RESUMO
PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most prevalent malignancy in men and the second cause of mortality in industrialized countries. METHODS: Based on Spanish Register of PCa, the incidence of high-risk PCa is 29%, approximately. In spite of the evidence-based beneficial effect of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy in high-risk PCa, these patients (pts) are still a therapeutic challenge for all specialists involved, in part due to the absence of comparative studies to establish which of the present disposable treatments offer better results. RESULTS: Nowadays, high-risk PCa definition is not well consensual through the published oncology guides. Clinical stage, tumour grade, and number of risk factors are relevant to be considered on PCa prognosis. However, these factors are susceptible to change depending on when surgical or radiation therapy is considered to be the treatment of choice. Other factors, such as reference pathologist, different diagnosis biopsy schedules, surgical or radiotherapy techniques, adjuvant treatments, biochemical failures, and follow-up, make it difficult to compare the results between different therapeutic options. CONCLUSIONS: This article reviews important issues concerning high-risk PCa. URONCOR, GUO, and SOGUG on behalf of the Spanish Groups of Uro-Oncology Societies have reached a consensus addressing a practical recommendation on definition, diagnosis, and management of high-risk PCa.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias da Próstata/terapia , Consenso , Humanos , Masculino , EspanhaRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of zoledronic acid in prostate cancer patients with bone metastases at the hormone-sensitive (HS) and hormone-independent (HI) stages. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A nationwide, observational, prospective, open and multi-centre trial was devised, with a total of 218 male patients diagnosed with prostate cancer at the HS stage (36%) or HI stage (64%) who were administered zoledronic acid (4 mg/IV/month for 6 months) in addition to their specific oncological treatment. Effectiveness was assessed by the following means: 1) Assessment of the improvement in pain and mobility; 2) Incidence and time to onset of skeletal-related events (SREs) and 3) Analysis of bone markers. Tolerability was assessed by means of registering the number and type of adverse effects. A satisfaction survey was carried out amongst the patients after the end of the trial. RESULTS: Out of the 218 patients, 170 (78%) were evaluable for effectiveness. A decrease in pain ratings at rest and during movement was observed in all patients, whether in the HS or HI groups (p < 0.0001). Improved mobility was observed likewise (p = 0.005), as was quality of life. The global incidence of skeletal events was 11.2%, with a time to onset of SREs of 10.7 months. There were no significant differences observed between HS vs. HI patients. Osteolysis markers (N-telopeptide) decreased significantly with the treatment across both the HS and HI groups. For safety reasons. 212 patients were evaluable (97.2%). The incidence of adverse drug reactions was 16% (34/212) and was found to be significantly higher in HS patients (22.4%) compared with HI patients (11.9%). Overall, the tolerability of zoledronic acid was good, with no significant morbidity in either group (HS and HI). 66% of the patients reported feeling satisfied or very satisfied. CONCLUSIONS: Zoledronic acid proved effective in the relief of pain, improving mobility and quality of life as well as reducing or delaying the occurrence of skeletal-related events in prostate cancer patients presenting metastatic bone disease, regardless of the phase, whether HS or HI, they found themselves in. Tolerability and patient satisfaction were rates as good.