Searching the Resource Information Network

Our searching services are busy right now. Please try again later

  • Register
X
Forgot Password

If you have forgotten your password you can enter your email here and get a temporary password sent to your email.

X

Leaving Community

Are you sure you want to leave this community? Leaving the community will revoke any permissions you have been granted in this community.

No
Yes

Focal Neuroendocrine Differentiation of Conventional Prostate Adenocarcinoma as a Prognostic Factor after Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Mehdi Kardoust Parizi | Takehiro Iwata | Shoji Kimura | Florian Janisch | Mohammad Abufaraj | Pierre I Karakiewicz | Dmitry Enikeev | Leonid M Rapoport | Georg Hutterer | Shahrokh F Shariat
International journal of molecular sciences | 2019

The biologic and prognostic value of focal neuroendocrine differentiation (NED) in conventional prostate adenocarcinoma (PC) patients who undergo radical prostatectomy (RP) remains controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the association of focal NED in conventional PC with oncological outcomes after RP. A literature search using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was conducted on December 2018 to find relevant studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We used a fixed-effect model to analyze the impact of focal NED in RP specimen on progression-free survival defined by biochemical recurrence (BCR). A total of 16 studies with the outcomes of disease progression and survival were eligible. No patient in these studies received androgen deprivation therapy prior to RP. Eleven studies found no significant correlation between focal NED and outcomes of interest, while five studies reported a significant association of focal NED assessed by immunohistochemical chromogranin A or serotonin staining with BCR or survival. Focal NED was associated with higher BCR rates after RP with a pooled HR of 1.39 (95% CI 1.07‒1.81) in five studies. No heterogeneity was reported in this analysis (I² = 21.7%, p = 0.276). In conclusion, focal NED in conventional PC is associated with worse prognosis after RP. Its presence should be reported in pathologic reports and its true clinical impact should be assessed in well-designed prospective controlled studies.

Pubmed ID: 30893781

Research resources used in this publication

None found

Additional research tools detected in this publication

Antibodies used in this publication

None found

Associated grants

None

Publication data is provided by the National Library of Medicine ® and PubMed ®. Data is retrieved from PubMed ® on a weekly schedule. For terms and conditions see the National Library of Medicine Terms and Conditions.

This is a list of tools and resources that we have found mentioned in this publication.


PubMed (tool)

RRID:SCR_004846

Public bibliographic database that provides access to citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full-text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites. PubMed citations and abstracts include fields of biomedicine and health, covering portions of life sciences, behavioral sciences, chemical sciences, and bioengineering. Provides access to additional relevant web sites and links to other NCBI molecular biology resources. Publishers of journals can submit their citations to NCBI and then provide access to full-text of articles at journal web sites using LinkOut.

View all literature mentions

Cochrane Library (tool)

RRID:SCR_013000

Contains data to inform healthcare decision-making from Cochrane and other systematic reviews, clinical trials, and more. Cochrane reviews bring you the combined results of the worlds best medical research studies, and are recognized as the gold standard in evidence-based health care. Consists of a regularly updated collection of evidence-based medicine databases, including The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. This database includes systematic reviews of healthcare interventions that are produced and disseminated by The Cochrane Collaboration. It is published on a monthly basis and made available both on CD-ROM and the Internet. The review abstracts are available to browse and search free of charge on this website. The Cochrane Library Users'' Group (CLUG) provides a forum for discussion of usability, readability, searchability, and formatting issues related to the use of The Cochrane Library. The Cochrane Collaboration is an international not-for-profit and independent organization, dedicated to making up-to-date, accurate information about the effects of healthcare readily available worldwide. Funded by John Wiley and Sons Limited. The individual entities of The Cochrane Collaboration are funded by a large variety of governmental, institutional and private funding sources, and are bound by organisation-wide policy limiting uses of funds from corporate sponsors.

View all literature mentions