Search

01 juli 2023, Item does not contain fulltext, CONTEXT: The optimal management for men with prostate cancer (PCa) with unconventional histology (UH) is unknown. The outcome for these cancers might be worse than for conventional PCa and so different approaches may be needed. OBJECTIVE: To compare oncological outcomes for conventional and UH PCa in men with localized disease treated with curative intent. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review adhering to the Referred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022296013) was performed in July 2021. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We screened 3651 manuscripts and identified 46 eligible studies (reporting on 1 871 814 men with conventional PCa and 6929 men with 10 different PCa UHs). Extraprostatic extension and lymph node metastases, but not positive margin rates, were more common with UH PCa than with conventional tumors. PCa cases with cribriform pattern, intraductal carcinoma, or ductal adenocarcinoma had higher rates of biochemical recurrence and metastases after radical prostatectomy than for conventional PCa cases. Lower cancer-specific survival rates were observed for mixed cribriform/intraductal and cribriform PCa. By contrast, pathological findings and oncological outcomes for mucinous and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like PCa were similar to those for conventional PCa. Limitations of this review include low-quality studies, a risk of reporting bias, and a scarcity of studies that included radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Intraductal, cribriform, and ductal UHs may have worse oncological outcomes than for conventional and mucinous or PIN-like PCa. Alternative treatment approaches need to be evaluated in men with these cancers. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the literature to explore whether prostate cancers with unconventional growth patterns behave differently to conventional prostate cancers. We found that some unconventional growth patterns have worse outcomes, so we need to investigate if they nee

Introduction & Objectives: Antibiotic prophylaxis are administered as a routine to decrease the risk for septic complications following transrectal prostate biopsy. Fosfomycin administered 1 h or more prior to biopsy has equal or better infectious complication rates as compared to Ciprofloxacin in both prospective and retrospective studies from countries with high rates of antibiotic resistance. The aim of this study was to investigate if Fosfomycin administered immediately prior to prostate biopsy was as effective as Ciprofloxacin in Sweden, a country with low rates of antibiotic resistance. Materials & Methods: A randomized, controlled, open, multicenter, non-inferiority-study including men of all ages undergoing transrectal prostate biopsy was performed in the urology departments of three Swedish hospitals. The total number of patients were planned for 3448, divided into low and high infection risk groups. The low-risk group was randomized to either one dose of Fosfomycin 3g or Ciprofloxacin 750mg before biopsy. The high-risk group was randomized to either two doses of Fosfomycin 3g prior to biopsy and one more 24 h after biopsy or Ciprofloxacin 500mg once prior to biopsy and then twice daily for three days. The drugs were administered orally. All patients had a rectal swab for culture before and after biopsy. The endpoint was hospitalisation due to urinary tract infection within 14 days from biopsy, follow-up was performed with a phone interview. Results: The safety board prematurely interrupted the study after 42 included patients due to an unusual high number of hospitalisations. Four out of 20 patients (20%), three in the low-risk group and one in the high-risk group, had been hospitalised due to urosepsis in the Fosfomycin group. One further patient described fever symptoms but did not seek health care. No patient in the Ciprofloxacin group (n=21) described symptoms of infection from the urinary tract. One patient was lost to follow-up. A one-sided b

PURPOSE: The demand for objective and outcome-based facts about surgical results after radical prostatectomy (RP) is increasing. Systematic feedback is also essential for each surgeon to improve his/her performance. METHODS: RP outcome data (e.g., pT-stage and margin status) have been registered at Sahlgrenska University Hospital (SUH) since 1988 and patient-related outcome measures (PROM) have been registered since 2001. The National Prostate Cancer Registry (NPCR) has covered all Regions in Sweden since 1998 and includes PROM-data from 2008. Initially PROM was on-paper questionnaires but due since 2018 all PROMs are collected electronically. In 2014 an on-line "dashboard" panel was introduced, showing the results for ten quality-control variables in real-time. Since 2017 all RP data on hospital, regional, and national levels are publicly accessible on-line on " www.npcr.se/RATTEN ". RESULTS: The early PROM-data from SUH have been used for internal quality control. As national clinical and PROM-data from the NPCR have been made accessible on-line and in real-time we have incorporated this into our pre-existing protocol. Our data are now internally available as real-time NPCR reports on the individual surgeons' results, as well as ePROM data. We can compare the results of each surgeon internally and to other departments' aggregated data. The public can access data and compare hospital level data on "RATTEN". CONCLUSIONS: The process of quality control of RP locally at SUH, and nationally through the NPCR, has been long but fruitful. The online design, with direct real-time feedback to the institutions that report the data, is essential.

Objective: To describe study design and procedures for a prospective randomized trial investigating whether radical prostatectomy (RP) ± radiation improves cause-specific survival in comparison with primary radiation treatment (RT) and androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPC). Materials and methods: SPCG-15 is a prospective, multi-centre, open randomized phase III trial. Patients are randomized to either standard (RT + ADT) or experimental (RP with extended pelvic lymph-node dissection and with addition of adjuvant or salvage RT and/or ADT if deemed necessary) treatment. Each centre follows guidelines regarding the timing and dosing of postoperative RT and adjuvant treatment such as ADT The primary endpoint is cause-specific survival. Secondary endpoints include metastasis-free and overall survival, quality-of-life, functional outcomes and health-services requirements. Each subject will be followed up for a minimum of 10 years. Results: Twenty-three centres in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, well established in performing RP and RT for prostate cancer participated. Each country’s sites were coordinated by national coordinating investigators and sub-investigators for urology and oncology. Almost 400 men have been randomized of the stipulated 1200, with an increasing rate of accrual. Conclusions: The SPCG-15 trial aims to compare the two curatively intended techniques supplying new knowledge to support future decisions in treatment strategies for patients with LAPC The Scandinavian healthcare context is well suited for performing multi-centre long-term prospective randomized clinical trials. Similar care protocols and a history of entirely tax-funded healthcare facilitate joint trials.

Objective: To describe study design and procedures for a prospective randomized trial investigating whether radical prostatectomy (RP) ± radiation improves cause-specific survival in comparison with primary radiation treatment (RT) and androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPC). Materials and methods: SPCG-15 is a prospective, multi-centre, open randomized phase III trial. Patients are randomized to either standard (RT + ADT) or experimental (RP with extended pelvic lymph-node dissection and with addition of adjuvant or salvage RT and/or ADT if deemed necessary) treatment. Each centre follows guidelines regarding the timing and dosing of postoperative RT and adjuvant treatment such as ADT The primary endpoint is cause-specific survival. Secondary endpoints include metastasis-free and overall survival, quality-of-life, functional outcomes and health-services requirements. Each subject will be followed up for a minimum of 10 years. Results: Twenty-three centres in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, well established in performing RP and RT for prostate cancer participated. Each country’s sites were coordinated by national coordinating investigators and sub-investigators for urology and oncology. Almost 400 men have been randomized of the stipulated 1200, with an increasing rate of accrual. Conclusions: The SPCG-15 trial aims to compare the two curatively intended techniques supplying new knowledge to support future decisions in treatment strategies for patients with LAPC The Scandinavian healthcare context is well suited for performing multi-centre long-term prospective randomized clinical trials. Similar care protocols and a history of entirely tax-funded healthcare facilitate joint trials.