Radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) is a curative treatment option for patients with clinically significant localised prostate cancer. The decision to perform an ePLND can be challenging because the overall incidence of lymph node metastasis is relatively low and ePLND is not free of complications.
The aim of this study was to investigate whether structured reports (SRs) of prostate MRI results are more suitable than non-structured reports (NSRs) for promoting the more accurate assessment of the location of a single prostate cancer lesion by novices in MRI-targeted biopsy.
Numerous prostate cancer predictive tools have been developed to help with decision-making in men needing prostate biopsy. However, they have been modelled and validated almost exclusively in Caucasian cohorts, hence limiting their use in other population groups.
Numerous studies have compared outcomes of open (ORP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), but only one study focused on patient satisfaction and regret. Our study aimed to evaluate intermediate-term decision regret after ORP and RARP.
To determine the accurate age-adjusted incidence of prostate small cell carcinoma (SCC), update the clinical and pathological characteristics, as well as survival data of prostate SCC from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) datasets.
Prostate cancer is the most common invasive cancer in gay and bisexual men (GBM). Despite the unique sexual and urinary concerns of this group, studies of prostate cancer rehabilitation have primarily focused on heterosexual men.
Regional variation in opioid use may be attenuated when pharmaceutical-sponsored trials include care that is often standardized by protocols. Understanding such variation is important for global trials that sometimes include time to opioid use as an end point.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in 2019 have just published their updated topics in the diagnosis and management of new prostate cancer (1). This is a welcome update to a much-needed area by using evidence to guide the best way to diagnose and manage a growing disease demographic.