Abstract Context Obesity and prostate cancer (PCa) affect substantial proportions of Western society. Mounting evidence, both epidemiologic and mechanistic, for an association between the two is of ...public health interest. An improved understanding of the role of this modifiable risk factor in PCa etiology is imperative to optimize screening, treatment, and prevention. Objective To consolidate and evaluate the evidence for an epidemiologic link between obesity and PCa, in addition to examining the proposed underlying molecular mechanisms. Evidence acquisition A PubMed search for relevant articles published between 1991 and July 2012 was performed by combining the following terms: obesity, BMI, body mass index and prostate cancer risk, prostate cancer incidence, prostate cancer mortality, radical prostatectomy, androgen-deprivation therapy, external-beam radiation, brachytherapy, prostate cancer and quality of life, prostate cancer and active surveillance , in addition to obesity, BMI, body mass index and prostate cancer and insulin, insulin-like growth factor, androgen, estradiol, leptin, adiponectin , and IL-6. Articles were selected based on content, date of publication, and relevancy, and their references were also searched for relevant articles. Evidence synthesis Increasing evidence suggests obesity is associated with elevated incidence of aggressive PCa, increased risk of biochemical failure following radical prostatectomy and external-beam radiotherapy, higher frequency of complications following androgen-deprivation therapy, and increased PCa-specific mortality, although perhaps a lower overall PCa incidence. These results may in part relate to difficulties in detecting and treating obese men. However, multiple molecular mechanisms could explain these associations as well. Weight loss slows PCa in animal models but has yet to be fully tested in human trials. Conclusions Obesity appears to be linked with aggressive PCa. We suggest clinical tips to better diagnose and treat obese men with PCa. Whether reversing obesity slows PCa growth is currently unknown, although it is an active area of research.
Introduction of novel agents for the management of advanced prostate cancer provides a range of treatment options with notable benefits for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer ...(mCRPC). At the same time, understanding of optimal patient selection, effective sequential use, and development of resistance patterns remains incomplete.
To review current systemic therapies and recent advances in drug development for mCRPC and strategies to aid in patient selection and optimal sequencing.
A literature review of PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Current Contents Medicine, Web of Science, Clinical Trial.Gov, WHO-ICTRP (January 2004–November 2017), and the proceedings of major international meetings (2015/2016/2017) was performed in November 2017.
In the last few years, several new options for treatment of mCRPC have shown a survival benefit in phase III trials besides docetaxel:abiraterone, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel, radium-223, and sipuleucel-T. Radium-223 and denosumab have increased options in management of bone metastases. Currently, novel agents such as next-generation androgen receptor (AR) axis-targeting treatments, immunotherapeutics, or therapies targeting other oncogenic and genomic pathways, particularly poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and PD-1 inhibitors, are under clinical investigation. With increasing treatment options for mCRPC, information on how to personalize management and how to select and sequence existing therapies is beginning to emerge, as are predictive biomarkers (homologous repair mutations, mismatch repair mutations, AR splice variant 7). Finally, early use of active agents in the castration-sensitive state will likely also change the clinical management of the disease when it becomes castrate resistant.
The emergence of new drugs for mCRPC has improved treatment options dramatically. Currently, systemic treatment options for mCRPC include hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and radionuclide therapy as well as bone-modifying agents and palliative or supportive measures. Further, new genetically targeted agents (PARP inhibitors and PD-1 inhibitors) are on the horizon for certain subsets of biomarker-selected patients. The best strategies for patient selection and optimal sequential use to achieve the longest cumulative survival improvement and to prevent early resistance remain unclear.
The current literature and proceedings from relevant congresses related to available systemic agents for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, including novel genetically targeted therapies, including poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase inhibitors and PD-1 inhibitors, were reviewed. Current therapies and ongoing developments are discussed.
In the last few years, new therapeutics for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have increased survival substantially. While promising novel agents are currently under trial, including genetically targeted therapies (poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase inhibitors and PD-1 inhibitors), further clinical and translational research in predictive biomarkers is needed to optimize treatment selection and sequencing strategies for existing drugs.
Nerves are a common feature of the microenvironment, but their role in tumor growth and progression remains unclear. We found that the formation of autonomic nerve fibers in the prostate gland ...regulates prostate cancer development and dissemination in mouse models. The early phases of tumor development were prevented by chemical or surgical sympathectomy and by genetic deletion of stromal β2- and β3-adrenergic receptors. Tumors were also infiltrated by parasympathetic cholinergic fibers that promoted cancer dissemination. Cholinergic-induced tumor invasion and metastasis were inhibited by pharmacological blockade or genetic disruption of the stromal type 1 muscarinic receptor, leading to improved survival of the mice. A retrospective blinded analysis of prostate adenocarcinoma specimens from 43 patients revealed that the densities of sympathetic and parasympathetic nerve fibers in tumor and surrounding normal tissue, respectively, were associated with poor clinical outcomes. These findings may lead to novel therapeutic approaches for prostate cancer.
This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The ...summary presented represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity.
The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/).
The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer.
This guideline attempts to improve a clinician’s ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.
Prostate cancer (PCa) remains a leading cause of mortality in US men and the prevalence continues to rise world-wide especially in countries where men consume a 'Western-style' diet. Epidemiologic, ...preclinical and clinical studies suggest a potential role for dietary intake on the incidence and progression of PCa. 'This minireview provides an overview of recent published literature with regard to nutrients, dietary factors, dietary patterns and PCa incidence and progression. Low carbohydrates intake, soy protein, omega-3 (w-3) fat, green teas, tomatoes and tomato products and zyflamend showed promise in reducing PCa risk or progression. A higher saturated fat intake and a higher β-carotene status may increase risk. A 'U' shape relationship may exist between folate, vitamin C, vitamin D and calcium with PCa risk. Despite the inconsistent and inconclusive findings, the potential for a role of dietary intake for the prevention and treatment of PCa is promising. The combination of all the beneficial factors for PCa risk reduction in a healthy dietary pattern may be the best dietary advice. This pattern includes rich fruits and vegetables, reduced refined carbohydrates, total and saturated fats, and reduced cooked meats. Further carefully designed prospective trials are warranted.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Abstract Inequalities in healthcare for patients with prostate cancer can result in treatment and mortality disparities. Despite Black men with prostate cancer having higher incidence and mortality ...from prostate cancer, the study by Hammarlund and colleagues found that they are less likely to receive appropriate treatment compared with their White counterparts. Given that Black men with prostate cancer have similar or better survival when participating in clinical trials or receiving equal treatment from an equal access to healthcare system, identifying factors contributing to inequitable treatment is essential to improve the overall health and survival of Black men with prostate cancer. See related article by Hammarlund and colleagues, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33:435–41
Abstract Context Metabolic syndrome (MetS), a cluster of several metabolic abnormalities with a high socioeconomic cost, is considered a worldwide epidemic. Recent epidemiologic and clinical data ...suggest that MetS is involved in the pathogenesis and progression of prostatic diseases such as benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer (PCa). Objective This review evaluates the available evidence of the role of MetS in BPH and PCa development and progression and discusses possible clinical implications for the management, prevention, and treatment of these diseases. Evidence acquisition A National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) PubMed search for relevant articles published between 1995 and September 2011 was performed by combining the following Patient population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) terms: male, metabolic syndrome, prostate, benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate cancer, prevention, diagnosis, treatment , and prognosis. Additional references were obtained from the reference list of full-text manuscripts. Evidence synthesis MetS is a complex, highly prevalent disorder and a worldwide epidemic. Central obesity, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and hypertension are the main components of MetS. Notwithstanding all the attempts made to correctly define MetS, a major problem related to most definitions remains the applicability to different populations and ethnic groups. Although there is growing evidence of the association of MetS with the initiation and clinical progression of BPH and PCa, molecular mechanisms and effects on treatment efficacy remain unclear. Further research is required to better understand the role of MetS in BPH and PCa. Conclusions Data from the peer-reviewed literature suggest an association of MetS with BPH and PCa, although the evidence for a causal relationship remains missing. MetS should be considered a new domain in basic and clinical research in patients with prostatic disorders.
This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The ...summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity. Please refer to Part I for discussion of specific care options and outcome expectations and management.
The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/).
The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer.
This guideline attempts to improve a clinician’s ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.
Purpose The guideline purpose is to provide the urologist with a framework for the early detection of prostate cancer in asymptomatic average risk men. Materials and Methods A systematic review was ...conducted and summarized evidence derived from over 300 studies that addressed the predefined outcomes of interest (prostate cancer incidence/mortality, quality of life, diagnostic accuracy and harms of testing). In addition to the quality of evidence, the panel considered values and preferences expressed in a clinical setting (patient-physician dyad) rather than having a public health perspective. Guideline statements were organized by age group in years (age <40; 40 to 54; 55 to 69; ≥70). Results Except prostate specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening, there was minimal evidence to assess the outcomes of interest for other tests. The quality of evidence for the benefits of screening was moderate, and evidence for harm was high for men age 55 to 69 years. For men outside this age range, evidence was lacking for benefit, but the harms of screening, including over diagnosis and overtreatment, remained. Modeled data suggested that a screening interval of two years or more may be preferred to reduce the harms of screening. Conclusions The Panel recommended shared decision-making for men age 55 to 69 years considering PSA-based screening, a target age group for whom benefits may outweigh harms. Outside this age range, PSA-based screening as a routine could not be recommended based on the available evidence. The entire guideline is available at www.AUAnet.org/education/guidelines/prostate-cancer-detection.cfm.
PDF
