Multidisciplinary consensus document on the current treatment of bacille Calmette-Guérin-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder tumor.

Radical cystectomy is the current treatment of choice for patients with BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder tumor (NMIBC). However, the high comorbidity of this surgery and its effects on the quality of life of patients require the investigation and implementation of bladder-sparing treatment options. These must be evaluated individually by the uro-oncology committee based on the characteristics of the BCG failure, type of tumor, patient preferences and treatment options available in each center. Based on FDA-required oncologic outcomes (6-month complete response rate for CIS: 50%; duration of response in responders for CIS and papillary: 30% at 12 months and 25% at 18 months), there is not currently a strong preference for one treatment over another, although the intravesical route seems to offer less toxicity. This work summarizes the evidence on the management of BCG-unresponsive NMIBC based on current scientific evidence and provides consensus recommendations on the most appropriate treatment.

Current treatments for BCG failure in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). / Tratamientos actuales tras fracaso a BCG en cáncer de vejiga no músculo-invasivo.

The treatment of choice for high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG). However, when this fails, the indicated treatment is radical cystectomy. In recent years, trials are being developed with various drugs to avoid this surgery in patients with BCG failure. The aim of this article is to update the treatments under study for bladder preservation in this patient population. Non-systematic review, searching PubMed with the terms "Bladder cancer", "Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer", "NMIBC", "BCG", "BCG-refractory", "Mitomycin C", "MMC", "Hyperthermia", "Electromotive Drug Administration", "EMDA". We used the search engines clinicaltrials.gov and clinicaltrialsregister.eu to find clinical trials. The only intravesical drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for carcinoma in situ (CIS) after failure to BCG is Valrubicin. Recently, the FDA has approved intravenous Pembrolizumab, following the publication of preliminary data from the KEYNOTE-057 study. Atezolizumab has demonstrated similar preliminary efficacy results. Only microwave-induced chemohyperthermia and EMDA-MMC (Electromotive Drug Administration) are recognized as alternatives in European guidelines. Other options under investigation are taxanes and gemcitabine, alone or in combination, recombinant viruses and device-assisted intravesical chemohyperthermia. The results of new drugs are promising, with a large number of trials underway. Knowing the mechanisms of resistance to BCG is essential to explore new therapeutic options.

EAU-ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer-an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees†.

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach.

Undetectable PSA after radical prostatectomy is more likely in low burden N+ prostate cancer patients when an extended lymph node dissection is performed. / Frecuencia de PSA indetectable en pacientes con cáncer de próstata N+ baja carga tras prostatectomía radical y linfadenectomía ampliada.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the likelihood of undetectable PSA (< 0.01 ng/mL) after extended (ePLND) versus standard pelvic lymph-nodes dissection (sPLND) in pN+ patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional prospectively maintained Prostate Cancer Database was queried for patients who underwent radical prostatectomy with PLND and were found with 3or less lymph-nodal metastases between 2007 and 2017. The extension of the PLND was defined according to the number of lymph-nodes (LN) removed. Patients in the 75th or higher percentile of lymph-nodes removed were considered as the ePLND group; patients in the 25th or lower percentile in the sPLND group. Groups were compared in clinical and pathological variables. Student T-test was used for comparing continuous variables; chi-square test was used for categorical variables. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the probability of undetectable PSA at 3rd month postoperatively. Kaplan-Meier method estimated the probability of biochemical recurrence. Differences between the groups were compared by Log-rank test. RESULTS: 1478 patients were treated within the time span considered. 95 with 1 to 3 lymph-nodal metastases were extracted. After accounting for inclusion criteria, 23 patients with a median of 11 LN removed were included in the sPLND group (25th percentile); 23 patients with > 27 LN were included in ePLND group (75th percentile). Surgical time was longer for ePLND. Sixteen patients (69.6%) who underwent ePLND had undetectable PSA postoperatively. At multivariable analysis, the probability of undetectable PSA at 3rd month was higher in patients who received an ePLND (HR=5.18; IC 95%=1.16-23.11; P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: ePLND is more likely to predict undetectable PSA at third month after radical prostatectomy, irrespective of disease characteristics.

Resultados oncológicos a largo plazo del tratamiento cáncer de próstata de alto riesgo mediante prostatectomía radical en un hospital oncológico / Long-term oncological results of treatment for high-risk prostate cancer using radical prostatectomy in a cancer hospital

Objetivos: Analizar los resultados oncológicos más relevantes en el tratamiento mediante prostatectomía radical (PR) en el cáncer de próstata de alto riesgo (CPAR) en un hospital oncológico. Material y métodos: Estudio retrospectivo descriptivo de las PR realizadas en nuestro centro desde 1986 a 2017 en CPAR para conocer como objetivo primario las supervivencia global (SG) y cáncer específica (SCE), y como objetivos secundarios las supervivencias libre de progresión bioquímica (SLPB), libre de progresión metastática (SLPM), la necesidad de tratamiento de rescate (SLTR), la necesidad de hormonoterapia (SLHT) y finalmente el desarrollo de cáncer de próstata resistente a la castración. Se realizan análisis de regresión de Cox para establecer modelos predictivos y conocer el peso de cada variable definitoria de alto riesgo. Resultados: Se realizaron 2.093 PR de las cuales 480 (22,9%) fueron en CPAR. La mediana de seguimiento de la serie global fue 79,57 meses (P25-75 37,92-135,16). No se realizó linfadenectomía (LDN) en el 6,5% de los casos, mientras que fue LDN obturatriz en 51,2% y extensa en 42,3%. La SG a 5, 10 y 15 años fue de 89,8% (IC 95%: 86,7-92,9%), 73,3% (IC 95%: 68-78,6%) y 51,4% (IC 95%: 43,8-59%). La SCE a 5, 10 y 15 años fue de 94,8% (IC 95%: 92,4-97,2%), 84,0% (IC 95%: 79,3-88,7%) y 75,5% (IC 95%: 68,8-82,2%) La SLPM a 5, 10 y 15 años fue de 87,4% (IC 95%: 84,1-90,7%), 72,2% (IC 95%: 66,7-77,7%) y 61,7% (IC 95%: 54,3-69,1%) respectivamente. Se requirió radioterapia de rescate en 120 pacientes de 477 analizados (25,1%) y 293/477 nunca han requerido hormonoterapia (61,4%). En relación con el uso de HT en los 93 pacientes pN1, 33 (35,5%) no la han necesitado. El tiempo desde la PR a la progresión bioquímica es la variable de mayor peso pronóstico para la SLPM, la SCE y la SG. Conclusiones: La PR más LDN extensa debería ser la primera maniobra terapéutica cuando es factible dentro de una estrategia multimodal. Es necesario un seguimiento mayor de la serie para validar la hipótesis de unos mejores resultados oncológicos basándose en una aplicación más precoz de la RT de rescate, una LDN extensa y los fármacos prolongadores de supervivencia en la fase de CPRC

Objectives: To analyse the most relevant oncologic results of treatment using radical prostatectomy (RP) for high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC) in a specialist cancer hospital. Material and methods: A descriptive retrospective study of RP was conducted at our centre from 1986 to 2017 on HRPC whose primary objective was to determine overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). The study's secondary objectives were to determine biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), rescue therapy-free survival (RTFS), hormone therapy-free survival (HTFS) and the development of castration-resistant prostate cancer. We performed a Cox regression analysis to establish predictive models and to better understand the weight of each variable that defines high risk. Results: A total of 2093 RPs were performed, 480 (22.9%) of which were for HRPC. The median follow-up for the overall series was 79.57 months (P25-75 37.92-135.16). Lymphadenectomy was not performed in 6.5% of the cases. The lymphadenectomy was of the obturator type in 51.2% of the cases and extended in 42.3%. Overall survival at 5, 10 and 15 years was 89.8% (95% CI 86.7-92.9%), 73.3% (95% CI 68-78.6%) and 51.4% (95% CI 43.8-59%), respectively. CSS at 5, 10 and 15 years was 94.8% (95% CI 92.4-97.2%), 84.0% (95% CI 79.3-88.7%) and 75.5% (95% CI 68.8-82.2%), respectively. MFS at 5, 10 and 15 years was 87.4% (95% CI 84.1-90.7%), 72.2% (95% CI 66.7-77.7%) and 61.7% (95% CI 54.3-69.1%), respectively. A total of 120 patients of 477 analysed (25.1%) required rescue radiation therapy, and 293/477 never required hormone therapy (61.4%). Of the 93 pN1 patients, 33 (35.5%) did not require hormone therapy. The time from RP to biochemical progression was the variable with the greatest prognostic weight for MFS, CSS and overall survival. Conclusions: RP plus extended lymphadenectomy should be the first therapeutic manoeuvre when feasible within a multimodal strategy. A longer follow-up of the series is needed to validate the hypothesis of better oncologic results based on the earlier implementation of rescue radiation therapy, extended lymphadenectomy and drugs that prolong survival in the CRPC phase

Methodology of a systematic review. / Metodología de una revisión sistemática.

CONTEXT: The objective of evidence-based medicine is to employ the best scientific information available to apply to clinical practice. Understanding and interpreting the scientific evidence involves understanding the available levels of evidence, where systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials are at the top of the levels-of-evidence pyramid. ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE: The review process should be well developed and planned to reduce biases and eliminate irrelevant and low-quality studies. The steps for implementing a systematic review include (i) correctly formulating the clinical question to answer (PICO), (ii) developing a protocol (inclusion and exclusion criteria), (iii) performing a detailed and broad literature search and (iv) screening the abstracts of the studies identified in the search and subsequently of the selected complete texts (PRISMA). SYNTHESIS OF THE EVIDENCE: Once the studies have been selected, we need to (v) extract the necessary data into a form designed in the protocol to summarise the included studies, (vi) assess the biases of each study, identifying the quality of the available evidence, and (vii) develop tables and text that synthesise the evidence. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic review involves a critical and reproducible summary of the results of the available publications on a particular topic or clinical question. To improve scientific writing, the methodology is shown in a structured manner to implement a systematic review.

Long-term oncological results of treatment for high-risk prostate cancer using radical prostatectomy in a cancer hospital. / Resultados oncológicos a largo plazo del tratamiento cáncer de próstata de alto riesgo mediante prostatectomía radical en un hospital oncológico.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the most relevant oncologic results of treatment using radical prostatectomy (RP) for high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC) in a specialist cancer hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A descriptive retrospective study of RP was conducted at our centre from 1986 to 2017 on HRPC whose primary objective was to determine overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). The study's secondary objectives were to determine biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), rescue therapy-free survival (RTFS), hormone therapy-free survival (HTFS) and the development of castration-resistant prostate cancer. We performed a Cox regression analysis to establish predictive models and to better understand the weight of each variable that defines high risk. RESULTS: A total of 2093 RPs were performed, 480 (22.9%) of which were for HRPC. The median follow-up for the overall series was 79.57 months (P25-75 37.92-135.16). Lymphadenectomy was not performed in 6.5% of the cases. The lymphadenectomy was of the obturator type in 51.2% of the cases and extended in 42.3%. Overall survival at 5, 10 and 15 years was 89.8% (95% CI 86.7-92.9%), 73.3% (95% CI 68-78.6%) and 51.4% (95% CI 43.8-59%), respectively. CSS at 5, 10 and 15 years was 94.8% (95% CI 92.4-97.2%), 84.0% (95% CI 79.3-88.7%) and 75.5% (95% CI 68.8-82.2%), respectively. MFS at 5, 10 and 15 years was 87.4% (95% CI 84.1-90.7%), 72.2% (95% CI 66.7-77.7%) and 61.7% (95% CI 54.3-69.1%), respectively. A total of 120 patients of 477 analysed (25.1%) required rescue radiation therapy, and 293/477 never required hormone therapy (61.4%). Of the 93 pN1 patients, 33 (35.5%) did not require hormone therapy. The time from RP to biochemical progression was the variable with the greatest prognostic weight for MFS, CSS and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: RP plus extended lymphadenectomy should be the first therapeutic manoeuvre when feasible within a multimodal strategy. A longer follow-up of the series is needed to validate the hypothesis of better oncologic results based on the earlier implementation of rescue radiation therapy, extended lymphadenectomy and drugs that prolong survival in the CRPC phase.

Cognitive function in patients on androgen suppression: A prospective, multicentric study. / Función cognitiva en pacientes tratados con supresión androgénica: estudio prospectivo y multicéntrico.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on cognitive performance (CP) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) after 6 months of treatment with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective, observational, multicentre, open-label study of patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic or asymptomatic metastatic PCa scheduled to receive LHRH analogues for≥6 months. We assessed four CP domains at baseline and after 6 months of ADT: 1) Working memory: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III (WAIS III) Digit Span Subtest (WAIS III-Digit); 2) Visual memory: ad hoc visual memory test; 3) Visuospatial ability: Judgement of Line Orientation (JLO) and Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects (3D-Rotation); and 4) Nonverbal analytical reasoning: WAIS III Matrix Reasoning Test (WAIS III-MRT). Changes outside the baseline 95% confidence intervals were considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 308 patients completed the study. Of these, 245 (79.6%) experienced no statistically significant changes on any test and 63 patients (20.4%) experienced significant changes in ≥1 test. Of these, most presented a change in only one test, distributed evenly between improvements (58 patients; 18.8%) and worsening (56 patients; 18.2%). For individual tests, most patients (87.8% to 91.8%) had no change from baseline; however, the significant changes (improvement vs. deterioration, respectively) were as follows: WAIS III-Digit (6.3% vs. 5.9%); visual memory (5.3% vs. 5.7%); JLO (5.3% vs. 4.5%); 3D-Rotation (4.1% vs. 4.1%); and WAIS III-MRT (4.8% vs. 5.8%). CONCLUSIONS: CP in patients with PCa does not appear to be adversely affected by 6 months of LHRH analogue administration.

Patient selection for prostate focal therapy in the era of active surveillance: an International Delphi Consensus Project.

BACKGROUND: Whole-gland extirpation or irradiation is considered the gold standard for curative oncological treatment for localized prostate cancer, but is often associated with sexual and urinary impairment that adversely affects quality of life. This has led to increased interest in developing therapies with effective cancer control but less morbidity. We aimed to provide details of physician consensus on patient selection for prostate focal therapy (FT) in the era of contemporary prostate cancer management. METHODS: We undertook a four-stage Delphi consensus project among a panel of 47 international experts in prostate FT. Data on three main domains (role of biopsy/imaging, disease and patient factors) were collected in three iterative rounds of online questionnaires and feedback. Consensus was defined as agreement in ⩾80% of physicians. Finally, an in-person meeting was attended by a core group of 16 experts to review the data and formulate the consensus statement. RESULTS: Consensus was obtained in 16 of 18 subdomains. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is a standard imaging tool for patient selection for FT. In the presence of an mpMRI-suspicious lesion, histological confirmation is necessary prior to FT. In addition, systematic biopsy remains necessary to assess mpMRI-negative areas. However, adequate criteria for systematic biopsy remains indeterminate. FT can be recommended in D'Amico low-/intermediate-risk cancer including Gleason 4+3. Gleason 3+4 cancer, where localized, discrete and of favorable size represents the ideal case for FT. Tumor foci <1.5 ml on mpMRI or <20% of the prostate are suitable for FT, or up to 3 ml or 25% if localized to one hemi-gland. Gleason 3+3 at one core 1mm is acceptable in the untreated area. Preservation of sexual function is an important goal, but lack of erectile function should not exclude a patient from FT. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus provides a contemporary insight into expert opinion of patient selection for FT of clinically localized prostate cancer.

PCA3 as a second-line biomarker in a prospective controlled randomized opportunistic prostate cancer screening programme. / PCA3 como biomarcador de segunda línea en un programa de screening oportunista prospectivo, aleatorizado y controlado.

OBJECTIVES: PCA3 performance as a single second line biomarker is compared to the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculator model 3 (ERSPC RC-3) in an opportunistic screening in prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIAL AND METHODS: 5,199 men, aged 40-75y, underwent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and digital rectal examination (DRE). Men with a normal DRE and PSA ≥3ng/ml had a PCA3 test done. All men with PCA3 ≥35 underwent an initial biopsy (IBx) -12 cores-. Men with PCA3 <35 were randomized 1:1 to either IBx or observation. We compared them to those obtained with ERSPC RC-3. RESULTS: PCA3 test was performed on 838 men (16.1%). In PCA3(+) and PCA3(-) groups, global PCa detection rates were 40.9% and 14.7% with a median follow-up (FU) of 21.7 months (P<.001). In the PCA3(+) arm (n=301, 35.9%), PCa was identified in 115 men at IBx (38.2%). In the randomized arm, 256 underwent IBx and PCa was found in 46 (18.0%) (P<.001). The biopsy-sparing potential would have been 64.1% as opposed to 76.6% if we had used ERSPC RC-3. However, the estimated false negative cases for HGPCa would have been reduced by 37.1% (89 to 56 patients). Moreover, if we had applied PCA3-35 to avoid IBx, 14.7% PCa and 9.1% of clinical significant PCa patients would not have been diagnosed during this FU. CONCLUSIONS: When PCA3-35 is used as a second-line biomarker when PSA ≥3ng/ml and DRE is normal, IBx could be avoided in 12.5% less than if ERSPC RC-3 is used and would reduce the false negative cases by 36.2%. At a FU of 21.7 months, this dual protocol would miss 9.1% of clinically significant PCa, so strict FU is mandatory with established biopsy criteria based on PSA and DRE in cases with PCA3 <35.

[Focal Laser Ablation and Photodynamic Vascular Therapy with soluble TOOKAD® in the treatment of low risk prostate cancer]. / Ablación Focal con Láser y Terapia Vascular Fotodinámica con TOOKAD® soluble, en el tratamiento del cáncer de próstata de bajo riesgo.

The increase of the diagnosis of low risk prostate cancer translates into a new clinical entity, for which active surveillance may not be always enough and conventional therapies are clearly overtreatment. Faced with the necessity of giving a therapeutic answer to these patients, and facilitated by the technological advances in the imaging field and new energy sources, the interest is centered in the clinical development of focal therapies as an alternative with minimal morbidity and oncologically safe. As a part of the review carried out in this monographic issue, this article focus on the features relative to the preclinical and clinical development of laser ablative therapy and the innovative photodynamic vascular therapy with soluble TOOKAD®. With this aim we performed an exhaustive bibliographic search, updated to February 2016, in the greater databases, including original articles and reviews in reference to the object of this review, without restrictions for year of publication. This article reviews the preclinical and clinical development of these innovative ablative techniques in the field of focal therapy for low risk prostate cancer.

Standardization of definitions in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus project.

PURPOSE: To reach standardized terminology in focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: A four-stage modified Delphi consensus project was undertaken among a panel of international experts in the field of FT for PCa. Data on terminology in FT was collected from the panel by three rounds of online questionnaires. During a face-to-face meeting on June 21, 2015, attended by 38 experts, all data from the online rounds were reviewed and recommendations for definitions were formulated. RESULTS: Consensus was attained on 23 of 27 topics; Targeted FT was defined as a lesion-based treatment strategy, treating all identified significant cancer foci; FT was generically defined as an anatomy-based (zonal) treatment strategy. Treatment failure due to the ablative energy inadequately destroying treated tissue is defined as ablation failure. In targeting failure the energy is not adequately applied to the tumor spatially and selection failure occurs when a patient was wrongfully selected for FT. No definition of biochemical recurrence can be recommended based on the current data. Important definitions for outcome measures are potency (minimum IIEF-5 score of 21), incontinence (new need for pads or leakage) and deterioration in urinary function (increase in IPSS >5 points). No agreement on the best quality of life tool was established, but UCLA-EPIC and EORTC-QLQ-30 were most commonly supported by the experts. A complete overview of statements is presented in the text. CONCLUSION: Focal therapy is an emerging field of PCa therapeutics. Standardization of definitions helps to create comparable research results and facilitate clear communication in clinical practice.

Información obligatoria que debe conocer un paciente con cáncer de próstata candidato a vigilancia activa / Obligatory Information that a Patient Diagnosed of Prostate Cancer and Candidate for an Active Surveillance Protocol must know

Objetivos: Conocer la información necesaria para reproducir los resultados de la literatura en vigilancia activa (VA) en cáncer de próstata (CaP) en nuestro propio centro, de tal forma que dicha información sea objetiva y se le pueda dar al paciente de forma fehaciente. Contemplamos estudiar el porcentaje de pacientes candidatos a VA y que la escogen en nuestro ambiente, los datos de infraestadificación, infragradación y predicción de CaP insignificante, depurar el poder predictivo de distintas variables clínicas para mejorar nuestros criterios de selección y analizar los resultados de nuestros pacientes en VA. Material y métodos: Revisión retro y prospectiva de nuestras bases de datos. Se analiza un periodo de un año natural seleccionando posibles candidatos a VA. Análisis de nuestras prostatectomías radicales para conocer las tasas de infraestadificación, infragradación y tasa de CaP insignificante (criterios de Epstein). Análisis uni/multivariado de variables clínicas en pacientes con tumor insignificante en pieza de prostatectomía radical. Valoración prospectiva de supervivencia global y libre de tratamiento activo (SLTA) en pacientes en VA. Resultados: Entre octubre de 2010 y octubre de 2011, un 44,7% de los CaP cumplían criterios para ser incluidos en VA, y un 11,2% la escogieron. Nuestros porcentajes de infraestadificación, infragradación y tasa de CaP insignificante fueron 14%; 31,4%; y 55,7% respectivamente, pero solo 6 pacientes (6,97%) tuvieron CaP ≥ pT3a + Gleason ≥ 7 + volumen > 0,5 cc. En el estudio multivariado para predicción de tumor insignificante, la densidad de PSA y el número de cilindros afectos son factores independientes. Con un seguimiento medio de 36 ± 39 meses, de 232 incluidos en VA, 63 pacientes pasaron a tratamiento activo (27,1%), solo 13 por ansiedad sin progresión patológica. La mediana del tiempo de SLTA es de 72,7 meses (IC 95%: 30,9-114,4). La SLTA a los 24 meses es del 76,4% (69,7-83,1%) y a 48 meses es del 58,1% (48,8-67,4%). Solo 10 pacientes (4,3%) fallecieron, 9 por causa diferente al CaP. La supervivencia global estimada a 5 años es del 92,8% (IC 95%: 86,7-98,9%). Conclusiones: El conocimiento exacto de la casuística de cada centro debería ser obligatorio para informar a los pacientes verazmente de la rentabilidad de la biopsia y de si los porcentajes de infragradación, infraestadificación y de CaP insignificante se adecuan a los de la literatura. A 3 años reproducimos los resultados de las series más longevas de VA, por lo que el programa de VA puede seguir implementándose e incluyendo cada vez a más pacientes

Objectives To know the necessary information to reproduce the results found in the literature on active surveillance (AS) in prostate cancer (PCa) in our own center so that the information would be objective and correctly given to the patients. We have aimed to study the percentage of candidates for AS chosen in our setting, and the data on infrastaging, subgrading and prediction of insignificant PCa, debugging the predictive value of clinical variables to improve our selection criteria and finally to analyze the results of our patients enrolled in AS. Materials and methods: A retro- and prospective review of our data bases was performed. A one-year period was analyzed to know AS candidates. Analysis of our radical prostatectomy specimens for infrastaging, subgrading and prediction of insignificant PCa (Epstein's criteria) was made as well as a uni/multivariate analysis of clinical variables in patients with insignificant PCa in the specimen. A prospective validation was performed with overall survival and survival free of active treatment (SFAT) as endpoints in patients enrolled in AS. Results: Between October-2010/October-2011, 44.7% of our PCa were candidates for AS, but only 11.2% choose it. The percentages found for infrastaging, subgrading and prediction of insignificant PCa were 14%, 31.4% and 55.7%, respectively. However, only just 6 patients (6.97%) had ≥ pT3a + Gleason ≥7 + volume > 0.5 cc PCa. The multivariate analysis showed that PSA density and number of affected cores were independent predictors of insignificant PCa. With a mean follow-up of 36 ± 39 months, 63 out of 232 patients enrolled in AS went on to active treatment (27.1%), with only 13 due to anxiety without pathologic progression. Median time of SFAT was 72.7 months (CI 95% 30.9-114.4). SFAT at 24 months was 76.4% (69.7-83.1%) and at 48 months 58.1% (48.8-67.4%). Only 10 patients died (4.3%), 9 due to causes different of PCa. Estimated overall survival at 5 years was 92.8% (CI 95% 86.7-98.9%). Conclusions: It should be mandatory to have the exact knowledge of the local data of each Center in order to objectively inform patients about prostate biopsy efficiency, and if percentages of infrastaging, subgrading and prediction of insignificant PCa are in accordance with the literature. At 3 years, we reproduced the results of the longest series of AS, so we have ascertained that our AS protocol can be implemented with increasingly more patients

Optimización de un programa de cribado oportunista de cáncer de próstata; ensayo aleatorizado prospectivo del papel del PSA y del PCA3 en uso secuencial / Optimizing prostate cancer screening; prospective randomized controlled study of the role of PSA and PCA3 testing in a sequential manner in an opportunistic screening program

Objetivos: Reducir el número de biopsias (Bx) innecesarias en un programa de cribado oportunista en cáncer de próstata (CaP). Material y métodos: Estudio prospectivo y aleatorizado evaluando el PCA3 como biomarcador de segunda línea. De septiembre de 2010 a septiembre de 2012 2.366 hombres con edad en rango 40-74 años, y más de 10 años de expectativa de vida, fueron estudiados mediante PSA y tacto rectal (TR), excluyendo los biopsiados previamente o con infección urinaria reciente. Ante un TR sospechoso y/o PSA > 3 ng/ml se les realizó un PCA3. A todos aquellos con PCA3 ≥ 35 se les realizó una Bx inicial (IBx) -12 cilindros-. Con PCA3 < 35 fueron aleatorizados 1:1 a IBx u observación. Los criterios de rebiopsia (16-18 cilindros) durante el seguimiento fueron un incremento de PSA > 0,5 ng/ml a 6 meses o PSAv > 0,75 ng/ml/año. Resultados: Con un seguimiento medio de 10,1 meses se testó el PCA3 en 321/2.366 hombres (13,57%), 289 en la primera visita y 32 durante el seguimiento. Entre los 110 hombres con PCA3+ (34,3%) se identificó CaP en 43 en IBx (39,1%). En el brazo aleatorizado 110 se observaron y 101 se biopsiaron, encontrando 12 CaP (11,9%), mostrando un reducción en la detección de CaP estadísticamente significativa en esta cohorte (p < 0,001). Las tasas de detección global de CaP fueron de 40,9 y 9,5% para las ramas PCA3+ y PCA3- respectivamente (p < 0,001). AUC para PSA y PCA3 fueron 0,601 y 0,74. Este es un protocolo abierto en este momento, limitado por su seguimiento insuficiente. Conclusiones: El PCA3 como biomarcador de segunda línea en un programa de cribado oportunista podría potencialmente evitar un 65,7% de IBx y 50,1% a 10 meses de seguimiento, dejando de diagnosticar 3,2% de CaP de alto grado

Objectives: To reduce unnecessary biopsies (Bx) in an opportunistic screening programme of prostate cancer. Material and methods: We perform a prospective evaluation of PCA3 as a second line biomarker in an opportunistic screening for prostate cancer (PCa). From September-2010 until September-2012, 2,366 men, aged 40-74 years and with > 10 years life expectancy, were initially screened with PSA/digital rectal examination (DRE). Men with previous Bx or with recent urine infections were excluded. Men with abnormal DRE and/or PSA > 3 ng/ml were submitted for PCA3. All men with PCA3 ≥ 35 underwent an initial biopsy (IBx) -12 cores-. Men with PCA3 < 35 were randomized 1:1 to either IBx or observation. Re-biopsy (16-18 cores) criteria were PSA increase > 0.5 ng/ml at 4-6months or PSAv > 0.75 ng/ml/year. Results: With median follow-up (FU) of 10.1 months, PCA3 was performed in 321/2366 men (13.57%), 289 at first visit and 32 during FU. All 110 PCA3+ men (34.3%) were biopsied and PCa was identified in 43 men in IBx (39.1%). In the randomized arm, 110 were observed and 101 underwent biopsy, finding 12 PCa (11.9%), showing a statistically significant reduction of PCa detection rate in this cohort (P < 0.001). Global PCa detection rates were 40.9% and 9.5% for the PCA3+ and PCA3- branches, respectively (P < 0.001). Area under the curve for PSA and PCA3 were 0.601 and 0.74, respectively. This is an ongoing prospective study limited by its short follow-up period and still limited enrolment. Conclusions: PCA3 as a second line biomarker within an opportunistic dual screening protocol, can potentially avoid 65.7% and 50.1% biopsies at first round and at median FU of 10.1 months, respectively, just missing around 3.2% of high grade PCa

Obligatory information that a patient diagnosed of prostate cancer and candidate for an active surveillance protocol must know.

OBJECTIVES: To know the necessary information to reproduce the results found in the literature on active surveillance (AS) in prostate cancer (PCa) in our own center so that the information would be objective and correctly given to the patients. We have aimed to study the percentage of candidates for AS chosen in our setting, and the data on infrastaging, subgrading and prediction of insignificant PCa, debugging the predictive value of clinical variables to improve our selection criteria and finally to analyze the results of our patients enrolled in AS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retro- and prospective review of our data bases was performed. A one-year period was analyzed to know AS candidates. Analysis of our radical prostatectomy specimens for infrastaging, subgrading and prediction of insignificant PCa (Epstein's criteria) was made as well as a uni/multivariate analysis of clinical variables in patients with insignificant PCa in the specimen. A prospective validation was performed with overall survival and survival free of active treatment (SFAT) as endpoints in patients enrolled in AS. RESULTS: Between October-2010/October-2011, 44.7% of our PCa were candidates for AS, but only 11.2% choose it. The percentages found for infrastaging, subgrading and prediction of insignificant PCa were 14%, 31.4% and 55.7%, respectively. However, only just 6 patients (6.97%) had≥pT3a+Gleason≥7+volume>0.5cc PCa. The multivariate analysis showed that PSA density and number of affected cores were independent predictors of insignificant PCa. With a mean follow-up of 36±39months, 63 out of 232 patients enrolled in AS went on to active treatment (27.1%), with only 13 due to anxiety without pathologic progression. Median time of SFAT was 72.7 months (CI 95% 30.9-114.4). SFAT at 24 months was 76.4% (69.7-83.1%) and at 48 months 58.1% (48.8-67.4%). Only 10 patients died (4.3%), 9 due to causes different of PCa. Estimated overall survival at 5 years was 92.8% (CI 95% 86.7-98.9%). CONCLUSIONS: It should be mandatory to have the exact knowledge of the local data of each Center in order to objectively inform patients about prostate biopsy efficiency, and if percentages of infrastaging, subgrading and prediction of insignificant PCa are in accordance with the literature. At 3 years, we reproduced the results of the longest series of AS, so we have ascertained that our AS protocol can be implemented with increasingly more patients.

Optimizing prostate cancer screening; prospective randomized controlled study of the role of PSA and PCA3 testing in a sequential manner in an opportunistic screening program.

OBJECTIVES: To reduce unnecessary biopsies (Bx) in an opportunistic screening programme of prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We perform a prospective evaluation of PCA3 as a second line biomarker in an opportunistic screening for prostate cancer (PCa). From September-2010 until September-2012, 2,366 men, aged 40-74 years and with >10 years life expectancy, were initially screened with PSA/digital rectal examination (DRE). Men with previous Bx or with recent urine infections were excluded. Men with abnormal DRE and/or PSA >3 ng/ml were submitted for PCA3. All men with PCA3 ≥ 35 underwent an initial biopsy (IBx) -12cores-. Men with PCA3 < 35 were randomized 1:1 to either IBx or observation. Re-biopsy(16-18 cores) criteria were PSA increase >.5 ng/ml at 4-6 months or PSAv > .75 ng/ml/year. RESULTS: With median follow-up (FU) of 10.1 months, PCA3 was performed in 321/2366 men (13.57%), 289 at first visit and 32 during FU. All 110 PCA3+ men (34.3%) were biopsied and PCa was identified in 43 men in IBx (39.1%). In the randomized arm, 110 were observed and 101 underwent biopsy, finding 12 PCa (11.9%), showing a statistically significant reduction of PCa detection rate in this cohort (P<.001). Global PCa detection rates were 40.9% and 9.5% for the PCA3+ and PCA3- branches, respectively (P<.001). Area under the curve for PSA and PCA3 were .601 and .74, respectively. This is an ongoing prospective study limited by its short follow-up period and still limited enrolment. CONCLUSIONS: PCA3 as a second line biomarker within an opportunistic dual screening protocol, can potentially avoid 65.7% and 50.1% biopsies at first round and at median FU of 10.1 months, respectively, just missing around 3.2% of high grade PCa.

[Non-invasive diagnosis of prostate cancer: serum and urine markers]. / Diagnóstico no invasivo del cáncer de próstata; marcadores séricos y en orina.

The great number of biomarkers basic research is presenting in different clinical scenarios of prostate cancer demands the scientific community rigor in their molecular and clinical development for the selection of those which could supply diagnostic and prognostic information for the established nomograms of clinical-pathological factors. Prostate cancer, due to its prevalence and heterogeneity, needs a more directed diagnosis, characterization of malignant potential and monitoring of its multiple therapies. In this review article we try to go over the recent incorporation of new serum and urine markers in the clinical management of this tumor, emphasizing those with greater clinical development.

Diagnóstico no invasivo del cáncer de próstata: marcadores séricos y en orina / Non-invasive diagnosis of prostate cancer: serum and urine markers

El gran número de biomarcadores que la investigación básica plantea en distintos escenarios clínicos de cáncer de próstata (CaP) exige de la comunidad científica un rigor en su desarrollo molecular y clínico para la selección de aquellos que puedan aportar información diagnóstica o pronóstica a los nomogramas de factores clínico-patológicos establecidos. El CaP necesita por su prevalencia y heterogenicidad un diagnóstico más dirigido, la caracterización de su potencial maligno y la monitorización de sus múltiples tratamientos. En este artículo de revisión pretendemos repasar la reciente incorporación de nuevos biomarcadores séricos y en orina en el manejo clínico de este tumor, haciendo hincapié en aquellos con mayor desarrollo clínico (AU)

The great number of biomarkers basic research is presenting in different clinical scenarios of prostate cancer demands the scientific community rigor in their molecular and clinical development for the selection of those which could supply diagnostic and prognostic information for the established nomograms of clinical-pathological factors. Prostate cancer, due to its prevalence and heterogeneity, needs a more directed diagnosis, characterization of malignant potential and monitoring of its multiple therapies. In this review article we try to go over the recent incorporation of new serum and urine markers in the clinical management of this tumor, emphasizing those with greater clinical development (AU)

Beyond diagnosis: evolving prostate biopsy in the era of focal therapy.

Despite decades of use as the "gold standard" in the detection of prostate cancer, the optimal biopsy regimen is still not universally agreed upon. While important aspects such as the need for laterally placed biopsies and the importance of apical cancer are known, repeated studies have shown significant patients with cancer on subsequent biopsy when the original biopsy was negative and an ongoing suspicion of cancer remained. Attempts to maximise the effectiveness of repeat biopsies have given rise to the alternate approaches of saturation biopsy and the transperineal approach. Recent interest in focal treatment of prostate cancer has further highlighted the need for accurate detection of prostate cancer, and in response, the introduction of transperineal template-guided biopsy. While the saturation biopsy approach and the transperineal template approach increase the detection rate of cancer in men with a previous negative biopsy and appear to have acceptable morbidity, there is a lack of clinical trials evaluating the different biopsy strategies. This paper reviews the evolution of prostatic biopsy and current controversies.

Practices and results of two years service from a single U.K. renal transplant center.

INTRODUCTION: End stage renal failure is a common condition requiring renal replacement therapy in the form of haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis as a short-term measure with renal transplantation as a more definitive treatment option. The aim of this study was to evaluate the set up of a renal transplant unit in a developed country and compare its results with other centers of the world. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted to see the results of two years activities of a well known renal transplant unit in the United Kingdom. A description of the setup of a renal transplant unit has been made and its results have been discussed. RESULTS: Of the total patients, who had transplants in the renal transplant unit in year 2006 and 2007, 209 were renal, 14 were simultaneous kidney pancreas and two were pancreas after kidney transplants. Our one year graft survival rate was 93%, delayed graft function was 15%, early rejection rate was 11% and mortality rate was 3% in one year follow up. CONCLUSIONS: To attain good results in renal transplantation surgery, a multi-disciplinary team approach is crucial. Our set up is an example where the results are comparable to published and unpublished data from other established units world-wide.