-
Histopathology Sep 2023Cribriform architecture has been recognised as an independent parameter for prostate cancer outcome. Little is yet known on the added value of individual Gleason 5... (Review)
Review
Cribriform architecture has been recognised as an independent parameter for prostate cancer outcome. Little is yet known on the added value of individual Gleason 5 growth patterns. Comedonecrosis is assigned Gleason pattern 5 and can occur in both invasive and intraductal carcinoma. The aim of this study is to systematically review the literature for the prognostic value of comedonecrosis in prostate cancer. A systematic literature search of Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane library and Google scholar was performed according to the Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA)guidelines. After identification and screening of all relevant studies published up to July 2022, 12 manuscripts were included. Clinicopathological data were extracted and the presence of comedonecrosis in either invasive, intraductal or ductal carcinoma was associated with at least one clinical outcome measure. No meta-analysis was performed. Eight of 11 studies showed that comedonecrosis was significantly associated with biochemical recurrence and two studies with metastasis or death. The only studies using metastasis-free and disease specific-free survival as an endpoint both found comedonecrosis to be an independent prognostic parameter in multivariate analysis. The studies were all retrospective and demonstrated considerable heterogeneity with regard to clinical specimen, tumour type, grade group, correction for confounding factors and endpoints. This systematic review demonstrates weak evidence for comedonecrosis to be associated with adverse prostate cancer outcome. Study heterogeneity and lack of correction for confounding factors prohibit drawing of definitive conclusions.
Topics: Male; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prognosis; Neoplasm Grading; Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast; Breast Neoplasms
PubMed: 37195595
DOI: 10.1111/his.14945 -
European Urology Oncology Dec 2022Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly selected among patients with localized, intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa). However, the safety and optimal candidate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly selected among patients with localized, intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa). However, the safety and optimal candidate selection for those with IR PCa remain uncertain.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate treatment-free survival and oncologic outcomes in patients with IR PCa managed with AS and to compare with AS outcomes in low-risk (LR) PCa patients.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A literature search was conducted through February 2022 using PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies. The coprimary outcomes were treatment-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival. A subgroup analysis was planned a priori to explore AS outcomes when limiting inclusion to IR patients with a Gleason grade (GG) of ≤2.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 25 studies including 29 673 unselected IR patients met our inclusion criteria. The 10-yr treatment-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival ranged from 19.4% to 69%, 80.8% to 99%, 88.2% to 99%, and 59.4% to 83.9%, respectively. IR patients had similar treatment-free survival to LR patients (risk ratio [RR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.99-1.36, p = 0.07), but significantly higher risks of metastasis (RR 5.79, 95% CI, 4.61-7.29, p < 0.001), death from PCa (RR 3.93, 95% CI, 2.93-5.27, p < 0.001), and all-cause death (RR 1.44, 95% CI, 1.11-1.86, p = 0.005). In a subgroup analysis of studies including patients with GG ≤2 only (n = 4), treatment-free survival (RR 1.03, 95% CI, 0.62-1.71, p = 0.91) and metastasis-free survival (RR 2.09, 95% CI, 0.75-5.82, p = 0.16) were similar between LR and IR patients. Treatment-free survival was significantly reduced in subgroups of patients with unfavorable IR disease and increased cancer length on biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS
The present systematic review and meta-analysis highlight the need to optimize patient selection for those with IR features. Our findings support limiting the inclusion of IR patients in AS to those with low-volume GG 2 tumor.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Active surveillance is increasingly used in patients with localized, intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer. In this population, we have reported higher risks of metastasis and cancer mortality in unselected patients than in patients with low-risk features, underscoring the need to optimize the selection of patients with IR features.
Topics: Male; Humans; Watchful Waiting; Prostatic Neoplasms; Neoplasm Grading; Biopsy; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35934625
DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.07.004 -
Radiotherapy and Oncology : Journal of... Jun 2024High-level evidence on hypofractionated proton therapy (PT) for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients is currently missing. The aim of this study... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
High-level evidence on hypofractionated proton therapy (PT) for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients is currently missing. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic literature review to compare the toxicity and effectiveness of curative radiotherapy with photon therapy (XRT) or PT in PCa.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to April 2022. Men with a diagnosis of PCa who underwent curative hypofractionated RT treatment (PT or XRT) were included. Risk of grade (G) ≥ 2 acute and late genitourinary (GU) OR gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were the primary outcomes of interest. Secondary outcomes were five-year biochemical relapse-free survival (b-RFS), clinical relapse-free, distant metastasis-free, and prostate cancer-specific survival. Heterogeneity between study-specific estimates was assessed using Chi-square statistics and measured with the I2 index (heterogeneity measure across studies).
RESULTS
A total of 230 studies matched inclusion criteria and, due to overlapped populations, 160 were included in the present analysis. Significant lower rates of G ≥ 2 acute GI incidence (2 % vs 7 %) and improved 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (95 % vs 91 %) were observed in the PT arm compared to XRT. PT benefits in 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival were maintained for the moderate hypofractionated arm (p-value 0.0122) and among patients in intermediate and low-risk classes (p-values < 0.0001 and 0.0368, respectively). No statistically relevant differences were found for the other considered outcomes.
CONCLUSION
The present study supports that PT is safe and effective for localized PCa treatment, however, more data from RCTs are needed to draw solid evidence in this setting and further effort must be made to identify the patient subgroups that could benefit the most from PT.
Topics: Humans; Male; Photons; Prostatic Neoplasms; Proton Therapy; Radiation Dose Hypofractionation
PubMed: 38561122
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110264 -
World Journal of Urology Oct 2021The value of Histoscanning™ (HS) in prostate cancer (PCa) imaging is much debated, although it has been used in clinical practice for more than 10 years now. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
The value of Histoscanning™ (HS) in prostate cancer (PCa) imaging is much debated, although it has been used in clinical practice for more than 10 years now.
OBJECTIVE
To summarize the data on HS from various PCa diagnostic perspectives to determine its potential.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a systematic search using 2 databases (Medline and Scopus) on the query "Histoscan*". The primary endpoint was HS accuracy. The secondary endpoints were: correlation of lesion volume by HS and histology, ability of HS to predict extracapsular extension or seminal vesicle invasion.
RESULTS
HS improved cancer detection rate "per core", OR = 16.37 (95% CI 13.2; 20.3), p < 0.0001, I = 98% and "per patient", OR = 1.83 (95% CI 1.51; 2.21), p < 0.0001, I = 95%. The pooled accuracy was markedly low: sensitivity - 0.2 (95% CI 0.19-0.21), specificity - 0.12 (0.11-0.13), AUC 0.12. 8 of 10 studiers showed no additional value for HS. The pooled accuracy with histology after RP was relatively better, yet still very low: sensitivity - 0.56 (95% CI 0.5-0.63), specificity - 0.23 (0.18-0.28), AUC 0.4. 9 of 12 studies did not show any benefit of HS.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis does not see the incremental value in comparing prostate Histoscanning with conventional TRUS in prostate cancer screening and targeted biopsy. HS proved to be slightly more accurate in predicting extracapsular extension on RP, but the available data does not allow us to draw any conclusions on its effectiveness in practice. Histoscanning is a modification of ultrasound for prostate cancer visualization. The available data suggest its low accuracy in screening and detecting of prostate cancer.
Topics: Biopsy, Large-Core Needle; Humans; Male; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Odds Ratio; Prostatic Neoplasms; Seminal Vesicles; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tumor Burden; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 33825986
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03684-8 -
Current Urology Reports Jan 2022To present the latest evidence related to interobserver agreement and accuracy; evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of use; and outline opportunities... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
To present the latest evidence related to interobserver agreement and accuracy; evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of use; and outline opportunities for improvement and future development of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).
RECENT FINDINGS
Our review of currently available evidence suggests that recent improvements to the PI-RADS system with PI-RADS v2.1 slightly improved interobserver agreement, with generally high sensitivity and moderate specificity for the detection of clinically significant PCa. Recent evidence additionally demonstrates substantial improvement in diagnostic specificity with PI-RADS v2.1 compared with PI-RADS v2. However, results of studies examining the comparative performance of v2.1 are limited by small sample sizes and retrospective cohorts, potentially introducing selection bias. Some studies suggest a substantial improvement between v2.1 and v2, while others report no statistically significant difference. Additionally, in PI-RADS v2.1, the interpretation and reporting of certain findings remain subjective, particularly for category 2 lesions, and reader experience continues to vary significantly. These factors further contribute to a remaining degree of interobserver variability and findings of improved performance among more experienced readers. PI-RADS v2.1 appears to show at least minimal improvement in interobserver agreement, diagnostic performance, and both sensitivity and specificity, with greater improvements seen among more experienced readers. However, given the decrescent nature of these improvements and the limited power of all studies examined, the clinical impact of this progress may be marginal. Despite improvements in PI-RADS v2.1, practitioner experience in interpreting mpMRI of the prostate remains the most important factor in prostate cancer detection.
Topics: Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Observer Variation; Prostate; Prostatic Neoplasms; Reproducibility of Results; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35226257
DOI: 10.1007/s11934-022-01084-y -
Nutrition, Metabolism, and... Jul 2023Data on the association between nut consumption and prostate cancer risk are conflicting. Therefore, this systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Data on the association between nut consumption and prostate cancer risk are conflicting. Therefore, this systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis aimed to summarize available findings from observational studies on the associations of nut intake with risk of total, advanced, non-advanced, and fatal prostate cancers.
DATA SYNTHESIS
We searched the online databases of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science as well as Google Scholar using appropriate keywords to identify eligible articles up to September 2022. In total, 11 articles with a total sample size of 287,786 participants and 32,213 cases of prostate cancer were included in the current systematic review and meta-analysis. By comparing the highest and lowest intake of total nuts, pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for total, advanced, non-advanced, and fatal prostate cancers were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.85-1.04, P = 0.22), 1.10 (95% CI: 0.98-1.24, P = 0.12), 0.97 (95% CI: 0.85-1.11, P = 0.69), 0.97 (95% CI: 0.79-1.18, P = 0.73), respectively, which indicated non-significant inverse associations for total, non-advanced, and fatal prostate cancers and a non-significant positive association for advanced prostate cancer. In the dose-response analyses, we found no evidence of a linear or non-linear association between total nut intake and prostate cancer risk. Data on other types of nuts, including walnut, tree nuts, peanut, and peanut butter, were not sufficient for performing a meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
We found no significant association between nut intake and risk of total, advanced, non-advanced, and fatal prostate cancer. Further studies are required to confirm our findings.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION CODE
CRD42022347094.
ETHICAL APPROVAL
Not required.
Topics: Male; Humans; Adult; Nuts; Diet; Juglans; Prostatic Neoplasms; Risk; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37160404
DOI: 10.1016/j.numecd.2023.04.004 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Jul 2021Periodontal disease is a chronic infectious disease caused by bacterial infection which may lead to various systematic diseases. Recently, increasing studies have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Periodontal disease is a chronic infectious disease caused by bacterial infection which may lead to various systematic diseases. Recently, increasing studies have explored the correlation of periodontal disease with the risk of prostate cancer. However, the findings were inconsistent. Hence, this study aims to investigate the association between periodontal disease and the risk of prostate cancer by a meta-analysis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched for publications up to July 17, 2020. Cohort and case-control studies evaluating the risk of prostate cancer in patients with periodontal disease were included. A fixed or random-effect model was used to calculate the summary relative risk (RR) along with 95% confidence interval (CI). All analyses were conducted using Stata 12.0 software.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included in the final analysis. The pooled estimates showed that periodontal disease was significantly associated with the risk of prostate cancer (RR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.07-1.27; P = 0.001). Findings of sensitivity analyses proved that the overall results were robust.
CONCLUSIONS
Periodontal disease may be considered as a potential risk factor for prostate cancer. Although it's a possibility, males should be more aware of their oral health and implement effective measures to prevent and treat periodontal disease.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Humans; Male; Periodontal Diseases; Prostatic Neoplasms; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33247563
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.24308 -
European Urology Oncology Aug 2023The evidence supporting multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) targeting for biopsy is nearly exclusively based on biopsy pathologic outcomes. This is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
The evidence supporting multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) targeting for biopsy is nearly exclusively based on biopsy pathologic outcomes. This is problematic, as targeting likely allows preferential identification of small high-grade areas of questionable oncologic significance, raising the likelihood of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the impact of MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsies on radical prostatectomy (RP) grade group concordance.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
PubMed MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched from July 2018 to January 2022. Studies that conducted systematic and MRI-targeted prostate biopsies and compared biopsy results with pathology after RP were included. We performed a meta-analysis to assess whether pathologic upgrading and downgrading were influenced by biopsy type and a net-benefit analysis using pooled risk difference estimates.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Both targeted only and combined biopsies were less likely to result in upgrading (odds ratio [OR] vs systematic of 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.77, p < 0.001, and 0.50, 95% CI 0.45-0.55, p < 0.001), respectively). Targeted only and combined biopsies increased the odds of downgrading (1.24 (95% CI 1.05-1.46), p = 0.012, and 1.96 (95% CI 1.68-2.27, p < 0.001) compared with systematic biopsies, respectively. The net benefit of targeted and combined biopsies is 8 and 7 per 100 if harms of up- and downgrading are considered equal, but 7 and -1 per 100 if the harm of downgrading is considered twice that of upgrading.
CONCLUSIONS
The addition of MRI-targeting results in lower rates of upgrading as compared to systematic biopsy at RP (27% vs 42%). However, combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies are associated with more downgrading at RP (19% v 11% for combined vs systematic). Strong heterogeneity suggests further research into factors that influence the rates of up- and downgrading and that distinguishes clinically relevant from irrelevant grade changes is needed. Until then, the benefits and harms of combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies cannot be fully assessed.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We reviewed the ability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies to predict cancer grade at prostatectomy. We found that combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies result in more cancers being downgraded than systematic biopsies.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostatectomy; Prostate; Biopsy; Magnetic Resonance Imaging
PubMed: 37236832
DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.04.004 -
Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences May 2023Globally prostate cancer is one of the most prevalent cancer among men and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in a developing country, which is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Globally prostate cancer is one of the most prevalent cancer among men and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in a developing country, which is mainly due to lack of knowledge and awareness regarding the screening of prostate cancer. The main objective of this review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the knowledge, awareness and practice of adult men about prostate cancer.
METHOD
An extensive literature search was performed on studies published between January 2000 to 2021. The systematic review initially yielded 137 studies, out of which 7 studies were covered on this meta-evaluation.
RESULT
We noted that the pooled estimate of knowledge and awareness were respectively 65% [CI: 29%, 100%], and 74% [CI: 66%, 82%] about prostate cancer. However, there were limited practices noted in screening of prostate cancer.
CONCLUSION
In order to increase the awareness and screening practice rate for prostate cancer, an improved health education is highly recommended.
Topics: Male; Adult; Humans; Early Detection of Cancer; Prostatic Neoplasms; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Health Education
PubMed: 37576174
DOI: 10.4314/ejhs.v33i3.19 -
Nutrition and Cancer 2022Emerging researches has evaluated whether fruit and vegetable consumption reduce the risk of prostate cancer. However, the conclusions of published articles remained... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Emerging researches has evaluated whether fruit and vegetable consumption reduce the risk of prostate cancer. However, the conclusions of published articles remained confusing. Thus, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to confirm the relationship of fruit and vegetable consumption and the risk of prostate cancer.
METHOD
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) up to September 1, 2020. We finally included 17 cohort studies related to fruit or vegetable intake after rigid quality assessment and checking references of the retrieved articles and relevant reviews. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was adopted to assess the quality of studies and random effect model with RR and 95% CI were used to assess the risk.
RESULTS
No significant relationship was found between fruit consumption (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.94-1.05) and vegetable consumption (RR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.94-1.02) and the risk of prostate cancer. No significant heterogeneity or publication bias was identified.
CONCLUSION
Our updated meta-analysis demonstrated that fruit and vegetable consumption can barely reduce the risk of prostate cancer with several limitations. Further clinical and basic researches are eagerly awaited to confirm our results and clarify the potential biological mechanisms.
Topics: Diet; Feeding Behavior; Fruit; Humans; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Vegetables
PubMed: 34286657
DOI: 10.1080/01635581.2021.1952445