Prostate cancer in Illinois, 1986-1992 /

"December 1994."

Prostate and Testicular Cancer Program : report to the General Assembly /

Description based on: fiscal year 2007/2008 ; title from cover.

Mémoires, ou recherches anatomico-pathologiques sur le ramollissement avec amincissement et sur la destruction de la membrane muqueuse de l'estomac. L'hypertrophie de la membrane musculaire de l'estomac, dans le cancer du pylore.--La perforation de l'intestin grêle.--Le croup chez l'adulte.--La péricardite.--La communication des cavités droites avec les cavités gauches du cœur.--Les abcès du foie.--L'état de la moelle épinière dans la carie vertébrale.--Les morts subites et imprévues.--Les morts lentes, prévues et inexplicables.--Le ténia et son traitement.

Mode of access: Internet.

The role of angiogenesis in prostate development and the pathogenesis of prostate cancer

New vessel formation, a highly-regulated, active process commencing in the embryo and evident notably during the pubertal growth spurt, is essential for normal prostate development. Reactivation of this process in response to physiological stimuli, particularly hypoxia in mature tissues, occurs with new vessels forming principally from stromal components. Although angiogenesis is complex, putatively involving a multitude of angiogenic factors and inhibitors, there is powerful evidence of the importance of the VEGF system in the development of both the normal prostate and prostate cancer. Recent advances include an understanding of how castration acts through the VEGF system to inhibit angiogenesis. Stromal-endothelial and epithelial-endothelial interactions are just beginning to be investigated. A better understanding of how physiological angiogenesis is controlled should help to provide further insights into the mechanism of disregulated angiogenesis in tumours. Ultimately, new antiangiogenic agents are likely to find a role in the management of patients with prostate cancer.

Acceptability of short term neo-adjuvant androgen deprivation in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer

Purpose: To determine the acceptability of short term neo-adjuvant maximal androgen deprivation (MAD) to patients treated with external beam radiation for locally advanced prostate cancer. Methods: Between 1996 and 2000, 818 patients with locally advanced, but non-metastatic, prostate cancer were entered into a randomised clinical trial (TROG 96.01), which compared radiation treatment alone with the same radiation treatment and 3 or 6 months neo-adjuvant MAD with goserelin and flutamide. Relevant symptoms, and how troublesome they were to the patient, were scored using a self-assessment questionnaire. This was completed by the patient at registration, and at specified times during and after treatment. Patients taking flutamide had liver function tests checked at regular intervals. Results: All patients have completed at least 12 months follow-up after treatment. Nearly all patients completed planned treatment with goserelin, but 27% of patients in the 6-month MAD treatment arm, and 20% in the 3-month arm, had to stop flutamide early. This was mainly due to altered liver function (up to 17% patients) and bowel side effects (up to 8% patients). However, although flutamide resulted in more bowel symptoms for patients on MAD, there was significant reduction in some urinary symptoms on this treatment. Acute bowel and urinary side effects at the end of radiation treatment were similar in all treatment arms. Side effect severity was unrelated to radiation target volume size, which was reduced by MAD, but symptomatology prior to any treatment was a powerful predictor. Of the 36% of patients who were sexually active before any treatment, the majority became inactive whilst on MAD. However, sexual activity at 12 months after radiation treatment was similar in all treatment arms, indicating that the effects of short term MAD on sexual function are reversible. Conclusion: Despite temporary effects on sexual activity, and compliance difficulties with flutamide, short-term neo-adjuvant MAD was not perceived by patients to be a major inconvenience. If neo-adjuvant MAD in the way tested can be demonstrated to lead to improved biochemical control and/or survival, then patients would view these therapeutic gains as worthwhile. Compliance with short-term goserelin was excellent, confirming that LH-RH analogues have a potential role in more long-term adjuvant treatment. However, for more protracted androgen deprivation, survival advantages and deleterious effects need to be assessed in parallel, in order to determine the optimal duration of treatment. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All fights reserved.

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.

DC therapy for prostate cancer

The wide range of currently available treatments for metastatic prostate cancer have demonstrated a modest palliative effect, but none to date has shown an increase in overall survival. The immune system has evolved to protect against infection, however, the modulation of this system represents the possibility of allowing it to identify and destroy cancer cells. The immune system is capable of inciting a powerful immune response against tissues, in the form of transplant rejection, and the potential exists to harness these powers to fight against tumors. Modest clinical responses have been seen in patients with metastatic prostate cancer treated with DC therapies; however, no increase in overall survival has been demonstrated. The current state of DC immunotherapy for prostate cancer is reviewed.

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.