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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Indulis Rutks, Jul 07, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
152 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Diet may substantially alter prostate cancer initiation and progression. However, large-scale clinical trials of diet modification have yet to be performed for prostate cancer. The Men's Eating and Living (MEAL) Study (CALGB 70807 [Alliance]) is investigating the effect of increased vegetable consumption on clinical progression in men with localized prostate cancer.
    Contemporary Clinical Trials 05/2014; 38(2). DOI:10.1016/j.cct.2014.05.002 · 1.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men in the western world. Finding a cure for prostate cancer is urgently needed. Scorpion venoms are rich sources of biologically active peptides, among which the non-disulfide bridged peptides constitute an important group displaying multifunctional activities. The non-disulfide bridged scorpion venom peptides are rarely identified and poorly characterized so far. In this work, we report the molecular cloning and functional characterization of a novel non-disulfide bridged peptide from the venomous gland cDNA library of the Moroccan scorpion Androctonus mauritanicus. Named Mauriporin, the peptide was found to be composed of 48 residues and circular dichroism analysis revealed the peptide to display a well defined α-helical structure in membrane mimicking environments. A synthetic replicate of Mauriporin was found to exert potent selective cytotoxic and antiproliferative activity against prostate cancer cell lines (IC50 4.4–7.8 μM) when compared with non-tumorigenic cells. In this concentration range, Mauriporin produced also negligible degrees of hemolytic activities against mammalian erythrocytes. Apoptotic studies displayed that Mauriporin is not causing cell death through an apoptotic-mediated pathway but possibly through a necrotic mode of cell death. In conclusion Mauriporin may offer a novel therapeutic strategy in the treatment of prostate cancer considering its significant cytotoxic potency against prostate cancer cells and low toxicity to non-tumorigenic cells.
    International Journal of Peptide Research and Therapeutics 12/2013; DOI:10.1007/s10989-013-9350-3 · 0.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Geriatric oncology guidelines state that fit older men with prostate cancer should receive curative treatment. In a population-based study, we investigated associations between age and non-receipt of curative treatment in men with localised prostate cancer, and the effect of clinical variables on this in different age groups. Methods: Clinically localised prostate cancers (T1–T2N0M0) diagnosed from 2002 to 2008 among men aged ⩾40 years, with hospital in-patient episode(s) within 1 year post-diagnosis, were included (n=5456). Clinical and socio-demographic variables were obtained from cancer registrations. Comorbidity was determined from hospital episode data. Logistic regression was used to investigate associations between age and non-receipt of treatment, adjusting for confounders; the outcome was non-receipt of curative treatment (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy). Results: The percentage who did not receive curative treatment was 9.2%, 14.3%, 48.2% and 91.7% for men aged 40–59, 60–69, 70–79 and 80+ years, respectively. After adjusting for clinical and socio-demographic factors, age remained the main determinant of treatment non-receipt. Men aged 70–79 had a significant five-fold increased risk of not having curative treatment compared with men aged 60–69 (odds ratio (OR)=5.5; 95% confidence interval 4.7, 6.5). In age-stratified analyses, clinical factors had a higher weight for men aged 60–69 than in other age strata. Over time, non-receipt of curative treatment increased among men aged 40–59 and decreased among men aged 70–79. Conclusion: Age remains the dominant factor in determining non-receipt of curative treatment. There have been some changes in clinical practice over time, but whether these will impact on prostate cancer mortality remains to be established.
    British Journal of Cancer 05/2013; 109(1). DOI:10.1038/bjc.2013.268 · 4.82 Impact Factor