
Management of prostate cancer is complex and subject to numerous clinical, scientific, demographic and economic dynamics, which give rise to constantly changing practices. Recent advances in therapy have reduced the incidence of some untoward effects, and patients can now be offered a range of treatments (Table 2) depending on their age, tumor stage (TNM classification; Table 3) and grade (Gleason score), and the presence or absence of comorbidities. In the United States, guidelines developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) provide recommendations for the appropriate use of both observation-only (appropriate for patients with a limited life expectancy or with low-risk cancers) and active interventions. Following an initial assessment and staging evaluation, the NCCN guidelines advocate either “watchful waiting” (expectant management), radiotherapy, radical prostatectomy with or without lymph node dissection, hormonal therapy or combinations of these treatments depending on the patient’s degree of risk and life expectancy. Whichever form of therapy is selected, patients should be monitored periodically via PSA tests, digital rectal examinations (DREs) and bone scans. In those who exhibit increasing PSA levels after prostatectomy, salvage therapy with radiation, chemohormonal therapy or hormonal therapy alone should be considered, while surgery (prostatectomy or cryosurgery) should be considered for those whose PSA levels rise after radiotherapy. order Revatio online
Increasingly, prostate cancer is being diagnosed with low-risk clinical characteristics, and the available evidence indicates a decrease in mortality with treatment of early-stage disease. Data from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research (CaPSURE) program, which reflects a mix of locales and practice types, indicate that U.S. patients have become less likely to pursue “watchful waiting” in recent years and are more likely to receive brachytherapy or hormonal therapy. Since the advent of widespread PSA testing in the late 1980s, the percentage of low-risk patients being managed with “watchful waiting” has decreased by more than half, from 20% in 1993-1995 to 8% in 1999-2001. Over the same period, the use of both external beam radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy also decreased from 13% to 7% and 55% to 52%, respectively, while that of brachytherapy and primary hormonal therapy increased significantly from 4% to 22% and 7% to 12%, respectively. The explanation for these trends in primary management strategies is likely to involve a number of clinical, psychological, medicolegal and economic factors. canadian drugs

In this regard, changes in therapy costs and patients’ expectations of the QOL benefits may be significant factors. Costs for individual patients include both the direct costs of treatment (including those arising from the management of posttreatment complications) and indirect costs such as travel to clinic appointments and missed workdays. The direct costs of initial therapy for localized prostate cancer are highly dependent on the treatment received, and they have been found to increase with higher-stage disease due to increased inpatient resource use and greater use of adjuvant hormonal therapy. However, initial treatment costs decrease with increasing age at diagnosis, probably reflecting greater use of “watchful waiting” in older men. Data from the CaPSURE database have indicated that first-year costs for treating prostate cancer in the United States (based upon 1996 Medicare payment schedules) were $6,810 for stage-T2c disease, $6,426 for stage-T2a/b disease and $5,731 for stage-Tic disease. Although first-year costs for radical prostatectomy and external-beam radiotherapy were similar ($7,320 and $7,430, respectively), they were considerably lower for patients followed with “watchful waiting” ($484) and much higher for those who received neoadjuvant androgen ablative therapy followed by radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy ($12,223). depressant drugs
Figure 1. Treatment distribution according to educational level in: (a) 3,027 white men; and (b) 332 African-American men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1992 and 2001

In addition to cost, projected QOL outcomes can also be an important treatment selection criterion in individual patients. QOL endpoints need to be assessed separately from clinical endpoints such as disease-free survival. Patients’ perceptions of their posttreatment QOL—notably their urinary, bowel and sexual function after procedures such as radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and androgen ablative therapy (Table 2)—may bias their viewpoint of the treatment options available to them in a different direction to that of the physician. Consequently, QOL dimensions such as functional status, sexuality, micturition, pain, fatigue, social activity and psy chological well-being—all of which can be measured via QOL instruments/questionnaires—need to be considered by physicians when discussing treatment options with patients, particularly as the patient may be less optimistic about the outcome than the physician suspects. impotence pills
