A longstanding goal has been to determine whether androgen receptor (AR) levels could be used to predict the clinical response of metastatic prostate cancer to androgen withdrawal therapy. A major limitation of previous studies was the use of homogenized tissue, which yields an average AR content for all cells. By AR immunohistochemical study using an antibody specific for AR the authors assessed nuclear AR content specifically in the malignant epithelial cells of prostate needle biopsy specimens of 17 patients with Stage D prostate cancer. The authors found that prostate cancer contains AR-positive and AR-negative malignant cells before androgen withdrawal therapy, but the percentage of AR-positive cells did not predict the time to tumor progression after therapy. There was no significant correlation between the percentage of AR-positive malignant cells and the time to tumor progression. When patients were divided into two groups based on the median time to progression, the percentage of AR-positive nuclei was not significantly different in poor responders versus good responders. When patients were divided into two groups based on the median percentage of receptor-positive nuclei, Kaplan-Meier estimates of the progression-free interval revealed no significant difference between the group of patients with AR-poor tumors and patients with AR-rich tumors. Potential explanations for these results are discussed. The authors conclude that the percentage of AR-positive nuclei is not a sufficient criterion to predict tumor behavior.

Clinically asymptomatic adult men with a post-void residual volume of 180 ml are at a high risk for bacteriuria. Such cases require close medical attention since it may be necessary to introduce early drug therapy or surgical intervention to improve the bladder emptying.

No abstract

BackgroundProstate cancer is the most common cancer in older men in the United States (USA) and Western Europe. Androgen deprivation (AD) constitutes, in most cases, the first-line of treatment for these cases. The negative impact of CAD in quality of life, secondary to the adverse events of sustained hormone deprivation, plus the costs of this therapy, motivated the intermittent treatment approach. The objective of this study is to to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and adverse events profile of intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation for locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.MethodsSeveral databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), time to progression (TTP) and adverse events. We performed a meta-analysis (MA) of the published data. The results were expressed as Hazard Ratio (HR) or Risk Ratio (RR), with their corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals (CI 95%).ResultsThe final analysis included 13 trials comprising 6,419 patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. TTP was similar in patients who received intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) or continuous androgen deprivation (CAD) (fixed effect: HR = 1.04; CI 95% = 0.96 to 1.14; p = 0.3). OS and CSS were also similar in patients treated with IAD or CAD (OS: fixed effect: HR = 1.02; CI 95% = 0.95 to 1.09; p = 0.56 and CSS: fixed effect: HR = 1.06; CI 95% = 0.96 to 1.18; p = 0.26).ConclusionOverall survival was similar between IAD and CAD in patients with locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Data on CSS are weak and the benefits of IAD on this outcome remain uncertain. Impact in QoL was similar for both groups, however, sexual activity scores were higher and the incidence of hot flushes was lower in patients treated with IAD.