-
Annals of Family Medicine Mar 2018Although the digital rectal examination (DRE) is commonly performed to screen for prostate cancer, there is limited data to support its use in primary care. This review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Although the digital rectal examination (DRE) is commonly performed to screen for prostate cancer, there is limited data to support its use in primary care. This review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of DRE in screening for prostate cancer in primary care settings.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) from their inception to June 2016. Six reviewers, in pairs, independently screened citations for eligibility and extracted data. Pooled estimates were calculated for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of DRE in primary care settings using an inverse-variance meta-analysis. We used QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) and GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) guidelines to assess study risk of bias and quality.
RESULTS
Our search yielded 8,217 studies, of which 7 studies with 9,241 patients were included after the screening process. All patients analyzed underwent both DRE and biopsy. Pooled sensitivity of DRE performed by primary care clinicians was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.36-0.67; I = 98.4%) and pooled specificity was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.41-0.76; I = 99.4%). Pooled PPV was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31-0.52; I = 97.2%), and pooled NPV was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.58-0.70; I = 95.0%). The quality of evidence as assessed with GRADE was very low.
CONCLUSION
Given the considerable lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, we recommend against routine performance of DRE to screen for prostate cancer in the primary care setting.
Topics: Digital Rectal Examination; Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Male; Primary Health Care; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 29531107
DOI: 10.1370/afm.2205 -
JAMA Oncology Mar 2021Multiple systemic treatments are available for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), with unclear comparative effectiveness and safety and widely... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Multiple systemic treatments are available for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), with unclear comparative effectiveness and safety and widely varied costs.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness and safety determined in randomized clinical trials of systemic treatments for mCSPC.
DATA SOURCES
Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central), regulatory documents (US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency), and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and European Union clinical trials register) were searched from inception through November 5, 2019.
STUDY SELECTION, DATA EXTRACTION, AND SYNTHESIS
Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials evaluating the addition of docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, apalutamide, or enzalutamide to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for treatment of mCSPC. Two investigators independently performed screening. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus. A Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess trial quality. Relative effects of competing treatments were assessed by bayesian network meta-analysis and survival models. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was used.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Overall survival, radiographic progression-free survival, and serious adverse events (SAEs).
RESULTS
Seven trials with 7287 patients comparing 6 treatments (abiraterone acetate, apalutamide, docetaxel, enzalutamide, standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen, and placebo/no treatment) were identified. Ordered from the most to the least effective determined by results of clinical trials, treatments associated with improved overall survival when added to ADT included abiraterone acetate (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% credible interval [CI], 0.54-0.70), apalutamide (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.89), and docetaxel (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89); treatments associated with improved radiographic progression-free survival when added to ADT included enzalutamide (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.50), apalutamide (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.39-0.60), abiraterone acetate (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.45-0.58), and docetaxel (HR, 0.67; 95% CI 0.60-0.74). Docetaxel was associated with substantially increased SAEs (odds ratio, 23.72; 95% CI, 13.37-45.15), abiraterone acetate with slightly increased SAEs (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.83), and other treatments with no significant increase in SAEs. Risk of bias was noted for 4 trials with open-label design, 3 trials with missing data, and 2 trials with potential unprespecified analyses.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this network meta-analysis, as add-on treatments to ADT, abiraterone acetate and apalutamide may provide the largest overall survival benefits with relatively low SAE risks. Although enzalutamide may improve radiographic progression-free survival to the greatest extent, longer follow-up is needed to examine the overall survival benefits associated with enzalutamide.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Bayes Theorem; Castration; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33443584
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.6973 -
European Urology Jul 2017There is controversy regarding the therapeutic role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa). (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
There is controversy regarding the therapeutic role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa).
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the relevant literature assessing the relative benefits and harms of PLND for oncological and non-oncological outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for PCa.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to December 2015. Comparative studies evaluating no PLND, limited, standard, and (super)-extended PLND that reported oncological and non-oncological outcomes were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Overall, 66 studies recruiting a total of 275,269 patients were included (44 full-text articles and 22 conference abstracts). Oncological outcomes were addressed by 29 studies, one of which was a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Non-oncological outcomes were addressed by 43 studies, three of which were RCTs. There were high risks of bias and confounding in most studies. Conflicting results emerged when comparing biochemical and clinical recurrence, while no significant differences were observed among groups for survival. Conversely, the majority of studies showed that the more extensive the PLND, the greater the adverse outcomes in terms of operating time, blood loss, length of stay, and postoperative complications. No significant differences were observed in terms of urinary continence and erectile function recovery.
CONCLUSIONS
Although representing the most accurate staging procedure, PLND and its extension are associated with worse intraoperative and perioperative outcomes, whereas a direct therapeutic effect is still not evident from the current literature. The current poor quality of evidence indicates the need for robust and adequately powered clinical trials.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, this article summarizes the benefits and harms of removing lymph nodes during surgery to remove the prostate because of PCa. Although the quality of the data from the studies was poor, the review suggests that lymph node removal may not have any direct benefit on cancer outcomes and may instead result in more complications. Nevertheless, the procedure remains justified because it enables accurate assessment of cancer spread.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Lymphatic Metastasis; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Grading; Neoplasm Staging; Odds Ratio; Postoperative Complications; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28126351
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.003 -
International Journal of Radiation... Jul 2019Utilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for treatment of localized prostate cancer is increasing. Guidelines and payers variably support the use of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Utilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for treatment of localized prostate cancer is increasing. Guidelines and payers variably support the use of prostate SBRT. We therefore sought to systematically analyze biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported outcomes after prostate SBRT.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
A systematic search leveraging Medline via PubMed and EMBASE for original articles published between January 1990 and January 2018 was performed. This was supplemented by abstracts with sufficient extractable data from January 2013 to March 2018. All prospective series assessing curative-intent prostate SBRT for localized prostate cancer reporting bRFS, physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported quality of life with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Meta-analyses were performed with random-effect modeling. Extent of heterogeneity between studies was determined by the I and Cochran's Q tests. Meta-regression was performed using Hartung-Knapp methods.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight unique prospective series were identified comprising 6116 patients. Median follow-up was 39 months across all patients (range, 12-115 months). Ninety-two percent, 78%, and 38% of studies included low, intermediate, and high-risk patients. Overall, 5- and 7-year bRFS rates were 95.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.3%-97.5%) and 93.7% (95% CI, 91.4%-95.5%), respectively. Estimated late grade ≥3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity rates were 2.0% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.8%) and 1.1% (95% CI, 0.6%-2.0%), respectively. By 2 years post-SBRT, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary and bowel domain scores returned to baseline. Increasing dose of SBRT was associated with improved biochemical control (P = .018) but worse late grade ≥3 GU toxicity (P = .014).
CONCLUSIONS
Prostate SBRT has substantial prospective evidence supporting its use, with favorable tumor control, patient-reported quality of life, and levels of toxicity demonstrated. SBRT has sufficient evidence to be supported as a standard treatment option for localized prostate cancer while ongoing trials assess its potential superiority.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Confidence Intervals; Dose Fractionation, Radiation; Humans; Male; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms; Publication Bias; Quality of Life; Radiosurgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30959121
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.03.051 -
Medicine May 2019To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes and cost of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Robot-assisted and laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer: perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes: A Systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes and cost of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) comparing with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in men with clinically localized prostate cancer through all prospective comparative studies.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed in August 2018 using the Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies including patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were eligible for study inclusion. Cumulative analysis was conducted using Review Manager v. 5.3 software.
RESULTS
Two RCTs and 9 prospective studies were included in this systematic review. There were no significant differences between RARP/LRP and ORP in overall complication rate, major complication rate, overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rate, ≤pT2 tumor PSM rate, ≥pT3 tumor PSM rate. Moreover, RARP/LRP and ORP showed similarity in biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate at 3, 12, 24 months postoperatively. Urinary continence and erectile function at 12 months postoperatively between RARP and ORP are also comparable. RARP/LRP were associated with significantly lower estimated blood loss [mean difference (MD) -749.67, 95% CI -1038.52 to -460.82, P = .001], lower transfusion rate (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.30, P < .001) and less hospitalization duration (MD -1.18, 95% CI -2.18 to -0.19, P = .02). And RARP/LRP required more operative time (MD 50.02, 95% CI 6.50 to 93.55, P = .02) and cost.
CONCLUSION
RARP/LRP is associated with lower blood loss, transfusion rate and less hospitalization duration. The available data were insufficient to prove the superiority of any surgical approach in terms of postoperative complications, functional and oncologic outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Margins of Excision; Middle Aged; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31145297
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015770 -
Nutrients Dec 2022Lycopene is a nutraceutical with health-promoting and anti-cancer activities, but due to a lack of evidence, there are no recommendations regarding its use and dosage.... (Review)
Review
Lycopene is a nutraceutical with health-promoting and anti-cancer activities, but due to a lack of evidence, there are no recommendations regarding its use and dosage. This review aimed to evaluate the benefits of lycopene supplementation in cancer prevention and treatment based on the results of in vivo studies. We identified 72 human and animal studies that were then analysed for endpoints such as cancer incidence, improvement in treatment outcomes, and the mechanisms of lycopene action. We concluded that the results of most of the reviewed in vivo studies confirmed the anti-cancer activities of lycopene. Most of the studies concerned prostate cancer, reflecting the number of in vitro studies. The reported mechanisms of lycopene action in vivo included regulation of oxidative and inflammatory processes, induction of apoptosis, and inhibition of cell division, angiogenesis, and metastasis formation. The predominance of particular mechanisms seemed to depend on tumour organ localisation and the local storage capacity of lycopene. Finally, there is a need to look for predictive factors to identify a population that may benefit from lycopene supplementation. The potential candidates appear to be race, single nucleotide polymorphisms in carotene-cleaving enzymes, some genetic abbreviations, and insulin-like growth factor-dependent and inflammatory diseases.
Topics: Male; Animals; Humans; Lycopene; Carotenoids; Prostatic Neoplasms; Apoptosis; Dietary Supplements
PubMed: 36501182
DOI: 10.3390/nu14235152 -
European Urology Dec 2017Current evidence-based management for clinically localised prostate cancer includes active surveillance, surgery, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
CONTEXT
Current evidence-based management for clinically localised prostate cancer includes active surveillance, surgery, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy. The impact of these treatment modalities on quality of life (QoL) is uncertain.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review comparative studies investigating disease-specific QoL outcomes as assessed by validated cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measures with at least 1 yr of follow-up after primary treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies. Studies were critically appraised for the risk of bias. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Of 11486 articles identified, 18 studies were eligible for inclusion, including three randomised controlled trials (RCTs; follow-up range: 60-72 mo) and 15 nonrandomised comparative studies (follow-up range: 12-180 mo) recruiting a total of 13604 patients. Two RCTs recruited small cohorts and only one was judged to have a low risk of bias. The quality of evidence from observational studies was low to moderate. For a follow-up of up to 6 yr, active surveillance was found to have the lowest impact on cancer-specific QoL, surgery had a negative impact on urinary and sexual function when compared with active surveillance and EBRT, and EBRT had a negative impact on bowel function when compared with active surveillance and surgery. Data from one small RCT reported that brachytherapy has a negative impact on urinary function 1 yr post-treatment, but no significant urinary toxicity was reported at 5 yr.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first systematic review comparing the impact of different primary treatments on cancer-specific QoL for men with clinically localised prostate cancer, using validated cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measures only. There is robust evidence that choice of primary treatment for localised prostate cancer has distinct impacts on patients' QoL. This should be discussed in detail with patients during pretreatment counselling.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Our review of the current evidence suggests that for a period of up to 6 yr after treatment, men with localised prostate cancer who were managed with active surveillance reported high levels of quality of life (QoL). Men treated with surgery reported mainly urinary and sexual problems, while those treated with external beam radiotherapy reported mainly bowel problems. Men eligible for brachytherapy reported urinary problems up to a year after therapy, but then their QoL returned gradually to as it was before treatment.
Topics: Brachytherapy; Humans; Male; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Radiotherapy; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 28757301
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.06.035 -
International Braz J Urol : Official... 2022Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common oncologic disease among men. Radical treatment with curative intent provides good oncological results for PCa survivors,... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common oncologic disease among men. Radical treatment with curative intent provides good oncological results for PCa survivors, although definitive therapy is associated with significant number of serious side-effects. In modern-era of medicine tissue-sparing techniques, such as focal HIFU, have been proposed for PCa patients in order to provide cancer control equivalent to the standard-of-care procedures while reducing morbidities and complications. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the available evidence about focal HIFU therapy as a primary treatment for localized PCa.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature review of focal HIFU therapy in the MEDLINE database (PROSPERO: CRD42021235581). Articles published in the English language between 2010 and 2020 with more than 50 patients were included.
RESULTS
Clinically significant in-field recurrence and out-of-field progression were detected to 22% and 29% PCa patients, respectively. Higher ISUP grade group, more positive cores at biopsy and bilateral disease were identified as the main risk factors for disease recurrence. The most common strategy for recurrence management was definitive therapy. Six months after focal HIFU therapy 98% of patients were totally continent and 80% of patients retained sufficient erections for sexual intercourse. The majority of complications presented in the early postoperative period and were classified as low-grade.
CONCLUSIONS
This review highlights that focal HIFU therapy appears to be a safe procedure, while short-term cancer control rate is encouraging. Though, second-line treatment or active surveillance seems to be necessary in a significant number of patients.
Topics: Humans; Male; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Prostatic Neoplasms; Salvage Therapy; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasound, High-Intensity Focused, Transrectal
PubMed: 34003610
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2021.0091 -
European Urology Jun 2019In men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with curative intent, controversy exists regarding the impact of biochemical recurrence (BCR) on oncological outcomes. (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
In men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with curative intent, controversy exists regarding the impact of biochemical recurrence (BCR) on oncological outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review of the existing literature on BCR after treatment with curative intent for nonmetastatic PCa. Objective 1 is to investigate whether oncological outcomes differ between patients with or without BCR. Objective 2 is to study which clinical factors and tumor features in patients with BCR have an independent prognostic impact on oncological outcomes.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. For objective 1, prospective and retrospective studies comparing survival outcomes of patients with or without BCR following radical prostatectomy (RP) or radical radiotherapy (RT) were included. For objective 2, all studies with at least 100 participants and reporting on prognostic patient and tumor characteristics in patients with BCR were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed according to the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Both a narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis were undertaken.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Overall, 77 studies were included for analysis, of which 14 addressed objective 1, recruiting 20 406 patients. Objective 2 was addressed by 71 studies with 29 057, 11 301, and 4272 patients undergoing RP, RT, and a mixed population (mix of patients undergoing RP or RT as primary treatment), respectively. There was a low risk of bias for study participation, confounders, and statistical analysis. For most studies, attrition bias, and prognostic and outcome measurements were not clearly reported. BCR was associated with worse survival rates, mainly in patients with short prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSA-DT) and a high final Gleason score after RP, or a short interval to biochemical failure (IBF) after RT and a high biopsy Gleason score.
CONCLUSIONS
BCR has an impact on survival, but this effect appears to be limited to a subgroup of patients with specific clinical risk factors. Short PSA-DT and a high final Gleason score after RP, and a short IBF after RT and a high biopsy Gleason score are the main factors that have a negative impact on survival. These factors may form the basis of new BCR risk stratification (European Association of Urology BCR Risk Groups), which needs to be validated formally.
PATIENT SUMMARY
This review looks at the risk of death in men who shows rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the blood test performed after curative surgery or radiotherapy. For many men, rising PSA does not mean that they are at a high risk of death from prostate cancer in the longer term. Men with PSA that rises shortly after they were treated with radiotherapy or rapidly rising PSA after surgery and a high tumor grade for both treatment modalities are at the highest risk of death. These factors may form the basis of new risk stratification (European Association of Urology biochemical recurrence Risk Groups), which needs to be validated formally.
Topics: Humans; Kallikreins; Male; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Prognosis; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Survival Rate
PubMed: 30342843
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.011 -
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