Parenteral oestrogen in the treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review

The objectives of this study were to assess the effectiveness and safety of parenteral oestrogen in the treatment of prostate cancer, and to examine any dose relationship. A systematic review was undertaken. Electronic databases, published paper and internet resources were searched to locate published and unpublished studies with no restriction by language or publication date. Studies included were randomised controlled trials of parenteral oestrogen in patients with prostate cancer; other study designs were also included to examine dose–response. Study selection, appraisal, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by one reviewer and independently checked by another. Twenty trials were included in the review. The trials differed with regard to the included patients, formulation and dose of parenteral oestrogen, comparator used, outcome measures reported and the duration of follow-up. The results provide no evidence to suggest that parenteral oestrogen, in doses sufficient to produce castrate levels of testosterone, is less effective than luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) or orchidectomy in controlling prostate cancer, or that it is consistently associated with an increase in cardiovascular mortality. Further well-conducted trials of parenteral oestrogen are required. A pilot randomised controlled trial comparing transdermal oestrogen to LHRH analogues in men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer is underway in the United Kingdom

Systematic review and meta-analysis of Transurethral Needle Ablation in symptomatic Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) constitutes a major clinical problem. Minimally invasive therapies for the treatment of symptomatic BPH include Transurethral Needle Ablation (TUNA), but it is unclear what impact this technique has on the disease and its role among other currently available therapeutic options. The objective of this study is to ascertain the efficacy and safety of TUNA in the treatment of BPH. METHODS: Systematic review of the literature until January 2005 and meta-analysis of clinical studies assessing TUNA in symptomatic BPH. Studies were critically appraised. Estimates of effect were calculated according to the random-effects model. RESULTS: 35 studies (9 comparative, 26 non-comparative) were included. Although evidence was limited by methodological issues, the analysis of relevant outcomes indicates that while TUNA significantly improves BPH parameters with respect to baseline, it does not reach the same level of efficacy as TURP in respect to all subjective and objective variables. Further, its efficacy declines in the long-term with a rate of secondary-treatment significantly higher than of TURP [OR: 7.44 (2.47, 22.43)]. Conversely, TUNA seems to be a relatively safe technique and shows a lower rate of complications than TURP [OR:0.14 (0.05, 0.14)] with differences being particularly noteworthy in terms of postoperative bleeding and sexual disorders. Likewise, TUNA has fewer anesthetic requirements and generates a shorter hospital stay than TURP [WMD: -1.9 days (-2.75, -1.05)]. Scarce data and lack of replication of comparisons hinder the assessment of TUNA vs. other local therapies. No comparisons with medical treatment were found. CONCLUSION: The body of evidence on which TUNA has been introduced into clinical practice is of only moderate-low quality. Available evidence suggest that TUNA is a relatively effective and safe technique that may eventually prove to have a role in selected patients with symptomatic BPH. TUNA significantly improves BPH parameters with respect to baseline values, but it does not reach the same level of efficacy and long-lasting success as TURP. On the other hand, TUNA seems to be superior to TURP in terms of associated morbidity, anesthetic requirements and length of hospital stay. With respect to the role of TUNA vis-à-vis other minimally invasive therapies, the results of this review indicate that there are insufficient data to define this with any degree of accuracy. Overall cost-effectiveness and the role of TUNA versus medical treatment need further evaluation