Search

Abstract Background The burden of kidney, bladder, and prostate cancers has changed in recent decades. This study aims to investigate the global and regional burden of, and attributable risk factors for genitourinary cancers during the past 30 years. Methods We extracted data of kidney, bladder, and prostate cancers from the Global Burden of Disease 2019 database, including incidence, mortality, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and attributable risk factors from 1990 to 2019. Estimated annual percentage changes (EAPC) were calculated to assess the changes in age-standardized incidence rate, age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR), and age-standardized DALYs rate (ASDR). The associations between cancers burden and socio-demographic index (SDI) were also analyzed. Results Compared with 1990, the global incident cases in 2019 were higher by 154.78%, 123.34%, and 169.11% for kidney, bladder, and prostate cancers, respectively. During the 30-year study period, there was a downward trend in ASMR and ASDR for bladder cancer (EAPC = − 0.68 and − 0.83, respectively) and prostate cancer (EAPC = − 0.75 and − 0.71, respectively), but an upward trend for kidney cancer (EAPC = 0.35 and 0.12, respectively). Regions and countries with higher SDI had higher incidence, mortality, and DALYs for all three types of cancers. The burden of bladder and prostate cancers was mainly distributed among older men, whereas the burden of kidney cancer increased among middle-aged men. Smoking related mortality and DALYs decreased, but high body mass index (BMI) and high fasting plasma glucose (FPG) related mortality and DALYs increased among kidney, bladder, and prostate cancers during the study period. Conclusions Kidney, bladder, and prostate cancers remain major global public health challenges, but with distinct trend for different disease entity across different regions and socioeconomic status. More proactive intervention strategies, at both the administrative and academic levels, based on the dynamic changes, are needed.

Background: Although multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to investigate the efficiency and safety of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids in the treatment of acute renal colic, the therapeutic regimen of renal colic is still controversial. Therefore, the aim of this study was to derive a more concise comparison of the effectiveness and safety between NSAIDs and opioids in the treatment for patients with acute renal colic by a systematic review and meta-analysis.Design: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials for seeking eligible studies. The pooled mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the random effects model. The primary outcome was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Results: A total of 18 studies involving 3,121 participants were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. No significant difference between the NSAID and opioid groups was observed, with changes in the visual analog scale (VAS) at 0–30 min (MD = 0.79, 95% CI: −0.51, 2.10). NSAIDs in the form of intravenous administration (IV) had no better effect on the changes in the VAS at 0–30 min, when compared to opioids (MD = 1.25, 95% Cl: −4.81, 7.3). The NSAIDs group in the form of IV had no better outcome compared to the opioids group, as well as the VAS at 30 min (MD = −1.18, 95% Cl: −3.82, 1.45; MD = −2.3, 95% Cl: −5.02, 0.42, respectively). Moreover, similar results of this outcome were also seen with the VAS at 45 min (MD = −1.36, 95% Cl: −5.24, 2.52). Besides, there was a statistical difference in the incidence of later rescue (RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.89), drug-related adverse events (RR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.71), and vomiting (RR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.49, 0.96).Conclusion: There is no significant difference between the NSAIDs and opioids in the treatment of renal colic in many outcomes (e.g., the VAS over different periods using different injection methods at 30 and 60 min), which has been focused on in this study. However, the patients who were treated using NSAIDs by clinicians can benefit from fewer side effects.