Evaluation and treatment of men with biochemical prostate-specific antigen recurrence following definitive therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer

Early detection and monitoring by serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement has increased the number of men presenting with potentially curable prostate cancer. Most will choose radical prostatectomy or some form of radiation therapy for treatment, but some will have evidence of biochemical disease recurrence following therapy, shown by a rising PSA level without other clinical evidence of disease. Radical prostatectomy involves the removal of all prostate tissue, causing the serum PSA to decline to undetectable levels within four to six weeks following surgery; a subsequent rise in the serum PSA to a detectable level indicates disease recurrence. Patients should be evaluated to assess whether rising PSA levels indicate local recurrence or early metastatic disease. The advantages of salvage radiation, endocrine therapy, and other treatment modalities in local disease recurrence must be weighed against potential side effects and the resulting decrease in quality of life. Radiation therapy does not immediately eradicate all PSA-producing cells; therefore the persistence of a detectable PSA does not necessarily imply residual cancer, but rising PSA levels indicate treatment failure. Salvage surgery can be performed after radiotherapy for the purpose of removing all viable cancer cells, but should be weighed against a higher incidence of surgical complications; cryoablation offers a less invasive therapeutic modality.     

Radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy: why patience is a virtue! The case for salvage radiation therapy

Without reliable clinical or pathologic predictors of local recurrence, selection of patients for adjuvant radiotherapy based on any combination of clinical or pathological parameters is bound to lead to the unnecessary treatment of significant numbers of patients whose disease might not have ultimately recurred or who might have been destined to have recurrence with extrapelvic metastatic disease, for which pelvic radiation would be ineffective. Furthermore, new ultrasensitive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) assays can identify patients actually failing surgery with a detectable and rising PSA earlier than ever, when disease volume is low and still amenable to salvage radiation therapy, and can allow the calculation of the PSA doubling time, which is gaining widespread acceptance as a proven predictor of response to salvage radiation therapy in this setting. Therefore, the rationale for preemptive adjuvant radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy is weaker than ever.     

The possible role of chromogranin A as a prognostic factor in organ-confined prostate cancer

The clinical significance of neuroendocrine differentiation in patients who have undergone surgery for localized prostate cancer is still unclear. The aims of this study were to assess the relationship between serum neuroendocrine markers and well-known prognostic factors in prostate cancer (pathological staging, definitive Gleason score and serum PSA) and to search for correlations between serum chromogranin A (CgA) levels and pathological findings. Forty-one consecutive patients who had undergone radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer were evaluated. Serum PSA, CgA and neuron-specific enolase were measured immediately before surgery. Twenty-six surgical specimens were phenotypically and immunohistochemically evaluated using an antibody against CgA. Significant correlations were found between serum CgA, pathological staging and Gleason score (p=0.049 and p=0.038, respectively). Serum CgA did not correlate with PSA, patient age, or immunohistochemical findings. There was a significant correlation between positive immunohistochemical CgA staining and Gleason score (p=0.014). An increase in serum CgA levels, independent of PSA values, might be the expression of pathologically more advanced tumor stage and higher Gleason score; this could help to identify a high-risk patient group eligible for adjuvant therapy.     

Current Clinical Applications of the In-capromab Pendetide Scan (ProstaScint(R) Scan, Cyt-356)

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been extremely helpful in the detection of new or recurrent prostate cancer. However, localization of the recurrent tumor has been challenging with currently available radiographic modalities. The (111)In-capromab pendetide scan was developed to diagnose accurately and, more importantly, localize and stage a new or recurrent prostate cancer. Studies suggest that the (111)In-capromab pendetide scan can provide more accurate staging of clinically localized prostate cancer prior to staging lymphadenectomy or definitive therapy. It can also provide valuable information when local adjuvant radiation therapy is considered in men with biochemical cancer recurrence following radical prostatectomy.     

Cancer de la prostate : la maladie localisée

Localized prostate cancer is characterized by a tumor confined to the prostate gland at clinical evaluation. Since the onset of PSA screening, the detection of localized prostate cancer has increased. Prognosis factors are clinical stadification, PSA value, PSA doubling time, tumor volume related to needle biopsy pathologic findings (Gleason score, percentage biopsies involved). Treatment depends on tumor prognosis, symptoms and performance status of the patient. Localized prostate cancer can be treated by surgery (radical prostatectomy, high intensity focused ultrasound) or radiotherapy (conformational radiation therapy, brachytherapy). Active follow-up can be proposed to very low risk patients.     

Endocrine treatment of prostate cancer

Although androgen deprivation as a treatment for patients with prostate cancer was described more than 60 years ago its optimal use remains controversial. The widespread use of prostate-specific (PSA) assay has lead to earlier diagnosis and earlier detection of recurrent disease. This means that the systemic side effects of androgen deprivation and quality of life have become more important. Debates continue regarding the proper use and timing of endocrine therapy with orchiectomy, oestrogen agonists, gonadotropin hormone-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, GnRH antagonists, and androgen antagonists. A critical review of the literature was performed. Data support that androgen deprivation is an effective treatment for patients with advanced prostate cancer. However, although it improves survival, it is not curative, and creates a spectrum of unwanted effects that influence quality of life. Castration remains the frontline treatment for metastatic prostate cancer, where orchiectomy, oestrogen agonists and GnRH agonists produce equivalent clinical responses. Maximum androgen blockade (MAB) is not significantly more effective than single agent GnRH agonist or orchiectomy. Nonsteroidal antiandrogen monotherapy is as effective as castration in treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer offering quality of life benefits. Adjuvant endocrine treatment is able to delay disease progression at any stage. There is, however, controversy of the possible survival benefit of such treatment, including patients having PSA relapse after definitive local treatment for prostate cancer. Neoadjuvant endocrine treatment has its place mainly in the external beam radiotherapy setting. Intermittent androgen blockade is still considered experimental. The decision regarding the type of androgen deprivation should be made individually after informing the patient of all available treatment options, including watchful waiting, and on the basis of potential benefits and adverse effects. Several large studies are under way to investigate the role of adjuvant endocrine treatment in the field of early prostate cancer, intermittent androgen deprivation and endocrine therapy alone compared with endocrine therapy with radiotherapy. The real challenge, however, is to develop better means to avert hormone-refractory prostate cancer and better treatments for patients with hormone-refractory disease when it occurs.     

E-1899: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study Comparing Ketoconazole Plus Hydrocortisone with Docetaxel Plus Estramustine for Asymptomatic, Androgen-Independent, Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Patients with Rising PSA Levels

Many prostate cancer patients with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels following radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy receive "early" hormonal therapy, despite its uncertain benefit. When these patients ultimately progress to androgen independence, their management remains controversial, with many receiving second-line hormonal therapy. Chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer has a defined palliative benefit; studies to establish its potential impact on survival are ongoing. E-1899 is an intergroup phase III trial comparing second-line hormonal therapy with ketoconazole plus hydrocortisone with docetaxel plus estramustine in patients with androgen-independent prostate cancer with rising PSA levels who have no evidence of metastases.     

Success and failure of single-modality treatment for early prostate cancer

Many men who undergo radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for early prostate cancer have an excellent outcome; however, a significant proportion subsequently experience disease recurrence and/or cancer-related death. Adjuvant hormonal therapy after treatment of curative intent is given with the aim of eradicating undetected cancer cells outside the surgical margins or radiation field and/or micrometastatic disease. In the analogous setting of early breast cancer, adjuvant hormonal therapy is already established as standard care. Efficacy and tolerability data from the ongoing bicalutamide ('Casodex') Early Prostate Cancer program are expected to determine the role of adjuvant hormonal therapy with antiandrogens in early prostate cancer.     

Immediate Treatment with Bicalutamide, 150 mg/d, Following Radiotherapy in Localized or Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

Previous studies and meta-analyses have made it clear that some subgroups of prostate cancer patients who have received radiotherapy should benefit from immediate adjuvant hormonal therapy. A cohort totaling 1370 patients who received radiotherapy for early nonmetastatic prostate cancer is currently enrolled in three ongoing, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials investigating the role of bicalutamide ('Casodex') 150 mg/d as adjuvant to standard care (the bicalutamide Early Prostate Cancer program). At preliminary analysis, conducted after a median follow-up of 3 years, adjuvant therapy with bicalutamide 150 mg/d significantly reduced the risk of objective progression by 37% compared with radiotherapy alone (HR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.46-0.85, P = .0024). Initial results demonstrate that bicalutamide 150 mg/d given as immediate adjuvant therapy following radiotherapy in men with early nonmetastatic prostate cancer has benefits over radiotherapy alone.     

A tissue biomarker panel predicting systemic progression after PSA recurrence post-definitive prostate cancer therapy

Background

Many men develop a rising PSA after initial therapy for prostate cancer. While some of these men will develop a local or metastatic recurrence that warrants further therapy, others will have no evidence of disease progression. We hypothesized that an expression biomarker panel can predict which men with a rising PSA would benefit from further therapy.

Methodology/Principal Findings

A case-control design was used to test the association of gene expression with outcome. Systemic (SYS) progression cases were men post-prostatectomy who developed systemic progression within 5 years after PSA recurrence. PSA progression controls were matched men post-prostatectomy with PSA recurrence but no evidence of clinical progression within 5 years. Using expression arrays optimized for paraffin-embedded tissue RNA, 1021 cancer-related genes were evaluated–including 570 genes implicated in prostate cancer progression. Genes from 8 previously reported marker panels were included. A systemic progression model containing 17 genes was developed. This model generated an AUC of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84–0.92). Similar AUCs were generated using 3 previously reported panels. In secondary analyses, the model predicted the endpoints of prostate cancer death (in SYS cases) and systemic progression beyond 5 years (in PSA controls) with hazard ratios 2.5 and 4.7, respectively (log-rank p-values of 0.0007 and 0.0005). Genes mapped to 8q24 were significantly enriched in the model.

Conclusions/Significance

Specific gene expression patterns are significantly associated with systemic progression after PSA recurrence. The measurement of gene expression pattern may be useful for determining which men may benefit from additional therapy after PSA recurrence.     

Adjuvant gamma knife surgery and image-guided,intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the treatment of sacral chordomas

AimThe aim of this study was to confirm whether patients with sacral chordoma benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy and to determine the optimal photon radiotherapy module for comprehensive treatment.BackgroundChordoma is a rare slow-growing neoplasm arisen from cellular remnants of the notochord. About 50% occur in the sacrococcygeal region. Surgical resection and adjuvant radiation therapy are recommended treatment due to the improving local control rate.Materials and methods118 patients treated by surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy from August 2003 to May 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients received surgical resection after diagnosis. Among these patients, 44 were treated by exclusive surgery, and 48 were treated with adjuvant image-guided, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IG-IMRT). In addition, 26 patients were treated with gamma knife surgery (GKS) after surgical resection. The median follow-up was 54 months for all patients. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to calculate recurrence-free survival (RFS) overall survival (OS).ResultsPatients treated with adjuvant radiotherapy had better RFS (p = 0.014) than those treated exclusively by surgery. The patients in the IG-IMRT group exhibited better recurrence-free survival (p = 0.01) than the GKS group. Moreover, in the IG-IMRT group, patients treated by higher dose were associated with better RFS (p = 0.04). No significant difference in OS was found. No grade 3 late toxicity was found.ConclusionsWe confirmed that adjuvant radiotherapy improved RFS but not OS in sacral chordoma patients after surgery. Furthermore, favorable RFS and low adverse event rates were observed following IG-IMRT. Our results suggest that high dose IG-IMRT is an appropriate module of adjuvant radiotherapy for sacral chordoma patients.     

Hormonal therapy combined with radiotherapy in locally advanced prostate cancer

At present radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy are considered to be the treatment of choice for clinical T1-T2 prostate cancer. In a more advanced stage of the disease (T3) 10-year overall survival is observed in approximately 40% of patients treated with conventional radiotherapy. So far only a few methods for improving the efficacy of radiotherapy have been introduced. One of them is a three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy with 3 dimensional treatment planning. These novel methods make it possible to escalate the dose to the target and protect healthy tissue at the same time. The optimal volume of irradiation, total dose, fraction dose, techniques of radiotherapy, and the end points used during the follow-up are open to debate. In recent years a few clinical trials involving hormonal therapy and radiotherapy have been carried out. The most important of these are: RTOG 8307, RTOG 8610, RTOG 9202, and EORTC 22863.In the RTOG 8307 trial the comparison of outcomes of a combined treatment with a matched-control group of patients treated by radiotherapy alone has shown that adding hormonal therapy to radiotherapy resulted in a better outcome. Another trials RTOG 8531 and RTOG 8610 produced benefit due to the implementation of hormonal therapy in radiotherapy. The EORTC trial No. 22863 showed improvement in the 5-year overall survival when hormonal therapy after the completion of radiotherapy was continued for 3 years in the investigational arm. The RTOG 9202 study indicated benefit obtained from 2 years of adjuvant hormonal therapy.The results of these trials have had a substantial impact on the management of locally advanced prostate cancer, but there are still questions that have to be answered. There is no doubt that hormonal therapy is an important component of the management of locally advanced prostate cancer. Still the optimal combination of drugs and the timing of such treatment remains controversial. Considering the potential side effects of a combined treatment on the quality of life of patients and care costs, additional properly designed randomised trials are needed to identify the subgroup of patients who will obtain the greatest benefit. Currently, it can be concluded that in the group of patients with a high risk of relapse by adding hormonal therapy to radiotherapy the outcome of treatment in patients with prostate cancer has improved.     

Effective Testosterone Suppression for Prostate Cancer: Is There a Best Castration Therapy?

Achieving and maintaining effective suppression of serum testosterone levels in men treated with androgen ablation is one of the essential strategies in the management of prostate cancer. Historically, a serum testosterone below 50 ng/dL was considered to be the castrate level. Current data suggest that the new target for either surgical or chemical castration is a serum testosterone level of lower than 20 ng/dL in an attempt to maximize therapeutic outcomes. Testosterone breakthrough and the acute-on-chronic effects of administration of a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue may cause testosterone levels to periodically rise, sometimes to noncastrate levels. The goal of androgen ablation is to identify those agents that will most consistently achieve and maintain the lowest testosterone levels possible.Key words: Prostate cancer, Androgen ablation, LHRH analogues, LHRH antagonists, TestosteroneThe cornerstone of understanding the basic biology of prostate cancer relies upon the important discovery that prostate cancer is a hormonally responsive tumor. The current use of androgen ablation therapy in prostate cancer includes treatment based on serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) only or local recurrence; neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment of high-risk disease, usually in combination with radiation therapy; and treatment of patients with metastatic disease regardless of symptoms. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2007 guidelines and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 2009 guidelines recommend either luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists or bilateral orchiectomy as first-line therapy for men with advanced prostate cancer.^1,2Medical or chemical castration is almost exclusively performed by the use of injectable LHRH analogues, with a minor role for estrogen and limited experience with LHRH antagonists. Surgical castration through bilateral orchiectomy is infrequently used today.Intermittent hormonal therapy (IHT) is being investigated as an alternative to continuous hormonal therapy with a potential for reduced morbidity and a delay of the progression to hormone-refractory disease.³ Although intermittent therapy may rely upon restoring a normal testosterone level, it is believed that the testosterone level should be as low as possible when the patient is on treatment, thus generating the lowest serum PSA level possible and likely improving outcome.⁴ Although the data on IHT are promising, trials reported thus far are relatively small and somewhat underpowered, and it is likely that its use will increase in the future as trials mature.There is growing recognition that many men may not achieve acceptable levels of testosterone using androgen ablation. This has led to a renewed interest in the significance of the testosterone level in the modern era of prostate cancer management. Can we define the best castration therapy for prostate cancer? Is this the therapy that provides the lowest and most consistent levels of testosterone suppression? To quote Dr. Claude Schulman in a recent editorial: “less is more.”⁵     

Expression signatures that correlated with Gleason score and relapse in prostate cancer

Predicting prognosis in prostate carcinoma remains a challenge when using clinical and pathologic criteria only. We used an array-based DASL assay to identify molecular signatures for predicting prostate cancer relapse in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) prostate cancers, through gene expression profiling of 512 prioritized genes. Of the 71 patients that we analyzed, all but 3 had no evidence of residual tumor (defined as negative surgical margins) following radical prostatectomy and no patient received adjuvant therapy following surgery. All of the 71 patients had an undetectable serum PSA following radical prostatectomy. Follow-up period was 44+/-15 months. Highly reproducible gene expression patterns were obtained with these samples (average R(2)=0.99). We identified a panel of 11 genes that correlated positively and 5 genes that correlated negatively with Gleason grade. A gene expression score (GEX) was derived from the expression levels of the 16 genes. We assessed the prognostic value of these genes and found the GEX significantly correlated with disease relapse (p=0.007). These results suggest that the approach we used is effective for expression profiling in heterogeneous FFPE tissues for cancer diagnosis/prognosis biomarker discovery and validation.     

Prostate cancer radiation therapy: A physician’s perspective

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men and a major cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Ionizing radiation has played a substantial role in the curative treatment of this disease. The historical evolution of radiotherapy techniques through 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) has allowed more accurate and precise treatments toward significant improvements in the therapeutic ratio. The addition of androgen deprivation therapy has significantly improved overall survival becoming the standard therapy for intermediate- and high-risk disease. Many randomized controlled trials have shown improved local control with dose escalation, and hypofractionated RT has been consolidated with proven efficacy and safe clinical results. However, several questions remain open in the radiotherapeutic management of prostate cancer patients and hopefully ongoing studies will shed light on these uncertainties. More individualized approaches are essential through better prognostic and novel predictive biomarkers of prostate radiotherapy response. Clinicians should critically interpret the evolving technologies in prostate cancer radiotherapy with important optimism but balancing the costs and the actual magnitude of clinical benefit. This article provides an overview of the basic aspects of radiotherapy treatment in localized prostate cancer from a physician’s perspective.     

Results of combined radiotherapy and hormonal treatment of prostate cancer patients with initial PSA value >40 ng/ml

AimTo evaluate the outcome of prostate cancer patients with initial PSA value >40 ng/ml.BackgroundThe outcome of prostate cancer patients with very high initial PSA value is not known and patients are frequently treated with palliative intent. We analyzed the outcome of radical combined hormonal treatment and radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients with initial PSA value >40 ng/ml.MethodsBetween January 2003 and December 2007 we treated, with curative intent, 56 patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer and initial PSA value >40 ng/ml. The treatment consisted of two months of neoadjuvant hormonal treatment (LHRH analog), radical radiotherapy (68–78 Gy, conformal technique) and an optional two-year adjuvant hormonal treatment.ResultsThe median time of follow up was 61 months. 5-Year overall survival was 90%. 5-Year biochemical disease free survival was 62%. T stage, Gleason score, PSA value, and radiotherapy dose did not significantly influence the outcome. Late genitourinal and gastrointestinal toxicity was acceptable.ConclusionRadical treatment in combination with hormonal treatment and radiotherapy can be recommended for this subgroup of prostate cancer patients with good performance status and life expectancy.     

Penile Rehabilitation Strategies Among Prostate Cancer Survivors

Despite advances in technical and surgical approaches, erectile dysfunction (ED) remains the most common complication among prostate cancer survivors, adversely impacting quality of life. This article analyzes the concept and rationale of ED rehabilitation programs in prostate cancer patients. Emphasis is placed on the pathophysiology of ED after diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer to understand the efficacy of rehabilitation programs in clinical practice. Available evidence shows that ED is a transient complication following prostate biopsy and cancer diagnosis, with no evidence to support rehabilitation programs in these patients. A small increase in ED and in the use of phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors was reported in patients under active surveillance. Patients should be advised that active surveillance is unlikely to severely affect erectile function, but clinically significant changes in sexual function are possible. Focal therapy could be an intermediate option for patients demanding treatment/refusing active surveillance and invested in maintaining sexual activity. Unlike radical prostatectomy, there is no support for PDE5 inhibitor use to prevent ED after highly conformal external radiotherapy or low-dose rate brachytherapy. Despite progress in the understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms responsible for ED in prostate cancer patients, the success rates of rehabilitation programs remain low in clinical practice. Alternative strategies to prevent ED appear warranted, with attention toward neuromodulation, nerve grafting, nerve preservation, stem cell therapy, investigation of neuroprotective interventions, and further refinements of radiotherapy dosing and delivery methods.Key words: Prostate cancer, Erectile dysfunction, Penile rehabilitation, Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, Prostaglandin E₁In the United States, prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed nonskin cancer in men, and is second only to lung cancer as a cause of cancer death.¹ In 2014, an estimated 233,000 men in the United States were diagnosed with a prostate cancer and 29,480 men were expected to die from their disease.² In the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) era, the importance of this type of cancer becomes evident when considering that more young, sexually active men are being diagnosed at an early stage while the tumor is still organ confined. Early detection of prostate cancer in the PSA era, as well as improvements in systemic treatment of metastatic prostate cancer, has led to an increased life expectancy; but cancer diagnosis and treatment carry serious physical and psychological consequences that can dramatically decrease quality of life.³ However, these results had recently drawn the attention of the scientific community to the quality of life of cancer survivors in order to promote health as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO).⁴ Despite advances in technical and surgical approach, erectile dysfunction (ED) remains the most common and the most documented complication among prostate cancer survivors, adversely impacting quality of life.⁵ ED is also a prevalent long-term complication among prostate cancer patients receiving systemic therapy.⁶ In recent years, investigators have increasingly focused on ED in prostate cancer patients. They have directed their efforts toward searching for interventions that might improve erectile function. Various coping strategies and rehabilitation programs have been suggested and applied with different success rates.This article provides an overview of the literature, analyzing the concept and rationale of rehabilitation programs for ED in prostate cancer patients. Emphasis is placed on the pathophysiology of such disorders after diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer in order to understand the efficacy of rehabilitation programs in clinical practice.     

Prostate cancer association studies: pitfalls and solutions to cancer misclassification in the PSA era

Widespread screening of American men for elevated PSA has changed the characteristics of prostate cancer cases in the U.S. The influence of the changed nature of prostate cancer cases in the PSA era and the need for careful consideration of who is a "case" and who is a "control" on the ability to detect associations of risk factors with prostate cancer in etiologic epidemiologic studies merits discussion. Issue 1: prostate cancer cases diagnosed in the PSA era are enriched with a pool of early lesions, which may differ in etiology, and are deficient in advanced lesions, which are the most likely to be the product of promotion and progression events. By admixing the two types of cases (i.e., imperfect specificity), the associations previously detected using epidemiologic designs when the majority of cases were clinically detected may no longer be apparent in the PSA era when the majority of cases are now detected in the pre-clinical phase. Researchers must now tailor hypotheses such that they are testable using early stage cases or specifically augment the number of advanced cases when testing hypotheses related to extraprostatic growth and progression. Issue 2: even when controls are screened for elevated PSA to rule out the presence of prostate cancer, some proportion of those controls currently will have one or more foci of prostate cancer. The imperfect sensitivity of the PSA test coupled with diagnostic work-up may in part result from (a) lack of PSA elevation in some men with prostate cancer or (b) failure of biopsy to sample the tumor focus in men with elevated PSA. Misclassification of men with undetected prostate cancer as controls usually produces a bias that tends to deflate associations. Given this type of disease misclassification, whether an association still can be statistically detected depends on the extent of misclassification, the magnitude of the true association, the prevalence of the exposure in the true controls, and the sample size, although in general moderate nondifferential misclassification does not lead to profound attenuation. However, under the same scenario attenuation does not occur in cohort or case-cohort studies in which the rate or risk ratio (RR) is calculated. That prostate cancer cases diagnosed in the PSA era are enriched with early stage, minimally invasive disease in our opinion is likely to pose a far more serious obstacle to epidemiologic research on the etiology of clinically important prostate cancer than the issue of inclusion as controls some men who have undiagnosed prostate cancer because of imperfect sensitivity of PSA screening and biopsy sampling error.     

Prognostic factors in prostate cancer

Prognostic factors in organ confined prostate cancer will reflect survival after surgical radical prostatectomy. Gleason score, tumour volume, surgical margins and Ki-67 index have the most significant prognosticators. Also the origins from the transitional zone, p53 status in cancer tissue, stage, and aneuploidy have shown prognostic significance. Progression-associated features include Gleason score, stage, and capsular invasion, but PSA is also highly significant. Progression can also be predicted with biological markers (E-cadherin, microvessel density, and aneuploidy) with high level of significance. Other prognostic features of clinical or PSA-associated progression include age, IGF-1, p27, and Ki-67. In patients who were treated with radiotherapy the survival was potentially predictable with age, race and p53, but available research on other markers is limited. The most significant published survival-associated prognosticators of prostate cancer with extension outside prostate are microvessel density and total blood PSA. However, survival can potentially be predicted by other markers like androgen receptor, and Ki-67-positive cell fraction. In advanced prostate cancer nuclear morphometry and Gleason score are the most highly significant progression-associated prognosticators. In conclusion, Gleason score, capsular invasion, blood PSA, stage, and aneuploidy are the best markers of progression in organ confined disease. Other biological markers are less important. In advanced disease Gleason score and nuclear morphometry can be used as predictors of progression. Compound prognostic factors based on combinations of single prognosticators, or on gene expression profiles (tested by DNA arrays) are promising, but clinically relevant data is still lacking.     

Reaction Pattern in Vertebrate Cells (RiV): Studies of the Course of Tumor Therapy using an anti‐RiV ELISA (Initial Results)

Detection of anti‐RiV antibodies by ELISA can be used to follow a patient's response to treatments such as cancer surgery or RiV therapy. The initial results of the authors demonstrated that it is necessary to optimize the sensitivity of the ELISA. Known tumor markers such as prostate specific antigen (PSA), especially the ratio of free PSA (fPSA)/total PSA (tPSA) or neurones‐specific enolase (NSE) detect the therapeutic effect of treatment with RiV particle preparation (RiV‐PP) more rapidly and with greater sensitivity than does the anti‐RiV antibody assay. However, a continuous decrease of anti‐RiV‐antibody titers seems to indicate a good prognosis. RiV therapy improved the quality of life and achieved an apparent prolongation of life of cancer patients. After treatment with 12 mL of RiV‐PP, a patient with a prostate hyperplasia of uncertain genesis became free of symptoms. This monotherapy with an adequate dose of RiV‐PP resulted in a decrease of tPSA and an increase of fPSA in the first 200 days. The general value of RiV ELISA is emphasized by the fact that it could detect RiV antigen in urinary samples offering a simple means of early diagnosis and monitoring. Since chemo‐ or/and radiotherapy, both of which are immunosuppressive, are frequently used to treat cancer patients, an ELISA for the detection of RiV (particles as) antigen may be more informative than one designed to detect anti RiV antibodies.