-
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica = the... Feb 2018To evaluate the available evidence on the standard diagnosis and management of men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and providing the timely... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
To evaluate the available evidence on the standard diagnosis and management of men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and providing the timely update on new pharmacological treatments.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic literature search from from January 2000 until March 2017 was performed by combining the following MESH terms: castrate resistant prostate cancer, abiraterone, enzalutamide, 223radium, sipuleucel-T, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, resistance mechanisms, resistance to androgen deprivation, androgen receptor (AR) mutations, amplifications, splice variants, and AR alterations. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
In the few last years the introduction of new treatment modalities as abiraterone or enzalutamide have significantly change our prospective in mCRPC management increasing patients survival and quality of life. The standard imaging modalities to define the presence of regional or distant metastasis or the different resistant mechanisms to the available treatments are still an issue of debate, however several studies are ongoing to define the standard of care and to reduce treatments' resistance. Data from ongoing phase III trials are awaited to introduce in clinical new effective treatments that can be used in patients resistant to abiraterone/enzalutamide or more probably in a different phase of the disease.
CONCLUSIONS
Castration resistant prostate cancer is now the key issue in prostate cancer management and research. Our challenge in the near future will be to identify the right treatment or better the right combination and sequencing of treatments that should be used in patients with mCRPC or even with advanced prostate cancer.
Topics: Humans; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Quality of Life
PubMed: 28707844
DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.17.02976-9 -
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases Mar 2022Current diagnostic methods for prostate cancer are invasive and lack specificity towards aggressive forms of the disease, which can lead to overtreatment. A new class of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Current diagnostic methods for prostate cancer are invasive and lack specificity towards aggressive forms of the disease, which can lead to overtreatment. A new class of non-invasive alternatives is under development, in which urinary biomarkers are detected using biosensing devices to offer rapid and accurate prostate cancer diagnosis. These different approaches are systematically reviewed and their potential for translation to clinical practice is evaluated.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed in May 2021 using PubMed Medline database, Embase, and Web of Science. The objective was to review the structural designs and performance of biosensors tested on urine samples from patients with prostate cancer.
RESULTS
A total of 76 records were identified. After screening and eligibility, 14 articles were included and are discussed in this paper. The biosensors were discussed based on the target biomarkers and detection technologies used, as well as the results of the clinical studies. Most of the works reported good discrimination between patients with prostate cancer and controls.
CONCLUSIONS
This review highlights the potential of urinary biosensors for non-invasive prostate cancer detection. However, clinical studies have so far only been conducted on small cohorts of patient, with large scale trials still needed to validate the proposed approaches. Overall, the consensus arising from the proof of concepts studies reviewed here, is that an adequate combination of biomarkers into multiplex biosensor platforms is required to achieve accurate diagnostic tests. Furthermore, whether such devices can discriminate between aggressive and indolent cancer has not yet been addressed, because it entails optimized biomarkers panels and long-term clinical trials.
Topics: Biomarkers; Biosensing Techniques; Humans; Male; Prostate; Prostatic Neoplasms; Urinary Tract
PubMed: 34997229
DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00480-8 -
Chinese Medical Journal Dec 2017The optimal management strategy for prostate cancer (PCa) remains controversial. We performed a systemic review of current progress and controversies regarding the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The optimal management strategy for prostate cancer (PCa) remains controversial. We performed a systemic review of current progress and controversies regarding the diagnosis and treatment of PCa.
DATA SOURCES
We searched PubMed for recently published articles up to July 2017 using the following key words: "prostate cancer," "progress," "controversy," "immunotherapy," and "prevention."
STUDY SELECTION
Articles were obtained and reviewed to provide a systematic review of the current progress and controversies regarding PCa management.
RESULTS
The value of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening remains controversial, but PSA screening is recommended to facilitate the early diagnosis of PCa in high-risk groups. Prostate biopsy via the transrectal or perineal approach has both advantages and disadvantages. There was a significant correlation between testosterone levels and PCa prognosis. The current research is focused on the mechanisms responsible for PCa. Active surveillance has been proposed as a management strategy for low-risk, localized PCa, but there is an urgent need for further clinical studies to establish the criteria for recommending this approach. The main complications of radical resection for PCa are urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction, though three-dimensional laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic techniques have obvious advantages over radical surgery. Radiotherapy is also a therapeutic option for PCa, while immunotherapies may alter the prostate tumor microenvironment. Ongoing studies aim to provide guidance on effective sequential and combination strategies. Prevention remains an important strategy for reducing PCa morbidity and mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
The diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of PCa are complex issues, worthy of intensive study. Further studies are needed to improve the management of PCa.
Topics: Humans; Male; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Radiotherapy
PubMed: 29237932
DOI: 10.4103/0366-6999.220317 -
Clinical Genitourinary Cancer Feb 2021This meta-analysis focuses on the accuracy of upgrading to clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This meta-analysis focuses on the accuracy of upgrading to clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) versus systematic biopsy (SB). We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus, and Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde databases through January 2020 for comparative, retrospective/prospective, paired-cohort, and randomized clinical trials with paired comparisons. The population consisted of patients with low-risk PCa in active surveillance with at least 1 index lesion on imaging. We evaluated the quality of evidence by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 score. Group comparisons considered the differences between the area under the curve summary receiver operating characteristic curve in a 2-tailed method. We also compared the positive predictive value of the best single method (MRI-TB or SB) and the referral study test (combined biopsy, a combination of MRI-TB and SB). The meta-analysis included 6 studies enrolling 741 patients. The pooled sensitivity for the 2 groups was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.83; I = 75%) and 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.74; I = 55.4%), respectively. The area under the curve for the MRI-TB and SB groups were 0.99 and 0.92 (P < .001), respectively. The positive predictive value for the MRI-TB and combined biopsy groups were similar. The accumulated evidence suggests better results for MRI-TB compared with SB. Therefore, use of MRI-TB alone may be preferable in patients in active surveillance harboring low-risk PCa.
Topics: Biopsy; Humans; Image-Guided Biopsy; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Prospective Studies; Prostate; Prostatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 32839133
DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2020.06.008 -
Urology Jan 2023To evaluate the cancer detection rate (CDR) between the 2 dominant spatial tracking methodologies in software-guided MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the cancer detection rate (CDR) between the 2 dominant spatial tracking methodologies in software-guided MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy (SGF-Bx) platforms: fixed-arm and free-hand.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on published primary analyses of prospective trials and cohort studies that enrolled biopsy-naïve patients for SFG-Bx. Inclusion criteria included the use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) v2.0 or later and the targeting of lesions graded as PI-RADS 3 or higher. Random effects models were used to assess the overall prostate cancer (PCa) CDR and the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) CDR for both platforms. csPCa was standardized to a definition of Gleason Grade Group 2 or higher when possible. Subgroup analysis was performed by stratifying studies into the average number of cores taken per lesion.
RESULTS
The PCa CDR was 0.674 for free-hand systems and 0.681 for fixed-arm systems. The csPCa CDR was 0.492 for free-hand systems and 0.500 for fixed-hand systems. There was no significant difference between free-hand and fixed-arm cancer detection rates for both overall PCa (P = .88) and csPCa (P = .90). Subgroup analyses revealed significant PCa CDR and csPCa CDR differences (P < .001) between free-hand and fixed-arm platforms only when 2 cores per lesion were taken, in favor of fixed-arm platforms.
CONCLUSIONS
Fixed-arm platforms performed similarly in cancer detection to free-hand platforms but show a minor benefit on fewer samples. While tracking methodology differences appear subtle, further investigation into the clinical impact of platform-specific features are warranted.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostate; Prostatic Neoplasms; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Prospective Studies; Image-Guided Biopsy; Software
PubMed: 36243143
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2022.09.021 -
Urologic Oncology Apr 2018Evidence regarding the effectiveness of treatment for prostate cancer is primarily based on randomized controlled trials. Long-term outcomes are generally difficult to... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Evidence regarding the effectiveness of treatment for prostate cancer is primarily based on randomized controlled trials. Long-term outcomes are generally difficult to evaluate within experimental studies and may benefit from large pools of observational data. We conducted a systematic review of administrative and registry studies to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer on overall and prostate-cancer specific mortality.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P, 2015), we conducted a systematic search of Ovid Medline and Embase (1946-February 2017) and identified studies that evaluated the relationship between types of treatment for localized prostate cancer and mortality. Additional articles were identified through manual search. Randomized, prospective, and single institution studies were excluded. The risk of bias for each study was evaluated with the Newcastle Ottawa scale. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratios were reported to evaluate overall and cancer-specific mortality.
RESULTS
We screened 4,721 studies and included for review, 19 that were published between 2001 and 2015. The pooled population included 228,444 patients. Countries of origin included the United States, Canada, China, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Sweden, and the sources included administrative (n = 6) and cancer registry or prostate databases (n = 11). Overall and cancer-specific mortality were lowest among definitive treatment arms as compared to conservative therapy with no treatment, observation, or active surveillance. Radiotherapy was associated with worse overall and cancer-specific mortality than radical prostatectomy.
CONCLUSION
Although observational studies using large, population-based cohorts have the potential for bias, we found consistent evidence that high-quality observational studies may be used to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatment. Methodologic limitations of observational data should be considered.
Topics: Comparative Effectiveness Research; Humans; Male; Observational Studies as Topic; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Radiotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Registries; Treatment Outcome; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 29122446
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.10.003 -
JAMA Network Open Mar 2024Multiple strategies integrating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical data have been proposed to determine the need for a prostate biopsy in men with suspected... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Multiple strategies integrating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical data have been proposed to determine the need for a prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (Gleason score ≥3 + 4). However, inconsistencies across different strategies create challenges for drawing a definitive conclusion.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the optimal prostate biopsy decision-making strategy for avoiding unnecessary biopsies and minimizing the risk of missing csPCa by combining MRI Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) and clinical data.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 1, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
English-language studies that evaluated men with suspected but not confirmed csPCa who underwent MRI PI-RADS followed by prostate biopsy were included. Each study had proposed a biopsy plan by combining PI-RADS and clinical data.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Studies were independently assessed for eligibility for inclusion. Quality of studies was appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Mixed-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression models with multimodel inference were performed. Reporting of this study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Independent risk factors of csPCa were determined by performing meta-regression between the rate of csPCa and PI-RADS and clinical parameters. Yields of different biopsy strategies were assessed by performing diagnostic meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The analyses included 72 studies comprising 36 366 patients. Univariable meta-regression showed that PI-RADS 4 (β-coefficient [SE], 7.82 [3.85]; P = .045) and PI-RADS 5 (β-coefficient [SE], 23.18 [4.46]; P < .001) lesions, but not PI-RADS 3 lesions (β-coefficient [SE], -4.08 [3.06]; P = .19), were significantly associated with a higher risk of csPCa. When considered jointly in a multivariable model, prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) was the only clinical variable significantly associated with csPCa (β-coefficient [SE], 15.50 [5.14]; P < .001) besides PI-RADS 5 (β-coefficient [SE], 9.19 [3.33]; P < .001). Avoiding biopsy in patients with lesions with PI-RADS category of 3 or less and PSAD less than 0.10 (vs <0.15) ng/mL2 resulted in reducing 30% (vs 48%) of unnecessary biopsies (compared with performing biopsy in all suspected patients), with an estimated sensitivity of 97% (vs 95%) and number needed to harm of 17 (vs 15).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest that in patients with suspected csPCa, patient-tailored prostate biopsy decisions based on PI-RADS and PSAD could prevent unnecessary procedures while maintaining high sensitivity.
Topics: Male; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostate; Biopsy
PubMed: 38551559
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.4258 -
European Urology Oncology Dec 2023It is unclear whether a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted transperineal (TP) biopsy can improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Is There an Impact of Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy in Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection Rate? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
CONTEXT
It is unclear whether a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted transperineal (TP) biopsy can improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).
OBJECTIVE
To compare the MRI-targeted TP and transrectal (TR) approaches for csPCa detection.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A literature search was conducted using the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases to identify reports published until February 2023. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies. The primary outcome was the detection of csPCa (Gleason grade group ≥2). Sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate csPCa detection rates according to tumor location, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score, and type of fusion (cognitive or software based).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Eleven studies met our inclusion criteria, and data from 3522 and 5140 patients who underwent, respectively, TR and TP MRI-targeted biopsies were reviewed. No statistically significant difference in the detection of csPCa was observed between the TR and TP approaches (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.25; p = 0.1). When stratifying patients according to lesion location, the TP approach was associated with higher csPCa detection in case of anterior (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.46-3.22; p < 0.001) and apical (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.14-3.03; p = 0.01) lesions. In the subgroup analysis based on PI-RADS score, the TP approach was associated with higher csPCa detection (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.07-2.29; p = 0.02) in PI-RADS 4 lesions. Conversely, no difference was found in PI-RADS 3 and 5 lesions (p > 0.05). The main limitation was the retrospective design of most included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
No significant association was found between the prostate biopsy approach and csPCa detection rate when we considered all biopsy indications. The TP approach provides a detection advantage in anterior and apical tumors, arguing for a preferred use of the TP approach in these lesion locations.
PATIENT SUMMARY
The transperineal magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy approach appears to be more effective only for selected lesions. No clear benefit was seen for the transperineal approach in the overall population.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostate; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Retrospective Studies; Biopsy
PubMed: 37634971
DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.08.001 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2024Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) is a generally accepted method treating for aging-related late-onset hypogonadism (LOH). However, the efficacy and safety of TRT... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) is a generally accepted method treating for aging-related late-onset hypogonadism (LOH). However, the efficacy and safety of TRT remain controversial. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness and security of TRT treating for LOH.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TRT for LOH were searched in the databases of Pubmed, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and Cochrane from 1990 to 2023 and an updated meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
The results of 28 RCTs involving 3461 patients were included and scrutinized in this analysis. Among these, 11 RCTs were of long-term duration (≥12 months), while 18 RCTs were short-term studies (<12 months) comparing TRT with a placebo. TRT modalities comprised injection, oral administration, and transdermal administration. International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) (Weighted Mean difference (WMD) 3.26; 95%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.654.88; P<0.0001) was obviously improved in the TRT group. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (WMD 0.00; 95% CI -0.450.45; P=1.0), Prostate Volume (PV) (WMD 0.38; 95% CI -0.641.41; P=0.46), Maximum Flow Rate (Qmax) (WMD 1.86; 95% CI -0.984.69; P=0.20), Postvoid Residual Urine Volume (PVR) (WMD 3.20; 95% CI -5.8712.28; P=0.49) and Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) (WMD 0.08; 95% CI -0.000.17; P=0.06) were not significantly statistical between two groups.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis reveals that TRT could improve the IIEF score of hypogonadal men without detriment to the IPSS score, PV, Qmax, PVR and PSA regardless of the administration method or duration of treatment.The meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023413434).
Topics: Humans; Male; Erectile Dysfunction; Hypogonadism; Prostate; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Testosterone; Aging
PubMed: 38344665
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1335146 -
Cancer Prevention Research... Oct 2019Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men worldwide, and sedentary behavior is widespread, yet reviews and meta-analyses summarizing the role of sedentary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men worldwide, and sedentary behavior is widespread, yet reviews and meta-analyses summarizing the role of sedentary behavior as a potential risk factor for prostate cancer are scarce. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases for relevant articles up to January 2019. We pooled maximally adjusted risk estimates in a random effects model and performed meta-regression meta-analysis, assessed heterogeneity and publication bias using , funnel plots, and Egger and Begg tests, and conducted sensitivity analyses and influence diagnostics. Data from 12 prospective cohort studies including a total of 30,810 prostate cancer cases were analyzed. We found no statistically significant association between high versus low sedentary behavior and prostate cancer incidence [RR = 1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.99-1.16; 0.10]. We noted that adjustment for body mass index (BMI) modified the relation of sedentary behavior to prostate cancer, particularly aggressive cancer. Sedentary behavior was related to a statistically significant increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer in analyses not adjusted for BMI (RR = 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.43), whereas no association was apparent in BMI-adjusted analyses (RR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.07), and the difference between those summary risk estimates was statistically significant ( = 0.02). Sedentary behavior is not independently associated with prostate cancer. However, prolonged sedentary behavior may be related to increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer through a mechanism involving obesity. This finding represents a potentially important step toward considering sedentary behavior as a modifiable behavioral risk factor for aggressive prostate cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Body Mass Index; Cohort Studies; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Obesity; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Sedentary Behavior
PubMed: 31362941
DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-19-0271