Obesity and biochemical recurrence in clinically localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 86,490 patients

Author(s):  
Mario Rivera-Izquierdo ◽  
Javier Pérez de Rojas ◽  
Virginia Martínez-Ruiz ◽  
Miguel Ángel Arrabal-Polo ◽  
Beatriz Pérez-Gómez ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 155798832110248
Author(s):  
Yong Yuan ◽  
Qiang Zhang ◽  
Chaofan Xie ◽  
Tao Wu

Context: Several studies reported the application of androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy in patients with biochemical recurrence after prostate cancer operation. Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating of endocrine therapy and radiotherapy in patients with biochemical recurrence after prostate cancer surgery. The primary end point was biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). Secondary end point was overall survival (OS). Methods: A systematic review of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify relevant studies published in English up to March 2020. Twelve studies were selected for inclusion. Results: There were 11 studies included in the present study. Including two randomized controlled trials and nine cohort studies. The meta-analysis shows a significant bPFS benefit from androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy in patients with biochemical recurrence after prostate cancer operation. (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.57; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.52–0.63; p < .001). For patients with GS < 7 and low-risk patients, combined treatment can have a benefit for BPFs (HR: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37–0.76; HR: 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36–0.93). Androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy in patients with biochemical recurrence was associated with a slightly OS improvement (HR: 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57–0.93; p = 0.01). Conclusions: Compared with salvage radiotherapy alone, This meta-analysis shows a significant bPFS benefit from endocrine therapy combined with salvage radiotherapy in patients with biochemical recurrence after prostate cancer operation. And benefit more for high-risk groups. However, there was no significant benefit in group GS ≥ 8. It shows a slightly OS benefit from endocrine therapy combined with salvage radiotherapy in patients with biochemical recurrence.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17060-e17060
Author(s):  
Stephanie Fletcher ◽  
Nimer Alsaid ◽  
Chinmayee Katragadda ◽  
Jennifer Martin ◽  
Hani M. Babiker ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 65-65
Author(s):  
Victor Srougi ◽  
Jose Bessa ◽  
Mohammed Baghdadi ◽  
Igor Nunes-Silva ◽  
Silvia Garcia Barreras ◽  
...  

65 Background: To date there is no robust evidence comparing the outcomes of robotic and open radical prostatectomies in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. The purpose of this study is to perform a meta-analysis comparing the rates of positive surgical margins (PSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) between open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Methods: A systematic review was performed on Pubmed, Embase and Scopus databases in August 2016, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. References retrieved were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Black and Down’s tool for quality assessment. Nine retrospective cohorts comparing ORP and RARP were selected and included in the meta-analysis. Results: Nine studies reported the PSMs. Patients treated with RARP presented less risk of PSMs (risk difference -0.04, p 0.02) than those treated with ORP. Five articles reported hazard ratios for BCR-free survival. Patients treated with RARP had less risk of BCR (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.89) than those treated with ORP. Reports for PSM assessment were considered of adequate quality, while the studies retrieved for BCR assessment were considered limited because of the heterogeneity of their results. Conclusions: Patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with RARP have less risk of having PSM and BCR when compared to those treated with ORP. A strong conclusion is precluded due to the observational nature of the studies retrieved for our analysis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document