MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Plasma ANGPTL3, Apo CIII, leptin, and lipid levels in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

2025· article· en· W4410809329 on OpenAlexafffundabout
France‐Hélène Joncas, Marwan Khodr, Emilie Yan Pin Wong Chong, Karine Robitaille, Roxane Tourigny, Hélène Hovington, Vincent Tremblay, Vincent Fradet, Alain Bergeron, Frédéric Pouliot, Jonatan Blais, Nabil G. Seidah, Frédéric Calon, Anne Gangloff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Lipids, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsMontreal Clinical Research InstituteUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerLeptinInternal medicineProstateCancerEndocrinologyOncologyObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e17054 Background: Abundant cholesterol supplies are required to sustain tumor growth and metastasis. Metastatic prostate cancers (PCa) are no exception. Since powerful cholesterol-lowering drugs have been developed in recent years to treat cardiovascular disease, verifying whether these drugs can induce a cholesterol shortage sufficient to slow or halt the progression of PCa is intuitive. However, little is known about the levels of hyperlipidemic factors in metastatic PCa, which are now targetable through cholesterol-lowering drugs. Thus, we investigated the hypothesis that metastatic prostate cancer might lead to increased circulating levels of hyperlipidemic factors such as PCSK9, ANGPTL3, and Apo CIII. Methods: Plasma levels of analytes in men diagnosed with metastatic PCa (mPCa) were compared to those with high-grade (Gleason 8 or 9) localized PCa, and men at risk of PCa, as controls (n=35 per group). PCSK9, ANGPTL3, Apo CIII, and leptin were measured using commercial ELISA kits (Biolegends, Abcam, ThermoFisher Scientific). Lp(a), the lipid profile (total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL-Cholesterol, Apo B), free and total PSA were measured on a Roche Cobas analytical platform, whereas LDL and non-HDL-Cholesterol were calculated. Analyses of covariance (variables with Gaussian distribution) or generalized linear models (non-Gaussian), followed by post-hoc pairwise comparisons, were performed with JMP Pro 17.2 and SAS 9.4 with age and BMI as covariates. Results: As expected, PSA levels were higher in men with PCa, especially in metastatic patients, and the free-to-total PSA ratio was low in all groups (mean = 0.16 ± 0.09). The lipid panel was not different between groups except for triglycerides, which were higher in mPCa. ANGPTL3 and Apo CIII were increased in metastatic patients vs controls and localized PCa. The cancer status did not affect PCSK9 nor Lp(a) levels. Leptin also appeared elevated in the metastatic group. Conclusions: We observed an increase in levels of ANGPTL3, Apo CIII, triglycerides, and leptin in metastatic PCa compared to individuals belonging to the localized PCa Gleason 8 or 9 group or the at-risk individuals. Since the latter two groups had similar ANGPTL3, Apo CIII, leptin, and triglycerides levels, the increase in these factors seems to only happen at the metastatic stage. Given the availability of drugs targeting ANGPTL3 and Apo CIII, these targets need further assessment as potential therapy in metastatic prostate cancer. This study was supported by establishment funds from the CHU de Quebec Foundation and the FRQS. Key results. Mean ± SD Post-hoc testp-value mPCa At Risk Localized PCa mPCa PSA (ng/mL) 5.77 ± 4.75 13.0 ± 12.4 174.0 ± 351.0 < 0.05 Trig. (mmol/L) 1.70 ± 1.19 1.47 ± 0.66 2.32 ± 1.19 < 0.01 ANGPTL3 (ng/mL) 41.7 ± 20.3 42.8 ± 24.4 57.3 ± 27.3 0.0469 (vs CTL) Apo CIII (µg/mL) 110.7 ± 56.5 115.0 ± 58.5 159.9 ± 98.1 < 0.05 Leptin (ng/mL) 9.57 ± 9.23 8.18 ± 7.96 17.7 ± 18.1 < 0.01

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer, Lipids, and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207