1
|
Kitson-Mills D, Donkor A, Amoako YA, Kyei KA, Bonsu EBO, Vanderpuye V, Wiafe YA. Outcomes and Toxicities After Treatment for Men Diagnosed With Localized Prostate Cancer in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Adv Radiat Oncol 2025; 10:101670. [PMID: 39758977 PMCID: PMC11699425 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2024.101670] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2024] [Accepted: 10/21/2024] [Indexed: 01/07/2025] Open
Abstract
Purpose Current management for clinically localized prostate cancer in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) includes surgery, external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), and brachytherapy either alone or in combination, with plus or minus hormone therapy. The toxicity profiles and oncological outcomes of these treatment modalities vary. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the prevalence of treatment-related outcomes and toxicities for men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in LMICs. Methods and Materials The review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Cochrane Library, Embase, and Medline were searched for eligible articles. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager version 5.4.1 using a random effects model at a 95% confidence interval. Results A total of 2,820 patients were analyzed from 24 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Following 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), the most common clinician-reported toxicities were acute skin grade 1, acute genitourinary grade 1, acute gastrointestinal grade 1, and late gastrointestinal grade 1, with 46%, 29%, 24%, and 18%, respectively. Acute and late genitourinary grade 3 and gastrointestinal grade 3 toxicities were below 3% with no grade 4 toxicities reported after 3D-CRT. In the brachytherapy group, the prevalence of acute genitourinary grade 1 toxicity was 19%. Perioperative rectal injury was the least prevalent (2%) after retropubic radical prostatectomy. Following 3D-CRT, the 5-year overall survival rate was 87%, and for the combined brachytherapy and EBRT group, it increased to 96%. The prevalence of 5-year biochemical failure following EBRT and brachytherapy was 18% and 30%, respectively. The 4- and 3-year biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy and combined EBRT with brachytherapy were 22% and 2%, respectively. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that in LMICs, EBRT, brachytherapy, and radical prostatectomy, either alone or in combination has an excellent potential for localized prostate cancer control with low toxicities and good oncological outcomes. Results of treatment-related toxicities and outcomes can support policymakers, patients, and clinicians on informed decision-making to strengthen prostate cancer care in the region. However, efforts are required to improve early detection, treatment accessibility, regular post-treatment follow-up care, consistent quality assurance practices, and staff continues development to help minimize treatment toxicities and improve outcomes of localized prostate cancer in LMICs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Doris Kitson-Mills
- Department of Medical Imaging, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
| | - Andrew Donkor
- Department of Medical Imaging, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
- Improving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care through Clinical Research and Translation (IMPACCT), Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Yaw Ampem Amoako
- Department of Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
| | - Kofi Adesi Kyei
- Department of Radiography, School of Biomedical and Allied Health Sciences, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
| | | | - Verna Vanderpuye
- National Centre for Radiotherapy Oncology Nuclear Medicine, Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital, Accra, Ghana
| | - Yaw Amo Wiafe
- Department of Medical Imaging, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Raymond E, O'Callaghan ME, Campbell J, Vincent AD, Beckmann K, Roder D, Evans S, McNeil J, Millar J, Zalcberg J, Borg M, Moretti K. An appraisal of analytical tools used in predicting clinical outcomes following radiation therapy treatment of men with prostate cancer: a systematic review. Radiat Oncol 2017; 12:56. [PMID: 28327203 PMCID: PMC5359887 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-017-0786-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2016] [Accepted: 02/22/2017] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Prostate cancer can be treated with several different modalities, including radiation treatment. Various prognostic tools have been developed to aid decision making by providing estimates of the probability of different outcomes. Such tools have been demonstrated to have better prognostic accuracy than clinical judgment alone. Methods A systematic review was undertaken to identify papers relating to the prediction of clinical outcomes (biochemical failure, metastasis, survival) in patients with prostate cancer who received radiation treatment, with the particular aim of identifying whether published tools are adequately developed, validated, and provide accurate predictions. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from July 2007. Title and abstract screening, full text review, and critical appraisal were conducted by two reviewers. A review protocol was published in advance of commencing literature searches. Results The search strategy resulted in 165 potential articles, of which 72 were selected for full text review and 47 ultimately included. These papers described 66 models which were newly developed and 31 which were external validations of already published predictive tools. The included studies represented a total of 60,457 patients, recruited between 1984 and 2009. Sixty five percent of models were not externally validated, 57% did not report accuracy and 31% included variables which are not readily accessible in existing datasets. Most models (72, 74%) related to external beam radiation therapy with the remainder relating to brachytherapy (alone or in combination with external beam radiation therapy). Conclusions A large number of prognostic models (97) have been described in the recent literature, representing a rapid increase since previous reviews (17 papers, 1966–2007). Most models described were not validated and a third utilised variables which are not readily accessible in existing data collections. Where validation had occurred, it was often limited to data taken from single institutes in the US. While validated and accurate models are available to predict prostate cancer specific mortality following external beam radiation therapy, there is a scarcity of such tools relating to brachytherapy. This review provides an accessible catalogue of predictive tools for current use and which should be prioritised for future validation. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-017-0786-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elspeth Raymond
- South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative (SA-PCCOC), Adelaide, Australia
| | - Michael E O'Callaghan
- South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative (SA-PCCOC), Adelaide, Australia. .,Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. .,SA Health, Repatriation General Hospital, Urology Unit, Daws Road, Daw Park, 5041, SA, Australia. .,Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Bedford Park, Australia.
| | - Jared Campbell
- Joanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Andrew D Vincent
- South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative (SA-PCCOC), Adelaide, Australia.,Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Kerri Beckmann
- South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative (SA-PCCOC), Adelaide, Australia.,Centre for Population Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
| | - David Roder
- Centre for Population Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Sue Evans
- Epidemiology & Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
| | - John McNeil
- Epidemiology & Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
| | - Jeremy Millar
- Radiation Oncology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - John Zalcberg
- Epidemiology & Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.,School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
| | - Martin Borg
- Adelaide Radiotherapy Centre, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Kim Moretti
- South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative (SA-PCCOC), Adelaide, Australia.,Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.,Centre for Population Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.,Joanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.,Discipline of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| |
Collapse
|