Photodynamic therapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Clicks: 311
ID: 37742
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
311 views
40 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #1 of 2 articles by views in prostate international
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an emerging focal treatment modality for prostate cancer. However, the efficacy, safety, and functional outcomes of PDT are not clear. We performed a meta-analysis of available single-arm studies and control trials which used PDT for prostate cancer.We searched Pubmed, Embase, Ovid and the Cochrane library (until March,2018) for studies about PDT in patients with prostate cancer. The negative biopsy rate after PDT, PSA decreasing rate, pooled rate of functional outcome (IPSS or IIEF-5), and adverse events were analyzed.14 studies containing 654 patients were included. Nine of the 14 included studies had evaluated a negative biopsy rate after PDT. The pooled rate was 55.0% (95.0% CI: 0.44-0.66, I = 85.7%). Twelve of the 14 included studies which evaluated PSA decreasing rate with the pooled rate of 35.0% (95.0% CI: 0.24-0.47, I = 88.7%). Six of the included studies evaluated IPSS with decreasing rate of 29.1% (95.0 % CI: 2.7%-55.5%, I = 96.9%). Five of the included studies evaluated IIEF-5 with decreasing rate of 14.9% (95.0% CI: 6.8%-23.0%, I = 44.2%). The most common adverse events were haematuria (28.1%, 95.0% CI: 17.1%-39.2%, I = 79.8%), erectile dysfunction (23.1%, 95.0% CI: 9.7%-36.5%, I = 87.7%), and dysuria (18.6%, 95.0% CI: 12.1%-25.0 %, I = 53.4 %).The meta-analysis results shows that PDT for patients with prostate cancer can be considered as effective based on single-arm clinical trials. Meanwhile, this study reveals that there are not only low levels of side effect rates but also insignificant effect on both urinary and erectile function. However, more high-quality RCTs are needed to evaluate the comparative efficacy, safety, and functional outcomes of PDT for patients with prostate cancer.
| Reference Key |
wang2019photodynamicprostate
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Wang, Lang;Yang, Hanfeng;Li, Bing; |
| Journal | prostate international |
| Year | 2019 |
| DOI |
10.1016/j.prnil.2018.12.002
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.