Search

Background. Radical prostatectomy (RP) is worldwide probably the most common procedure to treat localized prostate cancer (PC). Due to a more widespread use of Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) testing, patients operated today are often younger and have organ confined disease justifying a more preservative surgery. At the same time, surgical technique has improved resulting in lower risk of permanent side-effects. This paper aims to give an overview of results from modern surgery regarding cancer control and side-effects. A brief overview of the history is given. Material and Methods. A literature research identified recently published papers focusing on outcome and side-effects after RP. Results. One large randomized study (SPCG-4) compared RP and watchful waiting (WW). The study showed that RP was superior to WW in preventing local progression (RR 0.36), distant metastasis (RR 0.65) and death from PC (RR 0.65). Observational studies also show a better outcome for men treated with RP compared to WW. Peri-operative mortality after RP is low in most material around 0.1%. The risk of stricture of the vesico-urethral anastomosis has decreased with improved technique from historically 10-20% to a low incidence of around 2-9% today. Also the risk of incontinence has declined with improved technique. However, while the rates of severe incontinence is usually very low, as many as 30% still report light incontinence after long-term follow-up. Erectile dysfunction (ED) is still a frequent side-effect after RP. This risk is dependent on age, pre-operative sexual function, surgical technique and other risk factors for ED such as smoking, diabetes, etc. In selected subgroups the risk of ED is low. Inguinal hernia is a more recently described complication after open retropubic RP with a post-operative incidence of 15-20% within three years of surgery. Conclusion. RP is an effective method to achieve cancer control in selected patients. With modern technique it is a safe procedure with a low risk of permanent side-effects except for ED. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. There are no established treatments for cachexia. Recently it has been suggested that the evidence for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) treatment is sufficient to support its regular clinical use. Primary objective in this systematic review was to assess efficacy and safety of NSAID treatment in improving body weight and muscle mass in patients with cancer cachexia. Secondary objectives were to assess whether this treatment could improve other cachexia domains such as anorexia and food intake, catabolic drive and function. Material and methods. A systematic literature review of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central register of controlled trials database was carried out using both text words and MeSH/EMTREE terms. Results. Thirteen studies were included; all but two trials showed either improvement or stabilization in weight or lean body mass. Seven studies were without a comparator. Studies are generally small and a few are methodologically flawed, often due to multiple outcomes with excess risk of false positives. Conclusion. NSAIDs may improve weight in cancer patients with cachexia, and there is some evidence on effect on physical performance, self-reported quality of life and inflammatory parameters. Evidence is too frail to recommend NSAID for cachexia outside clinical trials. This is supported by the known side effects of NSAIDs, even though the reviewed literature report almost negligible toxicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]