-
European Urology Aug 2023Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Understanding the epidemiology and risk factors of the disease is paramount to improve primary and... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Understanding the epidemiology and risk factors of the disease is paramount to improve primary and secondary prevention strategies.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and summarize the current evidence on the descriptive epidemiology, large screening studies, diagnostic techniques, and risk factors of PCa.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
PCa incidence and mortality rates for 2020 were obtained from the GLOBOCAN database of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. A systematic search was performed in July 2022 using PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE biomedical databases. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022359728).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Globally, PCa is the second most common cancer, with the highest incidence in North and South America, Europe, Australia, and the Caribbean. Risk factors include age, family history, and genetic predisposition. Additional factors may include smoking, diet, physical activity, specific medications, and occupational factors. As PCa screening has become more accepted, newer approaches such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biomarkers have been implemented to identify patients who are likely to harbor significant tumors. Limitations of this review include the evidence being derived from meta-analyses of mostly retrospective studies.
CONCLUSIONS
PCa remains the second most common cancer among men worldwide. PCa screening is gaining acceptance and will likely reduce PCa mortality at the cost of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Increasing use of MRI and biomarkers for the detection of PCa may mitigate some of the negative consequences of screening.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Prostate cancer (PCa) remains the second most common cancer among men, and screening for PCa is likely to increase in the future. Improved diagnostic techniques can help reduce the number of men who need to be diagnosed and treated to save one life. Avoidable risk factors for PCa may include factors such as smoking, diet, physical activity, specific medications, and certain occupations.
Topics: Male; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostate; Risk Factors; Prostate-Specific Antigen
PubMed: 37202314
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.021 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2018To investigate the efficacy and safety of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to screen for prostate cancer. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the efficacy and safety of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to screen for prostate cancer.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, OpenGrey, LILACS, and Medline, and search of scientific meeting abstracts and trial registers to April 2018.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised controlled trials comparing PSA screening with usual care in men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer.
DATA EXTRACTION
At least two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of eligible studies. A parallel guideline committee Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. We used a random effects model to obtain pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) and, when feasible, conducted subgroup analyses (defined a priori) based on age, frequency of screening, family history, ethnicity, and socioeconomic level, as well as a sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
Five randomised controlled trials, enrolling 721 718 men, were included. Studies varied with respect to screening frequency and intervals, PSA thresholds for biopsy, and risk of bias. When considering the whole body of evidence, screening probably has no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.96, 0.85 to 1.08; low certainty). Sensitivity analysis of studies at lower risk of bias (n=1) also demonstrates that screening seems to have no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 1.0, 0.98 to 1.02; moderate certainty) but may have a small effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.79, 0.69 to 0.91; moderate certainty). This corresponds to one less death from prostate cancer per 1000 men screened over 10 years. Direct comparative data on biopsy and treatment related complications from the included trials were limited. Using modelling, we estimated that for every 1000 men screened, approximately 1, 3, and 25 more men would be hospitalised for sepsis, require pads for urinary incontinence, and report erectile dysfunction, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
At best, screening for prostate cancer leads to a small reduction in disease-specific mortality over 10 years but has does not affect overall mortality. Clinicians and patients considering PSA based screening need to weigh these benefits against the potential short and long term harms of screening, including complications from biopsies and subsequent treatment, as well as the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration number CRD42016042347.
Topics: Aged; Biopsy; Early Detection of Cancer; Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Mass Screening; Medical Overuse; Middle Aged; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 30185521
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k3519 -
European Urology Feb 2021To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy...
OBJECTIVE
To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
The panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2016 and 2020. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. Risk-adapted screening should be offered to men at increased risk from the age of 45 yr and to breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, who have been confirmed to be at risk of early and aggressive disease (mainly BRAC2), from around 40 yr of age. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is performed, a combination of targeted and systematic biopsies must be offered. There is currently no place for the routine use of tissue-based biomarkers. Whilst prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography is the most sensitive staging procedure, the lack of outcome benefit remains a major limitation. Active surveillance (AS) should always be discussed with low-risk patients, as well as with selected intermediate-risk patients with favourable International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the AS journey and the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A strong recommendation to consider moderate hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term hormonal treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for their use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Updated prostate cancer guidelines are presented, addressing screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. These guidelines rely on the available scientific evidence, and new insights will need to be considered and included on a regular basis. In some cases, the supporting evidence for new treatment options is not yet strong enough to provide a recommendation, which is why continuous updating is important. Patients must be fully informed of all relevant options and, together with their treating physicians, decide on the most optimal management for them.
Topics: Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 33172724
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042 -
JAMA Internal Medicine Nov 2023Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate lifetime gained with cancer screening.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized clinical trials with more than 9 years of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality and estimated lifetime gained for 6 commonly used cancer screening tests, comparing screening with no screening. The analysis included the general population. MEDLINE and the Cochrane library databases were searched, and the last search was performed October 12, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for colorectal cancer; computed tomography screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Searches and selection criteria followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data were independently extracted by a single observer, and pooled analysis of clinical trials was used for analyses.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Life-years gained by screening was calculated as the difference in observed lifetime in the screening vs the no screening groups and computed absolute lifetime gained in days with 95% CIs for each screening test from meta-analyses or single randomized clinical trials.
RESULTS
In total, 2 111 958 individuals enrolled in randomized clinical trials comparing screening with no screening using 6 different tests were eligible. Median follow-up was 10 years for computed tomography, prostate-specific antigen testing, and colonoscopy; 13 years for mammography; and 15 years for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The only screening test with a significant lifetime gain was sigmoidoscopy (110 days; 95% CI, 0-274 days). There was no significant difference following mammography (0 days: 95% CI, -190 to 237 days), prostate cancer screening (37 days; 95% CI, -37 to 73 days), colonoscopy (37 days; 95% CI, -146 to 146 days), FOBT screening every year or every other year (0 days; 95% CI, -70.7 to 70.7 days), and lung cancer screening (107 days; 95% CI, -286 days to 430 days).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy.
Topics: Male; Humans; Early Detection of Cancer; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Mass Screening; Prostatic Neoplasms; Lung Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Colorectal Neoplasms; Colonoscopy; Occult Blood
PubMed: 37639247
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.3798 -
European Urology Jul 2023Whether prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) should replace conventional imaging modalities (CIM) for initial staging of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Head-to-head Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography and Conventional Imaging Modalities for Initial Staging of Intermediate- to High-risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
CONTEXT
Whether prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) should replace conventional imaging modalities (CIM) for initial staging of intermediate-high risk prostate cancer (PCa) requires definitive evidence on their relative diagnostic abilities.
OBJECTIVE
To perform head-to-head comparisons of PSMA-PET and CIM including multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), computed tomography (CT) and bone scan (BS) for upfront staging of tumour, nodal, and bone metastasis.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A search of the PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Scopus databases was conducted from inception to December 2021. Only studies in which patients underwent both PSMA-PET and CIM and imaging was referenced against histopathology or composite reference standards were included. Quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) checklist and its extension for comparative reviews (QUADAS-C). Pairwise comparisons of the sensitivity and specificity of PSMA-PET versus CIM were performed by adding imaging modality as a covariate to bivariate mixed-effects meta-regression models. The likelihood ratio test was applied to determine whether statistically significant differences existed.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 31 studies (2431 patients) were included. PSMA-PET/MRI was more sensitive than mpMRI for detection of extra-prostatic extension (78.7% versus 52.9%) and seminal vesicle invasion (66.7% versus 51.0%). For nodal staging, PSMA-PET was more sensitive and specific than mpMRI (73.7% versus 38.9%, 97.5% versus 82.6%) and CT (73.2% versus 38.5%, 97.8% versus 83.6%). For bone metastasis staging, PSMA-PET was more sensitive and specific than BS with or without single-photon emission computerised tomography (98.0% versus 73.0%, 96.2% versus 79.1%). A time interval between imaging modalities >1 month was identified as a source of heterogeneity across all nodal staging analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Direct comparisons revealed that PSMA-PET significantly outperforms CIM, which suggests that PSMA-PET should be used as a first-line approach for the initial staging of PCa.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We reviewed direct comparisons of the ability of a scan method called PSMA-PET (prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography) and current imaging methods to detect the spread of prostate cancer outside the prostate gland. We found that PSMA-PET is more accurate for detection of the spread of prostate cancer to adjacent tissue, nearby lymph nodes, and bones.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostate; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Positron-Emission Tomography; Prostatic Neoplasms; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Gallium Radioisotopes; Neoplasm Staging
PubMed: 37032189
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.03.001 -
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine... Mar 2021In recent years, the clinical availability of scanners for integrated positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has enabled the practical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
In recent years, the clinical availability of scanners for integrated positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has enabled the practical potential of multimodal, combined metabolic-receptor, anatomical, and functional imaging to be explored. The present systematic review and meta-analysis summarize the diagnostic information provided by PET/MRI in patients with prostate cancer (PCa).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A literature search was conducted in three different databases. The terms used were "choline" or "prostate-specific membrane antigen - PSMA" AND "prostate cancer" or "prostate" AND "PET/MRI" or "PET MRI" or "PET-MRI" or "positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging." All relevant records identified were combined, and the full texts were retrieved. Reports were excluded if (1) they did not consider hybrid PET/MRI; or (2) the sample size was < 10 patients; or (3) the raw data were not enough to enable the completion of a 2 × 2 contingency table.
RESULTS
Fifty articles were eligible for systematic review, and 23 for meta-analysis. The pooled data concerned 2104 patients. Initial disease staging was the main indication for PET/MRI in 24 studies. Radiolabeled PSMA was the tracer most frequently used. In primary tumors, the pooled sensitivity for the patient-based analysis was 94.9%. At restaging, the pooled detection rate was 80.9% and was higher for radiolabeled PSMA than for choline (81.8% and 77.3%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
PET/MRI proved highly sensitive in detecting primary PCa, with a high detection rate for recurrent disease, particularly when radiolabeled PSMA was used.
Topics: Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Positron-Emission Tomography; Prostatic Neoplasms; Radiopharmaceuticals; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 32901351
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-05025-0 -
European Urology Jul 2019Many trials are evaluating therapies for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Many trials are evaluating therapies for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review trials of prostate radiotherapy.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Using a prospective framework (framework for adaptive meta-analysis [FAME]), we prespecified methods before any trial results were known. We searched extensively for eligible trials and asked investigators when results would be available. We could then anticipate that a definitive meta-analysis of the effects of prostate radiotherapy was possible. We obtained prepublication, unpublished, and harmonised results from investigators.
INTERVENTION
We included trials that randomised men to prostate radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or ADT only.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Hazard ratios (HRs) for the effects of prostate radiotherapy on survival, progression-free survival (PFS), failure-free survival (FFS), biochemical progression, and subgroup interactions were combined using fixed-effect meta-analysis.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
We identified one ongoing (PEACE-1) and two completed (HORRAD and STAMPEDE) eligible trials. Pooled results of the latter (2126 men; 90% of those eligible) showed no overall improvement in survival (HR=0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.04, p=0.195) or PFS (HR=0.94, 95% CI 0.84-1.05, p=0.238) with prostate radiotherapy. There was an overall improvement in biochemical progression (HR=0.74, 95% CI 0.67-0.82, p=0.94×10) and FFS (HR=0.76, 95% CI 0.69-0.84, p=0.64×10), equivalent to ∼10% benefit at 3yr. The effect of prostate radiotherapy varied by metastatic burden-a pattern consistent across trials and outcome measures, including survival (<5, ≥5; interaction HR=1.47, 95% CI 1.11-1.94, p=0.007). There was 7% improvement in 3-yr survival in men with fewer than five bone metastases.
CONCLUSIONS
Prostate radiotherapy should be considered for men with mHSPC with a low metastatic burden.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Prostate cancer that has spread to other parts of the body (metastases) is usually treated with hormone therapy. In men with fewer than five bone metastases, addition of prostate radiotherapy helped them live longer and should be considered.
Topics: Bone Neoplasms; Disease-Free Survival; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Male; Orchiectomy; Progression-Free Survival; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Rate; Tumor Burden
PubMed: 30826218
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.003 -
JAMA May 2018Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among US men. (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among US men.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review evidence on prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening, treatments for localized prostate cancer, and prebiopsy risk calculators to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.
DATA SOURCES
Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Registries and Databases from July 1, 2011, through July 15, 2017, with a surveillance search on February 1, 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
English-language reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening; cohort studies reporting harms; RCTs and cohort studies of active localized cancer treatments vs conservative approaches (eg, active surveillance, watchful waiting); external validations of prebiopsy risk calculators to identify aggressive cancers.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Prostate cancer and all-cause mortality; false-positive screening results, biopsy complications, overdiagnosis; adverse effects of active treatments. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for treatment harms.
RESULTS
Sixty-three studies in 104 publications were included (N = 1 904 950). Randomization to PSA screening was not associated with reduced risk of prostate cancer mortality in either a US trial with substantial control group contamination (n = 76 683) or a UK trial with low adherence to a single PSA screen (n = 408 825) but was associated with significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality in a European trial (n = 162 243; relative risk [RR], 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69-0.91]; absolute risk reduction, 1.1 deaths per 10 000 person-years [95% CI, 0.5-1.8]). Of 61 604 men screened in the European trial, 17.8% received false-positive results. In 3 cohorts (n = 15 136), complications requiring hospitalization occurred in 0.5% to 1.6% of men undergoing biopsy after abnormal screening findings. Overdiagnosis was estimated to occur in 20.7% to 50.4% of screen-detected cancers. In an RCT of men with screen-detected prostate cancer (n = 1643), neither radical prostatectomy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.21-1.93]) nor radiation therapy (HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.15-1.69]) were associated with significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality vs active monitoring, although each was associated with significantly lower risk of metastatic disease. Relative to conservative management, radical prostatectomy was associated with increased risk of urinary incontinence (pooled RR, 2.27 [95% CI, 1.82-2.84]; 3 trials; n = 1796) and erectile dysfunction (pooled RR, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.62-2.04]; 2 trials; n = 883). Relative to conservative management (8 cohort studies; n = 3066), radiation therapy was associated with increased risk of erectile dysfunction (pooled RR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.20-1.42]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
PSA screening may reduce prostate cancer mortality risk but is associated with false-positive results, biopsy complications, and overdiagnosis. Compared with conservative approaches, active treatments for screen-detected prostate cancer have unclear effects on long-term survival but are associated with sexual and urinary difficulties.
Topics: Age Factors; Aged; Biopsy; Early Detection of Cancer; False Positive Reactions; Humans; Male; Medical Overuse; Middle Aged; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 29801018
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.3712 -
Cureus Feb 2023The prognosis in the setting of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients (mCRPC) remains limited. Therefore, novel treatment strategies remain an unmet... (Review)
Review
The prognosis in the setting of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients (mCRPC) remains limited. Therefore, novel treatment strategies remain an unmet need. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) emerged as a new drug concept with the potential to deliver a cytotoxic payload with limited off-target toxicity and potentially bystander effect. Following the success of ADCs in breast cancer and urothelial tumours, their activity in prostate cancer is now under investigation. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to identify published and ongoing prospective clinical trials regarding ADC treatment in prostate cancer. A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science was conducted as per PRISMA guidelines to identify prospective clinical trials of ADCin prostate cancer. Trials are currently ongoing on ClinicalTrials.gov and in the EU. The Clinical Trials Register was also identified. Abstracts, publications in languages other than English, review articles, retrospective analyses, and phase I trials were excluded. A total of six phase I/II prospective clinical trials already published were included. Seven ongoing trials were also identified. All studies were in the refractory/advanced tumour setting, and two included only mCRPC patients. The ADC targets were prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), trophoblast cell surface antigen-2 (TROP-2), six-transmembrane epithelial antigen of prostate-1 (STEAP-1), tissue factor (TF), delta-like protein 3 (DLL-3), B7-H3 family of proteins (B7-H3), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Regarding the efficacy of PSMA ADC treatment in the second-line or beyond mCRPC setting, a PSA ≥ 50% decline rate in 14% of all treated patients was reported. One patient achieved a complete response with TROP-2 ADC. Overall, a wide range of safety issues were raised, particularly in connection with neuropathy and hematologic toxicity. Novel therapies have been changing the scope of treatment in mCRPC. ADCs seem to provide efficacy benefits, even with potential toxicity. The results of most prospective ongoing studies are still awaited, and a longer follow-up time is warranted to evaluate the real impact of ADCs in PCa.
PubMed: 36874351
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.34490 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions.
SEARCH METHODS
Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.
Topics: Communication; Conservative Treatment; Decision Support Techniques; Elective Surgical Procedures; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Patient Education as Topic; Patient Participation; Physician-Patient Relations; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28402085
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5