Cheah P. Y., Liong M. L., Yuen K. H., Teh C. L., Khor T., Yang J. R., Yap H. W., Krieger J. N.
The Journal of urology. 2003; 169(2): 592-596
PURPOSE: We evaluate terazosin therapy for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 100, 20 to-50-year-old subjects who met the consensus criteria for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome and had not received previous alpha-blockers. Subjects were randomized to receive terazosin with dose escalation from 1 to 5 mg. daily or placebo for 14 weeks. The primary criterion for response was scoring 2 or less ("delighted-to-mostly satisfied") on the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) quality of life item. The secondary criterion for response was greater than 50% reduction in NIH-CPSI pain score at 14 weeks. Other outcomes included total and NIH-CPSI domain scores, International Prostate Symptom Score, peak urinary flow rate, post-void residual urine and adverse effects. RESULTS: Using the primary criterion 24 of 43 evaluable subjects (56%) responded in the terazosin group compared to 14 of 43 (36%) in the placebo group (p = 0.03). Using the secondary criterion 26 of 43 subjects (60%) responded in the terazosin group compared to 16 of 43 (37%) in the placebo group (p = 0.03). The terazosin group had greater reductions (p <0.05) in NIH-CPSI total score, individual domain scores and International Prostate Symptom Score than the placebo group. There was no difference in peak urinary flow rate or post-void residual. In the terazosin group 18 patients (42%) had side effects compared to 9 (21%) in the placebo group (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Terazosin proved superior to placebo for patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome who had not received alpha-blockers previously.
Cheah P. Y., Liong M. L., Yuen K. H., Teh C. L., Khor T., Yang J. R., Yap H. W., Krieger J. N
Urology. 2004; 64(5): 881-886
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the initial, long-term, and durable response rates to terazosin, placebo, or other therapies in patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome. METHODS: A total of 100 subjects, aged 20 to 50 years, who met the National Institutes of Health criteria for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome and had not previously been treated with alpha-blockers, were entered in a 14-week, double-blind comparison of terazosin or placebo therapy. Nonresponders and responders with subsequent relapse were treated with terazosin or other medications (open label). The criterion for response was a score of 0 to 2 on the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index quality-of-life item. The initial response was evaluated at week 14, and the long-term response was evaluated after a median of 38 weeks (range 34 to 42), regardless of any additional treatment. A durable response was defined as an initial response without additional treatment. RESULTS: Of the 43 patients in the terazosin group, 24 (56%) had an initial response compared with 14 (33%) of 43 subjects in the placebo group (P = 0.03). Long-term responses were noted in 23 (56%) of 41 assessable subjects treated with terazosin initially compared with 12 (32%) of 38 assessable subjects treated with placebo (P = 0.03). Of the nonresponders and initial responders with relapse, 7 (41%) of 17 subjects responded to terazosin compared with 7 (21%) of 34 given other treatment (P = 0.12). Durable responses occurred in 18 (44%) of the 41 assessable patients treated initially with terazosin and in 6 (16%) of 38 treated initially with placebo (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with terazosin were more likely to have initial, long-term, and durable responses than those treated with placebo.
Cheah W. L., Ling N. C., Chang K. H
Chinese clinical oncology. 2016; 5(1): 7-3865.2016.02.01
BACKGROUND: This cross-sectional study aimed to determine the prevalence of unmet supportive care needs among prostate cancer patients. METHODS: The cross-sectional study was conducted among all prostate cancer patients at the Sarawak General Hospital. Interview was done using the Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form (SCNS-SF) and the Health Service Utilization Questionnaires (HSUQ). Data were analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 20. RESULTS: A total of ninety-five patients participated, with majority were aged 65 and above and of primary educational level. The two most frequently reported unmet supportive care needs were "informed about cancer which is under control or diminishing" and "informed about things you can do to help yourself to get well" under the domain Health System and Information. Respondents who were older (65 years and above) had significant lower unmet needs in psychology (P<0.01), and sexuality compared to the younger group below 65 years (P<0.01). Except for physical and daily living, respondents with primary school level had significant lower unmet needs in all domains compared to secondary school level. Respondents with known stages of cancer had higher unmet needs in all domains compared to those who did not know. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers should provide more responsive, emotionally sensitive and client-centered care to patients with prostate cancer, particularly in the area of Health System and Information, and psychological support.
Chong W. L., Sahabudin R. M., Teh G. C., Woo S. Y., Lim T. C., Khairullah A
The Medical journal of Malaysia. 2001; 56(2): 167-173
DRE has been used as a diagnostic and screening tool for prostate cancer for decades. However these are based on Western data and its local applicability has yet to be verified. We held a Prostate Health Awareness Week in August 1998 and a total of 2086 men were screened. All men aged 50 years old and above were included for the study. The subjects were evaluated on DRE findings, PSA levels and if indicated a TRUS-guided biopsy results. We concluded that DRE per se might have limited role in the screening of prostate cancer in Malaysia. Screening using DRE and PSA combined are still recognized as the most cost-effective means. Neither DRE nor PSA alone has high enough specificity for diagnosis of prostate cancer cases. Combining DRE and PSA will definitely increase the specificity significantly.