-
The Oncologist Jul 2021Prostate cancer remains the leading diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of death among American men. Despite improvements in screening modalities, diagnostics,...
Prostate cancer remains the leading diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of death among American men. Despite improvements in screening modalities, diagnostics, and treatment, disparities exist among Black men in this country. The primary objective of this systematic review is to describe the reported disparities in screening, diagnostics, and treatments as well as efforts to alleviate these disparities through community and educational outreach efforts. Critical review took place of retrospective, prospective, and socially descriptive data of English language publications in the PubMed database. Despite more advanced presentation, lower rates of screening and diagnostic procedures, and low rates of trial inclusion, subanalyses have shown that various modalities of therapy are quite effective in Black populations. Moreover, patients treated on prospective clinical trials and within equal-access care environments have shown similar outcomes regardless of race. Additional prospective studies and enhanced participation in screening, diagnostic and genetic testing, clinical trials, and community-based educational endeavors are important to ensure equitable progress in prostate cancer for all patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Notable progress has been made with therapeutic advances for prostate cancer, but racial disparities continue to exist. Differing rates in screening and utility in diagnostic procedures play a role in these disparities. Black patients often present with more advanced disease, higher prostate-specific antigen, and other adverse factors, but outcomes can be attenuated in trials or in equal-access care environments. Recent data have shown that multiple modalities of therapy are quite effective in Black populations. Novel and bold hypotheses to increase inclusion in clinical trial, enhance decentralized trial efforts, and enact successful models of patient navigation and community partnership are vital to ensure continued progress in prostate cancer disparities.
Topics: Black or African American; Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Male; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; United States
PubMed: 33683758
DOI: 10.1002/onco.13749 -
World Journal of Urology Oct 2021The value of Histoscanning™ (HS) in prostate cancer (PCa) imaging is much debated, although it has been used in clinical practice for more than 10 years now. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
The value of Histoscanning™ (HS) in prostate cancer (PCa) imaging is much debated, although it has been used in clinical practice for more than 10 years now.
OBJECTIVE
To summarize the data on HS from various PCa diagnostic perspectives to determine its potential.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a systematic search using 2 databases (Medline and Scopus) on the query "Histoscan*". The primary endpoint was HS accuracy. The secondary endpoints were: correlation of lesion volume by HS and histology, ability of HS to predict extracapsular extension or seminal vesicle invasion.
RESULTS
HS improved cancer detection rate "per core", OR = 16.37 (95% CI 13.2; 20.3), p < 0.0001, I = 98% and "per patient", OR = 1.83 (95% CI 1.51; 2.21), p < 0.0001, I = 95%. The pooled accuracy was markedly low: sensitivity - 0.2 (95% CI 0.19-0.21), specificity - 0.12 (0.11-0.13), AUC 0.12. 8 of 10 studiers showed no additional value for HS. The pooled accuracy with histology after RP was relatively better, yet still very low: sensitivity - 0.56 (95% CI 0.5-0.63), specificity - 0.23 (0.18-0.28), AUC 0.4. 9 of 12 studies did not show any benefit of HS.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis does not see the incremental value in comparing prostate Histoscanning with conventional TRUS in prostate cancer screening and targeted biopsy. HS proved to be slightly more accurate in predicting extracapsular extension on RP, but the available data does not allow us to draw any conclusions on its effectiveness in practice. Histoscanning is a modification of ultrasound for prostate cancer visualization. The available data suggest its low accuracy in screening and detecting of prostate cancer.
Topics: Biopsy, Large-Core Needle; Humans; Male; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Odds Ratio; Prostatic Neoplasms; Seminal Vesicles; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tumor Burden; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 33825986
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03684-8 -
Andrology Jul 2015The results of published literature focusing on the association between vasectomy and the incidence of prostate cancer are often inconsistent. We conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The results of published literature focusing on the association between vasectomy and the incidence of prostate cancer are often inconsistent. We conducted a meta-analysis to provide a quantitative assessment of the association between vasectomy and the risk of prostate cancer. We identified all cohort studies by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library before August 2014. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale checklist. Summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived using a fixed or random effects model, depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. Nine cohort studies that spanned across two continents involving 1 127 096 participants (ages 20-75) with 7539 cases of prostate cancer cases were included in the meta-analysis. The overall combined relative risks for men with the reference group were 1.08 (95% CI: 0.87-1.34) in a random effects, however, the association was not statistically significant (p = 0.48). Estimates of total effects were generally consistent in the sensitivity and subgroup analyses. No evidence of publication bias was observed. This meta-analysis indicated that vasectomy may not contribute to the risk of prostate cancer. The conclusion might have a far-reaching significance for the public health, especially in countries with high prevalence rates of vasectomy.
Topics: Cohort Studies; Humans; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Vasectomy
PubMed: 26041315
DOI: 10.1111/andr.12040 -
The Lancet. Oncology Dec 2018Rapid developments in imaging and treatment with radiopharmaceuticals targeting prostate cancer pose issues for the development of guidelines for their appropriate use....
Rapid developments in imaging and treatment with radiopharmaceuticals targeting prostate cancer pose issues for the development of guidelines for their appropriate use. To tackle this problem, international experts representing medical oncologists, urologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, and nuclear medicine specialists convened at the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 1 meeting to deliver a balanced perspective on available data and clinical experience of imaging in prostate cancer, which had been supported by a systematic review of the literature and a modified Delphi process. Relevant conclusions included the following: diphosphonate bone scanning and contrast-enhanced CT are mentioned but rarely recommended for most patients in clinical guidelines; MRI (whole-body or multiparametric) and prostate cancer-targeted PET are frequently suggested, but the specific contexts in which these methods affect practice are not established; sodium fluoride-18 for PET-CT bone scanning is not widely advocated, whereas gallium-68 or fluorine-18 prostate-specific membrane antigen gain acceptance; and, palliative treatment with bone targeting radiopharmaceuticals (rhenium-186, samarium-153, or strontium-89) have largely been replaced by radium-223 on the basis of the survival benefit that was reported in prospective trials, and by other systemic therapies with proven survival benefits. Although the advances in MRI and PET-CT have improved the accuracy of imaging, the effects of these new methods on clinical outcomes remains to be established. Improved communication between imagers and clinicians and more multidisciplinary input in clinical trial design are essential to encourage imaging insights into clinical decision making.
Topics: Biomarkers, Tumor; Consensus; Delphi Technique; Humans; Male; Molecular Imaging; Predictive Value of Tests; Prostatic Neoplasms; Theranostic Nanomedicine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30507436
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30604-1 -
BJU International May 2023To investigate the prevalence of prostate cancer in men attending evaluation for haematuria, as this could help healthcare providers to determine whether men with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the prevalence of prostate cancer in men attending evaluation for haematuria, as this could help healthcare providers to determine whether men with haematuria should have prostate examinations performed.
METHODS
The study was performed according to a pre-specified protocol uploaded to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42022299383). A systematic search of MEDLINE, Ovid and Google Scholar was performed in December 2021. Two independent researchers evaluated all titles, available abstracts, and full texts. We included studies on adult men (aged ≥18 years) describing haematuria and prostate cancer.
RESULTS
We screened 4252 titles and abstracts when available and assessed 350 studies in full text. In total, 65 studies were included and 42 was summarised in a meta-analysis. In total, 18 752 men with haematuria were included, and the pooled prevalence (95% confidence interval [CI]) of prostate cancer was 3.0% (2.0-4.1%). In men with macroscopic haematuria, the pooled prevalence (95% CI) of prostate cancer was 5.9% (2.9-9.9%; n = 265/5373). In men with microscopic haematuria, the pooled prevalence (95% CI) of prostate cancer was 1.4% (0.8-2.2%; n = 71/6642).
CONCLUSION
Our findings indicate that the prevalence of prostate cancer is considerable in men attending evaluation for haematuria. Therefore, digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen measurement should become a standard procedure for all men with haematuria, especially for men with macroscopic haematuria.
Topics: Male; Adult; Humans; Adolescent; Hematuria; Prevalence; Prostatic Neoplasms; Digital Rectal Examination
PubMed: 36522728
DOI: 10.1111/bju.15950 -
BJU International Oct 2017Active surveillance (AS) is an increasingly prevalent treatment choice for low grade prostate cancer. Eligibility criteria for AS are varied and it is unclear if family... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Active surveillance (AS) is an increasingly prevalent treatment choice for low grade prostate cancer. Eligibility criteria for AS are varied and it is unclear if family history of prostate cancer should be used as an exclusion criterion when considering men for AS. To determine whether family history plays a significant role in the progression of prostate cancer for men undergoing active surveillance, PubMed searches of 'family history and prostate cancer', 'family history and prostate cancer progression' and 'factors of prostate cancer progression' were used to identify research publications about the relationship between family history and prostate cancer progression. These searches generated 536 papers that were screened and reviewed. Six publications were ultimately included in this analysis. Review of the six publications suggests that family history does not increase the risk of prostate cancer progression, whilst a subgroup analysis in one study found that family history increases the risk of prostate cancer progression only in African-Americans. A family history of prostate cancer does not appear to increase a patient's risk of having more aggressive prostate cancer and is therefore unlikely to be an important factor in determining eligibility for AS. Further studies are needed to better understand the relationship between race, family history, and eligibility for AS.
Topics: Aged; Early Detection of Cancer; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Patient Selection; Pedigree; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Risk Assessment; United States; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 28371016
DOI: 10.1111/bju.13862 -
Medicine Jul 2018The relationship between male pattern baldness and incidence of prostate cancer remains inconclusive. Hence, we performed the present meta-analysis based on all eligible... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The relationship between male pattern baldness and incidence of prostate cancer remains inconclusive. Hence, we performed the present meta-analysis based on all eligible cohort and case-control studies.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed in October 2017 based on PubMed and Web of Science databases. Pooled relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated with a DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 15 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, no statistically significant association between baldness (any pattern) and prostate cancer risk was identified (RR: 1.03, 95% CI 0.96-1.11). There was obvious heterogeneity across included studies (P < .078 for heterogeneity, I = 36.4%). When subgroup analysis by types of baldness, a statistically significant association was observed for vertex baldness (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.05-1.46) but not for other types of baldness.
CONCLUSION
Individuals with vertex baldness may have an increased risk of prostate cancer. Given the obvious heterogeneity and null results in overall analysis and most of subgroup analyses, further large well-designed prospective cohort studies are warranted to confirm our preliminary findings.
Topics: Alopecia; Humans; Incidence; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Risk Factors
PubMed: 29995779
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011379 -
Radiotherapy and Oncology : Journal of... Jun 2024High-level evidence on hypofractionated proton therapy (PT) for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients is currently missing. The aim of this study... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
High-level evidence on hypofractionated proton therapy (PT) for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients is currently missing. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic literature review to compare the toxicity and effectiveness of curative radiotherapy with photon therapy (XRT) or PT in PCa.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to April 2022. Men with a diagnosis of PCa who underwent curative hypofractionated RT treatment (PT or XRT) were included. Risk of grade (G) ≥ 2 acute and late genitourinary (GU) OR gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were the primary outcomes of interest. Secondary outcomes were five-year biochemical relapse-free survival (b-RFS), clinical relapse-free, distant metastasis-free, and prostate cancer-specific survival. Heterogeneity between study-specific estimates was assessed using Chi-square statistics and measured with the I2 index (heterogeneity measure across studies).
RESULTS
A total of 230 studies matched inclusion criteria and, due to overlapped populations, 160 were included in the present analysis. Significant lower rates of G ≥ 2 acute GI incidence (2 % vs 7 %) and improved 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (95 % vs 91 %) were observed in the PT arm compared to XRT. PT benefits in 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival were maintained for the moderate hypofractionated arm (p-value 0.0122) and among patients in intermediate and low-risk classes (p-values < 0.0001 and 0.0368, respectively). No statistically relevant differences were found for the other considered outcomes.
CONCLUSION
The present study supports that PT is safe and effective for localized PCa treatment, however, more data from RCTs are needed to draw solid evidence in this setting and further effort must be made to identify the patient subgroups that could benefit the most from PT.
Topics: Humans; Male; Photons; Prostatic Neoplasms; Proton Therapy; Radiation Dose Hypofractionation
PubMed: 38561122
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110264 -
BMC Cancer Jan 2018There is ongoing debate about the harms and benefits of a national prostate cancer screening programme. Several model-based cost-effectiveness analyses have been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is ongoing debate about the harms and benefits of a national prostate cancer screening programme. Several model-based cost-effectiveness analyses have been developed to determine whether the benefits of prostate cancer screening outweigh the costs and harms caused by over-detection and over-treatment, and the different approaches may impact results.
METHODS
To identify models of prostate cancer used to assess the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening strategies, a systematic review of articles published since 2006 was conducted using the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Medline, EMBASE and HTA databases. The NICE website, UK National Screening website, reference lists from relevant studies were also searched and experts contacted. Key model features, inputs, and cost-effectiveness recommendations were extracted.
RESULTS
Ten studies were included. Four of the studies identified some screening strategies to be potentially cost-effective at a PSA threshold of 3.0 ng/ml, including single screen at 55 years, annual or two yearly screens starting at 55 years old, and delayed radical treatment. Prostate cancer screening was modelled using both individual and cohort level models. Model pathways to reflect cancer progression varied widely, Gleason grade was not always considered and clinical verification was rarely outlined. Where quality of life was considered, the methods used did not follow recommended practice and key issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment were not addressed by all studies.
CONCLUSION
The cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening is unclear. There was no consensus on the optimal model type or approach to model prostate cancer progression. Due to limited data availability, individual patient-level modelling is unlikely to increase the accuracy of cost-effectiveness results compared with cohort-level modelling, but is more suitable when assessing adaptive screening strategies. Modelling prostate cancer is challenging and the justification for the data used and the approach to modelling natural disease progression was lacking. Country-specific data are required and recommended methods used to incorporate quality of life. Influence of data inputs on cost-effectiveness results need to be comprehensively assessed and the model structure and assumptions verified by clinical experts.
Topics: Aged; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Decision Support Techniques; Disease Progression; Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Prostatic Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; United Kingdom
PubMed: 29347916
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-017-3974-1 -
PloS One 2015Gynecomastia and/or mastodynia is a common medical problem in patients receiving antiandrogen (bicalutamide or flutamide) treatment for prostate cancer; up to 70% of... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Gynecomastia and/or mastodynia is a common medical problem in patients receiving antiandrogen (bicalutamide or flutamide) treatment for prostate cancer; up to 70% of these patients result to be affected; furthermore, this can jeopardise patients' quality of life.
AIMS
To systematically review the quality of evidence of the current literature regarding treatment options for bicalutamide-induced gynecomastia, including efficacy, safety and patients' quality of life.
METHODS
The PubMed, Medline, Scopus, The Cochrane Library and SveMed+ databases were systematically searched between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2014. All searches were undertaken between January and February 2015. The search phrase used was:"gynecomastia AND treatment AND prostate cancer". Two reviewers assessed 762 titles and abstracts identified. The search and review process was done in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The PICOS (patients, intervention, comparator, outcomes and study design) process was used to specify inclusion criteria. Quality of evidence was rated according to GRADE.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Primary outcomes were: treatment effects, number of complications and side effects. Secondary outcome was: Quality of Life.
RESULTS
Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria and are analysed in this review. Five studies reported pharmacological intervention with tamoxifen and/or anastrozole, either as prophylactic or therapeutic treatment. Four studies reported radiotherapy as prophylactic and/or therapeutic treatment. Two studies compared pharmacological treatment to radiotherapy. Most of the studies were randomized with varying risk of bias. According to GRADE, quality of evidence was moderate to high.
CONCLUSIONS
Bicalutamide-induced gynecomastia and/or mastodynia can effectively be managed by oral tamoxifen (10-20 mg daily) or radiotherapy without relevant side effects. Prophylaxis or therapeutic treatment with tamoxifen results to be more effective than radiotherapy.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Gynecomastia; Humans; Male; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Prostatic Neoplasms; Quality of Life
PubMed: 26308532
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136094