The role of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists in the treatment of patients with advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer in the UK.

PURPOSE: Comparing gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists and agonists as androgen deprivation therapy for advanced prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: This article stems from a round-table meeting in December 2014 to compare the properties of GnRH agonists and antagonists in the published literature in order to identify the patient groups most likely to benefit from GnRH antagonist therapy. A broad PubMed and congress abstract search was carried out in preparation for the meeting to ensure that the latest data and opinion were available for the discussions. RESULTS: In randomised, controlled trials, GnRH antagonist therapy provides more rapid suppression of luteinising hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and testosterone than GnRH agonist treatment. Compared with the GnRH agonist, there is evidence of improved disease control by a GnRH antagonist, with longer interval to prostate-specific antigen progression and greater reduction of serum alkaline phosphatase. In a post hoc analysis of six randomised trials, the risk of cardiac events within 1 year of initiating therapy was significantly lower among men receiving GnRH antagonist than agonist. Pre-clinical laboratory data suggest a number of mechanisms whereby GnRH antagonist therapy may benefit men with pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD), the most plausible hypothesis being that, unlike GnRH agonists, GnRH antagonists do not activate T lymphocytes, which act to increase atherosclerotic plaque rupture. CONCLUSION: When making treatment decisions, clinicians should consider comorbidities, particularly CVD, in addition to effects on PC. GnRH antagonists may be appropriate in patients with significant CV risk, existing osteopenia, lower urinary tract symptoms and significant metastatic disease

Marine Biodiversity in the Caribbean: Regional Estimates and Distribution Patterns

This paper provides an analysis of the distribution patterns of marine biodiversity and summarizes the major activities of the Census of Marine Life program in the Caribbean region. The coastal Caribbean region is a large marine ecosystem (LME) characterized by coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrasses, but including other environments, such as sandy beaches and rocky shores. These tropical ecosystems incorporate a high diversity of associated flora and fauna, and the nations that border the Caribbean collectively encompass a major global marine biodiversity hot spot. We analyze the state of knowledge of marine biodiversity based on the geographic distribution of georeferenced species records and regional taxonomic lists. A total of 12,046 marine species are reported in this paper for the Caribbean region. These include representatives from 31 animal phyla, two plant phyla, one group of Chromista, and three groups of Protoctista. Sampling effort has been greatest in shallow, nearshore waters, where there is relatively good coverage of species records; offshore and deep environments have been less studied. Additionally, we found that the currently accepted classification of marine ecoregions of the Caribbean did not apply for the benthic distributions of five relatively well known taxonomic groups. Coastal species richness tends to concentrate along the Antillean arc (Cuba to the southernmost Antilles) and the northern coast of South America (Venezuela – Colombia), while no pattern can be observed in the deep sea with the available data. Several factors make it impossible to determine the extent to which these distribution patterns accurately reflect the true situation for marine biodiversity in general: (1) highly localized concentrations of collecting effort and a lack of collecting in many areas and ecosystems, (2) high variability among collecting methods, (3) limited taxonomic expertise for many groups, and (4) differing levels of activity in the study of different taxa

Stage T1c prostate cancer: defining the appropriate staging evaluation and the role for pelvic lymphadenectomy

A good staging system should be able to accurately reflect the natural history of a malignant disease, to express the extent of the disease at the time of diagnosis, and stratify patients in prognostically distinctive groups. The staging system for prostate cancer, as it is today, fails to fulfill these requirements. Approximately one third of the patients who undergo surgery for complete excision of prostate cancer in fact do not have a localize disease. The incidence of tumor at the inked margin may reach 30% for T1 stage and up to 60% for clinical T2b prostate cancer according to comparision with pathologic examination of resected specimen. Several concepts have been recently proposed as a means of improving the accuracy of the available staging system. In this paper, we review current aspects of clinical and pathological staging of prostate cancer, and the importance of these new concepts on the early stages of prostate cancer.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/47057/1/345_2005_Article_BF01300182.pd