Probleme, Zielsetzung und Inhalt der Früherkennung beim Prostatakarzinom

[Criteria for errors in prostate-specific antigen diagnostics]

BACKGROUND

The widespread use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) determination in the diagnosis of prostate cancer has proved to be generally beneficial; however, as a result expert commissions, arbitration committees and the courts have had to deal with an increased number of suspected treatment errors. As a follow-up to the previous report on the decisions made by expert commissions, this paper deals with recent developments and their assessment.

METHODS

The procedures followed for assessment have been extensively described in the previous paper. The criteria for assessment of disputed treatment were and are the accepted standards (i.e. the standards applicable to medical specialists) and the quality of care applied in accordance with the pertinent definitions.

RESULTS

In the period from 2005 to 2011 (i.e. 7 years) errors in medical treatment were determined in connection with PSA determinations in 22 out of the 37 cases reviewed, i.e. 71%. These were subdivided into 3 cases from general practitioners, 5 cases from specialists in internal medicine and 15 cases from urologists (in 1 case 2 different doctors were involved). They were faulted for omitting a follow-up biopsy of the prostate. In 12 cases this involved PSA values above the recommended cut-off level without suspicious palpation results, in 7 cases raised PSA levels with suspicious palpation findings, in 2 cases suspicious palpation findings without raised PSA and in 1 case the omission of both palpation and PSA determination. An error in treatment was negated if the PSA value was below the recommended cut-off value or had fallen below it again subsequently (two cases each), if follow-up prostate biopsy was recommended and documented following the determination of raised PSA and/or suspicious palpation findings (three cases) or if follow-up treatment was rejected in spite of a documented recommendation (one case).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment errors in association with PSA determinations can therefore be uniformly and plausibly assessed using objective criteria and can thus be avoided.

[EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part I: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease]

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to present a summary of the 2010 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised cancer of the prostate (PCa).

METHODS

The working panel performed a literature review of the new data emerging from 2007 to 2010. The guidelines were updated, and level of evidence and grade of recommendation were added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews.

RESULTS

A full version is available at the EAU office or Web site (www.uroweb.org). Current evidence is insufficient to warrant widespread population-based screening by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for PCa. A systematic prostate biopsy under ultrasound guidance and local anaesthesia is the preferred diagnostic method. Active surveillance represents a viable option in men with low-risk PCa and a long life expectancy. PSA doubling time in < 3 yr or a biopsy progression indicates the need for active intervention. In men with locally advanced PCa in whom local therapy is not mandatory, watchful waiting (WW) is a treatment alternative to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with equivalent oncologic efficacy. Active treatment is mostly recommended for patients with localised disease and a long life expectancy with radical prostatectomy (RP) shown to be superior to WW in a prospective randomised trial. Nerve-sparing RP represents the approach of choice in organ-confined disease; neoadjuvant androgen deprivation demonstrates no improvement of outcome variables. Radiation therapy should be performed with at least 74Gy and 78Gy in low-risk and intermediate/high-risk PCa, respectively. For locally advanced disease, adjuvant ADT for 3 yr results in superior disease-specific and overall survival rates and represents the treatment of choice. Follow-up after local therapy is largely based on PSA, and a disease-specific history with imaging is indicated only when symptoms occur.

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice.

EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to present a summary of the 2010 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised cancer of the prostate (PCa).

METHODS

The working panel performed a literature review of the new data emerging from 2007 to 2010. The guidelines were updated, and level of evidence and grade of recommendation were added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews.

RESULTS

A full version is available at the EAU office or Web site (www.uroweb.org). Current evidence is insufficient to warrant widespread population-based screening by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for PCa. A systematic prostate biopsy under ultrasound guidance and local anaesthesia is the preferred diagnostic method. Active surveillance represents a viable option in men with low-risk PCa and a long life expectancy. PSA doubling time in <3 yr or a biopsy progression indicates the need for active intervention. In men with locally advanced PCa in whom local therapy is not mandatory, watchful waiting (WW) is a treatment alternative to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with equivalent oncologic efficacy. Active treatment is mostly recommended for patients with localised disease and a long life expectancy with radical prostatectomy (RP) shown to be superior to WW in a prospective randomised trial. Nerve-sparing RP represents the approach of choice in organ-confined disease; neoadjuvant androgen deprivation demonstrates no improvement of outcome variables. Radiation therapy should be performed with at least 74 Gy and 78 Gy in low-risk and intermediate/high-risk PCa, respectively. For locally advanced disease, adjuvant ADT for 3 yr results in superior disease-specific and overall survival rates and represents the treatment of choice. Follow-up after local therapy is largely based on PSA, and a disease-specific history with imaging is indicated only when symptoms occur.

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice.

[Antiandrogen strategies in prostate cancer: reconstitution of oestrogen receptor beta]

In advanced prostate cancer, albeit castration resistant, an active androgen receptor is still pivotal for growth and cell survival. Recent therapies involving more effective antiandrogens such as MDV3100 proved to be successful. Furthermore, blocking de novo intracrine androgen synthesis, e.g. with abiraterone acetate, provides additional benefit. Besides these antiandrogen measures, compounds which enable the reconstitution of the oestrogen receptor beta as a tumour suppressor restrain aberrant androgen receptor signalling.