RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: While prostate cancer (PCa) incidence and mortality rates continue to rise, early detection of PCa remains highly controversial, and the research landscape is rapidly evolving. Existing systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) provide valuable insights, but often focus on single aspects of early detection, hindering a comprehensive understanding of the topic. We aim to fill this gap by providing a comprehensive SR of contemporary SRs covering different aspects of early detection of PCa in the European Union (EU) and the UK. METHODS: On June 1, 2023, we searched four databases (Medline ALL via Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and Google Scholar. To avoid repetition of previous studies, only SRs (qualitative, quantitative, and/or MAs) were considered eligible. In the data, common themes were identified to present the evidence systematically. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified 1358 citations, resulting in 26 SRs eligible for inclusion. Six themes were identified: (1) invitation: men at general risk should be invited at >50 yr of age, and testing should be discontinued at >70 yr or with <10 yr of life expectancy; (2) decision-making: most health authorities discourage population-based screening and instead recommend a shared decision-making (SDM) approach, but implementation of SDM in clinical practice varies widely; decision aids help men make more informed and value-consistent screening decisions and decrease men's intention to attempt screening, but these do not affect screening uptake; (3) acceptance: facilitators for men considering screening include social prompting by partners and clinician recommendations, while barriers include a lack of knowledge, low-risk perception, and masculinity attributes; (4) screening test and algorithm: prostate-specific antigen-based screening reduces PCa-specific mortality and metastatic disease in men aged 55-69 yr at randomisation if screened at least twice; (5) harms and benefits: these benefits come at the cost of unnecessary biopsies, overdiagnosis, and subsequent overtreatment; and (6) future of screening: risk-adapted screening including (prebiopsy) risk calculators, magnetic resonance imaging, and blood- and urine-based biomarkers could reduce these harms. To enable a comprehensive overview, we focused on SRs. These do not include the most recent prospective studies, which were therefore incorporated in the discussion. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: By identifying consistent and conflicting evidence, this review highlights the evidence-based foundations that can be built upon, as well as areas requiring further research and improvement to reduce the burden of PCa in the EU and UK. PATIENT SUMMARY: This review of 26 reviews covers various aspects of prostate cancer screening such as invitation, decision-making, screening tests, harms, and benefits. This review provides insights into existing evidence, highlighting the areas of consensus and discrepancies, to guide future research and improve prostate cancer screening strategies in Europe.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) (early) detection poses significant challenges, including unnecessary testing and the risk of potential overdiagnosis. The European Association of Urology therefore suggests an individual risk-adapted approach, incorporating risk calculators (RCs) into the PCa detection pathway. In the context of 'The PRostate Cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union' (PRAISE-U) project ( https://uroweb.org/praise-u ), we aim to provide an overview of the currently available clinical RCs applicable in an early PCa detection algorithm. METHODS: We performed a systematic review to identify RCs predicting detection of clinically significant PCa at biopsy. A search was performed in the databases Medline ALL, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar for publications between January 2010 and July 2023. We retrieved relevant literature by using the terms "prostate cancer", "screening/diagnosis" and "predictive model". Inclusion criteria included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials. Exclusion criteria applied to studies involving pre-targeted high-risk populations, diagnosed PCa patients, or a sample sizes under 50 men. RESULTS: We identified 6474 articles, of which 140 were included after screening abstracts and full texts. In total, we identified 96 unique RCs. Among these, 45 underwent external validation, with 28 validated in multiple cohorts. Of the externally validated RCs, 17 are based on clinical factors, 19 incorporate clinical factors along with MRI details, 4 were based on blood biomarkers alone or in combination with clinical factors, and 5 included urinary biomarkers. The median AUC of externally validated RCs ranged from 0.63 to 0.93. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review offers an extensive analysis of currently available RCs, their variable utilization, and performance within validation cohorts. RCs have consistently demonstrated their capacity to mitigate the limitations associated with early detection and have been integrated into modern practice and screening trials. Nevertheless, the lack of external validation data raises concerns about numerous RCs, and it is crucial to factor in this omission when evaluating whether a specific RC is applicable to one's target population.
Asunto(s)
Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Humanos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Masculino , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Factores de Riesgo , Biomarcadores de Tumor/sangre , Antígeno Prostático Específico/sangreRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In Europe, prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men. Screening may therefore be crucial to lower health care costs, morbidity, and mortality. This systematic review aimed to provide a contemporary overview of the costs and benefits of PCa screening programmes. METHODS: A peer-reviewed literature search was conducted, using the PICO method. A detailed search strategy was developed in four databases based on the following key search terms: "PCa", "screening", and "cost effectiveness". Any type of economic evaluation was included. The search strategy was restricted to European countries, but no restrictions were set on the year of publication. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 7484 studies were identified initially. Of these, 19 studies described the cost effectiveness of PCa screening in Europe. Among the studies using an initially healthy study population, most focussed on risk- and/or age- and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based screening in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and compared this with no screening. Incremental cost ratios (ICERs) varied from 5872 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) to 372 948/QALY, with a median of 56 487/QALY. Risk-based screening followed by MRI testing seemed to be a more cost-effective strategy than no screening. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This systematic review indicates that screening programmes incorporating a risk-based approach and MRI have the potential to be cost effective. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review, we looked at the cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening in Europe. We found that a risk-based approach and incorporation of magnetic resonance imaging has the potential to be cost effective. However, there remains a knowledge gap regarding cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening. Therefore, determinants of cost effectiveness require further investigation.
RESUMEN
Population-based organised repeated screening for prostate cancer has been found to reduce disease-specific mortality, but with substantial overdiagnosis leading to overtreatment. Although only very few countries have implemented a screening programme on a national level, individual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is common. This opportunistic testing may have little favourable impact, while stressing the side-effects. The classic early detection protocols as were state-of-the-art in the 1990s applied a PSA and digital rectal examination threshold for sextant systematic prostate biopsy, with a fixed interval for re-testing, and limited indication for expectant management. In the three decades since these trials were started, different important improvements have become available in the cascade of screening, indication for biopsy, and treatment. The main developed aspects include: better identification of individuals at risk (using early/baseline PSA, family history, and/or genetic profile), individualised re-testing interval, optimised and individualised starting and stopping age, with gradual invitation at a fixed age rather than invitation of a wider range of age groups, risk stratification for biopsy (using PSA density, risk calculator, magnetic resonance imaging, serum and urine biomarkers, or combinations/sequences), targeted biopsy, transperineal biopsy approach, active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, and improved staging of disease. All these developments are suggested to decrease the side-effects of screening, while at least maintaining the advantages, but Level 1 evidence is lacking. The knowledge gained and new developments on early detection are being tested in different prospective screening trials throughout Europe. In addition, the European Union-funded PRostate cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union (PRAISE-U) project will compare and evaluate different screening pilots throughout Europe. Implementation and sustainability will also be addressed. Modern screening approaches may reduce the burden of the second most frequent cause of cancer-related death in European males, while minimising side-effects. Also, less efficacious opportunistic early detection may be indirectly reduced.
Asunto(s)
Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Antígeno Prostático Específico , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Europa (Continente) , Antígeno Prostático Específico/sangre , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Protocolos ClínicosRESUMEN
Hypovolemia-induced hypotension may lead to an aortic diameter decrease in patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA). This study investigates the changes in supra- and infra-renal aortic neck diameters before and after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) for rAAA and the possible association with endograft apposition. A retrospective cohort study was conducted including 74 patients treated between 2010 and 2019 in two large European vascular centers. Outer-to-outer wall diameters were measured at +40, +10, 0, −10, and −20 mm relative to the lowest renal artery baseline on the last pre- and first post-EVAR computed tomography angiography (CTA) scan in a vascular workstation. Endograft apposition was determined on the first post-EVAR CTA scan. The post-operative diameter was significantly (p < 0.001) larger than the preoperative diameter at all aortic levels. The aortic diameter at +40 mm (supra-renal) and −10 mm (infra-renal) increased by 6.2 ± 7.3% and 12.6 ± 9.8%, respectively. The aortic diameter at +40 mm increased significantly more in patients with low preoperative systolic blood pressure (<90 mmHg; p = 0.005). A shorter apposition length was associated with a higher aortic diameter increase (R = −0.255; p = 0.032). Hypovolemic-induced hypotension results in a significant decrease in the aortic diameter in patients with an rAAA, which should be taken into account when oversizing the endograft.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Advanced age is associated with worse outcomes after open rectal cancer surgery. However, not much is known about outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the elderly. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of MIS in elderly rectal cancer patients using the Bi-national Colorectal Cancer Audit (BCCA) data from Australia and New Zealand (ANZ). METHODS: 3451 patients were included, divided into three groups: <50 years (n = 364), 50-74 years (n = 2157) and ≥75 years (n = 930). Propensity-score matching was performed for the elderly group analysis to correct for differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: MIS was performed in 52.9% of elderly patients, slightly lower than rates in <50 year and 50-74 year old groups (61% and 55.5%, respectively, p = 0.022). Elderly patients had more postoperative complications (p < 0.0001) and had a longer length of hospital stay (LOS; median 11 vs. 8 days for both other groups; p < 0.0001). Elderly patients had higher (y)pT-stages compared to both other groups (p < 0.0001) and were less likely to receive adjuvant therapy (p < 0.0001). Propensity-score matched analysis of the elderly group showed a higher rate of superficial wound dehiscence and a longer LOS after open surgery compared to MIS (10.3% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.030; 12 days vs. 9.5 days, p = 0.001, respectively), with comparable short-term oncological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: MIS is performed in just over half of elderly rectal cancer patients who are selected for elective rectal resection surgery in ANZ. When performed in the elderly, MIS appears safe and is associated with fewer wound complications and a shorter LOS.