Central nervous system (brain or leptomeningeal) metastases (BLm) are considered rare in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients. Now that docetaxel has become the reference drug for first-line treatment of CRPC, patients whose disease is not controlled by hormonal manipulations may live much longer than before and have higher risk of developing BLm. We retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients with CRPC attending our centres from 2002 to 2010, and identified all of those who were diagnosed as having BLm and received (or were considered to have been eligible to receive) docetaxel-based treatment. We identified 31 cases of BLm (22 brain metastases and 9 leptomeningeal metastases) with an incidence of 3.3%. BLm-free survival was 43.5 months, and survival after BLm discovery was 4 months. With six patients surviving for more than 1 year after developing BLm, the projected 1-year BL-S rate was 25.8%. The findings of our study may be relevant in clinical practice as they indicate that incidence of BLm in CRPC patients in the docetaxel era seems to be higher than in historical reports, meaning that special attention should be paid to the appearance of neurological symptoms in long-term CRPC survivors because they may be related to BLm.

OBJECTIVE: • To compare the efficacy and safety of combined perianal-intrarectal (PI) lidocaine-prilocaine (LP) cream and lidocaine-ketorolac (LK) gel with combined PI LP cream and periprostatic nerve block (PPNB) in relieving pain during transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy (TPB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: • In all, 200 patients were randomized to receive combined PI LP cream and LK gel (group 1) or combined PI LP cream and PPNB (group 2) before TPB. • The 0-10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) was used for assessing pain at probe insertion and movements (VAS-1), periprostatic infiltration (VAS-2) when applied, and prostate sampling (VAS-3), as well as maximal procedural pain (MPP). • Complications occurring ≤ 20 days after the TPB were recorded. RESULTS: • The groups were comparable for patients' age, serum PSA level, prostate volume, and cancer detection rate. • All patients tolerated the procedure well. The two anaesthetic regimens provided almost equal mean VAS-1 (0.33 vs 0.37; P= 0.701) and VAS-3 (0.52 vs 0.51; P= 0.954) scores, but patients in group 2 reported significantly greater MPP scores (0.68 vs 1.53; P < 0.001) as periprostatic infiltration was the most painful part of the procedure (mean VAS-2: 1.33). • Complications rate was similar in the two groups (1% vs 2%; P= 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: • The novel combination of PI LP cream and LK gel provided the same probe- and sampling- related pain relief as combined PI LP and PPNB; moreover, by preventing the non-negligible periprostatic infiltration pain, it provided significantly better overall patients' compliance to the procedure. • Being safe and easy to administer, this novel non-infiltrative regimen has the potential to replace infiltrative anaesthesia in relieving pain during TPB.

CONTEXT: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) represents one of the most effective systemic palliative treatments known for solid tumors. Although clinical trials have assessed the role of ADT in patients with metastatic and advanced locoregional disease, the risk-benefit ratio, especially in earlier stages, remains poorly defined. Given the mounting evidence for potentially life-threatening adverse effects with short- and long-term ADT, it is important to redefine the role of ADT for this disease. OBJECTIVE: Review the published experience with currently available ADT approaches in various contemporary clinical settings of PCa and reported serious treatment-related adverse events. This review addresses the level of evidence associated with the use of ADT in PCa, focusing upon survival outcome measures. Furthermore, this paper discusses evolving approaches targeting androgen receptor signaling pathways and emerging evidence from clinical trials with newer compounds. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive review of the literature was performed, focusing on data from the last 10 yr (January 2000 to July 2011) and using the terms androgen deprivation, hormone treatment, prostate cancer and adverse effects. Abstracts from trials reported at international conferences held in 2010 and 2011 were also evaluated. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Data from randomized controlled trials and population-based studies were analyzed in different clinical paradigms. Specifically, the role of ADT was evaluated in patients with nonmetastatic disease as the primary and sole treatment, in combination with radiation therapy (RT) or after surgery, and in patients with metastatic disease. The data suggest that in men with nonmetastatic disease, the use of primary ADT as monotherapy has not shown a benefit and is not recommended, while ADT combined with conventional-dose RT (<72Gy) for patients with high-risk disease may delay progression and prolong survival. The postoperative use of ADT remains poorly evaluated in prospective studies. Likewise, there are no trials evaluating the role of ADT in patients with biochemical relapses after surgery or RT. In patients with metastatic disease, there is a clear benefit in terms of quality of life, reduction of disease-associated morbidity, and possibly survival. Treatment with bilateral orchiectomy, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy, with and without antiandrogens has been associated with various serious adverse events, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and skeletal complications that may also affect mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Although ADT is an effective treatment of PCa, consistent long-term benefits in terms of quality and quantity of life are predominantly evident in patients with advanced/metastatic disease or when ADT is used in combination with RT (<72Gy) in patients with high-risk tumors. Implementation of ADT should be evidence based, with special consideration to adverse events and the risk-benefit ratio.

AIM: Inflammatory diseases of the prostate are one of the most difficult problems to manage in the fertile male aged between 20 and 50. Antibiotics are the gold standard for the treatment of both bacterial (category II-NIH) and non bacterial prostatitis (category III-NIH). However, antibiotics need to be associated with other therapies focused on reducing symptoms and providing a better quality of life. In the present study we sought to test the effectiveness of antibiotics and the medical device Proxelan suppositories taken together. METHODS: Starting in January 2011, we conducted a randomized controlled trial involving 60 subjects with bacterial and non bacterial chronic prostatitis, who were divided into two groups. Subjects allocated in group A received only antibiotics for 28 days; subjects in group B received antibiotics + Proxelan, for 28 days as well. Before randomization all subjects underwent Meares-Stamey test, IPSS and NIH-CPSI questionnairs. All of those were repeated 60 and 120 days after randomization. Microbiological and clinical efficacy were compared using specific statistical analyses. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 29 subjects allocated in group A and 31 in group B. Minor side effects were observed which did not cause study interruption in any case. Of the total population, 68,3% resulted positive to the Meares-Stamey test at study start. Proxelan was not better than antibiotics alone under a microbiological point of view (OR)=0.9; (IR) 0.3-2.8; P=0.46. According to the answers provided at the NIH-CPSI questionnaire, subjects in the group B obtained a better score compared to group A, either after 2 months (OR:2.8; 95%IC 1.2-4.1; P=0.017) and after 4 months (OR:1.67; 95%IC 0.9-2.9; P=0.04). With regards to the IPSS questionnaire, 2 months after treatment start, subjects in the group A had a probability of having urinary symptoms 2 times higher compared to subjects in group B (OR:1.9; 95%IC 1.0-3.5; P=0.028). Although Proxelan seems to improve IPSS also after 4 months, the difference does not reach the level of statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Compared to antibiotics alone, the combination of antibiotics and Proxelan improve both symptoms associated to chronic prostatitis and urinary symptoms, however microbiological results are not different. Future studies may be required to confirm our results and to explain the mechanism of action of Proxelan.