-
Indian Journal of Urology : IJU :... 2024Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a new and promising focal therapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. In this systematic review, we summarize the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a new and promising focal therapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. In this systematic review, we summarize the literature on IRE for prostate cancer published over the last decade.
METHODS
PubMed and EMBASE were searched with the end date of May 2023 to find relevant publications on prostate cancer ablation using IRE. Original studies with focal IRE as the primary curative treatment which reported on functional or oncological outcomes were included. The bibliography of relevant studies was also scanned to identify suitable articles.
RESULTS
A total of 14 studies reporting on 899 patients treated with IRE for localized prostate cancer were included. Of all the studies reviewed, 77% reported on recurrence within the zone of ablation, and it ranged from 0% to 38.9% for in-field and 3.6% to 28% for out-of-field recurrence. Although, a standardised follow-up protocol was not followed, all the studies employed serial prostate-specific antigen monitoring, a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, and a biopsy (6-12 months post-treatment). Across all the studies, 58% reported that the urinary continence returned to the pretreatment levels and 25% reported a minor decrease in the continence from the baseline at 12-months of follow-up. Erections sufficient for intercourse varied from 44% to 75% at the baseline to 55% to 100% at 12-months of follow-up across all the studies.
CONCLUSION
IRE, as a focal therapy, shows promising results with minimal complications and reasonably effective oncological control, but the data comparing it to the standard of care is still lacking. Future research should focus on randomized definitive comparisons between IRE, radical prostatectomy, and radiation therapy.
PubMed: 38314081
DOI: 10.4103/iju.iju_370_23 -
Urology Journal Feb 2024The prediction of Gleason score (GS) upgrading in patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer is particularly important when opting for active surveillance (AS).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The prediction of Gleason score (GS) upgrading in patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer is particularly important when opting for active surveillance (AS). Thus, we aimed to explore the association between prostate volume and GS upgrading after radical prostatectomy in low-risk prostate cancer through a meta-analysis.
METHODS
Multiple databases (Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library) were searched for eligible studies regarding this issue and reporting sufficient data up to May 2023. Specific search terms such as prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy, and prostate volume were used in our search strategy. Multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random effects models according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement.
RESULTS
Twenty studies comprising 14,823 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy matched our eligibility criteria. Moreover, GS upgrading between biopsy and surgical pathological specimens occurs in 32.2% (4,771) of cases. The results showed that smaller prostate volume is significantly associated with GS upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer (OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.05-1.11; P < 0.001; I-square [I2] = 89.8%) from biopsy to radical prostatectomy after adjusting for confounding factors. Moreover, the results of our subgroup analyses revealed that smaller prostate volume remained a substantial risk factor of GS upgrading in the studies designed as retrospective cohorts and case-control studies performed in America, Italy, Turkey, and China. The findings are robust as indicated by sensitivity and meta-regression analyses.
CONCLUSION
Smaller prostate volume predicts clinically substantial GS upgrading in patients diagnosed with lowrisk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. The intriguing findings might be helpful when management options other than surgery are selected based on the inability to recognise the true pathological GS of patients for AS. Further studies focus on risk-stratification and treatment planning for patients with low-grade prostate cancer are still needed to verify our results.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostate; Neoplasm Grading; Retrospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostatectomy; Prostate-Specific Antigen
PubMed: 38087971
DOI: 10.22037/uj.v20i.7796 -
JPMA. the Journal of the Pakistan... Aug 2023To review biochemical parameters, clinical characteristics, demographics, radiological and histopathological findings, treatment modalities and outcomes used to examine...
OBJECTIVE
To review biochemical parameters, clinical characteristics, demographics, radiological and histopathological findings, treatment modalities and outcomes used to examine patients with coexisting multiple myeloma and prostate adencocarcinoma.
METHODS
The systematic review comprised search on PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct and the Directory of Open Access Journal databases for case reports published till June 1, 2022. The search was done in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using appropriate key words. Case reports included were those dealing exclusively with human subjects, were published in the English language and had free, full-text, public access. Quality assessment was done using Joanna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports. Data was extracted and the case reports were evaluated for demographic, diagnostic and treatment parameters.
RESULTS
Of the 515 studies initially identified, 5(0.97%) were analysed; all males with mean age 68.6±10.78 years. The most common symptom reported at presentation was low back pain 3(60%), Osteolytic lesions were seen in 4(80%) patients on imaging with elevated prostate surface antigen levels. Anaemia was found in 3(60%) patients and 2(40%) had thrombocytopenia.
CONCLUSION
Multiple myeloma and prostate adenocarcinoma can coexist although it is rare. Awareness regarding the possible coexistence of the two prominent cancer types may further help clinicians during their practice in considering multiple myeloma as a differential diagnosis when encountered with patients having osteolytic bony lesions along with elevated levels of prostate-specific antigen.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022334906.
Topics: Male; Humans; Middle Aged; Aged; Multiple Myeloma; Prostate; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Adenocarcinoma
PubMed: 37697762
DOI: 10.47391/JPMA.8068 -
Cancers Mar 2024active surveillance (AS) is a suitable strategy for patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
active surveillance (AS) is a suitable strategy for patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging is an established tool used to assess PCa. The aim of this review was to evaluate the role of PSMA imaging to guide correct risk-based classification and the AS approach in PCa patients.
METHODS
The Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubMed/MEDLINE databases were screened to find relevant published articles.
RESULTS
1774 articles were revealed with the literature search. A total of 1764 articles were excluded after applying exclusion criteria (data not within the field of interest, preclinical papers, conference proceedings, reviews, or editorials). Ten studies were finally included in the review, revealing that PSMA PET could have the ability to guide risk-based classification of PCa and the choice of AS, and to guide the execution of biopsies for the research of high-grade PCa, therefore precluding AS.
CONCLUSION
this systematic review underlined a possible role of PSMA PET imaging in patients with PCa by correctly re-classifying them on the basis of their risk and guiding AS.
PubMed: 38539457
DOI: 10.3390/cancers16061122