4.4 Article

Six Weeks of Fluoroquinolone Antibiotic Therapy for Patients With Elevated Serum Prostate-specific Antigen Is Not Clinically Beneficial: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 90, 期 -, 页码 32-37

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.11.046

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To evaluate asymptomatic men with elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to determine whether a 6-week course of fluoroquinolone antibiotics lowers serum PSA and affects recommendations for prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS A randomized, single-center prospective trial of 150 men with an initial elevated PSA was conducted. Patients were randomized to 6 weeks of ciprofloxacin or observation. Those patients with persistently elevated PSA were recommended to proceed with transrectal ultrasound-guided 12-core biopsy. Those with reduced PSA were offered transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy but could opt to continue serial digital rectal examination/PSA. Patients were followed an average of 4.6 years to assess trends in PSA and biopsy results. RESULTS Of 136 men who completed the trial, 63 were in the treatment and 73 were in the observation group. The average PSA change from baseline was borderline statistically significant with a change of -0.68 ng/mL in the treatment arm and 0.01 ng/mL in the observation arm (P = .052). Of those who underwent biopsy, prostate cancer was diagnosed in the first biopsy in 24 (63%) of the treatment vs 27 (52%) of the observation group (P = .60) over follow-up. CONCLUSION In a cohort of asymptomatic men with elevated PSA, there was only a borderline statistically significant change in serum PSA between patients randomized to a 6-week course of fluoroquinolones vs observation, and there was no difference in positive prostate biopsy results. Our clinical recommendation is one should not treat patients with elevated serum PSA with antibiotics in the absence of clinical symptoms of prostatitis. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据