Search

Background: Adjuvant hormone therapy (AHT) following radiotherapy or surgery is a treatment option frequently offered to men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We performed a systematic review of published randomised trials to assess the effectiveness of AHT., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, SCI, LILACS and SIGLE for randomised trials comparing AHT plus primary therapy (radiotherapy or prostatectomy) with primary therapy alone. Data on study design, participants interventions and outcomes were extracted from relevant studies and where possible pooled for meta-analysis., Findings: AHT following radiotherapy improved overall survival (at 5 years OR fixed effect model 1.29, 95% CI 1.07-1.56, p=0.007), disease-specific survival (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.53-2.88, p<0.00001) and disease-free survival (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.16-2.23, p<0.00001). A random effect model favoured adjuvant hormone therapy but did not reach significance. After prostatectomy, there was no significant overall survival advantage with AHT, although one study reported a significant improvement in disease-specific survival (HR 4.09, p=0.0004). Disease-free survival was also better with AHT (OR 3.73, 95% CI 2.30-6.03, p<0.00001). AHT-induced toxicities included gynaecomastia, impotence, gastrointestinal and haematological., Conclusions: There are significant clinical benefits associated with the use of AHT for early prostate cancer. Patients should make an informed decision to accept AHT based on its effectiveness and side-effects.

Background: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of neo-adjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) in localised and locally advanced prostate cancer to assess the effectiveness of this therapy., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, LILACS and SIGLE for randomised trials comparing NHT plus primary therapy (radiotherapy or prostatectomy) with primary therapy alone. Data included information on study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Comparable data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled for meta-analysis with intention to treat principle., Findings: NHT prior to prostatectomy did not improve overall or disease-free survival, but did significantly reduce positive margin rates (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.42-0.56, p<0.00001), organ confinement (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.37-1.95, p<0.0001) and lymph node invasion (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.42-0.56, p<0.02). In one study NHT before radiotherapy significantly improved overall survival for men with Gleason 2-6 (p=0.015). In addition, there was a significant improvement in both clinical disease-free survival (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.24-1.71, p<0.00001) and biochemical disease-free survival (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.00-2.55, p=0.05). Toxicities included hot flushes, gastrointestinal, hepatic and miscellaneous adverse events., Conclusions: NHT is associated with significant clinical benefit when given with radiotherapy and improves pathological outcome prior to prostatectomy but is of minimal value prior to radical prostatectomy. The decision to use hormone therapy should be discussed between the patient, the clinician and policy maker based on the benefits, toxicity and cost.

Context: The biologic potential of prostate cancer (pCA) is variable, and the ability to identify tumours that might cause morbidity and mortality is limited., Objective: This systematic review sought to establish whether measurement of tumour extent in biopsies provides additional prognostic information on the risk of disease progression., Evidence Acquisition: A comprehensive 31-step search strategy was run in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Web of Knowledge (January 1990-July 2007) and supplemented by the hand-searching of references in retrieved articles and relevant journals to identify publications related to the measurement of the length of cancer in biopsies and biochemical or clinical recurrence or pCA death. Thirteen papers reporting on at least 100 patients were identified and included patients treated by watchful waiting or hormonal therapy (n=1), radical prostatectomy (n=11), or radiotherapy (n=1). Only two studies reported on clinical progression or mortality. Sources of bias included patient selection and missing data resulting from the retrospective nature of the studies. Confounding factors included differences in biopsy strategies and measurement methods., Evidence Synthesis: The percentage of cancer in biopsies (overall percentage or the greatest percentage in the most involved core) was an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and clinical outcomes regardless of the form of treatment and was generally superior to simply counting the number of positive cores. The marked variability in study design, conduct, and reporting precluded meta-analysis of the data and precise risk estimation., Conclusions: Tumour quantitation is a promising prognostic tool in the assessment of risk of pCA progression. However, well-designed, population-based studies, controlling for confounding factors, are required to provide more accurate risk estimation and develop management strategies. This review highlights the need for new approaches in the assessment of pathologic prognostic factors to reach the level of evidence achieved in other areas of medical practice.

Clinically localized prostate cancer is associated with a wide variation in biologic behavior, and men with the less aggressive form of the disease may never develop symptoms. There has been a rise in prostate cancer incidence in countries in which the blood test for prostatic-specific antigen (PSA) is common, and concerns have been expressed that this may be because of the increased detection of indolent disease, subjecting these men to unnecessary treatment and associated side effects. For the current review, the authors conducted a systematic evaluation of the literature regarding the outcomes of men who were diagnosed on the basis of a small volume of cancer in prostatic biopsies. The results indicated that, despite differences in study design and reporting, a significant proportion of patients with microfocal cancer, regardless of how it was defined, had adverse pathologic findings and a significant risk of PSA recurrence after undergoing radical prostatectomy. Biochemical and clinical recurrences also were observed after radiotherapy or watchful waiting. The authors concluded that patients with microfocal carcinoma on biopsy should be advised that their disease is not necessarily "insignificant" and should be counseled accordingly.

The Gleason system for grading prostate cancer assigns a score on the basis of the most prevalent and second most prevalent grade. Several studies have investigated the clinical significance of a tertiary grade in radical prostatectomy samples. A systematic search of the published work identified seven studies that reported the prognostic value of a tertiary Gleason grade. Three studies correlated the presence of a tertiary grade with pathological stage, and six with prostate-specific antigen recurrence or clinical progression. In the small number of studies available, the frequency of a tertiary grade was consistently higher in samples characterised with pathological variables of poor outcome, such as extra-prostatic extension and positive surgical margins, but not lymph-node metastases. In five studies the presence of a tertiary grade increased the risk of prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy by a factor of 2.5. However, modification of the Gleason score to include a tertiary grade in Gleason 4+3 tumours might overestimate the risk of seminal-vesicle or lymph-node invasion. This systematic review has established the association of a tertiary grade with poorer outcome than that associated with no tertiary grade. A tertiary grade should, therefore, be included in the pathological reporting of prostate cancer and be considered in the interpretation and design of clinical trials. However, all studies assessed for this review were retrospective, potentially affected by selection bias, and based on radical prostatectomy samples or transurethral resections rather than biopsy samples. Therefore, more evidence is needed to warrant the adaptation of the Gleason system to account for the presence of a tertiary grade, especially when scoring prostatic biopsies and applying predictive algorithms.

Men with clinically localized prostate cancer are faced with a wide range of treatment options, and only Gleason grading is universally used as a histopathological prognostic factor for this disease. The significance of perineural invasion in diagnostic biopsies is controversial. Opinion about whether or not it should influence treatment decisions is currently almost equally divided. To address this, the authors performed a systematic review of studies that examine the association between perineural invasion and prostate cancer recurrence. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Knowledge were searched from January 1990 to December 2005. Outcomes analyzed were the development of biochemical or clinical recurrence. Twenty-one articles on the association of perineural invasion in biopsies and prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy (n = 10) or radiotherapy (n = 11) were found but none on its significance in the context of watchful waiting. Structured data extraction was performed to allow comparisons between articles and to identify sources of heterogeneity to explain discrepancies in results. The considerable variation in study design, execution, and reporting precluded meta-analysis and quantitative risk estimation, but the weight of evidence suggested that perineural invasion in biopsies was a significant prognostic indicator, particularly in specific patient groups defined by presenting serum prostate-specific antigen levels and biopsy Gleason scores. Immediate treatment rather than watchful waiting may be more appropriate for patients with localized prostatic cancer and perineural invasion. However, the data are limited, and well-designed studies that use predefined stringent protocols are required to provide robust estimates of risk to aid in treatment planning., ((c) 2006 American Cancer Society.)