A Prospective Audit of Intermittent Anti-Androgen verses Pituitary Blockade Suggests a Bipolar Androgen Type Strategy May Be Safe in Untreated Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: A locally advanced Gleason 4 + 4 prostate cancer patient who was on self-medication with intermittent anti-androgen monotherapy (iAAm) over 14 years suggested that raised testosterone was not dangerous and this suggestion needed investigating. PATIENTS: Others who were on AA continuously were recruited to ongoing audit of intermittent hormone therapy (IHT) and iAAm outcomes were compared with intermittent LHRH therapy (iLHRH or iMAB). RESULTS: Between 1994 and 2007, 111 patients sought IHT because of side effects of treatment. Forty-two M0 patients received IHT with iLHRHm or iMAB and 33 received iAAm (31 of these were M0). PSA nadir below 4 was necessary for entry. Overall survival was 87, 72 and 67% with iAAm and 73, 56 and 43% with iLHRH/MAB at 5, 8 and 10 years respectively. Overall survival was 61, 55 and 33% continued on iAAm and 56, 41, and 32% on iLHRH/MAB at 5, 8, and 10 years respectively. Multivariable analysis and matched case control analysis confirm that the maintenance of advantage for iAAm Testosterone levels in patients on iAAm compared to iLHRH therapy was more intense throughout treatment. CONCLUSION: These results complement recent progress in using bipolar androgen therapy to reverse castration resistance and add to the increasing acceptance that controlled testosterone exposure might be relevant in hormone-naïve patients.

Clearance after vasectomy: has the time come to modify the current practice?

OBJECTIVE: Vasectomy is a simple, reliable and effective form of permanent contraception. Clearance after vasectomy has been the subject of much debate among urologists. Poor compliance with postvasectomy semen analysis is well recognized, with rates as low as 36%. This can leave the partner at risk of an unplanned pregnancy and, consequently, the surgeon at risk of litigation. Although there is no consensus about the requirements for postvasectomy clearance, urologists usually tend to request at least two azoospermic postvasectomy semen samples (PVSSs) before labelling patients as sterile. This study investigated whether simplifying the criteria for postvasectomy clearance can result in improved compliance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for studies on postvasectomy clearance. The main focus of the search was on the timing and number of PVSSs, their impact on patients' compliance and the significance of the rare non-motile sperm (RNMS). RESULTS: It has been found that patients' compliance decreases when more than one PVSS is requested. One azoospermic PVSS can be as indicative of sterility as two azoospermic samples. There have been calls for a uniform protocol recommending only one routine sperm sample taken 16 weeks postoperatively. This period will allow the vasa and seminal vesicles to become clear of spermatozoa. A significant proportion of men will have RNMS in their semen after vasectomy; only 1% will ultimately fail. Therefore, RNMS samples can, for practical purposes, be considered azoospermic and one PVSS, even if containing RNMS, should be considered sufficient for clearance. CONCLUSIONS: Provided that patients are adequately warned about the risk of vasectomy failure and appropriate consent is obtained, a single azoospermic PVSS at 16 weeks is sufficient for clearance. Patients with RNMS should be practically considered azoospermic and further sampling should be abandoned. This approach should improve patients' compliance. Evaluation in a prospective setting will be required to validate this conclusion.