MATERIALS AND METHODS IN EVALUATION OF CASTRATE RESISTANT PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS

This is an automatically generated default intro template – please do not edit.

	Read full article
Article Title:	MATERIALS AND METHODS IN EVALUATION OF CASTRATE RESISTANT PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS
Authors:	Adrian Crisan1,2, Imola Miklos3, Alin Grelus3, Horia Muresanu2,3, Paul Deme2, Ioan Ioart2,3
Affiliation:	1Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Emergency Clinical Country Hospital , Arad, Romania 2“Vasile Goldis” Western University, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Dental Medicine, Arad, Romania 3Urology Clinic, Emergency Clinical Country Hospital , Arad, Romania
Abstract:	Prostate cancer (CaP) is one of the most common neoplasms in countries with increased life expectancy, the risk being directly proportional to age. The Romanian Cancer League estimates that 177 new cases of prostate cancer are diagnosed annually in Romania and that about 7.3% of men die annually from this cause. Prostate cancer becomes hormone-refractory after a 3-5 year evolution. In patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer, the most common manifestation is obstructive uropathy, the long-term effects of which depend on the severity of the obstruction, the onset of the onset, the single- or bilateral development of the neoplasm and the patient’s basic kidney function. Palliative surgery is required to relieve symptoms and ensure the quality of life of the patient and becomes a reasonable alternative when healing is not possible or when adverse reactions that the patient can not tolerate in attempting to heal.
Keywords:	castrate resistant prostate cancer, obstructive uropathy, palliative urological methods, quality of life, survival
References:	DeMarzo AM, Nelson WG, Isaacs WB, Epstein JL. Pathological and molecular aspects of prostate cancer. Lancet 2003:15:955-964. EAU Guidelines Prostate Cancer 2016 https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/09-Prostate-Cancer_LR.pdf Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29(9):1228-42 Ioiart I., Mureșanu H.: Urologie, ”Vasile Goldiș” University Press, 2014 Jonathan I. Epstein, Michael J. Zelefsky, Daniel D. Sjoberg, Joel B. Nelson, Lars Egevad, Cristina Magi-Galluzzi, Andrew J. Vickers, Anil V. Parwani, Victor E. Reuter, Samson W. Fine, James A. Eastham, Peter Wiklund, Misop Han, Chandana A. Reddy, Jay P. Ciezki, Tommy Nyberg, Eric A. Klein: A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score, EUROPEAN UROLOGY 6 9 (2 01 6 ) 4 2 8 – 4 3 5 Oleksandr N. Kryvenko, MD; Jonathan I. Epstein, MD: Prostate Cancer Grading A Decade After the 2005 Modified Gleason Grading System, Arch Pathol Lab Med—Vol 140, October 2016
*Correspondence:	Adrian Crisan “Vasile Goldiş” Western University Arad, Faculty of Medicine, Department of General Medicine, no. 1 Constitution St., 310396, Arad, Romania, Tel. +40-(257)-222222, Fax. +40-(257)-222222, email: adriancrisan74@yahoo.com