Article

Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer.

University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55417, USA.
Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 16.1). 03/2008; 148(6):435-48.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The comparative effectiveness of localized prostate cancer treatments is largely unknown.
To compare the effectiveness and harms of treatments for localized prostate cancer.
MEDLINE (through September 2007), the Cochrane Library (through Issue 3, 2007), and the Cochrane Review Group in Prostate Diseases and Urologic Malignancies registry (through November 2007).
Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language and observational studies published in English that evaluated treatments and reported clinical or biochemical outcomes in localized prostate cancer.
2 researchers extracted information on study design, sample characteristics, interventions, and outcomes.
18 RCTs and 473 observational studies met inclusion criteria. One [one randomized controlled trial] [corrected] RCT enrolled mostly men without prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-detected disease and reported that, compared with watchful waiting, radical prostatectomy reduced crude [corrected] all-cause mortality (24% vs. 30%; P = 0.04) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (10% [corrected] vs. 15% [corrected]; P = 0.01) at 10 years [corrected] Effectiveness was limited to men younger than age 65 years but was not associated with Gleason score or baseline PSA level. An older, smaller trial found no significant overall survival differences between radical prostatectomy and watchful waiting (risk difference, 0% [95% CI, -19% to 18%]). Radical prostatectomy reduced disease recurrence at 5 years compared with external-beam radiation therapy in 1 small, older trial (14% vs. 39%; risk difference, 21%; P = 0.04). No external-beam radiation regimen was superior to another in reducing mortality. No randomized trials evaluated primary androgen deprivation. Androgen deprivation used adjuvant to radical prostatectomy did not improve biochemical progression compared with radical prostatectomy alone (risk difference, 0% [CI, -7% to 7%]). No randomized trial evaluated brachytherapy, cryotherapy, robotic radical prostatectomy, or photon-beam or intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Observational studies showed wide and overlapping effectiveness estimates within and between treatments. Adverse event definitions and severity varied widely. The Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study reported that urinary leakage (> or =1 event/d) was more common with radical prostatectomy (35%) than with radiation therapy (12%) or androgen deprivation (11%). Bowel urgency occurred more often with radiation (3%) or androgen deprivation (3%) than with radical prostatectomy (1%). Erectile dysfunction occurred frequently after all treatments (radical prostatectomy, 58%; radiation therapy, 43%; androgen deprivation, 86%). A higher risk score incorporating histologic grade, PSA level, and tumor stage was associated with increased risk for disease progression or recurrence regardless of treatment.
Only 3 randomized trials compared effectiveness between primary treatments. No trial enrolled patients with prostate cancer primarily detected with PSA testing.
Assessment of the comparative effectiveness and harms of localized prostate cancer treatments is difficult because of limitations in the evidence.

1 Follower
 · 
147 Views
  • Cell Death and Differentiation 04/2015; 22(4):522-3. DOI:10.1038/cdd.2014.232 · 8.39 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prostate cancer is a growing health problem worldwide. The management of localised prostate cancer is controversial. It is unclear which of several surgical, radiotherapeutic, ablative, and surveillance treatments is the most effective. All have cost, process and recovery, and morbidity implications which add to treatment decision-making complexity for patients and healthcare professionals. Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal because of uncertainty as to what constitutes important outcomes. Another issue hampering evidence synthesis is heterogeneity of outcome definition, measurement, and reporting. This project aims to determine which outcomes are the most important to patients and healthcare professionals, and use these findings to recommend a standardised core outcome set for comparative effectiveness trials of treatments for localised prostate cancer, to optimise decision-making. The range of potentially important outcomes and measures will be identified through systematic reviews of the literature and semi-structured interviews with patients. A consultation exercise involving representatives from two key stakeholder groups (patients and healthcare professionals) will ratify the list of outcomes to be entered into a three round Delphi study. The Delphi process will refine and prioritise the list of identified outcomes. A methodological substudy (nested RCT design) will also be undertaken. Participants will be randomised after round one of the Delphi study to one of three feedback groups, based on different feedback strategies, in order to explore the potential impact of feedback strategies on participant responses. This may assist the design of a future core outcome set and Delphi studies. Following the Delphi study, a final consensus meeting attended by representatives from both stakeholder groups will determine the final recommended core outcome set. This study will inform clinical practice and future trials of interventions of localised prostate cancer by standardising a core outcome set which should be considered in comparative effectiveness studies for localised prostate cancer.
    Trials 03/2015; 16(1):76. DOI:10.1186/s13063-015-0598-0 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men in the US, and the second most prevalent cancer in men worldwide. High incidence and survival rates for prostate cancer have resulted in a large and growing population of long-term prostate cancer survivors. Long-term follow-up guidelines have only recently been developed to inform approaches to this phase of care for the prostate cancer population. A PubMed search of English literature through August 2014 was performed. Articles were retrieved and reviewed to confirm their relevance. Patient-reported measures that were used in studies of long-term prostate cancer survivors (ie, at least 2 years posttreatment) were reviewed and included in the review. A total of 343 abstracts were initially identified from the database search. After abstract review, 105 full-text articles were reviewed of which seven met inclusion criteria. An additional 22 articles were identified from the references of the included articles, and 29 were retained. From the 29 articles, 68 patient-reported outcome measures were identified. The majority (75%) were multi-item scales that had been previously validated in existing literature. We identified four main areas of assessment: 1) physical health; 2) quality of life - general, physical, and psychosocial; 3) health promotion - physical activity, diet, and tobacco cessation; and 4) care quality outcomes. There are a number of well-validated measures that assess patient-reported outcomes that document key aspects of long-term follow-up with respect to patient symptoms and quality of life. However, there are fewer patient-reported outcomes related to health promotion and care quality within the prevention, surveillance, and care coordination components of cancer survivorship. Future research should focus on development of additional patient-centered and patient-related outcomes that enlarge the assessment portfolio.
    Patient Related Outcome Measures 01/2015; 6:75-90. DOI:10.2147/PROM.S49588

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
771 Downloads
Available from
May 19, 2014