Effect of hemodialysis on serum complexed prostate-specific antigen levels

Prolonged Response with Enzalutamide in a Prostate Cancer Patient on Hemodialysis

Current therapies in oncology that offer a longer and better quality of life are leading to more cases where cancer and chronic diseases coexist. Enzalutamide, a second-generation anti-androgen agent, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2012 for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). There is no series with many patients on the use of enzalutamide in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). We present a patient diagnosed with mCRPC who was followed up with enzalutamide treatment for about 5 years after progression with docetaxel and who was on hemodialysis 3 days a week.

[Localized Prostate cancer in candidates for renal transplantation and recipients of a kidney transplant: The French Guidelines from CTAFU]

OBJECTIVE

To define guidelines for the management of localized prostate cancer (PCa) in kidney transplant (KTx) candidates and recipients.

METHOD

A systematic review (Medline) of the literature was conducted by the CTAFU to report prostate cancer epidemiology, screening, diagnosis and management in KTx candidates and recipients with the corresponding level of evidence.

RESULTS

KTx recipients are at similar risk for PCa as general population. Thus, PCa screening in this setting is defined according to global French guidelines from CCAFU. Systematic screening is proposed in candidates for renal transplant over 50 y-o. PCa diagnosis is based on prostate biopsies performed after multiparametric MRI and preventive antibiotics. CCAFU guidelines remain applicable for PCa treatment in KTx recipients with some specificities, especially regarding lymph nodes management. Treatment options in candidates for KTx need to integrate waiting time and access to transplantation. Current data allows the CTAFU to propose mandatory waiting times after PCa treatment in KTx candidates with a weak level of evidence.

CONCLUSION

These French recommendations should contribute to improve PCa management in KTx recipients and candidates, integrating oncological objectives with access to transplantation.

Tumour markers and kidney function: a systematic review

Tumour markers represent useful tools in diagnosis and clinical management of patients with cancer, because they are easy to use, minimally invasive, and easily measured in either blood or urine. Unfortunately, such an ideal marker, as yet, does not exist. Different pathological states may increase the level of a tumour marker in the absence of any neoplasia. Alternatively, low levels of tumour markers could be also found in the presence of neoplasias. We aimed at reviewing studies currently available in the literature examining the association between tumour markers and different renal impairment conditions. Each tumour marker was found to be differently influenced by these criteria; additionally we revealed in many cases a lack of available published data.

Differences in prostate cancer detection rates according to the level of glomerular filtration rate in patients with prostate specific antigen levels of 4.0-10.0 ng/ml

AIMS

To investigate differences in prostate cancer detection rates according to the level of glomerular filtration rates (GFR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 4.0-10.0 ng/ml were analysed. Age, serum creatinine, estimated GFR, body mass index, total PSA (tPSA), free PSA (fPSA), per cent free PSA (%fPSA), comorbidities, biopsy Gleason sum and per cent positive core were retrospectively reviewed. All parameters were compared to show whether patients with GFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (group A) have higher risk of prostate cancer than patients with GFR ≥ 60 (group B). The primary endpoint was cancer detection rate and the secondary endpoints were differences in mean tPSA, fPSA, %fPSA and pathologic outcomes.

RESULTS

  A total of 1092 men (243 cancer patients) were included. Mean age was 65.8 ± 7.7 years. No differences in mean age and tPSA were found between groups A and B. Mean fPSA, %fPSA and cancer detection rate were significantly higher in group A than group B. The incidence of %fPSA <25% was significantly lower in group A than in group B. GFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) , fPSA and %fPSA <25% were significant predictors for the presence of prostate cancer in patients with tPSA between 4 and 10 ng/ml. However, %fPSA <25% was not a significant predictor for group A.

CONCLUSIONS

  Because of the increased cancer detection rates in patients with CKD of stage ≥ 3 whose tPSA levels are 4.0-10.0 ng/ml, performing prostate biopsy should be actively considered in patients with CKD.

Screening for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Any form of screening aims to reduce disease-specific and overall mortality, and to improve a person's future quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has generated considerable debate within the medical and broader community, as demonstrated by the varying recommendations made by medical organizations and governed by national policies. To better inform individual patient decision-making and health policy decisions, we need to consider the entire body of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on prostate cancer screening summarised in a systematic review. In 2006, our Cochrane review identified insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of routine mass, selective, or opportunistic screening for prostate cancer. An update of the review in 2010 included three additional trials. Meta-analysis of the five studies included in the 2010 review concluded that screening did not significantly reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality. In the past two years, several updates to studies included in the 2010 review have been published thereby providing the rationale for this update of the 2010 systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality or all-cause mortality and to assess its impact on quality of life and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

An updated search of electronic databases (PROSTATE register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT, and the NHS EED) was performed, in addition to handsearching of specific journals and bibliographies, in an effort to identify both published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of screening versus no screening for prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The original search (2006) identified 99 potentially relevant articles that were selected for full-text review. From these citations, two RCTs were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. The search for the 2010 version of the review identified a further 106 potentially relevant articles, from which three new RCTs were included in the review. A total of 31 articles were retrieved for full-text examination based on the updated search in 2012. Updated data on three studies were included in this review. Data from the trials were independently extracted by two authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs with a total of 341,342 participants were included in this review. All involved prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, with or without digital rectal examination (DRE), though the interval and threshold for further evaluation varied across trials. The age of participants ranged from 45 to 80 years and duration of follow-up from 7 to 20 years. Our meta-analysis of the five included studies indicated no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between men randomised to the screening and control groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.17). The methodological quality of three of the studies was assessed as posing a high risk of bias. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial were assessed as posing a low risk of bias, but provided contradicting results. The ERSPC study reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95), whilst the PLCO study concluded no significant benefit (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.54). The ERSPC was the only study of the five included in this review that reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality, in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years of age. Sensitivity analysis for overall risk of bias indicated no significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality when referring to the meta analysis of only the ERSPC and PLCO trial data (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30). Subgroup analyses indicated that prostate cancer-specific mortality was not affected by the age at which participants were screened. Meta-analysis of four studies investigating all-cause mortality did not determine any significant differences between men randomised to screening or control (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.03). A diagnosis of prostate cancer was significantly greater in men randomised to screening compared to those randomised to control (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.65). Localised prostate cancer was more commonly diagnosed in men randomised to screening (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.70), whilst the proportion of men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer was significantly lower in the screening group compared to the men serving as controls (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.87). Screening resulted in a range of harms that can be considered minor to major in severity and duration. Common minor harms from screening include bleeding, bruising and short-term anxiety. Common major harms include overdiagnosis and overtreatment, including infection, blood loss requiring transfusion, pneumonia, erectile dysfunction, and incontinence. Harms of screening included false-positive results for the PSA test and overdiagnosis (up to 50% in the ERSPC study). Adverse events associated with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies included infection, bleeding and pain. No deaths were attributed to any biopsy procedure. None of the studies provided detailed assessment of the effect of screening on quality of life or provided a comprehensive assessment of resource utilization associated with screening (although preliminary analyses were reported).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer screening did not significantly decrease prostate cancer-specific mortality in a combined meta-analysis of five RCTs. Only one study (ERSPC) reported a 21% significant reduction of prostate cancer-specific mortality in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years. Pooled data currently demonstrates no significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific and overall mortality. Harms associated with PSA-based screening and subsequent diagnostic evaluations are frequent, and moderate in severity. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are common and are associated with treatment-related harms. Men should be informed of this and the demonstrated adverse effects when they are deciding whether or not to undertake screening for prostate cancer. Any reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality may take up to 10 years to accrue; therefore, men who have a life expectancy less than 10 to 15 years should be informed that screening for prostate cancer is unlikely to be beneficial. No studies examined the independent role of screening by DRE.

Prostate cancer screening and treatment in the transplant population: current status and recommendations

PURPOSE

We reviewed the current status of and recommendations for prostate cancer screening and treatment in the solid organ transplant population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a MEDLINE search to identify published data regarding prostate cancer screening, risk, treatment and outcomes in the solid organ transplant population. The literature was reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

Most data regarding outcomes of prostate cancer treatment in the transplant population are limited to case reports and small series, and primarily involve renal insufficiency. It does not appear that the development or natural history of prostate cancer is significantly affected by organ failure or subsequent transplantation. Thus, prostate specific antigen testing and screening protocols can be extrapolated from the general population. However, the balance of comorbid diseases and estimated limitations in life expectancy must be carefully considered, and emphasis should be placed on risk assessment. Prostatectomy appears to be feasible with outcomes comparable to those in the non-transplant population, while data regarding the use of radiation therapy are limited.

CONCLUSIONS

The expansion of organ transplant criteria, including older donors and recipients, combined with improved allograft survival has enhanced the relevance of prostate cancer screening and treatment in this group. Greater awareness of the issues surrounding prostate cancer incidence, detection and natural history should promote improved data collection, screening and treatment of prostate cancer in the transplant population.

Screening for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Any form of screening aims to reduce mortality and increase a person's quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has generated considerable debate within the medical community, as demonstrated by the varying recommendations made by medical organizations and governed by national policies. Much of this debate is due to the limited availability of high quality research and the influence of false-positive or false-negative results generated by use of the diagnostic techniques such as the digital rectal examination (DRE) and prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood test.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer mortality and has an impact on quality of life.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases (PROSTATE register, CENTRAL the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT and the NHS EED) were searched electronically in addition to hand searching of specific journals and bibliographies in an effort to identify both published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of screening versus no screening or routine care for prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The search identified 99 potentially relevant articles that were selected for full text review. From these 99 citations, two randomised controlled trials were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. Data from the trials were independently extracted by two authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Two randomised controlled trials with a total of 55,512 participants were included; however, both trials had methodological weaknesses. Re-analysis using intention-to-screen and meta-analysis of results from the two randomised controlled trials indicated no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer mortality between men randomised for prostate cancer screening and controls (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.80-1.29). Neither study assessed the effect of prostate cancer screening on quality of life, all-cause mortality or cost effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given that only two randomised controlled trials were included, and the high risk of bias of both trials, there is insufficient evidence to either support or refute the routine use of mass, selective or opportunistic screening compared to no screening for reducing prostate cancer mortality. Currently, no robust evidence from randomised controlled trials is available regarding the impact of screening on quality of life, harms of screening, or its economic value. Results from two ongoing large scale multicentre randomised controlled trials that will be available in the next several years are required to make evidence-based decisions regarding prostate cancer screening.