Active surveillance represents a viable option in men with low-risk PCa and a long life expectancy .
A biopsy progression indicates the need for active intervention , whereas the role of PSA doubling time is controversial .
In men with locally advanced PCa for 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 recommended mostly for patients with localized disease and a long life expectancy , with radical prostatectomy ( RP ) shown to be superior to WW in prospect i ve r and omized trials .
Nerve-sparing RP is the approach of choice in organ-confined disease , while neoadjuvant ADT provides no improvement in outcome variables .
For locally advanced disease , adjuvant ADT for 3 yr results in superior rates for disease-specific and overall survival and is the treatment of choice .
Active surveillance is an option in low-risk PCa and watchful waiting is an alternative to and rogen-deprivation therapy in locally advanced PCa not requiring immediate local treatment .
CONTEXT The most recent summary of the European Association of Urology ( EAU ) guidelines on prostate cancer ( PCa ) was published in 2011 .
OBJECTIVE To present a summary of the 2013 version of the EAU guidelines on screening , diagnosis , and local treatment with curative intent of clinical ly organ-confined PCa .
Current evidence is insufficient to warrant widespread population -based screening by prostate-specific antigen ( PSA ) for PCa .
Systematic prostate biopsies under ultrasound guidance and local anesthesia are the preferred diagnostic method .
CONCLUSIONS Knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing .
An update of the phase III trial comparing whole pelvic to prostate only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant to adjuvant total androgen suppression: updated analysis of RTOG 94-13, with emphasis on unexpected hormone/radiation interactions.
PURPOSE This trial was design ed to test the hypothesis that total and rogen suppression and whole pelvic radiotherapy ( WPRT ) followed by a prostate boost improves progression-free survival ( PFS ) by > or = 10 % compared with total and rogen suppression and prostate only RT ( PORT ) . This trial was also design ed to test the hypothesis that neoadjuvant hormonal therapy ( NHT ) followed by concurrent total and rogen suppression and RT improves PFS compared with RT followed by adjuvant hormonal therapy ( AHT ) by > or = 10 % . METHODS AND MATERIAL S Patients eligible for the study included those with clinical ly localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate and an elevated prostate-specific antigen level of < 100 ng/mL. Patients were stratified by T stage , prostate-specific antigen level , and Gleason score and were required to have an estimated risk of lymph node involvement of > 15 % . RESULTS The difference in overall survival for the four arms was statistically significant ( p = 0.027 ) . However , no statistically significant differences were found in PFS or overall survival between NHT vs. AHT and WPRT compared with PORT . A trend towards a difference was found in PFS ( p = 0.065 ) in favor of the WPRT + NHT arm compared with the PORT + NHT and WPRT + AHT arms . CONCLUSIONS Unexpected interactions appear to exist between the timing of hormonal therapy and radiation field size for this patient population . Four Phase III trials have demonstrated better outcomes when NHT was combined with RT compared with RT alone . The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413 trial results have demonstrated that when NHT is used in conjunction with RT , WPRT yields a better PFS than does PORT . It also showed that when NHT + WPRT results in better overall survival than does WPRT + short-term AHT . Additional studies are warranted to determine whether the failure to demonstrate an advantage for NHT + WPRT compared with PORT + AHT is chance or , more likely , reflects a previously unrecognized biologic phenomenon
Active surveillance represents a viable option in men with low-risk PCa and a long life expectancy .
A biopsy progression indicates the need for active intervention , whereas the role of PSA doubling time is controversial .
In men with locally advanced PCa for 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 recommended mostly for patients with localized disease and a long life expectancy , with radical prostatectomy ( RP ) shown to be superior to WW in prospect i ve r and omized trials .
Nerve-sparing RP is the approach of choice in organ-confined disease , while neoadjuvant ADT provides no improvement in outcome variables .
For locally advanced disease , adjuvant ADT for 3 yr results in superior rates for disease-specific and overall survival and is the treatment of choice .
Active surveillance is an option in low-risk PCa and watchful waiting is an alternative to and rogen-deprivation therapy in locally advanced PCa not requiring immediate local treatment .
CONTEXT The most recent summary of the European Association of Urology ( EAU ) guidelines on prostate cancer ( PCa ) was published in 2011 .
OBJECTIVE To present a summary of the 2013 version of the EAU guidelines on screening , diagnosis , and local treatment with curative intent of clinical ly organ-confined PCa .
Current evidence is insufficient to warrant widespread population -based screening by prostate-specific antigen ( PSA ) for PCa .
Systematic prostate biopsies under ultrasound guidance and local anesthesia are the preferred diagnostic method .
CONCLUSIONS Knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing .