4.6 Review

Prognostic Value of Biochemical Recurrence Following Treatment with Curative Intent for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

期刊

EUROPEAN UROLOGY
卷 75, 期 6, 页码 967-987

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.011

关键词

Prostate cancer; Biochemical recurrence; Radical prostatectomy; Radiotherapy; Gleason score; PSA kinetics; Prognostic factors; Systematic review; Guidelines; European Association of Urology

资金

  1. Astellas. P. Cornford
  2. Astellas
  3. Janssen
  4. Medical Research Council
  5. National Institute of Health Research (UK)
  6. Cancer Research UK
  7. Sir John Fisher Foundation
  8. Philips
  9. Pierre Fabre Oncologie
  10. Amgen
  11. AstraZeneca
  12. Bayer
  13. Bristol-Myers Squivv
  14. Celgene
  15. Dendreaon
  16. Ferring
  17. GSK
  18. IPSEN
  19. Incyte
  20. Janssen Cilag
  21. Merck
  22. Novartis
  23. Pfizer
  24. Roche
  25. Sanofi Aventis
  26. SeaGen
  27. Shionogi
  28. Synthon
  29. Takeda
  30. Teva/OncoGenex
  31. Sanofi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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. (C) 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据