Is DRE essential for the follow up of prostate cancer patients? A prospective audit of 194 patients

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer follow up forms a substantial part of the urology outpatient workload. Nurse led prostate cancer follow up clinics are becoming more common. Routine follow-up may involve performing DRE, which may require training. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this audit was to assess the factors that influenced the change in the management of prostate cancer patients during follow up. This would allow us to pave the way towards a protocol driven follow up clinic led by nurse specialists without formal training in DRE. RESULTS: 194 prostate cancer patients were seen over a period of two months and all the patients had DRE performed on at least one occasion. The management was changed in 47 patients. The most common factor influencing this change was PSA trend. A change in DRE findings influenced advancement of the clinic visit in 2 patients. CONCLUSIONS: PSA is the most common factor influencing change in the management of these patients. Nurse specialists can run prostate cancer follow-up clinics in parallel to existing consultant clinics and reserve DRE only for those patients who have a PSA change or have onset of new symptoms. However larger studies are required involving all the subgroups of patients to identify the subgroups of patients who will require DRE routinely

Prognostic factors in prostate cancer

Prognostic factors in organ confined prostate cancer will reflect survival after surgical radical prostatectomy. Gleason score, tumour volume, surgical margins and Ki-67 index have the most significant prognosticators. Also the origins from the transitional zone, p53 status in cancer tissue, stage, and aneuploidy have shown prognostic significance. Progression-associated features include Gleason score, stage, and capsular invasion, but PSA is also highly significant. Progression can also be predicted with biological markers (E-cadherin, microvessel density, and aneuploidy) with high level of significance. Other prognostic features of clinical or PSA-associated progression include age, IGF-1, p27, and Ki-67. In patients who were treated with radiotherapy the survival was potentially predictable with age, race and p53, but available research on other markers is limited. The most significant published survival-associated prognosticators of prostate cancer with extension outside prostate are microvessel density and total blood PSA. However, survival can potentially be predicted by other markers like androgen receptor, and Ki-67-positive cell fraction. In advanced prostate cancer nuclear morphometry and Gleason score are the most highly significant progression-associated prognosticators. In conclusion, Gleason score, capsular invasion, blood PSA, stage, and aneuploidy are the best markers of progression in organ confined disease. Other biological markers are less important. In advanced disease Gleason score and nuclear morphometry can be used as predictors of progression. Compound prognostic factors based on combinations of single prognosticators, or on gene expression profiles (tested by DNA arrays) are promising, but clinically relevant data is still lacking

Validation of the Contemporary Epstein Criteria for Insignificant Prostate Cancer in European Men

Objectives: The Epstein criteria represent the most widely used scheme for prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer (PCa). However, they were never validated in European men. We assessed the rate of unfavorable prostate cancer (Gleason 7-10 or non-organ-confined disease) in a cohort of 366 men who fulfilled the Epstein clinically insignificant PCa criteria. Methods: Between 1996 and 2006, 2580 men underwent radical prostatectomy at a single academic European institution. Of those, 366 fulfilled the contemporary Epstein clinically insignificant PCa criteria. Analyses targeted the rate of pathologically unfavorable prostate cancer, defined as either Gleason sum 7-10 or non-organ-confined disease, or a combination of these characteristics in patients with clinically insignificant PCa. Results: Gleason 7-10 prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy was found in 88 patients (24%) with clinically insignificant PCa. In addition, 30 (34.1%) of the 88 patients harboured non-organ-confined disease. Consequently, the contemporary Epstein criteria for clinically insignificant PCa were inaccurate in 24% of patients. Conclusions: The Epstein clinical insignificant PCa criteria may underestimate the true nature of prostate cancer in as many as 24% of European patients. Therefore, caution is advised when treatment decisions are based solely on these criteria. (C) 2007 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

THE RATE OF SECONDARY MALIGNANCIES AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY VERSUS EXTERNAL BEAM RADIATION THERAPY FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER: A POPULATION-BASED STUDY ON 17,845 PATIENTS

Purpose: External-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) may predispose to secondary malignancies that include bladder cancer (BCa), rectal cancer (RCa), and lung cancer (LCa). We tested this hypothesis in a large French Canadian population-based cohort of prostate cancer patients. Methods and Materials: Overall, 8,455 radical prostatectomy (RP) and 9,390 EBRT patients treated between 1983 and 2003 were assessed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. Three endpoints were examined: (1) diagnosis of secondary BCa, (2) LCa, or (3) RCa. Covariates included age, Charlson comorbidity index, and year of treatment. Results: In multivariable analyses that relied on incident cases diagnosed 60 months or later after RP or EBRT, the rates of BCa (hazard ratio [HR], 1.4; p = 0.02), LCa (HR, 2.0; p = 0.004), and RCa (HR 2.1; p<0.001) were significantly higher in the EBRT group. When incident cases diagnosed 120 months or later after RP or EBRT were considered, only the rates of RCa (hazard ratio 2.2; p = 0.003) were significantly higher in the EBRT group. In both analyses, the absolute differences in incident rates ranged from 0.7 to 5.2% and the number needed to harm (where harm equaled secondary malignancies) ranged from 111 to 19, if EBRT was used instead of RP. Conclusions: EBRT may predispose to clinically meaningfully higher rates of secondary BCa, LCa and RCa. These rates should be included in informed consent consideration. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc