Conventional white light imaging-assisted transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) versus IMAGE1S-assisted TURBT in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients: trial protocol and 18 months results

PURPOSE

White light (WL) is the traditional imaging modality for transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT). IMAGE1S is a likely addition. We compare 18-mo recurrence rates following TURBT using IMAGE1S versus WL guidance.

METHODS

Twelve international centers conducted a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Patients with primary and recurrent non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) were randomly assigned 1:1 to TURBT guided by IMAGE1S or WL. Eighteen-month recurrence rates and subanalysis for primary/recurrent and risk groups were planned and compared by chi-square tests and survival analyses.

RESULTS

689 patients were randomized for WL-assisted (n = 354) or IMAGE1S-assisted (n = 335) TURBT. Of these, 64.7% had a primary tumor, 35.3% a recurrent tumor, and 4.8%, 69.2% and 26.0% a low-, intermediate-, and high-risk tumor, respectively. Overall, 60 and 65 patients, respectively, completed 18-mo follow-up, with recurrence rates of 31.0% and 25.4%, respectively (p = 0.199). In patients with primary, low-/intermediate-risk tumors, recurrence rates at 18-mo were significantly higher in the WL group compared with the IMAGE1S group (31.9% and 22.3%, respectively: p 0.035). Frequency and severity of adverse events were comparable in both treatment groups. Immediate and adjuvant intravesical instillation therapy did not differ between the groups. Potential limitations included lack of uniformity of surgical resection, central pathology review, and missing data.

CONCLUSION

There was not difference in the overall recurrence rates between IMAGE1S and WL assistance 18-mo after TURBT in patients with NMIBC. However, IMAGE1S-assisted TURBT considerably reduced the likelihood of disease recurrence in primary, low/intermediate risk patients.

REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02252549 (30-09-2014).

EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer-An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort†: Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees

BACKGROUND

Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.

DESIGN

A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference.

SETTING

Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.

PARTICIPANTS

The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.

CONCLUSIONS

These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.

EAU-ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer-an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees†

BACKGROUND

Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.

DESIGN

A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference.

SETTING

Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.

PARTICIPANTS

The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.

CONCLUSIONS

These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach.

Methodology of a systematic review

CONTEXT

The objective of evidence-based medicine is to employ the best scientific information available to apply to clinical practice. Understanding and interpreting the scientific evidence involves understanding the available levels of evidence, where systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials are at the top of the levels-of-evidence pyramid.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

The review process should be well developed and planned to reduce biases and eliminate irrelevant and low-quality studies. The steps for implementing a systematic review include (i) correctly formulating the clinical question to answer (PICO), (ii) developing a protocol (inclusion and exclusion criteria), (iii) performing a detailed and broad literature search and (iv) screening the abstracts of the studies identified in the search and subsequently of the selected complete texts (PRISMA).

SYNTHESIS OF THE EVIDENCE

Once the studies have been selected, we need to (v) extract the necessary data into a form designed in the protocol to summarise the included studies, (vi) assess the biases of each study, identifying the quality of the available evidence, and (vii) develop tables and text that synthesise the evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic review involves a critical and reproducible summary of the results of the available publications on a particular topic or clinical question. To improve scientific writing, the methodology is shown in a structured manner to implement a systematic review.

Latest Evidence on the Impact of Smoking, Sports, and Sexual Activity as Modifiable Lifestyle Risk Factors for Prostate Cancer Incidence, Recurrence, and Progression: A Systematic Review of the Literature by the European Association of Urology Section of Oncological Urology (ESOU)

CONTEXT

Smoking, sexual activity, and physical activity (PA) are discussed as modifiable lifestyle factors associated with prostate cancer (PCa) development and progression.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the available evidence concerning the association of smoking, sexual activity, and sports and exercise on PCa risk, treatment outcome, progression, and cancer-specific mortality.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of studies published between 2007 and 2017 using MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement criteria was conducted.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

While data concerning the impact of smoking on PCa development remain conflicting, there is robust evidence that smoking is associated with aggressive tumor features and worse cancer-related outcome, which seems to be maintained for 10 yr after smoking cessation. Less convincing and limited evidence exists for the association of sexual activity with PCa risk. The findings related to PA and PCa support the inference that exercise might be a useful factor in the prevention of PCa and tumor progression, while it is not finally proved under which specific conditions PA might be protective against disease development.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking is associated with aggressive tumor features and worse cancer-related prognosis; as this negative impact seems to be maintained for 10yr after smoking cessation, urologists should advise men to quit smoking latest at PCa diagnosis to improve their prognosis. As several studies indicate a positive impact of exercise on tumor development, progression, and treatment outcome, it is certainly reasonable to advocate an active lifestyle. Least convincing evidence is available for the interaction of sexual activity and PCa, and well-conducted and longitudinal studies are clearly necessary to evaluate whether the suggested associations between PCa risk and sexual behavior are real or spurious.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this systematic review, we looked at the impact of smoking, sexual activity, and sports and exercise on prostate cancer risk and outcome after treatment. While the evidence for sexual activity is not overall clear, we found that smoking might lead to more aggressive cancers and result in worse treatment outcome. Physical activity might prevent prostate cancer and improve cancer-related outcomes as well. Hence, it is certainly reasonable to advocate an active lifestyle and advise men to quit smoking.