Frontiers in oncology · 2026
Burden, clinical characteristics, and management patterns of prostate cancer in Nigeria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Makena Wusa, Nwankwo Monday, Idris Aisha, Ayuba John Tabakwot, Archibong Victor, Ogbe Alex, Ronald Ahumuza, Emelonye Amaka Doris, Muhammed Abdurrasheed Ola, Ishaku Barka, Philip Kolawole Bolaji
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is one of the most common types of cancer morbidity and mortality among Nigerian men, but there are still limited comprehensive epidemiological data. Understanding the hospital-based patterns of prostate cancer burden, risk factor distributions, and treatment modalities is paramount in supporting policy, clinical practice, and resource allocation in the healthcare system of Nigeria.
PURPOSE: The aim of the systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize information regarding the burden, clinical features, and management patterns of prostate cancer in Nigeria.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis conducted in PRISMA 2020 were implemented. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched since January 2000. Research studies that had reported prostate cancer percentage, risk, or treatment patterns among Nigerian men were eligible.
RESULTS: 32 studies (19,050 participants) were included, mainly retrospective (44.1) and cross-sectional (41.2), mostly hospital-based (82.4) and were done in Southwest and south-south Nigeria. In 70.6% of the cases, the diagnosis was confirmed using histology. The combined percentage of prostate cancer was 16.4 in hospital-based researches (95% CI: 8.6%29.2; I 2 = 99.3) and 14.0 in population-based research (95% CI: 4.1 - 40.0%; I2 = 98.0), with broad prediction intervals. Greater percentages were found in tertiary compared to primary care, in single- compared to multi-centre studies and in populations with an average age over 60 years (p<0.05). The regional estimates were between 5.1 and 33.0. Included in the common risk factors were older age (26.8%), family history (25%), and diet (12.5%). The most widespread therapy (36 percent) was hormonal therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer is a significant problem in healthcare facilities of Nigeria, and radical heterogeneity along with methodological constraints make it impossible to make conclusive estimates regarding prevalence. Existing health disparities and insufficient access to curative therapies are also distinctive to the areas. Cancer control policies in Nigeria are in urgent need of population-based cancer registries, multicentre cohort studies, and implementation research to inform evidence-based cancer control policies.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420261325315.
PURPOSE: The aim of the systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize information regarding the burden, clinical features, and management patterns of prostate cancer in Nigeria.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis conducted in PRISMA 2020 were implemented. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched since January 2000. Research studies that had reported prostate cancer percentage, risk, or treatment patterns among Nigerian men were eligible.
RESULTS: 32 studies (19,050 participants) were included, mainly retrospective (44.1) and cross-sectional (41.2), mostly hospital-based (82.4) and were done in Southwest and south-south Nigeria. In 70.6% of the cases, the diagnosis was confirmed using histology. The combined percentage of prostate cancer was 16.4 in hospital-based researches (95% CI: 8.6%29.2; I 2 = 99.3) and 14.0 in population-based research (95% CI: 4.1 - 40.0%; I2 = 98.0), with broad prediction intervals. Greater percentages were found in tertiary compared to primary care, in single- compared to multi-centre studies and in populations with an average age over 60 years (p<0.05). The regional estimates were between 5.1 and 33.0. Included in the common risk factors were older age (26.8%), family history (25%), and diet (12.5%). The most widespread therapy (36 percent) was hormonal therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer is a significant problem in healthcare facilities of Nigeria, and radical heterogeneity along with methodological constraints make it impossible to make conclusive estimates regarding prevalence. Existing health disparities and insufficient access to curative therapies are also distinctive to the areas. Cancer control policies in Nigeria are in urgent need of population-based cancer registries, multicentre cohort studies, and implementation research to inform evidence-based cancer control policies.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420261325315.