Guideline for the primary care management of ... - Wiley Online Library

Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKBJUBJU International1464-410XBJU International 93 review Article GUIDELINES FOR LUTS M.J. SPEAKMAN et al.

As my Comment in the first section of the journal suggested, the MTOPS results have offered the possibility to general practitioners of reducing the risk of side-effects of BPH, particularly urinary retention, by giving patients dual therapy with 5a-reductase inhibitor and alpha-adrenergic blocker. Authors from the UK present guidelines for the primary case management of male LUTS, which significantly fills this gap in the literature. Any help in the management of chronic nonbacterial prostatitis is welcome to clinicians; many treatments have been proposed after non-comparative trials, and so their value must be viewed cautiously. The authors from Canada and USA present the results of a randomized placebocontrolled study into the use of finasteride in such patients. The other papers in this section all deal with LUTS, e.g. frequency and nocturia, in a variety of situations. There is still great interest in the epidemiology of these symptoms, and in the various methods of grading their severity.

©

Guideline for the primary care management of male lower urinary tract symptoms M.J. SPEAKMAN, R.S. KIRBY, A. JOYCE, P. ABRAMS and R. POCOCK The British Association of Urological Surgeons, London, UK Accepted for publication 20 January 2004

INTRODUCTION The Oxford Dictionary defines a guideline as ‘a principle or criterion guiding or directing an action’. The development and use of guidelines in medical practice is common, although many are not based on strong evidence but on the personal preferences and clinical experience of the clinicians developing them. Clinical practice guidelines have been defined as ‘systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate healthcare for specific clinical circumstances’ [1]. Their purpose has been stated to be ‘to make explicit recommendations with a definite intent to influence what clinicians do’ [2]. From the start of the development process for this guideline the development group had the advice of the AGREE collaboration available for scrutiny [3]. The guideline development group included five consultant urologists, two GPs, one nurse practitioner with specialist knowledge of prostate assessment clinics, one patient and one experienced medical facilitator. The group met on six occasions and communicated extensively by e-mail. The initial stage involved reviewing the existing major world guidelines [4–7], relevant literature on medical [2] and urological guidelines [8] in particular, and then reviewing the background literature for each section. The evidence base for the recommendations in each section is referenced. There was no formal systematic review of all LUTS/BPH publications because this had recently been

2 0 0 4 B J U I N T E R N A T I O N A L | 9 3 , 9 8 5 – 9 9 0 | doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.04765.x

completed by the AUA when updating its 1994 guideline [4]. The relatively few sections where the 1994 guideline had been changed because of the literature review were carefully documented [9]. However, each of the sections in this guideline involved a detailed review of the literature by the authors during its compilation. LUTS attributed to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) is a very common problem affecting the ageing man. The prevalence of LUTS in Europe varies with age, ranging from 14% for men in their fourth decade to >40% in their sixth. Assuming an overall prevalence of LUTS of 30%, this would mean that ª4 million men aged >40 years have LUTS in the UK. A reliable assessment guideline to manage this workload is justified on the basis of these figures alone, but the addition of more possible treatment options and a very variable cost of some of these treatments make this highly suitable for a British guideline. There are many ‘BPH’ guidelines around the world, some country-specific and others, e.g. the WHO International Consensus [5] and the European Urology Association guidelines [7], provide advice to doctors in many countries. This BAUS guideline presents an approach that is in line with world opinions, but is aimed specifically at GPs, nurse practitioners and patients (through the linked patientinformation leaflets) in the UK. The present guideline is intended to help with the diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of LUTS in men. The guideline is presented both as a 985

M . J . S P E A K M A N ET AL.

very simple one-page algorithm with short supplementary notes, and as an interactive electronic program via CD or website (http:// www.baus.org.uk) (Fig. 1).

FIG. 1. The single-page algorithm.

GP - History including symptoms assessment (IPSS) - Examination and DRE - Urinalysis / MSU - PSA

BACKGROUND The characteristic histological changes of BPH are extremely common and found in 80% of men aged >80 years. In about half of these men the prostate gland enlarges to produce benign prostatic enlargement and in about half of those with such enlargement, BPO develops. These distinctions are important because most treatments aim to alleviate symptoms by removing or reducing BOO. While prostatic enlargement secondary to BPH is a major cause of LUTS, by resulting in BOO, LUTS are a multifactorial problem possibly involving cardiac, renal or neurological abnormalities in addition to, or instead of, urological causes. Patients with LUTS suggestive of BPO present with two types of symptoms: of voiding (e.g. weak stream, hesitancy, intermittency, abdominal straining and incomplete bladder emptying); and of storage (e.g. frequency, nocturia, urgency and urge incontinence). While voiding symptoms are more common, storage symptoms are more bothersome and interfere more with daily activities. Thus they have a considerable effect on quality of life and are the main reason that patients seek medical advice. Besides improving urinary flow rate, treatment for LUTS should provide relief of both the common voiding LUTS and the more bothersome storage LUTS. The use of a symptom score, e.g. the IPSS, to measure symptoms and bother can aid in both the planning of initial treatment and in monitoring disease progression. The extent of symptom bother can vary amongst individual patients even with the same symptom score. Studies of LUTS in primary care and of the use of shared-care facilities in particular have shown that about half of new patients with LUTS can be investigated and managed in primary care [10]. Patients for whom medical treatment has failed, or with severe symptoms or signs, and those with absolute indications for hospital investigation or treatment, should be referred to a urologist.

THE GUIDELINE The BAUS guideline was designed to start with the first presentation of a man, typically 986

LUTS Patient

Algorithm

PSA elevated for age DRE abnormal/of concern Haematuria Elevated urea/creatinine Palpable bladder Recurrent UTI Abnormal cytology Severe symptoms

Urinary tract infection? Investigate & Treat

Bothersome LUTS? Yes

No

Nocturia? Unresponsive or recurrent UTI?

Yes

No

Nocturnal No Polyuria?

No

Yes

Urological referral

Nocturnal Polyuria

Prostatic Obstruction?

Overactive bladder?

Investigate & Treat

Yes Risk factors for progression?

Risk factors for progression?

Large prostate (>30cc) or

Large prostate (>30cc) or

high PSA (>1.4ng/ml)

high PSA (>1.4ng/ml)

No

Lifestyle advice alpha-blocker

Yes

Yes

Lifestyle advice, 5-alpha reductase inhibitor, alpha-blocker or combination

Review at 6-12 weeks

≥50 years old, to their GP or to a nurse practitioner in a prostate assessment clinic. While this guideline will also inform urologists in secondary care, this was not the principal goal. The basic assessments therefore have to be evidence-based, but also practical and achievable. The medical history should be sufficiently detailed to cover all the patient’s symptomatic concerns, including fear of prostate cancer, and then focus on quantifying the patient’s urinary symptoms. While this can be done by broad open questions, there is proven value in quantifying the symptoms with a symptom score. The IPSS has the principal advantage that it is universal and has been validated; it can measure the severity of symptoms and can monitor disease progress or the effects of treatment, but it is not a diagnostic tool, as many conditions can produce similar symptoms. Other causes of LUTS, e.g. heart failure, diabetes, neurological disorders and various drug therapies, should be considered. The examination should include the abdomen to check for an enlarged bladder, and careful examination of the genitalia, particularly the urethral meatus. A DRE is an integral part of good clinical examination and is strongly recommended. The primary purpose of this examination is to assess prostate size, shape and consistency, and to check for other rectal pathologies. The size of the prostate can give

Lifestyle advice, 5-alpha reductase inhibitor

No

Lifestyle advice

Review at 3-6 months

useful information which helps in planning treatment for LUTS.

THE ASSESSMENT AND IMPORTANCE OF PROSTATE SIZE Although most hospital-based studies have shown a poor correlation between prostate size and both symptoms and flow rate [11], more recent community-based studies report a useful correlation. The Olmsted study showed that the odds of having moderate to severe LUTS were 1.5 times higher for men with prostates of >30 mL and 3.5 times higher for men with prostates of >50 mL [12]. A focused neurological examination should be considered in appropriate patients. A urine sample should be analysed to check for the presence of blood, protein, glucose and any signs of infection. Measuring serum creatinine is important in patients in whom chronic retention is considered. Guidance on serum PSA testing is provided, together with age-related values above which a urological referral should be considered. The importance of information and counselling before PSA testing is stressed. PSA serves as a useful surrogate for prostate volume and is therefore also helpful in deciding to which treatment a given patient may respond. A useful suggestion is made within the latest

©

2004 BJU INTERNATIONAL

GUIDELINES FOR LUTS

Test History and DRE Symptom score (e.g. IPSS) Frequency-volume chart Urine analysis Serum creatinine PSA test Postvoid residual urine measurement Flow rate Renal ultrasonography/IVU Cysto-urethroscopy Urodynamics TRUS

Status Recommended Recommended Optional Recommended Optional Optional Optional Optional Not recommended* Not recommended* Optional Not recommended*

TABLE 1 BAUS recommendations for tests for the primary-care management of men with LUTS

THE VALUE OF FLOW-RATE TESTING

*In special circumstances or research clinics only

Indication PSA outside recommended age range Nodule in prostate Haematuria Acute retention Chronic retention Recurrent UTIs Dysuria with sterile pyuria

Referral Under 2-week wait scheme Under 2-week wait scheme Under 2-week wait scheme Immediate treatment/referral Priority if creatinine is high To be seen soon To be seen urgently

AUA guideline, i.e. that serum PSA analysis should be offered to patients with at least a 10-year life expectancy and for whom knowledge of the presence of prostate cancer would change the management, or for those where the PSA measurement might change the management of their voiding symptoms [9] (Table 1). The suggestions for diagnostic tests for LUTS presumed secondary to BPO vary among the national guidelines, e.g. serum creatinine and PSA assessment are regarded as ‘Recommended’ in the European guideline but ‘Optional’ in the AUA guideline. While cystoscopy is regarded as ‘Optional’ in both these guidelines, it is ‘Not recommended’ in the British guideline unless there are special circumstances, e.g. coexisting haematuria. ‘Recommended’ implies that this test should be used in all symptomatic men while ‘Optional’ tests are used on the basis of individual patient judgement. ‘Not recommended’ tests are those where the evidence base for their routine use is so poor that they are not considered for this use. Once a GP has taken a history and completed an examination and basic investigations, the

©


not universally available in primary care. However, evidence is provided to support the use of both flow-rate testing and postvoid US within the guideline, and these investigations are therefore encouraged but considered ‘optional’. The evidence for flow-rate testing before medical treatment is not sufficiently strong to make it ‘Recommended’ in all cases.

TABLE 2 Indications for direct urological referral; the National Institute for Clinical Excellence referral guidelines [13]

first decision is whether the patient is appropriate for primary-care management or should be referred for secondary urological care. Complicated LUTS should be referred; the indications for hospital referral and the appropriate urgency are given in Table 2 [13]. The guideline includes electronic access to patient information leaflets (www.baus.org.uk.LUTSguideline). Once the GP thinks that primary-care management is appropriate and before assuming that the prostate and BPO in particular are the causes of the problem, questions designed to identify men with a greater likelihood of either nocturnal polyuria or an overactive bladder are considered. Whether nocturia is numerically significant can be noted from the IPSS, and then the patient asked to complete a voiding frequency-volume diary, from which the presence of true nocturnal polyuria can be calculated. Ultimately the question ‘Do the patient’s symptoms suggest prostatic obstruction?’ must be considered. Although in an ideal world and in most of secondary care this question would be supplemented by data from flow-rate testing and postvoid bladder ultrasonography (US), these investigations are

The main limitation of flow-rate measurement is its inability to discriminate between poor detrusor function and BOO. Flow rates will give a rough probability of obstruction but only pressure-flow studies can quantify the degree of obstruction. The greatest value of flow-rate testing in managing LUTS is as a diagnosis of exclusion. While it is inaccurate to claim that most patients with a poor flow are necessarily obstructed, it is true that most patients with a good flow will not be obstructed. There are exceptions to this; the so-called ‘express voiders’, who maintain a reasonable flow only because of a supranormal detrusor pressure (these patients usually have significant symptoms). In practice the principal problem is that any correlation between flow rate and symptoms or symptom bother is unreliable. As most patients are currently treated on the basis of their symptoms and their associated bother, the real value of flow-rate testing is not so much to identify who to treat but rather as one measure of the success or failure of medical or surgical treatment. Patients with mild symptoms and borderline flow rates may still respond well to medical therapy. However, a flow rate is recommended for all patients undergoing surgery. Many studies have shown a very poor outcome after surgery in unobstructed patients and in patients with low symptom scores. On the positive side, some studies have shown that a very low flow rate (100 mL may predict an increased risk of retention [17]. There are also very few data on the significance of PVRs in conservatively treated patients, and many patients with PVRs of up to 300 mL do not develop UTI or renal insufficiency [18]. The level at which the potential clinical value of PVR becomes significant is unknown, but in a study assessing urodynamics in men with PVRs of >300 mL, two groups were identified [19]. One comprised patients with highpressure retention and therefore at risk of renal failure. This group also had a high incidence of recent onset enuresis. The second comprised patients with underactive detrusor muscles who were therefore unlikely to benefit from TURP. There is little good objective evidence that all patients being evaluated for LUTS should have their PVR measured, but a persistent PVR of >300 mL indicates a small risk of high-pressure retention, and therefore upper tract imaging is required. Second, a persistent high PVR may indicate an underactive detrusor and therefore be an indication for urodynamic studies. The PVR, even when associated with a slow flow, should not be used to select patients for surgery or to predict the outcome after TURP, without the added benefit of urodynamic studies.

PRIMARY CARE TREATMENT Most patients present because of bothersome symptoms and a trial of treatment is therefore appropriate once the initial investigations have been completed and information on treatment options provided. Most, but not all, patients will elect to have medical treatment in the first instance. However, not all patients require treatment, and primary-care management should include reassurance, watchful waiting, advice on lifestyle and a review of their current medication. 988

Treatment options, both pharmacological and surgical, for patients with LUTS presumed secondary to BPO, have increased considerably over the last decade. Data over the last 5 years have shown that prostate size, or PSA as a proxy for size, can influence both the decision to treat and the treatment choice. These data suggest that larger prostates are associated with more progressive disease, manifested as a greater likelihood of symptom progression [20], flow rate deterioration [21], increased prostate growth [22,23] and a greater risk of urinary retention and an increased probability of prostatic surgery [24]. Men with smaller prostates (estimated at 30 mL. However, the absolute risk of these complications varies widely from a risk of AUR

©


GUIDELINES FOR LUTS

of ª 0.75% per year in community-dwelling men [24] to ª 2% per year in men eligible for clinical trials [32]. If risk factors such as increased age, poor flow rate, large prostates (or increased PSA), large PVRs and high symptom scores are factored in, then suddenly the absolute risk in these men may be as high as 20% per year. In that case a reduction by half in the risk becomes both statistically and clinically significant. Data from the MTOPS study would indicate that a-blockers delay these events but do not finally prevent them. If patients’ symptoms are particularly bothersome and the patients are unhappy to wait for the delayed benefit of a 5-ARI drug because rapid symptom improvement is required, then an a-blocker could be substituted or added. If a-blocker monotherapy is the chosen treatment then this should be selected for men with no additional risk factors. The use of combined treatment is most appropriate in men with bothersome symptoms and significant risk factors for progression. These include large prostates or a PSA of >1.4 ng/mL, age >70 years, a poor flow rate (100 mL). The 5-ARIs lower serum PSA levels; after 6 months of treatment PSA levels will be reduced by half, and therefore doubling the PSA values for patients on long-term therapy allows their appropriate interpretation to avoid masking the early detection of localized prostate cancer [36].

MEN WITH LARGE PROSTATES AND NO BOTHERSOME SYMPTOMS Some men will present with symptoms that may not be particularly bothersome. Some of these patients may have had concerns about prostate cancer and once reassured may be less bothered about their condition. Traditionally, a man with no bothersome symptoms, even if his IPSS was moderate to severe, might simply have been reassured and allocated to watchful waiting. Although LUTS secondary to BPO tend to deteriorate in many patients over time, it has been known since the 1970s that in a significant minority of patients this does not happen and their symptoms remain stable or even improve [37]. However, more recent data from several epidemiological studies and the placebo arm of long-term trials like PLESS and MTOPS

©


indicate which men are at greater risk of symptom progression and AUR [20,32]. These men should now be warned about the possibilities of progression and the option of long-term 5ARI treatment discussed. The risk factors include; • men aged > 70 years, with LUTS. • an IPSS of > 7, i.e. moderate or severe LUTS. • a flow rate of < 12 mL/s. • a prostate volume of >30 mL or a PSA level of >1.4 ng/mL, which is a proxy for prostate volume. • Some studies have suggested that hesitancy and a PVR of >100 mL may also predict a greater risk of subsequent AUR.

CONCLUSION Many men presenting with LUTS can be safely and effectively managed in primary care. Treatments should include reassurance, lifestyle advice, a review of their other medication and medical therapies. Symptom score and symptom bother appear to be the main factors to be considered when deciding whether a patient requires treatment. Prostate volume, and PSA as its proxy, now appear important in selecting which treatment to use. It would be ideal if at first presentation we could predict which patient would progress and which would not. Recent knowledge of the risk factors for progression has informed this decision process. In conclusion, the provision of a clinical practice guideline for LUTS provides an evidencebased framework for managing patients with LUTS. Information on which to base decisions is presented, although the evidence base, particularly for the investigational tests, is far from perfect.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST None declared.

REFERENCES 1

2

Lohr KN, Field MJ. A provisional instrument for assessing clinical practice guidelines. In Field MJ, Lohr KN eds. Guidelines for Clinical Practice. From Development to Use. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1992 Hayward RSA, Wilson MC, Tunis SR et al. for the Evidence Based Medicine

Working Group. Users’ guides to the Medical Literature. VIII. How to use clinical practice guidelines. A. Are the recommendations valid? JAMA 1995; 274: 570–4 3 Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation. The AGREE Collaboration. http:// www.agreecollaboration.org 2004 4 McConell JD, Barry MJ, Bruskewitz RC et al. Benign prostatic hyperplasia diagnosis and treatment, Clinical practice guideline no. 8, AHCPR Publication no. 94–0582. Rockville, Maryland. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Public Health Service US. Department of Health and Human Services, February 1994 5 Chatelain C, Denis L, Foo JKT et al. eds Fifth International Consultation on Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Plymouth: Health Publications Ltd, 2001 6 de la Rosette J, Alivizatos G, Madersbacher S. EAU Guidelines Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH). Eur Urol 2001; 40: 256–63 7 De la Rosette J, Alivizatos G, Madersbacher S et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Update. http://www.uroweb.nl/files/upload_files/ guidelines/updateBPH.pdf February 2002 8 Roehrborn CG, Bartsch G, Kirby R et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a comparative, international overview. Urology 2001; 58: 642–50 9 McConnell JD, Barry MJ, Bruskewitz RC et al. Benign prostatic hyperplasia. Diagnosis and treatment. In Clinical Practice Guideline. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1994: amendments. http:// shop.auanet.org/timssnet/products/ guidelines/bph_management.cfm 2003 10 Speakman MJ, Kirk D, Gingell C, Yoxall H, Davidson J. Shared care of BPH – a general practice-based study. J Urol 1996; 155: 391 11 Barry MJ, Cockett AT, Holtgrewe H et al. Relationship of symptoms of prostatism to commonly used physiological and anatomical measures of the severity of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 1993; 150: 351–8 12 Girman CJ, Jacobsen SJ, Rhodes T et al. Prostate size related to urinary symptoms and health related quality of life in randomly selected men. J Urol 1997; 157 (Suppl): 193 989

M . J . S P E A K M A N ET AL.

13 National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Referral advice. A guide to appropriate referral from general to specialist services. London: NICE, 2001 14 Ockrim JL, Laniardo ME, Patel A et al. A probability based system for combining simple office parameters as a predictor of bladder outflow obstruction. J Urol 2001; 166: 2221–5 15 Koyanagi T, Artibani W, Correa R et al. In Denis L, Griffiths K, Khoury S et al. eds. Proceedings of the Fourth International Consultation on BPH, Paris, July 1997. Plymouth: Health Publications, 1998: 179–265 16 Abrams PH, Griffiths DJ. Assessment of prostatic obstruction from urodynamic measurements and from residual urine. Br J Urol 1979; 51: 129–34 17 McNeill SA, Hargreave TB, GeffriaudRicouard C et al. Postvoid residual urine in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia: pooled analysis of eleven controlled studies with Alfuzosin. Urology 2001; 57: 459–65 18 Wasson JH, Reda DJ, Bruskewitz RC et al. A comparison of transurethral surgery with watchful waiting for moderate symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 75– 9 19 Abrams PH, Dunn M, George N. Urodynamic findings in chronic retention of urine and their relevance to results of surgery. BMJ 1978; 2: 1258–60 20 McConnell JD, Roehrborn CG, Bautista OM et al. The long-term effect of doxazosin, finasteride, and combination therapy on the progression of benign prostatic hyperplasia. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 2387–98 21 Roberts RO, Jacobsen SJ, Jacobson DJ, Rhodes T, Girman CJ, Lieber MM. Longitudinal changes in peak urinary flow rates in a community based cohort. J Urol 2000; 163: 107–13 22 Rhodes T, Girman CJ, Jacobsen SJ, Roberts RO, Guess HA, Lieber MM. Longitudinal prostate growth rates during 5 years in randomly selected community men 40–79 years old. J Urol 1999; 161: 1174–9 23 Roehrborn CG, McConnell J, Bonilla J

990

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

et al. Serum prostate specific antigen is a strong predictor of future prostate growth in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. PROSCAR long-term efficacy and safety study. J Urol 2000; 163: 13–20 Jacobsen SJ, Jacobsen DJ, Girman CJ et al. Natural history of prostatism: risk factors for acute urinary retention. J Urol 1997; 158: 481–7 Djavan B, Marberger M. A meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of a1adrenoceptor antagonists in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction. Eur Urol 1999; 36: 1–13 Lepor H and the Multicenter Study Group. Long-term efficacy and safety of terazosin in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 1995; 45: 406–13 Chapple CR, Carter P, Christmas TJ et al. A three-month double-blind study of doxazosin as treatment for benign prostatic obstruction. Br J Urol 1994; 74: 50–6 Kirby RS. Doxazosin in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Effects on blood pressure and urinary flow in normotensive and hypertensive men. Urology 1995; 46: 182–6 Kirby RS. Terazosin in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Effects on blood pressure in normotensive and hypertensive men. Br J Urol 1998; 82: 373–9 Chapple CR, Baert L, Thind P, Hofner K, Khoe GS, Spangberg A. Tamsulosin 0.4 mg once daily. Tolerability in older and younger patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction (symptomatic BPH). Eur Urol 1997; 32: 462–70 Lukacs B, Grange JC, Comet D et al. History of 7,093 patients with lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia treated with alfuzosin in general practice up to 3 years. Eur Urol 2000; 37: 183–90 McConnell JD, Bruskewitz R, Walsh P et al. The effect of finasteride on the risk of acute urinary retention and the need for surgical treatment among men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. PLESS study group. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 557– 63

33 Abrams P, Schafer W, Tammela TL et al. Improvement of pressure flow parameters with finasteride is greater in men with larger prostates. J Urol 1999; 161: 1513–7 34 Roehrborn CG, Boyle P, Bergner D et al. Serum prostate specific antigen and prostate volume predict long-term changes in symptoms and flow rate: results of a four year randomized trial comparing finasteride versus placebo. Urology 1999; 54: 662–9 35 Roehrborn CG, Boyle P, Nickel JC et al. Efficacy and safety of dual inhibitor of 5-alpha reductase type 1 and 2 (dutasteride) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 2000; 60: 434–41 36 Thomson IM, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM et al. The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 213–22 37 Ball AJ, Feneley RCL, Abrams PH. The natural history of untreated ‘prostatism’. Br J Urol 1981; 53: 613–6 For the DOH prostate cancer information sheet see: http://www.doh.gov.uk/cancer/prostate.htm For the DOH referral guidelines see; http://www.doh.gov.uk/pub/docs/doh/ guidelines.pdf Copies of the NHS/Cancer Research UK Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme – an information pack for primary care can be obtained by e-mail from: [email protected] or from the Department of Health Responseline 08701 555455 Correspondence: M.J. Speakman, BAUS, Royal College of Surgeons, Lincolns Inn Fields, London, UK. e-mail: mailto:[email protected] Abbreviations: BPO, benign prostatic obstruction; US, ultrasonography; PVR, postvoid residual volume; 5-ARI, 5areductase inhibitor; AUR, acute urinary retention; PLESS, Proscar Long-term Efficacy and Safety Study; MTOPS, Medical Therapy for Prostate Symptoms.

©
