-
Medicine May 2019To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes and cost of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Robot-assisted and laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer: perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes: A Systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes and cost of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) comparing with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in men with clinically localized prostate cancer through all prospective comparative studies.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed in August 2018 using the Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies including patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were eligible for study inclusion. Cumulative analysis was conducted using Review Manager v. 5.3 software.
RESULTS
Two RCTs and 9 prospective studies were included in this systematic review. There were no significant differences between RARP/LRP and ORP in overall complication rate, major complication rate, overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rate, ≤pT2 tumor PSM rate, ≥pT3 tumor PSM rate. Moreover, RARP/LRP and ORP showed similarity in biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate at 3, 12, 24 months postoperatively. Urinary continence and erectile function at 12 months postoperatively between RARP and ORP are also comparable. RARP/LRP were associated with significantly lower estimated blood loss [mean difference (MD) -749.67, 95% CI -1038.52 to -460.82, P = .001], lower transfusion rate (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.30, P < .001) and less hospitalization duration (MD -1.18, 95% CI -2.18 to -0.19, P = .02). And RARP/LRP required more operative time (MD 50.02, 95% CI 6.50 to 93.55, P = .02) and cost.
CONCLUSION
RARP/LRP is associated with lower blood loss, transfusion rate and less hospitalization duration. The available data were insufficient to prove the superiority of any surgical approach in terms of postoperative complications, functional and oncologic outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Margins of Excision; Middle Aged; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31145297
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015770 -
European Urology Jun 2019In men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with curative intent, controversy exists regarding the impact of biochemical recurrence (BCR) on oncological outcomes. (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
In men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with curative intent, controversy exists regarding the impact of biochemical recurrence (BCR) on oncological outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review of the existing literature on BCR after treatment with curative intent for nonmetastatic PCa. Objective 1 is to investigate whether oncological outcomes differ between patients with or without BCR. Objective 2 is to study which clinical factors and tumor features in patients with BCR have an independent prognostic impact on oncological outcomes.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. For objective 1, prospective and retrospective studies comparing survival outcomes of patients with or without BCR following radical prostatectomy (RP) or radical radiotherapy (RT) were included. For objective 2, all studies with at least 100 participants and reporting on prognostic patient and tumor characteristics in patients with BCR were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed according to the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Both a narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis were undertaken.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Overall, 77 studies were included for analysis, of which 14 addressed objective 1, recruiting 20 406 patients. Objective 2 was addressed by 71 studies with 29 057, 11 301, and 4272 patients undergoing RP, RT, and a mixed population (mix of patients undergoing RP or RT as primary treatment), respectively. There was a low risk of bias for study participation, confounders, and statistical analysis. For most studies, attrition bias, and prognostic and outcome measurements were not clearly reported. BCR was associated with worse survival rates, mainly in patients with short prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSA-DT) and a high final Gleason score after RP, or a short interval to biochemical failure (IBF) after RT and a high biopsy Gleason score.
CONCLUSIONS
BCR has an impact on survival, but this effect appears to be limited to a subgroup of patients with specific clinical risk factors. Short PSA-DT and a high final Gleason score after RP, and a short IBF after RT and a high biopsy Gleason score are the main factors that have a negative impact on survival. These factors may form the basis of new BCR risk stratification (European Association of Urology BCR Risk Groups), which needs to be validated formally.
PATIENT SUMMARY
This review looks at the risk of death in men who shows rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the blood test performed after curative surgery or radiotherapy. For many men, rising PSA does not mean that they are at a high risk of death from prostate cancer in the longer term. Men with PSA that rises shortly after they were treated with radiotherapy or rapidly rising PSA after surgery and a high tumor grade for both treatment modalities are at the highest risk of death. These factors may form the basis of new risk stratification (European Association of Urology biochemical recurrence Risk Groups), which needs to be validated formally.
Topics: Humans; Kallikreins; Male; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Prognosis; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Survival Rate
PubMed: 30342843
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.011 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017Prostate cancer is commonly diagnosed in men worldwide. Surgery, in the form of radical prostatectomy, is one of the main forms of treatment for men with localised... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Prostate cancer is commonly diagnosed in men worldwide. Surgery, in the form of radical prostatectomy, is one of the main forms of treatment for men with localised prostate cancer. Prostatectomy has traditionally been performed as open surgery, typically via a retropubic approach. The advent of laparoscopic approaches, including robotic-assisted, provides a minimally invasive alternative to open radical prostatectomy (ORP).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy or robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy in men with localised prostate cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We also searched bibliographies of included studies and conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a direct comparison of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) to ORP, including pseudo-RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. The primary outcomes were prostate cancer-specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two unique studies with 446 randomised participants with clinically localised prostate cancer. The mean age, prostate volume, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of the participants were 61.3 years, 49.78 mL, and 7.09 ng/mL, respectively. Primary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer-specific survival. Based on data from one trial, RARP likely results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (MD -1.30, 95% CI -4.65 to 2.05) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI -1.84 to 9.64). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate for both quality of life outcomes, downgrading for study limitations. Secondary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence-free survival or overall survival.Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.04) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.32). We rated the quality of evidence as low for both surgical complications, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision.Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at one day (MD -1.05, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.68 ) and up to one week (MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.17). We rated the quality of evidence for both time-points as low, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision. Based on one study, RARP likely results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.34). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on one study, RARP likely reduces the length of hospital stay (MD -1.72, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.25). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on two study, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.46). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1000 men (95% CI 78 fewer to 48 fewer). We rated the quality of evidence as low, downgrading for study limitations and indirectness.We were unable to perform any of the prespecified secondary analyses based on the available evidence. All available outcome data were short-term and we were unable to account for surgeon volume or experience.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no high-quality evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared to ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life-related outcomes appear similar.Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions. All available outcome data were short-term, and this study was unable to account for surgeon volume or experience.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Organ Size; Prostate; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Sexual Behavior; Urination
PubMed: 28895658
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009625.pub2 -
Journal of Biomedical Informatics Nov 2023Adequate methods to promptly translate digital health innovations for improved patient care are essential. Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Adequate methods to promptly translate digital health innovations for improved patient care are essential. Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) have been sources of digital innovation and hold the promise to revolutionize the way we treat, manage and diagnose patients. Understanding the benefits but also the potential adverse effects of digital health innovations, particularly when these are made available or applied on healthier segments of the population is essential. One of such adverse effects is overdiagnosis.
OBJECTIVE
to comprehensively analyze quantification strategies and data-driven definitions for overdiagnosis reported in the literature.
METHODS
we conducted a scoping systematic review of manuscripts describing quantitative methods to estimate the proportion of overdiagnosed patients.
RESULTS
we identified 46 studies that met our inclusion criteria. They covered a variety of clinical conditions, primarily breast and prostate cancer. Methods to quantify overdiagnosis included both prospective and retrospective methods including randomized clinical trials, and simulations.
CONCLUSION
a variety of methods to quantify overdiagnosis have been published, producing widely diverging results. A standard method to quantify overdiagnosis is needed to allow its mitigation during the rapidly increasing development of new digital diagnostic tools.
Topics: Male; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Artificial Intelligence; Overdiagnosis; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37769829
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2023.104506 -
European Urology Mar 2017Prostate biopsy (PB) represents the gold standard method to confirm the presence of cancer. In addition to traditional random or systematic approaches, a magnetic... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Prostate biopsy (PB) represents the gold standard method to confirm the presence of cancer. In addition to traditional random or systematic approaches, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided technique has been introduced recently.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review of complications after transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided, transperineal, and MRI-guided PB.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We performed a systematic literature search of Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus databases up to October 2015, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Complications and mortality following random, systematic, and image-guided PBs were reviewed. Eighty-five references were included.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The most frequent complication after PB was minor and self-limiting bleeding (hematuria and hematospermia), regardless of the biopsy approach. Occurrence of rectal bleeding was comparable for traditional TRUS-guided and image-guided PBs. Almost 25% of patients experienced lower urinary tract symptoms, but only a few had urinary retention, with higher rates after a transperineal approach. Temporary erectile dysfunction was not negligible, with a return to baseline after 1-6 mo. The incidence of infective complications is increasing, with higher rates among men with medical comorbidities and older age. Transperineal and in-bore MRI-targeted biopsy may reduce the risk of severe infectious complications. Mortality after PB is uncommon, regardless of biopsy technique.
CONCLUSIONS
Complications after PB are frequent but often self-limiting. The incidence of hospitalization due to severe infections is continuously increasing. The patient's general health status, risk factors, and likelihood of antimicrobial resistance should be carefully appraised before scheduling a PB.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We reviewed the variety and incidence of complications after prostate biopsy. Even if frequent, complications seldom represent a problem for the patient. The most troublesome complications are infections. To minimize this risk, the patient's medical condition should be carefully evaluated before biopsy.
Topics: Biopsy; Endosonography; Erectile Dysfunction; Hematuria; Hemospermia; Humans; Image-Guided Biopsy; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Prostate; Prostatic Neoplasms; Recovery of Function; Rectal Diseases; Surgical Wound Infection; Urinary Retention
PubMed: 27543165
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.004 -
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer... Jun 2018Background: Evidence of relationship between selenium and prostate cancer has been inconsistent. The present metaanalysis was conducted to determine relationship between... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background: Evidence of relationship between selenium and prostate cancer has been inconsistent. The present metaanalysis was conducted to determine relationship between selenium and prostate cancer. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA). We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EBSCO and Google scholar search engines and the reference lists of the retrieved papers for relevant data, without any limitation regarding language or time until 2016. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated using Q test and I2 Index. Finally, a random effects model was used for combining results using STATA software version 11.1. P<0.05 was considered significant. Results: Thirty-eight studies including 36,419 cases and 105,293 controls were included in the final analysis. The pooled relative risk (RR) of relation between selenium and prostate cancer was 0.86 (95% Confidence Interval [CI]:0.78-0.94). Sub-group analyses based on case-control, cohort, and RCT studies gave values of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.80-1.00), 0.77 (95% CI: 0.52-1.14) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.74-1.09), respectively. RRs based on serum, plasma and nail samples were 0.69 (95% CI: 0.51-0.95), 0.85 (95% CI: 0.61-1.17), 0.66 (95% CI: 0.41-1.05), respectively. According to 10 studies, investigated the relation between advanced prostate cancer and selenium in which the RR was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.52-0.87). Conclusions: This meta-analysis indicated that selenium most probably has a protective role against development of prostate cancer and its progression to advanced stages. Therefore, selenium supplementation can be proposed for prevention of prostate cancer.
Topics: Antioxidants; Case-Control Studies; Humans; Male; Prognosis; Prostatic Neoplasms; Selenium
PubMed: 29936712
DOI: 10.22034/APJCP.2018.19.6.1431 -
Nutrients Feb 2023We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the role of alcohol consumption with the prognosis of prostate cancer (PCa). Published reports were... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the role of alcohol consumption with the prognosis of prostate cancer (PCa). Published reports were gathered on 15 October 2022, from PUBMED/MEDLINE and EMBASE. We found 19 independent eligible studies on the association between consumption of alcoholic beverages and the risk of fatal PCa (n = 5), PCa mortality (n = 5) in healthy subjects, and PCa patients' survival (n = 7) or surrogates thereof (n = 2). We used random effects meta-analysis to obtain a summary risk estimate (SRE) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for incidence of fatal PCa and PCa mortality. The meta-analysis revealed no association between alcohol consumption and fatal prostate cancer incidence risk in healthy subjects with an indication for publication bias, but omitting the study that mainly increased the between-study heterogeneity, the SRE becomes significant (SRE 1.33, 95%CI 1.12-1.58), and the heterogeneity disappeared ( = 0%) with no indication of publication bias. No association of alcohol consumption was found with mortality risk in PCa patients (SRE 0.97, 95%CI 0.92-1.03) and PCa mortality risk in healthy subjects (SRE 1.03, 95%CI 0.82-1.30). In conclusion, this study suggests that there is some evidence of an association between high alcohol consumption and an increased risk of incidence of fatal prostate cancer in healthy subjects. Given the inconsistencies this result warrants further confirmation.
Topics: Male; Humans; Alcohol Drinking; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostate; Prognosis; Incidence
PubMed: 36839283
DOI: 10.3390/nu15040925 -
International Journal of Urology :... Mar 2016It is worth distinguishing between the two strategies of expectant management for prostate cancer. Watchful waiting entails administering non-curative androgen... (Review)
Review
It is worth distinguishing between the two strategies of expectant management for prostate cancer. Watchful waiting entails administering non-curative androgen deprivation therapy to patients on development of symptomatic progression, whereas active surveillance entails delivering curative treatment on signs of disease progression. The objectives of the two management strategies and the patients enrolled in either are different: (i) to review the role of active surveillance as a management strategy for patients with low-risk prostate cancer; and (ii) review the benefits and pitfalls of active surveillance. We carried out a systematic review of active surveillance for prostate cancer in the literature using the National Center for Biotechnology Information's electronic database, PubMed. We carried out a search in English using the terms: active surveillance, prostate cancer, watchful waiting and conservative management. Selected studies were required to have a comprehensive description of the demographic and disease characteristics of the patients at the time of diagnosis, inclusion criteria for surveillance, and a protocol for the patients' follow up. Review articles were included, but not multiple papers from the same datasets. Active surveillance appears to reduce overtreatment in patients with low-risk prostate cancer without compromising cancer-specific survival at 10 years. Therefore, active surveillance is an option for select patients who want to avoid the side-effects inherent to the different types of immediate treatment. However, inclusion criteria for active surveillance and the most appropriate method of monitoring patients on active surveillance have not yet been standardized.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Androgens; Disease Progression; Humans; Male; Medical Overuse; Neoplasm Grading; Prostate; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 26621054
DOI: 10.1111/iju.13016 -
International Journal of Radiation... Dec 2023Evidence of a volume-outcome association in cancer surgery has shaped the centralization of cancer services; however, it is unknown whether a similar association exists... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Evidence of a volume-outcome association in cancer surgery has shaped the centralization of cancer services; however, it is unknown whether a similar association exists for radiation therapy. The objective of this study was to determine the association between radiation therapy treatment volume and patient outcomes.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
This systematic review and meta-analysis included studies that compared outcomes of patients who underwent definitive radiation therapy at high-volume radiation therapy facilities (HVRFs) versus low-volume facilities (LVRFs). The systematic review used Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. For the meta-analysis, a random effects model was used. Absolute effects and hazard ratios (HRs) were used to compare patient outcomes.
RESULTS
The search identified 20 studies assessing the association between radiation therapy volume and patient outcomes. Seven of the studies looked at head and neck cancers (HNCs). The remaining studies covered cervical (4), prostate (4), bladder (3), lung (2), anal (2), esophageal (1), brain (2), liver (1), and pancreatic cancer (1). The meta-analysis demonstrated that HVRFs were associated with a lower chance of death compared with LVRFs (pooled HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87- 0.94). HNCs had the strongest evidence of a volume-outcome association for both nasopharyngeal cancer (pooled HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89) and nonnasopharyngeal HNC subsites (pooled HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.84), followed by prostate cancer (pooled HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98). The remaining cancer types showed weak evidence of an association. The results also demonstrate that some centers defined as HVRFs are undertaking very few procedures per annum (<5 radiation therapy cases per year).
CONCLUSIONS
An association between radiation therapy treatment volume and patient outcomes exists for most cancer types. Centralization of radiation therapy services should be considered for cancer types with the strongest volume-outcome association, but the effect on equitable access to services needs to be explicitly considered.
Topics: Male; Humans; Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37227363
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.02.048 -
Scientific Reports Nov 2016Previous studies have reported controversial results on the association between tomato consumption and prostate cancer risk. Hence, we performed a meta-analysis to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Previous studies have reported controversial results on the association between tomato consumption and prostate cancer risk. Hence, we performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate this relationship. A total of 24 published studies with 15,099 cases were included. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled with a random-effects model. Tomato intake was associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.98, P = 0.019; P < 0.001 for heterogeneity, I = 72.7%). When stratified by study design, the RRs for case-control and cohort studies were 0.76 (95% CI 0.61-0.94, P = 0.010) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.84-1.10, P = 0.579), respectively. In the subgroup analysis by geographical region, significant protective effects were observed in Asian (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22-0.85, P = 0.015) and Oceania populations (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.99, P = 0.035), but not in other geographical populations. Begg's test indicated a significant publication bias (P = 0.015). Overall, tomato intake may have a weak protective effect against prostate cancer. Because of the huge heterogeneity and null results in cohort studies, further prospective studies are needed to explore the potential relationship between tomato consumption and prostate cancer risk.
Topics: Food Preferences; Humans; Solanum lycopersicum; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Vegetables
PubMed: 27841367
DOI: 10.1038/srep37091