ABSTRACT
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prostate cancer (PCa) represents a significant health burden globally, ranking as the most diagnosed cancer among men and a leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Conventional treatment methods such as radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy have significant side effects which often impact quality of life. As our understanding of the natural history and progression of PCa has evolved, so has the evolution of management options. RECENT FINDINGS: Active surveillance (AS) has become an increasingly favored approach to the management of very low, low, and properly selected favorable intermediate risk PCa. AS permits ongoing observation and postpones intervention until definitive treatment is required. There are, however, challenges with selecting patients for AS, which further emphasizes the need for more precise tools to better risk stratify patients and choose candidates more accurately. Tissue-based biomarkers, such as ProMark, Prolaris, GPS (formerly Oncotype DX), and Decipher, are valuable because they improve the accuracy of patient selection for AS and offer important information on the prognosis and severity of disease. By enabling patients to be categorized according to their risk profiles, these biomarkers help physicians and patients make better informed treatment choices and lower the possibility of overtreatment. Even with their potential, further standardization and validation of these biomarkers is required to guarantee their broad clinical utility. Active surveillance has emerged as a preferred strategy for managing low-risk prostate cancer, and tissue-based biomarkers play a crucial role in refining patient selection and risk stratification. Standardization and validation of these biomarkers are essential to ensure their widespread clinical use and optimize patient outcomes.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Lumbar spine fusion surgery is traditionally performed with rigid fixation. Because the rigidity is often supraphysiologic, semirigid rods were developed. To the best of our knowledge, a comprehensive evaluation of rod material type on surgical outcomes has yet to be conducted. METHODS: A systematic review based on PRISMA guidelines was conducted across 3 electronic databases. After examination for inclusion and exclusion criteria, data were extracted from the studies. RESULTS: Seventeen studies, including 1399 patients, were included in this review. The mean rigid rod fusion rate is 92.2% and 95.5% for semirigid rods (P = 0.129). The mean improvement in back pain was 60.6% in rigid rods and 71.6% in semirigid rods. The improvement in leg pain was 81.9% and 77.2%, respectively. There were no differences in visual analog scale back pain score (P = 0.098), visual analog scale leg pain score (P = 0.136), or in functional improvement between rigid and semirigid rods (P = 0.143). There was no difference (P = 0.209) in the reoperation rate between rigid rods (13.1%) and semirigid rods (6.5%). There was a comparable incidence of adjacent segment disease (3%), screw fracture (1.7%), and wound infection (1.9%) between rod material types. CONCLUSIONS: There is a moderate level of evidence supporting that surgical intervention results in high fusion rates regardless of rod material type. Surgical intervention improves back pain, leg pain, and function, with neither material type showing clear superiority. There are comparable rates of reoperation, development of adjacent segment disease, development of mechanical complications, and incidence of infection in both rigid and semirigid rods. Further studies regarding rod material type are warranted.
