Tags

Main Content

Top Content

Directory of Key words from the Journal and the latest article from it.

Combination therapyView Articles

Volume 8, Supplement 4Review Articles

Update on the American Urological Association Guidelines for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Advances in Alpha-Blocker Therapy in the Management of Urological Disorders

Steven A Kaplan

The updated 2003 American Urological Association (AUA) Guidelines for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are the culmination of an exhaustive effort predicated on scientifically accepted methods of reviewing the medical literature. In this second publication of the guidelines, a multidisciplinary panel reviewed a new meta-analysis of outcome data from the BPH literature from before and after 1994. The major differences between the 2 guidelines are the changes in our understanding of the biology of the prostate and the introduction of new therapies. The vast majority of randomized controlled trials, particularly with respect to minimally invasive therapies and progression of BPH, were performed after the release of the 1994 guidelines. Also, the most recent AUA panel carefully reviewed unpublished data to make the guidelines as timely as possible. Studies that were subsequently published included those on the value of combination medical therapy for BPH. The panel agreed on updated recommendations for the treatment of moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms associated with BPH, and diagnostic algorithms were revised. The durability and utility of the present guidelines should exceed that of its predecessor. [Rev Urol. 2006;8(suppl 4):S10-S17]

Benign prostatic hyperplasiaLower urinary tract symptomsCombination therapy5-reductase inhibitorsAUA GuidelinesAUA Symptom Scores

Comparative effectiveness researchView Articles

Volume 19, Number 4Review Articles

Active Surveillance Use Among a Low-risk Prostate Cancer Population in a Large US Payer System: 17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score Versus Other Risk Stratification Methods

Original Research

Michael J KemeterPhillip G FebboSteven CanfieldJohn Hornberger

Many men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) receive definitive treatment despite recommendations that have been informed by two large, randomized trials encouraging active surveillance (AS). We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Optum™ Research Database (Eden Prairie, MN) of electronic health records and administrative claims data to assess AS use for patients tested with a 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score™ (GPS; Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA) assay and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). De-identified records were extracted on health plan members enrolled from June 2013 to June 2016 who had ≥1 record of PCa (n = 291,876). Inclusion criteria included age ≥18 years, new diagnosis, American Urological Association low-risk PCa (stage T1-T2a, prostate-specific antigen ≥10 ng/mL, Gleason score = 6), and clinical activity for at least 12 months before and after diagnosis. Data included baseline characteristics, use of GPS testing and/or MRI, and definitive procedures. GPS or MRI testing was performed in 17% of men (GPS, n = 375, 4%; MRI, n = 1174, 13%). AS use varied from a low of 43% for men who only underwent MRI to 89% for GPS-tested men who did not undergo MRI (P<001). At 6-month follow-up, AS use was 31.0% higher (95% CI, 27.6%-34.5%; P<001) for men receiving the GPS test only versus men who did not undergo GPS testing or MRI; the difference was 30.5% at 12-month follow-up. In a large US payer system, the GPS assay was associated with significantly higher AS use at 6 and 12 months compared with men who had MRI only, or no GPS or MRI testing. [Rev Urol. 2017;19(4):203–212 doi: 10.3909/riu0786] © 2018 MedReviews®, LLC

Prostate cancerActive surveillanceEvidence-based practiceComparative effectiveness researchGenomic biomarkerMagnetic resonance imaging

Complementary or alternative medical therapyView Articles

Volume 10, Number 3Review Articles

Nutraceuticals in Prostate Disease: The Urologist’s Role

Treatment Update

J Curtis NickelClaus G RoehrbornDaniel ShoskesMark A Moyad

Interest in and use of complementary and alternative therapies, especially nutraceuticals, is high in prostate disease. These therapies have shown potential in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), prostatitis, and prostate cancer. Some have produced results equal to or better than pharmaceuticals currently prescribed for BPH. In category III prostatitis, some nutraceuticals may offer relief to patients who get little from standard therapy. Because it is becoming apparent that inflammation may play a role in the progression of BPH and development of prostate cancer, nutraceuticals, which commonly have anti-inflammatory properties, may play a role. These therapies have also shown potential in prostate cancer treatment and prevention, especially those that also reduce cardiovascular events or risk. Nevertheless, uses of some nutraceuticals in prostate disease have had less desirable consequences, showing lack of efficacy, adulteration, and/or severe side effects or drug interactions. By ensuring that these therapies undergo careful study for effectiveness, quality, and safety, urologists can look forward to adding them to their evidence-based armamentarium for prostate disease. [Rev Urol. 2008;10(3):192-206]

Prostate cancerBenign prostatic hyperplasiaProstatitisComplementary or alternative medical therapyNutraceuticals

ComplicationView Articles

Volume 17, Number 3Case Review

Treatment of Colonic Injury During Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Hakan Öztürk

Colonic injury during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) persists despite the advances in technical equipment and interventional radiology techniques. According to the Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications, colonic injury is regarded as a stage IVa complication. Currently, the rate of colonic injury ranges between 0.3% and 0.5%, with an unremarkable difference in incidence between supine and prone PCNL procedures. Colon injury is the most significant complication of PCNL. Colonic injury can result in more complicated open exploration of the abdomen, involving colostomy construction. The necessity of a second operation for the closure of the colostomy causes financial and emotional burden on the patients, patients&rsquo; relatives, and surgeons. Currently, the majority of colonic injuries occurring during PCNL are retroperitoneal. The primary treatment option is a conservative approach. It must be kept in mind that the time of diagnosis is as important as the diagnosis itself in colonic injury. Surgeons performing PCNL are advised to be conservative when considering exploratory laparotomy and colostomy construction during treatment of colonic injury. We present the case of a 49-year-old woman who underwent left prone PCNL that resulted in retroperitoneal colonic injury, along with a review of the current literature. [Rev Urol. 2015;17(3):194-201 doi: 10.3909/riu0641] © 2015 MedReviews®, LLC

Percutaneous nephrolithotomyPreventionUrolithiasisColonic injuryClavienComplicationManagement

ConfirmMDxView Articles

Volume 19, Number 4Review Articles

The Use of Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Screening and Treatment

Treatment Update

Joseph Renzulli IIAshley V AlfordJoseph M Brito IIIKamlesh K YadavShalini S YadavAshutosh K Tewari

Prostate cancer screening and diagnosis has been guided by prostate-specific antigen levels for the past 25 years, but with the most recent US Preventive Services Task Force screening recommendations, as well as concerns regarding overdiagnosis and overtreatment, a new wave of prostate cancer biomarkers has recently emerged. These assays allow the testing of urine, serum, or prostate tissue for molecular signs of prostate cancer, and provide information regarding both diagnosis and prognosis. In this review, we discuss 12 commercially available biomarker assays approved for the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. The results of clinical validation studies and clinical decision-making studies are presented. This information is designed to assist urologists in making clinical decisions with respect to ordering and interpreting these tests for different patients. There are numerous fluid and biopsy-based genomic tests available for prostate cancer patients that provide the physician and patient with different information about risk of future disease and treatment outcomes. It is important that providers be able to recommend the appropriate test for each individual patient; this decision is based on tissue availability and prognostic information desired. Future studies will continue to emphasize the important role of genomic biomarkers in making individualized treatment decisions for prostate cancer patients. [Rev Urol. 2017;19(4):221–234 doi: 10.3909/riu0772] © 2018 MedReviews®, LLC

Prostate cancerBiomarkers4KscoreProlarisPCA3Prostate Health IndexApifinyMichigan Prostate ScoreSelectMDxConfirmMDxProMarkPTEN/TMPRSS2:ERGDecipher