首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Asian Journal of Andrology >The role of radical prostatectomy and definitive external beam radiotherapy in combined treatment for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
【2h】

The role of radical prostatectomy and definitive external beam radiotherapy in combined treatment for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

机译:自由基前列腺切除术和确定外光放射治疗在高危前列腺癌中治疗中的作用:系统评价和荟萃分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The first-line treatment options for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) are definitive external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radical prostatectomy (RP) with or without adjuvant therapies. However, few randomized trials have compared the survival outcomes of these two treatments. To systematically evaluate the survival outcomes of high-risk PCa patients treated with EBRT- or RP-based therapy, a comprehensive and up-to-date meta-analysis was performed. A systematic online search was conducted for randomized or observational studies that investigated biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and/or overall survival (OS), in relation to the use of RP or EBRT in patients with high-risk PCa. The summary hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated under the random effects models. We identified heterogeneity between studies using Q tests and measured it using I statistics. We evaluated publication bias using funnel plots and Egger's regression asymmetry tests. Seventeen studies (including one randomized controlled trial [RCT]) of low risk of bias were selected and up to 9504 patients were pooled. When comparing EBRT-based treatment with RP-based treatment, the pooled HRs for bRFS, CSS, and OS were 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24–0.67), 1.36 (95% CI: 0.94–1.97), and 1.39 (95% CI: 1.18–1.62), respectively. Better OS for RP-based treatment and better bRFS for EBRT-based treatment have been identified, and there was no significant difference in CSS between the two treatments. RP-based treatment is recommended for high-risk PCa patients who value long-term survival, and EBRT-based treatment might be a promising alternative for elderly patients.
机译:高风险前列腺癌(PCA)的一线治疗方案是明确的外部光束放射疗法(EBRT),具有或不具有雄激素剥夺治疗(ADT)和自由基前列腺切除术(RP),或没有佐剂疗法。然而,很少有随机试验比较了这两种治疗的存活结果。为了系统地评估对基于EBRT或RP的治疗治疗的高风险PCA患者的存活结果,进行了全面和最新的荟萃分析。对随机或观察性研究进行了系统的在线搜索,该研究在患者中使用RP或EBRT的使用,研究了无随机的无复发存活(BRF),癌症特异性生存(CSS)和/或整体存活(OS)具有高风险的PCA。概述危险比(HRS)估计在随机效应模型下。我们在使用Q测试和使用I统计测量的研究之间确定了异质性。我们使用漏斗图和Egger的回归不对称测试评估了出版物偏差。选择了低风险的17项研究(包括一个随机对照试验[RCT]),汇集了高达9504名患者。当将基于EBRT的处理与RP的处理进行比较时,BRFS,CSS和OS的合并HRS为0.40(95%置信区间[CI]:0.24-0.67),1.36(95%CI:0.94-1.97), 1.39分别(95%CI:1.18-1.62)。已经鉴定了基于RP的处理和更好的基于EBRT的治疗的更好的操作系统,并且两种治疗之间的CSS没有显着差异。建议基于RP的治疗用于重视长期存活的高风险PCA患者,并且基于EBRT的治疗可能是老年患者有前途的替代品。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号