1. |
- Djavan, Bob, et al.
(author)
-
Testosterone in prostate cancer: the Bethesda consensus.
- 2012
-
In: BJU International. - 1464-4096. ; 110:3, s. 344-352
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Androgen stimulation of prostate cancer (PCa) cells has been the basis for extensive studies evaluating the role of androgen in PCa but the diagnostic measurement of androgen as well as androgen values that potentially influence prognosis are unclear in patients with PCa. The 50 ng/dL threshold has been questioned as a result of reports indicating worse outcomes for levels between 20 and 50 ng/dL. Instead, a 20 ng/dL threshold for serum testosterone after androgren deprivation therapy in patients with advanced PCa was recommended. OBJECTIVE: • Androgen stimulation of prostate cancer (PCa) cells has been extensively studied. The increasing trend of using serum testosterone as an absolute surrogate for castration state means that the diagnostic measurement of testosterone and the values potentially influencing prognosis must be better understood. This is especially important when PCa progresses from an endocrine to an intracrine status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • We performed a literature review using the MEDLINE database for publications on: (i) hormonal changes with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT); (ii) monitoring hormonal therapy with testosterone measurement; (iii) the efficacy of intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) compared with continuous androgen deprivation; (iv) the underlying mechanisms of castration-resistance; and (v) novel treatments for castration-resistant PCa (CRPCa). RESULTS: • The optimum serum castration levels to be achieved with ADT are still debated. Recently, the 50 ng/dL threshold has been questioned because of reports indicating worse outcomes when levels between 20 and 50 ng/dL were studied. Instead, a 20 ng/dL threshold for serum testosterone after ADT in patients with advanced prostate cancer was recommended. CONCLUSION: • Understanding the mechanisms of androgen biosynthesis relating to PCa as well as prognostic implications might achieve a consensus regarding the role of ADT for both the androgen-sensitive and -insensitive disease state.
|
|
2. |
- Kasivisvanathan, Veeru, et al.
(author)
-
MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis
- 2018
-
In: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793. ; 378:19, s. 1767-1777
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. Men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10-to-12-core, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. RESULTS: A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI-targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI-targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard-biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P = 0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group than in the standard-biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, -13 percentage points; 95% CI, -19 to -7; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027.)
|
|