Guy David E, Chen Hanbo, Boldt R Gabriel, Chin Joseph, Rodrigues George
Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, London, CAN.
Urology, London Health Sciences Centre, London, CAN.
Cureus. 2021 Aug 23;13(8):e17400. doi: 10.7759/cureus.17400. eCollection 2021 Aug.
Background Identifying the optimal management of high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) is an important public health concern, given the large burden of this disease. We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing PCa-specific mortality (CSM) among men diagnosed with high-risk non-metastatic PCa who were treated with primary radiotherapy (RT) and radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods Medline and Embase were searched for articles between January 1, 2005, and February 11, 2020. After title and abstract screening, two authors independently reviewed full-text articles for inclusion. Data were abstracted, and a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, involving a comprehensive list of confounding variables, was used to assess the risk of bias. Results Fifteen studies involving 131,392 patients were included. No difference in adjusted CSM in RT relative to RP was shown (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% confidence interval: 0.84, 1.25]). Increased CSM was found in a subgroup analysis comparing external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with RP (1.35 [1.10, 1.68]), whereas EBRT combined with brachytherapy (BT) versus RP showed lower CSM (0.68 [0.48, 0.95]). All studies demonstrated a high risk of bias as none fully adjusted for all confounding variables. Conclusion We found no difference in CSM between men diagnosed with non-metastatic high-risk PCa and treated with RP or RT; however, this is likely explained by increased CSM in men treated with EBRT and decreased CSM in men treated with EBRT + BT studies relative to RP. High risk of bias in all studies identifies the need for better data collection and confounding control in the PCa research.
鉴于高危非转移性前列腺癌(PCa)疾病负担沉重,确定其最佳管理方案是一项重要的公共卫生问题。我们对比较接受原发性放疗(RT)和根治性前列腺切除术(RP)治疗的高危非转移性PCa男性患者的前列腺癌特异性死亡率(CSM)的研究进行了荟萃分析。
检索2005年1月1日至2020年2月11日期间Medline和Embase上的文章。经过标题和摘要筛选后,两位作者独立审查全文文章以确定是否纳入。提取数据,并使用包含一系列综合混杂变量的改良版纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表来评估偏倚风险。
纳入了15项研究,共131,392例患者。结果显示,RT组与RP组调整后的CSM无差异(风险比,1.02 [95%置信区间:0.84, 1.25])。在一项比较外照射放疗(EBRT)与RP的亚组分析中发现CSM增加(1.35 [1.10, 1.68]),而EBRT联合近距离放疗(BT)与RP相比CSM较低(0.68 [0.48, 0.95])。所有研究均显示出较高的偏倚风险,因为没有一项研究对所有混杂变量进行了充分调整。
我们发现接受非转移性高危PCa治疗的男性患者中,RP或RT治疗后的CSM没有差异;然而,这可能是由于EBRT治疗的男性患者CSM增加,而EBRT + BT治疗的男性患者相对于RP的CSM降低。所有研究中的高偏倚风险表明,在PCa研究中需要更好地收集数据和控制混杂因素。