-
American Journal of Clinical and... 2021Hematospermia is an uncommon symptom but can cause significant anxiety among the patient and his partner. The available data on the underlying etiology, management and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Hematospermia is an uncommon symptom but can cause significant anxiety among the patient and his partner. The available data on the underlying etiology, management and outcome are variable and inconsistent. This systematic review was aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, etiology, treatment and outcomes of hematospermia.
METHODS
Keywords were searched in PubMed, Scopus, LILACS and Google Scholar. Relevant articles were manually added from the list of references of eligible articles. Studies with a considerable assessment of patients with hematospermia were included. Qualitative analysis was performed using the available data.
RESULTS
Twenty studies (Fifteen prospective and five retrospective, n=2079 patients, mean age =46.2 (range: 15-89) years) were eligible. Community screening reported a 0.5% prevalence of hematospermia (one study). Majority had hematospermia as the main/only symptom while dysuria (n=38/232, 16.4%), lower urinary tract symptoms (n=113/833, 13.6%), Hematuria (65/566, 11.5%) and testicular pain (n=68/631, 10.7%), were associated in some patients. Suspicious rectal examination (one study) and elevated PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) levels (four studies) were indicative of sinister pathologies. Common etiologies were urogenital infections/inflammatory conditions followed by prostatic, seminal vesicular or urethral calculi. Malignancies were detected in 5.4% (n=74/1362, 11 studies) of patients >40 years old and the majority had prostate cancers (67/74, 90.5%). Etiology was unknown in 51.8% (n=603/1163). Definitive treatment of the underlying etiology (n=260/347, 74.9%) resolved the symptoms while spontaneous resolution occurred in the vast majority 88.9% (n=168/189) with unknown etiology.
CONCLUSIONS
Hematospermia is relatively an innocent symptom. Malignancies are rare and occurred in men over 40 years. Clinical assessment including a rectal examination and a PSA level would be sufficient to identify most causes. Urogenital infections/inflammation and prostatic calculi are the commonly found etiologies. There was no identifiable cause in almost half of those with hematospermia. The majority has a benign course.
PubMed: 33816690
DOI: No ID Found -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023Olaparib has been proven for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This meta-analysis aims to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy...
Efficacy and safety of olaparib combined with abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Olaparib has been proven for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This meta-analysis aims to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of olaparib and abiraterone in patients with mCRPC.
METHODS
The literature in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up until April 27, 2023, was systematically searched. In the studies included in this meta-analysis, olaparib combined with abiraterone was compared with abiraterone combined with placebo.
RESULTS
Two randomized controlled trials involving a total of 938 patients were included. Analysis indicated that olaparib combined with abiraterone significantly prolonged radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS: relative risk [RR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.79), time to secondary progression or death (PFS2: hazard ratio [HR] 0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.93), time to first subsequent therapy or death (TFST: HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89), time to second subsequent therapy or death (TSST: HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.93), and confirmed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05-1.24). However, no statistically significant differences were found in the overall survival (OS: HR 0.87 95% CI 0.70-1.09), objective response rate (ORR: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70-1.33), and incidence of total adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.94-1.22). A notable detail that the combination of olaparib and abiraterone was associated with an increased incidence of high-grade anemia (RR 7.47, 95% CI 1.36-40.88).
CONCLUSION
Olaparib combined with abiraterone is effective for patients with mCRPC. However, combination therapy has treatment-related adverse events compared with monotherapy, and this could be improved in future treatment management.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42023432287.
PubMed: 37869079
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1265276 -
International Braz J Urol : Official... 2022To explore the feasibility of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in diagnosing primary prostate cancer. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Performance of 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the diagnosis of primary prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To explore the feasibility of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in diagnosing primary prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published before July 2020. The studies that used 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for detecting primary prostate cancer, and pathological biopsy as the reference standard were included. The selecting process used preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). The quality of enrolled studies was assessed by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool.
RESULTS
According to our search strategy, 9 studies were included for analysis. A total of 547 patients with primary prostate cancer and 443 lesion segments that underwent 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scans were included and their pathological biopsies were compared. The results of these studies showed some differences. For instance, the lowest sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in diagnosing primary prostate cancer was 67%, while the highest sensitivity recorded was 97%.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with conventional imaging examinations, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT had higher sensitivity and specificity in detecting primary prostate cancer. At present, most of the studies that used 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for detecting prostate cancer are retrospective studies. Based on its advantage of high detection rate, the use of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in the detection of primary prostate cancer is worthy of promotion.
Topics: Edetic Acid; Gallium Isotopes; Gallium Radioisotopes; Humans; Ligands; Male; Oligopeptides; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Prostate; Prostatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34003611
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2020.0986 -
European Urology Oncology Aug 2022Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) has gained acceptance as a staging tool for prostate cancer (PCa). Recent reports suggest an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Diagnostic Performance of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography-targeted biopsy for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
CONTEXT
Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) has gained acceptance as a staging tool for prostate cancer (PCa). Recent reports suggest an association between PSMA PET and detection of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) on prostate biopsy.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of PSMA PET-targeted biopsy (PSMA-PET-TB) for csPCa detection.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus in December 2021 to identify studies assessing the accuracy of PSMA-PET-TB for csPCa detection. A diagnostic meta-analysis was performed to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of PSMA-PET-TB alone and in combination with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-TB for detecting csPCa.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Overall, five prospective studies involving 497 patients were eligible for this meta-analysis. For csPCa detection, PSMA-PET-TB had pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-0.93), 0.56 (95% CI 0.29-0.80), 0.69 (95% CI 0.58-0.79), and 0.78 (95% CI 0.50-0.93), respectively. Among the three studies assessing the PSMA-PET + MRI-TB strategy, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for csPCa detection were 0.91 (95% CI 0.77-0.97), 0.64 (95% CI 0.40-0.82), 0.75 (95% CI 0.56-0.87), and 0.85 (95% CI 0.62-0.95), respectively. For lesions with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 3, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 0.69, 0.73, 0.48, and 0.86, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
PSMA-PET-TB appears to have favorable diagnostic accuracy for csPCa detection and combination with MRI seems to improve this. According to our meta-analysis, PSMA-PET has promising clinical application for detection of csPCa, namely in the case of PI-RADS 3 lesions. Further prospective studies are needed to explore the true clinical utility of a PSMA-PET-based diagnostic pathway.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) is a promising imaging method for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer and seems to have additional value to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detection.
Topics: Biopsy; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Positron-Emission Tomography; Prospective Studies; Prostate; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 35715320
DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.04.006 -
BMC Medicine Feb 2022Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a commonly used test to detect prostate cancer. Attention has mostly focused on the use of PSA in screening asymptomatic patients, but... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a commonly used test to detect prostate cancer. Attention has mostly focused on the use of PSA in screening asymptomatic patients, but the diagnostic accuracy of PSA for prostate cancer in patients with symptoms is less well understood.
METHODS
A systematic database search was conducted of Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library. Studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of PSA for prostate cancer in patients with symptoms were included. Two investigators independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all database search hits and full texts of potentially relevant studies against the inclusion criteria, and data extracted into a proforma. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool by two investigators independently. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated with meta-analysis using bivariate mixed effects regression.
RESULTS
Five hundred sixty-three search hits were assessed by title and abstract after de-duplication, with 75 full text papers reviewed. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria, 18 of which were conducted in secondary care settings with one from a screening study cohort. All studies used histology obtained by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS) as a reference test; usually only for patients with elevated PSA or abnormal prostate examination. Pooled data from 14,489 patients found estimated sensitivity of PSA for prostate cancer was 0.93 (95% CI 0.88, 0.96) and specificity was 0.20 (95% CI 0.12, 0.33). The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic curve was 0.72 (95% CI 0.68, 0.76). All studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias in at least one QUADAS-2 domain.
CONCLUSIONS
Currently available evidence suggests PSA is highly sensitive but poorly specific for prostate cancer detection in symptomatic patients. However, significant limitations in study design and reference test reduces the certainty of this estimate. There is very limited evidence for the performance of PSA in primary care, the healthcare setting where most PSA testing is performed.
Topics: Bias; Cohort Studies; Humans; Male; Mass Screening; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 35125113
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-021-02230-y -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2021Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET) has recently gained interest as a promising tool for treatment response evaluation in... (Review)
Review
Concordance between Response Assessment Using Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen PET and Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels after Systemic Treatment in Patients with Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET) has recently gained interest as a promising tool for treatment response evaluation in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the concordance between response evaluation using PSMA PET and serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level after systemic treatment and the association between PSMA PET and overall survival in metastatic CRPC patients. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched until August 2020. Studies that reported the concordance between PSMA PET and PSA response were included. PSMA PET and PSA response evaluation were dichotomized into response vs. non-response to construct two-by-two contingency tables; an ≥30% increase in PSMA PET according to PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.0 and as an increase in serum PSA level of ≥25% as per Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 guidelines were defined as non-response. The percent agreement rates were pooled using random-effect model. Ten studies (268 patients) were included. The concordance rates ranged 0.50-0.84 with a pooled proportion of 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.67-0.79). Patients were treated with Lu-PSMA therapy in five, chemotherapy in three, Ra in one, and more than one type in one study. Various PET parameters were used: the most widely evaluated was PSMA tumor volume (PSMA-TV). Similar proportions were found across different therapeutic agents, PET response parameters, and regarding directionality of discordance (PSA response/PSMA non-response vs. PSMA response/PSA non-response). Two studies reported that a decrease in PSMA-TV was associated with better overall survival. PSMA PET and PSA response assessments were discordant in nearly a fourth of metastatic CRPC patients. Further studies are warranted to establish the clinical meaning of this discordance and define appropriate management for such clinical situation.
PubMed: 33917006
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11040663 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2024Prostate cancer(PCa), a leading global health concern, profoundly impacts millions of men worldwide. Progressing through two stages, it initially develops within the... (Review)
Review
Prostate cancer(PCa), a leading global health concern, profoundly impacts millions of men worldwide. Progressing through two stages, it initially develops within the prostate and subsequently extends to vital organs such as lymph nodes, bones, lungs, and the liver. In the early phases, castration therapy is often employed to mitigate androgen effects. However, when prostate cancer becomes resistant to this treatment, alternative strategies become imperative. As diagnostic and treatment methodologies for prostate cancer continually advance, radioligand therapy (RLT) has emerged as a promising avenue, yielding noteworthy outcomes. The fundamental principle of RLT involves delivering radionuclide drugs to cancerous lesions through specific carriers or technologies. Subsequently, these radionuclide drugs release radioactive energy, facilitating the destruction of cancer cell tissues. At present, the positron emission tomography (PET) targeting PSMA has been widely developed for the use of diagnosis and staging of PCa. Notably, FDA-approved prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) targeting agents, such as Ga-PSMA-11 and Lu-PSMA-617, represent significant milestones in enhancing diagnostic precision and therapeutic efficacy. This review emphasizes the current research status and outcomes of various radionuclide-labeled PSMA ligands. The objective is to provide valuable insights for the continued advancement of diagnostic and therapeutic approaches in the realm of prostate cancer.
PubMed: 38577331
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1373606 -
European Urology Open Science Nov 2021In December 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand (Ga-PSMA-11) for positron emission tomography (PET)... (Review)
Review
Comparison of Ga-labeled Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Ligand Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for Primary Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
CONTEXT
In December 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand (Ga-PSMA-11) for positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) metastasis who are candidates for initial definitive therapy. Ga-PSMA PET is increasingly performed for these patients and is usually combined with computed tomography (CT). In recent years, Ga-PSMA PET has been combined with high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which is beneficial for T staging and may further enhance the staging of primary PCa.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the diagnostic accuracy of Ga-PSMA PET/MRI with Ga-PSMA PET/CT for staging of primary PCa.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A comprehensive literature search was performed using Embase, PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar up to June 24, 2021 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The search identified 2632 articles, of which 27 were included. The diagnostic accuracy of Ga-PSMA PET/MRI, measured as the pooled natural logarithm of diagnostic odds ratio (lnDOR), was 2.27 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-3.32) for detection of extracapsular extension (ECE), 3.50 (95% CI 2.14-4.86) for seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), and 4.73 (95% CI 2.93-6.52) for lymph node metastasis (LNM). For Ga-PSMA PET/CT, the analysis showed lnDOR of 2.45 (95% CI 0.75-4.14), 2.94 (95% CI 2.26-3.63), and 2.42 (95% CI 2.07-2.78) for detection of ECE, SVI, and LNM, respectively. The overall risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed as moderate and low, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Ga-PSMA PET/MRI shows high diagnostic accuracy equivalent to that of Ga-PSMA PET/CT for detection of ECE, SVI, and LNM in staging of PCa. There is an urgent need for direct comparison of the two diagnostic tests in future research.
PATIENT SUMMARY
The use of radioactively labeled molecules that bind to prostate-specific membrane antigen (Ga-PSMA) for positron emission tomography (PET) scans combined with either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasing for prostate cancer diagnosis. There is a need for direct comparison of the two tests to demonstrate the benefit of Ga-PSMA PET/MRI for determining tumor stage in prostate cancer.
TAKE HOME MESSAGE
After the recent US Food and Drug Administration approval of Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand (Ga-PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) for staging of primary prostate cancer (PCa), it is expected that the use of this imaging modality will increase rapidly. Our review of the literature shows that Ga-PSMA PET/magnetic resonance imaging has high diagnostic accuracy equivalent to that of Ga-PSMA PET/computed tomography in primary PCa staging. There is an urgent need for direct head-to-head comparison of the two diagnostic tests in future research.
PubMed: 34632423
DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.09.006 -
Value in Health : the Journal of the... Jan 2022Recent innovations in prostate cancer diagnosis include new biomarkers and more accurate biopsy methods. This study assesses the evidence base on cost-effectiveness of...
OBJECTIVES
Recent innovations in prostate cancer diagnosis include new biomarkers and more accurate biopsy methods. This study assesses the evidence base on cost-effectiveness of these developments (eg, Prostate Health Index and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]-guided biopsy) and identifies areas of improvement for future cost-effectiveness models.
METHODS
A systematic review using the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Health Technology Assessment databases, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and United Kingdom National Screening Committee guidance was performed, between 2009 and 2021. Relevant data were extracted on study type, model inputs, modeling methods and cost-effectiveness conclusions, and results narratively synthesized.
RESULTS
A total of 22 model-based economic evaluations were included. A total of 11 compared the cost-effectiveness of new biomarkers to prostate-specific antigen testing alone and all found biomarkers to be cost saving. A total of 8 compared MRI-guided biopsy methods to transrectal ultrasound-guided methods and found MRI-guided methods to be most cost-effective. Newer detection methods showed a reduction in unnecessary biopsies and overtreatment. The most cost-effective follow-up strategy in men with a negative initial biopsy was uncertain. Many studies did not model for stage or grade of cancer, cancer progression, or the entire testing and treatment pathway. Few fully accounted for uncertainty.
CONCLUSIONS
This review brings together the cost-effectiveness literature for novel diagnostic methods in prostate cancer, showing that most studies have found new methods to be more cost-effective than standard of care. Several limitations of the models were identified, however, limiting the reliability of the results. Areas for further development include accurately modeling the impact of early diagnostic tests on long-term outcomes of prostate cancer and fully accounting for uncertainty.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Biomarkers; Biopsy; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Male; Mass Screening; Middle Aged; Prostatic Neoplasms; Quality-Adjusted Life Years
PubMed: 35031092
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.07.002 -
Systematic Reviews Dec 2020This study aimed to review studies on willingness to pay (WTP) for prostate cancer screening. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to review studies on willingness to pay (WTP) for prostate cancer screening.
METHODS
This systematic-review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. By searching six-health-database, WTP studies on prostate cancer screening using contingent valuation method published in English until March 2020 were included and those with unavailable full-text and inadequate quality-assessment scores were excluded. Smith checklist was used for the quality assessment. Extracted WTPs were converted to US dollar in 2018 using exchange rate parity and net present value formula to make comparison. Factors' effect was assessed by vote counting.
RESULTS
Six final studies published after 2006 reported above 70% Smith checklist items needed to be considered in contingent valuation study reports. Seven factors have positive effects on WTP. The reported WTP value varied from 11$ to 588$ in Japan and Germany, respectively.
CONCLUSION
WTP for prostate cancer screening was positive among all studied men. The results of factors' effect assessment showed that better understanding prostate cancer risks or screening tests and factors such as age, income, family history of cancer, hospitalization history, and educational level have positive effects. Moreover, prostate-specific antigen history, health insurance, employment, and subject's health assessment received less attention. The results' generalization to all countries is not applicable because there are no studies for low- and middle-income countries.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020172789.
Topics: Humans; Male; Early Detection of Cancer; Germany; Insurance, Health; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 33298175
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-020-01522-3