-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2018To investigate the efficacy and safety of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to screen for prostate cancer. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the efficacy and safety of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to screen for prostate cancer.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, OpenGrey, LILACS, and Medline, and search of scientific meeting abstracts and trial registers to April 2018.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised controlled trials comparing PSA screening with usual care in men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer.
DATA EXTRACTION
At least two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of eligible studies. A parallel guideline committee Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. We used a random effects model to obtain pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) and, when feasible, conducted subgroup analyses (defined a priori) based on age, frequency of screening, family history, ethnicity, and socioeconomic level, as well as a sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
Five randomised controlled trials, enrolling 721 718 men, were included. Studies varied with respect to screening frequency and intervals, PSA thresholds for biopsy, and risk of bias. When considering the whole body of evidence, screening probably has no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.96, 0.85 to 1.08; low certainty). Sensitivity analysis of studies at lower risk of bias (n=1) also demonstrates that screening seems to have no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 1.0, 0.98 to 1.02; moderate certainty) but may have a small effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.79, 0.69 to 0.91; moderate certainty). This corresponds to one less death from prostate cancer per 1000 men screened over 10 years. Direct comparative data on biopsy and treatment related complications from the included trials were limited. Using modelling, we estimated that for every 1000 men screened, approximately 1, 3, and 25 more men would be hospitalised for sepsis, require pads for urinary incontinence, and report erectile dysfunction, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
At best, screening for prostate cancer leads to a small reduction in disease-specific mortality over 10 years but has does not affect overall mortality. Clinicians and patients considering PSA based screening need to weigh these benefits against the potential short and long term harms of screening, including complications from biopsies and subsequent treatment, as well as the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration number CRD42016042347.
Topics: Aged; Biopsy; Early Detection of Cancer; Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Mass Screening; Medical Overuse; Middle Aged; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 30185521
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k3519 -
European Urology Aug 2023Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Understanding the epidemiology and risk factors of the disease is paramount to improve primary and... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Understanding the epidemiology and risk factors of the disease is paramount to improve primary and secondary prevention strategies.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and summarize the current evidence on the descriptive epidemiology, large screening studies, diagnostic techniques, and risk factors of PCa.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
PCa incidence and mortality rates for 2020 were obtained from the GLOBOCAN database of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. A systematic search was performed in July 2022 using PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE biomedical databases. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022359728).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Globally, PCa is the second most common cancer, with the highest incidence in North and South America, Europe, Australia, and the Caribbean. Risk factors include age, family history, and genetic predisposition. Additional factors may include smoking, diet, physical activity, specific medications, and occupational factors. As PCa screening has become more accepted, newer approaches such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biomarkers have been implemented to identify patients who are likely to harbor significant tumors. Limitations of this review include the evidence being derived from meta-analyses of mostly retrospective studies.
CONCLUSIONS
PCa remains the second most common cancer among men worldwide. PCa screening is gaining acceptance and will likely reduce PCa mortality at the cost of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Increasing use of MRI and biomarkers for the detection of PCa may mitigate some of the negative consequences of screening.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Prostate cancer (PCa) remains the second most common cancer among men, and screening for PCa is likely to increase in the future. Improved diagnostic techniques can help reduce the number of men who need to be diagnosed and treated to save one life. Avoidable risk factors for PCa may include factors such as smoking, diet, physical activity, specific medications, and certain occupations.
Topics: Male; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostate; Risk Factors; Prostate-Specific Antigen
PubMed: 37202314
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.021 -
JAMA May 2018Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among US men. (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among US men.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review evidence on prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening, treatments for localized prostate cancer, and prebiopsy risk calculators to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.
DATA SOURCES
Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Registries and Databases from July 1, 2011, through July 15, 2017, with a surveillance search on February 1, 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
English-language reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening; cohort studies reporting harms; RCTs and cohort studies of active localized cancer treatments vs conservative approaches (eg, active surveillance, watchful waiting); external validations of prebiopsy risk calculators to identify aggressive cancers.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Prostate cancer and all-cause mortality; false-positive screening results, biopsy complications, overdiagnosis; adverse effects of active treatments. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for treatment harms.
RESULTS
Sixty-three studies in 104 publications were included (N = 1 904 950). Randomization to PSA screening was not associated with reduced risk of prostate cancer mortality in either a US trial with substantial control group contamination (n = 76 683) or a UK trial with low adherence to a single PSA screen (n = 408 825) but was associated with significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality in a European trial (n = 162 243; relative risk [RR], 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69-0.91]; absolute risk reduction, 1.1 deaths per 10 000 person-years [95% CI, 0.5-1.8]). Of 61 604 men screened in the European trial, 17.8% received false-positive results. In 3 cohorts (n = 15 136), complications requiring hospitalization occurred in 0.5% to 1.6% of men undergoing biopsy after abnormal screening findings. Overdiagnosis was estimated to occur in 20.7% to 50.4% of screen-detected cancers. In an RCT of men with screen-detected prostate cancer (n = 1643), neither radical prostatectomy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.21-1.93]) nor radiation therapy (HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.15-1.69]) were associated with significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality vs active monitoring, although each was associated with significantly lower risk of metastatic disease. Relative to conservative management, radical prostatectomy was associated with increased risk of urinary incontinence (pooled RR, 2.27 [95% CI, 1.82-2.84]; 3 trials; n = 1796) and erectile dysfunction (pooled RR, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.62-2.04]; 2 trials; n = 883). Relative to conservative management (8 cohort studies; n = 3066), radiation therapy was associated with increased risk of erectile dysfunction (pooled RR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.20-1.42]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
PSA screening may reduce prostate cancer mortality risk but is associated with false-positive results, biopsy complications, and overdiagnosis. Compared with conservative approaches, active treatments for screen-detected prostate cancer have unclear effects on long-term survival but are associated with sexual and urinary difficulties.
Topics: Age Factors; Aged; Biopsy; Early Detection of Cancer; False Positive Reactions; Humans; Male; Medical Overuse; Middle Aged; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 29801018
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.3712 -
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 -
European Urology Apr 2020Accurate staging of high-risk localised, advanced, and metastatic prostate cancer is becoming increasingly more important in guiding local and systemic treatment.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Gallium-68 Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography in Advanced Prostate Cancer-Updated Diagnostic Utility, Sensitivity, Specificity, and Distribution of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen-avid Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
CONTEXT
Accurate staging of high-risk localised, advanced, and metastatic prostate cancer is becoming increasingly more important in guiding local and systemic treatment. Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) has increasingly been utilised globally to assess the local and metastatic burden of prostate cancer, typically in biochemically recurrent or advanced disease. Following our previous meta-analysis, a high-volume series has been reported highlighting the utility of Ga-PSMA PET in this setting.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to update reported predictors of positive Ga-PSMA PET according to prior therapy and proportion of positivity in various anatomical locations with sensitivity and specificity profiles.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We performed critical reviews of MEDLINE, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Libraries, and Web of Science databases in July 2018 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Quality assessment was performed using Quality Assessment if Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Meta-analyses of proportions were performed using a random-effect model. Summary sensitivity and specificity values were obtained by fitting bivariate hierarchical regression models.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 37 articles including 4790 patients were analysed. For patients with biochemical recurrence, positive Ga-PSMA PET scans increased with higher pre-PET prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. For PSA categories 0-0.19, 0.2-0.49, 0.5-0.99, 1-1.99, and ≥2ng/ml, the percentages of positive scans were 33%, 45%, 59%, 75%, and 95%, respectively. No significant differences in positivity were noted between Gleason sums ≤7 and ≥8. Significant differences in positivity after biochemical recurrence in the prostate bed were noted between radical prostatectomy (22%) and radiotherapy (52%) patients. On per-node analysis, high sensitivity (75%) and specificity (99%) were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
Ga-68-PSMA PET improves detection of metastases with biochemical recurrence, particularly at low pre-PET PSA levels of >0.2ng/ml (33%) and 0.2-0.5ng/ml (45%). Ga-68-PSMA-PET produces favourable sensitivity and specificity profiles on meta-analysis of pooled data. This analysis highlights different anatomic patterns of metastatic spread according to PSMA PET in the primary and biochemically recurrent settings.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography is now an established imaging technique that has been developed in response to inadequacies in standard of care imaging modalities to improve the detection of metastatic disease in prostate cancer, particularly in the setting of disease recurrence. To date, this imaging modality in the setting of primary staging is controversial, given the paucity of data. In light of the growing body of evidence, we summarised the data to date to provide clinicians with an overview of this imaging modality.
Topics: Antigens, Surface; Edetic Acid; Gallium Isotopes; Gallium Radioisotopes; Glutamate Carboxypeptidase II; Humans; Male; Neoplasm Staging; Oligopeptides; Positron-Emission Tomography; Prostatic Neoplasms; Radiopharmaceuticals; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 30773328
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.01.049 -
European Urology Feb 2021To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy...
OBJECTIVE
To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
The panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2016 and 2020. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. Risk-adapted screening should be offered to men at increased risk from the age of 45 yr and to breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, who have been confirmed to be at risk of early and aggressive disease (mainly BRAC2), from around 40 yr of age. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is performed, a combination of targeted and systematic biopsies must be offered. There is currently no place for the routine use of tissue-based biomarkers. Whilst prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography is the most sensitive staging procedure, the lack of outcome benefit remains a major limitation. Active surveillance (AS) should always be discussed with low-risk patients, as well as with selected intermediate-risk patients with favourable International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the AS journey and the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A strong recommendation to consider moderate hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term hormonal treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for their use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Updated prostate cancer guidelines are presented, addressing screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. These guidelines rely on the available scientific evidence, and new insights will need to be considered and included on a regular basis. In some cases, the supporting evidence for new treatment options is not yet strong enough to provide a recommendation, which is why continuous updating is important. Patients must be fully informed of all relevant options and, together with their treating physicians, decide on the most optimal management for them.
Topics: Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 33172724
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042 -
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 -
JAMA Internal Medicine Nov 2023Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate lifetime gained with cancer screening.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized clinical trials with more than 9 years of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality and estimated lifetime gained for 6 commonly used cancer screening tests, comparing screening with no screening. The analysis included the general population. MEDLINE and the Cochrane library databases were searched, and the last search was performed October 12, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for colorectal cancer; computed tomography screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Searches and selection criteria followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data were independently extracted by a single observer, and pooled analysis of clinical trials was used for analyses.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Life-years gained by screening was calculated as the difference in observed lifetime in the screening vs the no screening groups and computed absolute lifetime gained in days with 95% CIs for each screening test from meta-analyses or single randomized clinical trials.
RESULTS
In total, 2 111 958 individuals enrolled in randomized clinical trials comparing screening with no screening using 6 different tests were eligible. Median follow-up was 10 years for computed tomography, prostate-specific antigen testing, and colonoscopy; 13 years for mammography; and 15 years for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The only screening test with a significant lifetime gain was sigmoidoscopy (110 days; 95% CI, 0-274 days). There was no significant difference following mammography (0 days: 95% CI, -190 to 237 days), prostate cancer screening (37 days; 95% CI, -37 to 73 days), colonoscopy (37 days; 95% CI, -146 to 146 days), FOBT screening every year or every other year (0 days; 95% CI, -70.7 to 70.7 days), and lung cancer screening (107 days; 95% CI, -286 days to 430 days).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy.
Topics: Male; Humans; Early Detection of Cancer; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Mass Screening; Prostatic Neoplasms; Lung Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Colorectal Neoplasms; Colonoscopy; Occult Blood
PubMed: 37639247
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.3798 -
American Journal of Preventive Medicine Sep 2013Although findings from recently published clinical trials and a review from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force suggest that there is limited to no prostate cancer... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Although findings from recently published clinical trials and a review from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force suggest that there is limited to no prostate cancer mortality benefit associated with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, confusion remains as to whether the use of PSA as a screening tool for prostate cancer is warranted.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic literature review was done in 2012 to identify case-control studies from the past 20 years that focused on evaluating the association between screening for prostate cancer and prostate cancer mortality. Emphasis was put on synthesizing the results of these studies, evaluating their limitations, and identifying remaining questions and issues that should be addressed in future studies.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of seven studies were identified in this time period, with the majority suggesting that a reduction in prostate cancer mortality is associated with PSA screening. However, the findings may be limited by various biases inherent to case-control studies of screening tests, such as selection biases resulting from both case and control subject selection, exposure measurement issues, lead and length biases, and issues specific to prostate cancer screening such as the influence of digital rectal examinations.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings from existing case-control studies of PSA and prostate cancer mortality suggest that there is a mortality benefit from PSA screening. However, these studies may be limited by bias and must therefore be interpreted with caution. As uncertainty regarding PSA screening remains, future studies to evaluate the association between PSA and prostate cancer mortality should address these potential biases directly.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Male; Mass Screening; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Selection Bias
PubMed: 23953359
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.04.015 -
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