Purpose: To systematically review studies focused on screening programs for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and provide an exhaustive overview on their clinical impact, potential benefits, and harms. Methods: A systematic review of the recent English-language literature was conducted according to the European Association of Urology guidelines and the PRISMA statement recommendations (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021283136) using the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Risk-of-bias assessment was performed according to the QUality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Results: Overall, nine studies and one clinical trials were included. Eight studies reported results from RCC screening programs involving a total of 159 136 patients and four studies reported screening cost-analysis. The prevalence of RCC ranged between 0.02 and 0.22% and it was associated with the socio-demographic characteristics of the subjects; selection of the target population decreased, overall, the screening cost per diagnosis. Conclusions: Despite an increasing interest in RCC screening programs from patients and clinicians there is a relative lack of studies reporting the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and the optimal modality for RCC screening. Targeting high-risk individuals and/or combining detection of RCC with other health checks represent pragmatic options to improve the cost-effectiveness and reduce the potential harms of RCC screening.

Diana P., Klatte T., Amparore D., Bertolo R., Carbonara U., Erdem S., et al. (2023). Screening programs for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review by the EAU young academic urologists renal cancer working group [10.1007/s00345-022-03993-6].

Screening programs for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review by the EAU young academic urologists renal cancer working group

Pavan N.;
2023-04-01

Abstract

Purpose: To systematically review studies focused on screening programs for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and provide an exhaustive overview on their clinical impact, potential benefits, and harms. Methods: A systematic review of the recent English-language literature was conducted according to the European Association of Urology guidelines and the PRISMA statement recommendations (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021283136) using the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Risk-of-bias assessment was performed according to the QUality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Results: Overall, nine studies and one clinical trials were included. Eight studies reported results from RCC screening programs involving a total of 159 136 patients and four studies reported screening cost-analysis. The prevalence of RCC ranged between 0.02 and 0.22% and it was associated with the socio-demographic characteristics of the subjects; selection of the target population decreased, overall, the screening cost per diagnosis. Conclusions: Despite an increasing interest in RCC screening programs from patients and clinicians there is a relative lack of studies reporting the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and the optimal modality for RCC screening. Targeting high-risk individuals and/or combining detection of RCC with other health checks represent pragmatic options to improve the cost-effectiveness and reduce the potential harms of RCC screening.
1-apr-2023
Diana P., Klatte T., Amparore D., Bertolo R., Carbonara U., Erdem S., et al. (2023). Screening programs for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review by the EAU young academic urologists renal cancer working group [10.1007/s00345-022-03993-6].
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
345_2022_Article_3993.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale
Dimensione 1.32 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.32 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10447/662439
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 17
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 11
social impact