-
Prostate International Sep 2019Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an emerging focal treatment modality for prostate cancer. However, the efficacy, safety, and functional outcomes of PDT are not clear. We... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an emerging focal treatment modality for prostate cancer. However, the efficacy, safety, and functional outcomes of PDT are not clear. We performed a meta-analysis of available single-arm studies and control trials which used PDT for prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched Pubmed, Embase, Ovid and the Cochrane library (until March,2018) for studies about PDT in patients with prostate cancer. The negative biopsy rate after PDT, PSA decreasing rate, pooled rate of functional outcome (IPSS or IIEF-5), and adverse events were analyzed.
RESULTS
14 studies containing 654 patients were included. Nine of the 14 included studies had evaluated a negative biopsy rate after PDT. The pooled rate was 55.0% (95.0% CI: 0.44-0.66, I = 85.7%). Twelve of the 14 included studies which evaluated PSA decreasing rate with the pooled rate of 35.0% (95.0% CI: 0.24-0.47, I = 88.7%). Six of the included studies evaluated IPSS with decreasing rate of 29.1% (95.0 % CI: 2.7%-55.5%, I = 96.9%). Five of the included studies evaluated IIEF-5 with decreasing rate of 14.9% (95.0% CI: 6.8%-23.0%, I = 44.2%). The most common adverse events were haematuria (28.1%, 95.0% CI: 17.1%-39.2%, I = 79.8%), erectile dysfunction (23.1%, 95.0% CI: 9.7%-36.5%, I = 87.7%), and dysuria (18.6%, 95.0% CI: 12.1%-25.0 %, I = 53.4 %).
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analysis results shows that PDT for patients with prostate cancer can be considered as effective based on single-arm clinical trials. Meanwhile, this study reveals that there are not only low levels of side effect rates but also insignificant effect on both urinary and erectile function. However, more high-quality RCTs are needed to evaluate the comparative efficacy, safety, and functional outcomes of PDT for patients with prostate cancer.
PubMed: 31485431
DOI: 10.1016/j.prnil.2018.12.002 -
Urologia Feb 2024The major barriers to phytonutrients in prostate cancer therapy are non-specific mechanisms and bioavailability issues. Studies have pointed to a synergistic combination... (Review)
Review
The major barriers to phytonutrients in prostate cancer therapy are non-specific mechanisms and bioavailability issues. Studies have pointed to a synergistic combination of curcumin (CURC) and ursolic acid (UA). We investigate this combination using a systematic review process to assess the most likely mechanistic pathway and human testing in prostate cancer. We used the PRISMA statement to screen titles, abstracts, and the full texts of relevant articles and performed a descriptive analysis of the literature reviewed for study inclusion and consensus of the manuscript. The most common molecular and cellular pathway from articles reporting on the pathways and effects of CURC ( = 173) in prostate cancer was NF-κB ( = 25, 14.5%). The most common molecular and cellular pathway from articles reporting on the pathways and effects of UA ( = 24) in prostate cancer was caspase 3/caspase 9 ( = 10, 41.6%). The three most common molecular and cellular pathway from articles reporting on the pathways and effects of both CURC and UA ( = 193) in prostate cancer was NF-κB ( = 28, 14.2%), Akt ( = 22, 11.2%), and androgen ( = 19, 9.6%). Therefore, we have identified the potential synergistic target pathways of curcumin and ursolic acid to involve NF-κB, Akt, androgen receptors, and apoptosis pathways. Our review highlights the limited human studies and specific effects in prostate cancer.
Topics: Male; Humans; Ursolic Acid; Curcumin; NF-kappa B; Signal Transduction; Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-akt; Apoptosis; Triterpenes; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37776274
DOI: 10.1177/03915603231202304 -
Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) Aug 2022Body composition parameters are not captured by measures of body mass, which may explain inconsistent associations between body weight and prostate cancer (PC) risk. The...
Body composition parameters are not captured by measures of body mass, which may explain inconsistent associations between body weight and prostate cancer (PC) risk. The objective of this systematic review was to characterize the association between fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) parameters and PC risk. A search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science identified case-control and cohort studies that measured body composition in relation to PC risk. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Thirteen observational studies were included, of which 8 were case-control studies (n = 1572 cases, n = 1937 controls) and 5 were prospective cohort studies (n = 7854 incident cases with PC). The NOS score was 5.9 ± 1.1 for case-control studies and 8.4 ± 1.3 for cohort studies. The most common body composition technique was bioelectrical impedance analysis (n = 9 studies), followed by DXA (n = 2), computed tomography (n = 2), air displacement plethysmography (n = 1), and MRI (n = 1). No case-control studies reported differences in %FM between PC cases and controls and no consistent differences in FM or FFM (in kilograms) were observed. Two out of 5 cohort studies reported that higher %FM was associated with lower PC risk. Conversely, 3 cohort studies reported a greater risk of being diagnosed with advanced/aggressive PC with higher FM (expressed in kilograms, %FM, or fat distribution). Two out of 4 studies (both case-control and cohort) found that higher abdominal adipose tissue was associated with increased PC risk. In conclusion, although results were inconsistent, there is some evidence that FM may be negatively associated with total PC risk but positively associated with the risk of advanced/aggressive PC; modest evidence suggests that abdominal adipose tissue may increase the risk of PC. Future work should elucidate unique patterns of FM distribution and PC risk to triage men at risk for developing PC. This study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database as CRD42019133388.
Topics: Humans; Male; Absorptiometry, Photon; Adipose Tissue; Body Composition; Body Mass Index; Electric Impedance; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 34918023
DOI: 10.1093/advances/nmab153 -
International Journal of Hyperthermia :... 2022Optimization of treatment strategies for prostate cancer patients treated with curative radiation therapy (RT) represents one of the major challenges for the radiation...
Optimization of treatment strategies for prostate cancer patients treated with curative radiation therapy (RT) represents one of the major challenges for the radiation oncologist. Dose escalation or combination of RT with systemic therapies is used to improve tumor control in patients with unfavorable prostate cancer, at the risk of increasing rates and severity of treatment-related toxicities. Elevation of temperature to a supra-physiological level has been shown to both increase tumor oxygenation and reduce DNA repair capabilities. Thus, hyperthermia (HT) combined with RT represents a compelling treatment strategy to improve the therapeutic ratio in prostate cancer patients. The aim of the present systematic review is to report on preclinical and clinical evidence supporting the combination of HT and RT for prostate cancer, discussing future applications and developments of this combined treatment.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Hyperthermia; Hyperthermia, Induced; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 35313781
DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2022.2053212 -
International Journal of Molecular... Aug 2020Prostate cancer is a major cause of death among men worldwide. Recent preclinical evidence implicates cannabinoids as powerful regulators of cell growth and... (Review)
Review
Prostate cancer is a major cause of death among men worldwide. Recent preclinical evidence implicates cannabinoids as powerful regulators of cell growth and differentiation, as well as potential anti-cancer agents. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effect of cannabinoids on in vivo prostate cancer models. The databases searched included PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to August 2020. Articles reporting on the effect of cannabinoids on prostate cancer were deemed eligible. We identified six studies that were all found to be based on in vivo/xenograft animal models. Results: In PC3 and DU145 xenografts, WIN55,212-2 reduced cell proliferation in a dose-dependent manner. Furthermore, in LNCaP xenografts, WIN55,212-2 reduced cell proliferation by 66-69%. PM49, which is a synthetic cannabinoid quinone, was also found to result in a significant inhibition of tumor growth of up to 90% in xenograft models of LNCaP and 40% in xenograft models of PC3 cells, respectively. All studies have reported that the treatment of prostate cancers in in vivo/xenograft models with various cannabinoids decreased the size of the tumor, the outcomes of which depended on the dose and length of treatment. Within the limitation of these identified studies, cannabinoids were shown to reduce the size of prostate cancer tumors in animal models. However, further well-designed and controlled animal studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
Topics: Animals; Benzoxazines; Cannabinoids; Cell Line, Tumor; Cell Proliferation; Cell Survival; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Male; Morpholines; Naphthalenes; PC-3 Cells; Prostatic Neoplasms; Tumor Burden; Xenograft Model Antitumor Assays
PubMed: 32872551
DOI: 10.3390/ijms21176265 -
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 -
Cancer Medicine Dec 2023The American College of Sports Medicine provided guidelines for exercise prescriptions in cancer survivors for specific cancer- and treatment-related health outcomes.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The American College of Sports Medicine provided guidelines for exercise prescriptions in cancer survivors for specific cancer- and treatment-related health outcomes. However, there was insufficient evidence to generate exercise prescriptions for 10 health outcomes of cancer treatment. We sought to update the state of evidence.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of these 10 understudied health outcomes (bone health, sleep, cardiovascular function, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), cognitive function, falls and balance, nausea, pain, sexual function, and treatment tolerance) and provided an update of evidence.
RESULTS
While the evidence base for each outcome has increased, there remains insufficient evidence to generate exercise prescriptions. Common limitations observed across outcomes included: variability in type and quality of outcome measurement tools, variability in definitions of the health outcomes, a lack of phase III trials, and a majority of trials investigating breast or prostate cancer survivors only.
CONCLUSION
We identified progress in the field of exercise oncology for several understudied cancer- and treatment-related health outcomes. However, we were not able to generate exercise prescriptions due to continued insufficient evidence base. More work is needed to prescribe exercise as medicine for these understudied health outcomes, and our review highlights several strategies to aid in research acceleration within these areas of exercise oncology.
Topics: Male; Humans; Cancer Survivors; Exercise; Neoplasms; Exercise Therapy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38018376
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6753 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2022Prostate cancer is a common malignancy affecting men worldwide. While the vast majority of newly diagnosed prostate cancers are categorized as adenocarcinomas, a...
Prostate cancer is a common malignancy affecting men worldwide. While the vast majority of newly diagnosed prostate cancers are categorized as adenocarcinomas, a spectrum of uncommon tumor types occur including those with small cell and neuroendocrine cell features. Benign neuroendocrine cells exist in the normal prostate microenvironment, and these cells may give rise to primary neuroendocrine carcinomas. However, the more common development of neuroendocrine prostate cancer is observed after therapeutics designed to repress the signaling program regulated by the androgen receptor which is active in the majority of localized and metastatic adenocarcinomas. Neuroendocrine tumors are identified through immunohistochemical staining for common markers including chromogranin A/B, synaptophysin and neuron specific enolase (NSE). These markers are also common to neuroendocrine tumors that arise in other tissues and organs such as the gastrointestinal tract, pancreas, lung and skin. Notably, neuroendocrine prostate cancer shares biochemical features with nerve cells, particularly functions involving the secretion of a variety of peptides and proteins. These secreted factors have the potential to exert local paracrine effects, and distant endocrine effects that may modulate tumor progression, invasion, and resistance to therapy. This review discusses the spectrum of factors derived from neuroendocrine prostate cancers and their potential to influence the pathophysiology of localized and metastatic prostate cancer.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostate; Prostatic Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Neuroendocrine; Adenocarcinoma; Neuroendocrine Tumors; Tumor Microenvironment
PubMed: 36440195
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1012005 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Apr 2021Machine learning algorithms have been drawing attention at the joining of pathology and radiology in prostate cancer research. However, due to their algorithmic learning... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Machine learning algorithms have been drawing attention at the joining of pathology and radiology in prostate cancer research. However, due to their algorithmic learning complexity and the variability of their architecture, there is an ongoing need to analyze their performance.
OBJECTIVE
This study assesses the source of heterogeneity and the performance of machine learning applied to radiomic, genomic, and clinical biomarkers for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. One research focus of this study was on clearly identifying problems and issues related to the implementation of machine learning in clinical studies.
METHODS
Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocol, 816 titles were identified from the PubMed, Scopus, and OvidSP databases. Studies that used machine learning to detect prostate cancer and provided performance measures were included in our analysis. The quality of the eligible studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 (quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-version 2) tool. The hierarchical multivariate model was applied to the pooled data in a meta-analysis. To investigate the heterogeneity among studies, I statistics were performed along with visual evaluation of coupled forest plots. Due to the internal heterogeneity among machine learning algorithms, subgroup analysis was carried out to investigate the diagnostic capability of machine learning systems in clinical practice.
RESULTS
In the final analysis, 37 studies were included, of which 29 entered the meta-analysis pooling. The analysis of machine learning methods to detect prostate cancer reveals the limited usage of the methods and the lack of standards that hinder the implementation of machine learning in clinical applications.
CONCLUSIONS
The performance of machine learning for diagnosis of prostate cancer was considered satisfactory for several studies investigating the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and urine biomarkers; however, given the limitations indicated in our study, further studies are warranted to extend the potential use of machine learning to clinical settings. Recommendations on the use of machine learning techniques were also provided to help researchers to design robust studies to facilitate evidence generation from the use of radiomic and genomic biomarkers.
Topics: Algorithms; Genomics; Humans; Machine Learning; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 33792552
DOI: 10.2196/22394 -
BMC Cancer Feb 2024Increasing evidence indicates that gut microbiota are closely related to prostate cancer. This study aims to assess the gut microbiota composition in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Increasing evidence indicates that gut microbiota are closely related to prostate cancer. This study aims to assess the gut microbiota composition in patients with prostate cancer compared to healthy participants, thereby advancing understanding of gut microbiota's role in prostate cancer.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and pertinent data were analyzed. The kappa score assessed interrater agreement.
RESULTS
This study encompassed seven research papers, involving 250 prostate cancer patients and 192 controls. The kappa was 0.93. Meta-analysis results showed that alpha-diversity of gut microbiota in prostate cancer patients was significantly lower than in the control group. In terms of gut microbiota abundance, the ratio of Proteobacteria, Bacteroidia, Clostridia, Bacteroidales, Clostridiales, Prevotellaceae, Lachnospiraceae, Prevotella, Escherichia-Shigella, Faecalibacterium, and Bacteroides was higher in prostate cancer patients. Conversely, the abundance ratio of Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Selenomonadales, Veillonella, and Megasphaera was higher in the control group.
CONCLUSION
Our study reveals differences in alpha-diversity and abundance of gut microbiota between patients with prostate cancer and controls, indicating gut microbiota dysbiosis in those with prostate cancer. However, given the limited quality and quantity of selected studies, further research is necessary to validate these findings.
Topics: Male; Humans; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Bacteria; Dysbiosis; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 38402385
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12018-x