• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Association of Negative Followup Biopsy and Reclassification during Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

P. Rajwa, B. Pradere, K. Mori, G. Ploussard, MS. Leapman, SF. Shariat

. 2021 ; 205 (6) : 1559-1568. [pub] 20210308

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, metaanalýza, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural, systematický přehled

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc21025682

Grantová podpora
K08 CA204732 NCI NIH HHS - United States

PURPOSE: With the growing adoption of active surveillance clinical parameters that can tailor the intensity of monitoring are increasingly needed. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of negative followup biopsy for reclassification and upgrading in prostate cancer patients managed with active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed®, Web of ScienceTM, and Scopus® databases were queried to identify relevant studies published until November 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement. We performed a formal meta-analysis for the reclassification and upgrading in the full cohort and selected subgroups. RESULTS: We identified 13 and 9 studies eligible for the systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. A total of 2,628 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Any negative followup biopsy was associated with significantly lower risk of reclassification (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.39-0.55; p <0.01), and upgrading (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.44-0.66; p <0.01). For the confirmatory biopsy subgroup, the results remained significant for reclassification (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36-0.55; p <0.01) and upgrading (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42-0.73; p <0.01). These patterns remained robust among patients with only Gleason Grade prognostic group 1 (reclassification HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39-0.57; p <0.01; upgrading HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.42-0.69; p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A negative followup biopsy is associated with an approximately 50% decrease in the risk of future reclassification and upgrading. Incorporation of the negative followup biopsy into current protocols should allow for personalized active surveillance tailoring and more precise decision making.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc21025682
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20211026133610.0
007      
ta
008      
211013s2021 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1097/JU.0000000000001701 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)33683937
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Rajwa, Pawel $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland
245    10
$a Association of Negative Followup Biopsy and Reclassification during Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis / $c P. Rajwa, B. Pradere, K. Mori, G. Ploussard, MS. Leapman, SF. Shariat
520    9_
$a PURPOSE: With the growing adoption of active surveillance clinical parameters that can tailor the intensity of monitoring are increasingly needed. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of negative followup biopsy for reclassification and upgrading in prostate cancer patients managed with active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed®, Web of ScienceTM, and Scopus® databases were queried to identify relevant studies published until November 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement. We performed a formal meta-analysis for the reclassification and upgrading in the full cohort and selected subgroups. RESULTS: We identified 13 and 9 studies eligible for the systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. A total of 2,628 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Any negative followup biopsy was associated with significantly lower risk of reclassification (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.39-0.55; p <0.01), and upgrading (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.44-0.66; p <0.01). For the confirmatory biopsy subgroup, the results remained significant for reclassification (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36-0.55; p <0.01) and upgrading (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42-0.73; p <0.01). These patterns remained robust among patients with only Gleason Grade prognostic group 1 (reclassification HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39-0.57; p <0.01; upgrading HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.42-0.69; p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A negative followup biopsy is associated with an approximately 50% decrease in the risk of future reclassification and upgrading. Incorporation of the negative followup biopsy into current protocols should allow for personalized active surveillance tailoring and more precise decision making.
650    _2
$a následná péče $7 D000359
650    _2
$a biopsie $7 D001706
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a nádory prostaty $x klasifikace $x patologie $7 D011471
650    12
$a pozorné vyčkávání $7 D057832
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a metaanalýza $7 D017418
655    _2
$a Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural $7 D052061
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
700    1_
$a Pradere, Benjamin $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Mori, Keiichiro $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Ploussard, Guillaume $u Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, Quint Fonsegrives, France
700    1_
$a Leapman, Michael S $u Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York $u Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas $u Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
773    0_
$w MED00003040 $t The Journal of urology $x 1527-3792 $g Roč. 205, č. 6 (2021), s. 1559-1568
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33683937 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20211013 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20211026133616 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1714640 $s 1146189
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2021 $b 205 $c 6 $d 1559-1568 $e 20210308 $i 1527-3792 $m The Journal of urology $n J Urol $x MED00003040
GRA    __
$a K08 CA204732 $p NCI NIH HHS $2 United States
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20211013
Zpět

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace