SwePub
Sök i LIBRIS databas

  Extended search

onr:"swepub:oai:DiVA.org:uu-266068"
 

Search: onr:"swepub:oai:DiVA.org:uu-266068" > Systematic Review a...

  • 1 of 1
  • Previous record
  • Next record
  •    To hitlist

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Factors Determining Change to Radical Treatment in Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Simpkin, Andrew J (author)
Tilling, Kate (author)
Martin, Richard M (author)
show more...
Lane, J Athene (author)
Hamdy, Freddie C (author)
Holmberg, Lars (author)
Uppsala universitet,Endokrinkirurgi
Neal, David E (author)
Metcalfe, Chris (author)
Donovan, Jenny L (author)
show less...
 (creator_code:org_t)
Elsevier BV, 2015
2015
English.
In: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 67:6
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)
Abstract Subject headings
Close  
  • CONTEXT: Many men with clinically localized prostate cancer are being monitored as part of active surveillance (AS) programs, but little is known about reasons for receiving radical treatment.OBJECTIVES: A systematic review of the evidence about AS was undertaken, with a meta-analysis to identify predictors of radical treatment.EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive search of the Embase, MEDLINE and Web of Knowledge databases to March 2014 was performed. Studies reporting on men with localized prostate cancer followed by AS or monitoring were included. AS was defined where objective eligibility criteria, management strategies, and triggers for clinical review or radical treatment were reported.EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The 26 AS cohorts included 7627 men, with a median follow-up of 3.5 yr (range of medians 1.5-7.5 yr). The cohorts had a wide range of inclusion criteria, monitoring protocols, and triggers for radical treatment. There were eight prostate cancer deaths and five cases of metastases in 24,981 person-years of follow-up. Each year, 8.8% of men (95% confidence interval 6.7-11.0%) received radical treatment, most commonly because of biopsy findings, prostate-specific antigen triggers, or patient choice driven by anxiety. Studies in which most men changed treatment were those including only low-risk Gleason score 6 disease and scheduled rebiopsies.CONCLUSIONS: The wide variety of AS protocols and lack of robust evidence make firm conclusions difficult. Currently, patients and clinicians have to make judgments about the balance of risks and benefits in AS protocols. The publication of robust evidence from randomized trials and longer-term follow-up of cohorts is urgently required.PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed 26 studies of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. There was evidence that studies including men with the lowest risk disease and scheduled rebiopsy had higher rates of radical treatment.

Publication and Content Type

ref (subject category)
art (subject category)

Find in a library

To the university's database

  • 1 of 1
  • Previous record
  • Next record
  •    To hitlist

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Close

Copy and save the link in order to return to this view