Our aim was to systematically evaluate the benefits of degarelix as antagonist versus agonists of gonadotropin-releasing hormones (GnRH) for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer (PC). This comparison was performed either in terms of biochemical or oncological or safety profiles. To this end we, carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.We selected only studies directly and prospectively analyzing the two treatments in the same population (randomized phase III studies). We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-analyses process for reporting studies.After we eliminated studies according to the exclusion criteria, 9 publications were considered relevant to this review. These articles described 5 clinical trials that were eligible for inclusion. The follow-up duration in all trials did not exceed 364 days. This meta-analysis and review comprised a total of 1719 men, 1061 randomized to degarelix versus 658 to GnRH agonists treatment for advanced PC. Oncological results were evaluated only in 1 trial (CS21:408 cases) and they were not the primary endpoints of the study. Treatment emerging adverse events were reported in 61.4% and 58.8% of patients in the degarelix and GnRH agonists group, respectively (odds ratio, OR = 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI: 0.78–1.77, P > 0.1). Treatment related severe cardiovascular side effects were reported (trial CS21-30-35) in 1.6% and 3.6% of patients in the degarelix and GnRH agonists group, respectively (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.26–1.14, P > 0.1).Our analysis evidences relevant limitations in particular for the comparative evaluation of the efficacy and the oncological results related to degarelix.

No abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-ultrasound (US) fusion-targeted biopsies (TB) in men with primary and repeated biopsies comparing the cancer detection rate (CDR) of random biopsies (RB) + TB versus only TB. Methods: The present study is a real-life study on patients with primary and prior negative prostate biopsies with suspicious PCa. A total of 130 men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value >2.5 ng/dL and/or abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) were included in the study and subjected to mpMRI. Patients with >2 previous biopsies and/or with ⩾3 suspected lesions on MRI and/or prostate imaging-reporting and data system (PIRADS) value ⩾4 (n:30 pts) were subjected only to TB on the areas indicated by mpMRI. All the other patients (n:70 pts) were subjected to standard random laterally directed 10-core plus TB on the areas indicated by mpMRI. Results: The overall CDR was 53% (53/100). In relation to PIRADS score, the overall CDR was 0, 40% (12/30), 56.83% (29/51), and 84% (11/13) for PIRADS 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. According to biopsy modality, CDR for RB + TB was 50% (35/70) and CDR for TB was 60% (18/30) with a p-value of 0.3632. Discussion: MRI-US fusion biopsy is associated with a high CDR of clinically significant PCa (csPCa). MRI-US fusion biopsy could be a reasonable approach in patients with previous negative biopsy and high PIRADS score on MRI, to ensure a high CDR of csPCa and to reduce the diagnosis of clinically insignificant tumors.

Background and objective:To prospectively compare the laparoscopic versus open approach to RP in cases with high prostate volume and to evaluate a possible different impact of prostate volume.Materials and Methods:From March 2007 to March 2013 a total of 120 cases with clinically localized prostate cancer (PC) and a prostate volume>70cc identified for radical prostatectomy (RP), were prospectively analyzed in our institute. Patients were offered as surgical technique either an open retropubic or an intraperitoneal laparoscopic (LP) approach. In our population, 54 cases were submitted to LP and 66 to open RP. We analyzed the association of the surgical technique with perioperative, oncological and postoperative functional parameters.Results:In those high prostate volume cases, the surgical technique (laparoscopic versus open) does not represent a significant independent factor able to influence positive surgical margins rates and characteristics (p=0.4974). No significant differences (p>0.05) in the overall rates of positive margins was found, and also no differences following stratification according to the pathological stage and nerve sparing (NS) procedure.The surgical technique was able to significantly and independently influence the hospital stay, time of operation and blood loss (p<0.001). On the contrary, in our population, the surgical technique was not a significant factor influencing all pathological and 1-year oncological or functional outcomes (p>0.05).Conclusions:In our prospective non randomized analysis on high prostate volumes, the laparoscopic approach to RP is able to guarantee the same oncological and functional results of an open approach, maintaining the advantages in terms of perioperative outcomes.

Treatment with dutasteride can help to analyze PSA kinetic. A persistent prostatic inflammation is a factor able to reduce the performance of PSA kinetic during dutasteride treatment.