ESU Course 02: Prostate cancer – screening, diagnosis and staging
Chair: F. Hamdy, Sheffield (GB)
Aims and objectives: The incidence of prostate cancer has increased dramatically during the last 10 to15 years and it is now the most common cancer in males in developed countries. The increase is mainly caused by the growing use of opportunistic screening or case-finding based on the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in serum. Using this approach, prostate cancer is detected 5 to 10 years before giving rise to symptoms and on average 17 years before causing the death of the patient. While this has led to detection of prostate cancer at a potentially curable stage, it has also led to substantial overdiagnosis, i.e. detection of cancers that would not surface clinically in the absence of screening. A major challenge is thus to identify the cases that need to be treated while avoiding diagnosing patients who will not benefit from being diagnosed and who will only suffer from the stigma of being a cancer patient. Therefore, prognostic markers, which can predict those patients who need to be diagnosed and those who do not, are of major importance. The aim of this course is therefore designed for urological trainees and established urologists, who wish to update themselves on the latest information regarding screening, diagnosis and staging in prostate cancer. The course will stimulate interaction with the audience and in part be based on a number of case-scenarios for discussion with the delegates, followed by brief state-of-the-art presentations. In addition, emphasis will be placed on controversial issues and recent progress in terms of diagnostic tools, staging procedures and prognostic factors. At the end of this course, the participants should have obtained better insights in terms of: • What are the best approaches towards screening and early detection of prostate? • How can the subgroup of patients who will benefit the most from early therapy be identified? • For which patients is an approach of “watchful waiting” more appropriate than active therapy?
