-
Medical Principles and Practice :... 2024This review aimed to systematically quantify the association between pre-operative total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) and survivorship of prostate cancer (PCa).
OBJECTIVE
This review aimed to systematically quantify the association between pre-operative total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) and survivorship of prostate cancer (PCa).
METHODS
Data sources for the review included MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO, and relevant reference lists. Databases were searched from inception to June 2022. The study took place between May 2022 and March 2023. We included studies that applied a quantitative approach to examine the interaction between pre-operative PSA and survivorship of PCa. Pre-operative PSA constituted the independent variable, whereas survivorship of PCa as measured by biochemical recurrence and mortality constitute the outcome variable. A risk of bias assessment was conducted with the aid of a mixed-method appraisal tool. We employed meta-analysis to quantify the association of pre-operative PSA with biochemical recurrence and mortality and computed I2 to assess the degree of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
We found a positive weak association between pre-operative PSA and biochemical recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.074; 95% CI = 1.042-1.106). With a median rise in PSA (≥2 ng/mL), the likelihood for biochemical recurrence increase by approximately 7.4%. There was statistically a significant association between PSA and mortality (HR = 1.222, CI = 0.917-1.630).
CONCLUSIONS
Biochemical recurrence associates with pre-operative PSA in an inconsistent manner. The sole use of pre-operative PSA in estimating post-prostatectomy biochemical recurrence should be discouraged. There is need for a multifactorial model which employs a prudent combination of the most important and cost-effective biomarkers in predicting post-prostatectomy biochemical recurrence.
PubMed: 38142683
DOI: 10.1159/000535965 -
Preventive Medicine Reports Jan 2024To identify barriers and facilitators of the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) on PSA testing in primary care. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify barriers and facilitators of the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) on PSA testing in primary care.
DESIGN
Systematic review of articles.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Original studies published in English or Spanish that assessed the barriers to and facilitators of SDM before PSA testing in primary care were included. No time restrictions were applied.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two review authors screened the titles, abstracts and full texts for inclusion, and assessed the quality of the included studies. A thematic synthesis of the results were performed and developed a framework. Quality assessment of the studies was based on three checklists: STROBE for quantitative cross-sectional studies, GUIDED for intervention studies and SRQR for qualitative studies.
RESULTS
The search returned 431 articles, of which we included 13: five cross-sectional studies, two intervention studies, five qualitative studies and one mixed methods study. The identified barriers included lack of time (healthcare professionals), lack of knowledge (healthcare professionals and patients), and preestablished beliefs (patients). The identified facilitators included decision-making training for professionals, education for patients and healthcare professionals, and dissemination of information.
CONCLUSIONS
SDM implementation in primary care seems to be a recent field. Many of the barriers identified are modifiable, and the facilitators can be leveraged to strengthen the implementation of SDM.
PubMed: 38179441
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102539 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023Currently, prostate cancer (PCa) poses a global risk to the well-being of males. Over the past few years, the utilization of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening...
Currently, prostate cancer (PCa) poses a global risk to the well-being of males. Over the past few years, the utilization of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has become prevalent in the identification and management of PCa, which has promoted a large number of patients with advanced PCa to receive timely treatment and reduce the mortality. Nevertheless, the utilization of PSA in PCa screening has sparked debate, and certain research has validated the potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment associated with PSA screening. Hence, in order to decrease the mortality rate of PCa patients and prevent unnecessary diagnosis and treatment, it is crucial to carefully choose the suitable population and strategy for PSA screening in PCa. In this systematic review, the clinical studies on PSA screening for the diagnosis and treatment of PCa were thoroughly examined. The review also delved into the effects and mechanisms of PSA screening on the prognosis of PCa patients, examined the factors contributing to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and put forth strategies for optimization. The objective of this research is to offer valuable recommendations regarding the utilization of PSA screening for the detection and management of PCa.
PubMed: 38264758
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1320681 -
European Urology Jan 2024In prostate cancer (PCa), questions remain on indications for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and PSMA radioligand...
BACKGROUND
In prostate cancer (PCa), questions remain on indications for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and PSMA radioligand therapy, integration of advanced imaging in nomogram-based decision-making, dosimetry, and development of new theranostic applications.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to critically review developments in molecular hybrid imaging and systemic radioligand therapy, to reach a multidisciplinary consensus on the current state of the art in PCa.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
The results of a systematic literature search informed a two-round Delphi process with a panel of 28 PCa experts in medical or radiation oncology, urology, radiology, medical physics, and nuclear medicine. The results were discussed and ratified in a consensus meeting.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Forty-eight statements were scored on a Likert agreement scale and six as ranking options. Agreement statements were analysed using the RAND appropriateness method. Ranking statements were analysed using weighted summed scores.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
After two Delphi rounds, there was consensus on 42/48 (87.5%) of the statements. The expert panel recommends PSMA PET to be used for staging the majority of patients with unfavourable intermediate and high risk, and for restaging of suspected recurrent PCa. There was consensus that oligometastatic disease should be defined as up to five metastases, even using advanced imaging modalities. The group agreed that [Lu]Lu-PSMA should not be administered only after progression to cabazitaxel and that [Ra]RaCl remains a valid therapeutic option in bone-only metastatic castration-resistant PCa. Uncertainty remains on various topics, including the need for concordant findings on both []FDG and PSMA PET prior to [Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy.
CONCLUSIONS
There was a high proportion of agreement among a panel of experts on the use of molecular imaging and theranostics in PCa. Although consensus statements cannot replace high-certainty evidence, these can aid in the interpretation and dissemination of best practice from centres of excellence to the wider clinical community.
PATIENT SUMMARY
There are situations when dealing with prostate cancer (PCa) where both the doctors who diagnose and track the disease development and response to treatment, and those who give treatments are unsure about what the best course of action is. Examples include what methods they should use to obtain images of the cancer and what to do when the cancer has returned or spread. We reviewed published research studies and provided a summary to a panel of experts in imaging and treating PCa. We also used the research summary to develop a questionnaire whereby we asked the experts to state whether or not they agreed with a list of statements. We used these results to provide guidance to other health care professionals on how best to image men with PCa and what treatments to give, when, and in what order, based on the information the images provide.
Topics: Humans; Male; Molecular Imaging; Nuclear Medicine; Positron-Emission Tomography; Precision Medicine; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37743194
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.09.003 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2024Recent guidelines on opportunistic prostate cancer screening conclude that the decision to screen with prostate-specific antigen should be made by each patient...
BACKGROUND
Recent guidelines on opportunistic prostate cancer screening conclude that the decision to screen with prostate-specific antigen should be made by each patient individually together with the clinician. However, there is evidence of a lack of clinicians' awareness of prostate cancer screening. This study sought to assess the recent evidence of clinicians' knowledge, beliefs, and practice regarding opportunistic prostate cancer screening comparing urologists and generals practitioners.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in 3 online databases: MEDLINE, Web of Science and EMBASE (from January 1, 2015, to January 9th, 2023). Studies that explored clinicians' knowledge, beliefs, and practices regarding opportunistic prostate cancer screening were included. Studies were assessed for quality reporting according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology guidelines.
RESULTS
A total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria: ten studies included primary care health professionals, three studies included urologists, and one study included both. Studies involving general practitioners showed a generally low level of awareness of the recommended uses of the test, and urologists showed a greater knowledge of clinical practice guidelines. General practitioners' opinion of prostate-specific antigen was generally unfavourable in contrast to urologists' who were more likely to be proactive in ordering the test. Less than half of the included studies evaluated shared-decision making in practice and 50% of clinicians surveyed implemented it.
CONCLUSION
General practitioners had less knowledge of prostate cancer risk factors and clinical practice guidelines in the use of PSA than urologists, which makes them less likely to follow available recommendations. A need to carry out education interventions with trusted resources based on the available evidence and the current guidelines was identified.
PubMed: 38435387
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1283654 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2024Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is a rare subtype of prostate cancer. The pathogenesis, clinical manifestation, treatment options, and prognosis are...
BACKGROUND
Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is a rare subtype of prostate cancer. The pathogenesis, clinical manifestation, treatment options, and prognosis are uncertain and underreported.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in April 2022 through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. We reviewed cases of LCNEC developed either from or transformation from prostate adenocarcinoma and summarized the relevant pathophysiological course, treatment options, and outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 25 patients with a mean age of 70.4 (range 43 87 years old) from 18 studies were included in this review. 13 patients were diagnosed with LCNEC of the prostate. 12 patients were from the transformation of adenocarcinoma post-hormonal therapy treatment. Upon initial diagnosis, patients diagnosed with prostatic LCNEC had a mean serum PSA value of 24.6 ng/ml (range: 0.09-170 ng/ml, median 5.5 ng/ml), while transformation cases were significantly lower at 3.3 ng/ml (range: 0-9.3 ng/ml, median 0.05 ng/ml). The pattern of metastasis closely resembles prostate adenocarcinoma. Six out of twenty-three cases displayed brain metastasis matching the correlation between neuroendocrine tumors and brain metastasis. Three notable paraneoplastic syndromes included Cushings syndrome, dermatomyositis, and polycythemia. Most patients with advanced metastatic disease received conventional platinum-based chemotherapy with a mean survival of 5 months. There was one exception in the transformation cohort with a somatic BRCA2 mutation who was treated with a combination of M6620 and platinum-based chemotherapy with an impressive PFS of 20 months. Patients with pure LCNEC phenotype have worse survival outcomes when compared to those with mixed LCNEC and adenocarcinoma phenotypes. It is unclear whether there is a survival benefit to administering ADT in pure pathologies.
CONCLUSION
LCNEC of the prostate is a rare disease that can occur or transformation from prostatic adenocarcinoma. Most patients present at an advanced stage with poor prognosis and are treated with conventional chemotherapy regimens. Patients who had better outcomes were those who were diagnosed at an early stage and received treatment with surgery or radiation and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). There was one case with an exceptional outcome that included a treatment regimen of M6620 and chemotherapy.
PubMed: 38515575
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1341794 -
Insights Into Imaging Jun 2024To investigate the diagnostic performance of MRI in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and prostate cancer (PCa) in patients with prostate-specific...
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the diagnostic performance of MRI in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and prostate cancer (PCa) in patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 4-10 ng/mL.
METHODS
A computerized search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Medline, and Web of Science was conducted from inception until October 31, 2023. We included articles on the use of MRI to detect csPCa or PCa at 4-10 ng/mL PSA. The primary and secondary outcomes were MRI performance in csPCa and PCa detection, respectively; the estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were pooled in a bivariate random-effects model.
RESULTS
Among the 19 studies (3879 patients), there were 10 (2205 patients) and 13 studies (2965 patients) that reported MRI for detecting csPCa or PCa, respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for csPCa detection were 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.88) and 0.76 (95%CI, 0.65-0.84), respectively, for PCa detection were 0.82 (95%CI, 0.75-0.87) and 0.74 (95%CI, 0.65-0.82), respectively. The pooled NPV for csPCa detection was 0.91 (0.87-0.93). Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging also showed a significantly higher sensitivity and specificity relative to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (both p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION
Prostate MRI enables the detection of csPCa and PCa with satisfactory performance in the PSA gray zone. The excellent NPV for csPCa detection indicates the possibility of biopsy decision-making in patients in the PSA gray zone, but substantial heterogeneity among the included studies should be taken into account.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT
Prostate MRI can be considered a reliable and satisfactory tool for detecting csPCa and PCa in patients with PSA in the "gray zone", allowing for reducing unnecessary biopsy and optimizing the overall examination process.
KEY POINTS
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a common screening tool for prostate cancer but risks overdiagnosis. MRI demonstrated excellent negative predictive value for prostate cancer in the PSA gray zone. MRI can influence decision-making for these patients, and biparametric MRI should be further evaluated.
PubMed: 38886256
DOI: 10.1186/s13244-024-01699-4 -
Radiotherapy and Oncology : Journal of... Mar 2024Radiation therapy is used frequently for patients with prostate cancer. Dose escalation to intraprostatic lesions (IPLs) has been shown to improve oncologic outcomes,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Using multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography to detect and delineate the gross tumour volume of intraprostatic lesions - A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Radiation therapy is used frequently for patients with prostate cancer. Dose escalation to intraprostatic lesions (IPLs) has been shown to improve oncologic outcomes, without increasing toxicity. Both multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and PSMA PET can be used to identify IPLs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review was conducted to determine the ability of mpMRI, PSMA PET and their combination to detect IPLs prior to radical prostatectomy (RP) as correlated with the histology. Trials included patients that had mpMRI, PSMA PET, or both, prior to RP. The quality of the histopathological-radiological co-registration was assessed as high or low for each study. Recorded outcomes include sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). A meta-analysis was conducted using a bivariate model to determine the pooled sensitivity and specificity for each imaging modality. This systematic review was registered through PROSPERO (CRD42023389092).
RESULTS
Altogether, 42 studies were included in the systematic review. Of these, 20 could be included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (95 % CI), specificity (95 % CI) and AUROC for mpMRI (n = 13 studies) were 64.7 % (50.2 % - 76.9 %), 86.4 % (79.7 % - 91.1 %), and 0.852; the pooled outcomes for PSMA PET (n = 12) were 75.7 % (64.0 % - 84.5 %), 87.1 % (80.2 % - 91.9 %), and 0.889; for their combination (n = 5), the pooled outcomes were 70.3 % (64.1 % - 75.9 %), 81.9 % (71.9 % - 88.8 %), and 0.796. When reviewing studies with a high-quality histopathological-radiological co-registration, IPL delineation recommendations varied by study and the imaging modality used.
CONCLUSION
All of mpMRI, PSMA PET or their combination were found to have very good diagnostic outcomes for detecting IPLs. Recommendations for delineating IPLs varied based on the imaging modalities used and between research groups. Consensus guidelines for IPL delineation would help with creating consistency for focal boost radiation treatments in future studies.
Topics: Male; Humans; Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Prostate; Tumor Burden; Gallium Radioisotopes; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Prostatic Neoplasms; Positron-Emission Tomography; Magnetic Resonance Imaging
PubMed: 38262815
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.110070 -
Cancers Jan 2024Early detection of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) is crucial. Whilst the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET scan has high diagnostic accuracy, it suffers... (Review)
Review
Early detection of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) is crucial. Whilst the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET scan has high diagnostic accuracy, it suffers from inter-reader variability, and the time-consuming reporting process. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (ID CRD42023456044) and aims to evaluate AI's ability to enhance reporting, diagnostics, and predictive capabilities for mPCa on PSMA PET scans. Inclusion criteria covered studies using AI to evaluate mPCa on PSMA PET, excluding non-PSMA tracers. A search was conducted on Medline, Embase, and Scopus from inception to July 2023. After screening 249 studies, 11 remained eligible for inclusion. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, meta-analysis was precluded. The prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST) indicated a low overall risk of bias in ten studies, though only one incorporated clinical parameters (such as age, and Gleason score). AI demonstrated a high accuracy (98%) in identifying lymph node involvement and metastatic disease, albeit with sensitivity variation (62-97%). Advantages included distinguishing bone lesions, estimating tumour burden, predicting treatment response, and automating tasks accurately. In conclusion, AI showcases promising capabilities in enhancing the diagnostic potential of PSMA PET scans for mPCa, addressing current limitations in efficiency and variability.
PubMed: 38339239
DOI: 10.3390/cancers16030486 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2024Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted imaging has gained increasing interest in its application in prostate cancer lesion detection. Compared with Galium...
PURPOSE
Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted imaging has gained increasing interest in its application in prostate cancer lesion detection. Compared with Galium (Ga), Fluoride (F)-labeled imaging agent has easier syntheses, lower price, and a longer half-time. 2-(3-{1-Carboxy-5-[(6-[F]fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl}-ureido)-pentanedioic acid positron emission tomography (F-DCFPyL PET) has been recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Several studies have proven its superiority to conventional imaging techniques in detecting prostate cancer lesions. However, the impact of F-DCFPyL PET on the management of patients with prostate cancer is not well established. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available data to evaluate the impact of F-DCFPyL PET on the management of patients with prostate cancer.
METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched up to April 2024. Studies that reported the proportion of changes in management after F-DCFPyL PET was performed in patients with prostate cancer were included. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used for the quality evaluation of the included studies. The proportion of changes in management was pooled using a random effects model. Meta-regression analyses were performed to assess the potential correlation between the PET positivity and management changes.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies (3,078 patients with prostate cancer) were included in our review and analysis. The pooled percentage of management changes was 43.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 33-54%). In patients with biochemical recurrent and for primary staging, the pooled percentage was 50% (95% CI: 39-60%) and 22% (95% CI: 15-29%), respectively. In the meta-regression analyses, PET positivity was detected as a significant predictor of management change ( = 0.0023).
CONCLUSION
F-DCFPyL PET significantly affects the management of patients with prostate cancer. Higher PET positivity rate significantly correlated with a higher proportion of management changes in patients with prostate cancer. However, more studies are still needed to confirm the important role of F-DCFPyL PET in the management of prostate cancer.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#myprospero, CRD42022339178.
PubMed: 38725467
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1355236