-
JMIR Cancer Sep 2021Screening for prostate cancer has long been a debated, complex topic. The use of risk calculators for prostate cancer is recommended for determining patients' individual... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Screening for prostate cancer has long been a debated, complex topic. The use of risk calculators for prostate cancer is recommended for determining patients' individual risk of cancer and the subsequent need for a prostate biopsy. These tools could lead to better discrimination of patients in need of invasive diagnostic procedures and optimized allocation of health care resources.
OBJECTIVE
The goal of the research was to systematically review available literature on the performance of current prostate cancer risk calculators in healthy populations by comparing the relative impact of individual items on different cohorts and on the models' overall performance.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of available prostate cancer risk calculators targeted at healthy populations. We included studies published from January 2000 to March 2021 in English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, or German. Two reviewers independently decided for or against inclusion based on abstracts. A third reviewer intervened in case of disagreements. From the selected titles, we extracted information regarding the purpose of the manuscript, analyzed calculators, population for which it was calibrated, included risk factors, and the model's overall accuracy.
RESULTS
We included a total of 18 calculators from 53 different manuscripts. The most commonly analyzed ones were the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) and European Randomized Study on Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators developed from North American and European cohorts, respectively. Both calculators provided high diagnostic ability of aggressive prostate cancer (AUC as high as 0.798 for PCPT and 0.91 for ERSPC). We found 9 calculators developed from scratch for specific populations that reached a diagnostic ability as high as 0.938. The most commonly included risk factors in the calculators were age, prostate specific antigen levels, and digital rectal examination findings. Additional calculators included race and detailed personal and family history.
CONCLUSIONS
Both the PCPR and ERSPC risk calculators have been successfully adapted for cohorts other than the ones they were originally created for with no loss of diagnostic ability. Furthermore, designing calculators from scratch considering each population's sociocultural differences has resulted in risk tools that can be well adapted to be valid in more patients. The best risk calculator for prostate cancer will be that which has been calibrated for its intended population and can be easily reproduced and implemented.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021242110; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=242110.
PubMed: 34477564
DOI: 10.2196/30430 -
European Urology Open Science Jun 2023Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate has been shown to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. However,... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate has been shown to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. However, evidence is still evolving about how best to integrate prebiopsy MRI into the diagnostic pathway and for which patients, and whether MRI-based pathways are cost effective.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aimed to assess the evidence for the cost effectiveness of prebiopsy MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic pathways.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
INTERTASC search strategies were adapted and combined with terms for prostate cancer and MRI, and used to search a wide range of databases and registries covering medicine, allied health, clinical trials, and health economics. No limits were set on country, setting, or publication year. Included studies were full economic evaluations of prostate cancer diagnostic pathways with at least one strategy including prebiopsy MRI. Model-based studies were assessed using the Philips framework, and trial-based studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 6593 records were screened after removing duplicates, and eight full-text papers, reporting on seven studies (two model based) were included in this review. Included studies were judged to have a low-to-moderate risk of bias. All studies reported cost-effectiveness analyses based in high-income countries but had significant heterogeneity in diagnostic strategies, patient populations, treatment strategies, and model characteristics. Prebiopsy MRI-based pathways were cost effective compared with pathways relying on ultrasound-guided biopsy in all eight studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Incorporation of prebiopsy MRI into prostate cancer diagnostic pathways is likely to be more cost effective in than that into pathways relying on prostate-specific antigen and ultrasound-guided biopsy. The optimal prostate cancer diagnostic pathway design and method of integrating prebiopsy MRI are not yet known. Variations between health care systems and diagnostic approaches necessitate further evaluation for a particular country or setting to know how best to apply prebiopsy MRI.
PATIENT SUMMARY
In this report, we looked at studies that measured the health care costs and benefits and harms to patients of using prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to decide whether men need a prostate biopsy for possible prostate cancer. We found that using prostate MRI before biopsy is likely to be less costly for health care services and probably has better outcomes for patients being investigated for prostate cancer. It is still unclear what the best way to use prostate MRI is.
PubMed: 37213242
DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.03.010 -
Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) Aug 2023[F]DCFPyL is increasingly used for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) mediated imaging of men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BRPCa). In this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Detection of Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer with [F]DCFPyL PET/CT: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with a Focus on Correlations with Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen Parameters.
[F]DCFPyL is increasingly used for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) mediated imaging of men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BRPCa). In this meta-analysis, which is updated with the addition of multiple new studies, including the definitive phase III CONDOR trial, we discuss the detection efficiency of [F]DCFPyL in BRPCa patients. PubMed was searched on 29 September 2022. Studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of [F]DCFPyL among patients with BRPCa were included. The overall pooled detection rate with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated among all included studies and stratified among patients with PSA ≥ 2 vs. <2 ng/mL and with PSA ≥ 0.5 vs. <0.5 ng/mL. The association of detection efficiency with pooled PSA doubling time from two studies was calculated. Seventeen manuscripts, including 2252 patients, met the inclusion criteria and were used for data extraction. A previous meta-analysis reported that the pooled detection rate was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.85), while our study showed a pooled overall detection rate of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.66-0.79). An increased proportion of positive scans were found in patients with PSA ≥ 2 vs. <2 ng/mL and PSA ≥ 0.5 vs. <0.5 ng/mL. No significant difference was found in detection efficiency between those with PSA doubling time ≥ 12 vs. <12 months. Detection efficiency is statistically related to serum PSA levels but not to PSA doubling time based on available data. The detection efficiency of [F]DCFPyL in men with BRPCa has trended down since a previous meta-analysis, which may reflect increasingly stringent inclusion criteria for studies over time.
Topics: Male; Humans; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37624113
DOI: 10.3390/tomography9040120 -
Translational Andrology and Urology Feb 2018In the last decade, active surveillance (AS) has emerged as an acceptable choice for low-risk prostate cancer (PC), however there is discordance amongst large AS cohort... (Review)
Review
In the last decade, active surveillance (AS) has emerged as an acceptable choice for low-risk prostate cancer (PC), however there is discordance amongst large AS cohort studies with respect to entry and monitoring protocols. We systematically reviewed worldwide AS practices in studies reporting ≥5 years follow-up. We searched PubMed and Medline 2000-now and identified 13 AS cohorts. Three key areas were identified: (I) patient selection; (II) monitoring protocols; (III) triggers for intervention-(I) all studies defined clinically localised PC diagnosis as T2b disease or less and most agreed on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) threshold (<10 µg/L) and Gleason score threshold (3+3). Inconsistency was most notable regarding pathologic factors (e.g., number of positive cores); (II) all agreed on PSA surveillance as crucial for monitoring, and most agreed that confirmatory biopsy was required within 12 months of initiation. No consensus was reached on optimal timing of digital rectal examination (DRE), general health assessment or re-biopsy strategies thereafter; (III) there was no universal agreement for intervention triggers, although Gleason score, number or percentage of positive cancer cores, maximum cancer length (MCL) and PSA doubling time were used by several studies. Some also used imaging or re-biopsy. Despite consistent high progression-free/cancer-free survival and conversion-to-treatment rates, heterogeneity exists amongst these large AS cohorts. Combining existing evidence and gathering more long-term evidence [e.g., the Movember's Global AS database or additional information on use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)] is needed to derive a broadly supported guideline to reduce variation in clinical practice.
PubMed: 29594023
DOI: 10.21037/tau.2017.12.24 -
Arab Journal of Urology 2020: To address the question of whether antibiotic therapy can obviate the need for prostate biopsy (PBx) in patients presenting with high prostate-specific antigen (PSA)... (Review)
Review
: To address the question of whether antibiotic therapy can obviate the need for prostate biopsy (PBx) in patients presenting with high prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. : With the increase in unnecessary PBx in men with high PSA levels, a systematic review was performed according to the Cochrane Reviews guidelines and in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. : The literature search yielded 42 studies, of which 11 were excluded due to irrelevance of data. Most of the studies were retrospective, nine studies were randomised controlled trials, and there were seven prospective non-randomised trials. The age range of the patients was 51-95 years. Antibiotics, predominantly ofloxacin or ciprofloxacin, combined with a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) or not, were prescribed for 2-8 weeks. All studies focussed on PSA levels ranging from ≤ 4 to ≥ 10 ng/mL. Furthermore, antibiotic therapy normalised PSA levels by a wide variety of percentages (16-59%), and the PSA level decrease also varied widely and ranged from 17% to 80%. For patients who had unchanged or decreased PSA, carcinoma was found in 40-52% and 7.7-20.3%, respectively. No cancer was detected if the PSA level decreased to < 4 ng/mL. : Antibiotic therapy is clinically beneficial in patients with high PSA levels. PSA reduction or normalisation after medical therapy, either antibiotic and/or NSAID, for ≥ 2 weeks can avoid unnecessary PBx. Antibiotic therapy is more beneficial when the PSA level is < 20 ng/mL. : EPS: expressed prostatic secretion; PBx: prostate biopsy; (%f)(f/t)(t)PSA, (percentage free) (free/total) (total) serum PSA; PSAD: PSA density; RCT: randomised controlled trial; VB3: voided bladder urine 3.
PubMed: 32082627
DOI: 10.1080/2090598X.2019.1677296 -
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 -
European Urology May 2024In Europe, prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men. Screening may therefore be crucial to lower health care costs, morbidity, and mortality. This... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
In Europe, prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men. Screening may therefore be crucial to lower health care costs, morbidity, and mortality. This systematic review aimed to provide a contemporary overview of the costs and benefits of PCa screening programmes.
METHODS
A peer-reviewed literature search was conducted, using the PICO method. A detailed search strategy was developed in four databases based on the following key search terms: "PCa", "screening", and "cost effectiveness". Any type of economic evaluation was included. The search strategy was restricted to European countries, but no restrictions were set on the year of publication.
KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS
A total of 7484 studies were identified initially. Of these, 19 studies described the cost effectiveness of PCa screening in Europe. Among the studies using an initially healthy study population, most focussed on risk- and/or age- and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based screening in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and compared this with no screening. Incremental cost ratios (ICERs) varied from €5872 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) to €372 948/QALY, with a median of €56 487/QALY. Risk-based screening followed by MRI testing seemed to be a more cost-effective strategy than no screening.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
This systematic review indicates that screening programmes incorporating a risk-based approach and MRI have the potential to be cost effective.
PATIENT SUMMARY
In this review, we looked at the cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening in Europe. We found that a risk-based approach and incorporation of magnetic resonance imaging has the potential to be cost effective. However, there remains a knowledge gap regarding cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening. Therefore, determinants of cost effectiveness require further investigation.
PubMed: 38789306
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2024.04.036 -
European Urology Oncology Jan 2024Although digital rectal examination (DRE) is recommended in combination with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for detection of prostate cancer (PCa), there are limited... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Although digital rectal examination (DRE) is recommended in combination with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for detection of prostate cancer (PCa), there are limited data to support its use as a screening/early detection test. Our objective was to assess the diagnostic value of DRE in screening for early detection of PCa.
METHODS
In August 2023, we queried the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify prospective studies simultaneously investigating the diagnostic performance of DRE and PSA for PCa screening. The primary endpoints were the positive predictive value (PPV) and cancer detection rate (CDR) of DRE. Secondary endpoints included the PPV and CDR of both PSA alone and in combination with DRE. We conducted meta-regression analysis to compare the CDR and PPV of different screening strategies. This meta-analysis is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023446940).
KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS
We identified eight studies involving 85 738 participants, of which three were randomized controlled trials and five were prospective diagnostic studies, that reported the PPV and CDR of both DRE and PSA for the same cohort. Our analysis revealed a pooled PPV of 0.21 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.33) for DRE, which is similar to the PPV of PSA (0.22, 95% CI 0.15-0.30; p = 0.9), with no benefit from combining DRE and PSA (PPV 0.19, 95% CI 0.13-0.26; p = 0.5). However, the CDR of DRE (0.01, 95% CI: 0.01-0.02) was significantly lower than that of PSA (0.03, 95% CI 0.02-0.03; p < 0.05) and the combination of DRE and PSA (0.03, 95% CI 0.02-0.04; p < 0.05). The screening strategy combining DRE and PSA was not different to that of PSA alone in terms of CDR (p = 0.5) and PPV (p = 0.5).
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Our comprehensive review and meta-analysis indicates that both as an independent test and as a supplementary measure to PSA for PCa detection, DRE exhibits a notably low diagnostic value. The collective findings from the included studies suggest that, in the absence of clinical symptoms and signs, DRE could be potentially omitted from PCa screening and early detection strategies.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Our review shows that the screening performance of digital rectal examination for detection of prostate cancer is not particularly impressive, suggesting that it might not be necessary to conduct this examination routinely.
PubMed: 38182488
DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.12.005 -
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 -
Translational Andrology and Urology Apr 2020Several studies have assessed the safety and feasibility of single port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using different and custom built robotic-assisted... (Review)
Review
Several studies have assessed the safety and feasibility of single port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using different and custom built robotic-assisted technology. In part due to the non-standardized nature of these approaches, single site robotic prostatectomy has not been widely adopted. With the recent approval of the da Vinci (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale CA) Single Port (SP) platform, there has been a renewed interest in single site robotic-assisted prostatectomy and several institutions have begun reporting their initial experiences with this technique. In this systematic review, we sought to assess and summarize the literature regarding patient outcomes for single site robotic-assisted prostatectomy and evaluate its role in surgical treatment of prostate cancer. This systematic review was structured using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies describing the use of any robotic platform, including da Vinci Si, Xi or SP platforms for robotic single-port or single site radical prostatectomy between 2000 and July 15, 2019 were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Studies were excluded if they included combined cases with other organ resection, represented use in a non-clinical setting (such as a cadaveric model), or described results for a simple prostatectomy technique. Data was extracted by two authors with concerns resolved by consensus. Primary outcomes were mean operative times, estimated blood loss (mL), and hospital length of stay (days). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative conversion to open surgery, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Variables of interest included sample size (n), mean age (years), mean prostate size (mL), prostate specific antigen (PSA, ng/mL), Gleason score, clinical and pathological TNM staging [American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC)], lymph nodes (n) and perioperative complications as available. A total of 217 studies were reviewed by title and abstract, with 28 selected for full-text review; ultimately, 12 studies were included, with available data from 145 patients. Primary outcomes and preoperative characteristics varied greatly amongst patients and across studies. One patient (0.7%) required conversion to a multi-port approach and there were no conversions to an open technique. No intraoperative complications were reported, and no Clavien grade III or greater postoperative complications have been described in the initial 81 radical prostatectomies performed with the SP platform. Single Port techniques appear to represent a safe and feasible approach for performing the minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. The current available literature on the single port radical prostatectomy is weak and consists of single center studies with small sample sizes, short-term follow up and limited functional data. More rigorous multi-center trials with standardized metrics for reporting functional outcomes as well as long-term cancer specific survival are necessary to validate these initial studies.
PubMed: 32420205
DOI: 10.21037/tau.2019.11.05