| 1. |
- Beyer, Katharina, et al.
(författare)
-
Diagnostic and prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer : a systematic review
- 2022
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 12:4
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives As part of the PIONEER Consortium objectives, we have explored which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are available in relation to our previously defined clinician and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa). Design We performed a systematic review to identify validated and non-validated studies. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched on 21 January 2020. Eligibility criteria Only quantitative studies were included. Single studies with fewer than 50 participants, published before 2014 and looking at outcomes which are not prioritised in the PIONEER core outcome set were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis After initial screening, we extracted data following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of prognostic factor studies (CHARMS-PF) criteria and discussed the identified factors with a multidisciplinary expert group. The quality of the included papers was scored for applicability and risk of bias using validated tools such as PROBAST, Quality in Prognostic Studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Results The search identified 6604 studies, from which 489 DPFs were included. Sixty-four of those were internally or externally validated. However, only three studies on diagnostic and seven studies on prognostic factors had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. Conclusion Most of the DPFs identified require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before they can be recommended for use in clinical practice. The PIONEER online search tool for DPFs for PCa will enable researchers to understand the quality of the current research and help them design future studies. Ethics and dissemination There are no ethical implications.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bruinsma, Sophie M, et al.
(författare)
-
Expert consensus document : Semantics in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer - results of a modified Delphi consensus procedure
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Nature Reviews Urology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1759-4820 .- 1759-4812. ; 14:5, s. 312-322
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Active surveillance (AS) is broadly described as a management option for men with low-risk prostate cancer, but semantic heterogeneity exists in both the literature and in guidelines. To address this issue, a panel of leading prostate cancer specialists in the field of AS participated in a consensus-forming project using a modified Delphi method to reach international consensus on definitions of terms related to this management option. An iterative three-round sequence of online questionnaires designed to address 61 individual items was completed by each panel member. Consensus was considered to be reached if ≥70% of the experts agreed on a definition. To facilitate a common understanding among all experts involved and resolve potential ambiguities, a face-to-face consensus meeting was held between Delphi survey rounds two and three. Convenience sampling was used to construct the panel of experts. In total, 12 experts from Australia, France, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, the UK, Canada and the USA participated. By the end of the Delphi process, formal consensus was achieved for 100% (n = 61) of the terms and a glossary was then developed. Agreement between international experts has been reached on relevant terms and subsequent definitions regarding AS for patients with localized prostate cancer. This standard terminology could support multidisciplinary communication, reduce the extent of variations in clinical practice and optimize clinical decision making.
|
|
| 3. |
- Vickers, Andrew J., et al.
(författare)
-
Screening for Prostate Cancer: Early Detection or Overdetection?
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Annual Review of Medicine. - : Annual Reviews. - 0066-4219 .- 1545-326X. ; 63, s. 161-170
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- A sophisticated reading of the randomized trial evidence suggests that, although screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) can reduce cancer-specific mortality, it does so at considerable cost in terms of the number of men who need to be screened, biopsied, and treated to prevent one death. The challenge is to design screening programs that maximize benefits (reducing prostate cancer mortality) and minimize costs (overtreatment). Recent research has suggested that this can be achieved by risk-stratifying screening and biopsy; increasing reliance on active surveillance for low-risk cancer; restricting radical prostatectomy to high-volume surgeons; and using appropriately high-dose radiotherapy. In current U. S. practice, however, many men who are screened are unlikely to benefit, most men found to have low-risk cancers are referred for unnecessary curative treatment, and much treatment is given at low-volume centers.
|
|
| 4. |
- Roobol, Monique J., et al.
(författare)
-
Tumour markers in prostate cancer III: Biomarkers in urine
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Acta Oncologica. - 1651-226X. ; 50, s. 85-89
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The serum PSA test still is the most important biomarker for the detection and follow-up of prostate cancer. PSA-based screening can reduce disease specific mortality but coinciding unnecessary testing and overdiagnosis warrant further research for more specific biomarkers. Numerous studies of both serum and urine-based prostate cancer biomarker candidates have been presented the last ten years. However, biomarkers for identifying the most aggressive subsets of this malignancy are still missing. Being non-invasive, urine-based tests might be suitable for both clinical and (mass) screening purposes, but also for prediction and to gain prognostic information. Protein-based, DNA-based and RNA-based urine biomarkers have been developed and tested. Protein markers in urine. Data on protein-based urine biomarkers (i.e. Annexin A3, matrix metalloproteinases and the urinary: serum PSA ratio) show up to now contradictory results and further studies are warranted to be able to assess their clinical value in which the cost aspect should not be overlooked. DNA markers in urine. Studies on DNA-based urine biomarkers focus on hypermethylation of gene panels with GSTP1 hypermethylation being the most promising individual marker. Larger prospective clinical studies of single markers and gene panels are however needed to validate their clinical utility. RNA markers in urine. RNA-based urine biomarkers are by far the most developed. The PCA3 test, the TMPRSS2-ERG fusion gene, transcript expression levels of GOLPH2, SPINK1 and their combination have been subject of many studies showing encouraging results. Conclusion. Up to now urine-based biomarkers represent a promising alternative or addition to serum-based biomarkers. Prospective studies in a multivariate setting, including larger sample sizes and avoiding attribution bias caused by preselection on the basis of serum PSA are however required.
|
|
