Petah Tikva, Israel
Petah Tikva, Israel

Time filter

Source Type

Surcel C.I.,Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy | Sooriakumaran P.,University of Oxford | Sooriakumaran P.,Karolinska Institutet | Briganti A.,Vita-Salute San Raffaele University | And 12 more authors.
BJU International | Year: 2015

ObjectiveTo explore preferences in the management of patients with newly diagnosed high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) among urologists in Europe through a web-based survey.Materials and MethodsA web-based survey was conducted between 15 August and 15 September 2013 by members of the Prostate Cancer Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists Working Party of the European Association of Urology (EAU). A specific, 29-item multiple-choice questionnaire covering the whole spectrum of diagnosis, staging and treatment of high-risk PCa was e-mailed to all urologists included in the mailing list of EAU members. Europe was divided into four geographical regions: Central-Eastern Europe (CEE), Northern Europe (NE), Southern Europe (SE) and Western Europe (WE). Descriptive statistics were used. Differences among sample segments were obtained from a z-test compared with the total sample.ResultsOf the 12 850 invited EAU members, 585 urologists practising in Europe completed the survey. High-risk PCa was defined as serum PSA ≥20 ng/mL or clinical stage ≥ T3 or biopsy Gleason score ≥ 8 by 67% of responders, without significant geographical variations. The preferred single-imaging examinations for staging were bone scan (74%, 81% in WE and 70% in SE; P = 0.02 for both), magnetic resonance imaging (53%, 72% in WE and 40% in SE; P = 0.02 and P = 0.01, respectively) and computed tomography (45%, 60% in SE and 23% in WE; P = 0.01 for both). Pre-treatment predictive tools were routinely used by 62% of the urologists, without significant geographical variations. The preferred treatment was radical prostatectomy as the initial step of a multiple-treatment approach (60%, 40% in NE and 70% in CEE; P = 0.02 and P < 0.01, respectively), followed by external beam radiation therapy with androgen deprivation therapy (29%, 45% in NE and 20% in CEE; P = 0.01 and P = 0.02, respectively), and radical prostatectomy as monotherapy (4%, 7% in WE; P = 0.04). When surgery was performed, the open retropubic approach was the most popular (58%, 74% in CEE, 37% in NE; P < 0.01 for both). Pelvic lymph node dissection was performed by 96% of urologists, equally split between a standard and extended template. There was no consensus on the definition of disease recurrence after primary treatment, and much heterogeneity in the administration of adjuvant and salvage treatments.ConclusionWith the limitation of a low response rate, the present study is the first survey evaluating preferences in the management of high-risk PCa among urologists in Europe. Although the definition of high-risk PCa was fairly uniform, wide variations in patterns of primary and adjuvant/salvage treatments were observed. These differences might translate into variations in quality of care with a possible impact on ultimate oncological outcome. © 2014 The Authors. BJU International © 2014 BJU International.

Surcel C.I.,Fundeni Clinical Institute | van Oort I.M.,Radboud University Nijmegen | Sooriakumaran P.,University of Oxford | Sooriakumaran P.,Karolinska Institutet | And 12 more authors.
Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations | Year: 2015

Background: The multiple pathways that are involved in neuroendocrine differentiation (NED) in prostate cancer (PCa) are poorly elucidated. Evidence suggests that several environmental triggers induce NED leading to the adaptation of PCa to its close environment to maintain cell proliferation. Nevertheless, there is conflicting evidence regarding the prognostic role of NED in PCa. Methods: In this review, we aimed to summarize all available data about NED and to assess the prognostic role of NED in disease progression and therapy resistance, and its role in routine clinical practice. This review was based on articles found through a PubMed literature search between 1993 and 2013. The study outcome measure was the effect of NED on oncologic outcomes at each PCa stage. Results: In total, 59 articles reporting on the effect of NED on oncologic outcomes have been selected. In clinical practice, immunostaining for NED markers could have interesting predictive value for assessing the oncologic outcomes in patients receiving androgen-deprivation therapy. Thus, patients with high NED burden may be candidates for more aggressive treatment strategies targeting NED pathways. Conversely, strong evidence is lacking concerning its potential independent prognostic value in hormone-naïve PCa. Conclusions: Current published data are not sufficient to recommend the use of NE markers in routine practice, particularly at early PCa stage. © 2015 Elsevier Inc..

Ghadjar P.,Charité - Medical University of Berlin | Briganti A.,Urological Research Institute | De Visschere P.J.L.,Ghent University | Futterer J.J.,Radboud University Nijmegen | And 11 more authors.
World Journal of Urology | Year: 2015

Purpose: To determine the oncologic benefit or otherwise of local treatment of the prostate in patients with primary metastatic prostate cancer. Methods: A review of the literature was performed in April 2014 using the Medline/PubMed database. Studies were identified using the search terms “prostate cancer,” “metastatic,” “metastasis,” “high risk,” “radiation therapy,” “radiotherapy” and “prostatectomy” from 1990 until April, 2014. Articles were also identified through searches of references of these articles. Results: Retrospective series and population-based data suggest that the use of local treatment of the prostate in patients with primary metastatic prostate cancer may improve cancer-specific survival and overall survival compared with treating these patients with androgen deprivation therapy alone. The clinical outcome in metastatic prostate cancer is largely determined by the extent of lymph node involvement and overall metastatic burden. Contemporary data are lacking to recommend one alternative of local therapy (radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy) over the other. The primary limitation of this literature review is the lack of published randomized trial assessing the role of local treatment in addition to systemic therapy. Conclusions: Local treatment appears to improve oncologic outcomes in metastatic prostate cancer patients. Nevertheless, due to the lack of high-quality evidence, its role needs to be confirmed in future prospective trials. The selection of ideal candidates and optimal treatment alternative (radiotherapy, radical prostatectomy or other) warrants further investigation. © 2014, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Loading Rabin Medical Center Beilinson collaborators
Loading Rabin Medical Center Beilinson collaborators