Urology research & practice · 2024
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Toeama Bassem, Papadimitropoulos Emmanuel, Perlis Nathan, Grootendorst Paul, Hamandi Bassem
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Prostate cancer is the second- leading cause of cancer death among men. We aimed to evaluate high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), open radical prostatectomy (ORP), robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), and external beam radiation therapy (RT) in the treatment of localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
METHODS: We searched bibliographic databases for case-control, cohort, and randomized controlled studies. We used MeSH subject headings and free text terms for prostate cancer, HIFU, ORP, RARP, RT, failure-free survival (FFS), biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS), urinary incontinence (UI), and erectile dysfunction (ED).
RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the review, for a total of 34 927 participants. Among the 8 studies of HIFU as the primary treatment of localized low- and intermediate- risk prostate cancer, 4 studies reported 5-year FFS rates ranging from 67.8% to 97.8%, 3 studies reported 5-year BDFS ranging from 58% to 85.4%, 5 studies reported 1-year UI rates ranging from 0% to 6%, and 4 studies reported 1-year ED rates ranging from 11.4% to 38.7%. Furthermore, our search revealed a 5-year FFS benefit favoring ORP compared to RT, a 1-year UI rate favoring ORP compared to RARP, and a 1-year ED rate favoring ORP compared to RARP.
CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis revealed lack of studies with active comparators comparing HIFU to standard of care (ORP, RARP, or RT) in primary treatment of localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Open radical prostatectomy has favorable efficacy outcomes compared to RT, while RARP has beneficial functional outcomes compared to ORP, respectively.
METHODS: We searched bibliographic databases for case-control, cohort, and randomized controlled studies. We used MeSH subject headings and free text terms for prostate cancer, HIFU, ORP, RARP, RT, failure-free survival (FFS), biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS), urinary incontinence (UI), and erectile dysfunction (ED).
RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the review, for a total of 34 927 participants. Among the 8 studies of HIFU as the primary treatment of localized low- and intermediate- risk prostate cancer, 4 studies reported 5-year FFS rates ranging from 67.8% to 97.8%, 3 studies reported 5-year BDFS ranging from 58% to 85.4%, 5 studies reported 1-year UI rates ranging from 0% to 6%, and 4 studies reported 1-year ED rates ranging from 11.4% to 38.7%. Furthermore, our search revealed a 5-year FFS benefit favoring ORP compared to RT, a 1-year UI rate favoring ORP compared to RARP, and a 1-year ED rate favoring ORP compared to RARP.
CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis revealed lack of studies with active comparators comparing HIFU to standard of care (ORP, RARP, or RT) in primary treatment of localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Open radical prostatectomy has favorable efficacy outcomes compared to RT, while RARP has beneficial functional outcomes compared to ORP, respectively.