• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

A systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic impact of different Gleason patterns in ISUP grade group 4

K. Mori, N. Miura, E. Comperat, S. Nikles, KH. Pang, V. Misrai, J. Gomez Rivas, R. Papalia, SF. Shariat, F. Esperto, B. Pradere

. 2021 ; 73 (1) : 42-49. [pub] 20200520

Jazyk angličtina Země Itálie

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, metaanalýza, systematický přehled

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc21026143

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the prognostic differences between different Gleason patterns in patients with prostate cancer (PC) within Internal Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group 4 (GG 4). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PUBMED and Scopus databases were searched for articles published prior to December 2019 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they compared overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and surgical pathological outcomes in PC patients categorized as ISUP GG 4 (Gleason Score [GS] 4+4 vs. GS 3+5 or GS 5+3). Formal meta-analyses were performed for these outcomes. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Ten studies with 42,041 patients were eligible for the systematic review and eight studies with 36,250 patients for meta-analysis. The treatment type of included study was three surgery and three radiotherapy. The other four studies included many kinds of treatments such as surgery, radiotherapy, androgen deprivation therapy, and chemotherapy. GS 4+4 was significantly associated with better OS (pooled hazard ratio (HR): 0.52, 95% confidential interval (CI): 0.29-0.91) than GS 3+5 or GS 5+3. Positive surgical margin rates were significantly lower with GS 4+4 than GS 3+5 and GS 5+3 (odds ratio [OR] 0.70/95% CI 0.64-0.77 and OR 0.70/95% CI 0.56-0.87, respectively). In contrast, different Gleason patterns in ISUP GG 4 were not significantly associated with CSS (pooled HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.56-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: GS 4+4 in patients with PC was associated with better OS and positive surgical margin rates. It seems likely that there is heterogeneity within ISUP GG 4. However, caution should be exercised in interpreting the conclusions drawn from this study, given the limitations of the study, which include the heterogeneity of the population of interest and the retrospective nature of the primary data evaluated.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc21026143
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20211026133158.0
007      
ta
008      
211013s2021 it f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03778-9 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)32432435
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a it
100    1_
$a Mori, Keiichiro $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria - morikeiichiro29@gmail.com $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan - morikeiichiro29@gmail.com
245    12
$a A systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic impact of different Gleason patterns in ISUP grade group 4 / $c K. Mori, N. Miura, E. Comperat, S. Nikles, KH. Pang, V. Misrai, J. Gomez Rivas, R. Papalia, SF. Shariat, F. Esperto, B. Pradere
520    9_
$a INTRODUCTION: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the prognostic differences between different Gleason patterns in patients with prostate cancer (PC) within Internal Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group 4 (GG 4). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PUBMED and Scopus databases were searched for articles published prior to December 2019 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they compared overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and surgical pathological outcomes in PC patients categorized as ISUP GG 4 (Gleason Score [GS] 4+4 vs. GS 3+5 or GS 5+3). Formal meta-analyses were performed for these outcomes. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Ten studies with 42,041 patients were eligible for the systematic review and eight studies with 36,250 patients for meta-analysis. The treatment type of included study was three surgery and three radiotherapy. The other four studies included many kinds of treatments such as surgery, radiotherapy, androgen deprivation therapy, and chemotherapy. GS 4+4 was significantly associated with better OS (pooled hazard ratio (HR): 0.52, 95% confidential interval (CI): 0.29-0.91) than GS 3+5 or GS 5+3. Positive surgical margin rates were significantly lower with GS 4+4 than GS 3+5 and GS 5+3 (odds ratio [OR] 0.70/95% CI 0.64-0.77 and OR 0.70/95% CI 0.56-0.87, respectively). In contrast, different Gleason patterns in ISUP GG 4 were not significantly associated with CSS (pooled HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.56-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: GS 4+4 in patients with PC was associated with better OS and positive surgical margin rates. It seems likely that there is heterogeneity within ISUP GG 4. However, caution should be exercised in interpreting the conclusions drawn from this study, given the limitations of the study, which include the heterogeneity of the population of interest and the retrospective nature of the primary data evaluated.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    12
$a stupeň nádoru $7 D060787
650    _2
$a prognóza $7 D011379
650    _2
$a nádory prostaty $x diagnóza $x patologie $7 D011471
650    _2
$a analýza přežití $7 D016019
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a metaanalýza $7 D017418
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
700    1_
$a Miura, Noriyoshi $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Ehime, Japan
700    1_
$a Comperat, Eva $u Department of Pathology, Tenon Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France
700    1_
$a Nikles, Sven $u Sestre Milosrdnice University Hospital, Zagreb, Croatia
700    1_
$a Pang, Karl H $u Unit of Academic Urology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
700    1_
$a Misrai, Vincent $u Department of Urology, Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France
700    1_
$a Gomez Rivas, Juan $u Department of Urology, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain $u European Society of Residents in Urology (ESRU), Arnhem, the Netherlands
700    1_
$a Papalia, Rocco $u Department of Urology, Campus Biomedico University Hospital, Rome, Italy
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia $u Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA $u Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA $u Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Department of Urology, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan $u European Association of Urology Research Foundation, Arnhem, the Netherlands
700    1_
$a Esperto, Francesco $u European Society of Residents in Urology (ESRU), Arnhem, the Netherlands $u Department of Urology, Campus Biomedico University Hospital, Rome, Italy $u EAU Young Urologist Office (YOU), Arnhem, the Netherlands
700    1_
$a Pradere, Benjamin $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u EAU Young Urologist Office (YOU), Arnhem, the Netherlands $u Department of Urology, CHRU Tours, PRES Centre Val de Loire, François Rabelais de Tours University, Tours, France
773    0_
$w MED00208300 $t Minerva urology and nephrology $x 2724-6442 $g Roč. 73, č. 1 (2021), s. 42-49
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32432435 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20211013 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20211026133204 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1714993 $s 1146650
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2021 $b 73 $c 1 $d 42-49 $e 20200520 $i 2724-6442 $m Minerva urology and nephrology $n Minerva Urol Nephrol $x MED00208300
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20211013

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace