No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Context: Bladder cancer (BC) is a significant health problem, and understanding the risk factors for this disease could improve prevention and early detection. Objective:To provide a systematic review and summary of novel developments in epidemiology and risk factors for BC. Evidence acquisition:A systematic review of original articles was performed by two pairs of reviewers (M.G.C., I.J., F.E., and K.P.) using PubMed/Medline in December 2017, updated in April 2018. To address our primary objective of reporting contemporary studies, we restricted our search to include studies from the last 5 yr. We subdivided our review according to specific risk factors (PICO [Population Intervention Comparator Outcome]). Evidence synthesis:Our search found 2191 articles, of which 279 full-text manuscripts were included. We separated our manuscripts by the specific risk factor they addressed (PICO). According to GLOBOCAN estimates, there were 430 000 new BC cases and 165 000 deaths worldwide in 2012. Tobacco smoking and occupational exposure to carcinogens remain the factors with the highest attributable risk. The literature was limited by heterogeneity of data. Conclusions:Evidence is emerging regarding gene-environment interactions, particularly for tobacco and occupational exposures. In some populations, incidence rates are declining, which may reflect a decrease in smoking.Standardisation of reporting may help improve epidemiologic evaluation of risk. Patient summary:Bladder cancer is common worldwide, and the main risk factors are tobacco smoking and exposure to certain chemicals in the working and general environments. There is ongoing research to identify and reduce risk factors, as well as to understand the impact of genetics on bladder cancer risk.

Context. In men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with curative intent, controversy exists regarding the impact of biochemical recurrence (BCR) on oncological patient outcomes. Objective. To perform a systematic review of the existing literature on BCR after treatment with curative intent for non-metastatic PCa. Objective 1 is to investigate whether oncological outcomes differ between patients with or without BCR. Objective 2 is to study which clinical factors and tumor features in patients with BCR have an independent prognostic impact on oncological outcomes. Evidence acquisition. Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. For objective 1, prospective and retrospective studies comparing survival outcomes of patients with or without BCR following radical prostatectomy (RP) or radical radiotherapy (RT) were included. For objective 2, all studies with at least 100 participants and reporting on prognostic features in patients with BCR were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed according to the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Both a narrative synthesis and meta-analysis were undertaken. Evidence synthesis. Overall, 77 studies were included for analysis, of which 14 studies addressed objective 1, recruiting 20406 patients. Objective 2 was addressed by 71 studies with 29057, 11301 and 4272 patients undergoing RP, RT or a mixed population (mix of patients undergoing RP or RT as primary treatment) respectively. There was low risk of bias for study participation, confounders and statistical analysis. For most studies, attrition bias, prognostic and outcome measurements were not clearly reported. BCR was associated with worse survival rates, mainly in patients with a short PSA Doubling Time (PSA-DT) and high final Gleason score after RP or a short Interval to Biochemical Failure (IBF) after RT and high biopsy Gleason score. Conclusion. BCR has an impact on survival, but this effect appears to be limited to a subgroup of patients with specific clinical risk factors. A short PSA-DT and high final Gleason score after RP and a short IBF after RT and high biopsy Gleason score are the main factors which have a negative impact on survival. Patient summary. This review looks at the risk of dying in men who have a rising PSA blood test after curative surgery or radiotherapy. For many men a rising PSA does not mean they are at a higher risk of dying from prostate cancer in the longer term. Men with a PSA that rises shortly after they were treated with radiotherapy or a rapidly rising PSA after surgery and a high tumor-grade for both treatment modalities are at the highest risk of dying.