PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

E A Klein

Publications and source records attributed to E A Klein.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

Periprostatic local anesthesia eliminates pain of office-based transrectal prostate biopsy.

Up to 96% of patient who undergo prostate biopsy report pain. We performed periprostatic local anesthesia injection in an effort to improve patient acceptance of prostate biopsy. Sixty patients were randomized to receive either local injection of lidocaine in the periprostatic nerves or no anesthetic. Lidocaine was injected through a 7-inch spinal needle placed through a transrectal ultrasound biopsy guide. Ten-core biopsies were immediately performed. Following biopsy, all patients gave a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) assessment of their pain experienced during biopsy.A majority of patients reported Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores in the moderate (28.6%) or severe (28.6%) ranges unless local anesthesia was given. Only one of 27 patients (3.7%) receiving local anesthetic reported moderate pain, and none reported severe pain. Mean VAS pain scores were 1.4 in the anesthetic group and 4.5 in the control group (P<0.0001). No difficulty was encountered from scarring in the five patients who underwent nerve spring radical retropubic prostatectomy following local anesthetic injection. Periprostatic injection of local anesthetic essentially eliminates pain from prostate biopsy. Nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy is not more difficult as a result.

Anesthesia, Local↗
PubMed2001

Short-course intensity-modulated radiotherapy (70 GY at 2.5 GY per fraction) for localized prostate cancer: preliminary results on late toxicity and quality of life.

PURPOSE: To present our preliminary observations on the late toxicity and quality of life (QOL) of patients treated with short-course intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SCIM-RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty-one patients were treated with SCIM-RT at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation between October 1998 and May 1999. The technique consisted of intensity-modulated radiotherapy using 5 static fields (anterior, 2 laterals, and 2 anterior obliques). Inverse plans were generated by the Corvus treatment-planning system. The treatment delivery was performed with a dynamic multileaf collimator. A total of 70.0 Gy was prescribed in all cases at 2.5 Gy per fraction to be delivered in 28 fractions over 5 and a half weeks. The location of the prostate gland was verified and adjusted daily with the BAT transabdominal ultrasound system. The median follow-up was 18 months (range: 11 to 26 months). The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scales were used to evaluate late toxicity. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) was used to evaluate QOL. A total of 24 patients completed the EPIC questionnaire at approximately 2 years after therapy (median time from treatment to questionnaire administration: 24 months; range: 21 to 26 months). The results from the EPIC questionnaires were compared to scores from 46 patients treated during the same time period with conformal radiotherapy (CRT) to 78 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction. RESULTS: The dose was prescribed to an isodose line ranging from 82.0% to 90.0% (mean: 87.2%). The range of the individual prostate mean doses was 73.5 to 78.5 Gy (average: 75.3 Gy). To date, only 1 patient had Grade 1 late urinary toxicity. To date, only 4 patients had Grade 1 late rectal toxicity. No Grade 2 or 3 late urinary or rectal complications have occurred. The actuarial rectal bleeding rate observed at 18 months was 7%. There were no differences in scores from the urinary, bowel, hormonal, and overall QOL domains between SCIM-RT patients and patients treated with CRT. The overall physical and mental QOL scores were also nearly identical to scores reported for the general U.S. population. CONCLUSION: Preliminary late toxicity results up to 2 years after SCIM-RT are encouraging, with a median follow-up of 18 months (range 11 to 26 months). Late toxicity assessed by the physicians using RTOG late toxicity scores has been excellent. QOL reported by the patients using the EPIC questionnaire reveals no difference between patients treated with high-dose CRT at standard fractionation and patients treated with SCIM-RT. SCIM-RT is an alternative method of dose escalation in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. The proposed schedule significantly increases convenience to patients due to the decrease in overall treatment time.

Aged↗
PubMed2001

Radiation dose response in patients with favorable localized prostate cancer (Stage T1-T2, biopsy Gleason < or = 6, and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen < or = 10).

PURPOSE: To study the radiation dose response as determined by biochemical relapse-free survival in patients with favorable localized prostate cancers, i.e., Stage T1-T2, biopsy Gleason score (bGS) < or = 6, and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (iPSA) < or = 10 ng/mL. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 292 patients with favorable localized prostate cancer were treated with radiotherapy alone between 1986 and 1999. The median age was 69 years. Sixteen percent of cases (n = 46) were African-American. The distribution by clinical T stage was as follows: T1/T2A, 243 (83%); and T2B/T2C, 49 (17%). The distribution by iPSA was as follows: < or = 4 ng/mL, 49 (17%); and > 4 ng/mL, 243 (83%). The mean iPSA level was 6.2 (median, 6.4). The distribution by bGS was as follows: or = 5 in 89 cases (30%) and 6 in 203 cases (70%). The median radiation dose was 70.0 Gy (range, 63.0-78.0 Gy). Doses of < or = 70.0 Gy were delivered in 175 cases, 70.2-72.0 Gy in 24 cases, 74 Gy in 30 cases, and 78 Gy in 63 cases. For patients receiving < 72 Gy, the median dose was 68 Gy, vs. 78 Gy for patients receiving > or = 72 Gy. A conformal technique was used in 129 (44%) of cases. The median follow-up was 43 months (range, 3-153). RESULTS: For the entire cohort, the projected 5- and 8-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) rates were both 81%. For patients receiving > or = 72 Gy, the 5- and 8-year bRFS rates were both 95% vs. only 77% for patients receiving < 72 Gy, p = 0.010. For patients receiving 74 Gy, the 4-year bRFS rate was 94% vs. 96% for patients receiving 78 Gy, p = 0.90. A multivariate analysis for factors affecting bRFS rates using Cox proportional hazards was performed for all cases using the following variables: age (continuous variable), race (black vs. white), iPSA (continuous variable), bGS (< or = 5 vs. 6), Stage (T1-2A vs. T2B-C), radiation dose (continuous variable), and radiation technique (conformal vs. standard). From the multivariate analysis, only iPSA (p = 0.017, chi(2) = 5.7), and radiation dose (p = 0.021, chi(2) = 5.3) were independent predictors of outcome. Age (p = 0.94), race (p = 0.89), stage (p = 0.45), biopsy GS (p = 0.40), and radiation technique (p = 0.45) were not. CONCLUSION: There is a clear radiation dose response in patients with favorable localized prostate cancers (i.e., Stage T1-T2, biopsy Gleason score < or = 6, and iPSA < or = 10 ng/mL). At least 74 Gy should be delivered to the prostate and periprostatic tissues. With our cohort of patients, longer follow-up will be needed to assess the importance of doses exceeding 74 Gy.

Aged↗
PubMed2001

Locally advanced prostate cancer.

Standard therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer includes radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or transperineal interstitial brachytherapy. Patients eligible for standard therapy are those with low risk features as defined by various risk group classifications, which generally include clinical stage T1 or T2a, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) less than 10 ng/mL, and biopsy Gleason sum of 6 or less. Although there has been important evolution in the performance of these techniques, particularly with respect to functional outcomes, these approaches for low-risk disease are relatively mature, and the cure rates with each of these therapies are similar in this patient population; locally advanced disease is more difficult to cure, however. Biochemical disease-free survival rates in men undergoing radical prostatectomy are clearly related to the pathologic stage. Prognostic groups can be defined based on pathologic stage with increasingly worse outcomes based on extracapsular extension (ECE), margin status, and the status of the lymph nodes and seminal vesicles. In patients with low risk features, the positive margin rate is generally low, making the presence or absence of ECE the dominant variable in predicting the likelihood of treatment failure. These observations suggest that more aggressive therapy is needed to cure those who are likely to have ECE or other adverse histologic features. Several nomograms predicting the likelihood of ECE or 5-year biochemical failure rates are now in routine clinical use, and can be used to select men at high risk of failure with single modality therapy for more aggressive treatment strategies. However, the optimal form of aggressive therapy for these patients is unknown.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2001

Management of erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy.

Radical prostatectomy is the standard treatment for organ/specimen-confined prostate cancer, yet erectile dysfunction in selected series is still reported as high as 90% after this procedure. Thus, most men need adjuvant treatments to be sexually active following radical prostatectomy. These include vacuum constriction devices, intracorporeal injections of vasoactive drugs, and transurethral dilators, all of which have reported response rates of 50% to 70%. Unfortunately, long-term compliance is suboptimal, with a discontinuation rate of nearly 50% at one year. These non-oral options should be offered on an individual basis to patients who have failed oral therapy since efficacy and compliance vary. Also, these options should be considered in the early postoperative period to enhance sexual activity and penile oxygenation, which may prevent corporeal fibrosis. Early penile rehabilitation with intracavernosal injections or vacuum constriction devices should be encouraged to increase chances for recovery of rigid erections. In patients with some preservation of nerve tissue, oral sildenafil may be effective in promoting an earlier return of erectile function. The potential impact of sildenafil and other new oral therapies should encourage urologists to continue to perform and perfect the nerve-sparing approach.

Erectile Dysfunction↗
PubMed2001

SELECT: the next prostate cancer prevention trial. Selenum and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial.

PURPOSE: Growing evidence implies that selenium and vitamin E may decrease the risk of prostate cancer. The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) is a randomized prospective double-blind study designed to determine whether selenium and vitamin E decrease the risk of prostate cancer in healthy men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The preclinical and epidemiological evidence regarding chemoprevention with selenium and vitamin E were reviewed. Secondary analyses from randomized trials of the 2 agents were included in the current analysis. Data from these analyses as well as evidence from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial were used to develop the SELECT schema. RESULTS: Preclinical, epidemiological and phase III data imply that selenium and vitamin E have potential efficacy for prostate cancer prevention. The experience of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial shows the interest and dedication of healthy men to long-term studies of cancer prevention. A total of 32,400 men are planned to be randomized in SELECT. CONCLUSIONS: SELECT is the second large-scale study of chemoprevention for prostate cancer. Enrollment in the study is planned to begin in 2001 with final results anticipated in 2013.

Double-Blind Method↗
PubMed2001

Phase II trial of neoadjuvant estramustine and etoposide plus radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To report the results of a Phase II trial of neoadjuvant estramustine and etoposide before radical prostatectomy in patients with locally advanced disease. METHODS: Treatment consisted of three cycles of estramustine (10 mg/kg/day) and etoposide (50 mg/m(2)/day) orally on days 1 through 21, repeated every 28 days, followed by radical prostatectomy. The eligibility criteria included locally advanced prostate cancer (clinical Stage T2b/c or T3, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level of 15 ng/mL or greater, or Gleason score of 8 or higher) without evidence of metastatic disease. The median PSA level was 14 ng/mL (range 5.3 to 50), the median Gleason score was 7 (range 6 to 9), and 44% had Stage T2b/c or T3 disease. The primary endpoint was feasibility of neoadjuvant therapy and radical prostatectomy, including drug and surgery-related toxicities. Secondary endpoints included the pre-prostatectomy PSA level, local response, pathologic outcomes, and time to PSA failure. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were entered and completed all three cycles of therapy, and 16 (89%) underwent radical prostatectomy. A local response occurred in 15 (94%) of 16 patients with palpable tumors, and the serum PSA reached undetectable levels after therapy and before radical prostatectomy in 9 patients (50%). Five patients (28%) experienced grade 3 toxicity (two with deep venous thrombosis, two with neutropenia, and one with diarrhea) and one (6%) experienced grade 4 toxicity (pulmonary embolus) before surgery. The median operative time was 125 minutes, the mean blood loss was 665 mL, and the mean length of stay was 2.5 nights. Five minor surgical complications occurred in 4 patients. The pathologic analysis demonstrated residual carcinoma with squamous metaplasia and androgen deprivation effect in all patients. Five patients (31%) had organ-confined disease and 9 patients (56%) had specimen-confined disease. All patients achieved an undetectable PSA level postoperatively and at a median follow-up of 14 months (range 5 to 20) and without additional therapy, all 14 patients with negative lymph nodes were disease free. CONCLUSIONS: This trial confirms the feasibility of radical prostatectomy with acceptable surgical morbidity after neoadjuvant therapy with estramustine and etoposide in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. However, this regimen is associated with estramustine-induced thromboembolic toxicity. The results of the pathologic analysis suggest a higher than expected rate of organ-confined and specimen-confined disease, but little histologic evidence of antitumor effect beyond that associated with androgen deprivation. Additional study of this paradigm with other drug regimens is warranted.

Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal↗
PubMed2001

Executive Summary of the National Cancer Institute Workshop: Highlights and recommendations.

Prostate cancer chemoprevention represents a relatively new and promising strategy for reducing the immense public health burden of this devastating cancer of men in the United States and Western societies. Chemoprevention is defined as the administration of agents (drugs, biologics, and natural products) that modulate (inhibit) one or more steps in the multistage carcinogenesis process culminating in invasive adenocarcinoma of the prostate. In 2000, there were an estimated 170,000 new cases of prostate cancer and 31,000 deaths in the United States. During the past decade, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) organized the chemoprevention research program and began testing the first generation of promising agents (eg, 4-(hydroxy)-fenretinide [4-HPR], difluoromethylornithine [DFMO], antiandrogens) in high-risk cohorts and launched the first-large scale US phase 3 primary prevention trial, known as Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT-1), in 18,000 average-risk men (age more than 55 years and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] less than 3 ng/mL) treated for 7 years with finasteride or placebo. In the summer of 1998, the NCI Prostate Cancer Progress Review Group (PRG) Report to the director of NCI was published in response to the leadership of the prostate cancer advocacy community in conjunction with Congress. To further elucidate and address critical issues identified in this report and to develop a research agenda for the newly created Prostate and Urologic Cancer Research Group in the Division of Cancer Prevention at NCI, the NCI organized the workshop "New Clinical Trial Strategies for Prostate Cancer Chemoprevention." The major objectives were to promote understanding and cooperation among the NCI, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), academia, pharmaceutical industry, and the public regarding new opportunities for clinical prevention trials for prostate cancer. The workshop was divided into three concurrent breakout panels and a fourth joint integrative panel. The workshop addressed multiple key areas identified in the PRG report in the following panels: (1) Molecular Targets and Promising Agents in Clinical Development; (2) Intermediate Endpoint Biomarkers for Prevention Trials; (3) High-Risk Study Populations for Prevention Trials, and (4) Preventive Clinical Trial Designs and Regulatory Issues. Expert panelists were drawn from leading academic, pharmaceutical, and government scientists in basic research and clinical investigation. Key pharmaceutical, biotechnology, academic, and National Institutes of Health scientists presented overviews of their new agents and products in clinical development (representing the next generation of promising agents). Senior FDA physicians from the Center for Drugs and Center for Biologics presented on current standards for new drug and biologic approval for chemoprevention efficacy. Some of the key topics included recent advances in the state of knowledge of promising agents in the clinic based on molecular targets as well as bottlenecks in drug development for pharmaceutical sponsors; strategic modulable biomarkers that can serve as primary endpoints in phase 1/2 trials to assess preventive efficacy; high-risk cohorts with precancer (high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia) and representative clinical trial designs that are ready for immediate translation into efficient prevention trials, such as Bayesian sequential monitoring for early assessment of biologic activity and factorial designs for assessment of multiagent combinations. Finally, each expert panel generated recommendations for areas of future research emphasizing opportunities and infrastructure needs.

Anticarcinogenic Agents↗
PubMed2001

Potential target populations and clinical models for testing chemopreventive agents.

Target populations for chemoprevention trials should include those at higher than average risk for the development of prostate cancer as defined by explicit epidemiologic and genetic criteria. Such populations include a "primary prevention" group without histologic or clinical evidence of cancer, and several clinical models of "secondary prevention," including those with clinically evident disease prior to definitive therapy and those at high risk of recurrence after therapy based on histological or biochemical status. Each risk group and clinical model has potential advantages and disadvantages, and the mechanisms that underlie disease development and progression in each group may be unique. These observations give rise to many potential clinical trials of specific agents. These trials should also include collection of data on potentially confounding influences on disease development and progression.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMed2001

The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial: Current status and lessons learned.

The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial is the first phase 3 prevention trial for prostate cancer in the United States. The implementation of a large, randomized trial has provided a wealth of information that will aid in future cancer chemopreventive studies in US men. The experience from the implementation of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial was reviewed. Lessons learned from the study include: (1) US men are willing to enroll in prevention trials; (2) participants in chemoprevention trials are well educated and healthy; (3) the successful cancer prevention trial is viewed by participants as a "men's health trial"; (4) data management and discipline coordination at participating institutions are critical; (5) study design change is commonly required owing to changes in clinical practice over the course of the trial; and (6) training of institutional staff is essential. With proper design, robust data management, and a flexible staff, large-scale randomized chemoprevention trials can be accomplished in the United States. With the extraordinary number of potential agents, it is expected that much will be accomplished with this strategy in the near future.

5-alpha Reductase Inhibitors↗
PubMed2001

Preliminary observations of single-agent docetaxel as neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer.

Patients with locally advanced prostate cancer present a significant therapeutic dilemma. Despite aggressive local therapies, including radical prostatectomy (RP), these patients are at high risk for biochemical failure. Several research groups have recently demonstrated the feasibility of hormonal and chemohormonal therapy before RP, but limited published data are available regarding the usefulness of chemotherapy without hormonal therapy in the neoadjuvant setting. At Cleveland Clinic Foundation, a phase II trial was initiated to evaluate a 6-week course of docetaxel, 40 mg/m(2) intravenously every 7 days, followed by RP in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. RP was to be performed within 3 weeks of completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of this study is pathologic complete response. Preliminary toxicity data suggest that weekly docetaxel is well tolerated and does not increase the risk of perioperative or post operative complications. Reductions in prostate-specific antigen levels were noted in seven of 10 patients who completed the 6-week course of neoadjuvant docetaxel. The neoadjuvant use of investigational cancer therapies may allow for relatively rapid assessment of their antitumor activity.

Aged↗
PubMed2001

Phase II trial of GM-CSF in advanced prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Prostate-specific antigen only disease progression following definitive therapy is significant therapeutic dilemma. The benefit of hormonal therapy remains unproven and is associated with significant toxicity, more pronounced with chronic use. Biochemical progression following hormonal therapy has no standard treatment. New approaches to the management of this subset of patients are needed. A previous study in advanced prostate cancer demonstrated biologic activity of granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the activity of granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor in a less heavily pretreated population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients with advanced prostate cancer, 7 hormonally naïve, and 9 androgen independent, were treated with granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor administered subcutaneously at 250 microg three times a week for up to 6 months. Prostate-specific antigen measurements were obtained every 2 weeks. RESULTS: No patient achieved an objective response. Six patients demonstrated a 10-15% decline in their baseline prostate-specific antigen which was maintained during the entire treatment period. Five of these 6 patients demonstrated a rise in their prostate-specific antigen following study completion. Therapy was well tolerated, with only 1 grade 3 event which was not treatment-related. CONCLUSIONS: Granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor demonstrates modest biologic evidence of activity in prostate cancer as manifested by prostate-specific antigen response. Further investigation of the mechanism of activity and additional clinical evaluation of this agent seems warranted.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2001

Molecular epidemiologic studies within the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT).

OBJECTIVE: To conduct timely epidemiologic investigations of molecular/genetic markers that may contribute to the development of prostate, lung, colorectal, or other cancers within the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT), and to evaluate interactions between these markers and the study interventions. METHODS: The epidemiologic studies within SELECT will be based on 32,400 men aged 55 years or older (age 50 or older for the African-American men) enrolled into an intergroup, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase III prevention trial of supplemental selenium and vitamin E developed and funded by the National Cancer Institute, and coordinated by the Southwest Oncology Group. During the 12-year study period approximately 1500-2000 cases of prostate cancer, 800 lung cancers, and 500 colon cancers are estimated to be diagnosed, based on data from the ongoing Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial of finasteride. A modified fasting blood sample will be processed to collect plasma for analysis of micronutrients, hormones, cytokines, and other proteins. Buffy-coat derived white blood cells collected at baseline will be used for isolation of DNA and establishment of immortalized cell lines. Red blood cells will be stored for analysis of hemoglobin adducts and other components. RESULTS: Specific results anticipated from these molecular studies will provide information on factors hypothesized to contribute to prostate cancer risk and that may modify the efficacy of either trial supplement, including: steroid sex hormones and several polymorphic genes that encode proteins affecting androgenic stimulation of the prostate, including the androgen receptor, steroid 5alpha-reductase type II, CYP17, and beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase; polymorphisms of DNA repair genes and carcinogen metabolism genes, including those involved in the activation of chemical carcinogens to reactive intermediates (e.g., CYP1A1) or the detoxification of reactive intermediates (e.g., glutathione S-transferase M1); DNA and protein adducts; and insulin-like growth factors and leptin. CONCLUSION: SELECT offers an excellent opportunity to conduct molecular epidemiologic investigations to assess gene-environment interactions and their role in prostate, lung, and colon carcinogenesis.

Colorectal Neoplasms↗
PubMed2001

Aneusomy of chromosomes 7, 8, and 17 and amplification of HER-2/neu and epidermal growth factor receptor in Gleason score 7 prostate carcinoma: a differential fluorescent in situ hybridization study of Gleason pattern 3 and 4 using tissue microarray.

Recent evidence shows that the proportion of poorly differentiated prostate carcinoma (Gleason pattern [GP] 4/5) is a surrogate factor for biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy (RP). However, little is known about specific molecular and cytogenetic changes in this aggressive component of localized prostate cancer. We constructed a tissue microarray containing areas of GP 3 and 4 from formalin-fixed radical prostatectomy specimens of 39 patients with Gleason score 7 carcinoma (>or=50% GP 4), known pathologic staging parameters (stage < T3b), and biochemical failure data (mean follow-up, 30 months; range, 5 to 74 months). Interphase fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) was performed on 5-microm microarray sections using pericentromeric probes to chromosomes 7, 8, and 17 and probes for the HER-2/neu and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) genes. Low-level amplification of HER-2/neu was found in 26% of cases (3 to 5 signals per nucleus, corrected for chromosome 17 aneusomy). Aneusomy of chromosomes 7, 8, and 17 was identified in 21%, 15%, and 5% of cases, respectively. All aberrations occurred almost exclusively in GP 4 carcinoma (8 of 8 aneusomies 7, 2 of 2 trisomies 17, 9 of 10 HER-2/neu amplifications, and 5 of 6 aneusomies 8; P < .001). The presence of HER-2/neu amplification was associated with high tumor volume (>2.0 cm(3), P = 0.004). Among patients with negative surgical margins, gain of chromosome 7 was associated with biochemical failure after RP (P =.004, log-rank). Amplification of the EGFR gene occurred in only 1 case (3%). Significant differences in HER-2/neu amplification and gain of chromosomes 7, 8, and 17 were detected between GP 4 prostate carcinoma and GP 3. The frequency of aberrations increased with tumor volume. Chromosome 7 abnormalities may play an important role in cancer progression in margin-negative patients. EGFR amplification was rare, suggesting that this oncogene is not altered at the gene copy number level.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2000

Dosimetric comparison of pre-planned and or-planned prostate seed brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare the dosimetry of the traditional two step procedure (volume study + treatment planning several weeks later) with that of an OR-based single procedure in which these two steps follow one another immediately. Computer generated treatment plans were used in both procedures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Several dosimetric parameters relating to target coverage were obtained from dose volume histograms of CT-based evaluation plans developed either 1 or 3 days following seed implantation. A total of 113 patients with early stage (T1C, T2A) prostate cancer were used for this retrospective study. RESULTS: The fraction of target (prostate) covered by the prescription dose (144 Gy), 90% of the prescription dose (115 Gy), and the dose encompassing 90% of the target in the evaluation plan were all statistically significantly improved for OR-based plans compared to pre-planned cases. CONCLUSION: In our hands, there is a small but significant improvement in dose coverage of the prostate when the ultrasound volume study and treatment planning are combined into a single procedure.

Brachytherapy↗
PubMed2000

Replication linkage study for prostate cancer susceptibility genes.

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the first genome screen for prostate cancer (CaP) 5 years ago, over a dozen linkage studies have appeared. Most attention has been directed to chromosome 1, where two separate regions have been identified as harboring a prostate cancer susceptibility locus: HPC1 in the 1q24-25 interval and PCaP in the 1q42.2-43 interval. Linkage analysis of chromosome 16 has also provided evidence of harboring two loci predisposing to CaP. METHODS: We report on a replication linkage study of chromosomes 1 and 16 in 45 new and 4 expanded multiplex CaP families. Multipoint Z-scores were obtained for 30 highly polymorphic short-sequence tandem repeat markers spanning chromosome 1, and 22 markers spanning chromosome 16. RESULTS: The replication sample gave no evidence for a CaP susceptibility locus in the 1q24-25 interval and equivocal evidence for such a locus at 1q42.2-43. With respect to chromosome 16, positive Z-scores were obtained over a contiguous interval covering the entire p arm and the proximal half of the q arm. CONCLUSIONS: The linkage analysis of our replication sample does not support the existence of HPC1, and the evidence for the existence of PCaP remains equivocal. Evidence of a susceptibility locus on 16p remains strong, but the evidence for a susceptibility locus on 16q is weakened.

Chromosomes, Human, Pair 1↗
PubMed2000

Identification and fine mapping of a region showing a high frequency of allelic imbalance on chromosome 16q23.2 that corresponds to a prostate cancer susceptibility locus.

Linkage to a prostate cancer susceptibility locus was recently reported on chromosome 16q23. We now report a region exhibiting a high frequency of allelic imbalance (AI) corresponding to this locus in tumors from 51 men diagnosed with prostate cancer using the same linked markers. The highest frequency of AI was found at markers D16S3096 (45%) and D16S516 (53%) that map to chromosome 16q23.2. In addition, 19 of the 51 (37%) prostate tumors showed interstitial AI involving one or both of these markers. This result strongly suggests that a candidate prostate cancer tumor suppressor gene maps between markers D16S3096 and D16S516. We estimate that the distance between these markers is approximately 118 kb using a Stanford radiation hybrid panel. We observed a positive association with family history (P = 0.048) when comparing those men showing interstitial AI at markers D16S3096 and/or D16S516 with those without any imbalance at these two markers. Taken together, these data suggest that we have precisely localized a region of chromosome 16q23.2 that may harbor a prostate cancer tumor suppressor gene implicated in the development of non-familial and possibly familial forms of prostate cancer.

Aged↗