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 74Gy and 78Gy 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.
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 74Gy and 78Gy 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.
Authors: Louis-Olivier Gagnon; S Larry Goldenberg; Kenny Lynch; Antonio Hurtado; Martin E Gleave Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Livia Maccio; Valeria Barresi; Federica Domati; Eugenio Martorana; Anna Maria Cesinaro; Mario Migaldi; Francesco Iachetta; Antonio Ieni; Luca Reggiani Bonetti Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2016-02-13 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Neal D Shore; Matthew P Morrow; Trevor McMullan; Kimberly A Kraynyak; Albert Sylvester; Khamal Bhatt; Jocelyn Cheung; Jean D Boyer; Li Liu; Brian Sacchetta; Samantha Rosencranz; Elizabeth I Heath; Luke Nordquist; Heather H Cheng; Scott T Tagawa; Leonard J Appleman; Ronald Tutrone; Jorge A Garcia; Young E Whang; W Kevin Kelly; David B Weiner; Mark L Bagarazzi; Jeffrey M Skolnik Journal: Mol Ther Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 11.454
Authors: Daniel Baumunk; Roman Reunkoff; Julien Kushner; Alexandra Baumunk; Carsten Kempkensteffen; Ursula Steiner; Steffen Weikert; Lutz Moser; Mark Schrader; Stefan Höcht; Thomas Wiegel; Kurt Miller; Martin Schostak Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-08-05 Impact factor: 2.796