Benign prostatic hyperplasia: an overview

Ziada, Ali; Rosenblum, Mark L.; Crawford, E. David

doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(98)00532-9

Cited by 185 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…BPH is a disease characterized by prostatic enlargement, and the prevalence of histologically identifiable BPH is >50% for 60-year-old men and ~90% by age 85 years (1). The development of BPH is multifactorial, but two of the primary conditions required are the effect of androgens and aging (2,3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristic gene expression profiles of benign prostatic hypertrophy and prostate cancer

Endo

Uzawa²,

Suzuki³

et al. 2009

Int J Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The molecular mechanism playing a role in the development of benign prostate hypertrophy (BPH) and prostate cancer (PC) is not well defined. We performed microarray analysis to assess the gene expression change in BPH and PC, and performed network analysis. Normal prostate, BPH and PC tissues were obtained from patients who underwent an operation at Chiba University Hospital. Using Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus2.0 Array, we identified genes differentially expressed. The identified genes were analyzed using the Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) to investigate the functional network and gene ontology. The microarray analysis identified 402 genes in BPH and 141 genes in PC, which were up-or down-regulated at least 5.0-fold change in PC at all dose points. Analysis using IPA software revealed eight networks in BPH and five networks in PC. We narrowed these down to the top five genes, which were up-or down-regulated on the networks in their characteristic manner. From this new perspective, comparing BPH and PC in microarray studies, our data showing gene expression profiles provide candidate genes for better understanding of disease and new therapeutic targets.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristic gene expression profiles of benign prostatic hypertrophy and prostate cancer

Endo

Uzawa²,

Suzuki³

et al. 2009

Int J Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Autopsy studies show anatomic or microscopic evidence of BPH in approximately 20% of men aged 40 -50 years, increasing to about 80% prevalence in men 70 -80 years of age; however, only 25 -50% of men with microscopic BPH present with clinical manifestations (Ziada et al, 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Benign prostatic hyperplasia and subsequent risk of bladder cancer

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluated the risk of bladder cancer in a cohort of 79 280 Swedish men hospitalised for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), identified in the Swedish Inpatient Register between 1964 and 1983 and followed until 1989 via multiple record linkages with nationwide data on cancer registry, death and emigration. Standardised incidence ratios (SIRs), the ratios of the observed to the expected numbers of incident bladder cancers, were used to calculate the risk associated with BPH. The expected number was calculated by multiplying the number of person-years by the age-specific cancer incidence rates in Sweden for each 5-year age group and calendar year of observation. Analyses were stratified by BPH treatment, latency, calendar year and presence of genitourinary (GU) comorbid conditions. After excluding the first 3 years of follow-up after the index hospitalisation, we observed 506 incident bladder cancer cases during follow-up in the cohort. No overall increased risk of bladder cancer was apparent in our main analysis involving the entire BPH cohort. However, among BPH patients with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), there was an increased risk in all follow-up periods; SIRs of bladder cancer during years 4 -6 of follow-up was 1.22 (95% confidence interval ¼ 1.02 -1.46), 1.32 for 7 -9 years of follow-up, and 1.47 for 10 -26 years of follow-up. SIRs of bladder cancer among TURPtreated BPH patients were particularly elevated among those with comorbid conditions of the GU tract (e.g., stone, infection, etc.); 1.72, 1.74 and 2.01 for 4 -6, 7 -9, 10 -26 years of follow-up, respectively, and also for those whose diagnoses occurred before 1975, when TURP was more likely to be performed by a urologist than a general practitioner: 1.87, 1.90 and 1.74, respectively. These findings suggest that BPH overall is not associated with bladder cancer risk. However, among men treated with TURP, particularly those with other comorbid GU tract conditions, risk of bladder cancer was elevated.

show abstract

“…[1][2][3][4] For eight decades, the gold standard surgery for bothersome benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) has been monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). 5 Multiple minimally invasive techniques have emerged in the past two decades, with laser and electro-vaporization becoming a new standard.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized, controlled trial of laser vs. bipolar plasma vaporization treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia

Skinner

Leslie

Steele

et al. 2017

CUAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Prostate vaporization technology is becoming a standard of care for treatment of moderate, symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). We compared two transurethral prostate vaporization technologies with respect to cost, efficiency, efficacy, safety, and surgical team satisfaction. Methods: Fifty-five patients meeting standardized symptom criteria for BPH were randomized to either Olympus Plasma Button TM or Biolitec EVOLVE ® diode laser vaporization. Primary outcome of cost with secondary outcomes of clinical efficacy, resection time, surgical team satisfaction, and safety were analyzed. Followup was carried out at six and 12 weeks. Patient factors included baseline, as well as six-and 12-week International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) with quality of life (QoL) scores. We recorded surgical team satisfaction with a Likert-style survey investigating ease of set-up, reliability, efficiency, and ability to reach desired endpoint. All complications or side effects detected within three months and the resulting management were included in the cost analysis. Results: Mean cost per patient was $3418 for the Olympus group and $4564 for Biolitec (p<0.05). Surgical vaporization time was significantly less for the Olympus group, 24.3 vs. 33.5 minutes (p<0.05). Surgical and nursing staff preferred the Olympus device (p<0.05). IPPS symptom improvement and complication rates were similar between groups. Patients in the Biolitec arm had more intraoperative bleeding episodes requiring conversion to monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (three vs. none). Conclusions:In a head-to-head randomized trial, Olympus Plasma Button transurethral vaporization was more cost-effective, faster, and preferred by surgical staff when compared to Biolitetec Diode Laser vaporization. Both devices showed similar safety and efficacy.

show abstract

Benign prostatic hyperplasia: an overview

Cited by 185 publications

References 44 publications

Characteristic gene expression profiles of benign prostatic hypertrophy and prostate cancer

Characteristic gene expression profiles of benign prostatic hypertrophy and prostate cancer

Benign prostatic hyperplasia and subsequent risk of bladder cancer

Randomized, controlled trial of laser vs. bipolar plasma vaporization treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About