Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement of an American Urological Association/American Society for Radiation Oncology/Society of Urologic Oncology Guideline

Bekelman, Justin E.; Rumble, R. Bryan; Chen, Ronald C.; Pisansky, Thomas M.; Finelli, Antonio; Feifer, Andrew; Nguyen, Paul L.; Loblaw, D.A.; Tagawa, Scott T.; Gillessen, Silke; Morgan, Todd M.; Liu, Glenn; Vapiwala, Neha; Haluschak, John J.; Stephenson, Andrew J.; Touijer, Karim; Kungel, Terry; Freedland, Stephen J.

doi:10.1200/jco.18.00606

Cited by 146 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

102

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This difference, even after adjusting for dissimilarities in mortality due to other causes, remains the highest in the United States, which was more inflated in Caucasians compared to African-Americans (92.4% versus 85.8%). These variations are due to reasons such as differences in treatment care and the stages of the diagnosed disease [65,66]. In another study by Steele et al, conducted in 2017, the results showed that the survival rates of one and five-year were significantly higher than the findings of the present study in the years 2002-2003 and 2004-2009. In the former study, the one-year survival rate for both periods was 98.6 and 98.8, while in the present study, this rate was 81%.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 71%

Survival Rate of Prostate Cancer in Asian Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hassanipour

Delam

Arab‐Zozani

et al. 2020

Annals of Global Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Prostate cancer is one of the most common health issues among men, especially older men. In recent years, incidences of prostate cancer is increasing. Objective: The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive estimate of the survival of prostate cancer in Asian countries. Methods: We searched five international databases including Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Knowledge and ProQuest until June 1, 2018. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment was used to evaluate the quality of selected papers. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019117044). Results: A total of 714 titles were retrieved. Thirty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Based on the random-effect model one-year, five-year and ten-year survival rate of prostate cancer were 81% (95% CI 77.8-84.2), 61.9% (95% CI 59.5-64.3) and 36.2% (95% CI 9.2-63.2) respectively. Survival rates based on HDI level for five-year were 30.07, 43.43 and 70.84 percent for medium, high and very high levels, respectively. Conclusion: According to the results of our study, the prostate cancer survival rate in Asian countries is relatively lower than in Europe and North America.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 71%

Survival Rate of Prostate Cancer in Asian Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hassanipour

Delam

Arab‐Zozani

et al. 2020

Annals of Global Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both LDR-EBRT and HDR-EBRT are recommended as treatments for men with intermediate and high risk PCa by American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), American Brachytherapy Society, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and European Association of Urology [24][25][26][27][28]. No RCTs directly comparing LDR-EBRT with HDR-EBRT have been reported, although one is currently in progress (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03426748).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of outcomes for patients with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treated with low dose rate and high dose rate brachytherapy in combination with external beam radiotherapy

Slevin

Rodda

Bownes

et al. 2020

Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low dose rate brachytherapy High dose rate brachytherapy External beam radiotherapy a b s t r a c t Introduction: There is evidence to support use of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in combination with both low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-EBRT) and high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-EBRT) to treat intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. Methods: Men with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treated using LDR-EBRT (treated between 1996 and 2007) and HDR-EBRT (treated between 2007 and 2012) were identified from an institutional database. Multivariable analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between patient, disease and treatment factors with biochemical progression free survival (bPFS).Results: 116 men were treated with LDR-EBRT and 171 were treated with HDR-EBRT. At 5 years, bPFS was estimated to be 90.5% for the LDR-EBRT cohort and 77.6% for the HDR-EBRT cohort. On multivariable analysis, patients treated with HDR-EBRT were more than twice as likely to experience biochemical progression compared with LDR-EBRT (HR 2.33, 95% CI 1.12-4.07). Patients with Gleason 8 disease were more than five times more likely to experience biochemical progression compared with Gleason 6 disease (HR 5.47, 95% CI 1.26-23.64). Cumulative incidence of grade 3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities for the LDR-EBRT and HDR-EBRT cohorts were 8% versus 4% and 5% versus 1% respectively, although these differences did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: LDR-EBRT may provide more effective PSA control at 5 years compared with HDR-EBRT. Direct comparison of these treatments through randomised trials are recommended to investigate this hypothesis further.

show abstract

“…Thus, enough time for follow-up was necessary to compare the prostatectomy group and observation group. The incidental discovery of low-grade prostate cancer patients is not likely to shorten survival or cause health problems during a man's lifetime (25), and guidelines on the use of observation or active surveillance in men with clinically insignificant prostate cancer were described (26)(27)(28). risk stratification for localized prostate cancer patients is necessary.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prostatectomy Versus Observation for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Luo¹,

Yi²,

Hu³

et al. 2019

Scand J Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims: Controversy exists regarding whether prostatectomy benefits localized prostate cancer patients; the aim of our study was to evaluate the role of prostatectomy in localized prostate cancer patients. Materials and Methods: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed and Web of Science through March 22, 2019, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines to identify randomized studies reporting on prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer patients. Results: Of a total of 1827 studies, six were considered for evidence synthesis. A total of 2524 patients in 3 studies were included for survival analysis, where 1256 patients received prostatectomy and 1268 patients received no treatment but were regularly followed up. Three other studies were included for adverse effects analysis. Prostatectomy displayed a significantly decreased risk of death of 9% compared with that of observation for patients with localized prostate cancer (risk ratio = 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85–0.97; p = 0.007). Pooled data indicated that prostatectomy reduced the risk of disease progression by 43% (risk ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.47–0.70; p < 0.00001). Anxiety, depressed mood, well-being, and sense of meaningfulness for patients were not different between the prostatectomy and observation groups. However, prostatectomy increased the risk of erectile dysfunction by 2.10-fold (risk ratio = 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.36–3.26; p = 0.0009) and the risk of urinary function problems by 2.02-fold (risk ratio = 2.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.15–3.54; p = 0.01). Conclusion: Prostatectomy prolonged survival and deferred disease progression compared to observation for patients with localized prostate cancer. Symptoms between the two groups were not significantly different except for erectile and urinary function. Patients should decide on prostatectomy after balancing the survival benefit and risk of erectile dysfunction.

show abstract

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement of an American Urological Association/American Society for Radiation Oncology/Society of Urologic Oncology Guideline

Cited by 146 publications

References 20 publications

Survival Rate of Prostate Cancer in Asian Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Survival Rate of Prostate Cancer in Asian Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A comparison of outcomes for patients with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treated with low dose rate and high dose rate brachytherapy in combination with external beam radiotherapy

Prostatectomy Versus Observation for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About