Prostatic Neoplasms: Wilt TJ

Kramer BS, Hagerty KL, Justman S, Somerfield MR, Albertsen PC, Blot WJ, Ballentine Carter H, Costantino JP, Epstein JI, Godley PA, Harris RP, Wilt TJ, Wittes J, Zon R, Schellhammer P, Anonymous00093, Anonymous00094. · National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. · J Clin Oncol. · Pubmed #19252137 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE To develop an evidence-based guideline on the use of 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) for prostate cancer chemoprevention. METHODS The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Committee (HSC), ASCO Cancer Prevention Committee, and the American Urological Association Practice Guidelines Committee jointly convened a Panel of experts, who used the results from a systematic review of the literature to develop evidence-based recommendations on the use of 5-ARIs for prostate cancer chemoprevention. Results The systematic review completed for this guideline identified 15 randomized clinical trials that met the inclusion criteria, nine of which reported prostate cancer period prevalence. CONCLUSION Asymptomatic men with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <or= 3.0 ng/mL who are regularly screened with PSA or are anticipating undergoing annual PSA screening for early detection of prostate cancer may benefit from a discussion of both the benefits of 5-ARIs for 7 years for the prevention of prostate cancer and the potential risks (including the possibility of high-grade prostate cancer). Men who are taking 5-ARIs for benign conditions such as lower urinary tract [obstructive] symptoms (LUTS) may benefit from a similar discussion, understanding that the improvement of LUTS relief should be weighed with the potential risks of high-grade prostate cancer from 5-ARIs (although the majority of the Panel members judged the latter risk to be unlikely). A reduction of approximately 50% in PSA by 12 months is expected in men taking a 5-ARI; however, because these changes in PSA may vary across men, and within individual men over time, the Panel cannot recommend a specific cut point to trigger a biopsy for men taking a 5-ARI. No specific cut point or change in PSA has been prospectively validated in men taking a 5-ARI.

Kramer BS, Hagerty KL, Justman S, Somerfield MR, Albertsen PC, Blot WJ, Carter HB, Costantino JP, Epstein JI, Godley PA, Harris RP, Wilt TJ, Wittes J, Zon R, Schellhammer P, Anonymous00066. · National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. · J Urol. · Pubmed #19249063 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: To develop an evidence-based guideline on the use of 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) for prostate cancer chemoprevention. METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Committee (HSC), ASCO Cancer Prevention Committee, and the American Urological Association Practice Guidelines Committee jointly convened a Panel of experts, who used the results from a systematic review of the literature to develop evidence-based recommendations on the use of 5-ARIs for prostate cancer chemoprevention. RESULTS: The systematic review completed for this guideline identified 15 randomized clinical trials that met the inclusion criteria, nine of which reported prostate cancer period prevalence. CONCLUSION: Asymptomatic men with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) </=3.0 ng/mL who are regularly screened with PSA or are anticipating undergoing annual PSA screening for early detection of prostate cancer may benefit from a discussion of both the benefits of 5-ARIs for 7 years for the prevention of prostate cancer and the potential risks (including the possibility of high-grade prostate cancer). Men who are taking 5-ARIs for benign conditions such as lower urinary tract [obstructive] symptoms (LUTS) may benefit from a similar discussion, understanding that the improvement of LUTS relief should be weighed with the potential risks of high-grade prostate cancer from 5-ARIs (although the majority of the Panel members judged the latter risk to be unlikely). A reduction of approximately 50% in PSA by 12 months is expected in men taking a 5-ARI; however, because these changes in PSA may vary across men, and within individual men over time, the Panel cannot recommend a specific cut point to trigger a biopsy for men taking a 5-ARI. No specific cut point or change in PSA has been prospectively validated in men taking a 5-ARI.

Wilt TJ. · No affiliation provided · J Natl Cancer Inst. · Pubmed #18695131 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Wilt TJ, Ensrud KE. · No affiliation provided · J Natl Cancer Inst. · Pubmed #17505065 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Wilt TJ, Partin MR. · No affiliation provided · Am J Med. · Pubmed #15541329 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Partin MR, Wilt TJ. · No affiliation provided · Am J Med. · Pubmed #12505123 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Wilt TJ. · No affiliation provided · JAMA. · Pubmed #10866876 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Wilt TJ. · No affiliation provided · Cancer. · Pubmed #10717606 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Wilt TJ, Shamliyan TA, Taylor BC, MacDonald R, Kane RL. · Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. · J Urol. · Pubmed #18635233 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: We examined the association between hospital and surgeon volume, and patient outcomes after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Databases were searched from 1980 to November 2007 to identify controlled studies published in English. Information on study design, hospital and surgeon annual radical prostatectomy volume, hospital status and patient outcome rates were abstracted using a standardized protocol. Data were pooled with random effects models. RESULTS: A total of 17 original investigations reported patient outcomes in categories of hospital and/or surgeon annual number of radical prostatectomies, and met inclusion criteria. Hospitals with volumes above the mean (43 radical prostatectomies per year) had lower surgery related mortality (rate of difference 0.62, 95% CI 0.47-0.81) and morbidity (rate difference -9.7%, 95% CI -15.8, -3.6). Teaching hospitals had an 18% (95% CI -26, -9) lower rate of surgery related complications. Surgeon volume was not significantly associated with surgery related mortality or positive surgical margins. However, the rate of late urinary complications was 2.4% lower (95% CI -5, -0.1) and the rate of long-term incontinence was 1.2% lower (95% CI -2.5, -0.1) for each 10 additional radical prostatectomies performed by the surgeon annually. Length of stay was lower, corresponding to surgeon volume. CONCLUSIONS: Higher provider volumes are associated with better outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Greater understanding of factors leading to this volume-outcome relationship, and the potential benefits and harms of increased regionalization is needed.

Wilt TJ, MacDonald R, Hagerty K, Schellhammer P, Kramer BS. · VAMC, General Internal Medicine (111-0), One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55417, USA. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #18425978 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Five-alpha-reductase inhibitors (5ARI) are frequently used to treat bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia and male androgenic alopecia. They have potential as chemopreventive agents. OBJECTIVES: We sought to estimate the effectiveness and harms of 5ARI in preventing prostate cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library were searched through April 2007 to identify randomized trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: For prostate cancer outcomes we included randomized controlled trials of at least 1 year in duration published after 1984. For non-prostate cancer outcomes, randomized trials were included if: they were at least 6 months in duration published after 1999. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was prostate cancer period-prevalence "for-cause." "For-cause" was defined as prostate cancer clinically detected based on symptoms, an abnormal digital rectal exam, or detected as a result of an abnormal prostate specific antigen value. Trials were categorized as long (> 2 year), mid (1-2 years) and short (< 1 year) term. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials reported prostate cancer period-prevalence. Three trials using finasteride lasted 4 years or longer but only one (the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial) was specifically designed to assess the impact of 5ARI on prostate cancer period-prevalence. The mean age of enrollees was 64.6 years, 91% were white, mean PSA was 2.1 ng/mL. For-cause prostate cancers comprised 54% of all cancers detected. Finasteride was associated with a 26% relative risk reduction in prostate cancers detected for-cause among all randomized subjects (relative risk 0.74 [95% CI 0.67 to 0.83]; absolute risk reduction = 1.4% (3.5% versus 4.9%). Six trials assessed prostate cancers detected overall with a pooled 26% relative reduction favoring 5ARI (relative risk 0.74 [95% CI 0.55 to1.00]; 2.9% absolute reduction (6.3% versus 9.2%). Reductions were observed regardless of age, race or family history of prostate cancer but not among men with baseline PSA > 4.0 ng/mL. A greater number of high Gleason score tumors (7-10 or 8-10) occurred in men on finasteride in the PCPT. Impaired sexual or erectile function or endocrine effects were more common with finasteride than placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 5ARI reduce prostate cancer risk but may increase the risk of high-grade disease in men who are undergoing regular screening for prostate cancer using prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination. Effects are consistent across race, family history and age and possibly 5ARI but were limited to men with baseline PSA values <4.0 ng/mL. The impact of 5ARI on absolute or relative rates of prostate cancer in men who are not being regularly screened is not clear. Information is inadequate to assess the impact of 5ARI on mortality.

Wilt TJ, MacDonald R, Rutks I, Shamliyan TA, Taylor BC, Kane RL. · University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55417, USA. · Ann Intern Med. · Pubmed #18252677 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of localized prostate cancer treatments is largely unknown. PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness and harms of treatments for localized prostate cancer. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (through September 2007), the Cochrane Library (through Issue 3, 2007), and the Cochrane Review Group in Prostate Diseases and Urologic Malignancies registry (through November 2007). STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language and observational studies published in English that evaluated treatments and reported clinical or biochemical outcomes in localized prostate cancer. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 researchers extracted information on study design, sample characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: 18 RCTs and 473 observational studies met inclusion criteria. One [one randomized controlled trial] [corrected] RCT enrolled mostly men without prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-detected disease and reported that, compared with watchful waiting, radical prostatectomy reduced crude [corrected] all-cause mortality (24% vs. 30%; P = 0.04) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (10% [corrected] vs. 15% [corrected]; P = 0.01) at 10 years [corrected] Effectiveness was limited to men younger than age 65 years but was not associated with Gleason score or baseline PSA level. An older, smaller trial found no significant overall survival differences between radical prostatectomy and watchful waiting (risk difference, 0% [95% CI, -19% to 18%]). Radical prostatectomy reduced disease recurrence at 5 years compared with external-beam radiation therapy in 1 small, older trial (14% vs. 39%; risk difference, 21%; P = 0.04). No external-beam radiation regimen was superior to another in reducing mortality. No randomized trials evaluated primary androgen deprivation. Androgen deprivation used adjuvant to radical prostatectomy did not improve biochemical progression compared with radical prostatectomy alone (risk difference, 0% [CI, -7% to 7%]). No randomized trial evaluated brachytherapy, cryotherapy, robotic radical prostatectomy, or photon-beam or intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Observational studies showed wide and overlapping effectiveness estimates within and between treatments. Adverse event definitions and severity varied widely. The Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study reported that urinary leakage (> or =1 event/d) was more common with radical prostatectomy (35%) than with radiation therapy (12%) or androgen deprivation (11%). Bowel urgency occurred more often with radiation (3%) or androgen deprivation (3%) than with radical prostatectomy (1%). Erectile dysfunction occurred frequently after all treatments (radical prostatectomy, 58%; radiation therapy, 43%; androgen deprivation, 86%). A higher risk score incorporating histologic grade, PSA level, and tumor stage was associated with increased risk for disease progression or recurrence regardless of treatment. LIMITATIONS: Only 3 randomized trials compared effectiveness between primary treatments. No trial enrolled patients with prostate cancer primarily detected with PSA testing. CONCLUSION: Assessment of the comparative effectiveness and harms of localized prostate cancer treatments is difficult because of limitations in the evidence.

Conti PD, Atallah AN, Arruda H, Soares BG, El Dib RP, Wilt TJ. · No affiliation provided · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #17943832 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: After lung cancer, prostate cancer is the most common cause of death among males. The aim of treatment is to prevent disease-related morbidity and mortality while minimizing intervention-related adverse events. Androgen suppression therapy (AST) to reduce circulating serum testosterone and disease progression is considered a mainstay of treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer. It has been increasingly utilized for early stage disease despite a lack of evidence of effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intermittent androgen suppression (IAS) compared to continuous androgen suppression for treating prostatic cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following databases were searched to identify randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials comparing intermittent and continuous androgen suppression in the treatment of any stage of prostate cancer: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; EMBASE and LILACS. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomized, and compare the effects of IAS versus CAS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Five randomized studies involving 1382 patients were included in this review. All the included studies involved advanced (T3 or T4) prostate cancer, had relatively small populations, and were of short duration. Few events were reported and did not assess disease-specific survival or metastatic disease. Only one study (N = 77) evaluated biochemical outcomes. A subgroup analysis found no significant differences in biochemical progression (defined by the authors as PSA >/= 10 ng/mL) between IAS and CAS for Gleason scores 4 - 6, 7, and 8 - 10. For patients with a Gleason score > 6, reduction in biochemical progression favoured the IAS group (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.67, P = 0.02). Studies primarily reported on adverse events. One trial (N = 43) found no difference in adverse effects (gastrointestinal, gynecomastia and asthenia) between IAS ( two events) and CAS (five events), with the exception of impotence, which was significantly lower in the IAS group (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.92, P = 0.008). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Data from RCTs comparing IAS to CAS are limited by small sample size and short duration. There are no data for the relative effectiveness of IAS versus CAS for overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, or disease progression. Limited information suggests IAS may have slightly reduced adverse events. Overall, IAS was also as effective as CAS for potency, but was superior during the interval of cycles (96%).

Shelley M, Wilt TJ, Coles B, Mason MD. · Velindre NHS Trust, Research Laboratories, Velindre Road, Whitchurch, Cardiff, Wales, UK, CF4 7XL. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #17636783 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is a common cancer in elderly men and in some will prove fatal. Standard treatments for localised disease include surgery ( radical prostatectomy), radiotherapy and active monitoring. New emerging therapies are being evaluated with the aim of reducing the complication rate associated with standard therapies, as well as developing an effective treatment. One such modality is cryotherapy, a procedure that introduces probes directly into the prostate tumour and kills the malignant cells by a freezing process. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to evaluate the relative clinical and economic benefits of cryotherapy compared to standard therapies for the primary treatment of localised prostate cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: Our search strategy included an electronic search of MEDLINE from 1996 to December 2006, plus EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database), the Cochrane library, ISI Science Citation Index, Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), and LILACS to identify all relevant published randomised trials of cryotherapy for localised prostate cancer. Cancerlit and HealthSTAR databases were searched to their final date. Handsearching of relevant journals was undertaken. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only published randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of cryotherapy with radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy or active monitoring for the primary treatment of men with localised prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted from eligible studies, and included study design, participants, interventions and outcomes. Primary outcome measures were biochemical disease-free survival, disease-free survival and treatment-induced complications. Secondary outcomes included disease-specific survival, overall survival, quality-of-life outcome measures and economic impact measures. MAIN RESULTS: There were no randomised trials found comparing cryotherapy with other therapies for the primary treatment of localised prostate cancer. All studies identified were case series. To indicate the level of the available evidence, studies that evaluated cryotherapy as a primary therapy, using transrectal ultrasound guidance and urethral warming in at least 50 patients with localised prostate cancer, and a minimum of one year follow up, were reviewed. Eight case series were identified that complied with these criteria; two were retrospective. The patients recruited (n = 1483) had an age range from 41 to 84 years, stages T1 = 0 to 43%, T2 = 24 to 88%, T3 = 1 to 41%, and T4 = 0 to 14%. The mean preoperative PSA level ranged from 9.7 to 39 ng/mL, with Gleason scores < 7 and ranging from 6 to 37%. One additional study that compared cryotherapy (total cryotherapy and standard cryotherapy with urethral preservation) with radical prostatectomy was also identified and reviewed. In this study the success rates, defined as a post-treatment PSA of 0.2 ng/mL or less, were reported as 96% for total cryotherapy, 49% for standard cryotherapy and 73% for radical prostatectomy. Four studies did not monitor the temperature of the cyro-procedure and reported 17 to 28% of patients had a positive biopsy following cryotherapy with a mean PSA nadir of 0.55 to 1.75 ng/mL (median 0.4 to 1.85 ng/mL). The other four studies used thermocouples to monitor the temperature of the cryo-procedure and reported progression-free survival rates of 71 to 89% with 1.4 to 13% of patients having a positive biopsy post-cryotherapy. At 5 years, overall survival was reported as 89 to 92% in two studies, and disease-specific survival as 94% in one study. The major complications observed in all studies included impotence (47 to 100%), incontinence (1.3 to 19%), and urethral sloughing (3.9 to 85%), with less common complications of fistula (0 to 2%), bladder-neck obstruction (2 to 55%), stricture (2.2 to 17%) and pain (0.4 to 3.1%). Most patients were sent home the following day (range 1 to 4 days). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cryotherapy offers a potential alternative to standard therapies for the primary treatment of localised prostate cancer. However, the poor quality of the available studies makes it difficult to determine the relative benefits of this modality. Randomised trials are needed to fully evaluate the full potential of cryotherapy in men with this disease. Patients selecting cryotherapy as their therapeutic option should be made fully aware of the reported efficacy, complications and the low-grade evidence from which these data are derived.

MacDonald R, Fink HA, Huckabay C, Monga M, Wilt TJ. · Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 1 Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA. · BJU Int. · Pubmed #17433028 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) for treating urinary incontinence (UI) after radical prostatectomy (RP) by reviewing evidence from randomized trials. METHODS: Randomized trials published in English were included if they involved men with UI after RP and compared PFMT with a control group. Data were abstracted onto a standardized form using a prospectively developed protocol. RESULTS: Eleven trials randomizing 1028 men (mean age 64 years) met the inclusion criteria; the duration of the trials was 3-12 months. One trial of 300 men found that those assigned to PFMT achieved continence more quickly (after 1, 3 and 6 months) than men not assigned to PFMT. Men receiving biofeedback-enhanced PFMT were more likely to achieve continence or have no continual leakage than those with no training within 1-2 months after RP (relative benefit increase 1.54; 95% confidence interval 1.01-2.34; four trials reporting). The relative benefit increase (1.19, 0.82-1.72; five studies) was no longer significant after 3-4 months. Biofeedback-enhanced PFMT was comparable to written/verbal PFMT instruction. Extracorporeal magnetic innervation (ExMI) and electrical stimulation (ES) were found to be initially (within 1-2 months) more effective than PFMT in one trial, but there were no significant differences between groups at > or = 3 months. CONCLUSION: Based on available evidence, PFMT with or without biofeedback enhancement hastens the return to continence more than no PFMT in men with UI after RP. Additional trials are needed to confirm whether ExMI and ES are effective conservative treatment options.

Wilt TJ, Thompson IM. · Minneapolis VA Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, 1 Veterans Drive (111-0), Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA. · BMJ. · Pubmed #17124221 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Kumar S, Shelley M, Harrison C, Coles B, Wilt TJ, Mason MD. · Velindre NHS Trust, Cochrane Unit, Research Dept., Velindre Road, Whitchurch, Cardiff, Wales, UK. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #17054269 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Hormone therapy for early prostate cancer has demonstrated an improvement in clinical and pathological variables, but not always an improvement in overall survival. We performed a systematic review of both adjuvant and neo-adjuvant hormone therapy combined with surgery or radiotherapy in localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to undertake a systematic review and, if possible, a meta-analysis of neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy in localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE (1966-2006), EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, LILACS, and SIGLE for relevant randomised trials. Handsearching of appropriate publications was also undertaken. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of patients with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer, that is, stages T1-T4, any N, M0, comparing neo-adjuvant or adjuvant hormonal deprivation in combination with primary therapy (radical radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy) versus primary therapy alone were included in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted from eligible studies and assessed for quality, and included information on study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Comparable data were pooled together for meta-analysis with intention-to treat principle. MAIN RESULTS: Men with prostate cancer have different clinical outcomes based on their risk (T1-T2, T3-T4, PSA levels and Gleason score). However, the majority of studies included in this review did not report results by risk groups; therefore, it was not possible to perform sub-group analysis. Neo-adjuvant hormonal therapy prior to prostatectomy did not improve overall survival (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.85, P = 0.69). However, there was a significant reduction in the positive surgical margin rate (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.42, P < 0.00001) and a significant improvement in other pathological variables such as lymph node involvement, pathological staging and organ confined rates. There was a borderline significant reduction of disease recurrence rates (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.0, P = 0.05), in favour of treatment. The use of longer duration of neo-adjuvant hormones, that is either 6 or 8 months prior to prostatectomy, was associated with a significant reduction in positive surgical margins (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.80, P = 0.002). In one study, neo-adjuvant hormones prior to radiotherapy significantly improved overall survival for Gleason 2 to 6 patients; although, in two studies, there was no improvement in disease-specific survival (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.32, P = 0.97). However, there was a significant improvement in both clinical disease-free survival (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.40, P < 0.00001) and biochemical disease-free survival (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.56, P < 0.00001). Adjuvant androgen deprivation following prostatectomy did not significantly improve overall survival at 5 years (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.85, P = 0.2); although one study reported a significant disease-specific survival advantage with adjuvant therapy (P = 0.001). In addition, there was a significant improvement in disease-free survival at both 5 years (OR 3.73, 95%CI 2.30 to 6.03, P < 0.00001) and 10 years (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.15, P = 0.0009). Adjuvant therapy following radiotherapy resulted in a significant overall survival gain apparent at 5 (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.83, P = 0.0009) and 10 years (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.84, P = 0.003); although there was significant heterogeneity (P = 0.09 and P = 0.07, respectively). There was also a significant improvement in disease-specific survival (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.88, P = 0.00001) and disease-free survival (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.05 to 3.12, P < 0.00001) at 5 years. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Hormone therapy combined with either prostatectomy or radiotherapy is associated with significant clinical benefits in patients with local or locally advanced prostate cancer. Significant local control may be achieved when given prior to prostatectomy or radiotherapy, which may improve patient's quality of life. When given adjuvant to these primary therapies, hormone therapy, not only provides a method for local control, but there is also evidence for a significant survival advantage. However, hormone therapy is associated with significant side effects, such as hot flushes and gynaecomastia, as well as cost implications. The decision to use hormone therapy should, therefore, be taken at a local level, between the patient, clinician and policy maker, taking into account the clinical benefits, toxicity and cost. More research is needed to guide the choice, the duration, and the schedule of hormonal deprivation therapy, and the impact of long-term hormone therapy with regard to toxicity and the patient's quality of life.

Mike S, Harrison C, Coles B, Staffurth J, Wilt TJ, Mason MD. · Velindre NHS Trust, Research Laboratories, Velindre Road, Whitchurch, Cardiff, Wales, UK. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #17054249 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer mainly affects elderly men, and its incidence has steadily increased over the last decade. The management of this disease is replete with controversy. In men with advanced, metastatic prostate cancer, hormone therapy is almost universally accepted as the initial treatment of choice and produces good responses in most patients. However, many patients will relapse and become resistant to further hormone manipulation; the outlook for these patients is poor. Many have disease extending to the skeleton, which is associated with severe pain. Therapies for these men include chemotherapy, bisphosphonates, palliative radiotherapy, and radioisotopes. Systemic chemotherapy has been evaluated in men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) for many years, with disappointing results. However, more recent studies with newer agents have shown encouraging results. There is therefore a need to explore the value of chemotherapy in this disease. OBJECTIVES: The present review aims to assess the role of chemotherapy in men with metastatic HRPC. The major outcome was overall survival. Secondary objectives include the effect of chemotherapy on pain relief, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, quality of life, and treatment-related toxicity. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified by searching electronic databases, such as MEDLINE, and handsearching of relevant journals and conference proceedings. There was no restriction of language or location. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only published randomised trials of chemotherapy in HRPC patients were eligible for inclusion in this review. Randomised comparisons of different chemotherapeutic regimens, chemotherapy versus best standard of care or placebo, were relevant to this review. Randomised, dose-escalation studies were not included in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction tables were designed specifically for this review to aid data collection. Data from relevant studies were extracted and included information on trial design, participants, and outcomes. Trial quality was also assessed using a scoring system for randomisation, blinding, and description of patient withdrawal. MAIN RESULTS: Out of 107 randomised trials of chemotherapy in advanced prostate cancer identified by the search strategy, 47 were included in this review and represented 6929 patients with HRPC. Only two trials compared the same chemotherapeutic interventions and therefore a meta-analysis was considered inappropriate. The quality of some trials was poor because of poor reporting, low-patient recruitment, or poor trial design. For clarity, trials were categorised according to the major drug used, but this was not a definitive grouping, since many trials used several agents and would be eligible for inclusion in a number of categories. Drug categories included estramustine, 5-fluorouracil, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, mitoxantrone, and docetaxel. Only studies using docetaxel reported a significant improvement in overall survival compared to best standard of care, although the increase was small (< 2.5 months). The mean percentage of patients achieving at least a 50% reduction in PSA compared to baseline was as follows: estramustine 48%; 5-fluorouracil 20%; doxorubicin 50% (one study only); mitoxantrone 33%; and docetaxel 52%. Pain relief was reported in 35% to 76% of patients receiving either single agents or combination regimens. A three weekly regime of docetaxel significantly improved pain relief compared to mitoxantrone plus prednisone (the latter regimen approved as standard therapy for HRPC in the USA). All chemotherapeutics, either as single agents or in combination, were associated with toxicity; the major ones being myelosuppression, gastrointestinal toxicity, cardiac toxicity, neuropathy, and alopecia. Quality of life was significantly improved with docetaxel compared to mitoxantrone plus prednisone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HRPC have not traditionally been offered chemotherapy as a routine treatment because of treatment-related toxicity and poor responses. Recent data from randomised studies, in particular those using docetaxel, have provided encouraging improvements in overall survival, palliation of symptoms, and improvements in quality of life. Chemotherapy should be considered as a treatment option for patients with HRPC. However, patients should make an informed decision based on the risks and benefits of chemotherapy.

Shelley MD, Wilt TJ, Court J, Coles B, Kynaston H, Mason MD. · Cochrane Prostatic Diseases and Urologic Cancers Group, Velindre NHS Trust, Cardiff, UK. · BJU Int. · Pubmed #15008714 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To assess, in a systematic review and meta-analysis, the relative effectiveness of intravesical mitomycin C and bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) for tumour recurrence, disease progression and overall survival in patients with medium- to high-risk Ta and T1 bladder cancer. METHODS: The major medical databases were searched comprehensively up to June 2003, and relevant journals hand-searched for randomized controlled trials, in any language, that compared intravesical mitomycin C with BCG in medium- to high-risk patients with Ta or T1 bladder cancer. RESULTS: Twenty-five articles were identified but only seven were considered eligible for the analysis. This represented 1901 evaluable patients in all, 820 randomized to mitomycin C and 1081 to BCG. Six trials had sufficient data for meta-analysis and included 1527 patients, 693 in the mitomycin and 834 in the BCG arm. There was no significant difference between mitomycin C and BCG for tumour recurrence in the six trials, with a weighted mean log hazard ratio, LHR, (variance) of -0.022 (0.005). However, there was significant heterogeneity between trials (P = 0.001). A subgroup analysis of three trials that included only high-risk Ta and T1 patients indicated no heterogeneity (P = 0.25) and a LHR for recurrence of -0.371 (0.012). With mitomycin C used as the control in the meta-analysis, a negative ratio is in favour of BCG and, in this case, was highly significant (P < 0.001). The seventh trial (in abstract form only) used BCG in low doses for two arms of the trial (27 mg and 13.5 mg) compared with a standard dose of mitomycin C (30 mg), and reported a significantly lower recurrence rate with BCG (27 mg) than for mitomycin C (P = 0.001). Only two trials included sufficient data to analyse disease progression and survival, representing 681 patients (338 randomized to BCG and 343 to mitomycin C). There was no significant difference between mitomycin C and BCG for disease progression, with a LHR of 0.044 (0.04) (P = 0.16), or survival, at -0.112 (0.03) (P = 0.50). Adverse events were slightly more frequent with BCG. Local toxicity (dysuria, cystitis, frequency and haematuria) were associated with both mitomycin C (30%) and BCG (44%). Systemic toxicity, e.g. chills, fever and malaise, occurred with both agents (12% and 19%, respectively) although skin rash was more common with mitomycin C. CONCLUSION: Tumour recurrence was significantly lower with intravesical BCG than with mitomycin C only in those patients at high risk of tumour recurrence. However, there was no difference in disease progression or survival, and the decision to use either agent might be based on adverse events and cost.

Wilt TJ, Partin MR. · University of Minnesota School of Medicine-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, USA. · Postgrad Med. · Pubmed #14587206 No free full text.

Abstract: Cancer screening by PSA testing is widespread in the United States, and treatment recommendations encourage early therapy. Yet controversy about patient care persists because evidence demonstrating that these approaches improve the length and quality of a man's life is lacking. Physicians can assist their patients by first providing a balanced presentation of the known risks and benefits of prostate cancer detection and treatment and then incorporating patient preferences into medical decisions. Success in shared decision making may increase with use of patient education materials to convey most of the time-consuming and challenging information. At least two of the many materials developed can be easily administered with very few resources and independent of primary care encounters.

Samson DJ, Seidenfeld J, Schmitt B, Hasselblad V, Albertsen PC, Bennett CL, Wilt TJ, Aronson N. · Technology Evaluation Center, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Washington, DC 20005, USA. · Cancer. · Pubmed #12124837 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The current systematic review and meta-analysis compared monotherapy and combined androgen blockade in the treatment of men with advanced prostate carcinoma. Outcomes of interest included overall, cancer specific, and progression-free survival; time to treatment failure; adverse events; and quality of life. METHODS: The literature search identified randomized trials comparing monotherapy (orchiectomy and luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone [LHRH] agonists) with combination therapy using orchiectomy or a LHRH agonist plus a nonsteroidal or steroidal antiandrogen. Dual independent review occurred. The meta-analysis used a random effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-one trials compared survival after monotherapy with survival after combined androgen blockade (n = 6871 patients). The meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference in survival at 2 years between patients treated with combined androgen blockade and those treated with monotherapy (20 trials; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.970; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.866-1.087). The authors determined a statistically significant difference in survival at 5 years that favored combined androgen blockade (10 trials; HR = 0.871; 95% CI, 0.805-0.942). For the subgroup of patients with a good prognosis, there was no statistically significant difference in survival. Adverse effects leading to withdrawal from therapy occurred more often with combined androgen blockade. To the authors' knowledge there is little evidence published to date comparing the effects of combined androgen blockade and monotherapy on quality of life, but the single randomized trial that adequately addressed this outcome reported an advantage for monotherapy over combined androgen blockade. CONCLUSIONS: A thorough examination of the usefulness of combined androgen blockade must balance the modest increase in expected survival observed at 5 years against the increased risk of adverse effects and the potential for adversely affecting the patient's overall quality of life.

Wilt TJ. · Minneapolis VA Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA. · Semin Urol Oncol. · Pubmed #11828353 No free full text.

Abstract: Detection and treatment of prostate cancer can theoretically identify and cure a potentially disabling and deadly disease. However, controversy exists primarily because of the absence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) documenting that these strategies improve survival and quality of life. In the absence of definitive information from RCTs, patients seek information and recommendations from many sources. Physicians have an opportunity to help patients and their families sort through the vast array of conflicting and confusing information. Rather then recommending for or against routine prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, physicians should provide men who are interested in prostate cancer testing, 50 years of age and older, and have a life expectancy of at least 10 to 15 years, with balanced information about the potential benefits and established harms of screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Validated informational materials can effectively and efficiently promote shared decision making. For early prostate cancer detection, the minimum information should include: the likelihood that prostate cancer will be diagnosed, possibilities of false-positive and false-negative results, anxiety associated with a positive test, and uncertainty regarding whether screening reduces the risk for death from prostate cancer. For men with localized prostate cancer, acceptable treatment options include radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, cryotherapy, early androgen-suppression therapy, and watchful waiting. These are all considered acceptable options because data do not provide clear-cut evidence for the superiority of any 1 treatment. The only RCT comparing surgery to watchful waiting, though of relatively small size and conducted before PSA testing, showed no difference in survival after 23 years of follow-up. Watchful waiting does not remove prostate cancer, may miss an opportunity to cure or delay disease progression, and may lead to increased patient anxiety. However, watchful waiting avoids the harmful side effects of early intervention and does provide palliative therapy if and when symptomatic disease progression occurs. Furthermore, intervention is not necessary in the vast majority of men because most prostate cancers do not cause mortality or serious morbidity. Therefore, quality of life in many men treated with watchful waiting is superior to those treated with early intervention. For the minority of men with prostate cancer likely to cause disability or death, early intervention options may not be effective. Although commonly used in other countries, watchful waiting is rarely recommended in the United States. The opportunity exists to resolve the confusion, close the gaps in knowledge, and enhance prostate cancer care by conducting RCTs. Until these RCTs are completed, physicians can assist patients by providing a balanced presentation of the known risks and potential but unproven benefits of detection and treatment options and incorporating patient preferences into health care decisions.

Wilt TJ, Brawer MK. · No affiliation provided · Praxis (Bern 1994). · Pubmed #11702723 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Shelley MD, Kynaston H, Court J, Wilt TJ, Coles B, Burgon K, Mason MD. · Cochrane Prostatic Diseases and Urological Cancer Subgroup, Cancer Research Wales Laboratories, Velindre NHS Trust, Whitchurch, Cardiff CF14 2TL, Wales, UK. · BJU Int. · Pubmed #11488731 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To assess, in a systematic review, the effectiveness of intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) in preventing tumour recurrence in patients with medium/high risk Ta and T1 bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An electronic database search of Medline, Embase, DARE, the Cochrane Library, Cancerlit, Healthstar and BIDS was undertaken, plus hand searching of the Proceedings of ASCO, for randomized controlled trials, in any language, comparing transurethral resection (TUR) alone with TUR followed by intravesical BCG in patients with Ta and T1 bladder cancer. RESULTS: The search identified 26 publications comparing TUR with TUR + BCG. Six trials were considered acceptable, representing 585 eligible patients, 281 in the TUR-alone group and 304 in the TUR + BCG group. The major clinical outcome chosen was tumour recurrence. The weighted mean log hazard ratio for the first recurrence, taken across all six trials, was -0.83 (95% confidence interval -0.57 to -1.08, P < 0.001), which is equivalent to a 56% reduction in the hazard, attributable to BCG. The Peto odds ratio for patients recurring at 12 months was 0.3 (95% confidence interval of 0.21-0.43, P < 0.001), significantly favouring BCG therapy. Manageable toxicities associated with intravesical BCG were cystitis (67%), haematuria (23%), fever (25%) and urinary frequency (71%). No BCG-induced deaths were reported. CONCLUSION: TUR with intravesical BCG provides a significantly better prophylaxis of tumour recurrence in Ta and T1 bladder cancer than TUR alone. Randomized trials are still needed to address the issues of BCG strain, dose and schedule, and to better quantify the effect on progression to invasive disease.

Partin MR, Nelson D, Radosevich D, Nugent S, Flood AB, Dillon N, Holtzman J, Haas M, Wilt TJ. · Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55417, USA. · J Gen Intern Med. · Pubmed #15242468 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of video and pamphlet interventions on patient prostate cancer (CaP) screening knowledge, decision-making participation, preferences, and behaviors. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Four midwestern Veterans Affairs medical facilities. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: One thousand, one hundred fifty-two male veterans age 50 and older with primary care appointments at participating facilities were randomized and 893 completed follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to mailed pamphlet, mailed video, or usual care/control. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes assessed by phone survey 2 weeks postintervention included a 10-item knowledge index; correct responses to questions on CaP natural history, treatment efficacy, the prostate-specific antigen (PSA)'s predictive value, and expert disagreement about the PSA; whether screening was discussed with provider; screening preferences; and PSA testing rates. Mean knowledge index scores were higher for video (7.44; P = .001) and pamphlet (7.26; P = .03) subjects versus controls (6.90). Video and pamphlet subjects reported significantly higher percentages of correct responses relative to controls to questions on CaP natural history (63%, 63%, and 54%, respectively); treatment efficacy (19%, 20%, and 5%), and expert disagreement (28%, 19%, and 8%), but not PSA accuracy (28%, 22%, and 22%). Pamphlet subjects were more likely than controls to discuss screening with their provider (41% vs 32%; P = .03) but video subjects were not (35%; P = .33). Video and pamphlet subjects were less likely to intend to have a PSA, relative to controls (63%, 65%, and 74%, respectively). PSA testing rates did not differ significantly across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed interventions enhance patient knowledge and self-reported participation in decision making, and alter screening preferences. The pamphlet and video interventions evaluated are comparable in effectiveness. The lower-cost pamphlet approach is an attractive option for clinics with limited resources.

Wilt TJ, Paul J, Murdoch M, Nelson D, Nugent S, Rubins HB. · Minneapolis VA Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, University of Minnesota Department of Medicine, Minneapolis, Minn., USA. · Eff Clin Pract. · Pubmed #11434074 links to  free full text

Abstract: CONTEXT: Although evidence-based guidelines recommend that physicians inform men about prostate cancer screening, the most efficient way to do this is not known. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a mailed educational pamphlet affected men's knowledge about early detection of prostate cancer. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care clinic of the Minneapolis VA Medical Center. PATIENTS: 342 men at least 50 years of age who responded to a mailed survey (overall response rate, 68%) and did not report a history of prostate cancer. INTERVENTION: "Early Prostate Cancer" pamphlet mailed to patients in the intervention group 1 week before their scheduled clinic appointments. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' responses to a survey mailed 1 week after their clinic appointments; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing determined from electronic medical records. RESULTS: Respondents were predominantly elderly white men (mean age, 71 years; 90% white) with chronic illnesses (48% described their health as "fair" or "poor"). Men who received the educational pamphlet were better informed than men in the usual care group, as measured by correct responses to the following three questions about prostate cancer screening: the natural history of prostate cancer (32% vs. 24%; P = 0.10), whether treatment lengthens lives of men with early prostate cancer (56% vs. 44%; P = 0.04), and accuracy of PSA testing (46% vs. 27%; P < 0.008). The overall proportion of correctly answered questions was greater in the intervention group (45% vs. 32%; P < 0.001). Testing for PSA in the year after the index clinic appointments did not differ significantly between the intervention group and the usual care group (31% vs. 37%; P > 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Male veterans are poorly informed about the potential benefits and risks of prostate cancer screening. Although our mailed educational pamphlet enhanced knowledge only modestly, it was an inexpensive and easily implemented intervention.