Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients with prostate cancer who have high-risk biochemical recurrence have an increased risk of progression. The efficacy and safety of enzalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy and enzalutamide monotherapy, as compared with androgen-deprivation therapy alone, are unknown. In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with prostate cancer who had high-risk biochemical recurrence with a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of 9 months or less. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive enzalutamide (160 mg) daily plus leuprolide every 12 weeks (combination group), placebo plus leuprolide (leuprolide-alone group), or enzalutamide monotherapy (monotherapy group). The primary end point was metastasis-free survival, as assessed by blinded independent central review, in the combination group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. A key secondary end point was metastasis-free survival in the monotherapy group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. Other secondary end points were patient-reported outcomes and safety. A total of 1068 patients underwent randomization: 355 were assigned to the combination group, 358 to the leuprolide-alone group, and 355 to the monotherapy group. The patients were followed for a median of 60.7 months. At 5 years, metastasis-free survival was 87.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83.0 to 90.6) in the combination group, 71.4% (95% CI, 65.7 to 76.3) in the leuprolide-alone group, and 80.0% (95% CI, 75.0 to 84.1) in the monotherapy group. With respect to metastasis-free survival, enzalutamide plus leuprolide was superior to leuprolide alone (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.61; P<0.001); enzalutamide monotherapy was also superior to leuprolide alone (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P = 0.005). No new safety signals were observed, with no substantial between-group differences in quality-of-life measures. In patients with prostate cancer with high-risk biochemical recurrence, enzalutamide plus leuprolide was superior to leuprolide alone with respect to metastasis-free survival; enzalutamide monotherapy was also superior to leuprolide alone. The safety profile of enzalutamide was consistent with that shown in previous clinical studies, with no apparent detrimental effect on quality of life. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; EMBARK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02319837.).

Abstract BACKGROUND: Early and mid-term safety and efficacy of aneurysm treatment with the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) has been well demonstrated in prior studies. OBJECTIVE: To present 5-yr follow-up for patients treated in the Pipeline for Uncoilable or Failed Aneurysms clinical trial. METHODS: In our prospective, multicenter trial, 109 complex internal carotid artery (ICA) aneurysms in 107 subjects were treated with the PED. Patients were followed per a standardized protocol at 180 d and 1, 3, and 5 yr. Aneurysm occlusion, in-stent stenosis, modified Rankin Scale scores, and complications were recorded. RESULTS: The primary endpoint of complete aneurysm occlusion at 180 d (73.6%) was previously reported. Aneurysm occlusion for those patients with angiographic follow-up progressively increased over time to 86.8% (79/91), 93.4% (71/76), and 95.2% (60/63) at 1, 3, and 5 yr, respectively. Six aneurysms (5.7%) were retreated. New serious device-related events at 1, 3, and 5 yr were noted in 1% (1/96), 3.5% (3/85), and 0% (0/81) of subjects. There were 4 (3.7%) reported deaths in our trial. Seventy-eight (96.3%) of 81 patients with 5-yr clinical follow-up had modified Rankin Scale scores ≤2. No delayed neurological deaths or hemorrhagic or ischemic cerebrovascular events were reported beyond 6 mo. No recanalization of a previously occluded aneurysm was observed. CONCLUSION: Our 5-yr findings demonstrate that PED is a safe and effective treatment for large and giant wide-necked aneurysms of the intracranial ICA, with high rates of complete occlusion and low rates of delayed adverse events.

Androgen-deprivation therapy is offered to men with prostate cancer who have a rising prostate-specific antigen after curative therapy (PSA relapse) or who are considered not suitable for curative treatment; however, the optimal timing for its introduction is uncertain. We aimed to assess whether immediate androgen-deprivation therapy improves overall survival compared with delayed therapy. In this randomised, multicentre, phase 3, non-blinded trial, we recruited men through 29 oncology centres in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Men with prostate cancer were eligible if they had a PSA relapse after previous attempted curative therapy (radiotherapy or surgery, with or without postoperative radiotherapy) or if they were not considered suitable for curative treatment (because of age, comorbidity, or locally advanced disease). We used a database-embedded, dynamically balanced, randomisation algorithm, coordinated by the Cancer Council Victoria, to randomly assign participants (1:1) to immediate androgen-deprivation therapy (immediate therapy arm) or to delayed androgen-deprivation therapy (delayed therapy arm) with a recommended interval of at least 2 years unless clinically contraindicated. Randomisation for participants with PSA relapse was stratified by type of previous therapy, relapse-free interval, and PSA doubling time; randomisation for those with non-curative disease was stratified by metastatic status; and randomisation in both groups was stratified by planned treatment schedule (continuous or intermittent) and treatment centre. Clinicians could prescribe any form and schedule of androgen-deprivation therapy and group assignment was not masked. The primary outcome was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial closed to accrual in 2012 after review by the independent data monitoring committee, but data collection continued for 18 months until Feb 26, 2014. It is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12606000301561) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00110162). Between Sept 3, 2004, and July 13, 2012, we recruited 293 men (261 with PSA relapse and 32 with non-curable disease). We randomly assigned 142 men to the immediate therapy arm and 151 to the delayed therapy arm. Median follow-up was 5 years (IQR 3·3–6·2) from the date of randomisation. 16 (11%) men died in the immediate therapy arm and 30 (20%) died in the delayed therapy arm. 5-year overall survival was 86·4% (95% CI 78·5–91·5) in the delayed therapy arm versus 91·2% (84·2–95·2) in the immediate therapy arm (log-rank p=0·047). After Cox regression, the unadjusted HR for overall survival for immediate versus delayed arm assignment was 0·55 (95% CI 0·30–1·00; p=0·050). 23 patients had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events. 105 (36%) men had adverse events requiring hospital admission; none of these events were attributable to treatment or differed between treatment-timing groups. The most common serious adverse events were cardiovascular, which occurred in nine (6%) patients in the delayed therapy arm and 13 (9%) in the immediate therapy arm. Immediate receipt of androgen-deprivation therapy significantly improved overall survival compared with delayed intervention in men with PSA-relapsed or non-curable prostate cancer. The results provide benchmark evidence of survival rates and morbidity to discuss with men when considering their treatment options. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Cancer Councils, The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, Mayne Pharma Australia.

PurposeThis study is a systematic analysis of the evidence regarding oncological, perioperative and postoperative outcomes and the cost of open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP).MethodsSummary data was abstracted from 104 original research articles representing 227,400 patients. PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were reviewed in December 2016. A total of 104 publications were selected for inclusion. The primary outcomes were positive surgical margin (PSM) and major complication rate according to Clavien classifications. Secondary outcomes were operative time, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, transfusions, conversions, rate of post-operative erectile dysfunction and incontinence and total cost of procedure.ResultsORP had a significantly higher rate than RALP for PSM (OR: 1.18; 95% CI 1.05–1.32; p = 0.004), but the rate of PSM was not significantly different between ORP versus LRP (OR: 1.37; 95% CI 0.88–2.14; p = 0.17) and RALP versus LRP (OR: 0.83; 95% CI 0.40–1.72; p = 0.62). The major Clavien complication rate was significantly different between ORP and RALP (OR: 2.14; 95% CI 1.24–3.68; p = 0.006). Estimated blood loss, transfusions and length of hospital stay were low for RALP, moderate for LRP and high for ORP. The rate of erectile dysfunction (OR: 2.58; 95% CI 1.77–3.75; p < 0.001) and incontinence (OR: 3.57; 95% CI 2.28–5.58; p < 0.001) were significantly lower after RALP than LRP and equivalent for other comparisons. Total cost was highest for RALP, followed by LRP and ORP.ConclusionsFor PSM and peri- and post-operative complications, RALP showed better results than ORP and LRP. In the context of the biases between the studies, one should interpret the results with caution.

Adjuvant radiotherapy has been shown to halve the risk of biochemical progression for patients with high-risk disease after radical prostatectomy. Early salvage radiotherapy could result in similar biochemical control with lower treatment toxicity. We aimed to compare biochemical progression between patients given adjuvant radiotherapy and those given salvage radiotherapy. We did a phase 3, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial across 32 oncology centres in Australia and New Zealand. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years and had undergone a radical prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate with pathological staging showing high-risk features defined as positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension, or seminal vesicle invasion; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, and had a postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration of 0·10 ng/mL or less. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a minimisation technique via an internet-based, independently generated allocation to either adjuvant radiotherapy within 6 months of radical prostatectomy or early salvage radiotherapy triggered by a PSA of 0·20 ng/mL or more. Allocation sequence was concealed from investigators and patients, but treatment assignment for individual randomisations was not masked. Patients were stratified by radiotherapy centre, preoperative PSA, Gleason score, surgical margin status, and seminal vesicle invasion status. Radiotherapy in both groups was 64 Gy in 32 fractions to the prostate bed without androgen deprivation therapy with real-time review of plan quality on all cases before treatment. The primary endpoint was freedom from biochemical progression. Salvage radiotherapy would be deemed non-inferior to adjuvant radiotherapy if freedom from biochemical progression at 5 years was within 10% of that for adjuvant radiotherapy with a hazard ratio (HR) for salvage radiotherapy versus adjuvant radiotherapy of 1·48. The primary analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00860652. Between March 27, 2009, and Dec 31, 2015, 333 patients were randomly assigned (166 to adjuvant radiotherapy; 167 to salvage radiotherapy). Median follow-up was 6·1 years (IQR 4·3–7·5). An independent data monitoring committee recommended premature closure of enrolment because of unexpectedly low event rates. 84 (50%) patients in the salvage radiotherapy group had radiotherapy triggered by a PSA of 0·20 ng/mL or more. 5-year freedom from biochemical progression was 86% (95% CI 81–92) in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 87% (82–93) in the salvage radiotherapy group (stratified HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·65–1·90; pnon-inferiority=0·15). The grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity rate was lower in the salvage radiotherapy group (90 [54%] of 167) than in the adjuvant radiotherapy group (116 [70%] of 166). The grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity rate was similar between the salvage radiotherapy group (16 [10%]) and the adjuvant radiotherapy group (24 [14%]). Salvage radiotherapy did not meet trial specified criteria for non-inferiority. However, these data support the use of salvage radiotherapy as it results in similar biochemical control to adjuvant radiotherapy, spares around half of men from pelvic radiation, and is associated with significantly lower genitourinary toxicity. New Zealand Health Research Council, Australian National Health Medical Research Council, Cancer Council Victoria, Cancer Council NSW, Auckland Hospital Charitable Trust, Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group Seed Funding, Cancer Research Trust New Zealand, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, Cancer Institute NSW, Prostate Cancer Foundation Australia, and Cancer Australia.

The Pipeline embolization device (PED; Chestnut Medical, Menlo Park, CA) is a new endovascular construct designed to exclude aneurysms from the parent cerebrovasculature. We report the results of the first two human implantations of this device in North America. Two patients presenting with large, symptomatic, circumferential, fusiform intracranial vertebral artery aneurysms were treated with the PED. In both cases, more traditional open microneurosurgical and neuroendovascular treatment strategies had either failed or were associated with unacceptably high risk. Three PEDs were placed across the aneurysms in each of the patients to achieve reconstruction of a new parent vessel through the center of a circumferential aneurysm. In the first patient, who had previously been treated with stent-supported coil embolization, the PED construct alone was sufficient to achieve parent vessel reconstruction and exclusion of the recurrent aneurysm. In the second patient, a microcatheter was jailed within the saccular portion of the aneurysm and the parent vessel was reconstructed with three telescoped PEDs. Although the PED construct dramatically reduced flow into the aneurysm, the lesion remained patent. Coiling of the saccular portion of the aneurysm was subsequently performed via the jailed microcatheter. Follow-up angiography performed 72 hours after the procedure demonstrated occlusion of the aneurysm with cylindrical reconstruction of the affected vascular segment. Neither patient has experienced any complication in the periprocedural period (30 d) or during subsequent long-term (>1 year) follow-up. The PED represents an important advance in the endovascular therapy of cerebral aneurysms, targeting primary parent vessel reconstruction rather than endosaccular occlusion as a means by which to achieve exclusion of the aneurysm and definitive anatomic reconstruction of the parent artery.

BackgroundBenign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is an affliction of the aging male population that contributes to bothersome and disruptive lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). The UroLift® implant has been developed as a mechanical means of widening the prostatic urethra and providing relief from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) through a minimally invasive procedure.MethodsIn the current study, we utilize histological results from canine tissue, resected tissue from human subjects treated with the UroLift System and post-market surveillance data collected by the manufacturer in order to elucidate the long-term biological mechanism of action of the UroLift implant.ResultsThe delivery of the implant causes tissue compression, likely resulting in focal ischemia that causes observed local atrophy and minimal-mild chronic inflammation that ultimately remodels tissue to produce a widened prostatic urethra.ConclusionsThese studies reveal the lack of impact the device has on systemic tissue, providing evidence that the UroLift System is benign and biocompatible, and offering histologic explanation for the clinically observed durability.

The Pipeline embolization device (PED) is a new endoluminal construct designed to exclude aneurysms from the parent cerebrovasculature. We report the very late (>1 year) thrombosis of a PED construct placed for the treatment of a left vertebral aneurysm. A patient with an occluded right vertebral artery and a large, fusiform intracranial left vertebral artery aneurysm was treated with PED and coil reconstruction. A durable, complete occlusion of the aneurysm was confirmed with control angiography at 1 year. The patient remained neurologically normal for 23 months until he experienced a transient visual disturbance followed weeks later by a minor brainstem stroke. Imaging evaluation showed thrombosis of the PED construct with complete occlusion of the left vertebral artery. After this stroke, he was initially treated with dual antiplatelet therapy and was then converted to warfarin. The patient remained neurologically stable for 5 months until he experienced progressive basilar thrombosis that ultimately resulted in a fatal stroke. The PED represents a promising new endovascular technology for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms; however, as an investigational device, long-term follow-up data are sparse at this point. The etiology of the very late thrombosis of the PED construct in this case remains unknown; however, this report underscores the need for a continued, careful systematic evaluation and close long-term follow-up of treated patients.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in men. The imaging assessment and treatment of prostate cancer has vastly improved over the past decade. The introduction of PSMA PET-CT has improved the detection of loco-regional and metastatic disease. PSMA PET-CT also has a role in the primary diagnosis and staging, in detecting biochemical recurrence after curative treatment and in metastasis-directed therapy. In this paper we review the role of PSMA PET-CT in prostate cancer.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), which causes lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), is a common diagnosis among the ageing male population with increasing prevalence. Many risks factors, both modifiable and non-modifiable, can increase the risk of development and progression of BPH and LUTS. The symptoms can be obstructive (resulting in urinary hesitancy, weak stream, straining or prolonged voiding) or irritative (resulting in increased urinary frequency and urgency, nocturia, urge incontinence and reduced voiding volumes), or can affect the patient after micturition (for example, postvoid dribble or incomplete emptying). BPH occurs when both stromal and epithelial cells of the prostate in the transitional zone proliferate by processes that are thought to be influenced by inflammation and sex hormones, causing prostate enlargement. Patients with LUTS undergo several key diagnostic investigations before being diagnosed with BPH. Treatment options for men with BPH start at watchful waiting and progress through medical to surgical interventions. For the majority of patients, the starting point on the treatment pathway will be dictated by their symptoms and degree of bother. Benign prostatic hyperplasia, which causes lower urinary tract symptoms, is a common diagnosis among ageing men that is associated with many risks factors, including metabolic syndrome. In this Primer, these risk factors are described, as well diagnostic work-up and treatment options.