| 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. |
- Lawlor, Ailbhe, et al.
(författare)
-
Predictive Models for Assessing Patients’ Response to Treatment in Metastatic Prostate Cancer : A Systematic Review
- 2024
-
Ingår i: European Urology Open Science. - 2666-1691. ; 63, s. 126-135
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and objective: The treatment landscape of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) has evolved significantly over the past two decades. Despite this, the optimal therapy for patients with mPCa has not been determined. This systematic review identifies available predictive models that assess mPCa patients’ response to treatment. Methods: We critically reviewed MEDLINE and CENTRAL in December 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Only quantitative studies in English were included with no time restrictions. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the PROBAST tool. Data were extracted following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews criteria. Key findings and limitations: The search identified 616 citations, of which 15 studies were included in our review. Nine of the included studies were validated internally or externally. Only one study had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. Many studies failed to detail model performance adequately, resulting in a high risk of bias. Where reported, the models indicated good or excellent performance. Conclusions and clinical implications: Most of the identified predictive models require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before these can be implemented in clinical practice to assist with treatment decision-making for men with mPCa. Patient summary: In this review, we evaluate studies that predict which treatments will work best for which metastatic prostate cancer patients. We found that existing studies need further improvement before these can be used by health care professionals.
|
|
| 3. |
- Mehtälä, Juha, et al.
(författare)
-
Overall survival and second primary malignancies in men with metastatic prostate cancer
- 2020
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE. - 1932-6203. ; 15:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Among prostate cancer (PC) patients, over 90% of distant metastases occur in the bone. PC treatments may be associated with side effects, including second primary malignancies (SPM). There is limited information on the incidence of SPM among men with bone metastatic PC (mPC) and among men with bone metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC). We estimated overall survival and the incidence of SPM in men with mPC and mCRPC.Methods: In the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden, the National Prostate Cancer Register was linked to other national health care registers, 15,953 men with mPC in 1999-2011 were identified. Further, 693 men with mCRPC were identified. Outcomes were evaluated using stratified incidence rates, Kaplan-Meier estimators and Cox models.Results: The mean age among men with mPC was 73.9 years and in men with mCRPC 70.0 years. The median respective survivals were 1.5 (13,965 deaths) and 1.14 years (599 deaths), and average times since PC diagnosis 1.8 and 4.7 years. We observed 2,669 SPMs in men with mPC and 100 SPMs in men with mCRPC. The incidence rate of SPM per 1,000 person-years was 81.8 (78.8-85.0) for mPC and 115.6 (95.1-140.7) for mCRPC. High age, prior neoplasms, urinary tract infection, congestive heart failure, diabetes and renal disease were most strongly associated with increased mortality risk. Prior neoplasms and prior use of antineoplastic agents were most strongly associated with increased SPM risk. Several factors associated with increased mortality and SPM risks were more prevalent in the mCRPC cohort.Conclusions: Our results on mortality for men with mPC and mCRPC are in line with previous studies from the same time period. Investigation of factors associated with mortality and SPM in men with mPC and mCRPC can help to further understand these outcomes in the era prior to several new treatments have come available.
|
|
