Flaxseed-Derived Enterolactone Is Inversely Associated with Tumor Cell Proliferation in Men with Localized Prostate Cancer

Enterolactone and enterodiol, mammalian lignans derived from dietary sources such as flaxseed, sesame seeds, kale, broccoli, and apricots, may impede tumor proliferation by inhibiting activation of nuclear factor kappa B (NF?B) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). We examined the associations between urinary enterolactone and enterodiol with prostatic tumor expression of NF?B, VEGF, and Ki67 among 147 patients with prostate cancer who participated in a presurgical trial of flaxseed supplementation (30?g/day) for ?30 days. Urinary enterolignans and tissue biomarkers were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography and immunohistochemistry, respectively. After supplementation, we observed significant correlations between intakes of plant lignan and urinary concentrations of total enterolignans (?=0.677, P<.0001), enterolactone (?=0.676, P<.0001), and enterodiol (?=0.628, P<.0001). Importantly, we observed that total urinary enterolignans and enterolactone were significantly and inversely correlated with Ki67 in the tumor tissue (?=?0.217, P=.011, and ?=?0.230, P=.007, respectively), and a near-significant inverse association was observed for enterodiol (?=?0.159, P=.064). An inverse association was observed between enterolactone and VEGF (?=?0.143, P=.141), although this did not reach statistical significance. We did not observe an association between enterolignans and NF?B. In conclusion, flaxseed-derived enterolignans may hinder cancer cell proliferation via VEGF-associated pathways.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/140111/1/jmf.2012.0159.pd

Role of genetic testing for inherited prostate cancer risk: Philadelphia prostate cancer consensus conference 2017

Purpose: Guidelines are limited for genetic testing for prostate cancer (PCA). The goal of this conference was to develop an expert consensus-dri

Hormone naïve prostate cancer: predicting and maximizing response intervals

Hormone naïve advanced prostate cancer is subdivided into two disease states: biochemical recurrence and traditional M1 (metastatic) prostate cancer and characterized by no prior hormonal therapy or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In biochemical recurrence/prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence, men should be risk-stratified based on their PSA doubling time, the Gleason score and the timing of the recurrence. In general, only men who are at high risk should be considered for early/immediate ADT although this is best done using shared decision with the patient. The type of ADT to be used in biochemical recurrence ranging from oral-only peripheral blockade (peripheral androgen deprivation) to complete hormonal therapy (combined androgen blockade [CAB]) remains in debate owing to lack of randomized controlled trials (RCT). However, there is good RCT support for use of intermittent hormonal therapy (IHT). There is also limited research on biomarker response (PSA and testosterone decline) to predict prognosis. On the other hand, in the setting of M1 hormone naïve prostate cancer, there are many more RCT′s to inform our decisions. CAB and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists perhaps provide a slight efficacy advantage while IHT may be slightly inferior with minimal M1 disease. The PSA nadir at 7 months after starting ADT is a powerful prognostic tool for M1 patients. There is growing recognition that serum testosterone (T) control while on ADT is linked to the development of castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Especially for a M1 patient, maintaining a serum T below 20-30 ng dl−1 prolongs the response to ADT. Novel oral agents (abiraterone and enzalutamide) may soon find use in hormone naïve disease and may alter the treatment landscape. Despite over 75 years of experience with ADT, many questions remain, and the field continues to evolve

Contemporary Radical Prostatectomy

Purpose. Patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer have more surgical treatment options than in the past. This paper focuses on the procedures' oncological or functional outcomes and perioperative morbidities of radical retropubic prostatectomy, radical perineal prostatectomy, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods. A MEDLINE/PubMed search of the literature on radical prostatectomy and other new management options was performed. Results. Compared to the open procedures, robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy has no confirmed significant difference in most literatures besides less blood loss and blood transfusion. Nerve sparing is a safe means of preserving potency on well-selected patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Positive surgical margin rates of radical prostatectomy affect the recurrence and survival of prostate cancer. The urinary and sexual function outcomes have been vastly improved. Neoadjuvant treatment only affects the rate of positive surgical margin. Adjuvant therapy can delay and reduce the risk of recurrence and improve the survival of the high risk prostate cancer. Conclusions. For the majority of patients with organ-confined prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy remains a most effective approach. Radical perineal prostatectomy remains a viable approach for patients with morbid obesity, prior pelvic surgery, or prior pelvic radiation. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) has become popular among surgeons but has not yet become the firmly established standard of care. Long-term data have confirmed the efficacy of radical retropubic prostatectomy with disease control rates and cancer-specific survival rates