ProCOC: The prostate cancer outcomes cohort study

BACKGROUND: Despite intensive research over the last several decades on prostate cancer, many questions particularly those concerning early diagnosis and the choice of optimal treatment for each individual patient, still remain unanswered. The goal of treating patients with localized prostate cancer is a curative one and includes minimizing adverse effects to preserve an adequate quality of life. Better understanding on how the quality of life is affected depending on the treatment modality would assist patients in deciding which treatment to choose; furthermore, the development of prognostic biomarkers that indicate the future course of the illness is a promising approach with potential and the focus of much attention. These questions can be addressed in the context of a cohort study. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, multi-center cohort study within the canton of Zurich, Switzerland. We will include patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer independently of treatment finally chosen. We will acquire clinical data including quality of life and lifestyle, prostate tissue specimen as well as further biological samples (blood and urine) before, during and after treatment for setup of a bio-bank. Assessment of these data and samples in the follow up will be done during routine controls. Study duration will be at least ten years. Influence of treatment on morbidity and mortality, including changes in quality of life, will be identified and an evaluation of biomarkers will be performed. Further we intend to set up a bio-bank containing blood and urine samples providing research of various natures around prostate cancer in the future. DISCUSSION: We presume that this study will provide answers to pertinent questions concerning prognosis and outcomes of men with localised prostate cancer

Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory - Preliminary Design Report

The DUSEL Project has produced the Preliminary Design of the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL) at the rehabilitated former Homestake mine in South Dakota. The Facility design calls for, on the surface, two new buildings - one a visitor and education center, the other an experiment assembly hall - and multiple repurposed existing buildings. To support underground research activities, the design includes two laboratory modules and additional spaces at a level 4,850 feet underground for physics, biology, engineering, and Earth science experiments. On the same level, the design includes a Department of Energy-shepherded Large Cavity supporting the Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment. At the 7,400-feet level, the design incorporates one laboratory module and additional spaces for physics and Earth science efforts. With input from some 25 science and engineering collaborations, the Project has designed critical experimental space and infrastructure needs, including space for a suite of multidisciplinary experiments in a laboratory whose projected life span is at least 30 years. From these experiments, a critical suite of experiments is outlined, whose construction will be funded along with the facility. The Facility design permits expansion and evolution, as may be driven by future science requirements, and enables participation by other agencies. The design leverages South Dakota's substantial investment in facility infrastructure, risk retirement, and operation of its Sanford Laboratory at Homestake. The Project is planning education and outreach programs, and has initiated efforts to establish regional partnerships with underserved populations - regional American Indian and rural populations

Trends in non-metastatic prostate cancer management in the Northern and Yorkshire region of England, 2000–2006

Background: Our objective was to analyse variation in non-metastatic prostate cancer management in the Northern and Yorkshire region of England. Methods: We included 21 334 men aged ⩾55, diagnosed between 2000 and 2006. Principal treatment received was categorised into radical prostatectomy (11%), brachytherapy (2%), external beam radiotherapy (16%), hormone therapy (42%) and no treatment (29%). Results: The odds ratio (OR) for receiving a radical prostatectomy was 1.53 in 2006 compared with 2000 (95% CI 1.26–1.86), whereas the OR for receiving hormone therapy was 0.57 (0.51–0.64). Age was strongly associated with treatment received; radical treatments were significantly less likely in men aged ⩾75 compared with men aged 55–64 years, whereas the odds of receiving hormone therapy or no treatment were significantly higher in the older age group. The OR for receiving radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy or external beam radiotherapy were all significantly lower in the most deprived areas when compared with the most affluent (0.64 (0.55–0.75), 0.32 (0.22–0.47) and 0.83 (0.74–0.94), respectively) whereas the OR for receiving hormone therapy was 1.56 (1.42–1.71). Conclusions: This study highlights the variation and inequalities that exist in the management of non-metastatic prostate cancer in the Northern and Yorkshire region of England

Professor Wilhelm Czermak

Inspired by a similar national event, the aim of Nebraska Wildflower Week is to increase awareness and appreciation of wildflowers and native plants in the wild and in the landscape through an array of events and activities across Nebraska

Increasing Use of Observation among Men at Low Risk for Prostate Cancer Mortality

PURPOSE: There are growing concerns regarding the overtreatment of localized prostate cancer. It is also relatively unknown whether there has been increased uptake of observational strategies for disease management. We assessed the temporal trend in use of observation for clinically localized prostate cancer, particularly among men with low-risk disease, who were young and healthy enough to undergo treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry linked to Medicare claims (SEER-Medicare database) in 66,499 men with localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009. The main outcome was use of observation within one year following diagnosis. We performed multivariable analysis to develop a predictive model for use of observation adjusting for diagnosis year, age, risk and comorbidity. RESULTS: Observation was used in 12,007 men (18%) with a slight increase over time from 17% to 20%. However, there was marked increase in the use of observation from 18% in 2004 to 29% in 2009 for men with low-risk disease. Men 66–69 years old, with low-risk disease and no comorbidities, had twice the odds of undergoing observation in 2009 versus 2004 (OR = 2.12; 95% CI = 1.73–2.59). In addition to the diagnosis year, age, risk group, comorbidity and race were independent predictors of undergoing observation (all P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: We identified increasing use of observation for low-risk prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009, even among men young and healthy enough for treatment, suggesting growing acceptance of surveillance in this group of patients