| 1. |
- Bill-Axelson, Anna, et al.
(författare)
-
Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer : the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. - : Oxford University Press. - 0027-8874 .- 1460-2105. ; 100:16, s. 1144-1154
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The benefit of radical prostatectomy in patients with early prostate cancer has been assessed in only one randomized trial. In 2005, we reported that radical prostatectomy improved prostate cancer survival compared with watchful waiting after a median of 8.2 years of follow-up. We now report results after 3 more years of follow-up.METHODS: From October 1, 1989, through February 28, 1999, 695 men with clinically localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to radical prostatectomy (n = 347) or watchful waiting (n = 348). Follow-up was complete through December 31, 2006, with histopathologic review and blinded evaluation of causes of death. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model. Statistical tests were two-sided.RESULTS: During a median of 10.8 years of follow-up (range = 3 weeks to 17.2 years), 137 men in the surgery group and 156 in the watchful waiting group died (P = .09). For 47 of the 347 men (13.5%) who were randomly assigned to surgery and 68 of the 348 men (19.5%) who were not, death was due to prostate cancer. The difference in cumulative incidence of death due to prostate cancer remained stable after about 10 years of follow-up. At 12 years, 12.5% of the surgery group and 17.9% of the watchful waiting group had died of prostate cancer (difference = 5.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.2 to 11.1%), for a relative risk of 0.65 (95% CI = 0.45 to 0.94; P = .03). The difference in cumulative incidence of distant metastases did not increase beyond 10 years of follow-up. At 12 years, 19.3% of men in the surgery group and 26% of men in the watchful waiting group had been diagnosed with distant metastases (difference = 6.7%, 95% CI = 0.2 to 13.2%), for a relative risk of 0.65 (95% CI = 0.47 to 0.88; P = .006). Among men who underwent radical prostatectomy, those with extracapsular tumor growth had 14 times the risk of prostate cancer death as those without it (RR = 14.2, 95% CI = 3.3 to 61.8; P < .001).CONCLUSION: Radical prostatectomy reduces prostate cancer mortality and risk of metastases with little or no further increase in benefit 10 or more years after surgery.
|
|
| 2. |
- Rubio, Carlos A., et al.
(författare)
-
Reliability of the reported size of removed colorectal polyps
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Anticancer Research. - 0250-7005 .- 1791-7530. ; 26:6C, s. 4895-4899
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The size of colorectal polyps is important in the clinical management of these lesions. Aim: To audit the accuracy in calculating the size of polyps by various specialists. Materials and Methods: Eighteen pathologists and four surgeons measured, with a conventional millimetre ruler, the largest diameter of 12 polyp phantoms. The results of two independent measurements (two weeks apart) were compared with the gold standard-size assessed at The Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden. Results: Thirty-one percent (83/264-trial 1) and 33% (88/264-trial 2) of the measurements underestimated or overestimated the gold standard size by > 1 mm. Of the 22 experienced participants, 95% (21/22-trial 1) and 91% (20/22-trial 2) misjudged by > 1 mm the size of one or more polyps. Values given by 13 participants (4.9%) in trial I and by 15 participants (5.7%) in trial 2, differed by ! 4 mm from the gold standard size. In addition, a big difference between the highest and the lowest values was recorded in some polyps (up to 11.4 mm). Those disparate values were regarded as a human error in reading the scale on the ruler. Conclusion: Using a conventional ruler (the tool of pathologists worldwide) unacceptably high intra-observer and inter-observer variations in assessing the size of polyp-phantoms was found. The volume and the shape of devices, as well as human error in reading the scale of the ruler were confounding factors in size assessment. In praxis, the size is crucial in the management of colorectal polyps. Considering the clinical implications of the results obtained, the possibility of developing a method that will allow assessment of the true size of removed clinical polyps is being explored.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Segersten, M. Ulrika, et al.
(författare)
-
A novel strategy based on histological protein profiling in-silico for identifying potential biomarkers in urinary bladder cancer
- 2009
-
Ingår i: BJU International. - 1464-4096 .- 1464-410X. ; 104:11, s. 1780-1785
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To screen a publicly available immunohistochemistry (IHC) based web-atlas, to identify key proteins in bladder cancer that might serve as potential biomarkers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The first version of the Human Protein Atlas (HPA 1.0), with 660 proteins, was visually examined to identify proteins with a variable staining pattern among the 12 tissue samples representing bladder cancer. None or limited previous characterization in bladder cancer, as well as a supportive Western blot, were also required. The selected proteins were then evaluated in an independent set of patient samples (106 tumour samples of differing stage and grade) represented in a tissue microarray (TMAi). The IHC expression of the identified proteins in the TMAi was scored and related to tumour stage and grade. RESULTS: The expression profiles of the 13 proteins selected from the web-atlas were confirmed in the TMAi. Expression patterns for seven proteins were significantly altered (P < 0.05) with higher stage and/or grade. Three of those (CN130, DSG3, PHF6) lack characterization in bladder cancer, whereas the remaining four proteins have previously been suggested as key proteins/potential biomarkers in cancer, some of them also in bladder cancer. CONCLUSION: New candidate proteins for urinary bladder cancer were identified through screening of the publicly available HPA 1.0. Although further evaluation is necessary, this strategy is promising in the search for new biomarkers, with potential to improve the management of patients with this disease.
|
|
