32 research outputs found

    Surgery Versus Radiotherapy for Clinically-localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

    Get PDF
    AbstractContextTo date, there is no Level 1 evidence comparing the efficacy of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy for patients with clinically-localized prostate cancer.ObjectiveTo conduct a meta-analysis assessing the overall and prostate cancer-specific mortality among patients treated with radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for clinically-localized prostate cancer.Evidence acquisitionWe searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library through June 2015 without year or language restriction, supplemented with hand search, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. We used multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) to assess each endpoint. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.Evidence synthesisNineteen studies of low to moderate risk of bias were selected and up to 118 830 patients were pooled. Inclusion criteria and follow-up length varied between studies. Most studies assessed patients treated with external beam radiotherapy, although some included those treated with brachytherapy separately or with the external beam radiation therapy group. The risk of overall (10 studies, aHR 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.54–1.73, p<0.00001; I2=0%) and prostate cancer-specific (15 studies, aHR 2.08, 95% confidence interval 1.76–2.47, p < 0.00001; I2=48%) mortality were higher for patients treated with radiotherapy compared with those treated with surgery. Subgroup analyses by risk group, radiation regimen, time period, and follow-up length did not alter the direction of results.ConclusionsRadiotherapy for prostate cancer is associated with an increased risk of overall and prostate cancer-specific mortality compared with surgery based on observational data with low to moderate risk of bias. These data, combined with the forthcoming randomized data, may aid clinical decision making.Patient summaryWe reviewed available studies assessing mortality after prostate cancer treatment with surgery or radiotherapy. While the studies used have a potential for bias due to their observational design, we demonstrated consistently higher mortality for patients treated with radiotherapy rather than surgery

    Effects of muscarinic receptor stimulation on Ca2+ transient, cAMP production and pacemaker frequency of rabbit sinoatrial node cells

    Get PDF
    We investigated the contribution of the intracellular calcium (Cai2+) transient to acetylcholine (ACh)-mediated reduction of pacemaker frequency and cAMP content in rabbit sinoatrial nodal (SAN) cells. Action potentials (whole cell perforated patch clamp) and Cai2+ transients (Indo-1 fluorescence) were recorded from single isolated rabbit SAN cells, whereas intracellular cAMP content was measured in SAN cell suspensions using a cAMP assay (LANCE®). Our data show that the Cai2+ transient, like the hyperpolarization-activated “funny current” (If) and the ACh-sensitive potassium current (IK,ACh), is an important determinant of ACh-mediated pacemaker slowing. When If and IK,ACh were both inhibited, by cesium (2 mM) and tertiapin (100 nM), respectively, 1 μM ACh was still able to reduce pacemaker frequency by 72%. In these If and IK,ACh-inhibited SAN cells, good correlations were found between the ACh-mediated change in interbeat interval and the ACh-mediated change in Cai2+ transient decay (r2 = 0.98) and slow diastolic Cai2+ rise (r2 = 0.73). Inhibition of the Cai2+ transient by ryanodine (3 μM) or BAPTA-AM (5 μM) facilitated ACh-mediated pacemaker slowing. Furthermore, ACh depressed the Cai2+ transient and reduced the sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR) Ca2+ content, all in a concentration-dependent fashion. At 1 μM ACh, the spontaneous activity and Cai2+ transient were abolished, but completely recovered when cAMP production was stimulated by forskolin (10 μM) and IK,ACh was inhibited by tertiapin (100 nM). Also, inhibition of the Cai2+ transient by ryanodine (3 μM) or BAPTA-AM (25 μM) exaggerated the ACh-mediated inhibition of cAMP content, indicating that Cai2+ affects cAMP production in SAN cells. In conclusion, muscarinic receptor stimulation inhibits the Cai2+ transient via a cAMP-dependent signaling pathway. Inhibition of the Cai2+ transient contributes to pacemaker slowing and inhibits Cai2+-stimulated cAMP production. Thus, we provide functional evidence for the contribution of the Cai2+ transient to ACh-induced inhibition of pacemaker activity and cAMP content in rabbit SAN cells

    Rates of primary and secondary treatments for patients on active surveillance for localized prostate cancer—A population‐based cohort study

    No full text
    Abstract Background The rate of primary and secondary treatment while on active surveillance (AS) for localized prostate cancer at the general population level is unknown. Our objective was to determine the patterns of secondary treatments after primary surgery or radiation for patients who undergo AS. Methods This was a population‐based retrospective cohort study of men aged 50‐80 years old in Ontario, Canada, between 2008 and 2016. We identified 26 742 patients with prostate cancer, a Gleason grade score ≤7, and an index prostate‐specific antigen ≤10 ng/mL. Patients were categorized as undergoing AS with or without delayed primary treatment (DT; treatment >6 months after diagnosis) versus immediate treatment (IT; treatment ≤6 months). Patients receiving DT and IT were propensity score matched and the rate of secondary treatment (surgery or radiation ± androgen deprivation treatment) was compared using Cox proportional hazards models. Results We identified 10 214 patients who underwent AS and 11 884 patients who underwent IT. Among patients undergoing AS, 3724 (36.5%) eventually underwent DT and among them, 406 (10.9%) underwent secondary treatment. The median time to DT was 1.2 years (IQR 0.5‐8.1 years). The relative rate of undergoing secondary treatment was similar in the DT vs IT group (HR 0.92; 95% CI: 0.79‐1.08). The risk of death in the DT group was higher compared to patients who did not undergo treatment (HR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.01‐1.49). Conclusions Among patients with localized prostate cancer on AS, one third undergo DT. The rate of secondary treatment was similar between the DT and IT groups. Patients in the DT group may experience a higher risk of mortality compared to those who remained on AS

    Pelvic Complications After Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy and Their Management: An International Collaborative Narrative Review

    No full text
    Context: Radiotherapy used for treating localized prostate cancer is effective at prolonging cancer-specific and overall survival. Still, acute and late pelvic toxicities are a concern, with gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) sequelae being most common as well as other pelvic complications. Objective: To present a critical review of the literature regarding the incidence and risk factors of pelvic toxicity following primary radiotherapy for prostate cancer and to provide a narrative review regarding its management. Evidence acquisition: A collaborative narrative review of the literature from 2010 to present was conducted. Evidence synthesis: Regardless of the modality used, the incidence of acute high-grade pelvic toxicity is low following conventionally fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). After moderate hypofractionation, the crude cumulative incidences for late grade 3 or higher (G3+) GI and GU complications are as high as 6% and 7%, respectively. After extreme hypofractionation, the 5-yr incidences of G2+ GU and GI toxicities are 39% and 0-4%, respectively. Following brachytherapy monotherapy, crude rates of late G3 + GU toxicity range from 6% to 8%, while late GI toxicity is rare. With combination therapy (EBRT and brachytherapy), the cumulative incidence of late GU toxicity is high, between 18% and 31%; however, the prevalence is lower at 4-14%. Whole pelvic radiotherapy remains a controversial treatment option as there is increased G3+ GI toxicity compared with prostate-only treatment, with no overall survival benefit. Proton beam therapy appears to have similar toxicity to photon therapies currently in use. With respect to specific complications, urinary obstruction and urethral stricture are the most common severe urinary toxicities. Rectal and urinary bleeding can be recurrent long-term toxicities. The risk of hip fracture is also increased following prostate radiotherapy. The literature is mixed on the risk of in-field secondary pelvic malignancies following prostate radiotherapy. Urinary and GI fistulas are rare complications. Management of these toxicities may require invasive treatment and reconstructive surgery for refractory and severe symptoms. Conclusions: There has been progress in the delivery of radiotherapy, enabling the administration of higher doses with minimal tradeoff in terms of slightly increased or equal toxicity. There is a need to focus future improvements in radiotherapy on sparing critical structures to reduce GU and GI morbidities. While complications such as fistulae, bone toxicity, and secondary malignancy are rare, there is a need for higher-quality studies assessing these outcomes and their management. Patient summary: In this report, we review the literature regarding pelvic complications following modern primary prostate cancer radiotherapy and their management. Modern radiotherapy technologies have enabled the administration of higher doses with minimal increases in toxicity. Overall, high-grade long-term toxicity following prostate radiotherapy is uncommon. Management of late high-grade pelvic toxicities can be challenging, with patients often requiring invasive therapies for refractory cases. (C) 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

    Adjuvant Versus Salvage Radiotherapy for Patients With Adverse Pathological Findings Following Radical Prostatectomy: A Decision Analysis

    No full text
    Background: Patients undergoing surgery for prostate cancer who have adverse pathological findings experience high rates of recurrence. While there are data supporting adjuvant radiotherapy compared to a wait-and-watch strategy to reduce recurrence rates, there are no randomized controlled trials comparing adjuvant radiotherapy with the other standard of care, salvage radiotherapy (radiotherapy administered at the time of recurrence). Methods: We constructed a health state transition (Markov) model employing two-dimensional Monte Carlo simulation using a lifetime horizon to compare the quality-adjusted survival associated with postoperative strategies using adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy. Prior to analysis, we calibrated and validated our model using the results of previous randomized controlled trials. We considered clinically important oncological health states from immediately postoperative to prostate cancer–specific death, commonly described complications from prostate cancer treatment, and other causes of mortality. Transition probabilities and utilities for disease states were derived from a literature search of MEDLINE and expert consensus. Results: Salvage radiotherapy was associated with an increased quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) (58.3 months) as compared with adjuvant radiotherapy (53.7 months), a difference of 4.6 months (standard deviation 8.8). Salvage radiotherapy had higher QALE in 53% of hypothetical cohorts. There was a minimal difference in overall life expectancy (-0.1 months). Examining recurrence rates, our model showed validity when compared with available randomized controlled data. Conclusions: A salvage radiotherapy strategy appears to provide improved QALE for patients with adverse pathological findings following radical prostatectomy, compared with adjuvant radiotherapy. As these findings reflect, population averages, specific patient and tumor factors, and patient preferences remain central for individualized management
    corecore