SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.35 issue9 author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Actas Urológicas Españolas

Print version ISSN 0210-4806

Abstract

HEIDENREICH, A. et al. EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer: Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Clinically Localised Disease. Actas Urol Esp [online]. 2011, vol.35, n.9, pp.501-514. ISSN 0210-4806.  http://dx.doi.org/10.4321/S0210-48062011000900001.

Objective: Our aim was to present a summary of the 2010 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised cancer of the prostate (PCa). Methods: The working panel performed a literature review of the new data emerging from 2007 to 2010. The guidelines were updated, and level of evidence and grade of recommendation were added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews. Results: A full version is available at the EAU office or Web site (www.uroweb.org). Current evidence is insufficient to warrant widespread population-based screening by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for PCa. A systematic prostate biopsy under ultrasound guidance and local anaesthesia is the preferred diagnostic method. Active surveillance represents a viable option in men with low-risk PCa and a long life expectancy. PSA doubling time in < 3 yr or a biopsy progression indicates the need for active intervention. In men with locally advanced PCa in whom local therapy is not mandatory, watchful waiting (WW) is a treatment alternative to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with equivalent oncologic efficacy. Active treatment is mostly recommended for patients with localised disease and a long life expectancy with radical prostatectomy (RP) shown to be superior to WW in a prospective randomised trial. Nerve-sparing RP represents the approach of choice in organ-confined disease; neoadjuvant androgen deprivation demonstrates no improvement of outcome variables. Radiation therapy should be performed with at least 74Gy and 78Gy in low-risk and intermediate/high-risk PCa, respectively. For locally advanced disease, adjuvant ADT for 3 yr results in superior disease-specific and overall survival rates and represents the treatment of choice. Follow-up after local therapy is largely based on PSA, and a disease-specific history with imaging is indicated only when symptoms occur. Conclusions: The knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice.

Keywords : Prostate cancer; EAU guidelines; Review; Diagnosis; Treatment; Follow-up; Radical prostatectomy; Radiation therapy; Androgen deprivation.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in Spanish     · Spanish ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License