ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Introduction: The health-related QoL is a patient-centered evaluation covering several aspects. This evaluation seems to be particularly important in patients submitted to radical cystectomy (RC) and urinary diversion with ileal conduit (IC) or a neobladder (NB). Objective: Review all recent data comparing QoL outcomes after radical cystectomy with NB and IC diversions. Evidence Acquisition: A systematic search in PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement in December 2018. All articles published from January 01, 2012 to December 31, 2018, were included. A study was considered relevant if it compared QoL outcomes using validated questionnaires (EORTC QLQ C30, FACT-G, FACT-BL, FACT-VCI, and BCI). Evidence Synthesis: In 11 included studies, a total of 1389 participants were accounted (730 NB and 659 IC cases). The studies were conducted in 8 different countries, two were prospective, and none was randomized. There were two studies favoring results with a neobladder, 3 with incontinent diversion and 6 with no differences. The EORTC-QLQ-C30 was the most used instrument (5 studies) followed by FACT VCI and BCI (3 studies each). Given the heterogeneity of data and lack of prospective studies, a meta-analysis was not performed. Conclusion: No superiority of one urinary diversion was characterized. It seems that the choice must be individualized with an extensive preoperative orientation of the patient and their relatives. That will probably influence how the patient accepts the new condition.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Quality of Life/psychology , Urinary Diversion/rehabilitation , Cystectomy/rehabilitation , Time Factors , Urinary Diversion/methods , Urinary Diversion/psychology , Cystectomy/methods , Cystectomy/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires/standards , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Introduction: Prostate cancer is one of the tumors with higher incidence and mortality among men in the World. Epidemiological data are influenced by life expectancy of population, available diagnostic methods, correct collection of data and quality of health services. Screening of the disease is not standardized around the World. Up till now there is no consensus about the risks versus benefits of early detection. There are still missing data about this pathology in Latin America. Objective: to revise current epidemiologic situation and early diagnosis policies of prostate cancer in Brazil and Latin America. Materials and Methods: Medline, Cochrane Library and SciELO databases were reviewed on the subject of epidemiology and screening of prostate cancer. Screening research was performed in websites on national public health organizations and Latin America. Screening recommendations were obtained from those governmental organizations and from Latin American urological societies and compared to the most prominent regulatory agencies and societies of specialists and generalists from around the World. Results: Brazil and Latin America have a special position in relation to incidence and mortality of prostate cancer. In Brazil, it occupies the first position regarding incidence of cancer in men and the second cause of mortality. Central America has the highest rate of mortality of the continent with lower incidence/mortality ratios. Screening recommendations are very distinct, mainly among regulatory organs and urological societies. Conclusion: prostate cancer epidemiology is an important health public topic. Data collection related to incidence and mortality is still precarious, especially in less developed countries. It is necessary to follow-up long term screening studies results in order to conclude its benefits.