内窥镜切除术改善癌症前列腺高强度聚焦超声消融结果:比较研究的元分析。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Yang Pan, Shangren Wang, Hang Zhou, Shuai Niu, Xiaoqiang Liu
{"title":"内窥镜切除术改善癌症前列腺高强度聚焦超声消融结果:比较研究的元分析。","authors":"Yang Pan,&nbsp;Shangren Wang,&nbsp;Hang Zhou,&nbsp;Shuai Niu,&nbsp;Xiaoqiang Liu","doi":"10.22037/uj.v20i.7378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>High-intensity focused ultrasound ablation (HIFU) is emerging as more data on its efficacy arises for prostate cancer (PCa). However, it is indefinite whether to combine endoscopic resection and uncertain to say who the ideal candidates are for the combined treatment. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to compare outcomes of sole HIFU therapy with that of HIFU in combination with endoscopic resection in patients with localized PCa.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Electronic databases were searched following the PRISMA guidelines and PICOS formats. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) studies on HIFU for PCa patients; 2) comparative studies on HIFU in combination with endoscopic resection for localized PCa men. Exclusion criteria include non-comparative studies and salvage HIFU therapy. Meta-analysis results were mainly present using forest plots. Sensitivity analysis and Egger's test were adopted to determine the stability and assess the publication bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six comparative studies with 767 patients were eligible, including 487 cases in the combination therapy group and 280 cases in the monotherapy group. There was no statistical difference in age, preoperative PSA levels, and prostate volume between two groups. No statistical difference was found in postoperative PSA nadir (MD = -0.02, 95%CI: -0.35 to 0.31, P = 0.90), disease-free survival rate (RR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.83 to 1.09, P = 0.47), and preoperative IPSS score (MD = -0.69, 95%CI: -1.63 to 0.26, P = 0.15; I2 = 8%) between two groups. The combination therapy group had significantly lower postoperative IPSS score (MD = -5.49, 95%CI: -6.47 to -4.51, P < 0.001) and shorter catheterization time (MD=-13.70, 95%CI: -19.24 to -8.16, P < 0.001) than the monotherapy group. The rates of urinary incontinence (7.4% vs. 13.9%, RR = 0.45, 95%CI: 0.29 to 0.70, P = 0.0004; I2=4%), acute urinary retention (6.8% vs. 10.5%, RR=0.36, 95%CI: 0.14 to 0.89, P = 0.03; I2 = 0%), urinary tract infection (10% vs. 33%, RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.4, P < 0.001; I2 = 0%), epididymitis (1.2% vs. 15.7%, RR=0.11, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.59, P = 0.01; I2 = 0%), and urethral stricture (7.1% vs. 23.2%, RR = 0.3, 95%CI: 0.18 to 0.51, P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) in the combination therapy group were all significantly lower than that in the monotherapy group. Sensitivity analysis revealed findings were convincing and no publication bias (P = 0.62) was observed using Egger's test.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It appears that the addition of endoscopic resection to the HIFU operation might not impact oncologic outcomes and could show better functional outcomes compared to the HIFU monotherapy in localized PCa patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":23416,"journal":{"name":"Urology Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endoscopic Resection Improved High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation Outcomes for Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.\",\"authors\":\"Yang Pan,&nbsp;Shangren Wang,&nbsp;Hang Zhou,&nbsp;Shuai Niu,&nbsp;Xiaoqiang Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.22037/uj.v20i.7378\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>High-intensity focused ultrasound ablation (HIFU) is emerging as more data on its efficacy arises for prostate cancer (PCa). However, it is indefinite whether to combine endoscopic resection and uncertain to say who the ideal candidates are for the combined treatment. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to compare outcomes of sole HIFU therapy with that of HIFU in combination with endoscopic resection in patients with localized PCa.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Electronic databases were searched following the PRISMA guidelines and PICOS formats. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) studies on HIFU for PCa patients; 2) comparative studies on HIFU in combination with endoscopic resection for localized PCa men. Exclusion criteria include non-comparative studies and salvage HIFU therapy. Meta-analysis results were mainly present using forest plots. Sensitivity analysis and Egger's test were adopted to determine the stability and assess the publication bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six comparative studies with 767 patients were eligible, including 487 cases in the combination therapy group and 280 cases in the monotherapy group. There was no statistical difference in age, preoperative PSA levels, and prostate volume between two groups. No statistical difference was found in postoperative PSA nadir (MD = -0.02, 95%CI: -0.35 to 0.31, P = 0.90), disease-free survival rate (RR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.83 to 1.09, P = 0.47), and preoperative IPSS score (MD = -0.69, 95%CI: -1.63 to 0.26, P = 0.15; I2 = 8%) between two groups. The combination therapy group had significantly lower postoperative IPSS score (MD = -5.49, 95%CI: -6.47 to -4.51, P < 0.001) and shorter catheterization time (MD=-13.70, 95%CI: -19.24 to -8.16, P < 0.001) than the monotherapy group. The rates of urinary incontinence (7.4% vs. 13.9%, RR = 0.45, 95%CI: 0.29 to 0.70, P = 0.0004; I2=4%), acute urinary retention (6.8% vs. 10.5%, RR=0.36, 95%CI: 0.14 to 0.89, P = 0.03; I2 = 0%), urinary tract infection (10% vs. 33%, RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.4, P < 0.001; I2 = 0%), epididymitis (1.2% vs. 15.7%, RR=0.11, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.59, P = 0.01; I2 = 0%), and urethral stricture (7.1% vs. 23.2%, RR = 0.3, 95%CI: 0.18 to 0.51, P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) in the combination therapy group were all significantly lower than that in the monotherapy group. Sensitivity analysis revealed findings were convincing and no publication bias (P = 0.62) was observed using Egger's test.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It appears that the addition of endoscopic resection to the HIFU operation might not impact oncologic outcomes and could show better functional outcomes compared to the HIFU monotherapy in localized PCa patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23416,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urology Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urology Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v20i.7378\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v20i.7378","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:随着更多关于高强度聚焦超声消融治疗前列腺癌症(PCa)疗效的数据的出现,高强度聚焦超声波消融(HIFU)正在出现。然而,是否联合内镜切除尚不确定,也不确定谁是联合治疗的理想人选。因此,我们旨在进行一项荟萃分析,比较局部前列腺癌患者单纯HIFU治疗与HIFU联合内镜切除的结果。材料和方法:按照PRISMA指南和PICOS格式搜索电子数据库。纳入标准如下:1)PCa患者HIFU的研究;2) HIFU联合内镜下前列腺癌局部切除术的比较研究。排除标准包括非比较研究和挽救性HIFU治疗。荟萃分析结果主要使用森林样地。采用敏感性分析和Egger检验来确定稳定性并评估发表偏倚。结果:767名患者的6项比较研究符合条件,其中联合治疗组487例,单药治疗组280例。两组患者的年龄、术前PSA水平和前列腺体积无统计学差异。两组术后PSA最低点(MD=0.02,95%CI:0.35-0.31,P=0.90)、无病生存率(RR=0.95,95%CI:0.83-1.09,P=0.47)和术前IPSS评分(MD=0.69,95%CI-1.63-0.26,P=0.15;I2=8%)无统计学差异。与单药治疗组相比,联合治疗组术后IPSS评分显著降低(MD=5.49,95%CI:6.47至-4.51,P<0.001),导管插入术时间更短(MD=13.70,95%CI-19.24至-8.16,P=0.001)。尿失禁发生率(7.4%vs.13.9%,RR=0.45,95%CI:0.29-0.70,P=0.0004;I2=4%),急性尿潴留发生率(6.8%vs.10.5%,RR=0.036,95%CI:0.14-0.89,P=0.03;I2=0%),尿路感染发生率(10%vs.33%,RR=0.27,95%CI:0.18-0.4,P<0.001;I2=0%),附睾炎发生率(1.2%vs.15.7%,RR0.11,95%CI:0.02-0.59,P=0.01;I2=0.0%),和尿道狭窄(7.1%vs.23.2%,RR=0.3,95%CI:0.18-0.51,P<0.001;I2=0%)均显著低于单药治疗组。敏感性分析显示,研究结果令人信服,使用Egger检验未观察到发表偏倚(P=0.62)。结论:与HIFU单药治疗局部前列腺癌患者相比,在HIFU手术中增加内镜切除可能不会影响肿瘤学结果,并且可以显示出更好的功能结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Endoscopic Resection Improved High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation Outcomes for Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.

Purpose: High-intensity focused ultrasound ablation (HIFU) is emerging as more data on its efficacy arises for prostate cancer (PCa). However, it is indefinite whether to combine endoscopic resection and uncertain to say who the ideal candidates are for the combined treatment. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to compare outcomes of sole HIFU therapy with that of HIFU in combination with endoscopic resection in patients with localized PCa.

Materials and methods: Electronic databases were searched following the PRISMA guidelines and PICOS formats. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) studies on HIFU for PCa patients; 2) comparative studies on HIFU in combination with endoscopic resection for localized PCa men. Exclusion criteria include non-comparative studies and salvage HIFU therapy. Meta-analysis results were mainly present using forest plots. Sensitivity analysis and Egger's test were adopted to determine the stability and assess the publication bias.

Results: Six comparative studies with 767 patients were eligible, including 487 cases in the combination therapy group and 280 cases in the monotherapy group. There was no statistical difference in age, preoperative PSA levels, and prostate volume between two groups. No statistical difference was found in postoperative PSA nadir (MD = -0.02, 95%CI: -0.35 to 0.31, P = 0.90), disease-free survival rate (RR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.83 to 1.09, P = 0.47), and preoperative IPSS score (MD = -0.69, 95%CI: -1.63 to 0.26, P = 0.15; I2 = 8%) between two groups. The combination therapy group had significantly lower postoperative IPSS score (MD = -5.49, 95%CI: -6.47 to -4.51, P < 0.001) and shorter catheterization time (MD=-13.70, 95%CI: -19.24 to -8.16, P < 0.001) than the monotherapy group. The rates of urinary incontinence (7.4% vs. 13.9%, RR = 0.45, 95%CI: 0.29 to 0.70, P = 0.0004; I2=4%), acute urinary retention (6.8% vs. 10.5%, RR=0.36, 95%CI: 0.14 to 0.89, P = 0.03; I2 = 0%), urinary tract infection (10% vs. 33%, RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.4, P < 0.001; I2 = 0%), epididymitis (1.2% vs. 15.7%, RR=0.11, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.59, P = 0.01; I2 = 0%), and urethral stricture (7.1% vs. 23.2%, RR = 0.3, 95%CI: 0.18 to 0.51, P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) in the combination therapy group were all significantly lower than that in the monotherapy group. Sensitivity analysis revealed findings were convincing and no publication bias (P = 0.62) was observed using Egger's test.

Conclusion: It appears that the addition of endoscopic resection to the HIFU operation might not impact oncologic outcomes and could show better functional outcomes compared to the HIFU monotherapy in localized PCa patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Urology Journal
Urology Journal UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
44
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As the official journal of the Urology and Nephrology Research Center (UNRC) and the Iranian Urological Association (IUA), Urology Journal is a comprehensive digest of useful information on modern urology. Emphasis is on practical information that reflects the latest diagnostic and treatment techniques. Our objectives are to provide an exceptional source of current and clinically relevant research in the discipline of urology, to reflect the scientific work and progress of our colleagues, and to present the articles in a logical, timely, and concise format that meets the diverse needs of today’s urologist. Urology Journal publishes manuscripts on urology and kidney transplantation, all of which undergo extensive peer review by recognized authorities in the field prior to their acceptance for publication. Accordingly, original articles, case reports, and letters to editor are encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信