View clinical trials related to Localized Prostate Cancer.
Filter by:Primary purpose : Evaluation of the efficiency and safety of an alternative global prostate treatment in localized prostate cancer. Primary Objective: Absence of clinically significant cancer (CSC) on control biopsy at 1-year follow-up. Secondary Objectives: 1. Biochemical response 2. Presence of any CSC on biopsy at 1- and 2-year follow-up 3. Radical treatment free survival 4. Adverse events, clinical tolerance 5. Urinary continence 6. Erectile function 7. Quality of life
Focal treatment of localized prostate cancer aims to destroy the cancerous foci without damaging surrounding tissues to avoid the side effects of radical treatments. This is why focal treatment is positioned as an alternative to radical surgery as well as an alternative to active surveillance. This study is a feasibility study. It aims at treating the index tumor (the most aggressive one) which determines the vital prognosis of patient, while preserving the maximum surrounding prostatic tissue to preserve quality of life. The expected result is the total destruction of aggressive tumor areas by focal or multifocal treatment strategy using the Focal One® device (EDAP-TMS, Vaulx-en-Velin, France). The tumor destruction is validated by the negative biopsy rate between 6 and 12 months post-treatment.
The purpose of this study is to test the ability of a new PET scan radiotracer, called FDHT (stands for [18F] Dihydro-Testosterone), to better find and monitor prostate cancer. Radiotracers are a type of drug that carries small amounts of radioactivity that can be seen by the PET scanner. FDHT is a radiotracer that looks for a protein which is present in almost all prostate cancer cells. The investigators want to find out if we can find and monitor changes in cancer using a FDHT PET scan.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of AD5-SGE-REIC/Dkk-3 in patients with localized prostate cancer.
This is a pilot prospective biomedical study of interventional type which includes 17 patients on 24 months (12 months of inclusion and 12 months of follow-up). The objective of this study is to verify that the focal therapy technique used (with the help of Koelis® system) allows to obtain optimal dosimetric coverage of the prostate target (ie dose of 160 Gy +-5% delivered on the envelope isodose) evaluated by CT scan performed 30 days after implantation.
Incontinence is one of the most common complications of radical prostatectomy. The continence rate is not significantly improved even by robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). However, some reports suggested that posterior reconstruction (PR) behind vesicourethral anastomosis could improve early recovery of continence during open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. But, recent prospective studies reported no benefit of PR after RALP, which was the opposite result of those of previous studies. However the PR techniques used in these prospective studies seem to be quite different from the previous techniques. They seem to have used single-step PR, which opposes the median dorsal fibrous raphe (MDFR) only to the Denonvilliers' fascia (DF). By contrast, the original technique incorporated additional reconstruction between the MDFR and the posterior bladder wall 1-2 cm from the new bladder neck. Our group identified this anatomic structure as the posterior counterpart of the detrusor apron (PDA). The PDA is a strong, thick functional tissue containing muscle that is more appropriate for pulling and fixing the MDFR than the DF. As such, we hypothesized that the key proximal structure for PR is not DF, but rather PDA. Furthermore, single-step reconstruction between MDFR and PDA could be enough for PR. We previously investigated whether our new PR technique, which entails opposition of the MDFR solely to the PDA, would improve continence recovery compared with the standard RALP technique without PR. And our retrospective study demonstrated that this new PR technique during RALP significantly shortens the time to the recovery of continence compared with the standard technique, which does not incorporate PR (Int J Urol, 2012;19:683-7). Thus, we plan to validate this result by a well-designed, prospective, randomized controlled study.
This study includes an interview with men who have selected "watchful waiting" or "active surveillance" for their localized prostate cancer, in lieu of active treatment (such as surgery or radiation). We hope to understand the educational and support needs of men on surveillance so that we can develop a new intervention that will improve quality of life for such men.
We plan to test the effectiveness of a recently developed computer-based program that is designed to improve patient knowledge about prostate cancer treatments. It is also designed to help men clarify their values using a computer-based 'decision aid.' A decision aid gives patients tools to help them understand their own values and how these values may be related to their choice of different forms of therapy for prostate cancer. In order to test the effectiveness of the decision aid, men will be assigned on a chance basis to receive either 1) the computer program that includes the information about prostate cancer treatments alone, or 2) the computer program that contains both the information and the decision aid. We expect that men in decision aid group will be more active in their treatment decision and will have improved knowledge, quality of life, and satisfaction with the treatment decision relative to men who only receive the information.