Quality of life compared during pharmacological treatments and clinical monitoring for non-localized prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial

To investigate the effects of different management strategies for non-localized prostate cancer on men's quality of life and cognitive functioning. Men with prostate cancer were randomly assigned to one of four treatment arms: leuprorelin, goserelin, cyproterone acetate (CPA), or close clinical monitoring. In a repeated-measures design, men were assessed before treatment (baseline) and after 6 and 12 months of treatment. A community comparison group of men of the same age with no prostate cancer participated for the same length of time. The men were recruited from public and private urology departments from university teaching hospitals. All those with prostate cancer who were eligible for hormonal therapy had no symptoms requiring immediate therapy. In all, 82 patients were randomized and 62 completed the 1-year study, and of the 20 community participants, 15 completed the study. The main outcome measures were obtained from questionnaires on emotional distress, existential satisfaction, physical function and symptoms, social and role function, subjective cognitive function, and sexual function, combined with standard neuropsychological tests of memory, attention, and executive functions. Sexual dysfunction increased for patients on androgen-suppressing therapies, and emotional distress increased in those assigned to CPA or close clinical monitoring. Compared with before treatment there was evidence of an adverse effect of leuprorelin, goserelin, and CPA on cognitive function. In deciding the timing of androgen suppression therapy for prostate cancer, consideration should be given to potential adverse effects on quality of life and cognitive function.

A prospective study of the use of alternative therapies by men with localized prostate cancer

Although the use of alternative therapies is highly prevalent amongst men with prostate cancer, research about the predictors of such use is limited. The current study aimed to describe prospectively the use of alternative therapies by men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and identify predictors of alternative therapy use. In all, 111 men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (93% response) were recruited to the study prior to treatment. Men's use of alternative therapies and psychological variables including: psychological distress, orientation to health care, decisional conflict, and health locus of control, were assessed at three time points-(1) before treatment; (2) 2 months after completion of treatment; and (3) 12 months after completion of treatment. Demographic information was also obtained. The percentage of men using alternative therapies was 25, 17 and 14% before treatment, 2 and 12 months after treatment, respectively. In general, the most commonly used therapies were dietary changes, vitamins and herbal and nutrient remedies. Alternative therapy use was not related to final treatment choices. Before treatment, men who used alternative therapies were more uncertain about prostate cancer compared to men who were not using these therapies. Men who were using alternative therapies 12 months after treatment were less psychologically distressed that men who were not using these therapies. Health locus of control and orientation to health care were not found to be related to men's use of alternative therapies. In conclusion, men's use of alternative therapies after localized prostate cancer varied across time in terms of the incidence of use, the types of therapies used, and the psychological correlates of therapy use. Informational support that targets uncertainty about prostate cancer may assist men at diagnosis who are considering alternative therapy use. The potential for alternative therapies to have a supportive function in patient care requires further investigation. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Use of multiple biomarkers for a molecular diagnosis of prostate cancer

The identification of biomarkers capable of providing a reliable molecular diagnostic test for prostate cancer (PCa) is highly desirabie clinically. We describe here 4 biomarkers, UDP-N-Acetyl-alpha-D-galactosamine transferase (GalNAc-T3; not previously associated with PCa), PSMA, Hepsin and DD3/PCA3, which, in combination, distinguish prostate cancer from benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). GalNAc-T3 was identified as overexpressed in PCa tissues by microarray analysis, confirmed by quantitative real-time PCR and shown immunohistochemically to be localised to prostate epithelial cells with higher expression in malignant cells. Real-time quantitative PCR analysis across 21 PCa and 34 BPH tissues showed 4.6-fold overexpression of GalNAc-T3 (p = 0.005). The noncoding mRNA (DD3/PCA3) was overexpressed 140-fold (p = 0.007) in the cancer samples compared to BPH tissues. Hepsin was overexpressed 21-fold (p = 0.049, whereas the overexpression for PSMA was 66-fold (p = 0.047). When the gene expression data for these 4 biomarkers was combined in a logistic regression model, a predictive index was obtained that distinguished 100% of the PCa samples from all of the BPH samples. Therefore, combining these genes in a real-time PCR assay represents a powerful new approach to diagnosing PCa by molecular profiling. (c) 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Cell death mechanisms associated with G(2) radiosensitivity in patients with prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia

Cells respond to genotoxic insults such as ionizing radiation by halting in the G(2) phase of the cell cycle. Delayed cell death (mitotic death) can occur when the cell is released from G(2), and specific spindle defects form endopolyploid cells (endoreduplication/tetraploidy). Enhanced G(2) chromosomal radiosensitivity has been observed in many cancers and genomic instability syndromes, and it is manifested by radiation-induced chromatid aberrations observed in lymphocytes of patients. Here we compare the G(2) chromosomal radiosensitivity in prostate patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) or prostate cancer with disease-free controls. We also investigated whether there is a correlation between G(2) chromosomal radiosensitivity and aneuploidy (tetraploidy and endoreduplication), which are indicative of mitotic cell death. The G(2) assay was carried out on all human blood samples. Metaphase analysis was conducted on the harvested chromosomes by counting the number of aberrations and the mitotic errors (endoreduplication/tetraploidy) separately per 100 metaphases. A total of 1/14 of the controls were radiosensitive in G(2) compared to 6/15 of the BPH patients and 15/17 of the prostate cancer patients. Radiation-induced mitotic inhibition was assessed to determine the efficacy of G(2) checkpoint control in the prostate patients. There was no significant correlation of G(2) radiosensitivity scores and mitotic inhibition in BPH patients (P = 0.057), in contrast to prostate cancer patients, who showed a small but significant positive correlation (P = 0.029). Furthermore, there was no significant correlation between G(2) radiosensitivity scores of BPH patients and endoreduplication/ tetraploidy (P = 0.136), which contrasted with an extremely significant correlation observed in prostate cancer patients (P < 0.0001). In conclusion, cells from prostate cancer patients show increased sensitivity to the induction of G(2) aberrations from ionizing radiation exposure but paradoxically show reduced mitotic indices and aneuploidy as a function of aberration frequency.

Which drug combination for hormone-refractory prostate cancer

Patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer have a progressive disease with a median survival of similar to 11 months, and currently no treatment offers a survival advantage. The standard drug treatment is a corticosteroid and chemotherapy with mitoxantrone. In a comparison of docetaxel every 3 weeks and prednisone, versus mitoxantrone and prednisone, with a follow-up of similar to 21 months, there were less deaths in the docetaxel group than in the mitoxantrone group (166 of 335 patients and 201 of 337 patients, respectively). Docetaxel also prolonged the duration of survival compared with mitoxantrone (18.9 and 16.5 months, respectively). When given with prednisone, docetaxel was also shown to reduce pain and serum prostate specific antigen levels and improve quality of life compared with mitoxantrone/prednisone. In another trial in hormone-resistant prostate cancer patients, which compared docetaxel and estramustine with mitoxantrone and prednisone during a median follow-up of 32 months, there were fewer deaths with docetaxel/estramustine than with mitoxantrone/prednisone, which were 217 of 338 and 235 of 336 patients, respectively. Median survival was also longer in the docetaxel and estramustine group than in the mitoxantrone/prednisone group (17.5 and 15.6 months, respectively). In conclusion, two combinations (docetaxel/prednisone and docetaxel/estramustine) have been shown to be superior to mitoxantrone/prednisone in hormone-refractory prostate cancer and both should be considered for use. With the present information, there is little to distinguish between these combinations.

Resistance training and reduction of treatment side effects in prostate cancer patients

Purpose: To examine the effect of progressive resistance training on muscle function, functional performance, balance, body composition, and muscle thickness in men receiving androgen deprivation for prostate cancer. Methods: Ten men aged 59-82 yr on androgen deprivation for localized prostate cancer undertook progressive resistance training for 20 wk at 6- to 12-repetition maximum (RM) for 12 upper- and lower-body exercises in a university exercise rehabilitation clinic. Outcome measures included muscle strength and muscle endurance for the upper and lower body, functional performance (repeated chair rise, usual and fast 6-m walk, 6-m backwards walk, stair climb, and 400-m walk time), and balance by sensory organization test. Body composition was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and muscle thickness at four anatomical sites by B-mode ultrasound. Blood samples were assessed for prostate specific antigen (PSA), testosterone, growth hormone (GH), cortisol, and hemoglobin. Results: Muscle strength (chest press, 40.5%; seated row, 41.9%; leg press, 96.3%; P < 0.001) and muscle endurance (chest press, 114.9%; leg press, 167.1%; P < 0.001) increased significantly after training. Significant improvement (P < 0.05) occurred in the 6-m usual walk (14.1%), 6-m backwards walk (22.3%), chair rise (26.8%), stair climbing (10.4%), 400-m walk (7.4%), and balance (7.8%). Muscle thickness increased (P < 0.05) by 15.7% at the quadriceps site. Whole-body lean mass was preserved with no change in fat mass. There were no significant changes in PSA, testosterone, GH, cortisol, or hemoglobin. Conclusions: Progressive resistance exercise has beneficial effects on muscle strength, functional performance and balance in older men receiving androgen deprivation for prostate cancer and should be considered to preserve body composition and reduce treatment side effects.