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 m and atory , watchful waiting ( WW ) is a treatment alternative to and rogen-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 prospect i ve r and omised trial .
Nerve-sparing RP represents the approach of choice in organ-confined disease ; neoadjuvant and rogen deprivation demonstrates no improvement of outcome variables .
For locally advanced disease , adjuvant ADT for 3 yr results in superior disease-specific and overall survival rates and represents the treatment of choice .
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 clinical ly localised cancer of the prostate ( PCa ) .
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 .
Is there a role for pelvic irradiation in localized prostate adenocarcinoma? Preliminary results of GETUG-01.
PURPOSE To assess the benefit and toxicity and quality -of-life ( QOL ) outcomes of pelvic nodes irradiation in nonmetastatic prostate carcinoma patients . PATIENTS AND METHODS Between December 1998 and June 2004 , 444 patients with T1b-T3 , N0 pNx , M0 prostate carcinoma were r and omly assigned to either pelvic and prostate radiotherapy or prostate radiotherapy only .  Patients were stratified according to the prognostic factor of lymph node involvement ( LNI ) . Short-term 6-month neoadjuvant and concomitant hormonal therapy was allowed only for patients in the high-risk group . The pelvic dose was 46 Gy . The total dose recommended to the prostate was changed during the course of the study from 66 Gy to 70 Gy . Criteria for progression-free survival ( PFS ) included biologic prostate-specific antigen recurrences or a local or metastatic evolution . Acute and late toxicities were recorded according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and Late Effects in Normal Tissues Subjective , Objective , Management , and Analytic scales , respectively . The QOL outcome was recorded with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Question naire C30 , the International Prostatic Symptom Score , and the Sexual Function Index scales . RESULTS With a 42.1-month median follow-up time , the 5-year PFS and overall survival were similar in the two treatment arms for the whole series and for each stratified group . On multivariate analysis , low LNI risk and hormonal therapy were statistically associated with increased PFS . However , subgroup analyses based on these factors did not show any benefit for pelvic irradiation . There were no significant differences in acute and late digestive toxicities and in QOL outcomes . CONCLUSION Pelvic node irradiation was well tolerated but did not improve PFS
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 m and atory , watchful waiting ( WW ) is a treatment alternative to and rogen-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 prospect i ve r and omised trial .
Nerve-sparing RP represents the approach of choice in organ-confined disease ; neoadjuvant and rogen deprivation demonstrates no improvement of outcome variables .
For locally advanced disease , adjuvant ADT for 3 yr results in superior disease-specific and overall survival rates and represents the treatment of choice .
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 clinical ly localised cancer of the prostate ( PCa ) .
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 .