-
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine... Mar 2021In recent years, the clinical availability of scanners for integrated positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has enabled the practical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
In recent years, the clinical availability of scanners for integrated positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has enabled the practical potential of multimodal, combined metabolic-receptor, anatomical, and functional imaging to be explored. The present systematic review and meta-analysis summarize the diagnostic information provided by PET/MRI in patients with prostate cancer (PCa).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A literature search was conducted in three different databases. The terms used were "choline" or "prostate-specific membrane antigen - PSMA" AND "prostate cancer" or "prostate" AND "PET/MRI" or "PET MRI" or "PET-MRI" or "positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging." All relevant records identified were combined, and the full texts were retrieved. Reports were excluded if (1) they did not consider hybrid PET/MRI; or (2) the sample size was < 10 patients; or (3) the raw data were not enough to enable the completion of a 2 × 2 contingency table.
RESULTS
Fifty articles were eligible for systematic review, and 23 for meta-analysis. The pooled data concerned 2104 patients. Initial disease staging was the main indication for PET/MRI in 24 studies. Radiolabeled PSMA was the tracer most frequently used. In primary tumors, the pooled sensitivity for the patient-based analysis was 94.9%. At restaging, the pooled detection rate was 80.9% and was higher for radiolabeled PSMA than for choline (81.8% and 77.3%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
PET/MRI proved highly sensitive in detecting primary PCa, with a high detection rate for recurrent disease, particularly when radiolabeled PSMA was used.
Topics: Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Positron-Emission Tomography; Prostatic Neoplasms; Radiopharmaceuticals; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 32901351
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-05025-0 -
European Urology Jul 2019Many trials are evaluating therapies for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Many trials are evaluating therapies for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review trials of prostate radiotherapy.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Using a prospective framework (framework for adaptive meta-analysis [FAME]), we prespecified methods before any trial results were known. We searched extensively for eligible trials and asked investigators when results would be available. We could then anticipate that a definitive meta-analysis of the effects of prostate radiotherapy was possible. We obtained prepublication, unpublished, and harmonised results from investigators.
INTERVENTION
We included trials that randomised men to prostate radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or ADT only.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Hazard ratios (HRs) for the effects of prostate radiotherapy on survival, progression-free survival (PFS), failure-free survival (FFS), biochemical progression, and subgroup interactions were combined using fixed-effect meta-analysis.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
We identified one ongoing (PEACE-1) and two completed (HORRAD and STAMPEDE) eligible trials. Pooled results of the latter (2126 men; 90% of those eligible) showed no overall improvement in survival (HR=0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.04, p=0.195) or PFS (HR=0.94, 95% CI 0.84-1.05, p=0.238) with prostate radiotherapy. There was an overall improvement in biochemical progression (HR=0.74, 95% CI 0.67-0.82, p=0.94×10) and FFS (HR=0.76, 95% CI 0.69-0.84, p=0.64×10), equivalent to ∼10% benefit at 3yr. The effect of prostate radiotherapy varied by metastatic burden-a pattern consistent across trials and outcome measures, including survival (<5, ≥5; interaction HR=1.47, 95% CI 1.11-1.94, p=0.007). There was 7% improvement in 3-yr survival in men with fewer than five bone metastases.
CONCLUSIONS
Prostate radiotherapy should be considered for men with mHSPC with a low metastatic burden.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Prostate cancer that has spread to other parts of the body (metastases) is usually treated with hormone therapy. In men with fewer than five bone metastases, addition of prostate radiotherapy helped them live longer and should be considered.
Topics: Bone Neoplasms; Disease-Free Survival; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Male; Orchiectomy; Progression-Free Survival; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Rate; Tumor Burden
PubMed: 30826218
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.003 -
Lancet (London, England) Oct 2020It is unclear whether adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy is more appropriate for men who present with localised or locally advanced... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy for the treatment of localised and locally advanced prostate cancer: a prospectively planned systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data.
BACKGROUND
It is unclear whether adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy is more appropriate for men who present with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We aimed to prospectively plan a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing these radiotherapy approaches.
METHODS
We used a prospective framework for adaptive meta-analysis (FAME), starting the review process while eligible trials were ongoing. RCTs were eligible if they aimed to compare immediate adjuvant radiotherapy versus early salvage radiotherapy, following radical prostatectomy in men (age ≥18 years) with intermediate-risk or high-risk, localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We searched trial registers and conference proceedings until July 8, 2020, to identify eligible RCTs. By establishing the ARTISTIC collaboration with relevant trialists, we were able to anticipate when eligible trial results would emerge, and we developed and registered a protocol with PROSPERO before knowledge of the trial results (CRD42019132669). We used a harmonised definition of event-free survival, as the time from randomisation until the first evidence of either biochemical progression (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥0·4 ng/mL and rising after completion of any postoperative radiotherapy), clinical or radiological progression, initiation of a non-trial treatment, death from prostate cancer, or a PSA level of at least 2·0 ng/mL at any time after randomisation. We predicted when we would have sufficient power to assess whether adjuvant radiotherapy was superior to early salvage radiotherapy. Investigators supplied results for event-free survival, both overall and within predefined patient subgroups. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the effects of radiotherapy timing on event-free survival and subgroup interactions were combined using fixed-effect meta-analysis.
FINDINGS
We identified three eligible trials and were able to obtain updated results for event-free survival for 2153 patients recruited between November, 2007, and December, 2016. Median follow-up ranged from 60 months to 78 months, with a maximum follow-up of 132 months. 1075 patients were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant radiotherapy and 1078 to a policy of early salvage radiotherapy, of whom 421 (39·1%) had commenced treatment at the time of analysis. Patient characteristics were balanced within trials and overall. Median age was similar between trials at 64 or 65 years (with IQRs ranging from 59 to 68 years) across the three trials and most patients (1671 [77·6%]) had a Gleason score of 7. All trials were assessed as having low risk of bias. Based on 270 events, the meta-analysis showed no evidence that event-free survival was improved with adjuvant radiotherapy compared with early salvage radiotherapy (HR 0·95, 95% CI 0·75-1·21; p=0·70), with only a 1 percentage point (95% CI -2 to 3) change in 5-year event-free survival (89% vs 88%). Results were consistent across trials (heterogeneity p=0·18; I=42%).
INTERPRETATION
This collaborative and prospectively designed systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that adjuvant radiotherapy does not improve event-free survival in men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. Until data on long-term outcomes are available, early salvage treatment would seem the preferable treatment policy as it offers the opportunity to spare many men radiotherapy and its associated side-effects.
FUNDING
UK Medical Research Council.
Topics: Biomarkers, Tumor; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Male; Neoplasm Grading; Prospective Studies; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salvage Therapy
PubMed: 33002431
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31952-8 -
Cureus Feb 2023The prognosis in the setting of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients (mCRPC) remains limited. Therefore, novel treatment strategies remain an unmet... (Review)
Review
The prognosis in the setting of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients (mCRPC) remains limited. Therefore, novel treatment strategies remain an unmet need. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) emerged as a new drug concept with the potential to deliver a cytotoxic payload with limited off-target toxicity and potentially bystander effect. Following the success of ADCs in breast cancer and urothelial tumours, their activity in prostate cancer is now under investigation. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to identify published and ongoing prospective clinical trials regarding ADC treatment in prostate cancer. A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science was conducted as per PRISMA guidelines to identify prospective clinical trials of ADCin prostate cancer. Trials are currently ongoing on ClinicalTrials.gov and in the EU. The Clinical Trials Register was also identified. Abstracts, publications in languages other than English, review articles, retrospective analyses, and phase I trials were excluded. A total of six phase I/II prospective clinical trials already published were included. Seven ongoing trials were also identified. All studies were in the refractory/advanced tumour setting, and two included only mCRPC patients. The ADC targets were prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), trophoblast cell surface antigen-2 (TROP-2), six-transmembrane epithelial antigen of prostate-1 (STEAP-1), tissue factor (TF), delta-like protein 3 (DLL-3), B7-H3 family of proteins (B7-H3), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Regarding the efficacy of PSMA ADC treatment in the second-line or beyond mCRPC setting, a PSA ≥ 50% decline rate in 14% of all treated patients was reported. One patient achieved a complete response with TROP-2 ADC. Overall, a wide range of safety issues were raised, particularly in connection with neuropathy and hematologic toxicity. Novel therapies have been changing the scope of treatment in mCRPC. ADCs seem to provide efficacy benefits, even with potential toxicity. The results of most prospective ongoing studies are still awaited, and a longer follow-up time is warranted to evaluate the real impact of ADCs in PCa.
PubMed: 36874351
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.34490 -
American Journal of Men's Health 2022This meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with large volume. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases (until March 2022) were used to search related randomized controlled trials. A total of 11 studies including 1,258 patients were involved. HoLEP could significantly decrease the length of hospital stay and accelerate recovery. In subanalysis, HoLEP had better perioperative outcomes than bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (B-TURP) and bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate (BPEP). The improvement in operative time and enucleation time was better in thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) than HoLEP. In the follow-up period, the HoLEP decreased post-void residual urine (PVR) in short-term intervals and improved patients' maximum flow rate (Qmax) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in mid- and long-term intervals. In subanalysis, HoLEP presented significant improvements in Qmax, PSA, and quality of life (QoL) than B-TURP, and HoLEP could also improve Qmax than ThuLEP after 6 months of surgery. The HoLEP reduced the risk of postoperative bleeding compared with other surgeries in safety. In our study, we confirmed the advantages of HoLEP in treating BPH when the prostate size was larger than 80 mL, which indicated that HoLEP could be the best choice for treatment of large volume of prostate.
Topics: Humans; Lasers, Solid-State; Male; Prostate; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Quality of Life; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35864746
DOI: 10.1177/15579883221113203 -
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases Feb 2022The most recent overall survival (OS) and adverse event (AE) data have not been compared for the three guideline-recommended high-risk non-metastatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Overall survival and adverse events after treatment with darolutamide vs. apalutamide vs. enzalutamide for high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The most recent overall survival (OS) and adverse event (AE) data have not been compared for the three guideline-recommended high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) treatment alternatives.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis focusing on OS and AE according to the most recent apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide reports. We systematically examined and compared apalutamide vs. enzalutamide vs. darolutamide efficacy and toxicity, relative to ADT according to PRISMA. We relied on PubMed search for most recent reports addressing prospective randomized trials with proven predefined OS benefit, relative to ADT: SPARTAN, PROSPER, and ARAMIS. OS represented the primary outcome and AEs represented secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
Overall, data originated from 4117 observations made within the three trials that were analyzed. Regarding OS benefit relative to ADT, darolutamide ranked first, followed by enzalutamide and apalutamide, in that order. In the subgroup of PSA-doubling time (PSA-DT) ≤ 6 months patients, enzalutamide ranked first, followed by darolutamide and apalutamide in that order. Conversely, in the subgroup of PSA-DT 6-10 months patients, darolutamide ranked first, followed by apalutamide and enzalutamide, in that order. Regarding grade 3+ AEs, darolutamide was most favorable, followed by enzalutamide and apalutamide, in that order.
CONCLUSION
The current network meta-analysis suggests the highest OS efficacy and lowest grade 3+ toxicity for darolutamide. However, in the PSA-DT ≤ 6 months subgroup, the highest efficacy was recorded for enzalutamide. It is noteworthy that study design, study population, and follow-up duration represent some of the potentially critical differences that distinguish between the three studies and remained statistically unaccounted for using the network meta-analysis methodology. Those differences should be strongly considered in the interpretation of the current and any network meta-analyses.
Topics: Benzamides; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Nitriles; Phenylthiohydantoin; Prospective Studies; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Pyrazoles; Thiohydantoins; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34054128
DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00395-4 -
Medicine Aug 2020Shared decision making (SDM) is a process within the physician-patient relationship applicable to any clinical action, whether diagnostic, therapeutic, or preventive in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Shared decision making (SDM) is a process within the physician-patient relationship applicable to any clinical action, whether diagnostic, therapeutic, or preventive in nature. It has been defined as a process of mutual respect and participation between the doctor and the patient. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of decision aids (DA) in primary care based on changes in adherence to treatments, knowledge, and awareness of the disease, conflict with decisions, and patients' and health professionals' satisfaction with the intervention.
METHODS
A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted in Medline, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials as study design; use of SDM with DA as an intervention; primary care as clinical context; written in English, Spanish, and Portuguese; and published between January 2007 and January 2019. The risk of bias of the included studies in this review was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool.
RESULTS
Twenty four studies were selected out of the 201 references initially identified. With the use of DA, the use of antibiotics was reduced in cases of acute respiratory infection and decisional conflict was decreased when dealing with the treatment choice for atrial fibrillation and osteoporosis. The rate of determination of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the prostate cancer screening decreased and colorectal cancer screening increased. Both professionals and patients increased their knowledge about depression, type 2 diabetes, and the perception of risk of acute myocardial infarction at 10 years without statins and with statins. The satisfaction was greater with the use of DA in choosing the treatment for depression, in cardiovascular risk management, in the treatment of low back pain, and in the use of statin therapy in diabetes. Blinding of outcomes assessment was the most common bias.
CONCLUSIONS
DA used in primary care are effective to reduce decisional conflict and improve knowledge on the disease and treatment options, awareness of risk, and satisfaction with the decisions made. More studies are needed to assess the impact of shared decision making in primary care.
Topics: Decision Making, Shared; Decision Support Techniques; Humans; Primary Health Care
PubMed: 32769870
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021389 -
European Urology Open Science Jul 2022Previous reports have shown an association between vasectomy and prostate cancer (PCa). However, there exist significant discrepancies between studies and systematic... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Previous reports have shown an association between vasectomy and prostate cancer (PCa). However, there exist significant discrepancies between studies and systematic reviews due to a lack of strong causal association and residual confounding factors such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the association between vasectomy and PCa, in both unadjusted and PSA screen-adjusted studies.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We performed a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched in January 2022 for studies that analyzed the association between vasectomy and PCa.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 37 studies including 16 931 805 patients met our inclusion criteria. A pooled analysis from all studies showed a significant association between vasectomy and any-grade PCa (odds ratio [OR] 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.37; < 0.001; I = 96%), localized PCa (OR 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11; < 0.00001; I = 31%), or advanced PCa (OR 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13; = 0.006; I = 0%). The association with PCa remained significant when the analyses were restricted to studies with a low risk of bias (OR 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10; = 0.02; I = 48%) or cohort studies (OR 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.13; < 0.0001; I = 64%). Among studies adjusted for PSA screening, the association with localized PCa (OR 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09; < 0.001; I = 0%) remained significant. Conversely, vasectomy was no longer associated with localized high-grade ( = 0.19), advanced ( = 0.22), and lethal ( = 0.42) PCa.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis found an association between vasectomy and any, mainly localized, PCa. However, the effect estimates of the association were increasingly close to null when examining studies of robust design and high quality. On exploratory analyses including studies, which adjusted for PSA screening, the association for aggressive and/or advanced PCa diminished.
PATIENT SUMMARY
In this study, we found an association between vasectomy and the risk of developing localized prostate cancer without being able to determine whether the procedure leads to a higher prostate cancer incidence.
PubMed: 35633829
DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.04.012 -
European Urology Open Science Aug 2023Identifying malignant tissue and leaving adjacent structures undisturbed constitute an ongoing challenge in prostate cancer (PCa) surgery. Image and radioguided surgical... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Identifying malignant tissue and leaving adjacent structures undisturbed constitute an ongoing challenge in prostate cancer (PCa) surgery. Image and radioguided surgical technologies targeting the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) receptor may facilitate identification and removal of diseased tissue.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review of the clinical studies on PSMA-targeted surgery.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
The MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase.com, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Identified reports were critically appraised according to the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term framework criteria. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed as per the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions tool. The strengths and limitations of the techniques and corresponding oncological outcomes were extracted as areas of interest. Data were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
In total, 29 reports were selected, including eight prospective studies, 12 retrospective analyses, and nine case reports, all with a high or an unclear RoB. In 72.4% of studies, PSMA targeting was achieved via radioguided surgery (RGS), predominantly using Tc-PSMA-I&S (66.7%). Hybrid approaches that complement RGS with optical guidance are emerging. The majority of studies retrieved were pilot studies with a short follow-up. In 13 reports, salvage lymph node surgery was discussed (44.8%). In 12 more recent reports (41.4%), PSMA targeting was studied in primary PCa surgery (50.0% lymph nodes and 50.0% surgical margins), and four studied both primary and salvage surgery (13.8%). Overall, specificity was higher than sensitivity (median 98.9% and 84.8%, respectively). Oncological outcomes were discussed only in reports on the use of Tc-PSMA-I&S in salvage surgery (median follow-up of 17.2 mo). A decline in prostate-specific antigen level of >90% ranged from 22.0% to 100.0%, and biochemical recurrence ranged from 50.0% to 61.8% of patients.
CONCLUSIONS
In PSMA-targeted surgery, most studies address salvage PSMA-RGS using Tc-PSMA-I&S. Available evidence suggests that the specificity of intraoperative PSMA targeting is higher than the sensitivity. The studies that included follow-up did not yet objectify a clear oncological benefit. Lacking solid outcome data, PSMA-targeted surgery remains investigational.
PATIENT SUMMARY
In this paper, we review recent advances in prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted surgery, which is used to help identify and remove prostate cancer. We found good evidence to suggest that PSMA targeting helps identify prostate cancer during surgery. The oncological benefits have yet to be investigated further.
PubMed: 37361200
DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.05.014 -
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