-
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 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 -
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 -
Lancet (London, England) Oct 2020It is unclear whether adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy is more appropriate for men who present with localised or locally advanced... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy for the treatment of localised and locally advanced prostate cancer: a prospectively planned systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data.
BACKGROUND
It is unclear whether adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy is more appropriate for men who present with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We aimed to prospectively plan a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing these radiotherapy approaches.
METHODS
We used a prospective framework for adaptive meta-analysis (FAME), starting the review process while eligible trials were ongoing. RCTs were eligible if they aimed to compare immediate adjuvant radiotherapy versus early salvage radiotherapy, following radical prostatectomy in men (age ≥18 years) with intermediate-risk or high-risk, localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We searched trial registers and conference proceedings until July 8, 2020, to identify eligible RCTs. By establishing the ARTISTIC collaboration with relevant trialists, we were able to anticipate when eligible trial results would emerge, and we developed and registered a protocol with PROSPERO before knowledge of the trial results (CRD42019132669). We used a harmonised definition of event-free survival, as the time from randomisation until the first evidence of either biochemical progression (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥0·4 ng/mL and rising after completion of any postoperative radiotherapy), clinical or radiological progression, initiation of a non-trial treatment, death from prostate cancer, or a PSA level of at least 2·0 ng/mL at any time after randomisation. We predicted when we would have sufficient power to assess whether adjuvant radiotherapy was superior to early salvage radiotherapy. Investigators supplied results for event-free survival, both overall and within predefined patient subgroups. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the effects of radiotherapy timing on event-free survival and subgroup interactions were combined using fixed-effect meta-analysis.
FINDINGS
We identified three eligible trials and were able to obtain updated results for event-free survival for 2153 patients recruited between November, 2007, and December, 2016. Median follow-up ranged from 60 months to 78 months, with a maximum follow-up of 132 months. 1075 patients were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant radiotherapy and 1078 to a policy of early salvage radiotherapy, of whom 421 (39·1%) had commenced treatment at the time of analysis. Patient characteristics were balanced within trials and overall. Median age was similar between trials at 64 or 65 years (with IQRs ranging from 59 to 68 years) across the three trials and most patients (1671 [77·6%]) had a Gleason score of 7. All trials were assessed as having low risk of bias. Based on 270 events, the meta-analysis showed no evidence that event-free survival was improved with adjuvant radiotherapy compared with early salvage radiotherapy (HR 0·95, 95% CI 0·75-1·21; p=0·70), with only a 1 percentage point (95% CI -2 to 3) change in 5-year event-free survival (89% vs 88%). Results were consistent across trials (heterogeneity p=0·18; I=42%).
INTERPRETATION
This collaborative and prospectively designed systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that adjuvant radiotherapy does not improve event-free survival in men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. Until data on long-term outcomes are available, early salvage treatment would seem the preferable treatment policy as it offers the opportunity to spare many men radiotherapy and its associated side-effects.
FUNDING
UK Medical Research Council.
Topics: Biomarkers, Tumor; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Male; Neoplasm Grading; Prospective Studies; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salvage Therapy
PubMed: 33002431
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31952-8 -
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 -
American Journal of Men's Health 2022This meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with large volume. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases (until March 2022) were used to search related randomized controlled trials. A total of 11 studies including 1,258 patients were involved. HoLEP could significantly decrease the length of hospital stay and accelerate recovery. In subanalysis, HoLEP had better perioperative outcomes than bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (B-TURP) and bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate (BPEP). The improvement in operative time and enucleation time was better in thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) than HoLEP. In the follow-up period, the HoLEP decreased post-void residual urine (PVR) in short-term intervals and improved patients' maximum flow rate (Qmax) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in mid- and long-term intervals. In subanalysis, HoLEP presented significant improvements in Qmax, PSA, and quality of life (QoL) than B-TURP, and HoLEP could also improve Qmax than ThuLEP after 6 months of surgery. The HoLEP reduced the risk of postoperative bleeding compared with other surgeries in safety. In our study, we confirmed the advantages of HoLEP in treating BPH when the prostate size was larger than 80 mL, which indicated that HoLEP could be the best choice for treatment of large volume of prostate.
Topics: Humans; Lasers, Solid-State; Male; Prostate; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Quality of Life; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35864746
DOI: 10.1177/15579883221113203 -
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases Feb 2022The most recent overall survival (OS) and adverse event (AE) data have not been compared for the three guideline-recommended high-risk non-metastatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Overall survival and adverse events after treatment with darolutamide vs. apalutamide vs. enzalutamide for high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The most recent overall survival (OS) and adverse event (AE) data have not been compared for the three guideline-recommended high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) treatment alternatives.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis focusing on OS and AE according to the most recent apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide reports. We systematically examined and compared apalutamide vs. enzalutamide vs. darolutamide efficacy and toxicity, relative to ADT according to PRISMA. We relied on PubMed search for most recent reports addressing prospective randomized trials with proven predefined OS benefit, relative to ADT: SPARTAN, PROSPER, and ARAMIS. OS represented the primary outcome and AEs represented secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
Overall, data originated from 4117 observations made within the three trials that were analyzed. Regarding OS benefit relative to ADT, darolutamide ranked first, followed by enzalutamide and apalutamide, in that order. In the subgroup of PSA-doubling time (PSA-DT) ≤ 6 months patients, enzalutamide ranked first, followed by darolutamide and apalutamide in that order. Conversely, in the subgroup of PSA-DT 6-10 months patients, darolutamide ranked first, followed by apalutamide and enzalutamide, in that order. Regarding grade 3+ AEs, darolutamide was most favorable, followed by enzalutamide and apalutamide, in that order.
CONCLUSION
The current network meta-analysis suggests the highest OS efficacy and lowest grade 3+ toxicity for darolutamide. However, in the PSA-DT ≤ 6 months subgroup, the highest efficacy was recorded for enzalutamide. It is noteworthy that study design, study population, and follow-up duration represent some of the potentially critical differences that distinguish between the three studies and remained statistically unaccounted for using the network meta-analysis methodology. Those differences should be strongly considered in the interpretation of the current and any network meta-analyses.
Topics: Benzamides; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Nitriles; Phenylthiohydantoin; Prospective Studies; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Pyrazoles; Thiohydantoins; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34054128
DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00395-4 -
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