Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases Journal Impact Factor & Information

Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

Journal description

Covers current developments relating to all aspects of prostate cancer research.

Current impact factor: 2.83

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2015
2013 / 2014 Impact Factor 2.83
2012 Impact Factor 2.811
2011 Impact Factor 2.421
2010 Impact Factor 2.263
2009 Impact Factor 2.096
2008 Impact Factor 2.062
2007 Impact Factor 2.024
2006 Impact Factor 1.81
2005 Impact Factor 1.143
2004 Impact Factor 1.144
2003 Impact Factor 0.685
2002 Impact Factor 0.459
2001 Impact Factor 0.497
2000 Impact Factor 0.646
1999 Impact Factor 0.583
1998 Impact Factor 0.312

Impact factor over time

Impact factor
Year

Additional details

5-year impact 2.26
Cited half-life 5.10
Immediacy index 0.48
Eigenfactor 0.00
Article influence 0.77
Website Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases website
Other titles Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases (Online)
ISSN 1365-7852
OCLC 42458934
Material type Document, Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publisher details

Nature Publishing Group

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author cannot archive a post-print version
  • Restrictions
    • 6 months embargo
  • Conditions
    • Authors retain copyright
    • Published source must be acknowledged and DOI cited
    • Must link to publisher version
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • On author's personal website and institutional repository
    • If funding agency rules apply, authors may post authors version to their relevant funding body's archive, 6 months after publication
    • This policy is an exception to the default policies of 'Nature Publishing Group'
  • Classification
    ​ yellow

Publications in this journal

  • Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 05/2015; DOI:10.1038/pcan.2015.23
  • Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 05/2015; DOI:10.1038/pcan.2015.25
  • Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 05/2015; DOI:10.1038/pcan.2015.24
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Owing to efficacy and tolerability, abiraterone acetate (AA) is a leading treatment for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Increased serum concentrations of AA, such as by taking AA with food, may lead to the inhibition of additional enzymes in the androgen synthesis pathway implicated in castration-resistant prostate cancer progression. Medical records of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who received AA between 1 April 2011 and 31 December 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was the percent of men with a rising PSA on AA who experienced any PSA decline within 3 months after changing the administration of AA from without food to with food. Secondary outcomes were median time on AA therapy in men who received AA therapy without food versus those that switched administration from without food to with food at PSA progression, and the percent of men who experienced any decline in serum testosterone concentration, and the rate of adverse events observed while taking AA with food. Nineteen men who switched AA administration from without food to with food and 41 patients who administered AA without food only were included in the study. Of those patients who took AA with food at PSA progression, a PSA decline was observed in 3 of the 19 (16%) men, including 3 of the 14 men who had an initial response to AA (21%). Testosterone declined in five out of seven patients from pre-food levels. The median time on AA therapy was increased by nearly 100 days in patients who switched AA administration from without food to with food. No increases in toxicity were observed. Some men with mCRPC may benefit from taking AA with food. Further prospective comparative studies are needed to determine if changing AA administration is beneficial.Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Disease advance online publication, 17 March 2015; doi:10.1038/pcan.2015.7.
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 03/2015; 18(2). DOI:10.1038/pcan.2015.7
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:This study was initiated to explore the impact of organic cation transporter 1 (OCT1) and multidrug and toxin extrusion transporter 1 (MATE1) genetic polymorphisms on toxicity, and clinical activity of metformin in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).Methods:The SAKK 08/09 trial included 44 patients with CRPC to receive single-agent metformin 1000 mg two times a day until disease progression or unwanted toxicity. Drug pathway-associated gene polymorphisms of OCT1 (rs622342) and MATE1 (rs2289669) were assessed. The primary objective of this study was to define the relationship between mutations in OCT1, MATE1 and progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 weeks absolute PFS and PSA response in consenting patients of SAKK 08/09. The secondary objective of this study was to analyze the association between mutations in OCT1, MATE1, metformin-related toxicity, PSA response at 12 weeks and overall survival.Results:Thirty-six patients were evaluable for pharmacogenetic analysis. Homozygous carriers of the polymorphic OCT1 C-allele had no metformin-related toxicity as compared with 41.9% for any metformin-related toxicity in carriers of at least one wild-type A-allele (P=0.07). Disease progression according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors) was significantly more frequent in homozygous carriers of the polymorphic OCT1 C-allele (80%) as compared with carriers of at least one wild-type A-allele (28.6%) (P=0.002). Disease progression according to RECIST was also more frequent in carriers of at least one polymorphic MATE1 A-allele (44%) as compared with homozygous carriers of the wild-type G-allele (12.5%) (P=0.07). OCT1 and MATE1 were not associated with PFS.Conclusions:The polymorphic OCT1 C-allele has been shown to be associated with less metformin-related toxicity and a higher risk of tumor progression in patients with CRPC receiving metformin as an anticancer treatment. Polymorphisms in metformin drug transporters are attractive molecular markers to serve as potential predictors of efficacy in future clinical studies.Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Disease advance online publication, 10 March 2015; doi:10.1038/pcan.2015.8.
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 03/2015; 18(2). DOI:10.1038/pcan.2015.8
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:To evaluate whether very high b-value computed diffusion-weighted imaging (cDWI) is able to provide better contrast between the foci of prostate cancer and background tissue than the standard apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map, and whether this improved contrast could be used to improve the tumor detection.Methods:Very high b-value cDWI series up to b4000 were created for 14 patients with high-grade prostate cancer. Contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) and CNR-to-ADC ratios were calculated. Three blinded readers also assessed the tumor conspicuity on a standard five-point scale.Results:The tumor CNR increased with increasing b-values in all the patients up to a maximum average CNR of 75.1 for a b-value of 4000 (average CNR for the ADC maps: 10.0). CNR/ADC ratios were higher than 1 (indicating higher CNR than respective ADC) for cDWI of 1500 and higher, with a maximum of 6.5 for cDWI4000. The average subjective tumor conspicuity scores for cDWI2000, 3000 and 4000 were significantly higher than that of the ADC (4.0): 4.5 (P=0.018), 4.5 (P=0.017) and 4.6 (P=0.012).Conclusions:cDWI is able to provide better contrast between the foci of prostate cancer and background tissue compared with a standard ADC map. This resulted in improved subjective tumor conspicuity.Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Disease advance online publication, 3 March 2015; doi:10.1038/pcan.2015.5.
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 03/2015; 18(2). DOI:10.1038/pcan.2015.5
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Permanent radioactive seed implantation provides highly effective treatment for prostate cancer that typically includes multidisciplinary collaboration between urologists and radiation oncologists. Low dose-rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy offers excellent tumor control rates and has equivalent rates of rectal toxicity when compared with external beam radiotherapy. Owing to its proximity to the anterior rectal wall, a small portion of the rectum is often exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation from this procedure. Although rare, some patients develop transfusion-dependent rectal bleeding, ulcers or fistulas. These complications occasionally require permanent colostomy and thus can significantly impact a patient's quality of life. Aside from proper technique, a promising strategy has emerged that can help avoid these complications. By injecting biodegradable materials behind Denonviller's fascia, brachytherpists can increase the distance between the rectum and the radioactive sources to significantly decrease the rectal dose. This review summarizes the progress in this area and its applicability for use in combination with permanent LDR brachytherapy.Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Disease advance online publication, 17 February 2015; doi:10.1038/pcan.2015.4.
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 02/2015; 18(2). DOI:10.1038/pcan.2015.4
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:Ketoconazole is a well-known CYP17-targeted systemic treatment for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). However, most of the published data has been in the pre-chemotherapy setting; its efficacy in the post-chemotherapy setting has not been as widely described. Chemotherapy-naïve patients treated with attenuated doses of ketoconazole (200-300 mg three times daily) had PSA response rate (>50% decline) of 21-62%. We hypothesized that low-dose ketoconazole would likewise possess efficacy and tolerability in the CRPC post-chemotherapy state.Methods:Men with CRPC and performance status 0-3, adequate organ function and who had received prior docetaxel were treated with low-dose ketoconazole (200 mg orally three times daily) and hydrocortisone (20 mg PO qAM and 10 mg PO qPM) until disease progression. Primary endpoint was PSA response rate (>50% reduction from baseline) where a rate of 25% was to be considered promising for further study (versus a null rate of <5%); 25 patients were required. Secondary endpoints included PSA response >30% from baseline, progression-free survival (PFS), duration of stable disease and evaluation of adverse events (AEs).Results:Thirty patients were accrued with median age of 72 years (range 55-86) and median pre-treatment PSA of 73 ng ml(-1) (range 7-11,420). Twenty-nine patients were evaluable for response and toxicity. PSA response (>50% reduction) was seen in 48% of patients; PSA response (>30% reduction) was seen in 59%. Median PFS was 138 days; median duration of stable disease was 123 days. Twelve patients experienced grade 3 or 4 AEs. Of the 17 grade 3 AEs, only 3 were attributed to treatment. None of the two grade 4 AEs were considered related to treatment.Conclusions:In docetaxel pre-treated CRPC patients, low-dose ketoconazole and hydrocortisone is a well-tolerated, relatively inexpensive and clinically active treatment option. PSA response to low-dose ketoconazole appears historically comparable to that of abiraterone in this patient context. A prospective, randomized study of available post-chemotherapy options is warranted to assess comparative efficacy.Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Disease advance online publication, 10 February 2015; doi:10.1038/pcan.2015.2.
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 02/2015; 18(2). DOI:10.1038/pcan.2015.2
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:In an era of personalized medicine, individualized risk assessment using easily available tools on the internet and the literature are appealing. However, uninformed use by clinicians and the public raises potential problems. Herein, we assess the performance of published models to predict insignificant prostate cancer (PCa), using a multi-national low-risk population that may be considered for active surveillance (AS) based on contemporary practice.Methods:Data on men suitable for AS but undergoing upfront radical prostatectomy were pooled from three international academic institutions in Cambridge (UK), Toronto (Canada) and Melbourne (Australia). Four predictive models identified from literature review were assessed for their ability to predict the presence of four definitions of insignificant PCa. Evaluation was performed using area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curves and Brier scores for discrimination, calibration curves and decision curve analysis.Results:A cohort of 460 men meeting the inclusion criteria of all four nomograms was identified. The highest AUCs calculated for any of the four models ranged from 0.618 to 0.664, suggesting weak positive discrimination at best. Models had best discriminative ability for a definition of insignificant disease characterized by organ-confined Gleason score ⩽6 with a total volume ⩽0.5 ml or 1.3 ml. Calibration plots showed moderate range of predictive ability for the Kattan model though this model did not perform well at decision curve analysis.Conclusions:External assessment of models predicting insignificant PCa showed moderate performance at best. Uninformed interpretation may cause undue anxiety or false reassurance and they should be used with caution.Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Disease advance online publication, 10 February 2015; doi:10.1038/pcan.2015.1.
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 02/2015; 18(2). DOI:10.1038/pcan.2015.1
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Conflicting evidence exists regarding the beneficial effects of metformin in prostate cancer. To determine the association between metformin and clinical outcomes in prostate cancer using systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Original articles published in English until third week of July, 2014 were searched in electronic databases (Medline-Ovid, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ProQuest) for studies on metformin use in prostate cancer. The clinical outcomes assessed were: development of biochemical recurrence, metastases or castration-resistant metastatic cancer, all-cause and prostate cancer-specific mortality. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate the pooled hazard ratio (pHR) and their 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Heterogeneity between the studies was examined using I2 statistics. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of findings and publication bias was assessed by the Egger’s regression asymmetry test and contour plot. Results: Out of 230 retrieved citations, eight retrospective cohort studies and one nested-case-control study met the inclusion criteria. Metformin use was marginally associated with reduction in the risk of biochemical recurrence (pHR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.67, 1.01, P-value=0.06, I2=25%, five studies). Metformin use was not significantly associated with metastases (pHR: 0.59, 95% 0.30–1.18, P-value=0.14, I2=74%, three studies), all-cause mortality (pHR: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.67, 1.10, P-value=0.23, I2: 73%, six studies) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (pHR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.43, 1.33, P-value = 0.33, I2=60%, four studies). Pooled estimates for all outcomes varied in sensitivity analysis by diabetes status and primary treatment of prostate cancer. Systematic review revealed mixed findings on metformin use and the risk of CRPC. Conclusions: Metformin may reduce the risk of biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer. Given the potential of selection bias in the observational studies, randomized trials should be designed to assess the efficacy of metformin use in prostate cancer.
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 02/2015; DOI:10.1038/pcan.2014.52
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) is increasingly advocated for prostate cancer detection. There are limited reports of its use in the setting of radiorecurrent disease. Our aim was to assess mp-MRI for detection of radiorecurrent prostate cancer and examine the added value of its functional sequences.Methods:Thirty-seven men with mean age of 69.7 (interquartile range, 66-74) with biochemical failure after external beam radiotherapy underwent mp-MRI (T2-weighted, high b-value, multi-b-value apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging); then transperineal systematic template prostate mapping (TPM) biopsy. Using a locked sequential read paradigm (with the sequence order above), two experienced radiologists independently reported mp-MRI studies using score 1-5. Radiologist scores were matched with TPM histopathology at the hemigland level (n=74). Accuracy statistics were derived for each reader. Interobserver agreement was evaluated using kappa statistics.Results:Receiver-operator characteristic area under curve (AUC) for readers 1 and 2 increased from 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.55-0.80) to 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69-0.91) and from 0.67 (95% CI, 0.55-0.80) to 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.93), respectively, between T2-weighted imaging alone and full mp-MRI reads. Addition of ADC maps and DCE imaging to the examination did not significantly improve AUC for either reader (P=0.08 and 0.47 after adding ADC, P=0.90 and 0.27 after adding DCE imaging) compared with T2+high b-value review. Inter-reader agreement increased from k=0.39 to k=0.65 between T2 and full mp-MRI review.Conclusions:mp-MRI can detect radiorecurrent prostate cancer. The optimal examination included T2-weighted imaging and high b-value DWI; adding ADC maps and DCE imaging did not significantly improve the diagnostic accuracy.Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Disease advance online publication, 3 February 2015; doi:10.1038/pcan.2014.55.
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 02/2015; 18(2). DOI:10.1038/pcan.2014.55
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is now recognized that the tumor microenvironment creates a protective neo-tissue that isolates the tumor from the various defense strategies of the body. Evidence demonstrates that, with successive therapeutic attempts, cancer cells acquire resistance to individual treatment modalities. For example, exposure to cytotoxic drugs results in the survival of approximately 20-30% of the cancer cells as only dividing cells succumb to each toxic exposure. With follow-up treatments, each additional dose results in tumor-associated fibroblasts secreting surface-protective proteins, which enhance cancer cell resistance. Similar outcomes are reported following radiotherapy. These defensive strategies are indicative of evolved capabilities of cancer to assure successful tumor growth through well-established anti-tumor-protective adaptations. As such, successful cancer management requires the activation of multiple cellular 'kill switches' to prevent initiation of diverse protective adaptations. Thermal therapies are unique treatment modalities typically applied as monotherapies (without repetition) thereby denying cancer cells the opportunity to express defensive mutations. Further, the destructive mechanisms of action involved with cryoablation (CA) include both physical and molecular insults resulting in the disruption of multiple defensive strategies that are not cell cycle dependent and adds a damaging structural (physical) element. This review discusses the application and clinical outcomes of CA with an emphasis on the mechanisms of cell death induced by structural, metabolic, vascular and immune processes. The induction of diverse cell death cascades, resulting in the activation of apoptosis and necrosis, allows CA to be characterized as a combinatorial treatment modality. Our understanding of these mechanisms now supports adjunctive therapies that can augment cell death pathways.Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Disease advance online publication, 27 January 2015; doi:10.1038/pcan.2014.54.
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 01/2015; 18(2). DOI:10.1038/pcan.2014.54
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:The diffusion of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) in the United States may have led to adverse patient outcomes due to rapid surgeon adoption and collective inexperience. We hypothesized that throughout the early period of minimally invasive surgery, MIRP patients had inferior outcomes as compared with those who had open radical prostatectomy (ORP).Methods:We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare dataset and identified men who had ORP and MIRP for prostate cancer from 2003-2009. Study endpoints were receipt of subsequent cancer treatment, and evidence of postoperative voiding dysfunction, erectile dysfunction (ED) and bladder outlet obstruction. We used proportional hazards regression to estimate the impact of surgical approach on each endpoint, and included an interaction term to test for modification of the effect of surgical approach by year of surgery.Results:ORP (n=5362) and MIRP (n=1852) patients differed in their clinical and demographic characteristics. Controlling for patient characteristics and surgeon volume, there was no difference in subsequent cancer treatments (hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.05), although MIRP was associated with a higher risk of voiding dysfunction (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.20-1.43) and ED (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.31-1.56), but a lower risk of bladder outlet obstruction (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.97). There was no interaction between approach and year for any outcome. When stratifying the analysis by year, MIRP consistently had higher rates of ED and voiding dysfunction with no substantial improvement over time.Conclusions:MIRP patients had adverse urinary and sexual outcomes throughout the diffusion of minimally invasive surgery. This may have been a result of the rapid adoption of robotic surgery with inadequate surgeon preparedness.Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Disease advance online publication, 16 December 2014; doi:10.1038/pcan.2014.49.
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 12/2014; 18(1). DOI:10.1038/pcan.2014.49
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:To examine whether diagnostic biopsy (B1), for patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer, performed at an outside referral centre (external) compared with our in-house tertiary center (internal), increased the risk of re-classification on the second (confirmatory) biopsy (B2).Methods:Patients on AS were identified from our tertiary center database (1997-2012) with PSA<10, Gleason sum (GS) ⩽6, clinical stage ⩽cT2, ⩽3 positive cores, <50% of single core involved, age ⩽75 years and having a B2. Patients who had <10 cores at B1 and delay in B2 >24 mo were excluded. Depending on center where B1 was performed, men were dichotomized to internal or external groups. All B2 were performed internally. Multivariate logistic regression examined if external B1 was a predictor of re-classification at B2.Results:A total of 375 patients were divided into external (n=71, 18.9%) and internal groups (n=304, 81.1%). At B2, more men in the external group re-classified (26.8%) compared with the internal group (13.8%)(P=0.008). On multivariate analysis, external B1 predicted grade-related re-classification (odds ratio (OR) 4.14, confidence interval (CI) 2.01-8.54, P<0.001) and volume-related re-classification (OR 3.43, CI 1.87-6.25, P<0.001). Other significant predictors for grade-related re-classification were age (OR 2.13 per decade, CI 1.32-3.57, P<0.001), PSA density (OR 2.56 per unit, CI 1.44-4.73, P<0.001), maximum % core involvement (OR 1.04 per percentage point, CI 1.01-1.09, P=0.02) and time between B1 and B2 (OR 1.43 per 6 months, CI 1.21-1.71, P<0.001).Conclusion:At our institution, patients on AS who had their initial B1 performed externally were more likely to have adverse pathological features and re-classify on internal B2.Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Disease advance online publication, 9 December 2014; doi:10.1038/pcan.2014.48.
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 12/2014; 18(1). DOI:10.1038/pcan.2014.48
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:To determine the effect of statins and metformin in combination on biochemical recurrence (BCR) among diabetic men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).Methods:Diabetic men undergoing RP at our institution from January 1995 to March 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Recipients of adjuvant radiation or hormonal therapy were excluded. Statin and/or metformin use was determined through review of electronic records. BCR-free survival was plotted using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and the effect of statins and metformin on BCR was assessed via a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model.Results:Seven hundred and sixty-seven men met the inclusion criteria. Seventy-six (9.9%) were users of statins only, 56 (7.3%) were users of metformin only and 42 (5.5%) were dual users. Median follow-up time was 27 months. Dual users were less likely than nonusers or users of either medication alone to have a biopsy Gleason sum of 8-10 (P=0.033), and tended towards a lower rate of pathological T stage of pT3 or higher (P=0.064). Dual users had the highest 2-year and 5-year BCR-free survival, although this was not statistically significant (P=0.205). On multivariate regression, neither statin nor metformin use alone was significantly associated with BCR-free survival. However, their interaction led to a significantly lower BCR risk than would be expected from each medication's independent effects (hazard ratio=0.2; P=0.037).Conclusions:The combination of statins and metformin in men undergoing RP for prostate cancer (PCa) may be associated with a lower BCR risk than would be predicted based on the independent effects of both medications. A synergism between these two agents is biologically plausible based on our current understanding of their diverse molecular pathways of action. The results of future clinical trials involving the use of either medication in men with PCa should be carefully assessed for confirmatory evidence of such a relationship.Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Disease advance online publication, 18 November 2014; doi:10.1038/pcan.2014.47.
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 11/2014; 18(1). DOI:10.1038/pcan.2014.47