Prostatic Neoplasms: Dmochowski RR

Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, Cookson MS, D'Amico AV, Dmochowski RR, Eton DT, Forman JD, Goldenberg SL, Hernandez J, Higano CS, Kraus SR, Moul JW, Tangen CM, Anonymous00324. · American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. · J Urol. · Pubmed #17509297 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Burnett AL, Aus G, Canby-Hagino ED, Cookson MS, D'Amico AV, Dmochowski RR, Eton DT, Forman JD, Goldenberg SL, Hernandez J, Higano CS, Kraus S, Liebert M, Moul JW, Tangen C, Thrasher JB, Thompson I, Anonymous00008. · The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 North Wolfe St., Marburg 407, Baltimore, Maryland 21287-2411, USA. · J Urol. · Pubmed #17570435 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: In conjunction with the assignment to update the Guidelines for Management of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer, the American Urological Association Prostate Cancer Guideline Update Panel performed a side analysis of the reporting of erectile function outcomes in this clinical context as published in the medical literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four National Library of Medicine PubMed(R) Services literature searches targeting articles published from 1991 through early 2004 were done to derive outcome reporting (efficacy or side effects) for the treatment of clinical stage T1 or T2 N0M0 prostate cancer. A database was constructed containing descriptions relating to erectile function as well as numerical frequency rates of complete erectile dysfunction, and partial and intact erectile function for various treatments. A literature review was also done, consisting of a PubMed Services search of current measures and protocols used for assessing erectile function outcomes and a survey of consensus opinion sources on the management of male sexual dysfunctions. RESULTS: Based on inclusion criteria 436 articles were selected. Of these articles database extraction from 100 pertaining to radical prostatectomy garnered various characterizations of erectile function, including qualitative descriptions, generic terminology and rating systems. Database extraction from 31 articles, in which results for at least 50 patients were reported, yielded ranges of rates for complete erectile dysfunction, partial erectile function and intact erectile function that were 26% to 100%, 16% to 48% and 9% to 86% for radical prostatectomy, 8% to 85%, 21% to 47% and 36% to 63% for external beam radiation, and 14% to 61%, 21% and 18% for interstitial radiation, respectively. The literature review showed an evolution in standards for studying and reporting erectile function outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical studies reporting erectile function outcomes after localized prostate cancer treatment often demonstrate poorly interpretable and inconsistent manners of assessment as well as widely disparate rates of erectile dysfunction and erectile function. Future studies must apply scientifically rigorous methodology and standard outcomes measures to advance this field of study.

Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, D'Amico AV, Dmochowski RR, Eton DT, Forman JD, Goldenberg SL, Hernandez J, Higano CS, Kraus SR, Moul JW, Tangen C, Thrasher JB, Thompson I. · Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37232, USA. · J Urol. · Pubmed #17222629 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: The American Urological Association Prostate Guideline Update Panel was charged with updating the Guidelines for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. In assessing outcomes with treatment, it became apparent that a highly variable number of definitions exist with respect to biochemical recurrence. Herein, we review the variability in published definitions of biochemical recurrence and make recommendations directed toward improving this terminology by recommending a standard definition in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four PubMed literature searches were performed between May 2001 and April, 2004 and covered articles published from 1991 through early 2004. The search terms included the MeSH major headings of prostate cancer and prostatic neoplasm. All potentially relevant articles were retrieved and a more detailed screen for relevance was performed. An article was considered relevant if it reported treatment outcomes of patients with clinical T1 or T2N0M0 prostate cancer. Data extractors recorded the definition of biochemical recurrence and definitions were then collapsed into categories representing the same criteria. The results of biochemical failure were subcategorized by initial treatment. RESULTS: Of 13,800 citations, a total of 436 articles were selected. Among these, a total of 145 articles contained 53 different definitions of biochemical recurrence for those treated with radical prostatectomy. Of these, the most common definition (35) was a prostate specific antigen of >0.2 ng/mL or a slight variation thereof. In addition, a total of 208 articles reported 99 different definitions of biochemical failure among those treated with radiation therapy. Of these, the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition (70) and/or a variation thereof was the most commonly reported. In total, 166 different definitions of biochemical failure were identified. Following radical prostatectomy, the Panel recommends defining biochemical recurrence as an initial serum prostate specific antigen of > or =0.2 ng/mL, with a second confirmatory level of prostate specific antigen of >0.2 ng/mL. The Panel recommends the use of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology criteria for patients treated with radiation therapy and acknowledges that these criteria will soon be updated although not yet published. CONCLUSIONS: A high degree of variability in the definition of biochemical recurrence exists following treatment for localized prostate cancer. Strict definitions for biochemical recurrence are necessary to identify men at risk for disease progression and to allow meaningful comparisons among patients treated similarly. The Panel acknowledges the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology criteria and future modifications thereof for those receiving radiation therapy and recommends the newly developed American Urological Association criteria for those treated with radical prostatectomy. The purpose for the establishment of this standard is for data reporting purposes and for comparison of similarly treated patients. It is not intended to represent a threshold value for which to initiate treatment. The Panel acknowledges that the clinical decision to initiate treatment will be dependent on multiple factors including patient and physician interaction rather than a specific prostate specific antigen threshold value.