NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Structured Abstract
Objective:
To comprehensively update a 2008 systematic review on treatments for cancer confined to the prostate gland, which is the definition of clinically localized disease.
Data sources:
We searched MEDLINE®, PreMEDLINE, Embase®, the Cochrane Library, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment Database, gray literature, and the U.K. National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database for reports published from January 1, 2007, through March 7, 2014.
Review methods:
We synthesized evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized comparative studies published in English that evaluated treatments and reported clinical or biochemical outcomes in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.
Results:
Eight RCTs and 44 nonrandomized comparative studies evaluating numerous treatment options met inclusion criteria. However, because most comparisons were represented by only one or two studies, the strength of evidence (SOE) was insufficient for the majority of comparisons.
Two RCTs, the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 (SPCG-4) and the Prostate Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) compared radical prostatectomy (RP) and watchful waiting (WW) in localized prostate cancer patients. No meta-analysis was done because of the heterogeneity of included patients. While the SPCG-4 study found that RP reduced prostate cancer–specific mortality at 12 and 15 years, the PIVOT trial found no statistically significant difference at 12 years. The SPCG-4 study found that RP reduced all-cause mortality at 15 years, but neither the SPCG-4 nor the PIVOT trial found any significant difference at 12 years. The SOE for these outcomes was insufficient. However, both trials found significant reductions in progression to metastases in the RP group compared with the WW group (SOE: moderate). In the SPCG-4 trial, subgroup analyses showed reduced all-cause mortality among patients younger than 65 years and among patients with low tumor risk. In the PIVOT, reduced all-cause mortality was identified among men with prostate-specific antigen >10 ng/mL and among men with intermediate tumor risk.
One RCT that compared three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with 3D-CRT plus androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) reported an improvement in overall survival and prostate cancer–specific mortality among men who received combined therapy (SOE: low). Six nonrandomized comparison studies reported that all-cause and prostate cancer–specific mortality was lower in patients treated with RP than in patients treated with external beam radiation therapy (SOE: low).
The definition and severity of adverse events varied greatly across studies. Adverse events such as urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction were reported mostly among men who underwent RP. Additionally, adverse events such as genitourinary toxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, and erectile dysfunction were reported among men who received radiation therapy.
Conclusions:
This systematic review update found that the evidence for most treatment comparisons is largely inadequate to determine comparative risks and benefits of therapies for clinically localized prostate cancer. This conclusion is similar to that of the 2008 review, which found that no single therapy can be considered the preferred treatment for localized prostate cancer because of limitations in the body of evidence as well as the likely tradeoffs a patient must make between estimated treatment effectiveness, necessity, and adverse effects. Although limited evidence appears to favor surgery over WW or external beam radiotherapy, or favors 3D-CRT plus ADT over 3D-CRT alone, the patients most likely to benefit and the applicability of these study findings to contemporary patients and practice remain uncertain. More RCTs and better designed observational studies that can control for many of the known and unknown confounding factors that can affect long-term outcomes are needed to evaluate comparative risks and benefits of therapies for clinically localized prostate cancer.
Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Technical Expert Panel
- Peer Reviewers
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Methods
- Results
- Introduction
- Results of Literature Searches
- Key Question 1 Comparative Risks and Benefits of Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer
- Key Question 2 Specific Patient Characteristics Affecting the Outcomes of Prostate Cancer Therapies
- Key Question 3 Provider/Hospital Characteristics Affecting Outcomes of the Therapies
- Key Question 4 Tumor Characteristics Affecting the Outcomes of the Therapies
- Discussion
- References
- Acronyms and Abbreviations
- Appendix A Literature Search Methods
- Appendix B Full-Length Review Excluded Studies
- Appendix C Risk of Bias Assessment for Key Question 1
- Appendix D Key Questions 1–4: Study Selection Criteria and Description of Treatment
- Appendix E Baseline Demographic and Tumor Characteristics
- Appendix F Evidence Tables
- Appendix G Ongoing Clinical Trials
Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, Contract No. 290-2007-10063. Prepared by: ECRI Institute–Penn Medicine Evidence-based Practice Center, Plymouth Meeting, PA
Suggested citation:
Sun F, Oyesanmi O, Fontanarosa J, Reston J, Guzzo T, Schoelles K. Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Update of a 2008 Systematic Review. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 146. (Prepared by the ECRI Institute–Penn Medicine Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10063.) AHRQ Publication No. 15-EHC004-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; December 2014. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
This report is based on research conducted by the ECRI Institute–Penn Medicine Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2007-10063). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.
AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of any derivative products that may be developed from this report, such as clinical practice guidelines, other quality enhancement tools, or reimbursement or coverage policies, may not be stated or implied.
This report may periodically be assessed for currency of conclusions. If an assessment is done, the resulting surveillance report describing the methodology and findings will be found on the Effective Health Care Program Web site at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. Search on the title of the report.
None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.
- 1
540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www
.ahrq.gov
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- Review Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2018]Review Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceFenton JJ, Weyrich MS, Durbin S, Liu Y, Bang H, Melnikow J. 2018 May
- Review Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer.[Ann Intern Med. 2008]Review Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer.Wilt TJ, MacDonald R, Rutks I, Shamliyan TA, Taylor BC, Kane RL. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Mar 18; 148(6):435-48. Epub 2008 Feb 4.
- Review Treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review to Update the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation[ 2011]Review Treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review to Update the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force RecommendationChou R, Dana T, Bougatsos C, Fu R, Blazina I, Gleitsmann K, Rugge JB. 2011 Oct
- The Prostate cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial:VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program #407 (PIVOT): design and baseline results of a randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer.[Contemp Clin Trials. 2009]The Prostate cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial:VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program #407 (PIVOT): design and baseline results of a randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer.Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Barry MJ, Jones KM, Kwon Y, Gingrich JR, Aronson WJ, Nsouli I, Iyer P, Cartagena R, et al. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009 Jan; 30(1):81-7. Epub 2008 Aug 23.
- Review Management of localised prostate cancer: watchful waiting, surgery or radiation therapy, depending on the natural course, which is often relatively slow.[Prescrire Int. 2012]Review Management of localised prostate cancer: watchful waiting, surgery or radiation therapy, depending on the natural course, which is often relatively slow.. Prescrire Int. 2012 Oct; 21(131):242-8.
- Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate CancerTherapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer
- Summary Table - Comparative Effectiveness of Therapies for Clinically Localized ...Summary Table - Comparative Effectiveness of Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer
- Luehea paniculata (1)Taxonomy
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...