Presentations at the AUA annual meeting (on May 4 to 8): Part III


Here is information about a third batch of abstracts of presentations to be given at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA). You can search these yourself if you go to this link. The meeting will be taking place in San Diego this year.

For many presentations (as previously mentioned) we shall simply be providing the abstract number, the name of the first author, the title of the paper, and any key point that the study may make. Unfortunately, you will then need to find the actual abstract yourself if you want to read it because the AUA web site does not permit us to give links directly to individual abstracts.

  • Cathcart P., et al. Radical prostate cancer therapy is associated with a survival benefit in the older man (abstract no. 233). Key point: Among > 75,000 men diagnosed and treated in the UK between 1997 and 2008, the older ones (i.e., those > 79 years of age) tended to present with more advanced and more aggressive prostate cancer and were more likely to die from their disease, … but a survival benefit from radical therapy was still possible for men up to the age of 80 if targeted to men with higher risk disease.
  • Wu J., et al. Prostate cancer deaths: clinical and demographic characteristics over time during the PSA era (abstract no. 234). Key point: Based on data from the California Cancer Registry, men dying of prostate cancer between 2004 and 2008 were diagnosed younger and lived to an older age than men diagnosed between 1988 and 1992. However > 50 percent of men dying of prostate cancer between 2004 and 2008 had initially presented with clinically localized disease.
  • Maurice M., Zhu H. Radical prostatectomy became increasingly popular for intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer over the last decade in the United States (abstract no. 235). Key point: Use of radical prostatectomy as the primary treatment for prostate cancer has increased across most age and cancer-risk groups and has become the predominant treatment option for intermediate- to high-risk disease. The increase coincided with the adoption of robotic technology and was not noted in a hospital system with more limited adoption of robotic techniques.
  • Blouin A-C., et al. Determination of the accuracy of FDG-PET/CT in the primary staging of biological high risk prostate cancers before local therapies: increased uptake associated with highly aggressive tumors (abstract no. 241). Key point: The authors suggest that FDG-PET/CT scanning is highly specific for prostate cancer metastasis and may identify intraprostatic pathological downstaging in biologically high-risk patients.
  • Grasso M., et al. Radio-guided surgery: our experience in sentinel lymph node biopsy in prostate cancer (abstract no. 244). Key point: Radio-guided surgery through the use of radioactive technetium-99m appears to be a feasibile, highly accurate, and safe process for sentinel lymph node biopsy in nodal staging of prostate cancer.
  • Elshafei A., et al. Should staging transrectal saturation biopsy be a standard for assessment of disease progression and follow-up for prostate cancer patients on active surveillance? (abstract no. 242). Key point: The authors answer “Yes” to their own question, based on the data they present, but the “New” Prostate Cancer InfoLink is dubious about the risk factors associated with 20+ core saturation biopsies every year or every 2 years among men on active surveillance. This sounds distinctly like overkill.
  • Klaassen Z., et al. Prostate cancer incidence in patients with autoimmune diseases: a population-based analysis (abstract no. 334). Key point: The authors found a very significantly higher risk for prostate cancer among men with autoimmune disorders (such as lupus) than among the general population, but they acknowledge the possibility of a screening bias among patients who may receive intensive medical follow-up because of their autoimmune disease.
  • Sooriakumaran P., et al. Surgery versus radiotherapy in prostate cancer: analysis of mortality outcomes in 34,515 patients treated with up to 15 years follow-up (abstract no. 335). Key point: This poster was already presented at a European meeting and we have commented on it elsewhere. It doesn’t compare apples to apples.
  • Herkommer K., et al. Is a fatal family history or the apparent mode of disease transmission of prostate cancer a prognostic factor for survival? (abstract no. 336). Key point: According to this study of over 2,000 prostate cancer patients treated by radical prostatectomy in Germany, the answer is “No”, to both questions, which is somewhat surprising.
  • O’Grady T., et al. Presentation of high-grade prostate cancer in the underinsured (abstract no. 343). Key point: In the underinsured, predominantly minority patient population described in this poster, the vast majority of whom are without previous prostate cancer screening, prostate cancer continues to present with a significant disease burden, i.e., high grade, locally advanced, and metastatic disease — just as it did in the 1980s.
  • Capitanio U., et al. Changing and unchanging face of high-risk prostate cancer: results from a 15-year, single institution series (abstract no. 345). Key point: Despite a trend towards earlier diagnosis, the characteristics of high-risk prostate cancer patients did not appear to change over time in this 1,100+ Italian series of high-risk patients.
  • Zlotta A., et al. Do Asian and Caucasian men develop high-grade (Gleason ≥ 7) prostate cancer at the same age? An autopsy study (abstract no. 346). Key point:  According to Zlotta et al., a higher proportion of autopsy-detected prostate cancers in Asian men have a Gleason score ≥ 7 compared to those found among Caucasians. Furthermore, Asian men seem to have a higher prevalence of prostate cancer with a Gleason score ≥ 7 at a later decade in life compared to Caucasian men.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: