Aragón CMA, Calderón FF, Carvajal GR, Flores GA, Gomez RX, Gutiérrez GFA, Hernández BMH, Jiménez RMA, López CI, Manzanilla GHA, Ochoa CFJ, Robert UA, Rodríguez CG, Rodríguez RJA, Serrano BRE, Ureta SSE, Xochipiltécatl MDJ, Zonana FE

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 217-220
PDF size: 45.19 Kb.

ABSTRACT

A group of Mexican urologists and oncologist specialized in the treatment of prostate cancer gathered, with the aim of establishing new and updated criteria and guidelines for the treatment of prostate cancer in the so called localized phase. This is a particularly hard to manage phase of the disease progression and it’s treatment must have special recommendations for radical issues. The Mexican epidemiological data show that prostate cancer and malignant tumours in general are in the second place as cause of death. From 1999 prostate cancer has become the second cause of cancer death in Mexico, with an estimated of more than 3,500 deaths per year. That is the rational background for the celebration of this kind of meetings and their quick publication because the Mexican clinicians must be updated with the newest available data on the best therapeutic approach there is for prostate cancer, and that is an approach that must be not only the most potent one, in terms of anti-tumoral or anti-hormonal effects, but the best one in terms of preserving quality of life of the patients with prostate cancer and it’s complications (metastatic disease, pain, fractures, etc., and their treatment with the new generation bisphosphonates like zoledronic acid). In the next pages we will review the data presented by this group of professionals on the several aspects regarding updated treatment of prostate cancer.

REFERENCES

1. National comprehensive cancer network. Practice guidelines in oncology: Prostate cancer, version 1, 2004.

2. D’Amico A, Whittington R, Malkowicz S, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280: 969-74.

3. Koch MO, et al. Characterization and predictors of prostate specific antigen progression rates after radical retro pubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2000; 164(3 pt 1): 749-53.

4. Southwick C, et al. Prediction of post-radical prostatectomy pathological outcome for stage T1 c prostate cancer with percent fi-ee prostate specific antigen: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. J Urol 1999; 162: 1346-51.

5. Ob WX, Kantoff PWW. Treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer: is chemotherapy the next steo? J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 3664-75.

6. Pilepich MV, et al. Phase III trial of androgen suppression adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy. Long-term results of RTOG study 85-3 1. Presented at: American Society of Clinical Oncology 39th Annual Meeting; May, 2003, Abstract 1530.

7. Bolla NT, et al. Improved survival with locally advanced prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy and goserelin. NEJM 1997; 337: 295-300.

8. Bolla NT, et al. Long term results with immediate androgen suppression and external irradiation in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (an EORTC study): a Phase III randomized trial. Lancet 2002; 360: 103-8.

9. Bagley CM, et al. Adjuvant chemohormonal therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: ten-year results. Cancer 2002; 94: 2728-32.

10. 10.Pilepich MV, et al. Phase III Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial 86-10 of androgen deprivation adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys 2001; 5: 1243-52