I Henríquez1, A Rodríguez-Antolín2, J Cassinello3, C Gonzalez San Segundo4, M Unda5, E Gallardo6, J López-Torrecilla7, A Juarez8, J Arranz9. 1. Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario of Sant Joan, Institute d'Investigació Sanitaria Pere Virgili (IISPV), Josep Laporte 2, 43204, Reus, Spain. ivanhenriquezlopez@me.com. 2. Urology Department, 12 de Octubre University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. 3. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Spain. 4. Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain. 5. Urology Department, Hospital Barakaldo, Bilbao, Spain. 6. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Parc Taulí, Sabadell, Spain. 7. Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Eresa, Valencia, Spain. 8. Urology Department, Hospital Cádiz, Andalucía, Spain. 9. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most prevalent malignancy in men and the second cause of mortality in industrialized countries. METHODS: Based on Spanish Register of PCa, the incidence of high-risk PCa is 29%, approximately. In spite of the evidence-based beneficial effect of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy in high-risk PCa, these patients (pts) are still a therapeutic challenge for all specialists involved, in part due to the absence of comparative studies to establish which of the present disposable treatments offer better results. RESULTS: Nowadays, high-risk PCa definition is not well consensual through the published oncology guides. Clinical stage, tumour grade, and number of risk factors are relevant to be considered on PCa prognosis. However, these factors are susceptible to change depending on when surgical or radiation therapy is considered to be the treatment of choice. Other factors, such as reference pathologist, different diagnosis biopsy schedules, surgical or radiotherapy techniques, adjuvant treatments, biochemical failures, and follow-up, make it difficult to compare the results between different therapeutic options. CONCLUSIONS: This article reviews important issues concerning high-risk PCa. URONCOR, GUO, and SOGUG on behalf of the Spanish Groups of Uro-Oncology Societies have reached a consensus addressing a practical recommendation on definition, diagnosis, and management of high-risk PCa.
PURPOSE:Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most prevalent malignancy in men and the second cause of mortality in industrialized countries. METHODS: Based on Spanish Register of PCa, the incidence of high-risk PCa is 29%, approximately. In spite of the evidence-based beneficial effect of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy in high-risk PCa, these patients (pts) are still a therapeutic challenge for all specialists involved, in part due to the absence of comparative studies to establish which of the present disposable treatments offer better results. RESULTS: Nowadays, high-risk PCa definition is not well consensual through the published oncology guides. Clinical stage, tumour grade, and number of risk factors are relevant to be considered on PCa prognosis. However, these factors are susceptible to change depending on when surgical or radiation therapy is considered to be the treatment of choice. Other factors, such as reference pathologist, different diagnosis biopsy schedules, surgical or radiotherapy techniques, adjuvant treatments, biochemical failures, and follow-up, make it difficult to compare the results between different therapeutic options. CONCLUSIONS: This article reviews important issues concerning high-risk PCa. URONCOR, GUO, and SOGUG on behalf of the Spanish Groups of Uro-Oncology Societies have reached a consensus addressing a practical recommendation on definition, diagnosis, and management of high-risk PCa.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chemotherapy; High-risk prostate cancer; Prostate cancer; Radiotherapy; Surgery
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Anders Bjartell; Stephen J Freedland; Brent K Hollenbeck; Jim C Hu; Shahrokh F Shariat; Maxine Sun; Andrew J Vickers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-04-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Stephen A Boorjian; R Jeffrey Karnes; Rosalia Viterbo; Laureano J Rangel; Eric J Bergstralh; Eric M Horwitz; Michael L Blute; Mark K Buyyounouski Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anthony L Zietman; Kyounghwa Bae; Jerry D Slater; William U Shipley; Jason A Efstathiou; John J Coen; David A Bush; Margie Lunt; Daphna Y Spiegel; Rafi Skowronski; B Rodney Jabola; Carl J Rossi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sophie D Fosså; Fredrik Wiklund; Olbjørn Klepp; Anders Angelsen; Arne Solberg; Jan-Erik Damber; Morten Hoyer; Anders Widmark Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-03-26 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Wilma D Heemsbergen; Abrahim Al-Mamgani; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Joos V Lebesque Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Malcolm D Mason; Wendy R Parulekar; Matthew R Sydes; Michael Brundage; Peter Kirkbride; Mary Gospodarowicz; Richard Cowan; Edmund C Kostashuk; John Anderson; Gregory Swanson; Mahesh K B Parmar; Charles Hayter; Gordana Jovic; Andrea Hiltz; John Hetherington; Jinka Sathya; James B P Barber; Michael McKenzie; Salah El-Sharkawi; Luis Souhami; P D John Hardman; Bingshu E Chen; Padraig Warde Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Claire L Vale; Sarah Burdett; Larysa H M Rydzewska; Laurence Albiges; Noel W Clarke; David Fisher; Karim Fizazi; Gwenaelle Gravis; Nicholas D James; Malcolm D Mason; Mahesh K B Parmar; Christopher J Sweeney; Matthew R Sydes; Bertrand Tombal; Jayne F Tierney Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-12-21 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: David P Dearnaley; Gordana Jovic; Isabel Syndikus; Vincent Khoo; Richard A Cowan; John D Graham; Edwin G Aird; David Bottomley; Robert A Huddart; Chakiath C Jose; John H L Matthews; Jeremy L Millar; Claire Murphy; J Martin Russell; Christopher D Scrase; Mahesh K B Parmar; Matthew R Sydes Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 41.316