-
Medicine Jun 2023This meta-analysis was performed to address the association of 2 ESR2 gene polymorphisms (rs1256049 and rs4986938) with susceptibility to cancer. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This meta-analysis was performed to address the association of 2 ESR2 gene polymorphisms (rs1256049 and rs4986938) with susceptibility to cancer.
METHODS
An extensive literature search for eligible candidate gene studies published before May 10, 2022, was conducted in PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science. The search strategy was as follows: (ESR2 OR ERβ OR ER beta OR estrogen receptor beta) AND (polymorphism OR mutation OR variation OR SNP OR genotype) AND (PCa OR PC OR prostate cancer). Potential sources of heterogeneity were sought out via trial sequential analysis, subgroup, and sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS
Overall, a total of 10 articles involving 18,064 cases and 19,556 controls for 2 polymorphisms of the ESR2 gene were enrolled. In the stratified analysis of rs1256049, we found that Caucasians might be correlated with an increased risk of prostate cancer (PCa), while less susceptibility was found in Asians. We observed that rs4986938 was not associated with PCa risk.
CONCLUSION
ESR2 rs1256049 polymorphism is associated with a higher risk of PCa in the Caucasian population and a lower risk of PCa in the Asian population.
Topics: Humans; Male; Case-Control Studies; Estrogen Receptor beta; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Genotype; Polymorphism, Genetic; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37335680
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000033937 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Jan 2023A cancer diagnosis can impact patients' and caregivers' lives, posing different challenging situations. In particular, breast cancer and prostate cancer are two types of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A cancer diagnosis can impact patients' and caregivers' lives, posing different challenging situations. In particular, breast cancer and prostate cancer are two types of cancer involving families and especially spouses in challenges linked with the diagnosis and treatment process. Caregivers are usually involved in the treatment decision-making (TDM) process concerning patients' clinical pathway, cancer treatment, and ongoing therapies. To date, no contributions provide an exhaustive overview of the role of caregivers in cancer care and their involvement in the TDM process related to the therapies.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of caregiver and patients experiences and perceptions of caregiver involvement in cancer TDM. Articles were searched on Public/Publisher MEDLINE (PubMed), Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (Medline), and American Psychological Association APA PsycINFO.
RESULTS
17 studies were included, 10 on prostate cancer and 7 on breast cancer. According to the reviewed studies, patients and caregivers experienced the cancer diagnosis with a sense of unity. Most patients preferred to have an active or collaborative role with caregivers in TDM, feeling it was important to consult or share the decision made with their caregivers. Caregivers preferred to collaborate with patients or let patients decide by themselves after considering their opinions. Caregiver involvement could have a positive influence on the patient's medical decisions, even if cancer diagnosis and treatments overwhelmed patients and caregivers.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings highlight the importance of using a perspective that focuses on the relationship between a patient and caregivers when they receive a cancer diagnosis and have to make a treatment decision. Targeting caregiver-patient dyads, rather than individuals, is important since a supported relationship could have a protective effect on psychological distress, quality of life (QOL), and relationship satisfaction. Moreover, dyads may benefit from interventions that focus on the needs of both the patient and caregiver.
Topics: Male; Humans; Quality of Life; Decision Making, Shared; Prostatic Neoplasms; Breast Neoplasms
PubMed: 36661710
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30010061 -
Systematic Reviews Dec 2020This study aimed to review studies on willingness to pay (WTP) for prostate cancer screening. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to review studies on willingness to pay (WTP) for prostate cancer screening.
METHODS
This systematic-review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. By searching six-health-database, WTP studies on prostate cancer screening using contingent valuation method published in English until March 2020 were included and those with unavailable full-text and inadequate quality-assessment scores were excluded. Smith checklist was used for the quality assessment. Extracted WTPs were converted to US dollar in 2018 using exchange rate parity and net present value formula to make comparison. Factors' effect was assessed by vote counting.
RESULTS
Six final studies published after 2006 reported above 70% Smith checklist items needed to be considered in contingent valuation study reports. Seven factors have positive effects on WTP. The reported WTP value varied from 11$ to 588$ in Japan and Germany, respectively.
CONCLUSION
WTP for prostate cancer screening was positive among all studied men. The results of factors' effect assessment showed that better understanding prostate cancer risks or screening tests and factors such as age, income, family history of cancer, hospitalization history, and educational level have positive effects. Moreover, prostate-specific antigen history, health insurance, employment, and subject's health assessment received less attention. The results' generalization to all countries is not applicable because there are no studies for low- and middle-income countries.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020172789.
Topics: Humans; Male; Early Detection of Cancer; Germany; Insurance, Health; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 33298175
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-020-01522-3 -
Archivos Espanoles de Urologia Jan 2024Prostate cancer is one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers in males. Treatment options cause a series of side effects that can lead to a deterioration in the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Prostate cancer is one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers in males. Treatment options cause a series of side effects that can lead to a deterioration in the physical and quality of life of patients, such as musculoskeletal changes, atrophy or muscle weakness, due to the testosterone suppression. Scientific evidence has shown that exercise mitigates the side effects induced by cancer treatment. This study aimed to analyse the effects of muscular strength work on the organism of patients with prostate cancer in the treatment phase.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Medline, Web of Science and PEDro databases were searched in January 2022. The Medical Subject Headings "resistance training", "prostatic neoplasms", "strength training" and "prostate cancer" were used.
RESULTS
A total of 13 articles were analysed. In all of them, statistically significant changes were found in strength, physical performance, muscle mass and cardiovascular and respiratory health after the implementation of a strength exercise program. Other variables did not achieve the expected changes.
CONCLUSIONS
A strength exercise program improves strength, physical performance, muscle mass and cardiovascular health in patients with prostate cancer. However, whether it improves other parameters, such as body fat, power, bone density and quality of life, is unclear.
Topics: Male; Humans; Resistance Training; Quality of Life; Prostatic Neoplasms; Muscle Strength; Muscles
PubMed: 38374007
DOI: 10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20247701.1 -
Tidsskrift For Den Norske Laegeforening... Mar 2015Prostate cancer is a radiosensitive type of cancer for which radiotherapy is used for both curative and palliative purposes. Low-dose-rate brachytherapy is an internal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Prostate cancer is a radiosensitive type of cancer for which radiotherapy is used for both curative and palliative purposes. Low-dose-rate brachytherapy is an internal radiotherapy technique which allows high doses of radiation to be delivered to a tumour at short range and with a high degree of precision. We have conducted a systematic review of the evidence base for this treatment. The method is not established in Norway.
METHOD
This review is based on systematic review articles and publications on treatment, outcomes, adverse effects and health economics considerations found by searching the databases Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase and NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence).
RESULTS
Subsequent to long-term observations of the efficacy, adverse effects and costs presented in 43 selected studies, including one randomised, controlled trial, there is still uncertainty as to which of the three methods low-dose brachytherapy, external radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy is optimal. The reason for this is the methodological differences in patient selection and in endpoints such as biochemical disease-free interval and cause-specific survival. The evidence base appears to suggest that low-dose-rate brachytherapy causes more frequent grade 2 and 3 doctor-reported urogenital adverse effects than prostatectomy, but better patient-reported sexual functions and fewer patients with urinary incontinence than after surgery. Low-dose-rate brachytherapy appears to be socioeconomically cost-effective.
INTERPRETATION
The evidence base with respect to therapeutic effect and toxicity in men with low-risk prostate cancer treated with low-dose brachytherapy is regarded as solidly documented. However, there are no good prospective randomised multi-centre trials with overall survival as an endpoint.
Topics: Brachytherapy; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Disease-Free Survival; Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 25806763
DOI: 10.4045/tidsskr.13.1404 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Apr 2021Machine learning algorithms have been drawing attention at the joining of pathology and radiology in prostate cancer research. However, due to their algorithmic learning... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Machine learning algorithms have been drawing attention at the joining of pathology and radiology in prostate cancer research. However, due to their algorithmic learning complexity and the variability of their architecture, there is an ongoing need to analyze their performance.
OBJECTIVE
This study assesses the source of heterogeneity and the performance of machine learning applied to radiomic, genomic, and clinical biomarkers for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. One research focus of this study was on clearly identifying problems and issues related to the implementation of machine learning in clinical studies.
METHODS
Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocol, 816 titles were identified from the PubMed, Scopus, and OvidSP databases. Studies that used machine learning to detect prostate cancer and provided performance measures were included in our analysis. The quality of the eligible studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 (quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-version 2) tool. The hierarchical multivariate model was applied to the pooled data in a meta-analysis. To investigate the heterogeneity among studies, I statistics were performed along with visual evaluation of coupled forest plots. Due to the internal heterogeneity among machine learning algorithms, subgroup analysis was carried out to investigate the diagnostic capability of machine learning systems in clinical practice.
RESULTS
In the final analysis, 37 studies were included, of which 29 entered the meta-analysis pooling. The analysis of machine learning methods to detect prostate cancer reveals the limited usage of the methods and the lack of standards that hinder the implementation of machine learning in clinical applications.
CONCLUSIONS
The performance of machine learning for diagnosis of prostate cancer was considered satisfactory for several studies investigating the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and urine biomarkers; however, given the limitations indicated in our study, further studies are warranted to extend the potential use of machine learning to clinical settings. Recommendations on the use of machine learning techniques were also provided to help researchers to design robust studies to facilitate evidence generation from the use of radiomic and genomic biomarkers.
Topics: Algorithms; Genomics; Humans; Machine Learning; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 33792552
DOI: 10.2196/22394 -
Swiss Medical Weekly 2018Men facing prostate cancer screening and treatment need to make critical and highly preference-sensitive decisions that involve a variety of potential benefits and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Men facing prostate cancer screening and treatment need to make critical and highly preference-sensitive decisions that involve a variety of potential benefits and risks. Shared decision-making (SDM) is considered fundamental for "preference-sensitive" medical decisions and it is guideline-recommended. There is no single definition of SDM however. We systematically reviewed the extent of SDM implementation in interventions to facilitate SDM for prostate cancer screening and treatment.
METHODS
We searched Medline Ovid, Embase (Elsevier), CINHAL (EBSCOHost), The Cochrane Library (Wiley), PsychINFO (EBSCOHost), Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, the WHO search portal, ohri.ca, opengrey.eu, Google Scholar, and the reference lists of included studies, clinical guidelines and relevant reviews. We also contacted the authors of relevant abstracts without available full text. We included primary peer-reviewed and grey literature of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported in English, conducted in primary and specialised care, addressing interventions aiming to facilitate SDM for prostate cancer screening and treatment. Two reviewers independently selected studies, appraised interventions and assessed the extent of SDM implementation based on the key features of SDM, namely information exchange, deliberation and implementation. We considered bi-directional deliberation as a central and mandatory component of SDM. We performed a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
Thirty-six RCTs including 19 196 randomised patients met the eligibility criteria; they were mainly conducted in North America (n = 28). The median year of publication was 2008 (1997-2015). Twenty-three RCTs addressed decision-making for screening, twelve for treatment and one for both screening and treatment for prostate cancer. Bi-directional interactions between healthcare providers and patients were verified in 31 RCTs, but only 14 fulfilled the three key SDM features, 14 had at least "deliberation", one had "unclear deliberation" and two had no signs of deliberation.
CONCLUSIONS
There is significant variation in the extent of SDM implementation among studies addressing SDM for prostate cancer screening and treatment. Further evaluation of these results on patient outcomes, a standardised SDM definition and guidance for an effective implementation in several clinical settings are needed.
Topics: Decision Making; Early Detection of Cancer; Health Personnel; Humans; Male; Mass Screening; Patient Participation; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29473938
DOI: 10.4414/smw.2018.14584 -
International Journal of Radiation... Jul 2023Current risk-stratification systems for prostate cancer (PCa) do not sufficiently reflect the disease heterogeneity. Genomic classifiers (GC) enable improved risk... (Review)
Review
Current risk-stratification systems for prostate cancer (PCa) do not sufficiently reflect the disease heterogeneity. Genomic classifiers (GC) enable improved risk stratification after surgery, but less data exist for patients treated with definitive radiation therapy (RT) or RT in oligo-/metastatic disease stages. To guide future perspectives of GCs for RT, we conducted (1) a systematic review on the evidence of GCs for patients treated with RT and (2) a survey of experts using the Delphi method, addressing the role of GCs in personalized treatments to identify relevant fields of future clinical and translational research. We performed a systematic review and screened ongoing clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov. Based on these results, a multidisciplinary international team of experts received an adapted Delphi method survey. Thirty-one and 30 experts answered round 1 and round 2, respectively. Questions with ≥75% agreement were considered relevant and included in the qualitative synthesis. Evidence for GCs as predictive biomarkers is mainly available to the postoperative RT setting. Validation of GCs as prognostic markers in the definitive RT setting is emerging. Experts used GCs in patients with PCa with extensive metastases (30%), in postoperative settings (27%), and in newly diagnosed PCa (23%). Forty-seven percent of experts do not currently use GCs in clinical practice. Expert consensus demonstrates that GCs are promising tools to improve risk-stratification in primary and oligo-/metastatic patients in addition to existing classifications. Experts were convinced that GCs might guide treatment decisions in terms of RT-field definition and intensification/deintensification in various disease stages. This work confirms the value of GCs and the promising evidence of GC utility in the setting of RT. Additional studies of GCs as prognostic biomarkers are anticipated and form the basis for future studies addressing predictive capabilities of GCs to optimize RT and systemic therapy. The expert consensus points out future directions for GC research in the management of PCa.
Topics: Male; Humans; Consensus; Prostatic Neoplasms; Genomics
PubMed: 36596346
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.12.038 -
Medicine Apr 2020The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial has shown a protective effect of finasteride on prostate cancer, but it also showed that finasteride can increase the risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial has shown a protective effect of finasteride on prostate cancer, but it also showed that finasteride can increase the risk of high-grade prostate cancer. Several studies have investigated the relationship between finasteride and prostate cancer, but these studies have shown inconsistent results.
ETHICS
The protocol was approved by the institutional review board of each study center. Written informed consent will be obtained from all patients before registration, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to assess the association between finasteride and prostate cancer. Systematic literature searches were conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Science Direct/Elsevier, MEDLINE, CNKI, and the Cochrane Library up to October 2018 to identify studies that involved the relationship between finasteride and prostate cancer. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager and Stata software. Combined ORs were identified with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) in a random or fixed effects model.
RESULTS
Eight studies were identified, including 54,335 cases of patients that used finasteride and 9197 patients who served as placebo controls. Our results illustrate that there is a significant correlation between finasteride use and prostate cancer with combined ORs of 0.70 [0.51, 0.96]. A significant correlation between finasteride use and high-grade prostate cancer was also observed with combined ORs of 2.10 [1.85, 2.38].
CONCLUSIONS
This study confirms that finasteride significantly reduced the risk of prostate cancer; however, the malignant degree of prostate cancer was increased. Studies with larger sample sizes are needed to better clarify the correlation between finasteride use and prostate cancer.
Topics: 5-alpha Reductase Inhibitors; Finasteride; Humans; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 32282699
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019486 -
European Urology Apr 2015Active surveillance (AS) is an important strategy to reduce prostate cancer overtreatment. However, the optimal criteria for eligibility and predictors of progression... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Active surveillance (AS) is an important strategy to reduce prostate cancer overtreatment. However, the optimal criteria for eligibility and predictors of progression while on AS are debated.
OBJECTIVE
To review primary data on markers, genetic factors, and risk stratification for patient selection and predictors of progression during AS.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to April 2014 for original articles on biomarkers and risk stratification for AS.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Patient factors associated with AS outcomes in some studies include age, race, and family history. Multiple studies provide consistent evidence that a lower percentage of free prostate-specific antigen (PSA), a higher Prostate Health Index (PHI), a higher PSA density (PSAD), and greater biopsy core involvement at baseline predict a greater risk of progression. During follow-up, serial measurements of PHI and PSAD, as well as repeat biopsy results, predict later biopsy progression. While some studies have suggested a univariate relationship between urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and transmembrane protease, serine 2-v-ets avian erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog gene fusion (TMPRSS2:ERG) with adverse biopsy features, these markers have not been consistently shown to independently predict AS outcomes. No conclusive data support the use of genetic tests in AS. Limitations of these studies include heterogeneous definitions of progression and limited follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a growing body of literature on patient characteristics, biopsy features, and biomarkers with potential utility in AS. More data are needed on practical applications such as combining these tests into multivariable clinical algorithms and long-term outcomes to further improve AS in the future.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Several PSA-based tests (free PSA, PHI, PSAD) and the extent of cancer on biopsy can help to stratify the risk of progression during active surveillance. Investigation of several other markers is under way.
Topics: Antigens, Neoplasm; Biopsy; Disease Progression; Humans; Male; Oncogene Fusion; Population Surveillance; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Serine Endopeptidases
PubMed: 25457014
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.010