The results of this study call into question the usefulness of clinical staging criteria in risk stratifying cases of localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy.”
“Purpose: Due to the complexity of factors that must be considered when choosing a therapy for prostate cancer, we hypothesized that many men will find that certain factors such as side effects gain or lose importance after therapy relative to their expectations

before therapy.

Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective survey of men deciding on a therapy for local stage prostate cancer in 3 geographic SRT1720 regions. Men were asked to rate the importance of 11 personal factors before starting therapy and again 6 months after therapy.

Results: Among 448 eligible men completing the most common treatment options, overall satisfaction with treatment choice was YM155 high across all therapies. While most men changed rankings of importance in at least 1 of the 11 factors, the majority of pre-post evaluations were highly consistent. In adjusted analyses the 2 factors that emerged as significantly underappreciated for all major prostate cancer treatments were 1) the impact of treatment on usual

daily activities, and 2) the recommendations of friends and relatives who were affected with prostate cancer.

Conclusions: Initial patient expectations of the importance of the majority of factors related to prostate cancer treatment are generally accurate. Better counseling may improve the accuracy of patient expectations of the personal burden of treatment, and their evaluation of the advice of affected friends and relatives.”
“Purpose: We determined the value of mandatory second opinion pathology review to interpret prostate needle biopsy before radical prostatectomy.

Materials and Methods: In much all cases referred to our institution for radical prostatectomy in 1 year we compared

pathological parameters in original and reviewed pathology reports, including benign, atypical or malignant diagnosis, final Gleason score, positive core number, core highest cancer percent and perineural invasion or extraprostatic extension. A major Gleason score discrepancy was defined as a change to a different risk category (6, 7 and 8-10). We defined a significant difference in the highest percent of cancer in a core as 30% or greater.

Results: Of the 855 cases originally diagnosed as prostatic adenocarcinoma cancer was confirmed in 844 (98.8%) by needle biopsy and prostatectomy, of which 9 (1%) were atypical and 2 (0.2%) were benign upon review. A major discrepancy in Gleason score was present in 124 cases (14.7%), of which 57 (46.0%) were upgraded and 67 (54%) were downgraded. Of cases with a final Gleason score of 6, 8.4% were originally diagnosed as 7 (7.8%) or 8-10 (0.