scholarly journals The Emory University Prostate Cancer Center Initiation Program

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Petros
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Emory University

966: Radical Prostatectomy for Lymph Node Positive Prostate Cancer: The M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Experience

2006 ◽  
Vol 175 (4S) ◽  
pp. 311-312
Author(s):  
Philippe E. Spiess ◽  
Joseph E. Busby ◽  
Jennifer Jordan ◽  
Mike Hernandez ◽  
Patricia Troncoso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Lymph Node ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Node Positive ◽  
Lymph Node Positive

scholarly journals Differential Expression of a Panel of Ten CNTN1-Associated Genes during Prostate Cancer Progression and the Predictive Properties of the Panel towards Prostate Cancer Relapse

Genes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 257
Author(s):  
Yan Gu ◽  
Mathilda Jing Chow ◽  
Anil Kapoor ◽  
Xiaozeng Lin ◽  
Wenjuan Mei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Differential Expression ◽  
Cancer Progression ◽  
Lncap Cell ◽  
Endocrine Resistance ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
The Cancer Genome Atlas ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Poor Overall Survival ◽  
Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Contactin 1 (CNTN1) is a new oncogenic protein of prostate cancer (PC); its impact on PC remains incompletely understood. We observed CNTN1 upregulation in LNCaP cell-derived castration-resistant PCs (CRPC) and CNTN1-mediated enhancement of LNCaP cell proliferation. CNTN1 overexpression in LNCaP cells resulted in enrichment of the CREIGHTON_ENDOCRINE_THERAPY_RESISTANCE_3 gene set that facilitates endocrine resistance in breast cancer. The leading-edge (LE) genes (n = 10) of this enrichment consist of four genes with limited knowledge on PC and six genes novel to PC. These LE genes display differential expression during PC initiation, metastatic progression, and CRPC development, and they predict PC relapse following curative therapies at hazard ratio (HR) 2.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.96–3.77, and p = 1.77 × 10−9 in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) PanCancer cohort (n = 492) and HR 2.72, 95% CI 1.84–4.01, and p = 4.99 × 10−7 in Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) cohort (n = 140). The LE gene panel classifies high-, moderate-, and low-risk of PC relapse in both cohorts. Additionally, the gene panel robustly predicts poor overall survival in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC, p = 1.13 × 10−11), consistent with ccRCC and PC both being urogenital cancers. Collectively, we report multiple CNTN1-related genes relevant to PC and their biomarker values in predicting PC relapse.

scholarly journals Head-to-Head Comparison of Two Nomograms Predicting Probability of Lymph Node Invasion in Prostate Cancer and the Therapeutic Impact of Higher Nomogram Threshold

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 999
Author(s):  
Zilvinas Venclovas ◽  
Tim Muilwijk ◽  
Aivaras J. Matjosaitis ◽  
Mindaugas Jievaltas ◽  
Steven Joniau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Lymph Node ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Pelvic Lymph Node ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
Net Benefit ◽  
Characteristic Analysis ◽  
Therapeutic Impact ◽  
Mskcc Nomogram

Introduction: The aim of the study was to compare the performance of the 2012 Briganti and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) nomograms as a predictor for pelvic lymph node invasion (LNI) in men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND), to examine their performance and to analyse the therapeutic impact of using 7% nomogram cut-off. Materials and Methods: The study cohort consisted of 807 men with clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent open RP with PLND between 2001 and 2019. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operator characteristic analysis was used to quantify the accuracy of the 2012 Briganti and MSKCC nomograms to predict LNI. Calibration plots were used to visualise over or underestimation by the models and a decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to evaluate the net benefit associated with the used nomograms. Results: A total of 97 of 807 patients had LNI (12%). The AUC of 2012 Briganti and MSKCC nomogram was 80.6 and 79.2, respectively. For the Briganti nomogram using the cut-off value of 7% would lead to reduce PLND in 47% (379/807), while missing 3.96% (15/379) cases with LNI. For the MSKCC nomogram using the cut-off value of 7% a PLND would be omitted in 44.5% (359/807), while missing 3.62% (13/359) of cases with LNI. Conclusions: Both analysed nomograms demonstrated high accuracy for prediction of LNI. Using a 7% nomogram cut-off would allow the avoidance up to 47% of PLNDs, while missing less than 4% of patients with LNI.

Tobacco use, knowledge of harms, and cessation support among patients with non-tobacco related cancers.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e24029-e24029
Author(s):  
Laura Vater ◽  
Anup Trikannad Ashwini Kumar ◽  
Neha Sehgal ◽  
Maria Khan ◽  
Kelsey Bullens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Prescribe Medication ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Quit Smoking ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Quit Attempts

e24029 Background: Continued cigarette smoking among patients with cancer leads to numerous adverse health outcomes, even among patients with non-tobacco-related cancers such as breast, colon, and prostate cancer. Continued smoking is associated with poorer response to cancer treatment, increased risk for treatment-related toxicities, and shorter overall survival. While some patients with a smoking-related cancer make efforts to quit smoking at the time of diagnosis, patients with other forms of cancer might not understand the negative effects of continued smoking. In this study, we assessed patient knowledge of the harms of continued smoking, previous cessation attempts, and cessation support. Methods: We surveyed 102 adults with breast, colon, and prostate cancer at three locations: an NCI-designated cancer center, an urban safety-net medical center, and a rural cancer center. Patients were asked about current smoking behaviors, beliefs about the harms of continued smoking, quit attempts and resources used, and cessation support. We also surveyed seven oncologists to assess beliefs about harms of continued smoking, cessation support provided to patients, training and confidence in cessation counseling, and barriers to providing cessation support. Results: Most patients (82%) agreed or strongly agreed that continued smoking may shorten life expectancy, and 70% agreed or strongly agreed that continued smoking increased the risk of getting a different type of cancer. Only 41% of patients agreed or strongly agreed that continued smoking may cause more side effects from cancer treatment, and only 40% agreed or strongly agreed that ongoing smoking may affect treatment response. The majority of patients (86%) had tried to quit smoking for good, with an average 4.1 quit attempts per patient. Patients reported that physicians advised them to quit the majority of the time (92%), prescribed medication 33% of the time, and followed up on cessation attempts 43% of the time. Overall, oncologists had higher knowledge of the harms of continued smoking on treatment outcomes and survival. Those in practice for 20 years or more had higher confidence in cessation counseling than those in practice less than 4 years. Oncologists described lack of time and lack of confidence in cessation counseling as barriers to providing more cessation support. Conclusions: Among 102 patients with breast, colon, and prostate cancer who currently smoke, there was incomplete knowledge of the harms of continued smoking. Oncologists believe that tobacco cessation is important and frequently advise patients to quit, however they less frequently prescribe medication or follow up on cessation efforts. Interventions are needed to educate patients with cancer about the harms of continued smoking and to provide further cessation support.

scholarly journals Comprehensive Analysis of Cell Cycle-Related Genes in Patients With Prostate Cancer

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zehua Liu ◽  
Rongfang Pan ◽  
Wenxian Li ◽  
Yanjiang Li
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cell Cycle ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Risk Model ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Expression Profiles ◽  
Functional Enrichment ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Clinical Prognosis ◽  
Normal Tissues

This study aimed to identify critical cell cycle-related genes (CCRGs) in prostate cancer (PRAD) and to evaluate the clinical prognostic value of the gene panel selected. Gene set variation analysis (GSVA) of dysregulated genes between PRAD and normal tissues demonstrated that the cell cycle-related pathways played vital roles in PRAD. Patients were classified into four clusters, which were associated with recurrence-free survival (RFS). Moreover, 200 prognostic-related genes were selected using the Kaplan–Meier (KM) survival analysis and univariable Cox regression. The prognostic CCRG risk score was constructed using random forest survival and multivariate regression Cox methods, and their efficiency was validated in Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and GSE70770. We identified nine survival-related genes: CCNL2, CDCA5, KAT2A, CHTF18, SPC24, EME2, CDK5RAP3, CDC20, and PTTG1. Based on the median risk score, the patients were divided into two groups. Then the functional enrichment analyses, mutational profiles, immune components, estimated half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50), and candidate drugs were screened of these two groups. In addition, the characteristics of nine hub CCRGs were explored in Oncomine, cBioPortal, and the Human Protein Atlas (HPA) datasets. Finally, the expression profiles of these hub CCRGs were validated in RWPE-1 and three PRAD cell lines (PC-3, C4-2, and DU-145). In conclusion, our study systematically explored the role of CCRGs in PRAD and constructed a risk model that can predict the clinical prognosis and immunotherapeutic benefits.

Treatment changes in prostate cancer patients on active treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic in a community cancer center in New York City.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18750-e18750
Author(s):  
Rose Snyder ◽  
Trishala Meghal ◽  
Andrew Wood ◽  
Ariel Schulman ◽  
Kevin Douglas Becker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Biochemical Recurrence ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Treatment Change ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Treatment Changes ◽  
Schedule Change

e18750 Background: The surge of the SARS coronavirus-2 (COVID-19) pandemic posed great challenges in the oncology community for optimal management of cancer patients. We sought to analyze the treatment changes experienced by the prostate cancer patients in March, April and May 2020 and to compare these treatment decisions to the published guidelines. Methods: We focused on patients currently receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with leuprolide acetate, and/or oral anti-androgen agents (Androgen receptor axis targeted agent, ARAT), or chemotherapy. Electronic medical records were reviewed, and the oncologists and nurse practitioners were interviewed to understand the decision-making process. Results: Seventy-five patients were included, median age 72 years old (range 47-95). All were taking ADT, and 21 were also taking ARAT, and 3 were also receiving chemotherapy. The incidence and indications for their ADT treatments and schedule changes are shown in the table below. Twenty-seven patients (36%) experienced delays in their ADT treatment, and the percentage of treatment change was similar in categories of metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), metastatic castration resistant cancer (mCRPC), biochemical recurrence as well as stage IVA post surgery. Four patients were receiving neoadjuvant ADT planned prior to definitive radiation, and none had schedule change. One patient with mHSPC and 2 patients with mCRPC continued chemotherapy as planned. One patient declined recommended chemotherapy for mCRPC. Two patients were given q 3 months dose of ADT instead of q 1m, while all the rest were already receiving q3 months dosing. Among the 27 patients who had schedule change, 12 (44.4%) patients had a discussion with their providers first, and 15 patients (55.6%) did not keep their treatment appointment. Conclusions: About one third of patients changed ADT injection schedule with a similar percentage in patients with mHSPC, or mCRPC or Biochemical recurrence, or IVA after surgery. Every 3 months dosing of ADT recommended by NCCN significantly decreases exposure to COVID -19, delaying or skipping treatment was still encountered due to health concern or travel limitations. On the other hand, all patients receiving neoadjuvant ADT, or chemotherapy stayed on schedule. Although NCCN guideline recommended delaying myelosuppressive therapy, palliative chemotherapy for symptomatic, refractory patients may still be a priority.[Table: see text]

Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Academic Insights and Perspectives Analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lugeng He ◽  
Hui Fang ◽  
Chao Chen ◽  
Yanqi Wu ◽  
Yuyong Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Future Direction

Abstract Background In recent years, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (MCRPC) and studies related to MCRPC have drawn global attention. The main objective of this bibliometric study was to provide an overview of MCRPC, explore clusters and trends in research and investigate the future direction of MCRPC research. Methods A total of 4,089 publications published between 1979 and 2018 were retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection database. Different aspects of MCRPC research, including the countries/territories, institutions, journals, authors, research areas, funding agencies and author keywords, were analyzed. Results The number of annual MCRPC publications increased rapidly after 2010. American researchers played a vital role in this increase, as they published the most publications. The most productive institution was Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. De Bono, JS (the United Kingdom [UK]) and Scher, HI (the United States of America [USA]) were the two most productive authors. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded the largest number of published papers. Analyses of keywords suggested that therapies (abiraterone, enzalutamide, etc.) would attracted global attention after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Conclusions Developed countries, especially the USA,were the leading nations for MCRPC research because of their abundant funding and frequent international collaborations. Therapy was one of the most vital aspects of MCRPC research. Therapies targeting DNA repair or the androgen receptor (AR) signing pathway and new therapies especially prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based radioligand therapy (RLT) would be the next focus of MCRPC research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document