-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2019Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, is an alternative test to systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in...
BACKGROUND
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, is an alternative test to systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men suspected of having prostate cancer. At present, evidence on which test to use is insufficient to inform detailed evidence-based decision-making.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the index tests MRI only, MRI-targeted biopsy, the MRI pathway (MRI with or without MRI-targeted biopsy) and systematic biopsy as compared to template-guided biopsy as the reference standard in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer as the target condition, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 or higher. Secondary target conditions were the detection of grade 1 and grade 3 or higher-grade prostate cancer, and a potential change in the number of biopsy procedures.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive systematic literature search up to 31 July 2018. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases and one trials register.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered for inclusion any cross-sectional study if it investigated one or more index tests verified by the reference standard, or if it investigated the agreement between the MRI pathway and systematic biopsy, both performed in the same men. We included only studies on men who were biopsy naïve or who previously had a negative biopsy (or a mix of both). Studies involving MRI had to report on both MRI-positive and MRI-negative men. All studies had to report on the primary target condition.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. To estimate test accuracy, we calculated sensitivity and specificity using the bivariate model. To estimate agreement between the MRI pathway and systematic biopsy, we synthesised detection ratios by performing random-effects meta-analyses. To estimate the proportions of participants with prostate cancer detected by only one of the index tests, we used random-effects multinomial or binary logistic regression models. For the main comparisions, we assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
The test accuracy analyses included 18 studies overall.MRI compared to template-guided biopsy: Based on a pooled sensitivity of 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83 to 0.95; 12 studies; low certainty of evidence) and a pooled specificity of 0.37 (95% CI: 0.29 to 0.46; 12 studies; low certainty of evidence) using a baseline prevalence of 30%, MRI may result in 273 (95% CI: 249 to 285) true positives, 441 false positives (95% CI: 378 to 497), 259 true negatives (95% CI: 203 to 322) and 27 (95% CI: 15 to 51) false negatives per 1000 men. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and inconsistency.MRI-targeted biopsy compared to template-guided biopsy: Based on a pooled sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.87; 8 studies; low certainty of evidence) and a pooled specificity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90 to 0.97; 8 studies; low certainty of evidence) using a baseline prevalence of 30%, MRI-targeted biopsy may result in 240 (95% CI: 207 to 261) true positives, 42 (95% CI: 21 to 70) false positives, 658 (95% CI: 630 to 679) true negatives and 60 (95% CI: 39 to 93) false negatives per 1000 men. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and inconsistency.The MRI pathway compared to template-guided biopsy: Based on a pooled sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.60 to 0.82; 8 studies; low certainty of evidence) and a pooled specificity of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94 to 0.98; 8 studies; low certainty of evidence) using a baseline prevalence of 30%, the MRI pathway may result in 216 (95% CI: 180 to 246) true positives, 28 (95% CI: 14 to 42) false positives, 672 (95% CI: 658 to 686) true negatives and 84 (95% CI: 54 to 120) false negatives per 1000 men. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision.Systemic biopsy compared to template-guided biopsy: Based on a pooled sensitivity of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.19 to 0.93; 4 studies; low certainty of evidence) and a pooled specificity of 1.00 (95% CI: 0.91 to 1.00; 4 studies; low certainty of evidence) using a baseline prevalence of 30%, systematic biopsy may result in 189 (95% CI: 57 to 279) true positives, 0 (95% CI: 0 to 63) false positives, 700 (95% CI: 637 to 700) true negatives and 111 (95% CI: 21 to 243) false negatives per 1000 men. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and inconsistency.Agreement analyses: In a mixed population of both biopsy-naïve and prior-negative biopsy men comparing the MRI pathway to systematic biopsy, we found a pooled detection ratio of 1.12 (95% CI: 1.02 to 1.23; 25 studies). We found pooled detection ratios of 1.44 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.75; 10 studies) in prior-negative biopsy men and 1.05 (95% CI: 0.95 to 1.16; 20 studies) in biopsy-naïve men.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Among the diagnostic strategies considered, the MRI pathway has the most favourable diagnostic accuracy in clinically significant prostate cancer detection. Compared to systematic biopsy, it increases the number of significant cancer detected while reducing the number of insignificant cancer diagnosed. The certainty in our findings was reduced by study limitations, specifically issues surrounding selection bias, as well as inconsistency. Based on these findings, further improvement of prostate cancer diagnostic pathways should be pursued.
Topics: Biopsy; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Prostate; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 31022301
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2 -
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 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Sep 2023The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the association between periodontal disease and prostate inflammation with a null hypothesis stating... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the association between periodontal disease and prostate inflammation with a null hypothesis stating that periodontal disease does not increase the incidence of prostate inflammation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational cohort and case-control studies that evaluated the odds ratio or hazard ratio and confidence interval was undertaken based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations (2020). A total of four databases were consulted in the literature search: PubMed-Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. After eliminating duplicated articles and applying the inclusion criteria, seven articles were selected for the qualitative and quantitative analyses.
RESULTS
Four observational cohort studies and three observational cohort case-control studies were included in the meta-analysis. The four observational cohort studies were combined using the random effects model to estimate a hazard ratio of 1.32 with a confidence interval of 95% between 0.87 and 1.77. The meta-analysis presented high heterogeneity (Q test = 56.1; value < 0.001; I = 94.9%). Moreover, the three observational case-control studies were combined using the random effects model to estimate an odds ratio of 1.62 with a confidence interval of 95% between 1.41 and 1.84. The meta-analysis presented high heterogeneity (Q test = 1.07; value = 0.782; I = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
The incidence of periodontal disease does not increase the risk of the incidence of prostate inflammation.
PubMed: 37763009
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12186070 -
Scientific Reports Oct 2023The involvement of human papillomavirus (HPV) in the prostate carcinogenesis is a controversial issue. The presented meta-analysis was carried out to systematize the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The involvement of human papillomavirus (HPV) in the prostate carcinogenesis is a controversial issue. The presented meta-analysis was carried out to systematize the currently available research results regarding this question. The meta-analysis includes case-control studies from 1991 to 2022, which were collected from publicly available bibliometric databases. The meta-analysis was performed using Meta-Essentials_1.5 software. We used Begg's and Egger's methods to assess publication bias. Cochran's Q test was used to assess heterogeneity and the I index was employed for calculating the variation in the pooled estimations. The analysis was based on data from 27 case-control studies, which in total yielded 1607 tumour tissue samples of prostate and 1515 control samples (317 samples of normal tissue, 1198 samples of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)). According to the data obtained, there was high risk of prostate cancer by HPV infection in both cases. HPV was found in prostate cancer in 25.8% of cases, while in normal tissue samples the virus was detected in 9.2% of cases and in 17.4% with BPH as a control. In particular, more studies on the association of HPV and prostate cancer are needed to prove the role of HPV in the development of prostate cancer. In addition to the controversial question of whether HPV infection is associated with prostate cancer risk, it is worth considering whether the samples used as a control have an impact on the results. The impact of HPV in prostate tumour tissue samples on outcome should also be investigated.
Topics: Male; Humans; Human Papillomavirus Viruses; Papillomavirus Infections; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Papillomaviridae; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37789036
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-43767-7 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2020Contemporary minimally invasive surgical (MIS) treatment options of patients with male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) in men with prostate glands >80 mL include... (Review)
Review
Contemporary minimally invasive surgical (MIS) treatment options of patients with male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) in men with prostate glands >80 mL include Holmium Laser Enucleation Prostate (HoLEP), Thulium laser VapoEnucleation Prostate (ThuVEP), and Laparoscopic (LSP) or Robotic-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy (RASP). Implementing new laser technologies is costly, and the steep learning curve of these laser techniques limit their wide range use. This promoted the use of LSP and RASP in centers with readily established laparoscopy or robotic surgery programs. The aim of this study is to review case and comparative series of RASP. We systematically reviewed published data from 2008 to 2020 on RASP and have identified 26 non-comparative and 9 comparative case series. RASP has longer operation time but less time spent in hospital and less blood loss. The outcomes of improvements in symptom score, post-voiding residual urine (PVR), postoperative PSA decline, complications, and cost are similar when compared to open and laser enucleation techniques. These outcomes position RASP as a viable MIS treatment option for patients with male LUTS needing surgical treatment for enlarged prostates. Nevertheless, prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with multicenter and large sample size are needed to confirm the findings of this systematic review.
PubMed: 32527020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9061798 -
BMC Public Health Jun 2023Association of cigarette smoking habits with the risk of prostate cancer is still a matter of debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Association of cigarette smoking habits with the risk of prostate cancer is still a matter of debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the association between cigarette smoking and prostate cancer risk.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science without language or time restrictions on June 11, 2022. Literature search and study screening were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Prospective cohort studies that assessed the association between cigarette smoking habits and the risk of prostate cancer were included. Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We used random-effects models to obtain pooled estimates and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
A total of 7296 publications were screened, of which 44 cohort studies were identified for qualitative analysis; 39 articles comprising 3 296 398 participants and 130 924 cases were selected for further meta-analysis. Current smoking had a significantly reduced risk of prostate cancer (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.68-0.80; P < 0.001), especially in studies completed in the prostate-specific antigen screening era. Compared to former smokers, current smokers had a significant lower risk of PCa (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.65-0.75; P < 0.001). Ever smoking showed no association with prostate cancer risk in overall analyses (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00; P = 0.074), but an increased risk of prostate cancer in the pre-prostate-specific antigen screening era (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.10; P = 0.046) and a lower risk of prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen screening era (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99; P = 0.011) were observed. Former smoking did not show any association with the risk of prostate cancer.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings suggest that the lower risk of prostate cancer in smokers can probably be attributed to their poor adherence to cancer screening and the occurrence of deadly smoking-related diseases, and we should take measures to help smokers to be more compliant with early cancer screening and to quit smoking.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022326464).
Topics: Male; Humans; Cigarette Smoking; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prospective Studies; Smoking; Prostatic Neoplasms; Habits
PubMed: 37316851
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-16085-w -
Journal of Robotic Surgery Dec 2023This study aims to conduct a systematic review of full economic analyses of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in adults' thoracic and abdominopelvic indications. Authors... (Review)
Review
This study aims to conduct a systematic review of full economic analyses of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in adults' thoracic and abdominopelvic indications. Authors used Medline, EMBASE, and PubMed to conduct a systematic review following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Fully published economic articles in English were included. Methodology and reporting quality were assessed using standardized tools. Majority of studies (28/33) were on oncology procedures. Radical prostatectomy was the most reported procedure (16/33). Twenty-eight studies used quality-adjusted life years, and five used complication rates as outcomes. Nine used primary and 24 studies used secondary data. All studies used modeling. In 81% of studies (27/33), RAS was cost-effective or potentially cost-effective compared to comparator procedures, including radical prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and cystectomy. Societal perspective, longer-term time-horizon, and larger volumes favored RAS. Cost-drivers were length of stay and equipment cost. From societal and payer perspectives, robotic-assisted surgery is a cost-effective strategy for thoracic and abdominopelvic procedures.Clinical trial registration This study is a systematic review with no intervention, not a clinical trial.
Topics: Male; Humans; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Quality-Adjusted Life Years
PubMed: 37843673
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-023-01731-7 -
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 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Apr 2022Metastatic spread to the rectum is a rare finding, and management of rectal metastases (RM) is not standardized. The aim of the present study was to review the evidence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Metastatic spread to the rectum is a rare finding, and management of rectal metastases (RM) is not standardized. The aim of the present study was to review the evidence on diagnosis, management and outcomes of RM.
METHODS
A computerized literature search through MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane databases was performed, applying a combination of terms related to RM. Articles and abstracts were screened and final selection was done after cross-referencing and by use of predefined eligibility criteria.
RESULTS
Final analysis was based on 99 publications totaling 162 patients with RM from 16 different primary tumors. Most common origins of RM were breast (42 patients), stomach (38 patients), and prostate (16 patients). RM occurred metachronously in the majority of patients (77%). The main treatment was surgical resection (n = 32), followed by chemotherapy (n = 16). Median overall survival for breast RM, stomach RM, and prostate RM were 24 months (95% CI 9-39 months), 7 months (95% CI 0-14 months), and 24 months (95% CI 7-41 months), respectively.
CONCLUSION
RM is a rare and highly heterogeneous condition. Surgical treatment appears to be a valuable treatment option in selected patients, while overall prognosis depends mainly on the primary tumor.
Topics: Humans; Male; Melanoma; Prognosis; Prostate; Rectum; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 34656391
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.10.004 -
Investigative and Clinical Urology Mar 2016Urosepsis is the most feared complication of transrectal prostate biopsy. The incidence may be increasing from <1% to 2%-3% in contemporary series. Historically,... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Urosepsis is the most feared complication of transrectal prostate biopsy. The incidence may be increasing from <1% to 2%-3% in contemporary series. Historically, fluoroquinolones have been effective antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infective complications but antibiotic resistance is increasing. The increase in antibiotic resistance may contribute to reported increases in urosepsis and hospitalization after transrectal biopsy. This article will review other methods clinicians may employ to reduce the incidence of infective complications after prostate biopsy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted using literature databases PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE in August 2015 in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) criteria.
RESULTS
Effective strategies to reduce infective complications after transrectal prostate biopsy include augmented prophylaxis with other antibiotics, rectal swab culture directed antibiotic prophylaxis or a transperineal biopsy approach. Needle disinfection, minimizing the number of biopsy needles and rectal disinfectants may also be of use. These methods may be of particular utility in patients with risk factors for developing urosepsis such as recent antibiotic use and overseas travel.
CONCLUSIONS
The scientific literature describes various techniques designed to reduce infective complications caused by prostate biopsy. Clinicians should consider incorporating these novel techniques into their contemporary practice.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Biopsy, Needle; Cross Infection; Disinfection; Humans; Male; Needles; Prostate; Prostatic Neoplasms; Sepsis
PubMed: 26981590
DOI: 10.4111/icu.2016.57.2.94