1
|
Devlies W, de Jong JJ, Hofmann F, Bruins HM, Zuiverloon TCM, Smith EJ, Yuan Y, van Rhijn BWG, Mostafid H, Santesso N, Violette P, Omar MI. The Diagnostic Accuracy of Cystoscopy for Detecting Bladder Cancer in Adults Presenting with Haematuria: A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Guidelines Office. Eur Urol Focus 2024; 10:115-122. [PMID: 37633791 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.08.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2023] [Revised: 07/28/2023] [Accepted: 08/11/2023] [Indexed: 08/28/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT Haematuria can be macroscopic (visible haematuria [VH]) or microscopic (nonvisible haematuria [NVH]), and may be caused by a number of underlying aetiologies. Currently, in case of haematuria, cystoscopy is the standard diagnostic tool to screen the entire bladder for malignancy. OBJECTIVE The objective of this systematic review is to determine the diagnostic test accuracy of cystoscopy (compared with other tests, eg, computed tomography, urine biomarkers, and urine cytology) for detecting bladder cancer in adults. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) extension for diagnostic test accuracy studies' checklist. The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane CDSR databases (via Ovid) were searched up to July 13, 2022. The population comprises patients presenting with either VH or NVH, without previous urological cancers. Two reviewers independently screened all articles, searched reference lists of retrieved articles, and performed data extraction. The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Overall, nine studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Seven out of nine included trials covered the use of cystoscopy in comparison with radiological imaging. Overall, sensitivity of cystoscopy ranged from 87% to 100%, specificity from 64% to 100%, positive predictive value from 79% to 98%, and negative predictive values between 98% and 100%. Two trials compared enhanced or air cystoscopy versus conventional cystoscopy. Overall sensitivity of conventional white light cystoscopy ranged from 47% to 100% and specificity from 93.4% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS The true accuracy of cystoscopy for the detection of bladder cancer within the context of haematuria has not been studied extensively, resulting in inconsistent data regarding its performance for patients with haematuria. In comparison with imaging modalities, a few trials have prospectively assessed the diagnostic performance of cystoscopy, confirming very high accuracy for cystoscopy, exceeding the diagnostic value of any other imaging test. PATIENT SUMMARY Evidence of tests for detecting bladder cancer in adults presenting with haematuria (blood in urine) was reviewed. The most common test used was cystoscopy, which remains the current standard for diagnosing bladder cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wout Devlies
- Department of Urology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Joep J de Jong
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Harman Max Bruins
- Department of Urology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen/Heerlen, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Yuhong Yuan
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Bas W G van Rhijn
- Department of Surgical Oncology (Urology), Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | - Nancy Santesso
- Department of Health Research Methods Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Phil Violette
- Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Teoh JYC, D'Andrea D, Gallioli A, Yanagisawa T, MacLennan S, Nicoletti R, Fai NC, Maffei D, Hurle R, Lusuardi L, Malavaud B, Miki J, Kramer M, Mostafid H, Enikeev D, Babjuk M, Breda A, Shariat S, Gontero P, Herrmann T. En bloc resection of bladder tumour: the rebirth of past through reminiscence. World J Urol 2023; 41:2599-2606. [PMID: 37584691 PMCID: PMC10581917 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04547-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2023] [Accepted: 07/20/2023] [Indexed: 08/17/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To learn about the history and development of en bloc resection of bladder tumour (ERBT), and to discuss its future directions in managing bladder cancer. METHODS In this narrative review, we summarised the history and early development of ERBT, previous attempts in overcoming the tumour size limitation, consolidative effort in standardising the ERBT procedure, emerging evidence in ERBT, evolving concepts in treating large bladder tumours, and the future directions of ERBT. RESULTS Since the first report on ERBT in 1980, there has been tremendous advancement in terms of its technique, energy modalities and tumour retrieval methods. In 2020, the international consensus statement on ERBT has been developed and it serves as a standard reference for urologists to practise ERBT. Recently, high-quality evidence on ERBT has been emerging. Of note, the EB-StaR study showed that ERBT led to a reduction in 1-year recurrence rate from 38.1 to 28.5%. An individual patient data meta-analysis is currently underway, and it will be instrumental in defining the true value of ERBT in treating non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. For large bladder tumours, modified approaches of ERBT should be accepted, as the quality of resection is more important than a mere removal of tumour in one piece. The global ERBT registry has been launched to study the value of ERBT in a real-world setting. CONCLUSION ERBT is a promising surgical technique in treating bladder cancer and it has gained increasing interest globally. It is about time for us to embrace this technique in our clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh
- Department of Surgery, S.H. Ho Urology Centre, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
- Urothelial Cancer Working Group, European Association of Urology-Young Academic Urologists (EAU-YAU, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
| | - David D'Andrea
- Urothelial Cancer Working Group, European Association of Urology-Young Academic Urologists (EAU-YAU, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Andrea Gallioli
- Urothelial Cancer Working Group, European Association of Urology-Young Academic Urologists (EAU-YAU, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Takafumi Yanagisawa
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Rossella Nicoletti
- Department of Surgery, S.H. Ho Urology Centre, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
- Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Ng Chi Fai
- Department of Surgery, S.H. Ho Urology Centre, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Davide Maffei
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy
| | - Rodolfo Hurle
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Lukas Lusuardi
- Department of Urology and Andrology, Salzburg University Hospital, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020, Salzburg, Austria
| | - Bernard Malavaud
- Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse-Oncopôle, Toulouse, France
| | - Jun Miki
- Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Mario Kramer
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, The Stokes Centre for Urology, Royal Surrey Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | - Dmitry Enikeev
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
| | - Marek Babjuk
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Alberto Breda
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Shahrokh Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
- Department of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA
- Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan
| | - Paolo Gontero
- Department of Urology, Città Della Salute e Della Scienza, University of Torino School of Medicine, Turin, Italy
| | - Thomas Herrmann
- Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Frauenfeld, Frauenfeld, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Catto JW, Mandrik O, Quayle LA, Hussain SA, McGrath J, Cresswell J, Birtle AJ, Jones RJ, Mariappan P, Makaroff LE, Knight A, Mostafid H, Chilcott J, Sasieni P, Cumberbatch M. Diagnosis, treatment and survival from bladder, upper urinary tract, and urethral cancers: real-world findings from NHS England between 2013 and 2019. BJU Int 2023; 131:734-744. [PMID: 36680312 PMCID: PMC10952282 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15970] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We report NHS England data for patients with bladder cancer (BC), upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC: renal pelvic and ureteric), and urethral cancers from 2013 to 2019. MATERIALS AND METHODS Hospital episode statistics, waiting times, and cancer registrations were extracted from NHS Digital. RESULTS Registrations included 128 823 individuals with BC, 16 018 with UTUC, and 2533 with urethral cancer. In 2019, 150 816 persons were living with a diagnosis of BC, of whom 113 067 (75.0%) were men, 85 117 (56.5%) were aged >75 years, and 95 553 (91.7%) were Caucasian. Incidence rates were stable (32.7-34.3 for BC, 3.9-4.2 for UTUC and 0.6-0.7 for urethral cancer per 100 000 population). Most patients 52 097 (mean [range] 41.3% [40.7-42.0%]) were referred outside the 2-week-wait pathway and 15 340 (mean [range] 12.2% [11.7-12.6%]) presented as emergencies. Surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or multimodal treatment use varied with disease stage, patient factors and Cancer Alliance. Between 27% and 29% (n = 6616) of muscle-invasive BCs did not receive radical treatment. Survival rates reflected stage, grade, location, and tumour histology. Overall survival rates did not improve over time (relative change: 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.97-0.97) at 2 years in contrast to other cancers. CONCLUSION The diagnostic pathway for BC needs improvement. Increases in survival might be delivered through greater use of radical treatment. NHS Digital data offers a population-wide picture of this disease but does not allow individual outcomes to be matched with disease or patient features and key parameters can be missing or incomplete.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James W.F. Catto
- Department of Oncology and MetabolismUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
- Department of UrologySheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustSheffieldUK
| | - Olena Mandrik
- Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related ResearchUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
| | - Lewis A. Quayle
- Department of Oncology and MetabolismUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
| | - Syed A. Hussain
- Department of Oncology and MetabolismUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
- Department of Medical OncologySheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustSheffieldUK
| | - John McGrath
- Department of UrologyRoyal Devon University Hospitals Foundation Trust, University of ExeterExeterUK
| | | | - Alison J. Birtle
- Rosemere Cancer CentreLancashire Teaching HospitalsPrestonUK
- University of ManchesterManchesterUK
- University of Central LancashireLancasterUK
| | - Rob J. Jones
- School of Cancer Sciences, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer CentreUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK
| | | | - Lydia E. Makaroff
- Fight Bladder CancerOxfordshireUK
- World Bladder Cancer Patient CoalitionBrusselsBelgium
| | - Allen Knight
- Patient and TrusteeAction Bladder Cancer UKGuildfordUK
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of UrologyThe Royal Surrey County HospitalGuildfordUK
| | - Jim Chilcott
- Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related ResearchUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
| | - Peter Sasieni
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical SciencesKing's College LondonLondonUK
| | - Marcus Cumberbatch
- Department of Oncology and MetabolismUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
- Department of UrologySheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustSheffieldUK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Beijert I, Cheng L, Liedberg F, Plass K, Gontero P, Ribal M, Babjuk M, Black P, Kamat A, Algaba F, Berman D, Hartmann A, Masson-Lecomte A, Rouprêt M, Lopez-Beltran A, Shariat S, Mostafid H, Burger M, Palou J, Compérat E, Sylvester R, Van Rhijn B, Downes M. International opinions on grading of urothelial carcinoma: A survey among European Association of Urology and International Society of Urological Pathology members. Eur Urol 2023. [DOI: 10.1016/s0302-2838(23)01044-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/12/2023]
|
5
|
Gontero P, Soria F, Babjuk M, Burger M, Comperat E, Mostafid H, Palou Redorta J, Roupret M, Van Rhijn B, Zigeuner R, Shariat S, Cohen D, Masson-Lecomte A, Hernandez V, Xylinas E, Capoun O, Thalmann G, Pradere B, Linares E, Soukup V, Seisen T, Dominguez-Escrig J, Liedberg F, Sylvester R. Do current definitions of BCG failure/ BCG unresponsive NMIBCs correlate with disease progression? Results of an individual patient data validation international multi-center retrospective study. Eur Urol 2023. [DOI: 10.1016/s0302-2838(23)01043-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/12/2023]
|
6
|
Lobo N, Afferi L, Moschini M, Mostafid H, Porten S, Psutka SP, Gupta S, Smith AB, Williams SB, Lotan Y. Epidemiology, Screening, and Prevention of Bladder Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol 2022; 5:628-639. [PMID: 36333236 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.10.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 58] [Impact Index Per Article: 29.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2022] [Revised: 09/09/2022] [Accepted: 10/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT Bladder cancer (BC) represents a significant health problem due to the potential morbidity and mortality associated with disease burden, which has remained largely unaltered over time. OBJECTIVE To provide an expert collaborative review and describe the incidence, prevalence, and mortality of BC and to evaluate current evidence for BC screening and prevention. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Data on the estimated incidence and mortality of BC for 2020 in 185 countries were derived from the International Agency for Research on Cancer GLOBOCAN database. A review of English-language articles published over the past 5 yr was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE to identify risk factors in addition to contemporary evidence on BC screening and prevention. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS BC is the tenth most common cancer worldwide, with 573 278 cases in 2020. BC incidence is approximately fourfold higher in men than women. Tobacco smoking remains the principal risk factor, accounting for approximately 50% of cases. There is insufficient evidence to recommend routine BC screening. However, targeted screening of high-risk individuals (defined according to smoking history or occupational exposure) may reduce BC mortality and should be the focus of prospective randomized trials. In terms of disease prevention, smoking cessation represents the most important intervention, followed by a reduction in exposure to occupational and environmental carcinogens. CONCLUSIONS BC confers a significant disease burden. An understanding of BC epidemiology and risk factors provides an optimal foundation for disease prevention and the care of affected patients. PATIENT SUMMARY Bladder cancer is the tenth most common cancer worldwide and is approximately four times more common among men than among women. The main risk factors are tobacco smoking, followed by exposure to carcinogens in the workplace or the environment. Routine screening is not currently recommended, but may be beneficial in individuals at high risk, such as heavy smokers. Primary prevention is extremely important, and smoking cessation represents the most important action for reducing bladder cancer cases and deaths.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Niyati Lobo
- Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | | | - Marco Moschini
- Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Sima Porten
- University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Sarah P Psutka
- University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | - Angela B Smith
- University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | | | - Yair Lotan
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Centre, Dallas, TX, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Heer R, Lewis R, Duncan A, Penegar S, Vadiveloo T, Clark E, Yu G, Mariappan P, Cresswell J, McGrath J, N'Dow J, Nabi G, Mostafid H, Kelly J, Ramsay C, Lazarowicz H, Allan A, Breckons M, Campbell K, Campbell L, Feber A, McDonald A, Norrie J, Orozco-Leal G, Rice S, Tandogdu Z, Taylor E, Wilson L, Vale L, MacLennan G, Hall E. Photodynamic versus white-light-guided resection of first-diagnosis non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: PHOTO RCT. Health Technol Assess 2022; 26:1-144. [PMID: 36300825 PMCID: PMC9639219 DOI: 10.3310/plpu1526] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Around 7500 people are diagnosed with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the UK annually. Recurrence following transurethral resection of bladder tumour is common, and the intensive monitoring schedule required after initial treatment has associated costs for patients and the NHS. In photodynamic diagnosis, before transurethral resection of bladder tumour, a photosensitiser that is preferentially absorbed by tumour cells is instilled intravesically. Transurethral resection of bladder tumour is then conducted under blue light, causing the photosensitiser to fluoresce. Photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour offers better diagnostic accuracy than standard white-light-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour, potentially reducing the chance of subsequent recurrence. OBJECTIVE The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour. DESIGN This was a multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, parallel-group, non-masked, superiority randomised controlled trial. Allocation was by remote web-based service, using a 1 : 1 ratio and a minimisation algorithm balanced by centre and sex. SETTING The setting was 22 NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS Patients aged ≥ 16 years with a suspected first diagnosis of high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, no contraindications to photodynamic diagnosis and written informed consent were eligible. INTERVENTIONS Photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour and standard white-light cystoscopy transurethral resection of bladder tumour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary clinical outcome measure was the time to recurrence from the date of randomisation to the date of pathologically proven first recurrence (or intercurrent bladder cancer death). The primary health economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 3 years. RESULTS We enrolled 538 participants from 22 UK hospitals between 11 November 2014 and 6 February 2018. Of these, 269 were allocated to photodynamic diagnosis and 269 were allocated to white light. A total of 112 participants were excluded from the analysis because of ineligibility (n = 5), lack of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer diagnosis following transurethral resection of bladder tumour (n = 89) or early cystectomy (n = 18). In total, 209 photodynamic diagnosis and 217 white-light participants were included in the clinical end-point analysis population. All randomised participants were included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Over a median follow-up period of 21 months for the photodynamic diagnosis group and 22 months for the white-light group, there were 86 recurrences (3-year recurrence-free survival rate 57.8%, 95% confidence interval 50.7% to 64.2%) in the photodynamic diagnosis group and 84 recurrences (3-year recurrence-free survival rate 61.6%, 95% confidence interval 54.7% to 67.8%) in the white-light group (hazard ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.28; p = 0.70). Adverse event frequency was low and similar in both groups [12 (5.7%) in the photodynamic diagnosis group vs. 12 (5.5%) in the white-light group]. At 3 years, the total cost was £12,881 for photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour and £12,005 for white light. There was no evidence of differences in the use of health services or total cost at 3 years. At 3 years, the quality-adjusted life-years gain was 2.094 in the photodynamic diagnosis transurethral resection of bladder tumour group and 2.087 in the white light group. The probability that photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour was cost-effective was never > 30% over the range of society's cost-effectiveness thresholds. LIMITATIONS Fewer patients than anticipated were correctly diagnosed with intermediate- to high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer before transurethral resection of bladder tumour and the ratio of intermediate- to high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer was higher than expected, reducing the number of observed recurrences and the statistical power. CONCLUSIONS Photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour did not reduce recurrences, nor was it likely to be cost-effective compared with white light at 3 years. Photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour is not supported in the management of primary intermediate- to high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. FUTURE WORK Further work should include the modelling of appropriate surveillance schedules and exploring predictive and prognostic biomarkers. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered as ISRCTN84013636. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rakesh Heer
- Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Rebecca Lewis
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Anne Duncan
- Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Steven Penegar
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Thenmalar Vadiveloo
- Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Emma Clark
- Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Ge Yu
- Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | | | - Joanne Cresswell
- Department of Urology, South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - John McGrath
- Department of Urology, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital NHS Trust, Exeter, UK
| | - James N'Dow
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Ghulam Nabi
- School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - John Kelly
- University College London Cancer Institute, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Craig Ramsay
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Henry Lazarowicz
- Department of Urology, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Angela Allan
- Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Matthew Breckons
- Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Karen Campbell
- Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Louise Campbell
- Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Andy Feber
- University College London Cancer Institute, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Alison McDonald
- Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - John Norrie
- Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Giovany Orozco-Leal
- Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Stephen Rice
- Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Zafer Tandogdu
- University College London Cancer Institute, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Laura Wilson
- Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Luke Vale
- Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Graeme MacLennan
- Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Emma Hall
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Heer R, Lewis R, Vadiveloo T, Yu G, Mariappan P, Cresswell J, McGrath J, Nabi G, Mostafid H, Lazarowicz H, Kelly J, Duncan A, Penegar S, Breckons M, Wilson L, Clark E, Feber A, Orozco-Leal G, Tandogdu Z, Taylor E, N'Dow J, Norrie J, Ramsay C, Rice S, Vale L, MacLennan G, Hall E. A Randomized Trial of PHOTOdynamic Surgery in Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. NEJM Evid 2022; 1:EVIDoa2200092. [PMID: 38319866 DOI: 10.1056/evidoa2200092] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2024]
Abstract
PDD or WL Resection of Tumors in NMIBCIn this open-label trial, patients with intermediate- or high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer at diagnosis were randomly assigned to photodynamic diagnosis or white light-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumor. Three-year recurrence-free rates were 57.8% and 61.6% in the PDD and WL groups, respectively, with no difference in quality-adjusted life years between the treatment groups at 3 years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rakesh Heer
- Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | | | - Thenmalar Vadiveloo
- Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | - Ge Yu
- Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Paramananthan Mariappan
- Edinburgh Bladder Cancer Surgery, Department of Urology, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh
| | | | - John McGrath
- Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital NHS Trust, Exeter, United Kingdom
| | - Ghulam Nabi
- University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Basingstoke and North Hampshire NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, United Kingdom
| | - Henry Lazarowicz
- Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom
| | - John Kelly
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London
| | - Anne Duncan
- Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | | | - Matt Breckons
- Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Laura Wilson
- Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Emma Clark
- Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Andy Feber
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London
| | | | - Zafer Tandogdu
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London
| | | | - James N'Dow
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | - John Norrie
- Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Edinburgh University, Edinburgh
| | - Craig Ramsay
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | - Stephen Rice
- Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Luke Vale
- Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Graeme MacLennan
- Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | - Emma Hall
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Tan WS, Prendergast A, Ackerman C, Yogeswaran Y, Cresswell J, Mariappan P, Phull J, Hunter-Campbell P, Lazarowicz H, Mishra V, Rane A, Davies M, Warburton H, Cooke P, Mostafid H, Wilby D, Mills R, Issa R, Kelly JD. Adjuvant Intravesical Chemohyperthermia Versus Passive Chemotherapy in Patients with Intermediate-risk Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer (HIVEC-II): A Phase 2, Open-label, Randomised Controlled Trial. Eur Urol 2022; 83:497-504. [PMID: 35999119 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.08.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2022] [Revised: 07/25/2022] [Accepted: 08/03/2022] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Adjuvant intravesical chemotherapy following tumour resection is recommended for intermediate-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy and safety of adjuvant intravesical chemohyperthermia (CHT) for intermediate-risk NMIBC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS HIVEC-II is an open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial of CHT versus chemotherapy alone in patients with intermediate-risk NMIBC recruited at 15 centres between May 2014 and December 2017 (ISRCTN 23639415). Randomisation was stratified by treating hospital. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to adjuvant CHT with mitomycin C at 43°C or to room-temperature mitomycin C (control). Both treatment arms received six weekly instillations of 40 mg of mitomycin C lasting for 60 min. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The primary endpoint was 24-mo disease-free survival as determined via cystoscopy and urinary cytology. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS A total of 259 patients (131 CHT vs 128 control) were randomised. At 24 mo, 42 patients (32%) in the CHT group and 49 (38%) in the control group had experienced recurrence. Disease-free survival at 24 mo was 61% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51-69%) in the CHT arm and 60% (95% CI 50-68%) in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% CI 0.62-1.37; log-rank p = 0.8). Progression-free survival was higher in the control arm (HR 3.44, 95% CI 1.09-10.82; log-rank p = 0.02) on intention-to-treat analysis but was not significantly higher on per-protocol analysis (HR 2.87, 95% CI 0.83-9.98; log-rank p = 0.06). Overall survival was similar (HR 2.55, 95% CI 0.77-8.40; log-rank p = 0.09). Patients undergoing CHT were less likely to complete their treatment (n =75, 59% vs n = 111, 89%). Adverse events were reported by 164 patients (87 CHT vs 77 control). Major (grade III) adverse events were rare (13 CHT vs 7 control). CONCLUSIONS CHT cannot be recommended over chemotherapy alone for intermediate-risk NMIBC. Adverse events following CHT were of low grade and short-lived, although patients were less likely to complete their treatment. PATIENT SUMMARY The HIVEC-II trial investigated the role of heated chemotherapy instillations in the bladder for treatment of intermediate-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. We found no cancer control benefit from heated chemotherapy instillations over room-temperature chemotherapy. Adverse events following heated chemotherapy were low grade and short-lived, although these patients were less likely to complete their treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wei Shen Tan
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
| | - Aaron Prendergast
- Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Charlotte Ackerman
- Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Yathushan Yogeswaran
- Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Joanne Cresswell
- Department of Urology, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - Paramananthan Mariappan
- Department of Urology, Edinburgh Bladder Cancer Surgery, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Jaspal Phull
- Department of Urology, Royal United Hospital, Bath, UK
| | | | - Henry Lazarowicz
- Department of Urology, The Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Abhay Rane
- Department of Urology, East Surry Hospital, Redhill, UK
| | - Melissa Davies
- Department of Urology, Salisbury District Hospital, Salisbury, UK
| | - Hazel Warburton
- Department of Urology, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Peter Cooke
- Department of Urology, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, UK
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, The Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | - Daniel Wilby
- Department of Urology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK
| | - Robert Mills
- Department of Urology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK
| | - Rami Issa
- Department of Urology, St George's Hospital, London, UK
| | - John D Kelly
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Lotan Y, Gakis G, Manfredi M, Morote J, Mostafid H, Porpiglia F, Poyet C, Roupret M, Schulman C, Shariat SF, Witjes JA. Alternating Cystoscopy with Bladder EpiCheck® in the Surveillance of Low-Grade Intermediate-Risk NMIBC: A Cost Comparison Model. Bladder Cancer 2021. [DOI: 10.3233/blc-211528] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer surveillance is invasive, intensive and costly. Patients with low grade intermediate risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) are at high risk of recurrence. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this model is to compare the cost of a strategy to alternate surveillance with cystoscopy and a urine marker, Bladder EpiCheck, to standard surveillance. METHODS: A decision tree model was built using TreeAge Pro Healthcare to compare standard surveillance (Standard) with a modified surveillance incorporating Bladder EpiCheck. The model was based on 2 years of surveillance. Outcomes were obtained from literature. Costs were obtained from US and 9 European countries. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The efficacy of the model was equivalent in terms of recurrence for each arm with median recurrence rate of 22%. When setting marker price at 200 local currency, the marker arm was less expensive in the USA, Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Italy, Austria and UK by 154€ to 329£ per patient, for a 2-year period. Cost was higher in France, Spain, and Germany by 33–103€. Cost parity was achieved with marker price between 148€ and $421. Marker cost and specificity have the greatest impact on the overall model cost. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy alternating the urine marker Bladder EpiCheck with cystoscopy in the surveillance of patients with low grade intermediate risk bladder cancer is cost equivalent in the US and European countries when the marker is priced 148€ –$421, as a result of the marker’s high specificity (86%). Prospective studies will be necessary to validate these findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yair Lotan
- Department of Urology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Georgios Gakis
- Department of Urology and Paediatric Urology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Matteo Manfredi
- Department of Urology - University of Turin, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Orbassano (TO), Italy
| | - Juan Morote
- Department of Urology, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Egerton Road, Guildford, Surrey, UK
| | - Francesco Porpiglia
- Department of Urology - University of Turin, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Orbassano (TO), Italy
| | - Cedric Poyet
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Morgan Roupret
- Sorbonne University, GRC n°5, PREDICTIVE ONCO-URO, AP-HP, Urology, Pitié-Salpetriere Hospital, Paris, France
| | - Claude Schulman
- Clinic E. Cavell and University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Shahrokh F. Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
- European Association of Urology Research Foundation, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Pijpers OM, Hendricksen K, Mostafid H, de Jong FC, Rosier M, Mayor N, de Jong JJ, Boormans JL. Long-term efficacy of hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy for BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Urol Oncol 2021; 40:62.e13-62.e20. [PMID: 34470725 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.07.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2021] [Revised: 07/05/2021] [Accepted: 07/14/2021] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The recommended treatment for patients with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is radical cystectomy (RC). However, many patients refuse, or are unfit for RC. Therefore, alternative bladder-sparing treatment modalities are needed for BCG-unresponsive NMIBC. In this study we sought to assess the long-term efficacy of hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy (HIVEC) as alternative to radical cystectomy in BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS Retrospectively collected data from 56 patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC who received ≥5 HIVEC instillations between October 2014 and March 2020 was analyzed. All patients met the BCG-unresponsive criteria according to the current EAU guideline on NMIBC 2020. Patients were followed-up with cystoscopy and/or bladder biopsies, urine cytology and annually CT-urography. The Primary outcome was the high grade (HG) recurrence-free survival (RFS), defined as the time from the first HIVEC instillation until histologically confirmed intravesical recurrence or last follow-up. The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate survival outcomes. Secondary outcomes were: complete response rate (CR), adverse events (AE), assessed by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0 (CTCAE) and tumor progression to muscle invasive disease or distant metastases. RESULTS The median follow-up was 32.2 months (IQR 13.7-44.8). The 1- and 2-year HG-RFS was 53% (SE:6.8) and 35% (SE:6.9), respectively. The CR for patients with CIS was 70% (21/30) at 6 months. Overall, 80% of the population developed an AE, only 1 was classified as CTCAE ≥3. Limitation of this study was the small sample size. CONCLUSION HIVEC resulted in a 2-year HG-RFS of 35% for BCG-unresponsive NMIBC patients without severe side-effects and therefore HIVEC seems to be an alternative treatment option for patients who refuse or are unfit for RC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olga M Pijpers
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Kees Hendricksen
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Division of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrrey County Hospital, Guildford, United Kingdom
| | - Florus C de Jong
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marloes Rosier
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nikhil Mayor
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrrey County Hospital, Guildford, United Kingdom
| | - Joep J de Jong
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joost L Boormans
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Minvielle-Moncla T, Emmanuel P, Pericart S, Babjuk M, Black P, Brisuda A, Burger M, Colombel M, Dominguez Escrig J, Eenikev D, Ilaria L, Jensen J, Liatsikos E, Lusuardi L, Mostafid H, Mottet N, Rassler J, Ouzaid I, Teoh J, Ukimura U, Xylinas E, Roumiguie M, Malavaud B. Youtube clips to select low-grade low-stage recurrent Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancers (NMIBC) for office fulguration, a multinational multi institutional study. Eur Urol 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/s0302-2838(21)01120-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
13
|
Fankhauser CD, Wettstein MS, Afferi L, Grossmann NC, Mostafid H. En Bloc Resection of Bladder Tumor-Is It the Way Forward? Front Surg 2021; 8:685506. [PMID: 34136530 PMCID: PMC8200555 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.685506] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2021] [Accepted: 04/30/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Transurethral resection of bladder tumors (TURBT) represents the cornerstone in diagnosis and treatment of bladder cancer but recurrence is observed in up to 80% and over- or understaging with TURBT is common. A more recent development to overcome these limitations represents en-bloc resection of bladder tumors (ERBT) which offers several advantages over TURBT. In this report, we briefly review studies assessing outcomes of bladder cancer patients undergoing ERBT. Most randomized and non-randomized trial demonstrate improvement in clinical outcomes for ERBT over TURBT, however more pathological and translational studies are warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Luca Afferi
- Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland
| | | | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Dunsmore J, Duncan E, Mariappan P, de Bruin M, MacLennan S, Dimitropoulos K, Kasivisvanathan V, Mostafid H, Briganti A, N'Dow J, MacLennan S. What influences adherence to guidance for postoperative instillation of intravesical chemotherapy to patients with bladder cancer? BJU Int 2021; 128:225-235. [PMID: 33450116 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15336] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To understand the barriers and facilitators to single instillation of intravesical chemotherapy (SI-IVC) use after resection of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) in Scotland and England using a behavioural theory-informed approach. SUBJECTS AND METHODS In a cross-sectional descriptive study of practices at seven hospitals, we investigated care pathways, policies, and interviewed 30 urology staff responsible for SI-IVC. We used the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to organise our investigation and conducted deductive thematic analyses, while inductively coding emergent beliefs. RESULTS Barriers to SI-IVC were present at different organisational levels and professional roles. In four hospitals, there was a policy to not instil SI-IVC in theatre. Six hospitals' staff reported delays in mitomycin C (MMC) ordering and/or local storage. Lack of training, skills and perceived workload affected motivation. Facilitators included access to modern instilling devices (four hospitals) and incorporating reminders in operation proforma (four hospitals). Performance targets (with audit and feedback) within a national governance framework were present in Scotland but not England. Differences in coordinated leadership, sharing best practices, and disliking being perceived as underperforming, were evident in Scotland. CONCLUSIONS High-certainty evidence shows that SI-IVC, such as MMC, after NMIBC resection reduces recurrences. This evidence underpins international guidance. The number of eligible patients receiving SI-IVC is variable indicating suboptimal practice. Improving SI-IVC adherence requires modifications to theatre instilling policies, delivery and storage of MMC, staff training, and documentation. Centralising care, with bladder cancer expert leadership and best practices sharing with performance targets, likely led to improvements in Scotland. National quality improvement, incorporating audit and feedback, with additional implementation strategies targeted to professional role could improve adherence and patient outcomes elsewhere. This process should be controlled to clarify implementation intervention effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Eilidh Duncan
- Health Services Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Paramananthan Mariappan
- Department of Urology, Edinburgh Bladder Cancer Surgery, Western General Hospital, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Marijn de Bruin
- IQ Healthcare, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.,Aberdeen Health Psychology Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Sara MacLennan
- Academic Urology Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, UK
| | - Konstantinos Dimitropoulos
- Academic Urology Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, UK.,Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK
| | | | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey, UK
| | - Alberto Briganti
- IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.,European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, Arnhem, the Netherlands
| | - James N'Dow
- Academic Urology Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, UK.,Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK.,European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, Arnhem, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Teoh JYC, Mayor N, Li KM, Lo KL, Ng CF, Mostafid H. En-bloc resection of bladder tumour as primary treatment for patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: routine implementation in a multi-centre setting. World J Urol 2021; 39:3353-3358. [PMID: 33774705 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03675-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2020] [Accepted: 03/16/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the technical success rate and 30-day complications of en-bloc resection of bladder tumour (ERBT) upon routine implementation regardless of tumour size. METHODS This is a prospective, multi-centre, study on routine implementation of ERBT for patients with bladder tumours requiring transurethral surgery. Surgeons were allowed to cross over to conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) when necessary. We performed an analysis for patients who had ERBT/TURBT as the definitive treatment. Study outcomes included the technical success rate of ERBT and 30-day complication rate. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate for predictors of a successful ERBT and factors associated with 30-day complications. RESULTS A total of 135 patients were included in this study. The majority of the patients (80.0%) had bladder tumours of ≤ 3 cm. ERBT was successful in 99 patients, resulting in an overall technical success rate of 73.3%. When stratified according to tumour size, the technical success rates of ERBT were 94.3%, 82.2%, 75%, 84.3% and 29.6% for bladder tumour sizes of < 1 cm, 1.01-2 cm, 2.01-3 cm, ≤ 3 cm and > 3 cm respectively. Upon multivariate analysis, tumour size was the only significant factor predicting the success of ERBT (OR 0.920, 95% CI 0.882-0.960, p < 0.001). Moreover, ERBT was not a significant factor associated with 30-day complications. CONCLUSION EBRT achieved a good technical success rate for the majority of patients with bladder tumours ≤ 3 cm. Regardless of tumour size, EBRT-first approach was safe to implement into routine clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh
- Department of Surgery, S.H. Ho Urology Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
| | - Nikhil Mayor
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey, UK
| | - Kai-Man Li
- Department of Surgery, North District Hospital, Hong Kong, China
| | - Ka-Lun Lo
- Department of Surgery, North District Hospital, Hong Kong, China
| | - Chi-Fai Ng
- Department of Surgery, S.H. Ho Urology Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Mostafid H. No 'one size fits all' approach in the management of high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Scand J Urol 2021; 55:53. [PMID: 33427558 DOI: 10.1080/21681805.2020.1866661] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
|
17
|
Mariappan P, Bunce C, Cresswell J, Shamsuddin A, Crundwell M, Donat R, Hurle RA, Zachou A, Stewart S, Hartley LJ, Mostafid H. Early recurrence and the need for re-resection following Photodynamic diagnosis–assisted Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumours: Multi-centre real-world experience of the UK PDD Users Group. Journal of Clinical Urology 2021. [DOI: 10.1177/2051415819890464] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the association between Photodynamic Diagnosis (PDD) with hexaminolevulinate (HAL) and the rate of complete resection and disease persistence at first follow-up cystoscopy for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) in UK real-world practice. Methods: Audit data were pooled from six UK centres where HAL PDD was used in patients with a new NMIBC diagnosis undergoing transurethral resection of bladder tumours (TURBT) since 2008. Patients received adjunctive intra-vesical therapy and surveillance in line with European and UK guidelines, including early re-resection in high-grade NMIBC. Results: PDD-assisted TURBT was done in 837 patients with new NMIBC. The detrusor muscle was present in 69.4% of cases. At early re-TURBT in 207 high-risk patients, 13.0% had residual disease. Multifocal disease was the most significant factor in increasing the rate of residual disease (odds ratio excluding cases of CIS=4.1; 95% confidence interval 1.5–11.3). The recurrence rate at first follow-up cystoscopy (RRFFC) was 10.6% (8.9% in patients with complete initial TURBT). In the historical cohort undergoing good-quality white-light TURBT, RRFFC was 31%; 40.5% of high-risk patients had residual disease at early re-TURBT. Conclusion: HAL PDD may increase the rates of complete resection, reducing the risk of early recurrence and the need for routine re-resection in high-grade NMIBC. Level of evidence: 2b.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Colin Bunce
- Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
| | | | | | | | - Roland Donat
- Edinburgh Urological Cancer Group, Western General Hospital, University of Edinburgh, UK
| | | | | | - Sarah Stewart
- Edinburgh Urological Cancer Group, Western General Hospital, University of Edinburgh, UK
| | - Louise J Hartley
- Edinburgh Urological Cancer Group, Western General Hospital, University of Edinburgh, UK
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke (currently at Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford), UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Abstract
Shortages of Bacille Calmette‐Guérin (BCG) have implications for the management of patients with non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancers. Further complications come as a result of COVID‐19 for which BCG also shows some promising prospects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nikhil Mayor
- Stokes Centre for Urology, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford
| | | | - Vijay Sangar
- Department of Urology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Stokes Centre for Urology, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Hafeez S, Webster A, Hansen VN, McNair HA, Warren-Oseni K, Patel E, Choudhury A, Creswell J, Foroudi F, Henry A, Kron T, McLaren DB, Mitra AV, Mostafid H, Saunders D, Miles E, Griffin C, Lewis R, Hall E, Huddart R. Protocol for tumour-focused dose-escalated adaptive radiotherapy for the radical treatment of bladder cancer in a multicentre phase II randomised controlled trial (RAIDER): radiotherapy planning and delivery guidance. BMJ Open 2020; 10:e041005. [PMID: 33384390 PMCID: PMC7780718 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2020] [Revised: 11/03/2020] [Accepted: 11/12/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Daily radiotherapy delivered with radiosensitisation offers patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) comparable outcomes to cystectomy with functional organ preservation. Most recurrences following radiotherapy occur within the bladder. Increasing the delivered radiotherapy dose to the tumour may further improve local control. Developments in image-guided radiotherapy have allowed bladder tumour-focused 'plan of the day' radiotherapy delivery. We aim to test within a randomised multicentre phase II trial whether this technique will enable dose escalation with acceptable rates of toxicity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS Patients with T2-T4aN0M0 unifocal MIBC will be randomised (1:1:2) between standard/control whole bladder single plan radiotherapy, standard dose adaptive tumour-focused radiotherapy or dose-escalated adaptive tumour-focused radiotherapy (DART). Adaptive tumour-focused radiotherapy will use a library of three plans (small, medium and large) for treatment. A cone beam CT taken prior to each treatment will be used to visualise the anatomy and inform selection of the most appropriate plan for treatment.Two radiotherapy fractionation schedules (32f and 20f) are permitted. A minimum of 120 participants will be randomised in each fractionation cohort (to ensure 57 evaluable DART patients per cohort).A comprehensive radiotherapy quality assurance programme including pretrial and on-trial components is instituted to ensure standardisation of radiotherapy planning and delivery.The trial has a two-stage non-comparative design. The primary end point of stage I is the proportion of patients meeting predefined normal tissue constraints in the DART group. The primary end point of stage II is late Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or worse toxicity aiming to exclude a rate of >20% (80% power and 5% alpha, one sided) in each DART fractionation cohort. Secondary end points include locoregional MIBC control, progression-free survival overall survival and patient-reported outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This clinical trial is approved by the London-Surrey Borders Research Ethics Committee (15/LO/0539). The results when available will be disseminated via peer-reviewed scientific journals, conference presentations and submission to regulatory authorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT02447549; Pre-results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shaista Hafeez
- Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
- Radiotherapy Department, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Amanda Webster
- National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group (RTTQA), Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK
| | - Vibeke N Hansen
- Laboratory of Radiation Physics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - Helen A McNair
- Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
- Radiotherapy Department, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Karole Warren-Oseni
- Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Emma Patel
- National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group (RTTQA), Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK
| | - Ananya Choudhury
- Division of Cancer Studies, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Joanne Creswell
- Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - Farshad Foroudi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
| | - Ann Henry
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Tomas Kron
- Department of Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Duncan B McLaren
- Edinburgh Cancer Centre, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Anita V Mitra
- Cancer Services, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- The Stokes Centre for Urology, Royal Surrey Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey, UK
| | - Daniel Saunders
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Elizabeth Miles
- National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group (RTTQA), Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK
| | - Clare Griffin
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Rebecca Lewis
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Emma Hall
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Robert Huddart
- Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
- Radiotherapy Department, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Teoh JYC, Huang J, Ko WYK, Lok V, Choi P, Ng CF, Sengupta S, Mostafid H, Kamat AM, Black PC, Shariat S, Babjuk M, Wong MCS. Global Trends of Bladder Cancer Incidence and Mortality, and Their Associations with Tobacco Use and Gross Domestic Product Per Capita. Eur Urol 2020; 78:893-906. [DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2020] [Accepted: 09/03/2020] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
|
21
|
Mayor N, Coppola ASJ, Knights H, Nazar T, Hunter H, Mostafid H. Localised amyloidosis of the bladder: A rare mimic of urinary tract malignancy (case report and literature review). Int J Surg Case Rep 2020; 77:708-710. [PMID: 33395880 PMCID: PMC7718310 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2020.11.105] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2020] [Revised: 11/17/2020] [Accepted: 11/17/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Localised amyloidosis of the urinary tract is rare but invariably mimics urinary tract malignancy. Urologists should consider amyloidosis where malignancy is not evident. The disease is course is typically benign. Most patients can be treated conservatively, without radical surgery. This is the most up to date literature review describing the disease.
Introduction Localised amyloidosis of the urinary tract is rare and often presents with haematuria. Presentation of case A 59 year old male presented with recurrent episodes of frank haematuria exacerbated by anticoagulation after a minor stroke. He had a background of hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, and Parkinson’s disease. Initial investigations did not reveal a cause, but eventual cystoscopic biopsy showed bladder mucosa expanded by deposits of amorphous, pale, eosinophilic, proteinaceous material and immunohistochemical staining revealed the presence of amyloid deposition. Workup for systemic amyloidosis was negative. A diagnosis of primary localised amyloidosis of the bladder was made. Trans-urethral resection was performed and annual cystoscopic surveillance was commenced. He was followed up for 11 years without recurrence. Discussion A comprehensive literature review revealed 349 published cases of localised amyloidosis of the urinary tract, with a median age of 57 (interquartile range 49–69), and a male preponderance (1.5 to 1). Painless visible haematuria (65%) was the most frequent presenting complaint and the bladder was the most common site of involvement (71%). Transurethral resection was the most common form of management (42%) but a proportion of patients underwent more radical surgery (nephroureterectomy/nephrectomy 9%, cystectomy 1%). Median follow up was 33 months (interquartile range 12–108) and 35% of patients had recurrent disease. This patient represents a typical case of localised amyloidosis of the urinary tract. Conclusion This is the most up to date review of the literature describing localised amyloidosis of the urinary tract. The disease is rare, but salient to the urologist as it invariably mimics urinary tract malignancy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N Mayor
- Stokes Centre for Urology, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
| | - A S J Coppola
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - Harry Knights
- Stokes Centre for Urology, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - T Nazar
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - H Hunter
- Stokes Centre for Urology, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - H Mostafid
- Stokes Centre for Urology, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Roumiguie M, Brisuda A, Burger M, Escrig J, Hammerer P, Mccracken S, Mostafid H, Muto G, Redorta J, de Reijke T, Shariat S, Ströck V, Malavaud B. Un patient sur quatre ressent un inconfort significatif lors des cystoscopies de surveillance (TVNIM) dans une étude observationnelle européenne. Prog Urol 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2020.07.228] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
23
|
Roumiguié M, Xylinas E, Brisuda A, Burger M, Mostafid H, Colombel M, Babjuk M, Palou Redorta J, Witjes F, Malavaud B. Consensus Definition and Prediction of Complexity in Transurethral Resection or Bladder Endoscopic Dissection of Bladder Tumours. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:cancers12103063. [PMID: 33092240 PMCID: PMC7589904 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12103063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2020] [Revised: 10/05/2020] [Accepted: 10/06/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Transurethral resection of bladder tumours may be technically challenging. Complexity was defined by consensus from the literature by a panel of ten senior urologists as “any TURBT/En-bloc dissection that results in incomplete resection and/or prolonged surgery (>1 h) and/or significant (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) perioperative complications”. Patient and tumour’s characteristics that suggested to by the panel to relate to complex surgery were collected and then ranked by Delphi consensus. They were tested in the prediction of complexity in 150 clinical scenarios. After univariate and logistic regression analyses, significant characteristics were organized into a checklist that predicts complexity. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves of the regression model and the corresponding calibration curve showed adequate discrimination (AUC = 0.916) and good calibration. The resulting Bladder Complexity Checklist can be used to deliver optimal preoperative information and personalise the organisation of surgery. Abstract Ten senior urologists were interrogated to develop a predictive model based on factors from which they could anticipate complex transurethral resection of bladder tumours (TURBT). Complexity was defined by consensus. Panel members then used a five-point Likert scale to grade those factors that, in their opinion, drove complexity. Consensual factors were highlighted through two Delphi rounds. Respective contributions to complexity were quantitated by the median values of their scores. Multivariate analysis with complexity as a dependent variable tested their independence in clinical scenarios obtained by random allocation of the factors. The consensus definition of complexity was “any TURBT/En-bloc dissection that results in incomplete resection and/or prolonged surgery (>1 h) and/or significant (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) perioperative complications”. Logistic regression highlighted five domains as independent predictors: patient’s history, tumour number, location, and size and access to the bladder. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis confirmed good discrimination (AUC = 0.92). The sum of the scores of the five domains adjusted to their regression coefficients or Bladder Complexity Score yielded comparable performance (AUC = 0.91, C-statistics, p = 0.94) and good calibration. As a whole, preoperative factors identified by expert judgement were organized to quantitate the risk of a complex TURBT, a crucial requisite to personalise patient information, adapt human and technical resources to individual situations and address TURBT variability in clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mathieu Roumiguié
- Department of Urology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer, 31059 Toulouse CEDEX 9, France;
| | | | - Antonin Brisuda
- Department of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Teaching Hospital Motol, 15006 Prague, Czech Republic; (A.B.); (M.B.)
| | - Maximillian Burger
- St. Josef, Klinik für Urologie, Caritas-Krankenhaus, 93053 Regensburg, Germany;
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Surrey, Guildford GU2 7RF, UK;
| | - Marc Colombel
- Department of Urology, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, 69437 Lyon, France;
| | - Marek Babjuk
- Department of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Teaching Hospital Motol, 15006 Prague, Czech Republic; (A.B.); (M.B.)
| | | | - Fred Witjes
- Department of Urology, Radboud UMC, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands;
| | - Bernard Malavaud
- Department of Urology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer, 31059 Toulouse CEDEX 9, France;
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Fankhauser CD, Wettstein MS, Reinhardt M, Gessendorfer A, Mostafid H, Hermanns T. Indications and Complications of Androgen Deprivation Therapy. Semin Oncol Nurs 2020; 36:151042. [PMID: 32773255 DOI: 10.1016/j.soncn.2020.151042] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To review the indications for and side effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men affected by prostate cancer. DATA SOURCES National guidelines, evidence-based summaries, peer-reviewed studies, and websites. CONCLUSION Indications for ADT include men with (1) intermediate- to high-risk localised prostate cancer undergoing radiation therapy, (2) biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy treated with salvage radiation therapy, or (3) metastatic prostate cancer. Several forms of ADT are available. To support self-management, body weight, diet, physical activity, alcohol consumption, and smoking should be discussed during clinical consultations. Important side effects of ADT may include flare-up phenomena of GnRH analogues, local reactions at injection sites, cardiovascular events, bone loss/fractures, drug-drug interactions, urinary tract dysfunction, hot flashes, cognitive impairment, seizure falls, and liver impairment. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE Nurses have a role in personalized cancer care and should be familiar with indications, side effects, and interventions to optimize quality of life for men affected by prostate cancer receiving ADT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Michèle Reinhardt
- Department of Urology, University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | | | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey Hospital, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
| | - Thomas Hermanns
- Department of Urology, University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Affiliation(s)
- Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, The Stokes Centre for Urology, Royal Surrey Hospital, Guildford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Hoque R, Mostafid H, Hughes MP. Rapid, Low-Cost Dielectrophoretic Diagnosis of Bladder Cancer in a Clinical Setting. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med 2020; 8:4300405. [PMID: 32656002 PMCID: PMC7343103 DOI: 10.1109/jtehm.2020.3004743] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2020] [Revised: 05/28/2020] [Accepted: 06/19/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
Bladder cancer is the 9th most common cancer worldwide. Diagnosing bladder cancer typically involves highly invasive cystoscopy, with followup monitored using uteroscopy. Molecular methods have been developed as an adjunct to this, but tend to be expensive or require expert operator input. Here we present a study of the use of dielectrophoresis (DEP) of voided cells from eight cancer-presenting patients and eight healthy controls as an alternative low-cost and operator-independent method of bladder cancer detection. This study suggests that there are statistically significant differences ([Formula: see text]) between characteristics of the DEP spectrum of clinical samples, and that using this marker we were able to obtain sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 88%, in line with many molecular methods; exclusion of samples where a DEP spectrum is not present (due to low cell counts) increased sensitivity to 100%, showing this can be improved by increasing the cell collection rate. As samples were analyzed a day after collection, we suggest that the method may be amenable to a centralized mail-in analysis service.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rashedul Hoque
- Centre for Biomedical Engineering, School of Mechanical Engineering SciencesUniversity of SurreyGuildfordGU2 7XHU.K.
| | | | - Michael Pycraft Hughes
- Centre for Biomedical Engineering, School of Mechanical Engineering SciencesUniversity of SurreyGuildfordGU2 7XHU.K.
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Witjes JA, Babjuk M, Bellmunt J, Bruins HM, De Reijke TM, De Santis M, Gillessen S, James N, Maclennan S, Palou J, Powles T, Ribal MJ, Shariat SF, Van Der Kwast T, Xylinas E, Agarwal N, Arends T, Bamias A, Birtle A, Black PC, Bochner BH, Bolla M, Boormans JL, Bossi A, Briganti A, Brummelhuis I, Burger M, Castellano D, Cathomas R, Chiti A, Choudhury A, Compérat E, Crabb S, Culine S, De Bari B, De Blok W, De Visschere PJL, Decaestecker K, Dimitropoulos K, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Fanti S, Fonteyne V, Frydenberg M, Futterer JJ, Gakis G, Geavlete B, Gontero P, Grubmüller B, Hafeez S, Hansel DE, Hartmann A, Hayne D, Henry AM, Hernandez V, Herr H, Herrmann K, Hoskin P, Huguet J, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Jones R, Kamat AM, Khoo V, Kiltie AE, Krege S, Ladoire S, Lara PC, Leliveld A, Linares-Espinós E, Løgager V, Lorch A, Loriot Y, Meijer R, Mir MC, Moschini M, Mostafid H, Müller AC, Müller CR, N'Dow J, Necchi A, Neuzillet Y, Oddens JR, Oldenburg J, Osanto S, Oyen WJG, Pacheco-Figueiredo L, Pappot H, Patel MI, Pieters BR, Plass K, Remzi M, Retz M, Richenberg J, Rink M, Roghmann F, Rosenberg JE, Rouprêt M, Rouvière O, Salembier C, Salminen A, Sargos P, Sengupta S, Sherif A, Smeenk RJ, Smits A, Stenzl A, Thalmann GN, Tombal B, Turkbey B, Lauridsen SV, Valdagni R, Van Der Heijden AG, Van Poppel H, Vartolomei MD, Veskimäe E, Vilaseca A, Rivera FAV, Wiegel T, Wiklund P, Willemse PPM, Williams A, Zigeuner R, Horwich A. Corrigendum to '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' [European Urology 77 (2020) 223-250]. Eur Urol 2020; 78:e48-e50. [PMID: 32446863 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- J Alfred Witjes
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Marek Babjuk
- Department of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Joaquim Bellmunt
- IMIM-Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - H Maxim Bruins
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Theo M De Reijke
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maria De Santis
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany
| | - Silke Gillessen
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Division of Oncology and Haematology, Kantonsspital St Gallen, St Gallen, Switzerland; University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Nicholas James
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK; Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Juan Palou
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Tom Powles
- The Royal Free NHS Trust, London, UK; Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Maria J Ribal
- Uro-Oncology Unit, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Spain
| | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Department of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
| | - Theo Van Der Kwast
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Evanguelos Xylinas
- Department of Urology, Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France; Paris Descartes University, Paris, France
| | - Neeraj Agarwal
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah (NCI-CCC), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Tom Arends
- Urology Department, Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Aristotle Bamias
- 2nd Propaedeutic Dept of Internal Medicine, Medical School, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Alison Birtle
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Rosemere Cancer Centre, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals, Preston, UK
| | - Peter C Black
- Department of Urologic Sciences, Vancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Colombia, Canada
| | - Bernard H Bochner
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA; Urology Service, Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Michel Bolla
- Emeritus Professor of Radiation Oncology, Grenoble-Alpes University, Grenoble, France
| | - Joost L Boormans
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Alberto Bossi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Iris Brummelhuis
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Max Burger
- Department of Urology, Caritas-St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
| | - Daniel Castellano
- Medical Oncology Department, 12 de Octubre University Hospital (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Richard Cathomas
- Departement Innere Medizin, Abteilung Onkologie und Hämatologie, Kantonsspital Graubünden, Chur, Switzerland
| | - Arturo Chiti
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Ananya Choudhury
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Eva Compérat
- Department of Pathology, Tenon Hospital, HUEP, Paris, France; Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | - Simon Crabb
- Cancer Sciences Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Stephane Culine
- Department of Cancer Medicine, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France
| | - Berardino De Bari
- Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire "Jean Minjoz" of Besançon, INSERM UMR 1098, Besançon, France; Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Willem De Blok
- Department of Oncological Urology, University Medical Center, Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Pieter J L De Visschere
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Division of Genitourinary Radiology and Mammography, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | | | | | | | - Stefano Fanti
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Policlinico S Orsola, University of Bologna, Italy
| | - Valerie Fonteyne
- Department of Radiotherapy Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Mark Frydenberg
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
| | - Jurgen J Futterer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Georgios Gakis
- Department of Urology and Paediatric Urology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Julius-Maximillians University, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Bogdan Geavlete
- Department of Urology, Saint John Emergency Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania
| | - Paolo Gontero
- Division of Urology, Molinette Hospital, University of Studies of Torino, Torino, Italy
| | | | - Shaista Hafeez
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Donna E Hansel
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Diego Pathology, La Jolla, California, USA
| | - Arndt Hartmann
- Institute of Pathology, Friedrich-Alexander University (FAU) Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Dickon Hayne
- Department of Urology, UWA Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
| | - Ann M Henry
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Virginia Hernandez
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Fundación de Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain
| | - Harry Herr
- Urology Service, Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Ken Herrmann
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Peter Hoskin
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Mount Vernon Centre for Cancer Treatment, London, UK
| | - Jorge Huguet
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Barbara A Jereczek-Fossa
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Division of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Rob Jones
- Institute of Cancer Sciences, College of Medicine, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Ashish M Kamat
- Department of Urology - Division of Surgery, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Vincent Khoo
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Australia; Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Anne E Kiltie
- CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Susanne Krege
- Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Urologic Oncology, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
| | - Sylvain Ladoire
- Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Georges François Leclerc, Dijon, France
| | - Pedro C Lara
- Department of Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Roque, Spain; Universidad Fernando Pessoa, Canarias, Spain
| | - Annemarie Leliveld
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Vibeke Løgager
- Department of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark
| | - Anja Lorch
- Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Yohann Loriot
- Département de Médecine Oncologique, Gustave Roussy, INSERM U981, Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France
| | - Richard Meijer
- UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, MS Oncologic Urology, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M Carmen Mir
- Servicio de Urología, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain
| | - Marco Moschini
- Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | | | | | - James N'Dow
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Andrea Necchi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Yann Neuzillet
- Department of Urology, Hospital Foch, University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Suresnes, France
| | - Jorg R Oddens
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jan Oldenburg
- Department of Oncology, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway; Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Susanne Osanto
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Wim J G Oyen
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Luís Pacheco-Figueiredo
- Department of Urology, Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto, Portugal; Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
| | - Helle Pappot
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Manish I Patel
- Department of Urology, Westmead Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Bradley R Pieters
- Department Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Karin Plass
- EAU Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Mesut Remzi
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Margitta Retz
- Department of Urology, Rechts der Isar Medical Center, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Jonathan Richenberg
- Department of Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK; Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK
| | - Michael Rink
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Florian Roghmann
- Department of Urology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Marien Hospital, Herne, Germany
| | - Jonathan E Rosenberg
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
| | - Morgan Rouprêt
- Department of Urology, Sorbonne Université, GRC n_5, ONCOTYPE-URO, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France
| | - Olivier Rouvière
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Service d'Imagerie Urinaire et Vasculaire, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France; Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, faculté de médecine Lyon Est, Lyon, France
| | - Carl Salembier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Europe Hospitals Brussels, Belgium
| | - Antti Salminen
- Department of Urology, University Hospital of Turku, Finland
| | - Paul Sargos
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | - Shomik Sengupta
- Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Amir Sherif
- Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Urology and Andrology, Umeå university, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Robert J Smeenk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Anita Smits
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Arnulf Stenzl
- Department of Urology, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - George N Thalmann
- Department of Urology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Bertrand Tombal
- Division of Urology, IREC, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, UCL, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Susanne Vahr Lauridsen
- Department of Urology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Riccardo Valdagni
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | | | | | - Mihai D Vartolomei
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, Romania
| | - Erik Veskimäe
- Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
| | - Antoni Vilaseca
- Uro-Oncology Unit, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Spain
| | - Franklin A Vives Rivera
- Clinica HematoOncologica Bonadona Prevenir, Universidad Metropolitana, Clinica Club de Leones, Barranquilla, Colombia
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Peter Wiklund
- Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System New York City, New York, USA; Department of Urology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Peter-Paul M Willemse
- Department of Oncological Urology, University Medical Center, Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Andrew Williams
- Department of Urology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Richard Zigeuner
- Department of Urology, Medizinische Universität Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - Alan Horwich
- Emeritus Professor, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Teoh JYC, MacLennan S, Chan VWS, Miki J, Lee HY, Chiong E, Lee LS, Wei Y, Yuan Y, Yu CP, Chow WK, Poon DMC, Chan R, Lai F, Ng CF, Breda A, Kramer MW, Malavaud B, Mostafid H, Herrmann T, Babjuk M. An International Collaborative Consensus Statement on En Bloc Resection of Bladder Tumour Incorporating Two Systematic Reviews, a Two-round Delphi Survey, and a Consensus Meeting. Eur Urol 2020; 78:546-569. [PMID: 32389447 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2020] [Accepted: 04/22/2020] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There has been increasing interest in en bloc resection of bladder tumour (ERBT) as an oncologically noninferior alternative to transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) with fewer complications and better histology specimens. However, there is a lack of robust randomised controlled trial (RCT) data for making recommendations. OBJECTIVE We aimed to develop a consensus statement to standardise various aspects of ERBT for clinical practice and to guide future research. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We developed the consensus statement on ERBT using a modified Delphi method. First, two systematic reviews were performed to investigate the clinical effectiveness of ERBT versus TURBT (effectiveness review) and to identify areas of uncertainty in ERBT (uncertainties review). Next, 200 health care professionals (urologists, oncologists, and pathologists) with experience in ERBT were invited to complete a two-round Delphi survey. Finally, a 16-member consensus panel meeting was held to review, discuss, and re-vote on the statements as appropriate. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Meta-analyses were performed for RCT data in the effectiveness review. Consensus statements were developed from the uncertainties review. Consensus was defined as follows: (1) ≥70% scoring a statement 7-9 and ≤15% scoring the statement 1-3 (consensus agree), or (2) ≥70% scoring a statement 1-3 and ≤15% scoring the statement 7-9 (consensus disagree). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS A total of 10 RCTs were identified upon systematic review. ERBT had a shorter irrigation time (mean difference -7.24 h, 95% confidence interval [CI] -9.29 to -5.20, I2 = 85%, p < 0.001) and a lower rate of bladder perforation (risk ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.11-0.83, I2 = 1%, p = 0.02) than TURBT, both with moderate certainty of evidence. There were no significant differences in recurrences at 0-12, 13-24, or 25-36 mo (all very low certainty of evidence). A total of 103 statements were developed, of which 99 reached a consensus. A summary of statements is as follows: ERBT should always be considered for treating non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer; ERBT should be considered feasible even for bladder tumours larger than 3 cm; number and location of bladder tumours are not major limitations in performing ERBT; the planned circumferential margin should be at least 5 mm from any visible bladder tumour; after ERBT, additional biopsy of the tumour edge or tumour base should not be performed routinely; for the ERBT specimen, T1 substage, and circumferential and deep resection margins must be assessed; it is safe to give a single dose of immediate intravesical chemotherapy, perform second-look transurethral resection, and give intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy after ERBT; and in studies of ERBT, both per-patient and -tumour analysis should be performed for different outcomes as appropriate. Important outcomes for future ERBT studies were also identified. A limitation is that as consensus statements are brief, concise and binary in nature, areas of uncertainty that are complex in nature may not be addressed adequately. CONCLUSIONS We have provided the most comprehensive review of the evidence base to date using a meta-analysis where appropriate and applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and mobilised the international urology community to develop a consensus statement on ERBT using transparent and robust methods. The consensus statement will provide interim guidance for health care professionals who practice ERBT and inform researchers regarding ERBT-related studies in the future. PATIENT SUMMARY En bloc resection of bladder tumour (ERBT) is a surgical technique aiming to resect a bladder tumour in one piece. We included an international panel of experts to agree on the best practice of ERBT, and this will provide guidance to clinicians and researchers in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh
- S.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | | | - Vinson Wai-Shun Chan
- School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Jun Miki
- Department of Urology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Kashiwa Hospital, Kashiwa, Japan
| | - Hsiang-Ying Lee
- Urology Department, Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
| | - Edmund Chiong
- Department of Urology, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore
| | - Lui-Shiong Lee
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Sengkang General Hospital, Sengkang, Singapore; Department of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
| | - Yong Wei
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
| | - Yuhong Yuan
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Chun-Pong Yu
- Li Ping Medical Library, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Wing-Kie Chow
- New Territories East Cluster Bladder Cancer Support Group, Hong Kong, China
| | - Darren Ming-Chun Poon
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Ronald Chan
- Department of Anatomical and Cellular Pathology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Fernand Lai
- Department of Anatomical and Cellular Pathology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Chi-Fai Ng
- S.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Alberto Breda
- Department of Urology, Fundacion Puigvert, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Mario Wolfgang Kramer
- Department of Urology, University-Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany
| | - Bernard Malavaud
- Department of Urology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer, Toulouse, France
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey, UK
| | - Thomas Herrmann
- Department of Urology, Spital Thurgau AG, Frauenfeld, Switzerland; Department of Urology, Hanover Medical School (MHH), Hanover, Germany
| | - Marek Babjuk
- Department of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Fankhauser CD, Waisbrod S, Fierz C, Becker AS, Kranzbühler B, Eberli D, Sulser T, Mostafid H, Hermanns T. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography, computed tomography, cystoscopy and cytology to detect urinary tract malignancies in patients with asymptomatic hematuria. World J Urol 2020; 39:97-103. [PMID: 32240349 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03171-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2020] [Accepted: 03/16/2020] [Indexed: 10/24/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To report the incidence of urinary tract malignancies (UTM) and to compare the diagnostic accuracy of cytology with cystoscopy, renal ultrasound (US) and computed tomography (CT) in patients with hematuria. METHODS A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients who underwent cystoscopy, cytology, US and CT for hematuria between 2011 and 2017. Age, gender, BMI, smoking status, and results of further diagnostic interventions including transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB), ureterorenoscopy (URS), renal biopsy and imaging were extracted from medical charts. Logistic regression to identify risk factors for UTM was performed. Discriminatory accuracy of US, CT and cytology was assessed by 2 × 2 tables. RESULTS Of 847 patients, 432 (51%) presented with non-visible hematuria (NVH) and 415 (49%) with visible hematuria (VH). Of all patients with NVH, seven (1.6%) had bladder cancer (BCA), three (< 1%) had renal cell cancer (RCC) and no single patient had upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC). Of the patients with VH, 62 (14.9%) were diagnosed with BCA, 7 (1.6%) with RCC and 4 (< 1%) with UTUC. In multivariable analysis VH, higher age, smoking and lower BMI were associated with an increased risk for UTM. The specificity/negative predictive value of US for the detection of RCC or UTUC in patients with NVH and VH were 96%/100% and 95%/99%, respectively. CONCLUSION Due to the low incidence of UTM, the necessity of further diagnostics should be questioned in patients with NVH. In contrast, patients with VH are at considerable risk for BCA, and cystoscopy and upper tract imaging is justified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian Daniel Fankhauser
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
| | - Sharon Waisbrod
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Cindy Fierz
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Anton S Becker
- Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Benedikt Kranzbühler
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Daniel Eberli
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Tullio Sulser
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Egerton Road, Guildford, Surrey, UK
| | - Thomas Hermanns
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Mostafid H, Babjuk M, Bochner B, Lerner SP, Witjes F, Palou J, Roupret M, Shariat S, Gontero P, van Rhijn B, Zigeuner R, Sylvester R, Comperat E, Burger M, Malavaud B, Soloway M, Williams S, Black P, Daneshmand S, Steinberg G, Brausi M, Catto J, Kamat AM. Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumour: The Neglected Procedure in the Technology Race in Bladder Cancer. Eur Urol 2020; 77:669-670. [PMID: 32192815 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2020] [Accepted: 03/05/2020] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
Transurethral resection of bladder tumour is the initial, most critical step in the management of bladder cancer; as such, this is a call to arms for the urological community to it the due diligence it deserves regarding technology and training.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Marko Babjuk
- Department of Urology, Hospital Motol, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Bernard Bochner
- Urologic Surgery Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Seth P Lerner
- Scott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Fred Witjes
- Nijmegen Medical Centre, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Joan Palou
- Department of Urology, Fundacio Puigvert, Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Morgan Roupret
- Department of Urology, Hopital Pitie-Salpetriere, Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris Sorbonne Universitaire, Paris, France
| | - Sharokh Shariat
- Department of Urology and Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Paolo Gontero
- Division of Urology, Molinette Hospital, University of Torino School of Medicine, Torino, Italy
| | - Bas van Rhijn
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Richard Zigeuner
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
| | | | - Eva Comperat
- Department of Pathology, Hopital Tenon, Group Hospitalier Est Parisian, Assistance Publique Hopitaux de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Maximilian Burger
- Department of Urology, Caritas St Josef Medical Centre, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
| | - Bernard Malavaud
- Department of Urology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer, Toulouse, France
| | | | | | - Peter Black
- Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Siamak Daneshmand
- Institute of Urology, USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Gary Steinberg
- Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Jim Catto
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Ashish M Kamat
- Department of Urology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Fankhauser CD, Mostafid H. The inflammatory potential of diet and bladder cancer risk: results from a prospective cohort study. Transl Androl Urol 2020; 8:S491-S492. [PMID: 32042628 DOI: 10.21037/tau.2019.08.32] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Witjes JA, Babjuk M, Bellmunt J, Bruins HM, De Reijke TM, De Santis M, Gillessen S, James N, Maclennan S, Palou J, Powles T, Ribal MJ, Shariat SF, Der Kwast TV, Xylinas E, Agarwal N, Arends T, Bamias A, Birtle A, Black PC, Bochner BH, Bolla M, Boormans JL, Bossi A, Briganti A, Brummelhuis I, Burger M, Castellano D, Cathomas R, Chiti A, Choudhury A, Compérat E, Crabb S, Culine S, De Bari B, De Blok W, J L De Visschere P, Decaestecker K, Dimitropoulos K, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Fanti S, Fonteyne V, Frydenberg M, Futterer JJ, Gakis G, Geavlete B, Gontero P, Grubmüller B, Hafeez S, Hansel DE, Hartmann A, Hayne D, Henry AM, Hernandez V, Herr H, Herrmann K, Hoskin P, Huguet J, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Jones R, Kamat AM, Khoo V, Kiltie AE, Krege S, Ladoire S, Lara PC, Leliveld A, Linares-Espinós E, Løgager V, Lorch A, Loriot Y, Meijer R, Mir MC, Moschini M, Mostafid H, Müller AC, Müller CR, N'Dow J, Necchi A, Neuzillet Y, Oddens JR, Oldenburg J, Osanto S, J G Oyen W, Pacheco-Figueiredo L, Pappot H, Patel MI, Pieters BR, Plass K, Remzi M, Retz M, Richenberg J, Rink M, Roghmann F, Rosenberg JE, Rouprêt M, Rouvière O, Salembier C, Salminen A, Sargos P, Sengupta S, Sherif A, Smeenk RJ, Smits A, Stenzl A, Thalmann GN, Tombal B, Turkbey B, Lauridsen SV, Valdagni R, Van Der Heijden AG, Van Poppel H, Vartolomei MD, Veskimäe E, Vilaseca A, Rivera FAV, Wiegel T, Wiklund P, Williams A, Zigeuner R, Horwich A. 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. Eur Urol 2020; 77:223-250. [PMID: 31753752 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 106] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2019] [Accepted: 09/26/2019] [Indexed: 12/09/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Alfred Witjes
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Marek Babjuk
- Depatment of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Joaquim Bellmunt
- IMIM-Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - H Maxim Bruins
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Theo M De Reijke
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maria De Santis
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany
| | - Silke Gillessen
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Division of Oncology and Haematology, Kantonsspital St Gallen, St Gallen, Switzerland; University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Nicholas James
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK; Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Juan Palou
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Tom Powles
- The Royal Free NHS Trust, London, UK; Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Maria J Ribal
- Uro-Oncology Unit, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Spain
| | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Depatment of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
| | - Theo Van Der Kwast
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Evanguelos Xylinas
- Department of Urology, Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France; Paris Descartes University, Paris, France
| | - Neeraj Agarwal
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah (NCI-CCC), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Tom Arends
- Urology Department, Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Aristotle Bamias
- 2nd Propaedeutic Dept of Internal Medicine, Medical School, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Alison Birtle
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Rosemere Cancer Centre, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals, Preston, UK
| | - Peter C Black
- Department of Urologic Sciences, Vancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Colombia, Canada
| | - Bernard H Bochner
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA; Urology Service, Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Michel Bolla
- Emeritus Professor of Radiation Oncology, Grenoble - Alpes University, Grenoble, France
| | - Joost L Boormans
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Alberto Bossi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Milan; Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Iris Brummelhuis
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Max Burger
- Department of Urology, Caritas-St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
| | - Daniel Castellano
- Medical Oncology Department, 12 de Octubre University Hospital (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Richard Cathomas
- Departement Innere Medizin, Abteilung Onkologie und Hämatologie, Kantonsspital Graubünden, Chur, Switzerland
| | - Arturo Chiti
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Ananya Choudhury
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Eva Compérat
- Department of Pathology, Tenon hospital, HUEP, Paris, France; Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | - Simon Crabb
- Cancer Sciences Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Stephane Culine
- Department of Cancer Medicine, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France
| | - Berardino De Bari
- Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire "Jean Minjoz" of Besançon, INSERM UMR 1098, Besançon, France; Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Willem De Blok
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Pieter J L De Visschere
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Division of Genitourinary Radiology and Mammography, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | | | | | | | - Stefano Fanti
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Policlinico S Orsola, University of Bologna, Italy
| | - Valerie Fonteyne
- Department of Radiotherapy Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Mark Frydenberg
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
| | - Jurgen J Futterer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Georgios Gakis
- Department of Urology and Paediatric Urology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Julius-Maximillians University, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Bogdan Geavlete
- Department of Urology, Saint John Emergency Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania
| | - Paolo Gontero
- Division of Urology, Molinette Hospital, University of Studies of Torino, Torino, Italy
| | | | - Shaista Hafeez
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Donna E Hansel
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Diego Pathology, La Jolla, California, USA
| | - Arndt Hartmann
- Institute of Pathology, Friedrich-Alexander University (FAU) Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Dickon Hayne
- Department of Urology, UWA Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
| | - Ann M Henry
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Virginia Hernandez
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Fundación de Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain
| | - Harry Herr
- Urology Service, Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Ken Herrmann
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Peter Hoskin
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Mount Vernon Centre for Cancer Treatment, London, UK
| | - Jorge Huguet
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Barbara A Jereczek-Fossa
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan; Division of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Rob Jones
- Institute of Cancer Sciences, College of Medicine, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Ashish M Kamat
- Department of Urology - Division of Surgery, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Vincent Khoo
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne; Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Anne E Kiltie
- CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Susanne Krege
- Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Urologic Oncology, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
| | - Sylvain Ladoire
- Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Georges François Leclerc, Dijon, France
| | - Pedro C Lara
- Department of Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Roque; Universidad Fernando Pessoa, Canarias, Spain
| | - Annemarie Leliveld
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Vibeke Løgager
- Department of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark
| | - Anja Lorch
- Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Yohann Loriot
- Département de Médecine Oncologique, Gustave Roussy, INSERM U981, Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France
| | - Richard Meijer
- UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, MS Oncologic Urology, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M Carmen Mir
- Servicio de Urología, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain
| | - Marco Moschini
- Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | | | | | - James N'Dow
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Andrea Necchi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Yann Neuzillet
- Department of Urology, Hospital Foch, University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Suresnes, France
| | - Jorg R Oddens
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jan Oldenburg
- Department of Oncology, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway; Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Susanne Osanto
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Wim J G Oyen
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Luís Pacheco-Figueiredo
- Department of Urology, Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto, Portugal; Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
| | - Helle Pappot
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Manish I Patel
- Department of Urology, Westmead Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Bradley R Pieters
- Department Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Karin Plass
- EAU Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Mesut Remzi
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Margitta Retz
- Department of Urology, Rechts der Isar Medical Center, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Jonathan Richenberg
- Department of Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK; Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK
| | - Michael Rink
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Florian Roghmann
- Department of Urology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Marien Hospital, Herne, Germany
| | - Jonathan E Rosenberg
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
| | - Morgan Rouprêt
- Department of Urology, Sorbonne Université, GRC n°5, ONCOTYPE-URO, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France
| | - Olivier Rouvière
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Service d'Imagerie Urinaire et Vasculaire, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France; Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, faculté de médecine Lyon Est, Lyon, France
| | - Carl Salembier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Europe Hospitals Brussels, Belgium
| | - Antti Salminen
- Department of Urology, University Hospital of Turku, Finland
| | - Paul Sargos
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | - Shomik Sengupta
- Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Amir Sherif
- Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Urology and Andrology, Umeå university, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Robert J Smeenk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Anita Smits
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Arnulf Stenzl
- Department of Urology, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - George N Thalmann
- Department of Urology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Bertrand Tombal
- Division of Urology, IREC, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, UCL, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Susanne Vahr Lauridsen
- Department of Urology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Riccardo Valdagni
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | | | | | - Mihai D Vartolomei
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, Romania
| | - Erik Veskimäe
- Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
| | - Antoni Vilaseca
- Uro-Oncology Unit, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Spain
| | - Franklin A Vives Rivera
- Clinica HematoOncologica Bonadona Prevenir, Universidad Metropolitana, Clinica Club de Leones, Barranquilla, Colombia
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Peter Wiklund
- Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System New York City, New York, USA; Department of Urology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Andrew Williams
- Department of Urology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Richard Zigeuner
- Department of Urology, Medizinische Universität Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - Alan Horwich
- Emeritus Professor, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Horwich A, Babjuk M, Bellmunt J, Bruins HM, De Reijke TM, De Santis M, Gillessen S, James N, Maclennan S, Palou J, Powles T, Ribal MJ, Shariat SF, Van Der Kwast T, Xylinas E, Agarwal N, Arends T, Bamias A, Birtle A, Black PC, Bochner BH, Bolla M, Boormans JL, Bossi A, Briganti A, Brummelhuis I, Burger M, Castellano D, Cathomas R, Chiti A, Choudhury A, Compérat E, Crabb S, Culine S, De Bari B, DeBlok W, De Visschere PJL, Decaestecker K, Dimitropoulos K, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Fanti S, Fonteyne V, Frydenberg M, Futterer JJ, Gakis G, Geavlete B, Gontero P, Grubmüller B, Hafeez S, Hansel DE, Hartmann A, Hayne D, Henry AM, Hernandez V, Herr H, Herrmann K, Hoskin P, Huguet J, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Jones R, Kamat AM, Khoo V, Kiltie AE, Krege S, Ladoire S, Lara PC, Leliveld A, Linares-Espinós E, Løgager V, Lorch A, Loriot Y, Meijer R, Carmen Mir M, Moschini M, Mostafid H, Müller AC, Müller CR, N'Dow J, Necchi A, Neuzillet Y, Oddens JR, Oldenburg J, Osanto S, Oyen WJG, Pacheco-Figueiredo L, Pappot H, Patel MI, Pieters BR, Plass K, Remzi M, Retz M, Richenberg J, Rink M, Roghmann F, Rosenberg JE, Rouprêt M, Rouvière O, Salembier C, Salminen A, Sargos P, Sengupta S, Sherif A, Smeenk RJ, Smits A, Stenzl A, Thalmann GN, Tombal B, Turkbey B, Vahr Lauridsen S, Valdagni R, Van Der Heijden AG, Van Poppel H, Vartolomei MD, Veskimäe E, Vilaseca A, Vives Rivera FA, Wiegel T, Wiklund P, Williams A, Zigeuner R, Witjes JA. 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†. Ann Oncol 2019; 30:1697-1727. [PMID: 31740927 PMCID: PMC7360152 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdz296] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Horwich
- Emeritus Professor, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Emeritus Professor, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
| | - M Babjuk
- Depatment of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - J Bellmunt
- IMIM-Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain; Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - H M Bruins
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen
| | - T M De Reijke
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M De Santis
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany
| | - S Gillessen
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Division of Oncology and Haematology, Kantonsspital St Gallen, St Gallen; University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - N James
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham; Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham
| | - S Maclennan
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - J Palou
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - T Powles
- The Royal Free NHS Trust, London; Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - M J Ribal
- Uro-Oncology Unit, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - S F Shariat
- Depatment of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
| | - T Van Der Kwast
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - E Xylinas
- Department of Urology, Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris; Paris Descartes University, Paris, France
| | - N Agarwal
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah (NCI-CCC), Salt Lake City, USA
| | - T Arends
- Urology Department, Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - A Bamias
- 2nd Propaedeutic Dept of Internal Medicine, Medical School, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - A Birtle
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester; Rosemere Cancer Centre, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals, Preston, UK
| | - P C Black
- Department of Urologic Sciences, Vancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - B H Bochner
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; Urology Service, Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - M Bolla
- Emeritus Professor of Radiation Oncology, Grenoble - Alpes University, Grenoble, France
| | - J L Boormans
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A Bossi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France
| | - A Briganti
- Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Milan; Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - I Brummelhuis
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen
| | - M Burger
- Department of Urology, Caritas-St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
| | - D Castellano
- Medical Oncology Department, 12 de Octubre University Hospital (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - R Cathomas
- Department Innere Medizin, Abteilung Onkologie und Hämatologie, Kantonsspital Graubünden, Chur, Switzerland
| | - A Chiti
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan; Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - A Choudhury
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - E Compérat
- Department of Pathology, Tenon Hospital, HUEP, Paris; Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | - S Crabb
- Cancer Sciences Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - S Culine
- Department of Cancer Medicine, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris
| | - B De Bari
- Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire "Jean Minjoz" of Besançon, INSERM UMR 1098, Besançon, France; Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - W DeBlok
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - P J L De Visschere
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Division of Genitourinary Radiology and Mammography, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent
| | - K Decaestecker
- Department of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - K Dimitropoulos
- Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
| | - J L Dominguez-Escrig
- Servicio de Urología, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain
| | - S Fanti
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Policlinico S Orsola, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - V Fonteyne
- Department of Radiotherapy Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - M Frydenberg
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
| | - J J Futterer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - G Gakis
- Department of Urology and Paediatric Urology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Julius-Maximillians University, Würzburg, Germany
| | - B Geavlete
- Department of Urology, Saint John Emergency Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania
| | - P Gontero
- Division of Urology, Molinette Hospital, University of Studies of Torino, Torino, Italy
| | - B Grubmüller
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - S Hafeez
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London; Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - D E Hansel
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Diego Pathology, La Jolla, USA
| | - A Hartmann
- Institute of Pathology, Friedrich-Alexander University (FAU) Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - D Hayne
- Department of Urology, UWA Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
| | - A M Henry
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - V Hernandez
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Fundación de Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain
| | - H Herr
- Urology Service, Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - K Herrmann
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - P Hoskin
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Mount Vernon Centre for Cancer Treatment, London, UK
| | - J Huguet
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - B A Jereczek-Fossa
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan; Division of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - R Jones
- Institute of Cancer Sciences, College of Medicine, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - A M Kamat
- Department of Urology - Division of Surgery, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - V Khoo
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London; Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne; Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - A E Kiltie
- CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - S Krege
- Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Urologic Oncology, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
| | - S Ladoire
- Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Georges François Leclerc, Dijon, France
| | - P C Lara
- Department of Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Roque, Canarias; Universidad Fernando Pessoa, Canarias, Spain
| | - A Leliveld
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | - V Løgager
- Department of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark
| | - A Lorch
- Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Y Loriot
- Département de Médecine Oncologique, Gustave Roussy, INSERM U981, Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France
| | - R Meijer
- UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, MS Oncologic Urology, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M Carmen Mir
- Servicio de Urología, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain
| | - M Moschini
- Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland
| | - H Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | - A-C Müller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany
| | - C R Müller
- Cancer Treatment Centre, Sorlandet Hospital, Kristiansand, Norway
| | - J N'Dow
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
| | - A Necchi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Y Neuzillet
- Department of Urology, Hospital Foch, University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Suresnes, France
| | - J R Oddens
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J Oldenburg
- Department of Oncology, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog; Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - S Osanto
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden
| | - W J G Oyen
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan; Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - L Pacheco-Figueiredo
- Department of Urology, Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto; Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
| | - H Pappot
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - M I Patel
- Department of Urology, Westmead Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - B R Pieters
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam
| | - K Plass
- EAU Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - M Remzi
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - M Retz
- Department of Urology, Rechts der Isar Medical Center, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - J Richenberg
- Department of Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton; Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK
| | - M Rink
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg
| | - F Roghmann
- Department of Urology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Marien Hospital, Herne, Germany
| | - J E Rosenberg
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA
| | - M Rouprêt
- Department of Urology, Sorbonne Université, GRC n°5, ONCOTYPE-URO, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris
| | - O Rouvière
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Service d'Imagerie Urinaire et Vasculaire, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Faculté de Médecine Lyon Est, Lyon, France
| | - C Salembier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Europe Hospitals Brussels, Brussels, Belgium
| | - A Salminen
- Department of Urology, University Hospital of Turku, Turku, Finland
| | - P Sargos
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | - S Sengupta
- Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne; Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - A Sherif
- Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Urology and Andrology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - R J Smeenk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - A Smits
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen
| | - A Stenzl
- Department of Urology, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - G N Thalmann
- Department of Urology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland
| | - B Tombal
- Division of Urology, IREC, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, UCL, Brussels, Belgium
| | - B Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA
| | - S Vahr Lauridsen
- Department of Urology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - R Valdagni
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | | | - H Van Poppel
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - M D Vartolomei
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, Targu Mures, Romania
| | - E Veskimäe
- Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
| | - A Vilaseca
- Uro-Oncology Unit, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - F A Vives Rivera
- Clinica HematoOncologica Bonadona Prevenir, Universidad Metropolitana, Clinica Club de Leones, Barranquilla, Colombia
| | - T Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - P Wiklund
- Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York City, USA; Department of Urology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - A Williams
- Department of Urology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - R Zigeuner
- Department of Urology, Medizinische Universität Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - J A Witjes
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Abstract
High and intermediate risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer poses a real challenge for treatment. Approximately 70% of bladder cancer presents as non-muscle invasive and 20–25% will progress to muscle invasive disease. Recurrences occur in up to 70% but treatment options are limited. Intravesical bacillus Calmette–Guérin is still considered the bladder sparing treatment of choice despite its well documented pitfalls. This review considers how bacillus Calmette–Guérin has become the recommended treatment, its benefits and risks and the alternative options for treatment. Level of evidence: Not applicable for this multicentre audit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Edward Bass
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | - Jeremy Crew
- Department of Urology, Churchill Hospital, UK
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Annels NE, Mansfield D, Arif M, Ballesteros-Merino C, Simpson GR, Denyer M, Sandhu SS, Melcher AA, Harrington KJ, Davies B, Au G, Grose M, Bagwan I, Fox B, Vile R, Mostafid H, Shafren D, Pandha HS. Phase I Trial of an ICAM-1-Targeted Immunotherapeutic-Coxsackievirus A21 (CVA21) as an Oncolytic Agent Against Non Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2019; 25:5818-5831. [PMID: 31273010 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-18-4022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 73] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2018] [Revised: 03/06/2019] [Accepted: 06/27/2019] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The CANON [CAVATAK in NON-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC)] study evaluated a novel ICAM-1-targeted immunotherapeutic-coxsackievirus A21 as a novel oncolytic agent against bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Fifteen patients enrolled in this "window of opportunity" phase I study, exposing primary bladder cancers to CAVATAK prior to surgery. The first 9 patients received intravesical administration of monotherapy CAVATAK; in the second stage, 6 patients received CAVATAK with a subtherapeutic dose of mitomycin C, known to enhance expression of ICAM-1 on bladder cancer cells. The primary endpoint was to determine patient safety and maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Secondary endpoints were evidence of viral replication, induction of inflammatory cytokines, antitumor activity, and viral-induced changes in resected tissue. RESULTS Clinical activity of CAVATAK was demonstrated by induction of tumor inflammation and hemorrhage following either single or multiple administrations of CAVATAK in multiple patients, and a complete resolution of tumor in 1 patient. Whether used alone or in combination with mitomycin C, CAVATAK caused marked inflammatory changes within NMIBC tissue biopsies by upregulating IFN-inducible genes, including both immune checkpoint inhibitory genes (PD-L1 and LAG3) and Th1-associated chemokines, as well as the induction of the innate activator RIG-I, compared with bladder cancer tissue from untreated patients. No significant toxicities were reported in any patient, from either virus or combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS The acceptable safety profile of CAVATAK, proof of viral targeting, replication, and tumor cell death together with the virus-mediated increases in "immunological heat" within the tumor microenvironment all indicate that CAVATAK may be potentially considered as a novel therapeutic for NMIBC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola E Annels
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom
| | - David Mansfield
- Targeted Therapy Group, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Mehreen Arif
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom
| | | | - Guy R Simpson
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom
| | - Mick Denyer
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom
| | - Sarbjinder S Sandhu
- Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, United Kingdom
| | - Alan A Melcher
- Targeted Therapy Group, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Kevin J Harrington
- Targeted Therapy Group, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | - Izhar Bagwan
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom
| | - Bernard Fox
- Robert W. Franz Cancer Research Center, Earle A. Chiles Research Institute, Portland, Oregon
| | | | - Hugh Mostafid
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom
| | | | - Hardev S Pandha
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Tandogdu Z, Lewis R, Duncan A, Penegar S, McDonald A, Vale L, Shen J, Kelly JD, Pickard R, N Dow J, Ramsay C, Mostafid H, Mariappan P, Nabi G, Creswell J, Lazarowicz H, McGrath J, Taylor E, Clark E, Maclennan G, Norrie J, Hall E, Heer R. Photodynamic versus white light-guided treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: a study protocol for a randomised trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness. BMJ Open 2019; 9:e022268. [PMID: 31481549 PMCID: PMC6731798 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022268] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Bladder cancer is the most frequently occurring tumour of the urinary system. Ta, T1 tumours and carcinoma in situ (CIS) are grouped as non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), which can be effectively treated by transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT). There are limitations to the visualisation of tumours with conventional TURBT using white light illumination within the bladder. Incomplete resections occur from the failure to identify satellite lesions or the full extent of the tumour leading to recurrence and potential risk of disease progression. To improve complete resection, photodynamic diagnosis (PDD) has been proposed as a method that can enhance tumour detection and guide resection. The objective of the current research is to determine whether PDD-guided TURBT is better than conventional white light surgery and whether it is cost-effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS PHOTO is a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (open parallel group, non-masked and superiority trial) comparing the intervention of PDD-guided TURBT with standard white light resection in newly diagnosed intermediate and high risk NMIBC within the UK National Health Service setting. Clinical effectiveness is measured with time to recurrence. Cost-effectiveness is assessed within trial via the calculation of incremental cost per recurrence avoided and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life per year gained over 3 years and over long term through a modelling exercise over patients' lifetime. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Formal ethics review was undertaken with a favourable opinion, in line with UK regulatory procedures (REC reference number: 14/NE/1062). If reductions in time to recurrence is associated with long-term patient benefits, the cost-effectiveness evaluation will provide further evidence to inform adoption of the technology. Findings will be shared in lay media such as patient and charity forums and will be presented at key meetings and published in academic literature.Trial registration number ISRCTN84013636.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zafer Tandogdu
- Urology, Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Rebecca Lewis
- Urology and Head and Neck Trials Team, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Anne Duncan
- Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Steven Penegar
- Urology and Head and Neck Trials Team, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Alison McDonald
- Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Luke Vale
- Health Economics Group, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK
| | - Jing Shen
- Health Economics Group, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - John D Kelly
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Robert Pickard
- Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - James N Dow
- Department of Surgery, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Craig Ramsay
- Health Service Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Urology, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Winchester, UK
| | | | - Ghulam Nabi
- Department of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | - Joanne Creswell
- Urology, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - Henry Lazarowicz
- Urology, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - John McGrath
- Department of Urology, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK
| | | | - Emma Clark
- Urology, Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Graeme Maclennan
- Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - John Norrie
- Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Emma Hall
- Urology and Head and Neck Trials Team, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Rakesh Heer
- Urology, Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Doyle E, Crew J, Mostafid H, Tuthill M, Cerundolo V, Gerristen W, Protheroe A. Urothelial cancer: a narrative review of the role of novel immunotherapeutic agents with particular reference to the management of non-muscle-invasive disease. BJU Int 2019; 123:947-958. [PMID: 30548196 DOI: 10.1111/bju.14643] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
AIM This narrative review describes current guidelines for treating NMIBC, provides an overview of the principle behind immune checkpoint inhibition, and summarizes current evidence for checkpoint inhibitors in urothelial malignancy. Further, we discuss potential strategies for immune checkpoint inhibition in the management of NMIBC. BACKGROUND Adjuvant intravesical BCG immunotherapy has been the mainstay of treatment for high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) for decades but is associated with both a significant side effect profile and failure rate. Recently, a substantial body of trial data has been published demonstrating the successful use of systemic immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced urothelial malignancy and, in particular, a class of drugs known as 'immune checkpoint inhibitors'. This has led to the approval of a number of these drugs by the UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence and the US Food and Drug Administration, and ongoing trials are examining use in the management of NMIBC. METHODS To identify relevant published data, using the PubMed/ Medline search engine, an online search of the Pubmed/ Medline archives was conducted using the terms bladder cancer' in combination with 'checkpoint inhibitors', and limited to articles in English published between 1966 and September 2017.To identify ongoing trials of interest but not yet published, a further search of the clinical trials.gov search engine was conducted using the term 'non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer'. CONCLUSION There has been little advance in available adjuvant therapy for NMIBC treated with TURBT. Current intravesical therapies are associated with a high recurrence rate and significant side effect profile. The impending publication of the wealth of ongoing trials, both into the delivery and efficacy of checkpoint inhibition will direct the future treatment of NMIBC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma Doyle
- Department of Oncology, Oxford Cancer and Haematology Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Jeremy Crew
- Department of Urology, Oxford Cancer and Haematology Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Mark Tuthill
- Department of Oncology, Oxford Cancer and Haematology Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Vincenzo Cerundolo
- MRC Human Immunology Unit, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, Oxford, UK
| | - Winald Gerristen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegan, The Netherlands
| | - Andrew Protheroe
- Department of Oncology, Oxford Cancer and Haematology Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Kelly JD, Tan WS, Porta N, Mostafid H, Huddart R, Protheroe A, Bogle R, Blazeby J, Palmer A, Cresswell J, Johnson M, Brough R, Madaan S, Andrews S, Cruickshank C, Burnett S, Maynard L, Hall E. BOXIT-A Randomised Phase III Placebo-controlled Trial Evaluating the Addition of Celecoxib to Standard Treatment of Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Bladder (CRUK/07/004). Eur Urol 2019; 75:593-601. [PMID: 30279015 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.09.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2018] [Accepted: 09/11/2018] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) has a significant risk of recurrence despite adjuvant intravesical therapy. OBJECTIVE To determine whether celecoxib, a cyclo-oxygenase 2 inhibitor, reduces the risk of recurrence in NMIBC patients receiving standard treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS BOXIT (CRUK/07/004, ISRCTN84681538) is a double-blinded, phase III, randomised controlled trial. Patients aged ≥18 yr with intermediate- or high-risk NMIBC were accrued across 51 UK centres between 1 November 2007 and 23 July 2012. INTERVENTION Patients were randomised (1:1) to celecoxib 200mg twice daily or placebo for 2 yr. Patients with intermediate-risk NMIBC were recommended to receive six weekly mitomycin C instillations; high-risk NMIBC cases received six weekly bacillus Calmette-Guérin and maintenance therapy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The primary endpoint was time to disease recurrence. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS A total of 472 patients were randomised (236:236). With median follow-up of 44 mo (interquartile range: 36-57), 3-yr recurrence-free rate (95% confidence interval) was as follows: celecoxib 68% (61-74%) versus placebo 64% (57-70%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.82 [0.60-1.12], p=0.2). There was no difference in high-risk (HR 0.77 [0.52-1.15], p=0.2) or intermediate-risk (HR 0.90 [0.55-1.48], p=0.7) NMIBC. Subgroup analysis suggested that time to recurrence was longer in pT1 NMIBC patients treated with celecoxib compared with those receiving placebo (HR 0.53 [0.30-0.94], interaction test p=0.04). The 3-yr progression rates in high-risk patients were low: 10% (6.5-17%) and 9.7% (6.0-15%) in celecoxib and placebo arms, respectively. Incidence of serious cardiovascular events was higher in celecoxib (5.2%) than in placebo (1.7%) group (difference +3.4% [-0.3% to 7.2%], p=0.07). CONCLUSIONS BOXIT did not show that celecoxib reduces the risk of recurrence in intermediate- or high-risk NMIBC, although celecoxib was associated with delayed time to recurrence in pT1 NMIBC patients. The increased risk of cardiovascular events does not support the use of celecoxib. PATIENT SUMMARY Celecoxib was not shown to reduce the risk of recurrence in intermediate- or high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), although celecoxib was associated with delayed time to recurrence in pT1 NMIBC patients. The increased risk of cardiovascular events does not support the use of celecoxib.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Nuria Porta
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Robert Huddart
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Richard Bogle
- Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, Carshalton, UK
| | | | | | - Jo Cresswell
- South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - Mark Johnson
- The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Emma Hall
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Tan WS, Ahmad A, Feber A, Mostafid H, Cresswell J, Fankhauser CD, Waisbrod S, Hermanns T, Sasieni P, Kelly JD. Development and validation of a haematuria cancer risk score to identify patients at risk of harbouring cancer. J Intern Med 2019; 285:436-445. [PMID: 30521125 PMCID: PMC6446724 DOI: 10.1111/joim.12868] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A lack of consensus exists amongst national guidelines regarding who should be investigated for haematuria. Type of haematuria and age-specific thresholds are frequently used to guide referral for the investigation of haematuria. OBJECTIVES To develop and externally validate the haematuria cancer risk score (HCRS) to improve patient selection for the investigation of haematuria. METHODS Development cohort comprise of 3539 prospectively recruited patients recruited at 40 UK hospitals (DETECT 1; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02676180) and validation cohort comprise of 656 Swiss patients. All patients were aged >18 years and referred to hospital for the evaluation of visible and nonvisible haematuria. Sensitivity and specificity of the HCRS in the validation cohort were derived from a cut-off identified from the discovery cohort. RESULTS Patient age, gender, type of haematuria and smoking history were used to develop the HCRS. HCRS validation achieves good discrimination (AUC 0.835; 95% CI: 0.789-0.880) and calibration (calibration slope = 1.215) with no significant overfitting (P = 0.151). The HCRS detected 11.4% (n = 8) more cancers which would be missed by UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines. The American Urological Association guidelines would identify all cancers with a specificity of 12.6% compared to 30.5% achieved by the HCRS. All patients with upper tract cancers would have been identified. CONCLUSION The HCRS offers good discriminatory accuracy which is superior to existing guidelines. The simplicity of the model would facilitate adoption and improve patient and physician decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- W. S. Tan
- Division of Surgery & Interventional ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK
- Department of UrologyUniversity College London HospitalLondonUK
| | - A. Ahmad
- Cancer IntelligenceCancer Research UKLondonUK
| | - A. Feber
- Division of Surgery & Interventional ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK
- UCL Cancer InstituteLondonUK
| | - H. Mostafid
- Department of UrologyRoyal Surrey County HospitalGuildfordUK
| | - J. Cresswell
- Department of UrologyJames Cook University HospitalMiddlesbroughUK
| | - C. D. Fankhauser
- Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital ZurichUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
| | - S. Waisbrod
- Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital ZurichUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
| | - T. Hermanns
- Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital ZurichUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
| | - P. Sasieni
- Faculty of Life Sciences & MedicineSchool of Cancer & Pharmaceutical SciencesInnovation HubGuys Cancer CentreGuys HospitalKing's College LondonLondonUK
| | - J. D. Kelly
- Division of Surgery & Interventional ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK
- Department of UrologyUniversity College London HospitalLondonUK
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Peyronnet B, Seisen T, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Bruins HM, Yuan CY, Lam T, Maclennan S, N’dow J, Babjuk M, Comperat E, Zigeuner R, Sylvester RJ, Burger M, Mostafid H, van Rhijn BW, Gontero P, Palou J, Shariat SF, Roupret M. Oncological Outcomes of Laparoscopic Nephroureterectomy Versus Open Radical Nephroureterectomy for Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: An European Association of Urology Guidelines Systematic Review. Eur Urol Focus 2019; 5:205-223. [DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.10.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 79] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2017] [Revised: 08/10/2017] [Accepted: 10/10/2017] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
|
41
|
Mostafid H. The beginning of the end for asymptomatic microsopic haematuria. Scand J Urol 2019; 53:7. [DOI: 10.1080/21681805.2019.1594579] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Hugh Mostafid
- Consultant Urologist, The Stokes Centre for Urology, Guildford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Tan WS, Sarpong R, Khetrapal P, Rodney S, Mostafid H, Cresswell J, Watson D, Rane A, Hicks J, Hellawell G, Davies M, Srirangam SJ, Dawson L, Payne D, Williams N, Brew‐Graves C, Feber A, Kelly JD. Does urinary cytology have a role in haematuria investigations? BJU Int 2019; 123:74-81. [PMID: 30003675 PMCID: PMC6334509 DOI: 10.1111/bju.14459] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To determine the diagnostic accuracy of urinary cytology to diagnose bladder cancer and upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC) as well as the outcome of patients with a positive urine cytology and normal haematuria investigations in patients in a multicentre prospective observational study of patients investigated for haematuria. PATIENT AND METHODS The DETECT I study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02676180) recruited patients presenting with haematuria following referral to secondary case at 40 hospitals. All patients had a cystoscopy and upper tract imaging (renal bladder ultrasound [RBUS] and/ or CT urogram [CTU]). Patients, where urine cytology were performed, were sub-analysed. The reference standard for the diagnosis of bladder cancer and UTUC was histological confirmation of cancer. A positive urine cytology was defined as a urine cytology suspicious for neoplastic cells or atypical cells. RESULTS Of the 3 556 patients recruited, urine cytology was performed in 567 (15.9%) patients from nine hospitals. Median time between positive urine cytology and endoscopic tumour resection was 27 (IQR: 21.3-33.8) days. Bladder cancer was diagnosed in 39 (6.9%) patients and UTUC in 8 (1.4%) patients. The accuracy of urinary cytology for the diagnosis of bladder cancer and UTUC was: sensitivity 43.5%, specificity 95.7%, positive predictive value (PPV) 47.6% and negative predictive value (NPV) 94.9%. A total of 21 bladder cancers and 5 UTUC were missed. Bladder cancers missed according to grade and stage were as follows: 4 (19%) were ≥ pT2, 2 (9.5%) were G3 pT1, 10 (47.6%) were G3/2 pTa and 5 (23.8%) were G1 pTa. High-risk cancer was confirmed in 8 (38%) patients. There was a marginal improvement in sensitivity (57.7%) for high-risk cancers. When urine cytology was combined with imaging, the diagnostic performance improved with CTU (sensitivity 90.2%, specificity 94.9%) superior to RBUS (sensitivity 66.7%, specificity 96.7%). False positive cytology results were confirmed in 22 patients, of which 12 (54.5%) had further invasive tests and 5 (22.7%) had a repeat cytology. No cancer was identified in these patients during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Urine cytology will miss a significant number of muscle-invasive bladder cancer and high-risk disease. Our results suggest that urine cytology should not be routinely performed as part of haematuria investigations. The role of urine cytology in select cases should be considered in the context of the impact of a false positive result leading to further potentially invasive tests conducted under general anaesthesia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wei Shen Tan
- Division of Surgery and Interventional ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK
- Department of UrologyUniversity College London HospitalLondonUK
| | - Rachael Sarpong
- Surgical and Interventional Trials UnitUniversity College LondonLondonUK
| | - Pramit Khetrapal
- Division of Surgery and Interventional ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK
- Department of UrologyUniversity College London HospitalLondonUK
| | - Simon Rodney
- Division of Surgery and Interventional ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK
- UCL Cancer InstituteLondonUK
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of UrologyRoyal Surrey County HospitalGuildfordUK
| | - Joanne Cresswell
- Department of UrologyJames Cook University HospitalMiddlesbroughUK
| | - Dawn Watson
- Department of UrologyJames Cook University HospitalMiddlesbroughUK
| | - Abhay Rane
- Department of UrologyEast Surrey HospitalRedhillUK
| | - James Hicks
- Department of UrologyWorthing HospitalWorthingUK
| | | | - Melissa Davies
- Department of UrologySalisbury District HospitalSalisburyUK
| | | | | | - David Payne
- Department of UrologyKettering General HospitalKetteringUK
| | - Norman Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials UnitUniversity College LondonLondonUK
| | - Chris Brew‐Graves
- Surgical and Interventional Trials UnitUniversity College LondonLondonUK
| | - Andrew Feber
- Division of Surgery and Interventional ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK
- UCL Cancer InstituteLondonUK
| | - John D. Kelly
- Division of Surgery and Interventional ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK
- Department of UrologyUniversity College London HospitalLondonUK
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Penegar S, Lewis R, Catto J, Cresswell J, Griffiths L, Hill M, Kelly J, Knight A, McGrath J, Wiley L, Mostafid H, Hall E. Correction to: Meeting abstracts from the 4th International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference (ICTMC) and the 38th Annual Meeting of the Society for Clinical Trials. Trials 2018. [PMCID: PMC5807775 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-017-2392-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
|
44
|
Mostafid H, Palou J, Burger M, Babjuk M. T1 High-grade Bladder Cancer: The Search for the Optimal Management Continues. Eur Urol 2018; 74:609-610. [DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2018] [Accepted: 08/10/2018] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
|
45
|
de Jong JJ, Hendricksen K, Rosier M, Mostafid H, Boormans JL. Hyperthermic Intravesical Chemotherapy for BCG Unresponsive Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Patients. Bladder Cancer 2018; 4:395-401. [PMID: 30417050 PMCID: PMC6218110 DOI: 10.3233/blc-180191] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Background: Adjuvant intravesical instillations with bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is the recommended treatment option for patients with intermediate-and high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Despite adequate BCG treatment, a large proportion of patients experience a recurrence. Although radical cystectomy is the gold standard for BCG unresponsive NMIBC, some patients are unfit or unwilling to consider this option. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of Hyperthermic IntraVEsical Chemotherapy (HIVEC®) in BCG unresponsive NMIBC patients. Methods: A post-hoc analysis was conducted of prospectively included intermediate-and high-risk NMIBC patients who were planned to receive HIVEC® treatment between October 2014 and November 2017. For the present analysis, only patients who met the BCG unresponsive definition were included. Patients were followed by cystoscopy and cytology every 3 months and a CT-urography scan yearly. The primary outcome was the disease-free survival (DFS). The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was used to assess side-effects. Results: The study population consisted of 55 BCG unresponsive NMIBC patients of whom 52 underwent≥5 HIVEC® treatments. The median age and follow-up were 73 years and 14.0 months (IQR 7.6 – 24.6). The median DFS was 17.7 months (SE 6.72) and progression occurred in four patients. The 1-year cumulative incidence rate of disease recurrence/progression was 53%. Two patients experienced severe side-effects (CTCAE≥3). Conclusions: HIVEC® seems a valid treatment option for BCG unresponsive NMIBC patients. We report a median DFS of 17.7 months (SE 6.72), potentially avoiding or postponing the need for radical surgery in a proportion of these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joep J de Jong
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Kees Hendricksen
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Division of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marloes Rosier
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | - Joost L Boormans
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Tan WS, Panchal A, Buckley L, Devall AJ, Loubière LS, Pope AM, Feneley MR, Cresswell J, Issa R, Mostafid H, Madaan S, Bhatt R, McGrath J, Sangar V, Griffiths TRL, Page T, Hodgson D, Datta SN, Billingham LJ, Kelly JD. Radiofrequency-induced Thermo-chemotherapy Effect Versus a Second Course of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin or Institutional Standard in Patients with Recurrence of Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer Following Induction or Maintenance Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Therapy (HYMN): A Phase III, Open-label, Randomised Controlled Trial. Eur Urol 2018; 75:63-71. [PMID: 30274699 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.09.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 79] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2018] [Accepted: 09/04/2018] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is no effective intravesical second-line therapy for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) when bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) fails. OBJECTIVE To compare disease-free survival time (DFS) between radiofrequency-induced thermo-chemotherapy effect (RITE) and institutional standard second-line therapy (control) in NMIBC patients with recurrence following induction/maintenance BCG. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS Open-label, phase III randomised controlled trial accrued across 14 centres between May 2010 and July 2013 (HYMN [ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01094964]). INTERVENTION Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to RITE (60min, 40mg mitomycin-C, 42±2°C) or control following stratification for carcinoma in situ (CIS) status (present/absent), therapy history (failure of previous induction/maintenance BCG), and treatment centre. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Primary outcome measures were DFS and complete response (CR) at 3 mo for the CIS at randomisation subgroup. Analysis was based on intention-to-treat. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS A total of 104 patients were randomised (48 RITE: 56 control). Median follow-up for the 31 patients without a DFS event was 36 mo. There was no significant difference in DFS between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR] 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-2.10, p=0.23) or in 3-mo CR rate in CIS patients (n=71; RITE: 30% vs control: 47%, p=0.15). There was no significant difference in DFS between treatment arms in non-CIS patients (n=33; RITE: 53% vs control: 24% at 24 mo, HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22-1.17, p=0.11). DFS was significantly lower in RITE than in control in CIS with/without papillary patients (n=71; HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.17-3.62, p=0.01; treatment-subgroup interaction p=0.007). Disease progression was observed in four patients in each treatment arm. Adverse events and health-related quality of life between treatment arms were comparable. CONCLUSIONS DFS was similar between RITE and control. RITE may be a second-line therapy for non-CIS recurrence following BCG failure; however, confirmatory trials are needed. RITE patients with CIS with/without papillary had lower DFS than control. HYMN highlights the importance of the control arm when evaluating novel therapies. PATIENT SUMMARY This study did not show a difference in bladder cancer outcomes between microwave-heated chemotherapy and standard of care treatment. Papillary bladder lesions may benefit from microwave-heated chemotherapy treatment; however, more research is needed. Both treatments are similarly well tolerated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wei Shen Tan
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Anesh Panchal
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Laura Buckley
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Adam J Devall
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Laurence S Loubière
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Ann M Pope
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Mark R Feneley
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Jo Cresswell
- Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - Rami Issa
- Department of Urology, St George's Hospital, London, UK
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | - Sanjeev Madaan
- Department of Urology, Darent Valley Hospital, Dartford, UK
| | - Rupesh Bhatt
- Department of Urology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - John McGrath
- Department of Urology, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK
| | - Vijay Sangar
- Department of Urology, Withington Hospital, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Toby Page
- Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
| | - Dominic Hodgson
- Department of Urology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK
| | | | - Lucinda J Billingham
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - John D Kelly
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Tan WS, Feber A, Sarpong R, Khetrapal P, Rodney S, Jalil R, Mostafid H, Cresswell J, Hicks J, Rane A, Henderson A, Watson D, Cherian J, Williams N, Brew-Graves C, Kelly JD. Who Should Be Investigated for Haematuria? Results of a Contemporary Prospective Observational Study of 3556 Patients. Eur Urol 2018; 74:10-14. [DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2018] [Accepted: 03/07/2018] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
48
|
Fankhauser CD, Mostafid H. Genetic polymorphisms may explain association between alcohol consumption and bladder cancer risk in East Asian men. Transl Androl Urol 2018; 7:S252-S254. [PMID: 29928627 PMCID: PMC5989115 DOI: 10.21037/tau.2018.04.17] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Egerton Road, Guildford, Surrey, UK
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Moschonas D, Kusuma M, Pavlakis P, Jones C, Roodhouse A, Woodhams S, Swinn M, Mostafid H, Perry M, Patil K. Early discharge does not increase readmission rate in patients robotic assisted radical cystectomy with enhanced recovery protocol. Clin Nutr ESPEN 2018. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2018.03.088] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
50
|
Tan WS, Sarpong R, Khetrapal P, Rodney S, Mostafid H, Cresswell J, Hicks J, Rane A, Henderson A, Watson D, Cherian J, Williams N, Brew-Graves C, Feber A, Kelly JD. Can Renal and Bladder Ultrasound Replace Computerized Tomography Urogram in Patients Investigated for Microscopic Hematuria? J Urol 2018; 200:973-980. [PMID: 29702097 PMCID: PMC6179963 DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.065] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/11/2018] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
Purpose Computerized tomography urogram is recommended when investigating patients with hematuria. We determined the incidence of urinary tract cancer and compared the diagnostic accuracy of computerized tomography urogram to that of renal and bladder ultrasound for identifying urinary tract cancer. Materials and Methods The DETECT (Detecting Bladder Cancer Using the UroMark Test) I study is a prospective observational study recruiting patients 18 years old or older following presentation with macroscopic or microscopic hematuria at a total of 40 hospitals. All patients underwent cystoscopy and upper tract imaging comprising computerized tomography urogram and/or renal and bladder ultrasound. Results A total of 3,556 patients with a median age of 68 years were recruited in this study, of whom 2,166 underwent renal and bladder ultrasound, and 1,692 underwent computerized tomography urogram in addition to cystoscopy. The incidence of bladder, renal and upper tract urothelial cancer was 11.0%, 1.4% and 0.8%, respectively, in macroscopic hematuria cases. Patients with microscopic hematuria had a 2.7%, 0.4% and 0% incidence of bladder, renal and upper tract urothelial cancer, respectively. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of renal and bladder ultrasound to detect renal cancer were 85.7% and 99.9% but they were 14.3% and 99.7%, respectively, to detect upper tract urothelial cancer. Renal and bladder ultrasound was poor at identifying renal calculi. Renal and bladder ultrasound sensitivity was lower than that of computerized tomography urogram to detect bladder cancer (each less than 85%). Cystoscopy had 98.3% specificity and 83.9% positive predictive value. Conclusions Computerized tomography urogram can be safely replaced by renal and bladder ultrasound in patients who have microscopic hematuria. The incidence of upper tract urothelial cancer is 0.8% in patients with macroscopic hematuria and computerized tomography urogram is recommended. Patients with suspected renal calculi require noncontrast renal tract computerized tomography. Imaging cannot replace cystoscopy to diagnose bladder cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wei Shen Tan
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science (SR), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (RS, NW, CB-G), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital (WST, PK, JDK), London, United Kingdom; University College London Cancer Institute (SR, AF), London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital (HM), Guildford, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital (JC), Middlesbrough, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital (JH), Worthing, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, East Surrey Hospital (AR), Redhill, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Maidstone Hospital (AH), Maidstone, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital (JC), Crumpsall, United Kingdom.
| | - Rachael Sarpong
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science (SR), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (RS, NW, CB-G), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital (WST, PK, JDK), London, United Kingdom; University College London Cancer Institute (SR, AF), London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital (HM), Guildford, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital (JC), Middlesbrough, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital (JH), Worthing, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, East Surrey Hospital (AR), Redhill, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Maidstone Hospital (AH), Maidstone, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital (JC), Crumpsall, United Kingdom
| | - Pramit Khetrapal
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science (SR), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (RS, NW, CB-G), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital (WST, PK, JDK), London, United Kingdom; University College London Cancer Institute (SR, AF), London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital (HM), Guildford, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital (JC), Middlesbrough, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital (JH), Worthing, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, East Surrey Hospital (AR), Redhill, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Maidstone Hospital (AH), Maidstone, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital (JC), Crumpsall, United Kingdom
| | - Simon Rodney
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science (SR), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (RS, NW, CB-G), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital (WST, PK, JDK), London, United Kingdom; University College London Cancer Institute (SR, AF), London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital (HM), Guildford, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital (JC), Middlesbrough, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital (JH), Worthing, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, East Surrey Hospital (AR), Redhill, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Maidstone Hospital (AH), Maidstone, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital (JC), Crumpsall, United Kingdom
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science (SR), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (RS, NW, CB-G), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital (WST, PK, JDK), London, United Kingdom; University College London Cancer Institute (SR, AF), London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital (HM), Guildford, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital (JC), Middlesbrough, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital (JH), Worthing, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, East Surrey Hospital (AR), Redhill, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Maidstone Hospital (AH), Maidstone, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital (JC), Crumpsall, United Kingdom
| | - Joanne Cresswell
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science (SR), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (RS, NW, CB-G), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital (WST, PK, JDK), London, United Kingdom; University College London Cancer Institute (SR, AF), London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital (HM), Guildford, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital (JC), Middlesbrough, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital (JH), Worthing, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, East Surrey Hospital (AR), Redhill, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Maidstone Hospital (AH), Maidstone, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital (JC), Crumpsall, United Kingdom
| | - James Hicks
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science (SR), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (RS, NW, CB-G), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital (WST, PK, JDK), London, United Kingdom; University College London Cancer Institute (SR, AF), London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital (HM), Guildford, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital (JC), Middlesbrough, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital (JH), Worthing, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, East Surrey Hospital (AR), Redhill, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Maidstone Hospital (AH), Maidstone, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital (JC), Crumpsall, United Kingdom
| | - Abhay Rane
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science (SR), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (RS, NW, CB-G), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital (WST, PK, JDK), London, United Kingdom; University College London Cancer Institute (SR, AF), London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital (HM), Guildford, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital (JC), Middlesbrough, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital (JH), Worthing, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, East Surrey Hospital (AR), Redhill, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Maidstone Hospital (AH), Maidstone, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital (JC), Crumpsall, United Kingdom
| | - Alastair Henderson
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science (SR), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (RS, NW, CB-G), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital (WST, PK, JDK), London, United Kingdom; University College London Cancer Institute (SR, AF), London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital (HM), Guildford, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital (JC), Middlesbrough, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital (JH), Worthing, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, East Surrey Hospital (AR), Redhill, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Maidstone Hospital (AH), Maidstone, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital (JC), Crumpsall, United Kingdom
| | - Dawn Watson
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science (SR), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (RS, NW, CB-G), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital (WST, PK, JDK), London, United Kingdom; University College London Cancer Institute (SR, AF), London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital (HM), Guildford, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital (JC), Middlesbrough, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital (JH), Worthing, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, East Surrey Hospital (AR), Redhill, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Maidstone Hospital (AH), Maidstone, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital (JC), Crumpsall, United Kingdom
| | - Jacob Cherian
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science (SR), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (RS, NW, CB-G), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital (WST, PK, JDK), London, United Kingdom; University College London Cancer Institute (SR, AF), London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital (HM), Guildford, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital (JC), Middlesbrough, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital (JH), Worthing, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, East Surrey Hospital (AR), Redhill, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Maidstone Hospital (AH), Maidstone, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital (JC), Crumpsall, United Kingdom
| | - Norman Williams
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science (SR), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (RS, NW, CB-G), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital (WST, PK, JDK), London, United Kingdom; University College London Cancer Institute (SR, AF), London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital (HM), Guildford, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital (JC), Middlesbrough, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital (JH), Worthing, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, East Surrey Hospital (AR), Redhill, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Maidstone Hospital (AH), Maidstone, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital (JC), Crumpsall, United Kingdom
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science (SR), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (RS, NW, CB-G), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital (WST, PK, JDK), London, United Kingdom; University College London Cancer Institute (SR, AF), London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital (HM), Guildford, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital (JC), Middlesbrough, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital (JH), Worthing, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, East Surrey Hospital (AR), Redhill, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Maidstone Hospital (AH), Maidstone, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital (JC), Crumpsall, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew Feber
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science (SR), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (RS, NW, CB-G), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital (WST, PK, JDK), London, United Kingdom; University College London Cancer Institute (SR, AF), London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital (HM), Guildford, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital (JC), Middlesbrough, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital (JH), Worthing, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, East Surrey Hospital (AR), Redhill, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Maidstone Hospital (AH), Maidstone, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital (JC), Crumpsall, United Kingdom
| | - John D Kelly
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science (SR), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (RS, NW, CB-G), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital (WST, PK, JDK), London, United Kingdom; University College London Cancer Institute (SR, AF), London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital (HM), Guildford, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital (JC), Middlesbrough, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital (JH), Worthing, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, East Surrey Hospital (AR), Redhill, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Maidstone Hospital (AH), Maidstone, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital (JC), Crumpsall, United Kingdom
| | -
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science (SR), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (RS, NW, CB-G), University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital (WST, PK, JDK), London, United Kingdom; University College London Cancer Institute (SR, AF), London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital (HM), Guildford, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, James Cook University Hospital (JC), Middlesbrough, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital (JH), Worthing, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, East Surrey Hospital (AR), Redhill, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Maidstone Hospital (AH), Maidstone, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital (JC), Crumpsall, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|