Prostate Cancer: Highlights from 2006 Pierre Teillac, Pierre Mongiat-Artus  European Urology Supplements  Volume 6, Issue 12, Pages 728-736 (July 2007) DOI: 10.1016/j.eursup.2007.03.016 Copyright © 2007 European Association of Urology Terms and Conditions

Fig. 1 A significantly higher percentage of men were positive for prostate cancer (PCa) (p<0.001) and had a Gleason score≥7 when PSA ranged between 4 to 10ng/ml compared with PSA<4ng/ml [6]. European Urology Supplements 2007 6, 728-736DOI: (10.1016/j.eursup.2007.03.016) Copyright © 2007 European Association of Urology Terms and Conditions

Fig. 2 Active surveillance results in a low risk of disease progression at 5 yr if patients meet all inclusion criteria (details outlined in the text) [7]. European Urology Supplements 2007 6, 728-736DOI: (10.1016/j.eursup.2007.03.016) Copyright © 2007 European Association of Urology Terms and Conditions

Fig. 3 Partin tables are not able to predict lymph node involvement (LNM) to equal percentages as obtained after biopsies for both Gleason 2–4 and Gleason 5–6 groups [14]. European Urology Supplements 2007 6, 728-736DOI: (10.1016/j.eursup.2007.03.016) Copyright © 2007 European Association of Urology Terms and Conditions

Fig. 4 Patients with positive surgical margins (PSMs) after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy are at increased risk for biochemical recurrence with increasing margin size [17]. European Urology Supplements 2007 6, 728-736DOI: (10.1016/j.eursup.2007.03.016) Copyright © 2007 European Association of Urology Terms and Conditions

Fig. 5 There is no significant difference between radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in terms of clinical disease progression, survival rates, and sexual dysfunction [18]. European Urology Supplements 2007 6, 728-736DOI: (10.1016/j.eursup.2007.03.016) Copyright © 2007 European Association of Urology Terms and Conditions

Fig. 6 Interactive voting indicates that radical prostatectomy (RP) and the combination of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist therapy are the favoured treatment options for the given case (details outlined in the text). European Urology Supplements 2007 6, 728-736DOI: (10.1016/j.eursup.2007.03.016) Copyright © 2007 European Association of Urology Terms and Conditions

Fig. 7 Interactive voting shows that radical prostatectomy (RP) and active surveillance are the most chosen treatment options for the given case (details outlined in the text). Luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist therapy and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) were the less favoured options. European Urology Supplements 2007 6, 728-736DOI: (10.1016/j.eursup.2007.03.016) Copyright © 2007 European Association of Urology Terms and Conditions