Neil Oakley

Bio: Neil Oakley is an academic researcher from Royal Hallamshire Hospital. The author has contributed to research in topics: Prostatectomy & Prostate cancer. The author has an hindex of 16, co-authored 107 publications receiving 1047 citations. Previous affiliations of Neil Oakley include Cleveland Clinic.

Age Trends in the Level of Serum Testosterone and Other Hormones in Middle-Aged Men: Longitudinal Results from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study

Abstract: We used longitudinal data from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study, a large population-based random-sample cohort of men aged 40-70 yr at baseline, to establish normative age trends for serum level of T and related hormones in middle-aged men and to test whether general health status affected the age trends. Of 1,709 men enrolled in 1987-1989, 1,156 were followed up 7-10 yr afterward. By repeated-measures statistical analysis, we estimated simultaneously the cross-sectional age trend of each hormone between subjects within the baseline data, the cross-sectional trend between subjects within the follow-up data, and the longitudinal trend within subjects between baseline and follow-up. Total T declined cross-sectionally at 0.8%/yr of age within the follow-up data, whereas both free and albumin-bound T declined at about 2%/yr, all significantly more steeply than within the baseline data. Sex hormone-binding globulin increased cross-sectionally at 1.6%/yr in the follow-up data, similarly to baseline. The longitudinal decline within subjects between baseline and follow-up was considerably steeper than the cross-sectional trend within measurement times for total T (1.6%/yr) and bioavailable T (2-3%/yr). Dehydroepiandrosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate, cortisol, and estrone showed significant longitudinal declines, whereas dihydrotestosterone, pituitary gonadotropins, and PRL rose longitudinally. Apparent good health, defined as absence of chronic illness, prescription medication, obesity, or excessive drinking, added 10-15% to the level of several androgens and attenuated the cross-sectional trends in T and LH but did not otherwise affect longitudinal or cross-sectional trends. The paradoxical finding that longitudinal age trends were steeper than cross-sectional trends suggests that incident poor health may accelerate the age-related decline in androgen levels.

Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer

Abstract: Prostate cancer is the second most frequent cancer diagnosis made in men and the fifth leading cause of death worldwide. Prostate cancer may be asymptomatic at the early stage and often has an indolent course that may require only active surveillance. Based on GLOBOCAN 2018 estimates, 1,276,106 new cases of prostate cancer were reported worldwide in 2018, with higher prevalence in the developed countries. Differences in the incidence rates worldwide reflect differences in the use of diagnostic testing. Prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates are strongly related to the age with the highest incidence being seen in elderly men (> 65 years of age). African-American men have the highest incidence rates and more aggressive type of prostate cancer compared to White men. There is no evidence yet on how to prevent prostate cancer; however, it is possible to lower the risk by limiting high-fat foods, increasing the intake of vegetables and fruits and performing more exercise. Screening is highly recommended at age 45 for men with familial history and African-American men. Up-to-date statistics on prostate cancer occurrence and outcomes along with a better understanding of the etiology and causative risk factors are essential for the primary prevention of this disease.

Screening for prostate cancer.

Abstract: Background Any form of screening aims to reduce disease-specific and overall mortality, and to improve a person's future quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has generated considerable debate within the medical and broader community, as demonstrated by the varying recommendations made by medical organizations and governed by national policies. To better inform individual patient decision-making and health policy decisions, we need to consider the entire body of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on prostate cancer screening summarised in a systematic review. In 2006, our Cochrane review identified insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of routine mass, selective, or opportunistic screening for prostate cancer. An update of the review in 2010 included three additional trials. Meta-analysis of the five studies included in the 2010 review concluded that screening did not significantly reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality. In the past two years, several updates to studies included in the 2010 review have been published thereby providing the rationale for this update of the 2010 systematic review. Objectives To determine whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality or all-cause mortality and to assess its impact on quality of life and adverse events. Search methods An updated search of electronic databases (PROSTATE register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT, and the NHS EED) was performed, in addition to handsearching of specific journals and bibliographies, in an effort to identify both published and unpublished trials. Selection criteria All RCTs of screening versus no screening for prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review. Data collection and analysis The original search (2006) identified 99 potentially relevant articles that were selected for full-text review. From these citations, two RCTs were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. The search for the 2010 version of the review identified a further 106 potentially relevant articles, from which three new RCTs were included in the review. A total of 31 articles were retrieved for full-text examination based on the updated search in 2012. Updated data on three studies were included in this review. Data from the trials were independently extracted by two authors. Main results Five RCTs with a total of 341,342 participants were included in this review. All involved prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, with or without digital rectal examination (DRE), though the interval and threshold for further evaluation varied across trials. The age of participants ranged from 45 to 80 years and duration of follow-up from 7 to 20 years. Our meta-analysis of the five included studies indicated no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between men randomised to the screening and control groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.17). The methodological quality of three of the studies was assessed as posing a high risk of bias. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial were assessed as posing a low risk of bias, but provided contradicting results. The ERSPC study reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95), whilst the PLCO study concluded no significant benefit (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.54). The ERSPC was the only study of the five included in this review that reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality, in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years of age. Sensitivity analysis for overall risk of bias indicated no significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality when referring to the meta analysis of only the ERSPC and PLCO trial data (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30). Subgroup analyses indicated that prostate cancer-specific mortality was not affected by the age at which participants were screened. Meta-analysis of four studies investigating all-cause mortality did not determine any significant differences between men randomised to screening or control (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.03). A diagnosis of prostate cancer was significantly greater in men randomised to screening compared to those randomised to control (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.65). Localised prostate cancer was more commonly diagnosed in men randomised to screening (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.70), whilst the proportion of men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer was significantly lower in the screening group compared to the men serving as controls (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.87). Screening resulted in a range of harms that can be considered minor to major in severity and duration. Common minor harms from screening include bleeding, bruising and short-term anxiety. Common major harms include overdiagnosis and overtreatment, including infection, blood loss requiring transfusion, pneumonia, erectile dysfunction, and incontinence. Harms of screening included false-positive results for the PSA test and overdiagnosis (up to 50% in the ERSPC study). Adverse events associated with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies included infection, bleeding and pain. No deaths were attributed to any biopsy procedure. None of the studies provided detailed assessment of the effect of screening on quality of life or provided a comprehensive assessment of resource utilization associated with screening (although preliminary analyses were reported). Authors' conclusions Prostate cancer screening did not significantly decrease prostate cancer-specific mortality in a combined meta-analysis of five RCTs. Only one study (ERSPC) reported a 21% significant reduction of prostate cancer-specific mortality in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years. Pooled data currently demonstrates no significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific and overall mortality. Harms associated with PSA-based screening and subsequent diagnostic evaluations are frequent, and moderate in severity. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are common and are associated with treatment-related harms. Men should be informed of this and the demonstrated adverse effects when they are deciding whether or not to undertake screening for prostate cancer. Any reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality may take up to 10 years to accrue; therefore, men who have a life expectancy less than 10 to 15 years should be informed that screening for prostate cancer is unlikely to be beneficial. No studies examined the independent role of screening by DRE.

Guidelines on Prostate Cancer

Abstract: The introduction of an effective blood test, prostate specific antigen (PSA), has made it possible to diagnose more and more men in an earlier stage where they can be offered potentially curative treatments. The other side of the coin is that if effective diagnostic procedures are used unselectively in elderly men with a short life expectancy, a problem with over diagnosis and over treatment might occur. Thus the same stage of prostate cancer may need different treatment strategies, pending on the patient’s life expectancy. This, and many other issues regarding the disease, is the subject of the EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. G UI DE LI N ES O N P RO ST AT E CA N CE R 10