Low-risk Prostate Cancer: Identification, Management, and Outcomes.

ContextThe incidence of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) has increased as a consequence of prostate-specific antigen testing.ObjectiveIn this collaborative review article, we examine recent literature regarding low-risk PCa and the available prognostic and therapeutic options.Evidence acquisitionWe performed a literature review of the Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The search strategy included the terms: prostate cancer, low risk, active surveillance, focal therapy, radical prostatectomy, watchful waiting, biomarker, magnetic resonance imaging, alone or in combination.Evidence synthesisProspective randomized trials have failed to show an impact of radical treatments on cancer-specific survival in low-risk PCa patients. Several series have reported the risk of adverse pathologic outcomes at radical prostatectomy. However, it is not clear if these patients are at higher risk of death from PCa. Long-term follow-up indicates the feasibility of active surveillance in low-risk PCa patients, although approximately 30% of men starting active surveillance undergo treatment within 5 yr. Considering focal therapies, robust data investigating its impact on long-term survival outcomes are still required and therefore should be considered experimental. Magnetic resonance imaging and tissue biomarkers may help to predict clinically significant PCa in men initially diagnosed with low-risk disease.ConclusionsThe incidence of low-risk PCa has increased in recent years. Only a small proportion of men with low-risk PCa progress to clinical symptoms, metastases, or death and prospective trials have not shown a benefit for immediate radical treatments. Tissue biomarkers, magnetic resonance imaging, and ongoing surveillance may help to identify those men with low-risk PCa who harbor more clinically significant disease.Patient summaryLow-risk prostate cancer is very common. Active surveillance has excellent long-term results, while randomized trials have failed to show a beneficial impact of immediate radical treatments on survival. Biomarkers and magnetic resonance imaging may help to identify which men may benefit from early treatment

Suitability of PSA-detected localised prostate cancers for focal therapy: Experience from the ProtecT study

This article is available through a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Copyright @ 2011 Cancer Research UK.Background: Contemporary screening for prostate cancer frequently identifies small volume, low-grade lesions. Some clinicians have advocated focal prostatic ablation as an alternative to more aggressive interventions to manage these lesions. To identify which patients might benefit from focal ablative techniques, we analysed the surgical specimens of a large sample of population-detected men undergoing radical prostatectomy as part of a randomised clinical trial. Methods: Surgical specimens from 525 men who underwent prostatectomy within the ProtecT study were analysed to determine tumour volume, location and grade. These findings were compared with information available in the biopsy specimen to examine whether focal therapy could be provided appropriately. Results: Solitary cancers were found in prostatectomy specimens from 19% (100 out of 525) of men. In addition, 73 out of 425 (17%) men had multiple cancers with a solitary significant tumour focus. Thus, 173 out of 525 (33%) men had tumours potentially suitable for focal therapy. The majority of these were small, well-differentiated lesions that appeared to be pathologically insignificant (38–66%). Criteria used to select patients for focal prostatic ablation underestimated the cancer's significance in 26% (34 out of 130) of men and resulted in overtreatment in more than half. Only 18% (24 out of 130) of men presumed eligible for focal therapy, actually had significant solitary lesions. Conclusion: Focal therapy appears inappropriate for the majority of men presenting with prostate-specific antigen-detected localised prostate cancer. Unifocal prostate cancers suitable for focal ablation are difficult to identify pre-operatively using biopsy alone. Most lesions meeting criteria for focal ablation were either more aggressive than expected or posed little threat of progression.National Institute for Health Researc

Sporadic renal cell carcinoma in young and elderly patients: are there different clinicopathological features and disease specific survival rates?

BACKGROUND: Sporadic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is rare in young adults. In the present retrospective study we reviewed clinicopathological features and disease specific survival rates in young patients (≤45 years) with RCC and compared them to old patients (≥75 years) with RCC. METHODS: Between 1992 and 2005 a total of 1042 patients were treated for RCC at our institution. We found 70 patients 45 years or younger (YP) and 150 patients 75 years or older (OP) at time of diagnosis. There were no differences in therapeutical approaches between both groups. Clinical and biologic parameters at diagnosis were compared and subjected to uni- and multivariate analysis to study cancer specific survival and progression rate. Mean postoperative follow-up in both groups was 50.1 months. RESULTS: Mean age was 39 years in YP and 80 years in OP, respectively. YP demonstrated significantly lower stage (pT1-pT2 N0 M0, p = 0.03), lower tumor grade (p = 0.01) and higher male-to-female ratio (p < 0.001). The rate of lymph node metastases or distant metastatic disease at presentation did not differ significantly between both groups. In multivariate analysis young age was independently associated with a higher 5-year cancer specific survival (95.2% vs. 72.3%, p = 0.009) and a lower 5-year progression rate (11.3% vs. 42.5%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Sporadic RCC in young patients have lower tumor stages and grades and a better outcome compared to elderly. Age≤45 years was an independent prognostic factor for survival and progression

Focal therapy for prostate cancer: revolution or evolution?

The face of prostate cancer has been dramatically changed since the late 1980s when PSA was introduced as a clinical screening tool. More men are diagnosed with small foci of cancers instead of the advanced disease evident prior to PSA screening. Treatment options for these smaller tumors consist of expectant management, radiation therapy (brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy) and surgery (cryosurgical ablation and radical prostatectomy). In the highly select patient, cancer specific survival employing any of these treatment options is excellent, however morbidity from these interventions are significant. Thus, the idea of treating only the cancer within the prostate and sparing the non-cancerous tissue in the prostate is quite appealing, yet controversial. Moving forward if we are to embrace the focal treatment of prostate cancer we must: be able to accurately identify index lesions within the prostate, image cancers within the prostate and methodically study the litany of focal therapeutic options available

5-α reductase inhibitors and prostate cancer prevention: where do we turn now?

With the lifetime risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer so great, an effective chemopreventive agent could have a profound impact on the lives of men. Despite decades of searching for such an agent, physicians still do not have an approved drug to offer their patients. In this article, we outline current strategies for preventing prostate cancer in general, with a focus on the 5-α-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) finasteride and dutasteride. We discuss the two landmark randomized, controlled trials of finasteride and dutasteride, highlighting the controversies stemming from the results, and address the issue of 5-ARI use, including reasons why providers may be hesitant to use these agents for chemoprevention. We further discuss the recent US Food and Drug Administration ruling against the proposed new indication for dutasteride and the change to the labeling of finasteride, both of which were intended to permit physicians to use the drugs for chemoprevention. Finally, we discuss future directions for 5-ARI research

Development and validation of risk score for predicting positive repeat prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy in a UK population

Background. Little evidence is available to determine which patients should undergo repeat biopsy after initial benign extended core biopsy (ECB). Attempts have been made to reduce the frequency of negative repeat biopsies using PSA kinetics, density, free-to-total ratios and Kattan's nomogram, to identify men more likely to harbour cancer but no single tool accurately predicts biopsy outcome. The objective of this study was to develop a predictive nomogram to identify men more likely to have a cancer diagnosed on repeat prostate biopsy. Methods. Patients with previous benign ECB undergoing repeat biopsy were identified from a database. Association between age, volume, stage, previous histology, PSA kinetics and positive repeat biopsy was analysed. Variables were entered stepwise into logistic regression models. A risk score giving the probability of positive repeat biopsy was estimated. The performance of this score was assessed using receiver characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results. 110 repeat biopsies were performed in this period. Cancer was detected in 31% of repeat biopsies at Hospital (1) and 30% at Hospital (2). The most accurate predictive model combined age, PSA, PSA velocity, free-to-total PSA ratio, prostate volume and digital rectal examination (DRE) findings. The risk model performed well in an independent sample, area under the curve (AUCROC) was 0.818 (95% CI 0.707 to 0.929) for the risk model and 0.696 (95% CI 0.472 to 0.921) for the validation model. It was calculated that using a threshold risk score of > 0.2 to identify high risk individuals would reduce repeat biopsies by 39% while identifying 90% of the men with prostate cancer. Conclusion. An accurate multi-variable predictive tool to determine the risk of positive repeat prostate biopsy is presented. This can be used by urologists in an outpatient setting to aid decision-making for men with prior benign histology for whom a repeat biopsy is being considered. © 2009 Rochester et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Can a single model explain both breast cancer and prostate cancer?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Estradiol-Dihydrotestosterone model of prostate cancer (PC) showed how the interaction of hormones with specific hormone receptors affected apoptosis. The same hormone can produce different effects, depending on which hormone receptor it interacts with.</p> <p>Model</p> <p>This model proposes that the first step in the development of most PC and breast cancer (BC) occurs when aromatase converts testosterone to estradiol (E2). A sufficiently high enough local level of E2 results in telomerase activity. The telomerase activity allows cell division and may lead to BC or PC, which will proliferate if the rate of cell division is greater than the rate of cell death. The effect of hormones on their hormone receptors will affect the rate of cell death and determine whether or not the cancer proliferates.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>By minimizing bcl-2 and maximizing apoptotic proteins, new systemic treatments for BC and PC can be developed that may be more effective than existing treatments.</p