View clinical trials related to Prostatic Cancer.
Filter by:Background: Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American men. Few options exist to create images of this type of cancer. Researchers think an experimental radiotracer called 18F-DCFPyL could find sites of cancer in the body. Objective: To see if 18F-DCFPyL can identify sites of prostate cancer in people with the disease. Eligibility: People ages 18 and older who have metastatic prostate cancer Design: Participants will be screened with: - Blood tests - Physical exam - Medical history Participants will be assigned to 1 of 2 groups based on their PSA. Participants will have 18F-DCFPyL injected into a vein. About 2 hours later they will have a whole-body Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT). For the scan, they will lie on their back on the scanner table while it takes pictures of the body. This lasts about 50 minutes. On another day, participants will have 18F -NaF injected into a vein. About 1 hour later, they will have a whole-body PET/CT. Participants will be contacted 1 3 days later for follow-up. They may undergo PET/Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) either after having a 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT, or in place of PET/CT imaging. A tube may be placed in the rectum. More coils may be wrapped around the outside of the pelvis. If the 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT is positive participants will be encouraged to undergo a biopsy of one of the tumors. The biopsy will be taken through a needle put through the skin into the tumor. Participants will be followed for 1 year. During this time researchers will collect information about their prostate cancer, such as PSA levels and biopsy results. About 4-6 months after scanning is completed, participants may have a tumor biopsy. The biopsy will be taken through a needle put through the skin into the tumor. ...
Through this study, the investigators seek to identify the benefits (improved survival) and harms (more procedures, more treatment, side effects, and quality-of-life impact) from different surveillance frequencies-every three vs. six vs. 12 months. Using the National Cancer Database and quality-of-life data from a large group of prostate cancer survivors, the investigators aim to compare survival, procedures/tests, treatments, and side effects in prostate cancer survivors who are followed with alternative surveillance frequencies and compare quality-of-life outcomes. The overall goal of the study is to provide high-quality data that will allow development of a personalized, risk-based tailored approach to post-treatment surveillance for prostate cancer.
To assess the effectiveness of two anesthetic techniques by measuring the pain through visual analog scale (VAS), to obtain saturation prostate biopsies.
Prospective randomized study performing open anterograde anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP2A) using the same technique of minimally invasive surgery described by the Pasadena consensus for the procedure assisted by robot, compared with the anatomical radical prostatectomy technique described by Patrick Walsh (RRP). Recent studies have shown benefits in the minimally invasive surgical techniques approaches, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and, more recently, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). These minimally invasive techniques were associated with advantages in complications, like intraoperative bleeding, transfusion rates and in earlier recovery of important genitourinary functions such as urinary continence and penile erection. But still has not been demonstrated conclusively advantages as oncological control and it is believed that there are about 200 to 250 cases of learning curve so that the rates of complications and positive surgical margins become stable and similar to the open radical prostatectomy. These facts associated with the high cost of robotic technology still have limited the generalization of this approach in many developing countries such as Brazil. While the majority of studies made by comparing the radical prostatectomy (RP), robot X laparoscopic X open, show a slight advantage in the first two, there is a significant bias in these studies, which is that the surgical technique used in each procedure differs significantly from minimally invasive and open surgical techniques. The evolution of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy was based on an entirely different anatomical benchmark of that described by Patrick Walsh. While robotics and laparoscopic techniques dissect the prostate, bladder neck and the neurovascular bundle in an antegrade way, from bladder neck to the apex, the Walsh RRP technique is completely different in several ways, the dissection is made from prostatic apex to the bladder neck, so the retrograde direction, the posterior layer of Denonvilliers' fascia, is always included with the specimen, and urethrovesical anastomosis, usually performed with multifilament interrupted suture, only for indicating the major differences. The RRP2A will be performed by incision (open surgery) and will be compared with the anatomical radical prostatectomy technique described by Patrick Walsh RRP, and performed by the same surgeons.
NC ProCESS is a cohort of patients from diverse backgrounds diagnosed with early prostate cancer, who were enrolled from January 2011-June 2013. These patients were recruited throughout North Carolina, and also in partnership with institutions across the country. Patients enrolled before they start treatment, and are then followed prospectively through treatment and then afterwards. This observational study collects information on quality of life, cancer control, and health care received inclusive of treatment and management of subsequent effects including complications and recurrence. The objective of this study is to examine comparative outcomes among different modern prostate cancer treatment options in this cohort of patients.
This study will be conducted in three parts. Part A is a dose-escalation study to determine two safe and tolerable doses of ASN001 for men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. Part A will also characterize the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the ASN001 through blood sampling. Subjects in Part B will receive one of two doses identified in Part A to determine which one is more effective, and collect additional pharmacokinetic data. Part C is an extension for subjects completing either Part A or B.
The purpose of this study is to find out the effects (good and bad) of highly focused radiation on you and your prostate cancer. The purpose of this evaluation is to see if this treatment causes fewer side effects that other standard treatment approaches, and to evaluate the effect of this treatment on your prostate tumor and your quality of life over time.
This study aims to assess if different anesthetic techniques can affect coagulant factors in patients with prostate cancer undergoing elective laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).
The dominating problem after local radiotherapy of prostate cancer is rectal toxicity. If the rectum could be completely moved out of the treated volume, a substantial decrease of rectal toxicity seems reasonable. In this study we will develop and evaluate a new transrectal injection technique where hyaluronic acid (HA) is injected in the space between the prostate and the rectum prior to external beam radiotherapy to increase the physical distance between prostate and rectum.
To demonstrate that sipuleucel-T can be successfully manufactured for subjects with metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) at a European manufacturing facility.