Pelvic drain placement after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether the routine placement of a pelvic drain after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is a necessity. The aim of this study was to investigate this through a meta-analysis of RCTs and non-randomized studies. METHODS: A search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science, up to 9 March 2023, for clinical trials comparing no drain with pelvic drain placement for patients with prostate cancer after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Two researchers independently conducted literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. A random-effect model was assumed for all analyses. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs and, for non-randomized studies, the ROBINS-I tool was used (where ROBINS-I stands for Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions). This meta-analysis was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42023406429). RESULTS: A total of six studies with 1480 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Both the meta-analysis of RCTs and the meta-analysis of non-randomized studies showed that patients without drains had a similar estimated blood loss (mean difference 40.49 ml, 95% c.i. -59.75 to 140.74 ml, P = 0.430, and mean difference -14.20 ml, 95% c.i. -32.26 to 3.87 ml, P = 0.120 respectively), overall complication rate (OR 0.60, 95% c.i. 0.35 to 1.04, P = 0.070, and OR 0.90, 95% c.i. 0.59 to 1.39, P = 0.640 respectively), Clavien-Dindo grade I-II complication rate (OR 0.62, 95% c.i. 0.34 to 1.13, P = 0.120, and OR 0.83, 95% c.i. 0.28 to 2.51, P = 0.750 respectively), Clavien-Dindo grade III-V complication rate (OR 0.60, 95% c.i. 0.10 to 3.69, P = 0.590, and OR 0.92, 95% c.i. 0.25 to 3.39, P = 0.900 respectively), and duration of hospital stay (mean difference -0.08 days, 95% c.i. -0.45 to 0.29 days, P = 0.670, and mean difference -0.64 days, 95% c.i. -2.67 to 1.39 days, P = 0.540 respectively) compared with routinely drained patients. Meta-analysis of non-randomized studies revealed that the duration of operation for patients without drains was shorter than that for patients with drains (mean difference -34.88 min, 95% c.i. -43.58 to -26.18 min, P < 0.001), but the meta-analysis of RCTs indicated that there was no significant difference between the two groups (mean difference -7.64 min, 95% c.i. -15.61 to 0.32 min, P = 0.060). CONCLUSION: The intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of patients without drains were not inferior to those of patients with drains. In selected patients, pelvic drains can be omitted after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Head-to-head comparison of prostate-specific membrane antigen PET and multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of pretreatment patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in the diagnosis of pretreatment prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies published before June 22, 2022. We assessed risk of bias and applicability by using QUADAS-2 tool. Data synthesis was performed with Stata 17.0 software, using the "midas" and "meqrlogit" packages. RESULTS: We included 29 articles focusing on primary cancer detection, 18 articles about primary staging, and two articles containing them both. For PSMA PET versus mpMRI in primary PCa detection, sensitivities and specificities in the per-patient analysis were 0.90 and 0.84 (p<0.0001), and 0.66 and 0.60 (p <0.0001), and in the per-lesion analysis they were 0.79 and 0.78 (p <0.0001), and 0.84 and 0.82 (p <0.0001). For the per-patient analysis of PSMA PET versus mpMRI in primary staging, sensitivities and specificities in extracapsular extension detection were 0.59 and 0.66 (p =0.005), and 0.79 and 0.76 (p =0.0074), and in seminal vesicle infiltration (SVI) detection they were 0.51 and 0.60 (p =0.0008), and 0.93 and 0.96 (p =0.0092). For PSMA PET versus mpMRI in lymph node metastasis (LNM) detection, sensitivities and specificities in the per-patient analysis were 0.68 and 0.46 (p <0.0001), and 0.91 and 0.90 (p =0.81), and in the per-lesion analysis they were 0.67 and 0.36 (p <0.0001), and 0.99 and 0.99 (p =0.18). CONCLUSION: PSMA PET has higher diagnostic value than mpMRI in the detection of primary PCa. Regarding the primary staging, mpMRI has potential advantages in SVI detection, while PSMA PET has relative advantages in LNM detection. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The integration of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET into the diagnostic pathway may be helpful for improving the accuracy of prostate cancer detection. However, further studies are needed to address the cost implications and evaluate its utility in specific patient populations or clinical scenarios. Moreover, we recommend the combination of PSMA PET and mpMRI for cancer staging. KEY POINTS: • Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET has higher sensitivity and specificity for primary tumor detection in prostate cancer compared to multiparametric MRI. • Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET also has significantly better sensitivity and specificity for lymph node metastases of prostate cancer compared to multiparametric MRI. • Multiparametric MRI has better accuracy for extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle infiltration compared to ate-specific membrane antigen PET.