Search

Background and objective: Visceral metastatic disease in prostate cancer patients conveys a poor prognosis. Using advanced imaging techniques, studies have demonstrated increasing detection rates of visceral metastasis. Visceral metastases are now seen in up to 30–60% of prostate cancer patients. Survival patterns of site-specific visceral metastasis are described poorly in the literature. Here, we sought to investigate survival patterns in prostate cancer patients according to their first detected site of visceral metastasis. Methods: Retrospectively, we identified 203 prostate cancer patients with visceral metastases from the Mayo Clinic Advanced Prostate Cancer Registry. Patients were divided into three groups according to the first site of visceral metastases detected: lung, brain, or liver. Visceral metastases were detected primarily on either metabolic imaging (C-11 choline) or prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography (CT) scan. Confirmation of visceral metastasis diagnosis was established with either biopsy when feasible or focused conventional imaging, including focused CT or magnetic resonance imaging. Overall survival and cancer-specific survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression model was conducted to assess different variables that affect overall and cancer-specific survival. Key findings and limitations: Over a median (interquartile range) follow-up duration of 16.2 (3.9–49.8) mo, the overall and cancer-specific survival of the entire cohort suggests better survival patterns in patients with first-site lung metastases than in patients with first-site brain or liver metastases (p

Objective To determine the harms of ezetimibe in people who need lipid-lowering treatment.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Randomised controlled trials and cohort studies.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies comparing ezetimibe with placebo, standard care, or other lipid-lowering agents in people who need lipid-lowering treatment with a follow-up duration of at least six months (or 24 weeks). The relative effects for potential harms of ezetimibe were pooled by use of random effect pairwise meta-analyses for randomised controlled trials and the evidence from observational studies was narratively summarised. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.Results 48 randomised controlled trials with 28 444 participants (median follow-up 34 weeks, range 24-312 weeks) and four observational studies with 1667 participants (median follow-up 282 weeks, range 72-400 weeks) were included. The meta-analyses of randomised trials showed moderate to high certainty that ezetimibe was not associated with cancer (relative risk 1.01; 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.11), fractures (0.90; 0.74 to 1.10), discontinuation due to any adverse event (0.87; 0.74 to 1.03), gastrointestinal adverse events leading to discontinuation (1.34; 0.58 to 3.08), myalgia or muscular pain leading to discontinuation (0.82; 0.51 to 1.33), neurocognitive events (1.48; 0.58 to 3.81), or new-onset diabetes (0.88; 0.61 to 1.28). The narrative analysis of observational studies provided consistent findings. No credible subgroup effects were identified for the harm outcomes, including shorter versus longer follow-up duration of trials.Conclusions Ezetimibe results in little to no difference in adverse events or other undesirable effects compared with placebo, usual care or other lipid-lowering agents.Review registration PROSPERO CRD42020187437.