The National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program convened surgeons, endocrinologists, pathologists, biostatisticians, radiologists, oncologists, and other health care professionals, as well as members of the general public, to address the causes, prevalence, and natural history of clinically inapparent adrenal masses, or "incidentalomas"; the appropriate evaluation and treatment of such masses; and directions for future research. Improvements in abdominal imaging techniques have increased detection of adrenal incidentalomas, and because the prevalence of these masses increases with age, appropriate management of adrenal tumors will be a growing challenge in our aging society. To address six predetermined questions, the 12-member nonfederal, nonadvocate state-of-the-science panel heard presentations from 21 experts in adrenal incidentalomas and consulted a systematic review of medical literature on the topic provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and an extensive bibliography developed by the National Library of Medicine. The panel recommended a 1-mg dexamethasone suppression test and measurement of plasma-free metanephrines for all patients with an adrenal incidentaloma; additional measurement of serum potassium and plasma aldosterone concentration-plasma renin activity ratio for patients with hypertension; and surgery for patients with biochemical evidence of pheochromocytoma, patients with tumors greater than 6 cm, and patients with tumors greater than 4 cm who also meet other criteria. The panel also advocated a multidisciplinary approach to managing adrenal incidentalomas. The statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the National Institutes of Health or the federal government.

IMPORTANCEPatients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer have to decide among treatment strategies that may differ in their likelihood of adverse effects.OBJECTIVE To compare quality of life (QOL) after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, and brachytherapy vs active surveillance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSPopulation-based prospective cohort of 1141 men (57% participation among eligible men) with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were enrolled from January 2011 through June 2013 in collaboration with the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Median time from diagnosis to enrollment was 5 weeks, and all men were enrolled with written informed consent prior to treatment. Final follow-up date for current analysis was September 9, 2015.EXPOSURES Treatment with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, or active surveillance. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESQuality of life using the validated instrument Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices was assessed at baseline (pretreatment) and 3, 12, and 24 months after treatment. The instrument contains 4 domains-sexual dysfunction, urinary obstruction and irritation, urinary incontinence, and bowel problems-each scored from 0 (no dysfunction) to 100 (maximum dysfunction). Propensity-weighted mean domain scores were compared between each treatment group vs active surveillance at each time point. RESULTSOf 1141 enrolled men, 314 pursued active surveillance (27.5%), 469 radical prostatectomy (41.1%), 249 external beam radiotherapy (21.8%), and 109 brachytherapy (9.6%). After propensity weighting, median age was 66 to 67 years across groups, and 77% to 80% of participants were white. Across groups, propensity-weighted mean baseline scores were 41.8 to 46.4 for sexual dysfunction, 20.8 to 22.8 for urinary obstruction and irritation, 9.7 to 10.5 for urinary incontinence, and 5.7 to 6.1 for bowel problems. Compared with active surveillance, mean sexual dysfunction scores worsened by 3 months for patients who received radical prostatectomy (36.2 [95% CI, 30.4-42.0]), external beam radiotherapy (13.9 [95% CI, 6.7-21.2]), and brachytherapy (17.1 [95% CI, 7.8-26.6]). Compared with active surveillance at 3 months, worsened urinary incontinence was associated with radical prostatectomy (33.6 [95% CI,.2]); acute worsening of urinary obstruction and irritation with external beam radiotherapy (11.7 [95% CI,) and brachytherapy (20.5 [95% CI,.9]); and worsened bowel symptoms with external beam radiotherapy (4.9 [95% CI, 2.4-7.4]). By 24 months, mean scores between treatment groups vs active surveillance were not significantly different in most domains.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, each treatment strategy was associated with distinct patterns of adverse effects over 2 years. These findings can be used to promote treatment decisions that incorporate individual preferences.

This therapy is efficacious and moderately well tolerated in HRPC and should be compared in a phase III trial with mitoxantrone and prednisone.

Renal cell carcinoma continues to evolve swiftly with the approval of new agents and the maturation of clinical trials to provide relevant structure to treatment decisions. This study will give an overview of the latest concepts in the epidemiology and biology of renal cell carcinoma and provide current surgical and systemic updates for managing renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND In the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT), finasteride significantly reduced the risk of prostate cancer but was associated with an increased risk of high-grade disease. With up to 18 years of follow-up, we analyzed rates of survival among all study participants and among those with prostate cancer. METHODS We collected data on the incidence of prostate cancer among PCPT participants for an additional year after our first report was published in 2003 and searched the Social Security Death Index to assess survival status through October 31, 2011. RESULTS Among 18,880 eligible men who underwent randomization, prostate cancer was diagnosed in 989 of 9423 (10.5%) in the finasteride group and 1412 of 9457 (14.9%) in the placebo group (relative risk in the finasteride group, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.76; P<0.001). Of the men who were evaluated, 333 (3.5%) in the finasteride group and 286 (3.0%) in the placebo group had high-grade cancer (Gleason score, 7 to 10) (relative risk, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.37; P = 0.05). Of the men who died, 2538 were in the finasteride group and 2496 were in the placebo group, for 15-year survival rates of 78.0% and 78.2%, respectively. The unadjusted hazard ratio for death in the finasteride group was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.97 to 1.08; P = 0.46). Ten-year survival rates were 83.0% in the finasteride group and 80.9% in the placebo group for men with low-grade prostate cancer and 73.0% and 73.6%, respectively, for those with high-grade prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS Finasteride reduced the risk of prostate cancer by about one third. High-grade prostate cancer was more common in the finasteride group than in the placebo group, but after 18 years of follow-up, there was no significant between-group difference in the rates of overall survival or survival after the diagnosis of prostate cancer. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute.)

No abstract

No abstract

Preliminary data support the feasibility of this comprehensive study to help determine the focus of public health efforts to reduce racial disparities in prostate cancer mortality.