33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      High-risk prostate cancer-classification and therapy.

      Nature reviews. Clinical oncology
      Humans, Male, Prognosis, Prostatic Neoplasms, classification, therapy, Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant, Risk Factors, Treatment Outcome

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Approximately 15% of patients with prostate cancer are diagnosed with high-risk disease. However, the current definitions of high-risk prostate cancer include a heterogeneous group of patients with a range of prognoses. Some have the potential to progress to a lethal phenotype that can be fatal, while others can be cured with treatment of the primary tumour alone. The optimal management of this patient subgroup is evolving. A refined classification scheme is needed to enable the early and accurate identification of high-risk disease so that more-effective treatment paradigms can be developed. We discuss several principles established from clinical trials, and highlight other questions that remain unanswered. This Review critically evaluates the existing literature focused on defining the high-risk population, the management of patients with high-risk prostate cancer, and future directions to optimize care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references93

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Abiraterone acetate for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: final overall survival analysis of the COU-AA-301 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study.

          Abiraterone acetate improved overall survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer at a preplanned interim analysis of the COU-AA-301 double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Here, we present the final analysis of the study before crossover from placebo to abiraterone acetate (after 775 of the prespecified 797 death events). Between May 8, 2008, and July 28, 2009, this study enrolled 1195 patients at 147 sites in 13 countries. Patients were eligible if they had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel. Patients were stratified according to baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, worst pain over the past 24 h on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form, number of previous chemotherapy regimens, and type of progression. Patients were randomly assigned (ratio 2:1) to receive either abiraterone acetate (1000 mg, once daily and orally) plus prednisone (5 mg, orally twice daily) or placebo plus prednisone with a permuted block method via an interactive web response system. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00091442. Of the 1195 eligible patients, 797 were randomly assigned to receive abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (abiraterone group) and 398 to receive placebo plus prednisone (placebo group). At median follow-up of 20·2 months (IQR 18·4-22·1), median overall survival for the abiraterone group was longer than in the placebo group (15·8 months [95% CI 14·8-17·0] vs 11·2 months [10·4-13·1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·74, 95% CI 0·64-0·86; p<0·0001). Median time to PSA progression (8·5 months, 95% CI 8·3-11·1, in the abiraterone group vs 6·6 months, 5·6-8·3, in the placebo group; HR 0·63, 0·52-0·78; p<0·0001), median radiologic progression-free survival (5·6 months, 5·6-6·5, vs 3·6 months, 2·9-5·5; HR 0·66, 0·58-0·76; p<0·0001), and proportion of patients who had a PSA response (235 [29·5%] of 797 patients vs 22 [5·5%] of 398; p<0·0001) were all improved in the abiraterone group compared with the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (72 [9%] of 791 patients in the abiraterone group vs 41 [10%] of 394 in the placebo group), anaemia (62 [8%] vs 32 [8%]), back pain (56 [7%] vs 40 [10%]), and bone pain (51 [6%] vs 31 [8%]). This final analysis confirms that abiraterone acetate significantly prolongs overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have progressed after docetaxel treatment. No new safety signals were identified with increased follow-up. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diabetes and cardiovascular disease during androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer.

            Androgen deprivation therapy with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist is associated with increased fat mass and insulin resistance in men with prostate cancer, but the risk of obesity-related disease during treatment has not been well studied. We assessed whether androgen deprivation therapy is associated with an increased incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Observational study of a population-based cohort of 73,196 fee-for-service Medicare enrollees age 66 years or older who were diagnosed with locoregional prostate cancer during 1992 to 1999 and observed through 2001. We used Cox proportional hazards models to assess whether treatment with GnRH agonists or orchiectomy was associated with diabetes, coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, and sudden cardiac death. More than one third of men received a GnRH agonist during follow-up. GnRH agonist use was associated with increased risk of incident diabetes (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; P .20). GnRH agonist treatment for men with locoregional prostate cancer may be associated with an increased risk of incident diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The benefits of GnRH agonist treatment should be weighed against these potential risks. Additional research is needed to identify populations of men at highest risk of treatment-related complications and to develop strategies to prevent treatment-related diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer.

              PURPOSE In the absence of high-level evidence or clinical guidelines supporting any given active treatment approach over another for localized prostate cancer, clinician and patient preferences may lead to substantial variation in treatment use. METHODS Data were analyzed from 36 clinical sites that contributed data to the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry. Distribution of primary treatment use was measured over time. Prostate cancer risk was assessed using the D'Amico risk groups and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. Descriptive analyses were performed, and a hierarchical model was constructed that controlled for year of diagnosis, cancer risk variables, and other patient factors to estimate the proportion of variation in primary treatment selection explicable by practice site. Results Among 11,892 men analyzed, 6.8% elected surveillance, 49.9% prostatectomy, 11.6% external-beam radiation, 13.3% brachytherapy, 4.0% cryoablation, and 14.4% androgen deprivation monotherapy. Prostate cancer risk drives treatment selection, but the data suggest both overtreatment of low-risk disease and undertreatment of high-risk disease. The former trend appears to be improving over time, while the latter is worsening. Treatment varies with age, comorbidity, and socioeconomic status. However, treatment patterns vary markedly across clinical sites, and this variation is not explained by case-mix variability or known patient factors. Practice site explains a proportion of this variation ranging from 13% for androgen deprivation monotherapy to 74% for cryoablation. CONCLUSION Substantial variation exists in management of localized prostate cancer that is not explained by measurable factors. A critical need exists for high-quality comparative effectiveness research in localized prostate cancer to help guide treatment decision making.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                24840073
                10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.68

                Chemistry
                Humans,Male,Prognosis,Prostatic Neoplasms,classification,therapy,Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant,Risk Factors,Treatment Outcome

                Comments

                Comment on this article