2006) Circulating endothelial-cell kinetics and viability predict survival in breast cancer patients receiving metronomic chemotherapy. Blood 108: 452–459

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Graham CH et al. (1994) Extent of vascularization as a prognostic indicator in thin (<0.76 mm) malignant melanomas. Am J Pathol 145: 510–514

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Meitar D et al. (1996) Tumor angiogenesis correlates with metastatic disease, N-myc amplification, and poor outcome in human neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 14: 405–414

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Mentzel T et al. (2001) The association between tumour progression and vascularity in myxofibrosarcoma and myxoid/round cell liposarcoma. Virchows Arch 438: 13–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Joo HJ et al. (2004) Increased expression of caveolin-1 and microvessel density correlates with metastasis and poor prognosis in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 93: 291–296

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Weidner N et al. (1992) Tumor angiogenesis: a new significant and independent prognostic indicator in early-stage breast carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 84: 1875–1887

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Goodheart MJ et al. (2002) Ovarian cancer p53 mutation is associated with tumor microvessel density. Gynecol Oncol 86: 85–90

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Sezer O et al. (2000) Bone marrow microvessel density is a prognostic factor for survival in patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol 79: 574–577

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Mundy GR (2002) Metastasis to bone: causes, consequences and therapeutic opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer 2: 584–593

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Shaked Y et al. (2005) Optimal biologic dose of metronomic chemotherapy regimens is associated with maximum antiangiogenic activity. Blood 106: 3058–3061

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. National Cancer Institute: clinical trials in prostate cancer [http://www.cancer.gov/search/ResultsClinicalTrialsAdvanced.aspx? protocolsearchid=3727367] (accessed 24 June 2008)

  61. Beaudry P et al. (2005) Differential effects of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 inhibitor ZD6474 on circulating endothelial progenitors and mature circulating endothelial cells: implications for use as a surrogate marker of antiangiogenic activity. Clin Cancer Res 11: 3514–3522

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Willett CG et al. (2005) Surrogate markers for antiangiogenic therapy and dose-limiting toxicities for bevacizumab with radiation and chemotherapy: continued experience of a phase I trial in rectal cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 23: 8136–8139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Norden-Zfoni A et al. (2007) Blood-based biomarkers of SU11248 activity and clinical outcome in patients with metastatic imatinib-resistant gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Clin Cancer Res 13: 2643–2650

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors were supported by funds from the Melbourne Urology Trust, including a generous gift from Roger Riordan of the Cybec Trust. B Namdarian is supported by a Raelene Boyle Scholarship from the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. NM Corcoran was supported by a Benjamin Rank Surgical Fellowship from the Royal Melbourne Hospital, and a National Health and Medical Research Council Medical Postgraduate Scholarship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. HD Georgiou is an Advanced Medical Science Trainee in the Department of Surgery, Royal Melbourne Hospital.,

    Harry D Georgiou

  2. B Namdarian is a Urology Trainee with the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand and is also a PhD candidate in the Department of Urology and Surgery, Royal Melbourne Hospital.,

    Benjamin Namdarian

  3. and a Urology Clinical Research Fellow in the Department of Urology and Surgery, NM Corcoran is a Urology Trainee with the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand, Royal Melbourne Hospital.,

    Niall M Corcoran

  4. AJ Costello is a Professorial Fellow and Head of the Department of Urology, affiliated with the Department of Surgery, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne.,

    Anthony J Costello

  5. Departments of Urology and Surgery, CM Hovens is Director of the Prostate Cancer Research Center, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Australia.,

    Christopher M Hovens

Authors
  1. Harry D Georgiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin Namdarian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Niall M Corcoran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anthony J Costello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christopher M Hovens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher M Hovens.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Georgiou, H., Namdarian, B., Corcoran, N. et al. Circulating endothelial cells as biomarkers of prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 5, 445–454 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro1188

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro1188

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing