ABSTRACT
Androgen deprivation therapy-based with or without first-generation anti-androgens, was the standard of care for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) for decades. However, the development of docetaxel chemotherapy and new androgen receptor-targeted agents, abiraterone acetate and prednisolone, apalutamide , enzalutamide and darolutamide (in combination with docetaxel chemotherapy) has proven that combination of treatments is more effective. Recently, intensification therapy, so-called "triplets", have emerged in the armamentarium of mHSPC treatment. Metastatic disease is a clinical state that remains poorly understood. The optimal diagnostic and management of patients with mHSPC are changing thanks to the development of new imaging techniques and therapies. The primary objective of this study is to develop and validate a predictive model for the occurrence of symptomatic progression, initiation of new treatments and death amongst patients with mHSPC treated with one of the approved treatment plans, on characteristics present at admission.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: As part of the PIONEER Consortium objectives, we have explored which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are available in relation to our previously defined clinician and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa). DESIGN: We performed a systematic review to identify validated and non-validated studies. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched on 21 January 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Only quantitative studies were included. Single studies with fewer than 50 participants, published before 2014 and looking at outcomes which are not prioritised in the PIONEER core outcome set were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: After initial screening, we extracted data following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of prognostic factor studies (CHARMS-PF) criteria and discussed the identified factors with a multidisciplinary expert group. The quality of the included papers was scored for applicability and risk of bias using validated tools such as PROBAST, Quality in Prognostic Studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. RESULTS: The search identified 6604 studies, from which 489 DPFs were included. Sixty-four of those were internally or externally validated. However, only three studies on diagnostic and seven studies on prognostic factors had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. CONCLUSION: Most of the DPFs identified require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before they can be recommended for use in clinical practice. The PIONEER online search tool for DPFs for PCa will enable researchers to understand the quality of the current research and help them design future studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no ethical implications.
Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms , Bias , Humans , Male , Mass Screening , Prognosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosisABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: As part of the PIONEER (Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Enhancement Through the Power of Big Data in Europe) Consortium, we will explore which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are currently being researched to previously defined clinical and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This research project will follow the following four steps: (1) a broad systematic literature review of DPFs for all stages of PCa, covering evidence from 2014 onwards; (2) discussion of systematic review findings by a multidisciplinary expert panel; (3) risk of bias assessment and applicability with Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool criteria, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool (QUIPS) and (4) additional quantitative assessments if required. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We aim to develop an online tool to present the DPFs identified in this research and make them available across all stakeholders. There are no ethical implications.
