Prostate biopsy in selecting candidates for hemiablative focal therapy.

Focal therapy (FT) for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) is growing from a concept to reality because of increased interest of both patients and physicians. Selection protocols, however, are yet to be established. We discuss the role of prostate biopsy in candidate selection for FT and highlight the different strategies and technical aspects of the use of prostate biopsy in this setting. In our opinion, prostate biopsy plays a major role in the selection process and tailoring appropriate treatment strategy to the patient. FT necessitates dedicated biopsy schemes that would reliably predict the extent, nature, and location of PCa in selected patients. Currently, there is insufficient scientific evidence to propose a specific biopsy scheme that could fit every candidate, providing accurate characterization of the disease in the individual patient. Further research is necessary to establish solid selection protocols that would reliably identify appropriate candidates for FT of PCa.

Integrated analysis of CANVAS 1 and 2: phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ceftaroline versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in complicated skin and skin-structure infection.

BACKGROUND: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a common cause of complicated skin and skin-structure infection (cSSSI). Increasing antimicrobial resistance in cSSSI has led to a need for new safe and effective therapies. Ceftaroline was evaluated as treatment for cSSSI in 2 identical phase 3 clinical trials, the pooled analysis of which is presented here. The primary objective of each trial was to determine the noninferiority of the clinical cure rate achieved with ceftaroline monotherapy, compared with that achieved with vancomycin plus aztreonam combination therapy, in the clinically evaluable (CE) and modified intent-to-treat (MITT) patient populations. METHODS: Adult patients with cSSSI requiring intravenous therapy received ceftaroline (600 mg every 12 h) or vancomycin plus aztreonam (1 g each every 12 h) for 5-14 days. RESULTS: Of 1378 patients enrolled in both trials, 693 received ceftaroline and 685 received vancomycin plus aztreonam. Baseline characteristics of the treatment groups were comparable. Clinical cure rates were similar for ceftaroline and vancomycin plus aztreonam in the CE (91.6% vs 92.7%) and MITT (85.9% vs 85.5%) populations, respectively, as well as in patients infected with MRSA (93.4% vs 94.3%). The rates of adverse events, discontinuations because of an adverse event, serious adverse events, and death also were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftaroline achieved high clinical cure rates, was efficacious against cSSSI caused by MRSA and other common cSSSI pathogens, and was well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with the cephalosporin class. Ceftaroline has the potential to provide a monotherapy alternative for the treatment of cSSSI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00424190 for CANVAS 1 and NCT00423657 for CANVAS 2.

Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the predictive performance and potential clinical usefulness of risk calculators of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC RC) with and without information on prostate volume. METHODS: We studied 6 cohorts (5 European and 1 US) with a total of 15,300 men, all biopsied and with pre-biopsy TRUS measurements of prostate volume. Volume was categorized into 3 categories (25, 40, and 60 cc), to reflect use of digital rectal examination (DRE) for volume assessment. Risks of prostate cancer were calculated according to a ERSPC DRE-based RC (including PSA, DRE, prior biopsy, and prostate volume) and a PSA + DRE model (including PSA, DRE, and prior biopsy). Missing data on prostate volume were completed by single imputation. Risk predictions were evaluated with respect to calibration (graphically), discrimination (AUC curve), and clinical usefulness (net benefit, graphically assessed in decision curves). RESULTS: The AUCs of the ERSPC DRE-based RC ranged from 0.61 to 0.77 and were substantially larger than the AUCs of a model based on only PSA + DRE (ranging from 0.56 to 0.72) in each of the 6 cohorts. The ERSPC DRE-based RC provided net benefit over performing a prostate biopsy on the basis of PSA and DRE outcome in five of the six cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying men at increased risk for having a biopsy detectable prostate cancer should consider multiple factors, including an estimate of prostate volume.

Bioluminescence imaging of glucose in tissue surrounding polyurethane and glucose sensor implants.

BACKGROUND: The bioluminescence technique was used to quantify the local glucose concentration in the tissue surrounding subcutaneously implanted polyurethane material and surrounding glucose sensors. In addition, some implants were coated with a single layer of adipose-derived stromal cells (ASCs) because these cells improve the wound-healing response around biomaterials. METHODS: Control and ASC-coated implants were implanted subcutaneously in rats for 1 or 8 weeks (polyurethane) or for 1 week only (glucose sensors). Tissue biopsies adjacent to the implant were immediately frozen at the time of explant. Cryosections were assayed for glucose concentration profile using the bioluminescence technique. RESULTS: For the polyurethane samples, no significant differences in glucose concentration within 100 μm of the implant surface were found between bare and ASC-coated implants at 1 or 8 weeks. A glucose concentration gradient was demonstrated around the glucose sensors. For all sensors, the minimum glucose concentration of approximately 4 mM was found at the implant surface and increased with distance from the sensor surface until the glucose concentration peaked at approximately 7 mM at 100 μm. Then the glucose concentration decreased to 5.5-6.5 mM more than 100 μmm from the surface. CONCLUSIONS: The ASC attachment to polyurethane and to glucose sensors did not change the glucose profiles in the tissue surrounding the implants. Although most glucose sensors incorporate a diffusion barrier to reduce the gradient of glucose and oxygen in the tissue, it is typically assumed that there is no steep glucose gradient around the sensors. However, a glucose gradient was observed around the sensors. A more complete understanding of glucose transport and concentration gradients around sensors is critical.