Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Cardiff, United Kingdom

Mottet N.,Clinique Mutualiste de la Loire | Bellmunt J.,University of the Sea | Bolla M.,C.H.U. Grenoble | Joniau S.,University Hospital | And 7 more authors.
European Urology | Year: 2011

Objectives: Our aim is to present a summary of the 2010 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on the treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Methods: The working panel performed a literature review of the new data emerging from 2007 to 2010. The guidelines were updated, and the levels of evidence (LEs) and/or grades of recommendation (GR) were added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews. Results: Luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are the standard of care in metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Although LHRH antagonists decrease testosterone without any testosterone surge, their clinical benefit remains to be determined. Complete androgen blockade has a small survival benefit of about 5%. Intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) results in equivalent oncologic efficacy when compared with continuous androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in well-selected populations. In locally advanced and metastatic PCa, early ADT does not result in a significant survival advantage when compared with delayed ADT. Relapse after local therapy is defined by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values >0.2 ng/ml following radical prostatectomy (RP) and >2 ng/ml above the nadir after radiation therapy (RT). Therapy for PSA relapse after RP includes salvage RT at PSA levels <0.5 ng/ml and salvage RP or cryosurgical ablation of the prostate in radiation failures. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CT) are of limited importance if the PSA is <2.5 ng/ml; bone scans and CT can be omitted unless PSA is >20 ng/ml. Follow-up after ADT should include screening for the metabolic syndrome and an analysis of PSA and testosterone levels. Treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) includes second-line hormonal therapy, novel agents, and chemotherapy with docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 every 3 wk. Cabazitaxel as a second-line therapy for relapse after docetaxel might become a future option. Zoledronic acid and denusomab can be used in men with CRPC and osseous metastases to prevent skeletal-related complications. Conclusion: The knowledge in the field of advanced, metastatic, and CRPC is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice. A full version is available at the EAU office or online at www.uroweb.org. © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Source


Heidenreich A.,RWTH Aachen | Bastian P.J.,Klinikum Golzheim | Bellmunt J.,University of the Sea | Bolla M.,Grenoble University Hospital Center | And 7 more authors.
European Urology | Year: 2014

Objective To present a summary of the 2013 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on the treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Evidence acquisition The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2011-2013). The guidelines were updated, and levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature that included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews. Evidence synthesis Luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are the standard of care in metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). LHRH antagonists decrease testosterone without any testosterone surge, and they may be associated with an oncologic benefit compared with LHRH analogues. Complete androgen blockade has a small survival benefit of about 5%. Intermittent androgen deprivation results in noninferior oncologic efficacy when compared with continuous androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in well-selected populations. In locally advanced and metastatic PCa, early ADT does not result in a significant survival advantage when compared with delayed ADT. Relapse after local therapy is defined by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values >0.2 ng/ml following radical prostatectomy (RP) and >2 ng/ml above the nadir and after radiation therapy (RT). Therapy for PSA relapse after RP includes salvage RT (SRT) at PSA levels <0.5 ng/ml and SRP or cryosurgical ablation of the prostate in radiation failures. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) are of limited importance if the PSA is <1.0 ng/ml; bone scans and CT can be omitted unless PSA is >20 ng/ml. Follow-up after ADT should include analysis of PSA and testosterone levels, and screening for cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome. Treatment of CRPC includes sipuleucel-T, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA/P), or chemotherapy with docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 every 3 wk. Cabazitaxel, AA/P, enzalutamide, and radium-223 are available for second-line treatment of CRPC following docetaxel. Zoledronic acid and denosumab can be used in men with CRPC and osseous metastases to prevent skeletal-related complications. Conclusions The knowledge in the field of advanced, metastatic, and castration-resistant PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice. A full version is available at the EAU office or at www.uroweb.org. Patient summary We present a summary of the 2013 version of the European Association of Urology guidelines on treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are the standard of care in metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). LHRH antagonists decrease testosterone without any testosterone surge, and they might be associated with an oncologic benefit compared with LHRH analogues. Complete androgen blockade has a small survival benefit of about 5%. Intermittent androgen deprivation results in noninferior oncologic efficacy when compared with continuous androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in well-selected populations. In locally advanced and metastatic PCa, early ADT does not result in a significant survival advantage when compared with delayed ADT. Relapse after local therapy is defined by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values >0.2 ng/ml following radical prostatectomy (RP) and >2 ng/ml above the nadir and after radiation therapy. Therapy for PSA relapse after RP includes salvage radiation therapy at PSA levels <0.5 ng/ml and salvage RP or cryosurgical ablation of the prostate in radiation failures. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) are of limited importance if the PSA is <1.0 ng/ml; bone scans, and CT can be omitted unless PSA is >20 ng/ml. Follow-up after ADT should include analysis of PSA and testosterone levels, and screening for cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome. Treatment of castration-resistant CRPC includes sipuleucel-T, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA/P), or chemotherapy with docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 wk. Cabazitaxel, AA/P, enzalutamide, and radium-223 are available for second-line treatment of CRPC following docetaxel. Zoledronic acid and denosumab can be used in men with CRPC and osseous metastases to prevent skeletal-related complications. The guidelines reported should be adhered to in daily routine to improve the quality of care in PCa patients. As we have shown recently, guideline compliance is only in the area of 30-40%. © 2013 European Association of Urology. Source


Heidenreich A.,RWTH Aachen | Bellmunt J.,University of the Sea | Bolla M.,C.H.U. Grenoble | Joniau S.,University Hospital Gasthuisberg | And 7 more authors.
European Urology | Year: 2011

Objective: Our aim was to present a summary of the 2010 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised cancer of the prostate (PCa). Methods: The working panel performed a literature review of the new data emerging from 2007 to 2010. The guidelines were updated, and level of evidence and grade of recommendation were added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews. Results: A full version is available at the EAU office or Web site (www.uroweb.org). Current evidence is insufficient to warrant widespread population-based screening by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for PCa. A systematic prostate biopsy under ultrasound guidance and local anaesthesia is the preferred diagnostic method. Active surveillance represents a viable option in men with low-risk PCa and a long life expectancy. PSA doubling time in <3 yr or a biopsy progression indicates the need for active intervention. In men with locally advanced PCa in whom local therapy is not mandatory, watchful waiting (WW) is a treatment alternative to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with equivalent oncologic efficacy. Active treatment is mostly recommended for patients with localised disease and a long life expectancy with radical prostatectomy (RP) shown to be superior to WW in a prospective randomised trial. Nerve-sparing RP represents the approach of choice in organ-confined disease; neoadjuvant androgen deprivation demonstrates no improvement of outcome variables. Radiation therapy should be performed with at least 74 Gy and 78 Gy in low-risk and intermediate/high-risk PCa, respectively. For locally advanced disease, adjuvant ADT for 3 yr results in superior disease-specific and overall survival rates and represents the treatment of choice. Follow-up after local therapy is largely based on PSA, and a disease-specific history with imaging is indicated only when symptoms occur. Conclusions: The knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice. © 2010 European Association of Urology. Source


Reid T.D.,University of Wales | Chan D.S.Y.,University of Wales | Roberts S.A.,University of Wales | Crosby T.D.L.,Velindre Hospital | And 2 more authors.
British Journal of Cancer | Year: 2012

Background:The optimum multimodal treatment for oesophageal cancer, and the prognostic significance of histopathological tumour involvement of the circumferential resection margin (CRM+) are uncertain. The aims of this study were to determine the prognostic significance of CRM+ after oesophagectomy and to identify endosonographic (endoluminal ultrasonography (EUS)) features that predict a threatened CRM+.Methods:Two hundred and sixty-nine consecutive patients underwent potentially curative oesophagectomy (103 surgery alone, 124 neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CS) and 42 chemoradiotherapy (CRTS)). Primary outcome measures were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).Results:CRM+ was reported in 98 (38.0%) of all, and in 90 (62.5%) of pT3 patients. Multivariate analysis of pathological factors revealed: lymphovascular invasion (HR 2.087, 95% CI 1.396-3.122, P<0.0001), CRM+ (HR 1.762, 95% CI 1.201-2.586, P=0.004) and lymph node metastasis count (HR 1.563, 95% CI 1.018-2.400, P=0.041) to be independently and significantly associated with DFS. Lymphovascular invasion (HR 2.160, 95% CI 1.432-3.259, P=0.001) and CRM+ (HR 1.514, 95% CI 1.000-2.292, P=0.050) were also independently and significantly associated with OS. Multivariate analysis revealed EUS T stage (T3 or T4, OR 24.313, 95% CI 7.438-79.476, P<0.0001) and use or not of CRTS (OR 0.116, 95% CI 0.035-0.382, P<0.0001) were independently and significantly associated with CRM+.Conclusion:A positive CRM was a better predictor of DFS and OS than standard pTNM stage. © 2012 Cancer Research UK All rights reserved. Source


Heidenreich A.,RWTH Aachen | Bastian P.J.,Klinikum Golzheim | Bellmunt J.,University of the Sea | Bolla M.,C.H.U. Grenoble | And 7 more authors.
European Urology | Year: 2014

Context The most recent summary of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on prostate cancer (PCa) was published in 2011. Objective To present a summary of the 2013 version of the EAU guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically organ-confined PCa. Evidence acquisition A literature review of the new data emerging from 2011 to 2013 has been performed by the EAU PCa guideline group. The guidelines have been updated, and levels of evidence and grades of recommendation have been added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews. Evidence synthesis A full version of the guidelines is available at the EAU office or online (www.uroweb.org). Current evidence is insufficient to warrant widespread population-based screening by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for PCa. Systematic prostate biopsies under ultrasound guidance and local anesthesia are the preferred diagnostic method. Active surveillance represents a viable option in men with low-risk PCa and a long life expectancy. A biopsy progression indicates the need for active intervention, whereas the role of PSA doubling time is controversial. In men with locally advanced PCa for whom local therapy is not mandatory, watchful waiting (WW) is a treatment alternative to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), with equivalent oncologic efficacy. Active treatment is recommended mostly for patients with localized disease and a long life expectancy, with radical prostatectomy (RP) shown to be superior to WW in prospective randomized trials. Nerve-sparing RP is the approach of choice in organ-confined disease, while neoadjuvant ADT provides no improvement in outcome variables. Radiation therapy should be performed with ≥74 Gy in low-risk PCa and 78 Gy in intermediate- or high-risk PCa. For locally advanced disease, adjuvant ADT for 3 yr results in superior rates for disease-specific and overall survival and is the treatment of choice. Follow-up after local therapy is largely based on PSA and a disease-specific history, with imaging indicated only when symptoms occur. Conclusions Knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarize the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice. Patient summary A summary is presented of the 2013 EAU guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer (PCa). Screening continues to be done on an individual basis, in consultation with a physician. Diagnosis is by prostate biopsy. Active surveillance is an option in low-risk PCa and watchful waiting is an alternative to androgen-deprivation therapy in locally advanced PCa not requiring immediate local treatment. Radical prostatectomy is the only surgical option. Radiation therapy can be external or delivered by way of prostate implants. Treatment follow-up is based on the PSA level. © 2013 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Source

Discover hidden collaborations