Laurent Boccon-Gibod

PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF PROSTATE CANCER DETECTED ON BIOPSIES 1, 2, 3 AND 4: WHEN SHOULD WE STOP?

PURPOSEnWe evaluated biochemical parameters and pathological features, as well as biopsy related morbidity of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 2, 3 and 4 in men with total serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) between 4 and 10 ng./ml. These features were compared to those detected on prostate biopsy 1.nnnMATERIALS AND METHODSnIn this prospective European Prostate Cancer Detection study 1,051 men with total PSA between 4 and 10 ng./ml. underwent transrectal ultrasound guided sextant biopsy and 2 additional transition zone biopsies. All patients in whom biopsy samples were negative for prostate cancer underwent biopsy 2 after 6 weeks. If also negative, biopsies 3 and even 4 were performed at 8-week intervals. Those patients with clinically localized cancer underwent radical prostatectomy. Pathological and clinical features of patients diagnosed with cancer on either biopsy 1 or 2 and clinically organ confined disease who agreed to undergo radical prostatectomy were compared.nnnRESULTSnCancer detection rates on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 22% (231 of 1,051), 10% (83 of 820), 5% (36 of 737) and 4% (4 of 94), respectively. Overall, of the patients with clinically localized disease, which was 67% of cancers detected, 86% underwent radical prostatectomy and 14% opted for watchful waiting or radiation therapy. Overall, 58.0%, 60.9%, 86.3% and 100% of patients had organ confined disease on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Despite statistically significant differences in regard to multifocality (p = 0.009) and cancer location (p = 0.001), including cancer on biopsy 2 showing a lower rate of multifocality and a more apico-dorsal location, there were no differences in regard to stage (p = 0.2), Gleason score (p = 0.3), percent Gleason grade 4/5 (p = 0.2), serum PSA and patient age between biopsies 1 and 2. However, cancer detected on biopsies 3 and 4 had a significantly lower Gleason score (p = 0.001 and 0.001), lower rate of grade 4/5 (p = 0.02), and lower volume (p = 0.001 and 0.001) and stage (p = 0.001), respectively.nnnCONCLUSIONSnDespite differences in location and multifocality, pathological and biochemical features of cancer detected on biopsies 1 and 2 were similar, suggesting comparable biological behaviors. Cancer detected on biopsies 3 and 4 had a lower grade, stage and volume compared with that on biopsies 1 and 2. Morbidity on biopsies 1 and 2 was similar, whereas biopsies 3 and 4 had a slightly higher complication rate. Therefore, biopsy 2 in all cases of a negative finding on biopsy 1 appears justified. However, biopsies 3 and 4 should only be obtained in select patients with a high suspicion of cancer and/or poor prognostic factors on biopsy 1 or 2.

Androgen Deprivation Therapy for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer: Consider Both Benefits and Risks

CONTEXTnAndrogen deprivation therapy (ADT) is increasingly used for the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa), even in clinical settings in which there is no evidence-based proof of prolonged overall survival (OS). ADT, however, may be associated with numerous side effects, including an increased therapy-related cardiovascular mortality.nnnOBJECTIVEnTo discuss different clinical settings in which ADT is currently used and to critically weigh the benefits of ADT against its possible side effects.nnnEVIDENCE ACQUISITIONnA MEDLINE search was conducted to identify original articles and review articles addressing the efficacy and side effects of ADT for the treatment of PCa. Keywords consisted of prostate cancer, hormonal therapy, adverse effects, radical prostatectomy, and radiotherapy. The articles with the highest level of evidence for the various examined end points were identified with the consensus of all authors and were reviewed.nnnEVIDENCE SYNTHESISnEven short-term use of ADT may lead to numerous side effects, such as osteoporosis, obesity, sarcopenia, lipid alterations, insulin resistance, and increased risk for diabetes and cardiovascular morbidity. Despite these side effects, ADT is commonly used in various clinical settings in which a clear effect on improved OS has not been shown.nnnCONCLUSIONSnADT is associated with an increased risk of multiple side effects that may reduce quality of life and/or OS. Consequently, these issues should be discussed in detail with patients and their families before initiation of ADT. ADT should be used with knowledge of its potential long-term side effects and with possible lifestyle interventions, especially in settings with the highest risk-benefit ratio, to alleviate comorbidities.