A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effect of Proton Versus Photon in Prostatic Cancer Patients
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Prostate cancer (PC) is also a common urologic malignancy and an important contributor to cancer deaths amongst males. For PC treatment, radiation therapy (RT) is used frequently with the use of new technologies such as intensity-modulated RT, which helps to deliver radiation concentrated on the tumour avoiding damage of the healthy tissue. Photon therapy can be compared to a modern type of RT known as proton therapy (PT), that can also deliver anticancer radiation, but with less damage to healthy tissues. Nevertheless, the clinical utility of PT in PC remains questionable because the therapy is expensive and there are few comparative trials. The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to systematically assess the comparative efficacy and toxicity of proton compared with photon therapy in the treatment of localised PC. Methods: Specifically, the methods of these systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified according to the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. After developing the review protocol, it was published on PROSPERO. The trim-and-fill method was then applied to assess if any additional studies needed to be incorporated in an effort to balance potential source of bias that might have pulled the summary odds ratio towards either end of the distribution. These eight sample cohort studies were sourced from the initial PubMed, Web of Sciences as well as Scopus search under the keywords ‘Proton’, ‘Photon’, ‘Prostatic cancer’ and ‘Radiotherapy’. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Extraction of data was done by four authors, concerning the aspects of study design, patients’ characteristics and treatment results. Sensitivity analyses as well as other statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4 and OpenMetaAnalyst software. Results: The meta-analysis consisted of eight researches from different countries including the USA, Austria, Norway and Singapore, which compared proton with photon therapy in patients with PC. Compared with photon therapy, PT decreased radiation of the rectum and bladder by six standardised mean differences on average. The study concluded that proton therapy significantly reduces radiation dose to organs at risk, particularly the rectum and bladder, but no significant differences were observed for intraprostatic lesions or urethra. It was also observed that there were no different levels of tolerance to dose for intraprostatic lesions and the urethra when applying both forms of treatment. Subgroup analyses showed that removing some studies will reduce the heterogeneity and give consistent results. Conclusions: A case of PT seems to have benefits in the reduction of dosage amounts delivered to organs at risk such as the rectum and bladder in the treatment of PC patients. However, no enhancement in managing intraprostatic lesions and the urethra was reported as compared with photon therapy. More comparative studies on bigger patient series and those using a common treatment planning algorithm are still required to confirm our findings and investigate the general applicability of PT in PC.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».