-
Pain Research & Management 2023Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a complex male dysfunction, mostly seen in young and middle-aged men with a history of more than... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a complex male dysfunction, mostly seen in young and middle-aged men with a history of more than 3 months. As a traditional therapy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, acupuncture has been proven an effective method to treat CP/CPPS in recent years. Though some meta-analyses on acupuncture for chronic prostatitis were published in 2018 and 2019, most of the included studies were low in quality according to the JADAD score (JADAD < 4). The conclusions of acupuncture for CP/CPPS remain indefinite.
PURPOSE
This review aims to evaluate the efficacy of acupuncture for CP/CPPS by including high-quality literature only (JADAD ≥ 4) to provide a reliable basis for clinical applications and research.
METHOD
Nine electronic databases were searched from inception to March 1, 2022, and only randomized controlled trials (RCT) with high-quality (JADAD ≥ 4) were included. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3. and was verified through trial sequential analysis (TSA). We carried out a sensitivity analysis for the heterogeneity ( ≥ 50%). Publication bias was explored using a funnel plot.
RESULT
Ten RCTs (11 trials) of high-quality methodology involving 798 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that compared to sham acupuncture (SAT) and western medicine (WM), acupuncture (AT) played superior roles for CP/CPPS patients in pain score, NIH-CPSI score, quality of life score, urinary symptom, and efficacy rate. As for the adverse effects, 4 RCTs described mild hematoma and pain in AT and SAT groups, while specific symptoms including nausea, abdominal pain, dizziness, and low blood pressure were reported in WM groups.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis indicated that acupuncture has measurable benefits on CP/CPPS, and security has also been ensured. However, this meta-analysis only included 10 RCTs; thus, RCTs with a larger sample size and longer-term observation are required to verify the effectiveness of acupuncture further in the future.
Topics: Male; Middle Aged; Humans; Chronic Pain; Prostatitis; Chronic Disease; Acupuncture Therapy; Pelvic Pain
PubMed: 36960418
DOI: 10.1155/2023/7754876 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017Prostate cancer is commonly diagnosed in men worldwide. Surgery, in the form of radical prostatectomy, is one of the main forms of treatment for men with localised... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Prostate cancer is commonly diagnosed in men worldwide. Surgery, in the form of radical prostatectomy, is one of the main forms of treatment for men with localised prostate cancer. Prostatectomy has traditionally been performed as open surgery, typically via a retropubic approach. The advent of laparoscopic approaches, including robotic-assisted, provides a minimally invasive alternative to open radical prostatectomy (ORP).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy or robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy in men with localised prostate cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We also searched bibliographies of included studies and conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a direct comparison of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) to ORP, including pseudo-RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. The primary outcomes were prostate cancer-specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two unique studies with 446 randomised participants with clinically localised prostate cancer. The mean age, prostate volume, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of the participants were 61.3 years, 49.78 mL, and 7.09 ng/mL, respectively. Primary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer-specific survival. Based on data from one trial, RARP likely results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (MD -1.30, 95% CI -4.65 to 2.05) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI -1.84 to 9.64). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate for both quality of life outcomes, downgrading for study limitations. Secondary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence-free survival or overall survival.Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.04) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.32). We rated the quality of evidence as low for both surgical complications, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision.Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at one day (MD -1.05, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.68 ) and up to one week (MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.17). We rated the quality of evidence for both time-points as low, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision. Based on one study, RARP likely results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.34). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on one study, RARP likely reduces the length of hospital stay (MD -1.72, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.25). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on two study, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.46). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1000 men (95% CI 78 fewer to 48 fewer). We rated the quality of evidence as low, downgrading for study limitations and indirectness.We were unable to perform any of the prespecified secondary analyses based on the available evidence. All available outcome data were short-term and we were unable to account for surgeon volume or experience.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no high-quality evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared to ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life-related outcomes appear similar.Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions. All available outcome data were short-term, and this study was unable to account for surgeon volume or experience.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Organ Size; Prostate; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Sexual Behavior; Urination
PubMed: 28895658
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009625.pub2 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Sep 2000The optimal management of chronic abacterial prostatitis is not known. A systematic review of the literature was done to answer the following questions: Are there... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The optimal management of chronic abacterial prostatitis is not known. A systematic review of the literature was done to answer the following questions: Are there accurate, reliable tests to diagnose chronic abacterial prostatitis? Are there effective therapies for it?
DATA SOURCES
Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE (1966 to 1999), the Cochrane Library, and bibliographies of identified articles and reviews and by contacting an expert
STUDY SELECTION
Diagnostic test articles were included if they reported on controlled studies; treatment articles were included if they reported on randomized or controlled trials. No language restrictions were applied.
DATA EXTRACTION
For each selected article, two investigators independently extracted key data on study design, patient characteristics, diagnostic test or treatment characteristics, and outcomes.
DATA SYNTHESIS
19 diagnostic test articles and 14 treatment trials met the inclusion criteria The disparity among studies in design, interventions, and other factors precluded quantitative analysis or pooling of the findings. Diagnostic test articles included 1384 men (mean age, 33 to 67 years) and evaluated infection; inflammation, immunology, and biochemistry; psychological factors; and ultrasonography. Treatment trials included 570 men (mean age, 38 to 45 years) and evaluated medications used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia, anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics, thermotherapy, and miscellaneous medications. No trial was done in the United States.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no gold-standard diagnostic test for chronic abacterial prostatitis, and the methodologic quality of available studies of diagnostic tests is low. The few treatment trials are methodologically weak and involved small samples. The routine use of antibiotics and alpha-blockers to treat chronic abacterial prostatitis is not supported by the existing evidence.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Chronic Disease; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prostatitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 10979882
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-133-5-200009050-00013 -
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases Sep 2023We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of Li-ESWT combined with or without medications for patients with Chronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The efficacy and safety of low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave treatment combined with or without medications in Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of Li-ESWT combined with or without medications for patients with Chronic prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome (CP/CPPS).
METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted of PUBMED, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception to February 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of Li-ESWT with or without the combination of medications compared with the control group. The National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI), Visual Analogue Scale/Score (VAS), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), and International prostate symptom score (IPSS) were used to assess the improvements of symptoms in CP/CPPS patients.
RESULTS
651 patients from 12 randomized controlled studies were included in this study. The total NIH-CPSI scores, pain domain scores, and quality of life (QOL) scores were significantly lower in the Li-ESWT group than those in the control group at the termination of treatment, and 1, 4, 12, and 24 weeks after treatment. And these scores were significantly reduced in the Li-ESWT group than in baselines. In the subgroup analysis, reductions of these scores lasted longer and were greater in Li-ESWT combined with medications than in Li-ESWT alone. In the Li-ESWT group, the VAS score; IIEF score; and IPSS score were significant improvements than those in control group at the termination of treatment, and 1, 4, and 12 weeks after treatment; 4, 12, and 24 weeks after treatment; and 1, 4, and 12 weeks after treatment, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Li-ESWT is a safe, non-invasive, and effective option for patients with CP/CPPS, whether combined with medications or not, should be recommended for widespread use in clinical practice.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostatitis; Prostatic Neoplasms; Chronic Disease; Pelvic Pain; Databases, Factual; Chronic Pain
PubMed: 35798855
DOI: 10.1038/s41391-022-00571-0 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2011Chronic prostatitis can cause pain and urinary symptoms, and usually occurs without positive bacterial cultures from prostatic secretions (known as chronic abacterial... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Chronic prostatitis can cause pain and urinary symptoms, and usually occurs without positive bacterial cultures from prostatic secretions (known as chronic abacterial prostatitis or chronic pelvic pain syndrome [CP/CPPS]). Bacterial infection can result from urinary tract instrumentation, but the cause and natural history of CP/CPPS are unknown.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for chronic bacterial prostatitis? What are the effects of treatments for chronic abacterial prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 33 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: 5 alpha-reductase inhibitors, allopurinol, alpha-blockers, biofeedback, local injections of antimicrobial drugs, mepartricin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), oral antimicrobial drugs, pentosan polysulfate, prostatic massage, quercetin, radical prostatectomy, sitz baths, transurethral microwave thermotherapy, and transurethral resection.
Topics: 5-alpha Reductase Inhibitors; Chronic Disease; Humans; Male; Mepartricin; Pentosan Sulfuric Polyester; Prostatitis; Quercetin
PubMed: 21736764
DOI: No ID Found -
European Urology Oncology Aug 2023The evidence supporting multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) targeting for biopsy is nearly exclusively based on biopsy pathologic outcomes. This is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
The evidence supporting multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) targeting for biopsy is nearly exclusively based on biopsy pathologic outcomes. This is problematic, as targeting likely allows preferential identification of small high-grade areas of questionable oncologic significance, raising the likelihood of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the impact of MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsies on radical prostatectomy (RP) grade group concordance.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
PubMed MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched from July 2018 to January 2022. Studies that conducted systematic and MRI-targeted prostate biopsies and compared biopsy results with pathology after RP were included. We performed a meta-analysis to assess whether pathologic upgrading and downgrading were influenced by biopsy type and a net-benefit analysis using pooled risk difference estimates.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Both targeted only and combined biopsies were less likely to result in upgrading (odds ratio [OR] vs systematic of 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.77, p < 0.001, and 0.50, 95% CI 0.45-0.55, p < 0.001), respectively). Targeted only and combined biopsies increased the odds of downgrading (1.24 (95% CI 1.05-1.46), p = 0.012, and 1.96 (95% CI 1.68-2.27, p < 0.001) compared with systematic biopsies, respectively. The net benefit of targeted and combined biopsies is 8 and 7 per 100 if harms of up- and downgrading are considered equal, but 7 and -1 per 100 if the harm of downgrading is considered twice that of upgrading.
CONCLUSIONS
The addition of MRI-targeting results in lower rates of upgrading as compared to systematic biopsy at RP (27% vs 42%). However, combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies are associated with more downgrading at RP (19% v 11% for combined vs systematic). Strong heterogeneity suggests further research into factors that influence the rates of up- and downgrading and that distinguishes clinically relevant from irrelevant grade changes is needed. Until then, the benefits and harms of combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies cannot be fully assessed.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We reviewed the ability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies to predict cancer grade at prostatectomy. We found that combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies result in more cancers being downgraded than systematic biopsies.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostatectomy; Prostate; Biopsy; Magnetic Resonance Imaging
PubMed: 37236832
DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.04.004 -
European Urology Focus Nov 2023Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has largely replaced conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) even though the costs are significantly higher.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has largely replaced conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) even though the costs are significantly higher. Justification for this change is the hope for better postoperative functional results because of better dissection of the neurovascular bundle.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RARP and LRP for the primary outcome of continence (use of 0 pads or 1 safety pad) at 12 mo after surgery.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases for RCTs comparing RARP versus LRP for adults with localised prostate cancer (PC). Where possible, individual-patient data were obtained. Secondary outcomes were potency for patients potent at baseline; a trifecta of patients continent and potent and no recurrence/further treatment; positive surgical margins; biochemical recurrence; and further treatment for PC. The systematic review was registered prospectively (reviewregistry1190 on www.researchregistry.com/).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Five RCTs were identified. Three trial teams provided data. For another trial, only published data were available. The fifth trial was terminated prematurely because of insufficient recruitment and thus could not be included. Overall, data for 1205 randomised patients were available. At 12 mo, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding continence (odds ratio [OR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-5.62). However, at 3 mo and 6 mo there were significant differences in favour of RARP. Significantly more patients who were potent at baseline and underwent a robot-assisted nerve-sparing approach were potent at 12 mo (OR 4.05, 95% CI 1.63-10.09).
CONCLUSION
At 12 mo after surgery there are no differences in continence between RARP and LRP. Short-term continence benefits of RARP were observed. Potent patients undergoing RARP consistently show better potency postoperatively.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We analysed differences between robot-assisted removal of the prostate and conventional keyhole surgery for removal of the prostate. At 12 mo after surgery, there were no differences in continence outcomes between the two approaches. However, patients who were potent at baseline and underwent robot-assisted surgery were more likely to be potent at 12 mo.
Topics: Male; Adult; Humans; Prostate; Robotics; Treatment Outcome; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Laparoscopy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37353415
DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.05.007 -
Journal of Vascular and Interventional... Apr 2022To review and to compare indirectly the outcomes of minimally invasive therapies for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To review and to compare indirectly the outcomes of minimally invasive therapies for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A literature search via Medline and Cochrane Central databases was completed for randomized control studies published between January 2000 to April 2020 for the following therapies: Rezum, Urolift, Aquablation, and prostatic artery embolization (PAE). Data on the following variables were included: International prostate symptom score (IPSS), maximum urinary flow rate, quality of life, and postvoid residual (PVR). Standard mean differences between treatments were compared through a meta-analysis using transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) to assess differences in treatment effect.
RESULTS
There was no significant difference in outcomes between therapies for IPSS at the 3, 6, and 12-month follow ups. Although outcomes for Rezum were only available out to 3 months, there were no consistently significant differences in outcomes when comparing Aquablation versus PAE versus Rezum. TURP PVR was significantly better than Urolift at 3, 6, and 12 months. No significant differences in minor or major adverse events were noted.
CONCLUSION
Although significant differences in outcomes were limited, Aquablation and PAE were the most durable at 12 months. PAE has been well studied on multiple randomized control trials with minimal adverse events while Aquablation has limited high quality data and has been associated with bleeding-related complications.
Topics: Embolization, Therapeutic; Humans; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Prostate; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Quality of Life; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34968671
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2021.12.029 -
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases Dec 2023Artificial intelligence (AI) is a promising tool in pathology, including cancer diagnosis, subtyping, grading, and prognostic prediction. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a promising tool in pathology, including cancer diagnosis, subtyping, grading, and prognostic prediction.
METHODS
The aim of the study is to assess AI application in prostate cancer (PCa) histology. We carried out a systematic literature search in 3 databases. Primary outcome was AI accuracy in differentiating between PCa and benign hyperplasia. Secondary outcomes were AI accuracy in determining Gleason grade and agreement among AI and pathologists.
RESULTS
Our final sample consists of 24 studies conducted from 2007 to 2021. They aggregate data from roughly 8000 cases of prostate biopsy and 458 cases of radical prostatectomy (RP). Sensitivity for PCa diagnostic exceeded 90% and ranged from 87% to 100%, and specificity varied from 68% to 99%. Overall accuracy ranged from 83.7% to 98.3% with AUC reaching 0.99. The meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method showed pooled sensitivity of 0.96 with I = 80.7% and pooled specificity of 0.95 with I = 86.1%. Pooled positive likehood ratio was 15.3 with I = 87.3% and negative - was 0.04 with I = 78.6%. SROC (symmetric receiver operating characteristics) curve represents AUC = 0.99. For grading the accuracy of AI was lower: sensitivity for Gleason grading ranged from 77% to 87%, and specificity from 82% to 90%.
CONCLUSIONS
The accuracy of AI for PCa identification and grading is comparable to expert pathologists. This is a promising approach which has several possible clinical applications resulting in expedite and optimize pathology reports. AI introduction into common practice may be limited by difficult and time-consuming convolutional neural network training and tuning.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostate; Prostatic Neoplasms; Artificial Intelligence; Prostatectomy; Prognosis; Neoplasm Grading
PubMed: 37185992
DOI: 10.1038/s41391-023-00673-3 -
Lasers in Medical Science Jun 2023We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of photo selective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP) with the GreenLight Laser versus transurethral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety comparing greenlight laser vaporization with transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia with prostate volume less than 80 ml.
We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of photo selective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP) with the GreenLight Laser versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of small-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). As of July 2022, relevant literature in online databases such as Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase was searched, including studies published on or before that date, and there were 9 studies in total, including 5 RCTs and 4 non-RCTs. In total 1525 patients were included to compare the efficacy of PVP and TURP in treating BPH. The Cochrane Collaboration criteria were used to evaluate the risk of bias. The software was used for random effect meta-analysis with RevMan 5.3. Data extraction included: clinical baseline characteristics, perioperative parameters, complication rates, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), prostate specific antigen (PSA), post-void residual urine (PVR), maximum flow rate (Qmax), and quality of life (QoL). The pooled analysis showed that PVP was associated with reduced blood loss, blood transfusion, clot retention, catheterization time, definitive catheter removal, and hospital stay, but was associated with longer operative time and more severe dysuria (all p < 0.05). The results of this meta-analysis show that PVP as a technique for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia with a volume of less than 80 cc has similar efficacy to standard TURP in IPSS, PSA, PVR, Qmax and QoL, and is an effective alternative. It outperformed TURP in terms of blood transfusion, catheterization time and hospital stay, while TURP is superior to PVP in terms of operation time.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostate; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Quality of Life; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Treatment Outcome; Laser Therapy; Urinary Retention
PubMed: 37289405
DOI: 10.1007/s10103-023-03794-2