Search

What explains income inequality, poverty and social exclusion? The pandemic is the cause? What role have neoliberal policies played? What did the policies of the "Washington Consensus" intend? Is there a crisis? What crisis are we talking about? Who benefited and who was harmed by the policies applied during the pandemic. Why? What exits are glimpsed? What lies ahead for the social movement? These are some of the questions that we answer in this work, which focuses on Panama, but not a few countries will be reflected. ¿Qué explica la desigualdad de ingresos, pobreza y exclusión social? ¿La pandemia es la causa? ¿Qué papel han jugado las políticas neoliberales? ¿Qué pretendían las políticas del «Consenso de Washington»? ¿Hay crisis? ¿De qué crisis se habla? ¿Las políticas aplicadas durante la pandemia, a quiénes beneficiaron y a quienes perjudicaron? ¿Por qué? ¿Qué salidas se vislumbran? ¿Qué le depara al movimiento social? Son algunas de las preguntas que respondemos en este trabajo, que se centra en Panamá, pero no pocos países se verán reflejados.

BACKGROUND: Between 1999 and 2009 in the United Kingdom, 82,429 men between 50 and 69 years of age received a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. Localized prostate cancer was diagnosed in 2664 men. Of these men, 1643 were enrolled in a trial to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, with 545 randomly assigned to receive active monitoring, 553 to undergo prostatectomy, and 545 to undergo radiotherapy. METHODS: At a median follow-up of 15 years (range, 11 to 21), we compared the results in this population with respect to death from prostate cancer (the primary outcome) and death from any cause, metastases, disease progression, and initiation of longterm androgen-deprivation therapy (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: Follow-up was complete for 1610 patients (98%). A risk-stratification analysis showed that more than one third of the men had intermediate or high-risk disease at diagnosis. Death from prostate cancer occurred in 45 men (2.7%): 17 (3.1%) in the active-monitoring group, 12 (2.2%) in the prostatectomy group, and 16 (2.9%) in the radiotherapy group (P=0.53 for the overall comparison). Death from any cause occurred in 356 men (21.7%), with similar numbers in all three groups. Metastases developed in 51 men (9.4%) in the active-monitoring group, in 26 (4.7%) in the prostatectomy group, and in 27 (5.0%) in the radiotherapy group. Long-term androgen-deprivation therapy was initiated in 69 men (12.7%), 40 (7.2%), and 42 (7.7%), respectively; clinical progression occurred in 141 men (25.9%), 58 (10.5%), and 60 (11.0%), respectively. In the active-monitoring group, 133 men (24.4%) were alive without any prostate cancer treatment at the end of follow-up. No differential effects on cancer-specific mortality were noted in relation to the baseline PSA level, tumor stage or grade, or risk-stratification score. No treatment complications were reported after the 10-year analysis. CONCLUSIONS: After 15 years of follow-up, prostate cancer–specific mortality was low regardless of the treatment assigned. Thus, the choice of therapy involves weighing trade-offs between benefits and harms associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research; ProtecT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172.)

OBJECTIVES: The ProtecT (Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) trial randomised 1,643 men with localised prostate cancer (PCa) to active monitoring, radical prostatectomy or radical radiotherapy. At 10-year median follow-up there were no differences in mortality between groups, but men receiving radical treatment had their disease progression reduced by half. We tested the hypothesis that the baseline clinico-pathological features of men who progressed (n=198) were different from those with stable disease (n=1,409).PATIENTS AND METHODS: We stratified the participants' cohort at baseline according to risk of progression using clinical disease stage, pathological grade and PSA, using Cox proportional hazard models.RESULTS: The findings demonstrated that 34% (n=505) of men had intermediate or high-risk disease, and 66% (n=973) had low-risk PCa. Of 198 men who progressed, 101 (51%) had baseline International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group 1, 59 (30%) Grade Group 2, and 38 (19%) Grade Group 3 PCa, compared with 79%, 17% and 5% respectively for 1,409 men without progression (pCONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that one-third of the ProtecT cohort consists of intermediate / high risk disease, and the outcomes data at an average of 10-years follow-up are generalisable beyond men with low-risk PCa.

IMPORTANCE Prostate cancer screening remains controversial because potential mortality or quality-of-life benefits may be outweighed by harms from overdetection and overtreatment. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of a single prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening intervention and standardized diagnostic pathway on prostate cancer-specific mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP) included 419 582 men aged 50 to 69 years and was conducted at 573 primary care practices across the United Kingdom. Randomization and recruitment of the practices occurred between 2001 and 2009; patient follow-up ended on March 31, 2016. INTERVENTION An invitation to attend a PSA testing clinic and receive a single PSA test vs standard (unscreened) practice. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcome: prostate cancer-specific mortality at a median follow-up of 10 years. Prespecified secondary outcomes: diagnostic cancer stage and Gleason grade (range, 2-10; higher scores indicate a poorer prognosis) of prostate cancers identified, all-cause mortality, and an instrumental variable analysis estimating the causal effect of attending the PSA screening clinic. RESULTS Among 415 357 randomizedmen(mean [SD] age, 59.0[5.6] years), 189 386 in the intervention group and 219 439 in the control groupwere included in the analysis (n = 408 825; 98%). In the intervention group, 75 707 (40%)attended the PSAtesting clinic and 67 313 (36%) underwent PSAtesting. Of 64 436 with a valid PSAtest result, 6857 (11%) had a PSA level between 3 ng/mLand 19.9 ng/mL, ofwhom5850 (85%) had a prostate biopsy. After a median follow-up of 10 years, 549 (0.30 per 1000 person-years) died of prostate cancer in the intervention group vs 647 (0.31 per 1000 person-years) in the control group (rate difference, -0.013 per 1000 person-years [95%CI, -0.047 to0.022]; rate ratio [RR] ,0.96 [95%CI,0.85 to 1.08]; P = .50). The number diagnosed with prostate cancerwas higher in the intervention group (n = 8054; 4.3%) than in the control group (n = 7853; 3.6%) (RR, 1.19 [95%CI, 1.14 to 1.25] ; P < .001). More prostate cancer tumors with a Gleason grade of 6 or lowerwere identified in the intervention group (n = 3263/189 386 [1.7%]) than in the control group (n = 2440/219 439 [1.1%] ) (difference per 1000 men, 6.11 [95%CI, 5.38 to 6.84]; P < .001). In the analysis of all-cause mortality, therewere 25 459 deaths in the intervention group vs 28 306 deaths in the control group (RR,0.99 [95%CI,0.94 to 1.03]; P = .49). In the instrumental variable analysis for prostate cancer mortality, the adherence-adjusted causal RRwas0.93 (95%CI,0.67 to 1.29; P = .66). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among practices randomized to a single PSA screening intervention vs standard practice without screening, there was no significant difference in prostate cancer mortality after a median follow-up of 10 years but the detection of low-risk prostate cancer cases increased. Although longer-term follow-up is under way, the findings do not support single PSA testing for population-based screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN92187251.

Objective. The aim of the review was to compare the use of finasteride to placebo in patients undergoing TURP procedures. Material & Methods. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966–November 2011), EMBASE (1980–November 2011), CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar, reference lists of articles, and abstracts from conference proceedings without language restriction for studies comparing finasteride to placebo patients needing TURPs. Results. Four randomised controlled trials were included comparing finasteride to a placebo. A meta-analysis was not conducted due to the disparity present in the results between the studies. Three of the studies found that finasteride could reduce either intra- or postoperative bleeding after TURP. One study found finasteride to significantly lower the microvessel density (MVD) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). None of the studies reported any long-term complications related to either the medication or the procedure. Conclusion. finasteride reduces bleeding either during or after TURP.