Current Trends of Treatment

  • Louis Denis
Conference paper
Part of the ESO Monographs book series (ESO MONOGRAPHS)

Abstract

Cancer of the prostate represents 10% of all cancers in males and recently became the second most frequent cancer in men in the industrial nations of West Europe and North America. This increase in incidence and mortality is small but real. The greying of the male population and the increasing detection of localised cancer by new technology probably account for most of this increase. The most recent survey of prostate cancer, organised by the American College of Surgeons, showed that close to 50% of the newly diagnosed cases presented with localised disease [1]. This exceptional change in trend to earlier diagnosis is due to increased awareness on the part of urologists and patients alike in the search for locally confined cancer. Also high-risk patients selected by transrectal ultrasound and/or elevated prostate cancer markers are more frequently diagnosed by ultrasound-guided biopsy. This fortuitous Situation is somewhat offset by the lack of consensus on preferred treatment, as revealed in a symposium organised by the National Institutes of Health of the USA [2].

Keywords

Toxicity Testosterone Flare Doxorubicin Oestradiol 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Murphy GP, Natarajan N, Pontes JE, Schmitz RL, Schmidt JD, Mettlin C: The national survey of prostate cancer in the United States by the American College of Surgeons. J Urol 1982 (127):928–934PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Office of Medical Applications of Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda: The management of clinically, localised prostate cancer. J Am Med Ass 1987(258):2727–2730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Denis L: The Medical Management of Prostatic Cancer-Monograph. European School of Oncology. Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag 1988Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cantrell BB, Deklerk DP, Eggleston JC, Boitnott JK, Walsh PC: Pathological factors that influence prognosis in stage A prostatic cancer: The influence of extent versus grade. J Urol 1981 (125):516–520PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hermanek P, Sobin LH: TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. International Union against Cancer, Geneva 1987, 4th editionGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gervasi LA, Mata J, Easly JD, Wilbanks JH, Seale-Hawkins C, Carlton CE Jr, Scardino PT: Prognostic significance of lymph nodal metastases in prostate cancer. J Urol 1989 (142):332–336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith PH, Bono A, Calais da Silva F, Debruyne F, Denis L, Robinson P, Sylvester R, Armitage TG, Members of the EORTC Urobgical Group: Some limitations of the radioisotope bone scan in patients with metastatic prostatic cancer: A sub-analysis of EORTC trial 30853. Cancer 1990 (66,5 Suppl):3–10Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mc Neal JE: The prostate gland: Morphology and pathobiology. In: Stamey TA (ed) Monographs in Urology: Prostate. Custom Publishing Services, Princeton 1988 pp 36–54Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jewett HJ, Bridge RW, Gray GF, Shelley WM: The palpable nodule of prostatic cancer. JAMA 1968 (203):403–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Graversen PH, Gasser TC, Madsen PO, Corle DK: Early prostatic cancer: radical prostatectomy versus placebo. J Urol 1987 (131):364AGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Aubel OGJM, Hoekstra WJ, Schroeder FH: Early orchiectomy for patients with stage D1 prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 1985 (134):292–294PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Denis L: Current trends in prostatic cancer care. In: Furr BJA, Denis L (eds) Clinical Oncology: Prostate Cancer: International Practice and Research. Bailliäre Tindall, London 1988 2(3) pp 675–686Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Newling D, Fossa S, Tunn U, Kurth KH, De Pauw M, Sylvester R, Members of the EORTC GU Group: Preliminary results of phase III study of mitomycin C versus estramustine in progressive metastatic prostate cancer refractory to hormonal therapy: Results of EORTC GU Group Study 30865. Eur Urol 1990 (18-suppl.1 ):2Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Whitmore WW: Clinical management of prostatic cancer: An overview. Am J Clin Oncol (CCT) 1988 (11-Suppl 2):88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gleason DF: Histologic grading and clinical staging of prostatic carcinoma. In: Tannenbaum M (ed) Urologic Pathology: The Prostate. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia 1977 (part II) pp 171–198Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Standaert B, Van Der Auwera JC, Chaban M, Cornet A, Eylenbosch W, Denis L: The use of transrectal echography for screening on prostate cancer: Results and evaluation. In: Murphy GP, Khoury S, Kuss R, Chatelain C, Denis L (eds) Prostate cancer Part B: Imaging techniques, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and management issues. AR Liss, New York 1987 pp 29–36Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Braeckman J, Denis L: The practice and pitfalls of ultrasonography in the lower urinary tract. Eur Urol 1983(9):193–201PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee F, Torp-Pedersen ST, Siders DB, Kumasaka GH, McHugh TA: The use of transrectal ultrasound in the study of normal and abnormal anatomy of the prostate gland. In: Labrie F, Lee F, Dupont A (eds) Diagnosis and Choice of Therapy: Early Stage Prostate Cancer. Elsevier Sci Publ, Amsterdam 1989 pp 23–36Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cooper EH, Armitage TH, Robinson MRG, Newling DWW, Richards BR, Smith PH, Denis L, Sylvester R: Prostatic specific antigen and the prediction of prognosis in metastatic prostatic cancer. Cancer 1989 (66,5-Suppl):19–22Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schröder FH, Cooper EH, Debruyne FMJ et al: TNM classification of genitourinary tumours 1987. Position of EORTC Genitourinary Group. Br J Urol 1988(62):502–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jones WG: Can the primary tumour be used as the sole parameter for response in phase II chemotherapy studies in metastatic prostate cancer? An EORTC Genito-Urinary Group Report. World J Urol 1986 (4):176–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Denis L, Mettlin C: Conclusions. Proceedings workshop on combined castration and androgen blockade therapy in prostate cancer: Results and future directions. Cancer 1990 (66,5-suppl):80–83Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mettlin C, Denis L: Introduction. Proceedings workshop on combined castration and androgen blockade therapy in prostate cancer: Results and future directions. Cancer 1990 (66,5-suppl):2Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kirk D: Trial and tribulations in prostate cancer. Br J Urol 1987 (59):375–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Altwein J: Estrogen in the treatment of prostate cancer. In: Pavone Macaluso M, Smith PH (eds) Cancer of the Prostate and Kidney. Plenum Press, New York 1983 pp 317–328Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Denis L: Current trends in prostatic care. In: Furr BJA, Denis L (eds) Clinical Oncology: Prostate Cancer: International Practice and Research. Balliäre Tindall, London 1988 (2,3) pp 675–686Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aro J, Haapiainen R, Sane T, Rannikko S, Pelkonen R, Alfthan O: Effects of orchiectomy and polyestradiol phosphate therapy on serum lipoprotein lipids and glucose tolerance in prostatic cancer patients. Eur Urol 1989 (636):1–11Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smith PH, Suciu S, Robinson MRG, Richards B, Bastable JRG, Glashan RW, Bouffioux C, Lardennois B, Williams RE, De Pauw M, Sylvester R: A comparison of the effect of diethylstilbestrol and bw dose estramustine phosphate in the treatment of advanced prostatic cancer: A phase II trial of the EORTC Urological Group. J Urol 1986 (136):619–623PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Furr BJA, Milsted RAV: LH RH analogues in cancer treatment. In: Stoll BA (ed) Endocrine Management of Cancer 2: Contemporary Therapy. Karger, Basel 1988 pp 16–29Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Denis L: Analogues de la LHRH. In: Khoury S, Chatelain C (eds) Urologie: Cancer de la Prostate. FUS, Paris 1988 pp 351–359Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Newling DWW: The value of reversible androgen suppression as a diagnostic test. In: Murphy GP, Khoury S, Küss R, Chatelain C, Denis L (eds) Prostate Cancer Part A: Research, Endocrine Treatment and Histopathology. AR Liss, New York 1987 pp 261–265Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Namer M: Rationale for medical castration. In: Furr BJA, Denis L (eds) Clinical Oncology: Prostate Cancer: International Practice and Research. Bailliäre Tindall, London 1988 pp 535–546Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Blackard CE: The Veterans Administration Cooperative Uro logical Research Group studies of carcinoma of the prostate: A review. Cancer Chemother Reports1975 (59):225–227Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Haapiainen R, Rannikko S, Alfthan O: Comparison of primary orchiectomy with oestrogen therapy in advanced prostatic cancer: A 2 year follow-up report of a national, prospective prostatic cancer study. Brit J Urol 1986 (58):528–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jacobi H, Neumann F: The Case for Cyproterone Acetate. Clinical Oncology: Prostate Cancer: International Practice and Research. Bailliäre Tindall, London 1988 2(3) pp 571–580Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Crawford DE, Eisenberger MA, Mcleod D, Spaulding JT, Benson R, Dorr FA, Blumenstein BA, Davis MA, Goodman PJ: A controlled trial of leuprolide with and without flutamide in prostatic carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1989 (321):419–424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Denis L, Murphy G, Dalesio O: Workshop on a meta-analysis of trials involving combination treatment in prostatic cancer. Paris 1990Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Suciu S, Sylvester RJ, Yamanaka H: Time-dependent prognostic factors in advanced prostatic cancer. In: Newling DWW, Jones WG (eds) Prostate Cancer and Testicular Cancer. Wiley-Liss, New York 1990 pp 203–215Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Keuppens F, Fossa S, Nowé P, Denis L: Secondary orchiectomy in patients with prostatic cancer in relapse. In: Denis L, Murphy GP, Prout GR, Schröder FH (eds) Controlled Clinical Trials in Urologic Oncology. Raven Press, New York 1984 pp 207–209Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dente L, Murphy G, Droz P: Personal communicationGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fossa SD, Ogreid P, Karlsen S, Havelan H, Jensen J, Trovag A: High dose medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) versus prednisolone (P) in hormone-resistant prostate cancer. In: Bracci U, Di Silverio F (eds) Advances in Urological Oncology and Endocrinology. Acta Medica, Rome 1984 pp 433–437Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Denis L, Mahler C: LHRH agonist combination treatment. In: Motta M, Serio M (eds) Hormonal Therapy of Prostatic Diseases: Basic and Clinical Aspects. Medicom, Amsterdam 1987 pp 85–92Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mahler C: Ketoconazole. In: Khoury S, Chatelain C (eds) Urologie: Cancer de la Prostate. FUS, Paris 1988 pp 365–368Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Denis L, Mahler C, Ongena P, Janssen P, De Coster R, Bruynseels J: A phase l/ll study with R75251, a novel imidazole derivative in M1 prostate cancer patients in relapse. Abstract IXth Congress of the European Association of Urology, Amsterdam, 1990Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Van Oosterom AT, De Smedt EA, Denis LJ, de Bruijn EA, Mahler C: Suramine for prostatic cancer: A phase l/ll study in advanced extensively pretreated disease. EJC 1990 (26,4):422Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louis Denis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyAlgemeen Ziekenhuis MiddelheimAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations