A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Radical prostatectomy is widely used in the treatment of early prostate cancer. The possible survival benefit of this treatment, however, is unclear. We conducted a randomized trial to address this question. METHODS: From October 1989 through February 1999, 695 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in International Union against Cancer clinical stage T1b, T1c, or T2 were randomly assigned to watchful waiting or radical prostatectomy. We achieved complete follow-up through the year 2000 with blinded evaluation of causes of death. The primary end point was death due to prostate cancer, and the secondary end points were overall mortality, metastasis-free survival, and local progression. RESULTS: During a median of 6.2 years of follow-up, 62 men in the watchful-waiting group and 53 in the radical-prostatectomy group died (P=0.31). Death due to prostate cancer occurred in 31 of 348 of those assigned to watchful waiting (8.9 percent) and in 16 of 347 of those assigned to radical prostatectomy (4.6 percent) (relative hazard, 0.50; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.91; P=0.02). Death due to other causes occurred in 31 of 348 men in the watchful-waiting group (8.9 percent) and in 37 of 347 men in the radical-prostatectomy group (10.6 percent). The men assigned to surgery had a lower relative risk of distant metastases than the men assigned to watchful waiting (relative hazard, 0.63; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, radical prostatectomy significantly reduced disease-specific mortality, but there was no significant difference between surgery and watchful waiting in terms of overall survival.

Monoclonal antibodies, immunofluorometric assay, and detection of human semenogelin in male reproductive tract: no association with in vitro fertilizing capacity of sperm.

Semenogelin plays an important role in sperm clotting and is degraded into smaller fragments by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) during clot liquefaction. Semenogelin and its fragments inhibit sperm motility in vitro. We studied the expression of semenogelin I mRNA and its localization in various tissues of the male genital tract. We also studied semenogelin concentrations with respect to sperm parameters and the outcome of in vitro fertilization. Semenogelin protein was detected by immunohistochemical staining and semenogelin I mRNA was detected by Northern blot analysis in the seminal vesicles and ampullary part of the vas deferens, whereas specimens from the prostate, epididymis, testis, and the female genital tract were negative. Using monoclonal antibodies against semenogelin, an immunofluorometric assay was developed to measure semenogelin levels in seminal plasma and to evaluate possible correlations with sperm parameters and fertilization in vitro. No correlation was found between the semenogelin concentration and the volume of the ejaculate, sperm concentration, sperm motility, or in vitro fertilization rate. Semenogelin levels were positively correlated with the total protein concentration in seminal plasma, and there was an inverse correlation between the concentration of semenogelin and that of PSA. The levels of semenogelin appear to bear no relationship to the in vitro fertilization capacity of the spermatozoa.

Parenteral estrogen versus combined androgen deprivation in the treatment of metastatic prostatic cancer -- Scandinavian Prostatic Cancer Group (SPCG) Study No. 5.

OBJECTIVE: In the mid-1980s, interest in parenteral estrogen therapy for prostate cancer was renewed when it was found that it influenced liver metabolism only marginally and had very few cardiovascular side-effects. In this study high-dose polyestradiol phosphate (PEP; Estradurin) was compared to combined androgen deprivation (CAD) for the treatment of patients with metastatic prostate cancer. The aim of the study was to compare anticancer efficacy and adverse events, especially cardiovascular side-effects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 917 patients with T0-4, NX, M1, G1-3 prostate cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were randomized to treatment with either PEP 240 mg i.m. twice a month for 2 months and thereafter once a month or flutamide (Eulexin) 250 mg t.i.d. per os in combination with either triptorelin (Decapeptyl) 3.75 mg per month i.m. or, on an optional basis, bilateral orchidectomy. A total of 556 patients had died at the time of this analysis. RESULTS: There was no difference between the treatment arms in terms of time to biochemical or clinical progression and overall or disease-specific survival. There was no increase in cardiovascular mortality in the PEP arm. The PEP group had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease prior to the study and a significantly higher incidence of non-fatal ischemic heart events and heart decompensation during the study. CONCLUSIONS: PEP has an equal anticancer efficacy to CAD and does not increase cardiovascular mortality. Final evaluation of cardiovascular morbidity is awaiting further analysis and follow-up. PEP is considerably cheaper than CAD.