Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0027627 (metastases)
 103,950 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

Among men treated with prostatectomy or radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer, the state of an increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level is known as biochemical recurrence (BCR). BCR can be predictive of the development of subsequent distant metastases and ultimately death, but BCR often predates other signs of clinical progression by several years. Although patients may be concerned about their rising PSA levels, physicians attempting to address patient anxiety must inform them that BCR is not typically associated with imminent death from disease, and that the natural history of biochemical progression may be prolonged. Misinterpretation of the significance of early changes in PSA may cause patients to receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) prematurely, especially in settings where the disease is unlikely to impact survival. In addition, knowledge of the morbidities associated with ADT (hot flashes, impotence, sarcopenia, metabolic syndrome, bone loss, and increased risk of vascular disease) has accelerated the search for alternative treatment options for these patients. Clinical trials investigating when and how to best use and supplement hormonal therapies in this patient population are under way, as are trials of novel nonhormonal targeted agents, immunotherapies, natural products, and other pharmaceuticals that have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for other indications. This review will summarize the acceptable standards of care for the management of biochemically recurrent prostate cancer, and will also outline some novel experimental approaches for the treatment of this disease state.
 ...
PMID:Management of biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after local therapy: evolving standards of care and new directions. 2341 59

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing of men at normal risk of prostate cancer is one of the most contested issues in cancer screening. There is no formal screening program, but testing is common - arguably a practice that ran ahead of the evidence. Public and professional communication about PSA screening has been highly varied and potentially confusing for practitioners and patients alike. There has been much research and policy activity relating to PSA testing in recent years. Landmark randomised controlled trials have been reported; authorities - including the 2013 Prostate Cancer World Congress, the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Cancer Council Australia, and the National Health and Medical Research Council - have made or endorsed public statements and/or issued clinical practice guidelines; and the US Preventive Services Task Force is revising its recommendations. But disagreement continues. The contention is partly over what the new evidence means. It is also a result of different valuing and prioritisation of outcomes that are hard to compare: prostate cancer deaths prevented (a small and disputed number); prevention of metastatic disease (somewhat more common); and side-effects of treatment such as incontinence, impotence and bowel trouble (more common again). A sizeable proportion of men diagnosed through PSA testing (somewhere between 20% and 50%) would never have had prostate cancer symptoms sufficient to prompt investigation; many of these men are older, with competing comorbidities. It is a complex picture. Below are four viewpoints from expert participants in the evolving debate, commissioned for this cancer screening themed issue of Public Health Research & Practice. We asked the authors to respond to the challenge of PSA testing of asymptomatic, normal-risk men. They raise important considerations: uncertainty, harms, the trustworthiness and interpretation of the evidence, cost (e.g. of using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to triage patients with elevated PSA), a likely bias towards intervention (particularly for cancer), and the potential to limit harm by treating more conservatively (although this may not occur consistently). They provide important insights, and disagree on some issues, but generally concur that men should decide for themselves whether to be tested. It seems reasonable to support men's autonomy to make their own decisions based on their own values. However, the support men might require to decide is likely to be considerable, and this needs to be taken seriously in policy making.
 ...
PMID:PSA testing for men at average risk of prostate cancer. 2876 54


<< Previous 1 2 3