Expression of SRD5A1 and its prognostic role in prostate cancer: Analysis based on the data-mining of ONCOMINE / 中华男科学杂志

<p><b>Objective</b>To explore the expression of I-5α-reductase (SRD5A1)and its prognostic role in prostate cancer .</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Data about SRD5A1 were retrieved from the ONCOMINE database and the role of SRD5A1 in prostate cancer was analyzed.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Totally, 992 studies of different types relevant to the expression of SRD5A1 were identified in the ONCOMINE database. The SRD5A1 expression was statistically significant in 239 of the studies, overexpressed in 157 (11 in prostate cancer) and underexpressed in the other 82 (3 in prostate cancer). Eighteen of the studies, with 1 068 samples, addressed the expression of SRD5A1 in prostate cancer and normal tissues, which was significantly higher in the former than in the latter tissue (P<0.05). In 3 of the studies, the SRD5A1 expression was high in primary prostate cancer and increased with its metastasis (P<0.0 5). Two of the studies with prognostic data showed a higher rate of postoperative biochemical recurrence and a higher total mortality rate in the patients with a high than in those with a low expression of SRD5A1 (P<0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>SRD5A1 is highly expressed in prostate cancer, especially in metastatic and castration-resistant prostate cancer and its expression is associated with the prognosis of prostate cancer, which may be an important target of medication for prostate cancer.</p>

3D versus 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for the treatment of prostate cancer / 中华男科学杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To compare the outcomes and complications of 3D versus 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy ( LRP) in the treatment of prostate cancer.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>We retrospectively reviewed 18 cases of prostate cancer treated by 3D LRP and another 32 by 2D LRP. We compared the general data, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage time and hospital stay, Gleason scores, and incidence of complications between the two groups of patients.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>All the operations were successful and none was transferred to open surgery. The two groups of patients were similar in terms of age, body mass index, Gleason scores, and clinical stages. However, compared with the 2D LRP group, the 3D LRP group showed significantly shorter operation time ([180.2 ± 69.1] vs [118.3 ± 55.1] min, P < 0.01), less blood loss ([236.5 ± 60.6] vs [89.1 ± 35.2] ml, P < 0.01), less postoperative drainage time ([7.1 ± 1.1] vs [5.3 ± 2.1] d, P < 0.01), shorter postoperative hospital stay ([20.2 ± 5.5] vs [14.4 ± 7.2] d, P < 0.01), and lower incidence of perioperative complications (3.1% vs 0, P < 0.01). The incisal margin was pathologically negative in both groups and urinary incontinence was found in neither at 6 months after surgery (P > 0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>3D LRP, with its advantages of shorter operative time, faster recovery, and better outcomes than 2D LRP in the treatment of prostate cancer, deserves general application in lower-level hospitals.</p>