Prostate cancer screening did not significantly decrease prostate cancer-specific mortality in a combined meta-analysis of five RCTs. Only one study (ERSPC) reported a 21% significant reduction of prostate cancer-specific mortality in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years. Pooled data currently demonstrates no significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific and overall mortality. Harms associated with PSA-based screening and subsequent diagnostic evaluations are frequent, and moderate in severity. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are common and are associated with treatment-related harms. Men should be informed of this and the demonstrated adverse effects when they are deciding whether or not to undertake screening for prostate cancer. Any reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality may take up to 10 years to accrue; therefore, men who have a life expectancy less than 10 to 15 years should be informed that screening for prostate cancer is unlikely to be beneficial. No studies examined the independent role of screening by DRE.

Objective To examine the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Electronic databases including Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, abstract proceedings, and reference lists up to July 2010. Review methods Included studies were randomised controlled trials comparing screening by prostate specific antigen with or without digital rectal examination versus no screening. Data abstraction and assessment of methodological quality with the GRADE approach was assessed by two independent reviewers and verified by the primary investigator. Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance estimates were calculated and pooled under a random effects model expressing data as relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. Results Six randomised controlled trials with a total of 387 286 participants that met inclusion criteria were analysed. Screening was associated with an increased probability of receiving a diagnosis of prostate cancer (relative risk 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.77; P<0.001) and stage I prostate cancer (1.95, 1

Both cancer-related inflammation and tumor-induced immune suppression are associated with expansion of myeloid cell subsets including myeloid-derived suppressor cells. However, little known regarding characteristics of myeloid cells in patients with bladder cancer. In this study, we analyzed myeloid cells from peripheral blood (PBMC) and tumor tissue that were collected from patients with superficial noninvasive and invasive urothelial carcinomas. Our results demonstrate that PBMC from bladder cancer patients contain two major CD11b myeloid cell subsets: granulocyte-type CD15 high CD33 low cells and monocyte-type CD15 low CD33 high cells. The number of circulating granulocytic but not monocytic myeloid cells in cancer patients was markedly increased when compared to healthy individuals. Both myeloid cell subsets from cancer patients were highly activated and produced substantial amounts of proinflammatory chemokines/cytokines including CCL2, CCL3, CCL4, G-CSF, IL-8 and IL-6. Granulocytic myeloid cells were able to inhibit in vitro T cell proliferation through induction of CD4 1 Foxp3 1 T regulatory cells. Analysis of bladder cancer tissues revealed that tumors were infiltrated with monocyte-macrophage CD11b 1 HLA-DR 1 and granulocytic CD11b 1 CD15 1 HLA-DR -myeloid cells. Collectively, this study identifies myeloid cell subsets in patients with bladder cancer. We demonstrate that these highly activated inflammatory myeloid cells represent a source of multiple chemokines/cytokines and may contribute to inflammation and immune dysfunction in bladder cancer.

The current literature suggests that removal of lymph nodes in bladder cancer surgery is beneficial and might result in better outcomes in terms of prolonging survival; however, the quality of the available studies is poor, and high-quality studies are needed.

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Citation rates have been previously studied in the general medical literature and in a few subspecialties. The results of these studies have differed showing an association with citation rates and multiple study characteristics that include the design of the study, study topic, industry funding, the number of authors and institutions, newsworthiness, sample size, and journal prestige. Correlates with citation rates have never been studied within the field of urology, but are important as urology is a unique surgical discipline with complex disease processes and rapidly changing technology. Our study is the first to evaluate the factors associated with increased citation rates in the urological literature and will assist authors in improving the impact of their work in urology. To assess the factors associated with increased citation rates in the urological literature by reviewing articles published in the four major urological journals to help authors improve the impact of their work. A random sample of 200 original research articles published between January and June 2004 was analysed from The Journal of Urology, Urology, European Urology and BJU International. Study information was abstracted by two independent reviewers and citation counts within 4 years of publication were collected using Web of ScienceTM. Study characteristics and citation rates were analysed using median and interquartile ranges (IQRs), and logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate which factors predicted greater citation rates. The overall median number of citations per published article was 6.0 (IQR 3–12). After univariate analysis, we found that study design, study topic, continent of origin and sample size were associated with greater median citation rates. In a multivariate linear regression model, study design and study topic (oncology) predicted increased citation rates. Randomized controlled trials were cited a median of 13.5 times and were the strongest predictor of citation rates with an odds ratio of 115.5 (95% confidence interval 9.4–1419.6). Citation rates are associated with study design and study topic in the urological literature. Authors may improve the impact of their work by designing clinical studies with greater methodological safeguards against bias.

(see www.thecochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and the CDSR should be consulted for the most recent version of the review.To evaluate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer in improving quality of life (QoL), self-efficacy and knowledge and in reducing distress, uncertainty and depression. We searched for trials using a range of electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO to October 2013, together with hand searching of journals and reference lists. Randomised controlled trials were eligible if they included psychosocial interventions that explicitly used one or a combination of the following approaches: cognitive behavioural, psychoeducational, supportive and counselling. Interventions had to be delivered or facilitated by trained or lay personnel. Our outcomes were an improvement in QoL, self-efficacy and knowledge and a reduction in distress, uncertainty and depression. Pairs of review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed data using standardised mean differences (SMDs), random-effects models and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In all, 19 studies with a total of 3 204 men, with a diagnosis of prostate cancer, comparing psychosocial interventions vs usual care were included in this review. Men in the psychosocial intervention group had a small, statistically significant improvement in the physical component of general healthrelated QoL (GHQoL) at end of intervention (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.01-0.22) based on low quality evidence. There was no clear evidence of benefit associated with psychosocial interventions for the mental component of GHQoL at end of intervention (SMD À0.04, 95% CI À0.15 to 0.06) based on moderate quality evidence. At end of intervention, cancer-related QoL showed a small improvement after psychosocial interventions (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.04-0.39). For prostate cancer-specific and symptom-related QoL, the differences between intervention and control groups were not significant. There was no clear evidence that psychosocial interventions were beneficial in improving self-efficacy at end of intervention (SMD 0.16, 95% CI À0.05 to 0.38) based on very low quality evidence. Men in the psychosocial intervention group had a moderate increase in prostate cancer knowledge at end of intervention (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.71) based on very low quality evidence. A small increase in knowledge with psychosocial interventions was noted at 3 months after intervention (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.04-0.58). The results for uncertainty (SMD À0.05, 95% CI À0.35 to 0.26) and distress (SMD 0.02, 95% CI À0.11 to 0.15) at end of intervention were compatible with both benefit and harm based on very low quality evidence. Finally, there was no clear evidence of benefit associated with psychosocial interventions for depression at end of intervention (SMD À0.18, 95% CI À0.51 to 0.15) based on...

Clinical practice guidelines from different organizations on treatment of localized prostate cancer are of variable quality and fall short of current standards in certain areas, especially in applicability and stakeholder involvement. Improvements in these key domains can enhance the impact and implementation of clinical practice guidelines.

⊕⊕ Low a,d *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; MD: Mean difference; I-QOL: Incontinence Quality of Life; RCT: Randomised controlled trial; RR: Risk ratio; UI: Urinary incontinence. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. a Downgraded for study limitations (-1): high risk of bias. b Downgraded for imprecision (-1): no events in small study. c Downgraded for imprecision (-1): confidence interval includes both no effect and appreciable benefit; low numbers of events. d Downgraded for imprecision (-1): confidence interval includes no effect and both appreciable benefit and appreciable harm; low numbers of events. 5 Transurethral radiofrequency collagen denaturation for the treatment of women with urinary incontinence (Review)