Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn prostate. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn prostate. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Chủ Nhật, 19 tháng 2, 2012

Men opting for costly new prostate cancer treatment, study shows

Lindsey Konkel

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer are more likely to be treated with proton beam therapy, a novel form of radiation therapy, if the technology is available nearby, a new study found.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men -- the National Cancer Institute estimates that more than 240,000 men in the U.S. were diagnosed in 2011.

About nine out of 10 of those cases were localized prostate cancer, meaning the cancer hasn't spread outside the prostate gland. Nearly all men diagnosed with localized tumors survive at least five years after diagnosis.

In the study, researchers examined the treatment choices of nearly 20,000 men living inside or outside of a regional market for Loma Linda University, a hospital in Southern California with a proton beam facility. All men were diagnosed with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer between 2003 and 2006.

Currently, there are nine proton centers in operation in the United States and eight more in development, according to the National Association for Proton Therapy.

Touted as a technological advancement over other forms of radiation therapy, proton beam therapy allows radiated particles to more tightly target and destroy tumor cells, leaving more of the surrounding tissue intact.

The treatment is often billed as having lower impotence and incontinence rates than other radiation treatment options, but there's a lack of evidence to support this, according to Dr. David Aaronson, a urologist at Kaiser Permanente Medical Group in Oakland, California, and lead author of the study.

After taking into account factors such as tumor stage and year of diagnosis, Aaronson's team found that patients living near a proton beam facility were more than five times more likely to receive proton beam treatment than those living outside of the hospital's referral region.

Nearly nine percent of the patients living within the referral region for the facility received proton beam therapy, compared to less than two percent of patients throughout the rest of the state.

The researchers also found that younger and non-Hispanic white men were also slightly more likely to receive proton beam treatment.

"It's not surprising that men are more likely to be treated with a certain technology in an area where that technology is offered," Aaronson told Reuters Health.

While most insurers, including Medicare, cover proton beam therapy, it comes at a hefty price.

Previous studies have estimated that proton beam therapy costs twice as much as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, another form of external radiation therapy and about five times more than radioactive seed implants.

And side-by-side comparisons of proton beam therapy and other prostate cancer treatments have not been done, according to Dr. Leonard Lichtenfeld, chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society.

Despite the added costs, there's no evidence to suggest that proton beam therapy results in better outcomes than other forms of prostate cancer treatment, including other forms of radiation, surgery or hormone therapy.

Although proton beam therapy has been shown to be superior in targeting tumors of the brain, eye and spine, those cancers are rare.

Institutions with proton beam facilities often look to pad their numbers by treating prostate cancer, according to Dr. Anthony Zietman, a radiation oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston who was not involved in the new study.

"People often think that technology is synonymous with 'better,' but in some cases, it's not," said Aaronson.

"With the healthcare crisis looming and multiple treatment options available, newer, more expensive procedures for prostate cancer should be validated before they are implemented," he said.

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/yHdxqN Archives of Internal Medicine, February 13, 2012


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 17 tháng 2, 2012

DiagnoCure gets FDA nod for prostate cancer test, shares jump

(Reuters) - Canada's DiagnoCure Inc said it received U.S. regulatory approval for a prostate cancer test that may help avoid unnecessary biopsies, sending its shares to their highest in about 18 months.

"We expect it (the approval) will increase our royalty revenues," said Yves Fradet, chief medical officer of DiagnoCure, which was founded in 1994.

Royalty revenue for the company, which has a market capitalization of about C$31 million, was C$659,120 in 2011.

The urine-based test -- named Progensa PCA3 -- will be used with other patient information to help decide on repeat biopsy in men of 50 years or older.

PCA3 is a gene that is highly over-expressed in prostate cancers -- the second most common type of cancer found in American men, according to the American Cancer Society (ACS), the company said.

DiagnoCure licensed Progensa to U.S.-based Gen-Probe, a diagnostic test maker, in November 2003.

The ACS estimates about 241,000 Americans were newly diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2011, and about 34,000 men died from the disease.

DiagnoCure marketed its first diagnostic test, for bladder cancer, in Europe in 1998. The product got U.S. approval in 2000.

The company said the PCA3 test will now be available for sale in the United States, Canada and the European Union.

Shares of the company were up 35 Canadian cents at C$1.06 on Wednesday morning on the Toronto Stock Exchange. They touched a high of C$1.30 earlier in the day.

(Reporting by Bhaswati Mukhopadhyay in Bangalore; Editing by Roshni Menon)


View the original article here

In prostate cancer, other death risks may be higher

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Some men with prostate cancer may have increased risks of dying from causes other than the cancer itself, a new study finds.

Researchers found that when men had their prostate cancer diagnosed after developing symptoms -- and not after screening tests -- they had heightened risks of dying from heart problems or other cancers.

It's not clear what to make of the findings at this point. Mainly, they raise questions for future studies, said Dr. Anthony D'Amico, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School in Boston.

"This is a study of associations, and does not prove cause-and-effect. It's really hypothesis-generating," said D'Amico, who was not involved in the research.

One possibility, according to the study authors, is that hormonal therapy has something to do with the increased risk of heart disease death.

D'Amico agreed that could be a factor. A number of studies, he told Reuters Health, have suggested that hormonal therapy for prostate cancer could raise the risk of heart disease death.

But, D'Amico added, that link has only been seen in men with a history of heart disease going into the therapy.

SCREENING VS. USUAL CARE

The findings, reported in the British Journal of Urology International, are based on a subgroup of men who took part in a European clinical trial on prostate cancer screening.

The men, who were ages 55 to 74, were randomly assigned to either undergo periodic prostate cancer screening or be part of a control group that stuck with "usual" health care.

The researchers followed death rates among 372 men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer through screening, comparing them with 1,488 men who'd been screened but found cancer-free.

They also followed 221 men in the usual-care group who'd been diagnosed with prostate cancer after developing symptoms. Those men were compared with 884 men from the control group who had not been diagnosed with the cancer.

Looking at that latter group, the researchers found that men with prostate cancer were more likely to die from cardiovascular disease or other types of cancer over the next six years.

Just under 12 percent died of cancers other than prostate tumors, versus 7 percent of men who had not been diagnosed with prostate cancer. And 5 percent died of heart disease or stroke, compared with just over 3 percent of other men.

In contrast, men who'd had their prostate cancer caught through screening showed no increased risk of death compared with men free of prostate cancer.

OFTEN SLOW-GROWING

Prostate cancer screening, such as with PSA blood tests, often catches very early tumors that may or may not be life-threatening. Prostate cancer is often slow-growing, and may never progress to the point of being lethal.

But when men are diagnosed because they've developed symptoms (like problems passing urine and low back pain), the cancer is often at a more-advanced stage.

For those men, one treatment option is hormonal therapy to lower a man's levels of testosterone, which can fuel prostate tumors' growth.

Several studies have linked the therapy to higher-than-normal risks of cardiovascular "events," like blood clots or heart attacks, or death from heart complications.

In this study, 27 percent of men diagnosed with prostate cancer based on symptoms ended up having hormonal therapy, according to the researchers, led by Dr. Pim J. van Leeuwen of Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam.

So, they say, hormonal therapy might help explain the increased risk rate of death from cardiovascular problems.

D'Amico agreed that that's a possibility, and called it the most "interesting" point from the findings.

As for the increased rate of death from other cancers, D'Amico speculated that men with more-aggressive prostate cancer may be genetically vulnerable to other cancers as well.

Or, he added, being part of a medical study may have meant they were more likely to have screening tests for other cancers.

For now, the reasons for the findings are unclear. "This is not something that would change clinical practice," D'Amico said.

Like with any treatment for prostate cancer, experts say the risks of hormone therapy have to be weighed against the potential benefits. For men with "high-risk" cancer that is likely to progress, for example, studies have shown that a combination of hormonal therapy and radiation can boost survival.

Men with early prostate cancer diagnosed through screening would not be the ones given hormone therapy, D'Amico said.

For those men, surgery may be an option -- and so may "active surveillance." That means putting off treatment altogether and monitoring the cancer over time.

According to the National Cancer Institute, about half of the more than 190,000 U.S. men diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2009 fell into the "low-risk" category -- meaning their cancer had low odds of progressing.

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/yw2VMt BJU International, online January 30, 2012.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 13 tháng 2, 2012

Heart Disease May Be Risk Factor for Prostate Cancer

THURSDAY, Feb. 9 (HealthDay News) -- Heart disease may be a risk factor for prostate cancer, a new study suggests.

If this link is confirmed in future research, it means that lifestyle changes that reduce heart disease risk -- such as weight loss, exercise and a healthy diet -- may also protect men against prostate cancer, the Duke Cancer Institute researchers said.

"What's good for the heart may be good for the prostate," study author Dr. Jean-Alfred Thomas II, a postdoctoral fellow in the division of urology, said in a Duke Medicine news release.

He and his colleagues analyzed data from 6,390 men in a four-year clinical trial testing a drug's effectiveness in reducing prostate cancer risk. Of those men, 547 reported a history of coronary artery disease before the start of the trial.

The Duke researchers found that men with coronary artery disease had a 35 percent greater risk of developing prostate cancer over time and a 24 percent greater risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer within the first two years of the study compared to men who did not have heart disease.

Four years into the clinical trial, men with coronary artery disease had a 74 percent higher risk of prostate cancer than those with no heart disease.

"We controlled for a number of risk factors, including hypertension, taking statins or aspirin," Thomas said. "We don't have a good grasp on what's causing the link, but we are observing this association."

The study appears online this month in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of death among adults in the United States, and prostate cancer is the second most deadly type of cancer for men in the United States, the release noted.

More information

The U.S. National Cancer Institute has more about prostate cancer risk.


View the original article here

Prostate Size May Be Clue to Severity of Cancer

FRIDAY, Feb. 10 (HealthDay News) -- The size of a man's prostate gland may help doctors predict the severity of his prostate cancer, according to a new study.

Researchers from the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn., found smaller prostates that produce higher levels of prostate specific antigen (PSA) in the blood are more often linked to serious forms of prostate cancer that require aggressive treatment.

"There's nothing about size that would necessarily predict a bad outcome. What it's really about is the ratio of PSA to size, or PSA density, meaning that a small prostate that is making a lot of PSA is likely to be due to a bad tumor, whereas a large prostate making a lot of PSA is likely to be due to benign enlargement of the prostate (BPH)," said the study's senior author, Dr. Daniel Barocas, an assistant professor of urologic surgery, in a university news release.

The study's authors suggest the findings could help doctors determine the best course of treatment for patients with prostate cancer. For instance, low-risk patients with a small prostate might benefit from aggressive treatment.

In conducting the study, they analyzed about 1,250 cases of prostate cancer among men who had their prostate gland removed but were considered to be low-risk because their cancer was classified as low grade.

Within that group, the researchers zeroed in on patients whose risk was considered so low that they might have qualified for less aggressive treatment, including watching and waiting. The study found that in 31 percent of cases considered low-risk in pre-surgical analysis, the prostate cancer was upgraded to more serious once pathologists examined the tissue removed during surgery. The researchers found men with smaller prostates were more likely to be among this group.

The study was recently published in the Journal of Urology.

The researchers pointed out that the findings are significant since men with prostate cancer who are considered low-risk may receive less aggressive treatment or just be placed under observation.

"Our field suffers from this great confusion because in half of men you can find prostate cancer in microscopic amounts that may not be clinically significant and yet it's the second leading cause of cancer death among men," Barocas noted. "The more you look for it, the more you find it but that doesn't help us figure out who needs treatment and who doesn't."

The researchers cautioned that more accurate tests are still needed to determine which cancers are actually threatening to patients.

"The imaging for prostate cancer is relatively weak because the disease tends to be diffuse, rather than growing in what we think of as a tumor -- a spherical nodule. Prostate cancer tends to grow along the glands in a sort of flat pattern, so it's a little harder to detect. A better test, which we don't yet have, would reliably image or identify where in the prostate the tumor lies," Barocas added.

More information

The U.S. National Institutes of Health provides more information on prostate cancer.


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 10 tháng 2, 2012

Prostate Size May Be Clue to Severity of Cancer

FRIDAY, Feb. 10 (HealthDay News) -- The size of a man's prostate gland may help doctors predict the severity of his prostate cancer, according to a new study.

Researchers from the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn., found smaller prostates that produce higher levels of prostate specific antigen (PSA) in the blood are more often linked to serious forms of prostate cancer that require aggressive treatment.

"There's nothing about size that would necessarily predict a bad outcome. What it's really about is the ratio of PSA to size, or PSA density, meaning that a small prostate that is making a lot of PSA is likely to be due to a bad tumor, whereas a large prostate making a lot of PSA is likely to be due to benign enlargement of the prostate (BPH)," said the study's senior author, Dr. Daniel Barocas, an assistant professor of urologic surgery, in a university news release.

The study's authors suggest the findings could help doctors determine the best course of treatment for patients with prostate cancer. For instance, low-risk patients with a small prostate might benefit from aggressive treatment.

In conducting the study, they analyzed about 1,250 cases of prostate cancer among men who had their prostate gland removed but were considered to be low-risk because their cancer was classified as low grade.

Within that group, the researchers zeroed in on patients whose risk was considered so low that they might have qualified for less aggressive treatment, including watching and waiting. The study found that in 31 percent of cases considered low-risk in pre-surgical analysis, the prostate cancer was upgraded to more serious once pathologists examined the tissue removed during surgery. The researchers found men with smaller prostates were more likely to be among this group.

The study was recently published in the Journal of Urology.

The researchers pointed out that the findings are significant since men with prostate cancer who are considered low-risk may receive less aggressive treatment or just be placed under observation.

"Our field suffers from this great confusion because in half of men you can find prostate cancer in microscopic amounts that may not be clinically significant and yet it's the second leading cause of cancer death among men," Barocas noted. "The more you look for it, the more you find it but that doesn't help us figure out who needs treatment and who doesn't."

The researchers cautioned that more accurate tests are still needed to determine which cancers are actually threatening to patients.

"The imaging for prostate cancer is relatively weak because the disease tends to be diffuse, rather than growing in what we think of as a tumor -- a spherical nodule. Prostate cancer tends to grow along the glands in a sort of flat pattern, so it's a little harder to detect. A better test, which we don't yet have, would reliably image or identify where in the prostate the tumor lies," Barocas added.

More information

The U.S. National Institutes of Health provides more information on prostate cancer.


View the original article here

Heart Disease May Be Risk Factor for Prostate Cancer

THURSDAY, Feb. 9 (HealthDay News) -- Heart disease may be a risk factor for prostate cancer, a new study suggests.

If this link is confirmed in future research, it means that lifestyle changes that reduce heart disease risk -- such as weight loss, exercise and a healthy diet -- may also protect men against prostate cancer, the Duke Cancer Institute researchers said.

"What's good for the heart may be good for the prostate," study author Dr. Jean-Alfred Thomas II, a postdoctoral fellow in the division of urology, said in a Duke Medicine news release.

He and his colleagues analyzed data from 6,390 men in a four-year clinical trial testing a drug's effectiveness in reducing prostate cancer risk. Of those men, 547 reported a history of coronary artery disease before the start of the trial.

The Duke researchers found that men with coronary artery disease had a 35 percent greater risk of developing prostate cancer over time and a 24 percent greater risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer within the first two years of the study compared to men who did not have heart disease.

Four years into the clinical trial, men with coronary artery disease had a 74 percent higher risk of prostate cancer than those with no heart disease.

"We controlled for a number of risk factors, including hypertension, taking statins or aspirin," Thomas said. "We don't have a good grasp on what's causing the link, but we are observing this association."

The study appears online this month in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of death among adults in the United States, and prostate cancer is the second most deadly type of cancer for men in the United States, the release noted.

More information

The U.S. National Cancer Institute has more about prostate cancer risk.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 8 tháng 2, 2012

Marc Garnick Answers Six Key Questions About Prostate Cancer

The latest findings about the ineffectiveness of PSA testing to screen for prostate cancer has confused many men--and their loved ones. On the one hand is the seeming chance to catch cancer early. On the other hand is the growing realization that many prostate tumors grow so slowly that they will never cause a problem in an individual's lifetime.

After closely examining all the latest data, investigators from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded in 2011 that the PSA test holds little or no value as a screening test for most healthy men.

Dr. Marc Garnick explored the pros and cons of PSA screening in a feature article in the February 2012 issue of Scientific American entitled "The Great Prostate Debate: Does Screening Save Lives?" [preview]. After writing the article, Garnick, who is a prostate cancer expert and medical oncologist at  of Harvard Medical school and Beth Israel Medical Center in Boston, agreed to speak at greater length with senior editor Christine Gorman about the following questions in the prostate cancer field.

Q: Why are medical experts questioning the value of the PSA test to screen for prostate cancer?

In 2009, two very important studies—one from Europe and one from the United States—were published that looked at whether PSA screening saved lives. "The striking thing of these studies, which included tens of thousands of individuals, was that there was no difference in the overall survival of those men who were tested, biopsied, diagnosed with cancer and then treated compared to the control population who were not offered the testing whatsoever," Garnick says.

Listen to more of Dr. Garnick's answer about why the PSA test has come under fire for prostate cancer screening:

Click arrows for audioMP3 file

Q: So if you could summarize, you're saying that you don't live any longer if you get screened with the PSA test and you're subjecting yourself to really bad side effects from treatments for prostate cancer?

"That's the public health policy perspective," Garnick says. "It's obviously more difficult when you have the individual patient sitting in your office--especially a patient with a strong family history of the disease in whom perhaps their brother had the disease, their father may have had the disease and passed away from it."

Listen to Dr. Garnick explain what individuals with a family history of prostate cancer should know about the PSA test:

Click arrows for audioMP3 file

Q: What is the difference between a PSA test for screening and one used after a prostate cancer diagnosis?

"The PSA test for screening says, 'Yes, your value may be elevated but we don't know yet, short of doing a biopsy, whether or not you do or do not have prostate cancer.' In a patient who has an established diagnosis of prostate cancer, the PSA is very useful," Garnick explains. "So, for example, if a patient has prostate cancer and they're treated for their cancer and the patient, for example, is treated with a radical prostatectomy in which the cancer is thought to be confined to the prostate gland, surgical removal of the prostate gland should actually result in an undetectable PSA value . . . If it's not undetectable either not all the cancer was removed or there may actually be metastatic cancer that has already spread that is causing the PSA not to come down back to an undetectable level."

Listen to more of Dr. Garnick's explanation of how a PSA test can be helpful after the diagnosis of cancer.

Click arrows for audioMP3 file

Q: What is the latest thinking about what to do with a Gleason score in the middle zones?

Garnick says, "the majority of cancers that we see today are Gleason 3+3s. The other cancers are Gleason 7s (3+4 or 4+3). And then we have a group of very high-risk cancers that we call Gleeson 8 to 10 cancers, which are in general are Gleason 4+4 or 4+5 or 5+4. Those are very aggressive, what we call high-grade cancers.

"The problem is trying to distinguish what the biological behavior of a Gleason 6 cancer and a Gleason 7 cancer is going to be. A Gleeson 3+4 or a 3+3 are the real enigmas because those cancers can bifurcate into being cancers that will never cause problems in the patient's lifetime to cancers, which are going to problems months to years after being diagnosed.

"We don't really have right now a good set of molecular markers or other biomarkers that help us predict which type of behavior an individual patient's cancer is likely to experience."

Listen to Dr. Garnick discuss the Gleason score in greater depth.

Click arrows for audioMP3 file

Q: What are the options if you want to get screened with a PSA test for prostate cancer but are still concerned about the potential side effects of treatment?

"The criticism has been that we're over-diagnosing prostate cancer," Garnick says. "I actually think we're not necessarily over-diagnosing prostate cancer, we're actually over-treating prostate cancer . . .

"The recent National Institutes [of Health] consensus conference took a look at these low-grade or low-risk prostate cancers and actually recommended that we more strongly consider active surveillance in a lot of these men who otherwise would have been treated and suffer the potential consequences of therapy."

Listen to Dr. Garnick explain in greater detail what active surveillance is all about.

Click arrows for audioMP3 file

Q: What does the future look like for men with advanced cases of prostate cancer?

"This is actually one of the most exciting areas in prostate cancer biology," Garnick says. Over the past 30 years, "We've come from orchietctomy, which is surgical removal of the testicles, to estrogen therapy to the use of LHRH analogues—such as lupron and the anti-androgens—to first- and second-line chemotherapy to second-line hormonal therapy to immune therapy to agents that help bone health."

Listen to Dr. Garnick talk about results using recently approved drugs such as docetaxel, cabizitaxel and abiraterone, as well as some of the latest research on experimental medications like MET inhibitors and immune therapy for advanced prostate cancer. 

Click arrows for audioMP3 file

Follow Scientific American on Twitter @SciAm and @SciamBlogs. Visit ScientificAmerican.com for the latest in science, health and technology news.
© 2012 ScientificAmerican.com. All rights reserved.


View the original article here

Marc Garnick Answers 6 Key Questions about Prostate Cancer

The latest findings about the ineffectiveness of PSA testing to screen for prostate cancer has confused many men--and their loved ones. On the one hand is the seeming chance to catch cancer early. On the other hand is the growing realization that many prostate tumors grow so slowly that they will never cause a problem in an individual's lifetime.

After closely examining all the latest data, investigators from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded in 2011 that the PSA test holds little or no value as a screening test for most healthy men.

Dr. Marc Garnick explored the pros and cons of PSA screening in a feature article in the February 2012 issue of Scientific American entitled "The Great Prostate Debate: Does Screening Save Lives?" [preview]. After writing the article, Garnick, who is a prostate cancer expert and medical oncologist at  of Harvard Medical school and Beth Israel Medical Center in Boston, agreed to speak at greater length with senior editor Christine Gorman about the following questions in the prostate cancer field.

Q: Why are medical experts questioning the value of the PSA test to screen for prostate cancer?

In 2009, two very important studies—one from Europe and one from the United States—were published that looked at whether PSA screening saved lives. "The striking thing of these studies, which included tens of thousands of individuals, was that there was no difference in the overall survival of those men who were tested, biopsied, diagnosed with cancer and then treated compared to the control population who were not offered the testing whatsoever," Garnick says.

Listen to more of Dr. Garnick's answer about why the PSA test has come under fire for prostate cancer screening:

Click arrows for audioMP3 file

Q: So if you could summarize, you're saying that you don't live any longer if you get screened with the PSA test and you're subjecting yourself to really bad side effects from treatments for prostate cancer?

"That's the public health policy perspective," Garnick says. "It's obviously more difficult when you have the individual patient sitting in your office--especially a patient with a strong family history of the disease in whom perhaps their brother had the disease, their father may have had the disease and passed away from it."

Listen to Dr. Garnick explain what individuals with a family history of prostate cancer should know about the PSA test:

Click arrows for audioMP3 file

Q: What is the difference between a PSA test for screening and one used after a prostate cancer diagnosis?

"The PSA test for screening says, 'Yes, your value may be elevated but we don't know yet, short of doing a biopsy, whether or not you do or do not have prostate cancer.' In a patient who has an established diagnosis of prostate cancer, the PSA is very useful," Garnick explains. "So, for example, if a patient has prostate cancer and they're treated for their cancer and the patient, for example, is treated with a radical prostatectomy in which the cancer is thought to be confined to the prostate gland, surgical removal of the prostate gland should actually result in an undetectable PSA value . . . If it's not undetectable either not all the cancer was removed or there may actually be metastatic cancer that has already spread that is causing the PSA not to come down back to an undetectable level."

Listen to more of Dr. Garnick's explanation of how a PSA test can be helpful after the diagnosis of cancer.

Click arrows for audioMP3 file

Q: What is the latest thinking about what to do with a Gleason score in the middle zones?

Garnick says, "the majority of cancers that we see today are Gleason 3+3s. The other cancers are Gleason 7s (3+4 or 4+3). And then we have a group of very high-risk cancers that we call Gleeson 8 to 10 cancers, which are in general are Gleason 4+4 or 4+5 or 5+4. Those are very aggressive, what we call high-grade cancers.

"The problem is trying to distinguish what the biological behavior of a Gleason 6 cancer and a Gleason 7 cancer is going to be. A Gleeson 3+4 or a 3+3 are the real enigmas because those cancers can bifurcate into being cancers that will never cause problems in the patient's lifetime to cancers, which are going to problems months to years after being diagnosed.

"We don't really have right now a good set of molecular markers or other biomarkers that help us predict which type of behavior an individual patient's cancer is likely to experience."

Listen to Dr. Garnick discuss the Gleason score in greater depth.

Click arrows for audioMP3 file

Q: What are the options if you want to get screened with a PSA test for prostate cancer but are still concerned about the potential side effects of treatment?

"The criticism has been that we're over-diagnosing prostate cancer," Garnick says. "I actually think we're not necessarily over-diagnosing prostate cancer, we're actually over-treating prostate cancer . . .

"The recent National Institutes [of Health] consensus conference took a look at these low-grade or low-risk prostate cancers and actually recommended that we more strongly consider active surveillance in a lot of these men who otherwise would have been treated and suffer the potential consequences of therapy."

Listen to Dr. Garnick explain in greater detail what active surveillance is all about.

Click arrows for audioMP3 file

Q: What does the future look like for men with advanced cases of prostate cancer?

"This is actually one of the most exciting areas in prostate cancer biology," Garnick says. Over the past 30 years, "We've come from orchietctomy, which is surgical removal of the testicles, to estrogen therapy to the use of LHRH analogues—such as lupron and the anti-androgens—to first- and second-line chemotherapy to second-line hormonal therapy to immune therapy to agents that help bone health."

Listen to Dr. Garnick talk about results using recently approved drugs such as docetaxel, cabizitaxel and abiraterone, as well as some of the latest research on experimental medications like MET inhibitors and immune therapy for advanced prostate cancer. 

Click arrows for audioMP3 file

Follow Scientific American on Twitter @SciAm and @SciamBlogs. Visit ScientificAmerican.com for the latest in science, health and technology news.
© 2012 ScientificAmerican.com. All rights reserved.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 7 tháng 2, 2012

FDA questions Amgen drug for prostate cancer

WASHINGTON (AP) — Scientists for the Food and Drug Administration say that an Amgen drug slowed the spread of cancer to the bone in men with hard-to-treat prostate cancer, though the drug did not extend life and carried significant side effects.

The Food and Drug Administration will ask a panel of outside experts on Wednesday whether the benefits of Amgen's Xgeva outweigh its risks, which included bone disease in about 5 percent of patients taking the drug. The agency posted its review of the drug online Monday morning ahead of the meeting.

Xgeva is already approved for preventing fractures in cancerous bones, and for osteoporosis, in a different formulation called Prolia.

Now Amgen has asked the FDA to approve the injectable drug as a preventive measure for men with recurring prostate cancer that is at high risk of spreading to the bone. Men must have also attempted and failed treatment with hormone therapy.

A 1,432-patient study conducted by Amgen showed the drug slowed the spread of cancer to the bone by about 4.2 months when compared to patients who received placebo. While that delay was statistically significant, the FDA's reviewers questioned whether it is "an adequate measure of clinical benefit" for patients with prostate cancer.

FDA's review notes that the drug did not increase overall survival, with patients in the drug and placebo groups living about the same amount of time.

Additionally, five percent of patients taking Xgeva experienced the side effect of osteonecrosis of the jaw, in which the bone dies because of poor blood supply.

While the FDA staff does not openly recommend against the new use for the drug, they do quote from an editorial in the Lancet which said the company's findings on Xgeva "'do not support its broad use as a preventive agent for bone metastases in prostate cancer.'"

ISI analyst Mark Schoenebaum said the FDA's negative review was consistent with analyst expectations.

"As was generally expected by us and much of the Street, the FDA is critical of the data, questioning the clinical meaningfulness of the primary endpoint," Schoenebaum wrote in an email.

Even if the FDA ultimately approves the indication, Schoenebaum estimates modest U.S. sales of about $300 million. The FDA is expected to make its final decision by late April.

Shares of Thousand Oaks, Calif.-based Amgen fell $1.80, or 2.6 percent, to $67.48 per share in morning trading.

Doctors use a variety of treatments and interventions to treat prostate cancer, depending on the speed of the cancer's growth and the patient's age, among other factors. Patients with fast-growing prostate tumors often receive hormone therapy to stop production of testosterone, which fuels cancer growth.

All of the men in Amgen's study had tumors that did not respond well to hormone therapy, but had not yet spread beyond the prostate. While there are multiple drugs for both early and late-stage prostate cancer, Amgen argues "there is a gap in the treatment plan for those patients" enrolled in its study.

Xgeva and Prolia, the osteoporosis formulation, had combined sales of $554 million in 2011, their first full year on the market.


View the original article here