Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on noninvasive treatment of low back pain. METHODS: Using the ACP grading system, the committee based these recommendations on a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials and systematic reviews published through April 2015 on noninvasive pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for low back pain. Updated searches were performed through November 2016. Clinical outcomes evaluated included reduction or elimination of low back pain, improvement in back-specific and overall function, improvement in health-related quality of life, reduction in work disability and return to work, global improvement, number of back pain episodes or time between episodes, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects. TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with acute, subacute, or chronic low back pain. RECOMMENDATION 1: Given that most patients with acute or subacute low back pain improve over time regardless of treatment, clinicians and patients should select nonpharmacologic treatment with superficial heat (moderate-quality evidence), massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation (low-quality evidence). If pharmacologic treatment is desired, clinicians and patients should select nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or skeletal muscle relaxants (moderate-quality evidence). (Grade: strong recommendation). RECOMMENDATION 2: For patients with chronic low back pain, clinicians and patients should initially select nonpharmacologic treatment with exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, mindfulness-based stress reduction (moderate-quality evidence), tai chi, yoga, motor control exercise, progressive relaxation, electromyography biofeedback, low-level laser therapy, operant therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, or spinal manipulation (low-quality evidence). (Grade: strong recommendation). RECOMMENDATION 3: In patients with chronic low back pain who have had an inadequate response to nonpharmacologic therapy, clinicians and patients should consider pharmacologic treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as first-line therapy, or tramadol or duloxetine as second-line therapy. Clinicians should only consider opioids as an option in patients who have failed the aforementioned treatments and only if the potential benefits outweigh the risks for individual patients and after a discussion of known risks and realistic benefits with patients. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Pharmacologic treatment of hypertension in adults aged 60 years or older to higher versus lower blood pressure targets: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) jointly developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations based on the benefits and harms of higher versus lower blood pressure targets for the treatment of hypertension in adults aged 60 years or older. METHODS: This guideline is based on a systematic review of published randomized, controlled trials for primary outcomes and observational studies for harms only (identified through EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.gov), from database inception through January 2015. The MEDLINE search was updated through September 2016. Evaluated outcomes included all-cause mortality, morbidity and mortality related to stroke, major cardiac events (fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death), and harms. This guideline grades the evidence and recommendations using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) method. TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes all adults aged 60 years or older with hypertension. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians initiate treatment in adults aged 60 years or older with systolic blood pressure persistently at or above 150 mm Hg to achieve a target systolic blood pressure of less than 150 mm Hg to reduce the risk for mortality, stroke, and cardiac events. (Grade: strong recommendation, high-quality evidence). ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians select the treatment goals for adults aged 60 years or older based on a periodic discussion of the benefits and harms of specific blood pressure targets with the patient. RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians consider initiating or intensifying pharmacologic treatment in adults aged 60 years or older with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack to achieve a target systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg to reduce the risk for recurrent stroke. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians select the treatment goals for adults aged 60 years or older based on a periodic discussion of the benefits and harms of specific blood pressure targets with the patient. RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians consider initiating or intensifying pharmacologic treatment in some adults aged 60 years or older at high cardiovascular risk, based on individualized assessment, to achieve a target systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg to reduce the risk for stroke or cardiac events. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians select the treatment goals for adults aged 60 years or older based on a periodic discussion of the benefits and harms of specific blood pressure targets with the patient.

Projecting the clinical benefits of adjuvant radiotherapy versus observation and selective salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a decision analysis.

Our purpose was to project and compare clinical and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) outcomes of adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) versus salvage RT (SRT) after radical prostatectomy for men with locally advanced prostate cancer. We constructed a Markov model to simulate the randomized studies of observation versus ART, assuming 75% of observation patients would receive SRT at PSA recurrence. Transition probabilities and utility inputs were drawn from randomized trials of ART and cohort studies of SRT. We projected 10-year PSA recurrence-free survival, metastasis-free survival and overall survival. We found that observation with selective SRT yielded slightly worse outcomes than ART for post-RT PSA recurrence-free survival (47 and 52%), metastasis-free survival (69 and 70%) and overall survival (72 and 73%). Findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. After adjusting for the disutility of RT, observation plus SRT yielded better QALYs at 10 years than ART (6.80 and 6.13 QALYs). Thus, observation plus SRT may be optimal for men likely to comply with surveillance who wish to minimize side effects of the treatment. These findings reflect outcomes for the average patient given the current level of evidence and are meant to help inform current decision-making as we await future clinical studies of comparative effectiveness.

Adjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant hormone therapy (AHT) following radiotherapy or surgery is a treatment option frequently offered to men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We performed a systematic review of published randomised trials to assess the effectiveness of AHT. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, SCI, LILACS and SIGLE for randomised trials comparing AHT plus primary therapy (radiotherapy or prostatectomy) with primary therapy alone. Data on study design, participants interventions and outcomes were extracted from relevant studies and where possible pooled for meta-analysis. FINDINGS: AHT following radiotherapy improved overall survival (at 5 years OR fixed effect model 1.29, 95% CI 1.07-1.56, p=0.007), disease-specific survival (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.53-2.88, p<0.00001) and disease-free survival (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.16-2.23, p<0.00001). A random effect model favoured adjuvant hormone therapy but did not reach significance. After prostatectomy, there was no significant overall survival advantage with AHT, although one study reported a significant improvement in disease-specific survival (HR 4.09, p=0.0004). Disease-free survival was also better with AHT (OR 3.73, 95% CI 2.30-6.03, p<0.00001). AHT-induced toxicities included gynaecomastia, impotence, gastrointestinal and haematological. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant clinical benefits associated with the use of AHT for early prostate cancer. Patients should make an informed decision to accept AHT based on its effectiveness and side-effects.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of neo-adjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of neo-adjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) in localised and locally advanced prostate cancer to assess the effectiveness of this therapy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, LILACS and SIGLE for randomised trials comparing NHT plus primary therapy (radiotherapy or prostatectomy) with primary therapy alone. Data included information on study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Comparable data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled for meta-analysis with intention to treat principle. FINDINGS: NHT prior to prostatectomy did not improve overall or disease-free survival, but did significantly reduce positive margin rates (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.42-0.56, p<0.00001), organ confinement (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.37-1.95, p<0.0001) and lymph node invasion (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.42-0.56, p<0.02). In one study NHT before radiotherapy significantly improved overall survival for men with Gleason 2-6 (p=0.015). In addition, there was a significant improvement in both clinical disease-free survival (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.24-1.71, p<0.00001) and biochemical disease-free survival (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.00-2.55, p=0.05). Toxicities included hot flushes, gastrointestinal, hepatic and miscellaneous adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: NHT is associated with significant clinical benefit when given with radiotherapy and improves pathological outcome prior to prostatectomy but is of minimal value prior to radical prostatectomy. The decision to use hormone therapy should be discussed between the patient, the clinician and policy maker based on the benefits, toxicity and cost.

Targeted therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Advanced renal cell carcinoma has been resistant to drug therapy of different types and new types of drug therapy are needed. Targeted agents inhibit known molecular pathways involved in cellular proliferation and neoangiogenesis, the induction by the tumour of host microvascular networks. Angiogenesis is of special interest in the clear cell histologic subtype of renal cancer because of its vascularity and constitutively activated hypoxia-inducible path in the majority of tumours. OBJECTIVES: 1) To provide a systematic review of studies testing targeted agents.2) To identify the type and degree of clinical benefit, if any, of targeted agents over the prior standard of care, particularly any impact on overall survival. SEARCH STRATEGY: 1) Electronic search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases.2) Hand search of international cancer meeting abstract and other sources specified in the protocol. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled studies of targeted agents in patients with advanced renal cell cancer reporting major remission rate or overall survival by allocation. Progression-free survival (PFS) was adopted as an additional outcome because PFS was a commonly chosen primary outcome, and because several pivotal studies allowed crossover from the control to the investigational arm after closure to accrual thereby making overall survival a problematic endpoint. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Nineteen fully eligible studies tested ten different targeted agents (Table 04). One additional study was excluded because no outcome data by allocation have been reported (Hutson 2007). For purposes of comparison, the studies were divided into three groups: Group 1 studies compared different doses of the same agents; Group 2 studies examined the impact of targeted agents in patients who had received prior cytokine or other systemic therapy; and Group 3 studies tested targeted agents in systemically naive patients, either against standard interferon-alfa or against another control therapy. Meta-analysis was not utilized because there were very few situations where the same agents had been tested in the same group in more than one study. MAIN RESULTS: In systemically untreated patients in studies using subcutaneous interferon-alfa as control therapy, the major findings were: 1) An improvement in overall survival has been demonstrated only with the use of weekly intravenous temsirolimus in patients with unselected renal cancer histology and adverse prognostic features (median survival 10.9 months versus 7.3 months for temsirolimus or interferon-alfa respectively, HR 0.73, P = 0.008 log rank, Hudes 2007). However, the chance of major remission was low and not improved with temsirolimus. 2) In patients with mostly good or intermediate prognostic risk with clear cell renal cancer, oral sunitinib improves the chance of major remission, the probability of symptomatic improvement, and freedom from disease progression (Motzer 2007); in a similar setting, the addition of biweekly intravenous bevacizumab to interferon-alfa also improved the chance of major remission and prolonged progression-free survival (Escudier 2007b); overall survival had not changed at the time of interim reporting of either study. In patients with clear cell renal cancers who had failed prior cytokine therapy, oral sorafenib gives a better quality of life than placebo as well as improved chance of being free of disease progression; overall survival may have improved but is hard to evaluate because of crossover of placebo-assigned patients after the study closed to accrual (Escudier 2007a). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on less than a decade of experience, some targeted agents with specified molecular targets have demonstrated clinically useful benefits over the previous standard of care for patients with advanced renal cancer. Much more research is required to fully establish the role of targeted agents in this condition.

Five-alpha-reductase Inhibitors for prostate cancer prevention.

BACKGROUND: Five-alpha-reductase inhibitors (5ARI) are frequently used to treat bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia and male androgenic alopecia. They have potential as chemopreventive agents. OBJECTIVES: We sought to estimate the effectiveness and harms of 5ARI in preventing prostate cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library were searched through April 2007 to identify randomized trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: For prostate cancer outcomes we included randomized controlled trials of at least 1 year in duration published after 1984. For non-prostate cancer outcomes, randomized trials were included if: they were at least 6 months in duration published after 1999. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was prostate cancer period-prevalence "for-cause." "For-cause" was defined as prostate cancer clinically detected based on symptoms, an abnormal digital rectal exam, or detected as a result of an abnormal prostate specific antigen value. Trials were categorized as long (> 2 year), mid (1-2 years) and short (< 1 year) term. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials reported prostate cancer period-prevalence. Three trials using finasteride lasted 4 years or longer but only one (the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial) was specifically designed to assess the impact of 5ARI on prostate cancer period-prevalence. The mean age of enrollees was 64.6 years, 91% were white, mean PSA was 2.1 ng/mL. For-cause prostate cancers comprised 54% of all cancers detected. Finasteride was associated with a 26% relative risk reduction in prostate cancers detected for-cause among all randomized subjects (relative risk 0.74 [95% CI 0.67 to 0.83]; absolute risk reduction = 1.4% (3.5% versus 4.9%). Six trials assessed prostate cancers detected overall with a pooled 26% relative reduction favoring 5ARI (relative risk 0.74 [95% CI 0.55 to1.00]; 2.9% absolute reduction (6.3% versus 9.2%). Reductions were observed regardless of age, race or family history of prostate cancer but not among men with baseline PSA > 4.0 ng/mL. A greater number of high Gleason score tumors (7-10 or 8-10) occurred in men on finasteride in the PCPT. Impaired sexual or erectile function or endocrine effects were more common with finasteride than placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 5ARI reduce prostate cancer risk but may increase the risk of high-grade disease in men who are undergoing regular screening for prostate cancer using prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination. Effects are consistent across race, family history and age and possibly 5ARI but were limited to men with baseline PSA values <4.0 ng/mL. The impact of 5ARI on absolute or relative rates of prostate cancer in men who are not being regularly screened is not clear. Information is inadequate to assess the impact of 5ARI on mortality.

Microwave thermotherapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been the gold-standard treatment for alleviating urinary symptoms and improving urinary flow in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, the morbidity of TURP approaches 20%, and less invasive techniques have been developed for treating BPH. Preliminary data suggest that microwave thermotherapy, which delivers microwave energy to produce coagulation necrosis in prostatic tissue, is a safe, effective treatment for BPH. OBJECTIVES: To assess the therapeutic efficacy and safety of microwave thermotherapy techniques for treating men with symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomized controlled trials were identified from the Cochrane Collaboration Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, bibliographies of retrieved articles and reviews, and by contacting expert relevant trialists and microwave manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials evaluating transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) for men with symptomatic BPH were eligible for this review. Comparison groups could include transurethral resection of the prostate, minimally invasive prostatectomy techniques, sham thermotherapy procedures, and medications. Outcome measures included urinary symptoms, urinary function, prostate volume, mortality, morbidity, and retreatment. Two reviewers independently identified potentially relevant abstracts and then assessed the full papers for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently abstracted study design, baseline characteristics and outcomes data and assessed methodological quality using a standard form. We attempted to obtain missing data from authors and/or sponsors. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen studies involving 1493 patients met inclusion criteria, including six comparisons of microwave thermotherapy with TURP, seven comparisons with sham thermotherapy procedures, and one comparison with an alpha blocker. Study durations ranged from 3 to 60 months. The mean age of subjects was 66.8 years, and the baseline symptom scores and urinary flow rates, which did not differ across treatment groups, demonstrated moderately severe lower urinary tract symptoms. The pooled mean urinary symptom scores decreased by 65% with TUMT and by 77% with TURP. The weighted mean difference (WMD) (95% confidence interval) for the symptom score was -1.36 (-2.25 to -0.46), favoring TURP. The pooled mean peak urinary flow increased by 70% with TUMT and by 119% with TURP. The WMD for peak urinary flow was 5.08 (3.88 to 6.28) mL/s, favoring TURP. Compared to TURP, TUMT was associated with decreased risks for retrograde ejaculation, treatment for strictures, hematuria, blood transfusions, and the transurethral resection syndrome, but increased risks for dysuria, urinary retention, and retreatment for BPH symptoms. Microwave thermotherapy improved symptom scores (IPSS WMD -4.75, 95% CI -3.89 to -5.60) and peak urinary flow (WMD 1.67 mL/s, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.34) compared with sham procedures. Microwave thermotherapy also improved symptom scores (IPSS WMD -4.20, 95% CI -3.15 to -5.25) and peak urinary flow (WMD 2.30 mL/s, 95% CI 1.47 to 3.13) in the one comparison with alpha blockers. No studies evaluated the effects of symptom duration, patient characteristics, prostate-specific antigen levels, or prostate volume on treatment response. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Microwave thermotherapy techniques are effective alternatives to TURP and alpha-blockers for treating symptomatic BPH for men with no history of urinary retention or previous prostate procedures and prostate volumes between 30 to 100 mL. However, TURP provided greater symptom score and urinary flow improvements and reduced the need for subsequent BPH treatments compared to TUMT. Small sample sizes and differences in study design limit comparison between devices with different designs and energy levels. The effects of symptom duration, patient characteristics, or prostate volume on treatment response are unknown.

Intermittent versus continuous androgen suppression for prostatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: After lung cancer, prostate cancer is the most common cause of death among males. The aim of treatment is to prevent disease-related morbidity and mortality while minimizing intervention-related adverse events. Androgen suppression therapy (AST) to reduce circulating serum testosterone and disease progression is considered a mainstay of treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer. It has been increasingly utilized for early stage disease despite a lack of evidence of effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intermittent androgen suppression (IAS) compared to continuous androgen suppression for treating prostatic cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following databases were searched to identify randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials comparing intermittent and continuous androgen suppression in the treatment of any stage of prostate cancer: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; EMBASE and LILACS. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomized, and compare the effects of IAS versus CAS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Five randomized studies involving 1382 patients were included in this review. All the included studies involved advanced (T3 or T4) prostate cancer, had relatively small populations, and were of short duration. Few events were reported and did not assess disease-specific survival or metastatic disease. Only one study (N = 77) evaluated biochemical outcomes. A subgroup analysis found no significant differences in biochemical progression (defined by the authors as PSA >/= 10 ng/mL) between IAS and CAS for Gleason scores 4 - 6, 7, and 8 - 10. For patients with a Gleason score > 6, reduction in biochemical progression favoured the IAS group (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.67, P = 0.02). Studies primarily reported on adverse events. One trial (N = 43) found no difference in adverse effects (gastrointestinal, gynecomastia and asthenia) between IAS ( two events) and CAS (five events), with the exception of impotence, which was significantly lower in the IAS group (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.92, P = 0.008). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Data from RCTs comparing IAS to CAS are limited by small sample size and short duration. There are no data for the relative effectiveness of IAS versus CAS for overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, or disease progression. Limited information suggests IAS may have slightly reduced adverse events. Overall, IAS was also as effective as CAS for potency, but was superior during the interval of cycles (96%).

Nurse staffing and quality of patient care.

OBJECTIVES: To assess how nurse to patient ratios and nurse work hours were associated with patient outcomes in acute care hospitals, factors that influence nurse staffing policies, and nurse staffing strategies that improved patient outcomes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, Cochrane Databases, EBSCO research database, BioMed Central, Federal reports, National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators, National Center for Workforce Analysis, American Nurses Association, American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, and Digital Dissertations. REVIEW METHODS: In the absence of randomized controlled trials, observational studies were reviewed to examine the relationship between nurse staffing and outcomes. Meta-analysis tested the consistency of the association between nurse staffing and patient outcomes; classes of patient and hospital characteristics were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Higher registered nurse staffing was associated with less hospital-related mortality, failure to rescue, cardiac arrest, hospital acquired pneumonia, and other adverse events. The effect of increased registered nurse staffing on patients safety was strong and consistent in intensive care units and in surgical patients. Greater registered nurse hours spent on direct patient care were associated with decreased risk of hospital-related death and shorter lengths of stay. Limited evidence suggests that the higher proportion of registered nurses with BSN degrees was associated with lower mortality and failure to rescue. More overtime hours were associated with an increase in hospital related mortality, nosocomial infections, shock, and bloodstream infections. No studies directly examined the factors that influence nurse staffing policy. Few studies addressed the role of agency staff. No studies evaluated the role of internationally educated nurse staffing policies. CONCLUSIONS: Increased nursing staffing in hospitals was associated with lower hospital-related mortality, failure to rescue, and other patient outcomes, but the association is not necessarily causal. The effect size varied with the nurse staffing measure, the reduction in relative risk was greater and more consistent across the studies, corresponding to an increased registered nurse to patient ratio but not hours and skill mix. Estimates of the size of the nursing effect must be tempered by provider characteristics including hospital commitment to high quality care not considered in most of the studies. Greater nurse staffing was associated with better outcomes in intensive care units and in surgical patients.

Cryotherapy for localised prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is a common cancer in elderly men and in some will prove fatal. Standard treatments for localised disease include surgery ( radical prostatectomy), radiotherapy and active monitoring. New emerging therapies are being evaluated with the aim of reducing the complication rate associated with standard therapies, as well as developing an effective treatment. One such modality is cryotherapy, a procedure that introduces probes directly into the prostate tumour and kills the malignant cells by a freezing process. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to evaluate the relative clinical and economic benefits of cryotherapy compared to standard therapies for the primary treatment of localised prostate cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: Our search strategy included an electronic search of MEDLINE from 1996 to December 2006, plus EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database), the Cochrane library, ISI Science Citation Index, Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), and LILACS to identify all relevant published randomised trials of cryotherapy for localised prostate cancer. Cancerlit and HealthSTAR databases were searched to their final date. Handsearching of relevant journals was undertaken. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only published randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of cryotherapy with radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy or active monitoring for the primary treatment of men with localised prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted from eligible studies, and included study design, participants, interventions and outcomes. Primary outcome measures were biochemical disease-free survival, disease-free survival and treatment-induced complications. Secondary outcomes included disease-specific survival, overall survival, quality-of-life outcome measures and economic impact measures. MAIN RESULTS: There were no randomised trials found comparing cryotherapy with other therapies for the primary treatment of localised prostate cancer. All studies identified were case series. To indicate the level of the available evidence, studies that evaluated cryotherapy as a primary therapy, using transrectal ultrasound guidance and urethral warming in at least 50 patients with localised prostate cancer, and a minimum of one year follow up, were reviewed. Eight case series were identified that complied with these criteria; two were retrospective. The patients recruited (n = 1483) had an age range from 41 to 84 years, stages T1 = 0 to 43%, T2 = 24 to 88%, T3 = 1 to 41%, and T4 = 0 to 14%. The mean preoperative PSA level ranged from 9.7 to 39 ng/mL, with Gleason scores < 7 and ranging from 6 to 37%. One additional study that compared cryotherapy (total cryotherapy and standard cryotherapy with urethral preservation) with radical prostatectomy was also identified and reviewed. In this study the success rates, defined as a post-treatment PSA of 0.2 ng/mL or less, were reported as 96% for total cryotherapy, 49% for standard cryotherapy and 73% for radical prostatectomy. Four studies did not monitor the temperature of the cyro-procedure and reported 17 to 28% of patients had a positive biopsy following cryotherapy with a mean PSA nadir of 0.55 to 1.75 ng/mL (median 0.4 to 1.85 ng/mL). The other four studies used thermocouples to monitor the temperature of the cryo-procedure and reported progression-free survival rates of 71 to 89% with 1.4 to 13% of patients having a positive biopsy post-cryotherapy. At 5 years, overall survival was reported as 89 to 92% in two studies, and disease-specific survival as 94% in one study. The major complications observed in all studies included impotence (47 to 100%), incontinence (1.3 to 19%), and urethral sloughing (3.9 to 85%), with less common complications of fistula (0 to 2%), bladder-neck obstruction (2 to 55%), stricture (2.2 to 17%) and pain (0.4 to 3.1%). Most patients were sent home the following day (range 1 to 4 days). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cryotherapy offers a potential alternative to standard therapies for the primary treatment of localised prostate cancer. However, the poor quality of the available studies makes it difficult to determine the relative benefits of this modality. Randomised trials are needed to fully evaluate the full potential of cryotherapy in men with this disease. Patients selecting cryotherapy as their therapeutic option should be made fully aware of the reported efficacy, complications and the low-grade evidence from which these data are derived.

Botulinum toxin for treatment of urinary incontinence due to detrusor overactivity: a systematic review of effectiveness and adverse effects.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effectiveness and adverse effects of botulinum toxin (BTX) for treatment of urinary incontinence (UI) due to detrusor overactivity (DO). METHODS: Randomized controlled trials published in English before November 2006 were included if they enrolled subjects with UI caused by DO and reported incontinence outcomes. RESULTS: Three trials totaling 104 subjects with DO refractory to antimuscarinic treatment were included. Two BTX-A trials enrolled primarily patients with NDO secondary to spinal cord injury (SCI) (93%). BTX-A decreased daily UI episodes compared to placebo but the reductions were only significantly different at a few of the time intervals during 24 weeks of follow-up. BTX-A was superior in reducing daily UI episodes in SCI subjects compared to intravesical resiniferatoxin at 12 and 18 months after injections. A small crossover study found BTX-B significantly more effective than placebo in reducing weekly UI episodes in subjects with predominately idiopathic DO. Adverse events (AEs) in BTX-A-treated subjects included urinary tract infection, pain at the injection site, hematuria and autonomic dysreflexia. Four subjects treated with BTX-B reported autonomic AEs. CONCLUSIONS: BTX may improve UI for subjects with refractory DO. The preferred dose and type of BTX is not known. Long-term efficacy and safety remain unclear and require conduct of larger RCT using standardized and validated clinical outcomes measures.

Neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hormone therapy for early prostate cancer has demonstrated an improvement in clinical and pathological variables, but not always an improvement in overall survival. We performed a systematic review of both adjuvant and neo-adjuvant hormone therapy combined with surgery or radiotherapy in localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to undertake a systematic review and, if possible, a meta-analysis of neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy in localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE (1966-2006), EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, LILACS, and SIGLE for relevant randomised trials. Handsearching of appropriate publications was also undertaken. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of patients with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer, that is, stages T1-T4, any N, M0, comparing neo-adjuvant or adjuvant hormonal deprivation in combination with primary therapy (radical radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy) versus primary therapy alone were included in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted from eligible studies and assessed for quality, and included information on study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Comparable data were pooled together for meta-analysis with intention-to treat principle. MAIN RESULTS: Men with prostate cancer have different clinical outcomes based on their risk (T1-T2, T3-T4, PSA levels and Gleason score). However, the majority of studies included in this review did not report results by risk groups; therefore, it was not possible to perform sub-group analysis. Neo-adjuvant hormonal therapy prior to prostatectomy did not improve overall survival (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.85, P = 0.69). However, there was a significant reduction in the positive surgical margin rate (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.42, P < 0.00001) and a significant improvement in other pathological variables such as lymph node involvement, pathological staging and organ confined rates. There was a borderline significant reduction of disease recurrence rates (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.0, P = 0.05), in favour of treatment. The use of longer duration of neo-adjuvant hormones, that is either 6 or 8 months prior to prostatectomy, was associated with a significant reduction in positive surgical margins (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.80, P = 0.002). In one study, neo-adjuvant hormones prior to radiotherapy significantly improved overall survival for Gleason 2 to 6 patients; although, in two studies, there was no improvement in disease-specific survival (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.32, P = 0.97). However, there was a significant improvement in both clinical disease-free survival (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.40, P < 0.00001) and biochemical disease-free survival (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.56, P < 0.00001). Adjuvant androgen deprivation following prostatectomy did not significantly improve overall survival at 5 years (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.85, P = 0.2); although one study reported a significant disease-specific survival advantage with adjuvant therapy (P = 0.001). In addition, there was a significant improvement in disease-free survival at both 5 years (OR 3.73, 95%CI 2.30 to 6.03, P < 0.00001) and 10 years (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.15, P = 0.0009). Adjuvant therapy following radiotherapy resulted in a significant overall survival gain apparent at 5 (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.83, P = 0.0009) and 10 years (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.84, P = 0.003); although there was significant heterogeneity (P = 0.09 and P = 0.07, respectively). There was also a significant improvement in disease-specific survival (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.88, P = 0.00001) and disease-free survival (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.05 to 3.12, P < 0.00001) at 5 years. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Hormone therapy combined with either prostatectomy or radiotherapy is associated with significant clinical benefits in patients with local or locally advanced prostate cancer. Significant local control may be achieved when given prior to prostatectomy or radiotherapy, which may improve patient's quality of life. When given adjuvant to these primary therapies, hormone therapy, not only provides a method for local control, but there is also evidence for a significant survival advantage. However, hormone therapy is associated with significant side effects, such as hot flushes and gynaecomastia, as well as cost implications. The decision to use hormone therapy should, therefore, be taken at a local level, between the patient, clinician and policy maker, taking into account the clinical benefits, toxicity and cost. More research is needed to guide the choice, the duration, and the schedule of hormonal deprivation therapy, and the impact of long-term hormone therapy with regard to toxicity and the patient's quality of life.

Bisphosphonates for advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in many western countries. It is characterized by its propensity for bone metastases which occur in more than 80% of patients with advanced disease. Patients are at risk of complications including pain, hypercalcaemia, bone fracture and spinal cord compression. Hormonal treatment is the mainstay of treatment for these patients but most of them will then become hormone refractory. Bisphosphonates act by inhibiting osteoclast activities and are a potential therapeutic option for metastatic prostate cancer. In addition, they have been shown to reduce pain in patients with bone metastases as a consequence of multiple myeloma. Early uncontrolled studies of bisphosphonates in metastatic prostate cancer patients have shown encouraging results. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness of bisphosphonates in relieving pain in patients with bone metastases from prostate cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies were identified by electronic search of bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CancerLit and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Handsearching included Proceedings of American Society of Clinical Oncology and reference lists of all eligible trials identified. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies comparing the effectiveness of bisphosphonates with placebo or open control for pain relief in patients with bone metastases from prostate cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted from eligible studies and included study design, participants, interventions and outcomes. Comparable data were pooled together for meta-analysis with intention-to-treat principle. Outcomes included pain response, analgesic consumption, skeletal events (including pathological fractures, spinal cord compression, bone radiotherapy, bone surgery), prostate cancer death, disease progression, radiological response, PSA response, adverse events, performance status, quality of life and comparisons between different routes, doses and types of bisphosphonates. MAIN RESULTS: One thousand nine hundred and fifty-five patients from ten studies were included in this review. The pain response rates were 27.9% and 21.1% for the treatment group and the control group, respectively, with an absolute risk difference of 6.8%. The OR for pain response was 1.54 (95% CI 0.97 to 2.44, P = 0.07), showing a trend of improved pain relief in the bisphosphonate group, although this was not statistically significant. The rates for skeletal events were 37.8% and 43.0% for the treatment group and the control group, respectively, with an absolute risk difference of 5.2%. The OR for skeletal events was 0.79 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.00, P = 0.05). A significant increase in nausea was observed in patients who received bisphosphonates compared to placebo. No increase in other adverse events was observed. There was no statistically significant difference between the bisphosphonate group and the control group in terms of prostate cancer death, disease progression, radiological response and PSA response. There are insufficient data to guide the choice of bisphosphonates or the dose and the route of administration . AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Bisphosphonates should be considered for patients with metastatic prostate cancer for the treatment of refractory bone pain and prevention of skeletal events. More research is needed to guide the choice of bisphosphonates, optimal treatment schedule as well as cost-benefit comparisons. Combining results from different studies is difficult because different tools were used to assess pain, and also, bisphosphonates vary considerably in potency. This review highlights the need for standardisation and co-ordination among researchers in cancer pain studies.

Screening for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Any form of screening aims to reduce mortality and increase a person's quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has generated considerable debate within the medical community, as demonstrated by the varying recommendations made by medical organizations and governed by national policies. Much of this debate is due to the limited availability of high quality research and the influence of false-positive or false-negative results generated by use of the diagnostic techniques such as the digital rectal examination (DRE) and prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood test. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer mortality and has an impact on quality of life. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases (PROSTATE register, CENTRAL the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT and the NHS EED) were searched electronically in addition to hand searching of specific journals and bibliographies in an effort to identify both published and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials of screening versus no screening or routine care for prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The search identified 99 potentially relevant articles that were selected for full text review. From these 99 citations, two randomised controlled trials were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. Data from the trials were independently extracted by two authors. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomised controlled trials with a total of 55,512 participants were included; however, both trials had methodological weaknesses. Re-analysis using intention-to-screen and meta-analysis of results from the two randomised controlled trials indicated no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer mortality between men randomised for prostate cancer screening and controls (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.80-1.29). Neither study assessed the effect of prostate cancer screening on quality of life, all-cause mortality or cost effectiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given that only two randomised controlled trials were included, and the high risk of bias of both trials, there is insufficient evidence to either support or refute the routine use of mass, selective or opportunistic screening compared to no screening for reducing prostate cancer mortality. Currently, no robust evidence from randomised controlled trials is available regarding the impact of screening on quality of life, harms of screening, or its economic value. Results from two ongoing large scale multicentre randomised controlled trials that will be available in the next several years are required to make evidence-based decisions regarding prostate cancer screening.

Immunotherapy for advanced renal cell cancer.

BACKGROUND: The course of advanced renal cell carcinoma is extremely variable, ranging from spontaneous remission to disease progression refractory to chemotherapy. Immunotherapy has held promise of improved outcomes based on uncontrolled studies and randomized controlled trials generally limited by small size and low power. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate immunotherapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma by comparing: (1) high dose interleukin-2 to other options and (2) interferon-alfa to other options. The primary outcome of interest was overall survival at one year, with remission as the main secondary outcome of interest. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search of the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases was conducted for the period 1966 through end of December 2003. Handsearches were made of the proceedings of the periodic meetings of the American Urologic Association, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, ECCO - the European Cancer Conference, and the European Society of Medical Oncology for the period 1995 to June 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that selected (or stratified) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, utilized an immunotherapeutic agent in at least one study arm, and reported remission or survival by allocation. Fifty-three identified studies involving 6117 patients were eligible and all but one reported remission; 32 of these studies reported the one-year survival outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently abstracted each article by following a prospectively designed protocol. Dichotomous outcomes for treatment remission (partial plus complete) and for deaths at one year were used for the main comparisons. Survival hazard ratios were also used for studies of interferon-alfa versus controls, and for two randomized studies of the value of initial nephrectomy prior to interferon-alfa in fit patients with metastases detected at the time of diagnosis. MAIN RESULTS: Combined data for a variety of immunotherapies gave an overall chance of partial or complete remission of only 12.9% (99 study arms), compared to 2.5% in 10 non-immunotherapy control arms, and 4.3% in two placebo arms. Twenty-eight percent of these remissions were designated as complete (data from 45 studies). Median survival averaged 13.3 months (range by arm, 6 to 27+ months). The difference in remission rate between arms was poorly correlated with the difference in median survival so that remission rate is not a good surrogate or intermediate outcome for survival for advanced renal cancer. We were unable to identify any published randomized study of high-dose interleukin-2 versus a non-immunotherapy control, or of high-dose interleukin-2 versus interferon-alfa reporting survival. It has been established that reduced dose interleukin-2 given by intravenous bolus or by subcutaneous injection provides equivalent survival to high dose interleukin-2 with less toxicity. Results from four studies (644 patients) indicate that interferon-alfa is superior to controls (OR for death at one year = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.77). Using the method of Parmar 1998, the pooled overall hazard ratio for death was 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.88). The weighted average median improvement in survival was 3.8 months. T he optimal dose and duration of interferon-alfa remains to be elucidated. The addition of a variety of enhancers, including lower dose intravenous or subcutaneous interleukin-2, has failed to improve survival compared to interferon-alfa alone. Two recent randomized studies have examined the role of initial nephrectomy prior to interferon-alfa therapy in highly selected fit patients with metastases at diagnosis and minimal symptoms: despite minimal improvement in the chance of remission, both studies of up-front nephrectomy improved median survival by 4.8 months over interferon-alfa alone. Recent studies have been examining anti-angiogenesis agents. A landmark study of bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibody, was associated with significant prolongation of the time to progression of disease when given at high dose compared to low-dose or placebo therapy though frequency of remissions or survival were not improved. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: interferon-alfa provides a modest survival benefit compared to other commonly used treatments and should be considered for the control arm of future studies of systemic agents. In fit patients with metastases at diagnosis and minimal symptoms, nephrectomy followed by interferon-alfa gives the best survival strategy for fully validated therapies. The need for more effective specific therapy for this condition is apparent.

A meta-analysis of randomised trials suggests a survival benefit for combined radiotherapy and radical cystectomy compared with radical radiotherapy for invasive bladder cancer: are these data relevant to modern practice?

OBJECTIVE: Treatment options for muscle-invasive bladder cancer include radical cystectomy or radical radiotherapy, and the prevailing choice varies by country. The ideal treatment would be a bladder-preserving therapy without compromising survival. The objective of this review was to compare the overall survival after radical surgery (cystectomy) with radical radiotherapy in patients with muscle-invasive cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, EMBASE, Cancerlit, Healthstar and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness. Authors of unpublished data were contacted. Randomised trials comparing surgery (alone or with preoperative radiotherapy) with radiotherapy were eligible for assessment. Three reviewers assessed trial quality based on the Cochrane Guidelines. Data were extracted from the text of the article or extrapolated from the Kaplan-Meier plot. The Peto odds ratio was determined to compare the overall survival and disease-specific survival. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis and treatment actually received. RESULTS: No randomised trials comparing surgery alone with radiotherapy alone were identified. Three randomised trials comparing preoperative radiotherapy followed by radical cystectomy (surgery) versus radical radiotherapy with salvage cystectomy (radical radiotherapy) were eligible for assessment. These trials represented a total of 439 patients, 221 randomised to surgery and 218 to radical radiotherapy. Three trials were combined for the overall survival results, and one was evaluable for the disease-specific survival analysis. The mean overall survival (intention-to-treat analysis) at 3 and 5 years were 45% and 36% for surgery, and 28% and 20% for radiotherapy, respectively. Peto odds ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) analysis consistently favoured surgery in terms of overall survival. The results were significantly in favour of surgery at 3 years (OR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.30-2.82) and at 5 years (OR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.22 -2.82). On a treatment-received basis, the results were significantly in favour of surgery at 3 years (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.17-2.90) and 5 years (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.39-3.38) for overall survival, and at 3 years (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.06-3.65) for disease-specific survival. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of this review suggests that there is an overall survival benefit with combined preoperative radiotherapy plus radical surgery compared with radical radiotherapy plus salvage cystectomy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. However, it must be considered that only three trials were included for analysis, the patient numbers were small and that many patients did not receive the treatment they were randomised to. It must also be noted that many improvements in radiotherapy and surgery have taken place since the initiation of these trials; therefore, the data may not be readily extrapolated to modern practice. Ideally, a new trial comparing modern bladder-sparing therapy with the latest surgical approach to this disease is required.