Search

Aims: To describe the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and disease-specific mortality in the prospective prostate cancer GESCAP cohort, as well as the progression to castration resistance in patients on hormone therapy., Material and Methods: Prospective, observational, epidemiological, multicentre study. Of the 4087 patients recruited, 3843 were evaluable. The variables analysed were the risk group (localized, locally advanced, lymph involvement, metastatic), age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, Gleason score and initial treatment. Kaplan Meier survival analysis, the log-rank test and the Cox model were used to evaluate the survival data., Results: Three-year PFS was 81.4% and OS was 92.4%. During the 3 years of follow-up, 303 patients died (7.9%), 110 of them (36.3%) due to disease-related causes. The probability of castration resistance for all patients on hormone therapy (n=715) was 14.2%: 5%, 9.9%, 26.1% and 44.4% in localized, locally advanced, lymph involvement and metastatic cancer, respectively (log-rank P<.0001). Patients with metastases had poorer outcomes with respect to PFS, OS, disease-specific mortality and castration resistance. In the multivariate analysis, the Gleason score, PSA and presence of metastases were associated with shorter OS and PFS., Conclusions: Our study showed stratification of risk, with a more unfavourable prognosis for patients with metastases. Patients with locally advanced disease differed with respect to those with localized disease due to their higher risk as regards disease-specific mortality. (Controlled-trials.com ISRCTN19893319)., (Copyright © 2018 AEU. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To review the various methods to predict the risk of having prostate cancer, or that localized disease may be cured or progress after a given treatment., Methods: We performed a review of the various mathematic models known for the probability analysis of the event, with a critical analysis of weaknesses and strengths of each method. In a Medline update we review the most relevant papers referred to diagnosis and management of localized prostate cancer in its diagnosis and management sides, as well as the probability of developing metastatic disease and to die., Results: There are multiple methods and models to predict the various events in a patient candidate to diagnosis of prostate cancer, as well as to analyze the possibilities of success of a specific treatment, in many cases with an important exactness. We emphasize the heterogeneity in the methods, data and variables used for the analysis, basically about retrospective studies. Many of the most sophisticated methods, Neural Network or cart, do not present greater exactness than classic methods like logistic regression., Conclusions: Predictive models are an important element for decision making in usual clinical practice, favoring the decision of a diagnosis or certain treatment is not taken in a random manner and therefore it is taken following scientific criteria. Waiting for more precise methods, we have to know no method is perfect, and therefore it is an important tool, which should not by pass personal knowledge or the experience of a specific working group.

Introduction: prostate cancer is the most frequent tumor in males. The use of PSA contributes to diagnose tumors with low stage. Radical Prostatectomy (R.P.) is the gold standard to treat this tumor; however such is not exempt of risks. Different technical modifications like minimal incisions minilaparotomy "minilap" had contributed to improve results. We review our experience with Minilap on patients underwent a RP., Material and Methods: Between April 1997 and September 2005 carry out 110 RP with Minilap technique. All cases were performed with minimal incision 7-8 cm of length. We use and specific retractor developed in our hospital. Median age at time of surgery was 65 (47-79). Clinical stage in 39 (35.4%) were T1c, 64 (58.3%) T2 and 7 (6.3%) T3. Sixty eight percent were Gleason score < or =6, 34(30.9%) 7 and 1 (0.9%) Gleason 8., Results: In 86 cases (38.5%) pathological stage were pT2, 21 (19%) pT3, 1 (0.9%) pT4 and 2 (1.8%) pT0. Nine patients (8%) had postoperative complications. No re-interventions were necessary and 101 (90%) were discharge without per operatives complications. Mean length of stay was 4 days and 97 (88.8%) of patients were discharge with only five days length of stay. Urinary continence rate with a year like minimal follow up is 92.3% and 40% preserve sexual activity., Conclusions: Minimal invasive techniques like minilap can be done in regular form with good results and without long learning curve.

Objectives: To establish the prevalence of incidental prostate cancer after transrectal ultrasound guided prostatic biopsy and subsequent suprapubic prostatic adenomectomy and to compare it with a similar group of patients who did not underwent biopsy before surgery. To evaluate treatment, outcomes, and disease progression in patients with incidental prostate cancer., Methods: Retrospective study of 549 suprapubic adenomectomy performed between 1996-2001 (6 yr.), comparing the group of patients with biopsies before surgery vs. the group of patients without biopsies., Results: 291 (53%) patients did not undergo biopsy before adenomectomy. 258 (47%) underwent biopsies. 25 incidental prostate cancers were detected, 19 (76%) in the group of no biopsy and 6 (24%) in the biopsy group. 88% pT1a and 12%pT1b. Mean Gleason score 4.5 (3-7). 84% of the patients did not receive treatment (21) ("wait and see"); 8% (2) androgen blockade; 8% (2) finasteride (2). Three patients (12%) in the group of no biopsy had disease progression. Mean follow-up was 48.1 months (22-96). No case of cancer-specific mortality was detected., Conclusions: Global prevalence of incidental prostate cancer in our series of patients undergoing suprapubic prostatic adenomectomy was 4.55%. Prevalence was higher in the group of patients without previous biopsy (3.46%) than in the biopsy group (1.09%). Tumor progression was 12% and cancer specific survival 100% after a mean follow-up of 48.1 months (22-92). Previous prostatic biopsy in patients with suspicions digital rectal examination or elevated PSA diminishes the prevalence of incidental prostate cancer. Watchful waiting may be a valid option in some cases.

Penile metastases from prostate carcinoma are uncommon events, much more in urethra and corpus spongiosum, we add a case to the preexisting literature. A patient with hormone resistant prostate cancer consults for haematuria and voiding difficulties. During TURP we observe tumors at the penile urethra which are resected and result to be prostate cancer metastases. Patient is fine and without voiding disturbance after 7 months of following. We think is an interesant case because there is few reports in literature.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of complete androgen deprivation in downstaging advanced localized prostate cancer prior to radical prostatectomy. The study evaluated positive margins, prostate volume, PSA and histological changes., Methods: We evaluated 22 patients with stage T2 (13 pts, 59%) and T3 (13 pts, 59%) prostate cancer treated with complete androgen deprivation for at least 3 months prior to radical prostatectomy., Results: PSA levels dropped in 97% (51.1-1.4 ng/dl) after treatment (p < 0.001); 20 (90%) had PSA < 3 ng/dl, including 3 cases (14%) with positive nodes; 2 cases (9%) with pT2 tumor had PSA > 3 ng/ml. The mean prostate volume dropped 33% from 52.6 to 35.2 cc (p < 0.001). Of the 22 cases, only one T2 (4%) was staged down; 10 (45.5%) had positive margins versus 17 (53%) of the control group (p > 0.05). The Gleason score increased in 19 (86%) and 90% had cytoplasmic vacuolization and pyknosis with moderate nuclear lysis in 50%., Conclusion: Neoadjuvant treatment significantly reduces PSA levels and prostate volume. The decrease in PSA levels, however, does not appear to have a direct correlation with the final pathologic stage. Tumor stage changed slightly in patients with T2 tumors and no response was observed in those with T3. Patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy had a slight advantage with respect to positive margins. The histological findings were suggestive of cellular lysis.

Transitional cell carcinoma of bladder coexisting with prostate adenocarcinoma is one of the most common tumor associations and accounts for 1.1% of all bladder and prostate tumors seen at our setting. The cases observed (13) were far greater than those expected (2.62) relative to the number of patients studied, length of follow-up, and the incidence rate for both tumor types (p less than 0.001). Superficial bladder tumors were treated with TUR combined with intravesical chemotherapy, whereas deep tumors were submitted to radical surgery when patient condition permitted, otherwise resorting to adjunctive chemotherapy. For prostate tumors, the treatment of choice was TUR plus adjunctive hormone therapy by subalbuginea orchidectomy and/or oral anti-androgen agents, except for A1 tumors or those where radiotherapy formed part of the treatment regimen for bladder cancer. No coadjuvant hormone therapy was instituted in this latter case. A clear correlation (77% for superficial and 50% for deep bladder tumors) was observed between the adjusted 5-year survival rate and tumor stage. For prostate tumors this was 100, 50 and 0% for stages A, B and C-D, respectively. The 5-year survival rate for the 13 cases was 71%. The mean survival was 62 and 20 months for superficial and deep bladder tumors, respectively, and 72, 40 and 35 months for tumor stage A, B and C-D, respectively.

We report on a 52-year old male with simultaneous bilateral adrenal metastases from renal adenocarcinoma. The patient was submitted to radical nephrectomy, including the ipsilateral adrenal, and contralateral adrenalectomy, and received coadjuvant steroid replacement therapy. The patient died 11 months post-operatively. Similar cases previously reported in the literature are reviewed.