How Can We Improve Patient-Clinician Communication for Men Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer?

Background and objective

The ability of health care professionals to communicate with patients compassionately and effectively is crucial for shared decision-making, but little research has investigated patient-clinician communication. As part of PIONEER-an international Big Data Consortium led by the European Association of Urology to answer key questions for men with prostate cancer (PCa), funded through the IMI2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement 777492- we investigated communication between men diagnosed with PCa and the health care professional(s) treating them across Europe.

Methods

We used the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Communication 26, which was shared via the PIONEER and patient organisations on March 11, 2022. We sought men who spoke French, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch, or English who were diagnosed with PCa and were undergoing or had already received treatment for their PCa.

Results and limitations

A total of 372 men reported that they communicated with their clinician during either the diagnostic or the treatment period. Overall, the majority of participants reported positive experiences. However, important opportunities to enhance communication were identified, particularly with regard to correcting misunderstandings, understanding the patient's preferred approach to information presentation, addressing challenging questions, supporting the patient's comprehension of information, attending to the patient's emotional needs, and assessing what information had already been given to patients about their disease and treatment, and how much of it was understood.

Conclusions and clinical implications

These results help us to identify gaps and barriers to shared treatment decision making. This knowledge will help devise measures to improve patient-health care professional communication in the PCa setting.

Patient summary

As part of the PIONEER initiative, we investigated the communication between men diagnosed with prostate cancer and their health care professionals across Europe. A total of 372 men from six different countries participated in the study. Most participants reported positive experiences, but areas where communication could be improved were identified. These included addressing misunderstandings, tailoring the presentation of information to the patient's preferences, handling difficult questions, supporting emotional needs, and assessing the patient's understanding of their diagnosis and treatment.

European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 5: Consensus on Molecular Imaging and Theranostics in Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

In prostate cancer (PCa), questions remain on indications for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and PSMA radioligand therapy, integration of advanced imaging in nomogram-based decision-making, dosimetry, and development of new theranostic applications.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to critically review developments in molecular hybrid imaging and systemic radioligand therapy, to reach a multidisciplinary consensus on the current state of the art in PCa.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The results of a systematic literature search informed a two-round Delphi process with a panel of 28 PCa experts in medical or radiation oncology, urology, radiology, medical physics, and nuclear medicine. The results were discussed and ratified in a consensus meeting.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Forty-eight statements were scored on a Likert agreement scale and six as ranking options. Agreement statements were analysed using the RAND appropriateness method. Ranking statements were analysed using weighted summed scores.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

After two Delphi rounds, there was consensus on 42/48 (87.5%) of the statements. The expert panel recommends PSMA PET to be used for staging the majority of patients with unfavourable intermediate and high risk, and for restaging of suspected recurrent PCa. There was consensus that oligometastatic disease should be defined as up to five metastases, even using advanced imaging modalities. The group agreed that [177Lu]Lu-PSMA should not be administered only after progression to cabazitaxel and that [223Ra]RaCl2 remains a valid therapeutic option in bone-only metastatic castration-resistant PCa. Uncertainty remains on various topics, including the need for concordant findings on both [18F]FDG and PSMA PET prior to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high proportion of agreement among a panel of experts on the use of molecular imaging and theranostics in PCa. Although consensus statements cannot replace high-certainty evidence, these can aid in the interpretation and dissemination of best practice from centres of excellence to the wider clinical community.

PATIENT SUMMARY

There are situations when dealing with prostate cancer (PCa) where both the doctors who diagnose and track the disease development and response to treatment, and those who give treatments are unsure about what the best course of action is. Examples include what methods they should use to obtain images of the cancer and what to do when the cancer has returned or spread. We reviewed published research studies and provided a summary to a panel of experts in imaging and treating PCa. We also used the research summary to develop a questionnaire whereby we asked the experts to state whether or not they agreed with a list of statements. We used these results to provide guidance to other health care professionals on how best to image men with PCa and what treatments to give, when, and in what order, based on the information the images provide.

Survivorship Data in Prostate Cancer: Where Are We and Where Do We Need To Be?

Cancer survivorship was recently identified as a prostate cancer (PCa) research priority by PIONEER, a European network of excellence for big data in PCa. Despite being a research priority, cancer survivorship lacks a clear and agreed definition, and there is a distinct paucity of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data available on the subject. Data collection on cancer survivorship depends on the availability and implementation of (validated) routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). There have been recent advances in the availability of such PROMs. For instance, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group (EORTC QLG) is developing survivorship questionnaires. This provides an excellent first step in improving the data available on cancer survivorship. However, we propose that an agreed, standardised definition of (prostate) cancer survivorship must first be established. Only then can real-world data on survivorship be collected to strengthen our knowledge base. With more men than ever surviving PCa, this type of research is imperative to ensure that the quality of life of these men is considered as much as their quantity of life.

Patient summary

As there are more prostate cancer survivors than ever before, research into cancer survivorship is crucial. We highlight the importance of such research and provide recommendations on how to carry it out. The first step should be establishing agreement on a standardised definition of survivorship. From this, patient-reported outcome measures can then be used to collect important survivorship data.

En bloc resection of bladder tumour: the rebirth of past through reminiscence

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.

Effectiveness of de-implementation strategies for low-value prescribing in secondary care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Considerable efforts have been made to improve guideline adherence in healthcare through de-implementation, such as decreasing the prescription of inappropriate medicines. However, we have limited knowledge about the effectiveness, barriers, facilitators and consequences of de-implementation strategies targeting inappropriate medication prescribing in secondary care settings. This review was conducted to understand these factors to contribute to better replication and optimisation of future de-implementation efforts to reduce low-value care.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomised control trials was conducted. Papers were identified through CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane register of controlled trials to February 2021. Eligible studies were randomised control trials evaluating behavioural strategies to de-implement inappropriate prescribing in secondary healthcare. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Intervention characteristics, effectiveness, barriers, facilitators and consequences were identified in the study text and tabulated.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included, of which seven were reported as effectively de-implementing low-value prescribing. Included studies were judged to be mainly at low to moderate risk for selection biases and generally high risk for performance and reporting biases. The majority of these strategies were clinical decision support at the 'point of care'. Clinical decision support tools were the most common and effective. They were found to be a low-cost and simple strategy. However, barriers such as clinician's reluctance to accept recommendations, or the clinical setting were potential barriers to their success. Educational strategies were the second most reported intervention type however the utility of educational strategies for de-implementation remains varied. Multiple barriers and facilitators relating to the environmental context, resources and knowledge were identified across studies as potentially influencing de-implementation. Various consequences were identified; however, few measured the impact of de-implementation on usual appropriate practice.

CONCLUSION

This review offers insight into the intervention strategies, potential barriers, facilitators and consequences that may affect the de-implementation of low-value prescribing in secondary care. Identification of these key features helps understand how and why these strategies are effective and the wider (desirable or undesirable) impact of de-implementation. These findings can contribute to the successful replication or optimisation of strategies used to de-implement low-value prescribing practices in future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021243944).

A protocol for the development of core outcome sets for effectiveness trials and clinical audits in renal cell cancer (R-COS)

Background

There is inconsistency in outcomes collected in renal cell cancer (RCC) intervention effectiveness studies and variability in their definitions. This makes critical summaries of the evidence base difficult and sub-optimally informative for clinical practice guidelines and decision-making by patients and healthcare professionals. A solution is to develop a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials in a clinical area.

Objectives

To develop three COS for (a) localised, (b) locally advanced and (c) metastatic.

RCC study design participants and methods

The methods are the same for each of our three COS and are structured in two phases. Phase 1 identifies potentially relevant outcomes by conducting both a systematic literature review and patient interviews (N ~ 30 patients). Qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis. In phase 2, all outcomes identified in phase 1 will be entered in a modified eDelphi, whereby patients and healthcare professionals (50 of each) will score each outcome's importance (Likert scale from 1 [not important] to 9 [critically important]). Outcomes scored in the 7-9 range by ≥70% and 1-3 by ≤15% will be regarded as 'consensus in', and the vice versa of this will constitute 'consensus out'. All other combinations will be regarded as equivocal and discussed at consensus meetings (including 10 patients and 10 healthcare professionals) in order to vote on them and ratify the results of the eDelphi.

Discussion

The R-COS will reduce outcome reporting heterogeneity and improve the evidence base for RCC.

Study registration

The study is registered with the COMET initiative: https://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1406.

Audit, Feedback, and Education to Improve Quality and Outcomes in Transurethral Resection and Single-Instillation Intravesical Chemotherapy for Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Treatment: Protocol for a Multicenter International Observational Study With an Embedded Cluster Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) accounts for 75% of bladder cancers. It is common and costly. Cost and detriment to patient outcomes and quality of life are driven by high recurrence rates and the need for regular invasive surveillance and repeat treatments. There is evidence that the quality of the initial surgical procedure (transurethral resection of bladder tumor [TURBT]) and administration of postoperative bladder chemotherapy significantly reduce cancer recurrence rates and improve outcomes (cancer progression and mortality). There is surgeon-reported evidence that TURBT practice varies significantly across surgeons and sites. There is limited evidence from clinical trials of intravesical chemotherapy that NMIBC recurrence rate varies significantly between sites and that this cannot be accounted for by differences in patient, tumor, or adjuvant treatment factors, suggesting that how the surgery is performed may be a reason for the variation.

OBJECTIVE

This study primarily aims to determine if feedback on and education about surgical quality indicators can improve performance and secondarily if this can reduce cancer recurrence rates. Planned secondary analyses aim to determine what surgeon, operative, perioperative, institutional, and patient factors are associated with better achievement of TURBT quality indicators and NMIBC recurrence rates.

METHODS

This is an observational, international, multicenter study with an embedded cluster randomized trial of audit, feedback, and education. Sites will be included if they perform TURBT for NMIBC. The study has four phases: (1) site registration and usual practice survey; (2) retrospective audit; (3) randomization to audit, feedback, and education intervention or to no intervention; and (4) prospective audit. Local and national ethical and institutional approvals or exemptions will be obtained at each participating site.

RESULTS

The study has 4 coprimary outcomes, which are 4 evidence-based TURBT quality indicators: a surgical performance factor (detrusor muscle resection); an adjuvant treatment factor (intravesical chemotherapy administration); and 2 documentation factors (resection completeness and tumor features). A key secondary outcome is the early cancer recurrence rate. The intervention is a web-based surgical performance feedback dashboard with educational and practical resources for TURBT quality improvement. It will include anonymous site and surgeon-level peer comparison, a performance summary, and targets. The coprimary outcomes will be analyzed at the site level while recurrence rate will be analyzed at the patient level. The study was funded in October 2020 and began data collection in April 2021. As of January 2023, there were 220 hospitals participating and over 15,000 patient records. Projected data collection end date is June 30, 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

This study aims to use a distributed collaborative model to deliver a site-level web-based performance feedback intervention to improve the quality of endoscopic bladder cancer surgery. The study is funded and projects to complete data collection in June 2023.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.org NCT05154084; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05154084.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/42254.

Assessing the quality of patient-reported outcome measurements for gynecological cancers: a systematic review

Purpose: To provide perspective on patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) instruments to adopt in patients diagnosed with gynecological cancers. Methods: A systematic search was conducted to identify PROMs developed for or applied in gynecological cancer populations. PROMs identified in more than one study subsequently underwent assessment according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. Results: Overall, 55 PROMs were identified within the gynecological cancer setting, and 20 were assessed according to COSMIN guidelines. Most PROMs had limited information reported, but a best fit approach was adopted to recommend a number of instruments for use in patients with gynecological cancer. Conclusion: Further study to assess the methodological quality of each PROM utilized in gynecological cancers is warranted to endorse the recommendations of this review.

European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) Focus 4 consensus recommendations: molecular imaging and therapy in haematological tumours

Given the paucity of high-certainty evidence, and differences in opinion on the use of nuclear medicine for hematological malignancies, we embarked on a consensus process involving key experts in this area. We aimed to assess consensus within a panel of experts on issues related to patient eligibility, imaging techniques, staging and response assessment, follow-up, and treatment decision-making, and to provide interim guidance by our expert consensus. We used a three-stage consensus process. First, we systematically reviewed and appraised the quality of existing evidence. Second, we generated a list of 153 statements based on the literature review to be agreed or disagreed with, with an additional statement added after the first round. Third, the 154 statements were scored by a panel of 26 experts purposively sampled from authors of published research on haematological tumours on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree) Likert scale in a two-round electronic Delphi review. The RAND and University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method was used for analysis. Between one and 14 systematic reviews were identified on each topic. All were rated as low to moderate quality. After two rounds of voting, there was consensus on 139 (90%) of 154 of the statements. There was consensus on most statements concerning the use of PET in non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma. In multiple myeloma, more studies are required to define the optimal sequence for treatment assessment. Furthermore, nuclear medicine physicians and haematologists are awaiting consistent literature to introduce volumetric parameters, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and radiomics into routine practice.

Unanswered questions in prostate cancer - findings of an international multi-stakeholder consensus by the PIONEER consortium

PIONEER is a European network of excellence for big data in prostate cancer consisting of 37 private and public stakeholders from 9 countries across Europe. Many progresses have been done in prostate cancer management, but unanswered questions in the field still exist, and big data could help to answer these questions. The PIONEER consortium conducted a two-round modified Delphi survey aiming at building consensus between two stakeholder groups - health-care professionals and patients with prostate cancer - about the most important questions in the field of prostate cancer to be answered using big data. Respondents were asked to consider what would be the effect of answering the proposed questions on improving diagnosis and treatment outcomes for patients with prostate cancer and to score these questions on a scale of 1 (not important) to 9 (critically important). The mean percentage of participants who scored each of the proposed questions as critically important was calculated across the two stakeholder groups and used to rank the questions and identify the highest scoring questions in the critically important category. The identification of questions in prostate cancer that are important to various stakeholders will help the PIONEER consortium to provide answers to these questions to improve the clinical care of patients with prostate cancer.

Best Current Practice and Research Priorities in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer-A Report of a Movember International Consensus Meeting

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) is recommended for low-risk and some intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Uptake and practice of AS vary significantly across different settings, as does the experience of surveillance-from which tests are offered, and to the levels of psychological support.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the current best practice and determine the most important research priorities in AS for prostate cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A formal consensus process was followed, with an international expert panel of purposively sampled participants across a range of health care professionals and researchers, and those with lived experience of prostate cancer. Statements regarding the practice of AS and potential research priorities spanning the patient journey from surveillance to initiating treatment were developed.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Panel members scored each statement on a Likert scale. The group median score and measure of consensus were presented to participants prior to discussion and rescoring at panel meetings. Current best practice and future research priorities were identified, agreed upon, and finally ranked by panel members.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

There was consensus agreement that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which allows digital rectal examination (DRE) to be omitted, that repeat standard biopsy can be omitted when MRI and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics are stable, and that changes in PSA or DRE should prompt MRI ± biopsy rather than immediate active treatment. The highest ranked research priority was a dynamic, risk-adjusted AS approach, reducing testing for those at the least risk of progression. Improving the tests used in surveillance, ensuring equity of access and experience across different patients and settings, and improving information and communication between and within clinicians and patients were also high priorities. Limitations include the use of a limited number of panel members for practical reasons.

CONCLUSIONS

The current best practice in AS includes the use of high-quality MRI to avoid DRE and as the first assessment for changes in PSA, with omission of repeat standard biopsy when PSA and MRI are stable. Development of a robust, dynamic, risk-adapted approach to surveillance is the highest research priority in AS for prostate cancer.

PATIENT SUMMARY

A diverse group of experts in active surveillance, including a broad range of health care professionals and researchers and those with lived experience of prostate cancer, agreed that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging, which can allow digital rectal examination and some biopsies to be omitted. The highest research priority in active surveillance research was identified as the development of a dynamic, risk-adjusted approach.

A Systematic Review of Heterogeneity in Outcome Definition and Reporting in Localised Renal Cancer

Context

Outcomes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are reported inconsistently, with variability in definitions and measurement. Hence, it is difficult to compare intervention effectiveness and synthesise outcomes for systematic reviews and to create clinical practice guidelines. This uncertainty in the evidence makes it difficult to guide patient-clinician decision-making. One solution is a core outcome set (COS): an agreed minimum set of outcomes.

Objective

To describe outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement heterogeneity as the first stage in co-creating a COS for localised renal cancer.

Evidence acquisition

We systematically reviewed outcome reporting heterogeneity in effectiveness trials and observational studies in localised RCC. In total, 2822 studies (randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, systematic reviews) up to June 2020 meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers; in cases of disagreement, a third reviewer arbitrated. Data extractions were double-checked.

Evidence synthesis

We included 149 studies and found that there was inconsistency in which outcomes were reported across studies and variability in the definitions used for outcomes that were conceptually the same. We structured our analysis using the outcome classification taxonomy proposed by Dodd et al. Outcomes linked to adverse events (eg, bleeding, outcomes linked to surgery) and renal injury outcomes (reduced renal function) were reported most commonly. Outcomes related to deaths from any cause and from cancer were reported in 44% and 25% of studies, respectively, although the time point for measurement and the analysis methods were inconsistent. Outcomes linked to life impact (eg, global quality of life) were reported least often. Clinician-reported outcomes are more frequently reported than patient-reported outcomes in the renal cancer literature.

Conclusions

This systematic review underscores the heterogeneity of outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement in research on localised renal cancer. It catalogues the variety of outcomes and serves as a first step towards the development of a COS for localised renal cancer.

Patient summary

We reviewed studies on localised kidney cancer and found that multiple terms and definitions have been used to describe outcomes. These are not defined consistently, and often not defined at all. Our review is the first phase in developing a core outcome set to allow better comparisons of studies to improve medical care.

A Systematic Review to Evaluate Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Metastatic Prostate Cancer According to the COnsensus-Based Standard for the Selection of Health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Methodology

Simple Summary

Metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) is one of the most common solid tumors in men and both the disease and the treatments affect patients’ quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported Outcome Measurements (PROMs) are important to assess the patient’s subjective experience with disease and treatment. Our aim is to appraise, compare, and summarize the psychometric properties of Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Our findings can improve patients’ care and their quality of life during treatment and the disease path.

Abstract

Introduction: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) represent important endpoints in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). However, the clinically valid and accurate measurement of health-related quality of life depends on the psychometric properties of the PROMs considered. Objective: To appraise, compare, and summarize the properties of PROMs in mPCa. Evidence acquisition: We performed a review of PROMs used in RCTs, including patients with mPCa, using Medline in September 2021, according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. This systematic review is part of PIONEER (an IMI2 European network of excellence for big data in PCa). Results: The most frequently used PROMs in RCTs of patients with mPCa were the Functional Assessment for Cancer Therapy—Prostate (FACT-P) (n = 18), the Brief Pain Inventory—Short Form (BPI-SF) (n = 8), and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) (n = 6). A total of 283 abstracts were screened and 12 full-text studies were evaluated. A total of two, one, and two studies reported the psychometric proprieties of FACT-P, Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and BPI-SF, respectively. FACT-P and BPI showed a high content validity, while BPI-SF showed a moderate content validity. FACT-P and BPI showed a high internal consistency (summarized by Cronbach’s α 0.70–0.95). Conclusions: The use of BPI and FACT-P in mPCa patients is supported by their high content validity and internal consistency. Since BPI is focused on pain assessment, we recommend FACT-P, which provides a broader assessment of QoL and wellbeing, for the clinical evaluation of mPCa patients. However, these considerations have been elaborated on in a very limited number of studies. Patient summary: In this paper, we review the psychometric properties of PROMs used with patients with mPCa to find the questionnaires that best assess patients’ QoL, in order to help professionals in their intervention and improve patients’ QoL. We recommend the use of BPI and FACT-P for their high content validity and internal consistency despite the limited number of studies considered.

How well do polygenic risk scores identify men at high risk for prostate cancer? Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Genome-wide association studies have revealed over 200 genetic susceptibility loci for prostate cancer (PCa). By combining them, polygenic risk scores (PRS) can be generated to predict risk of PCa. We summarize the published evidence and conduct meta-analyses of PRS as a predictor of PCa risk in Caucasian men.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were extracted from 59 studies, with 16 studies including 17 separate analyses used in the main meta-analysis with a total of 20,786 cases and 69,106 controls identified through a systematic search of ten databases. Random effects meta-analysis was used to obtain pooled estimates of area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). Meta-regression was used to assess the impact of number of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) incorporated in PRS on AUC. Heterogeneity is expressed as I² scores. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger tests.

RESULTS

The ability of PRS to identify men with PCa was modest (pooled AUC 0.63, 95% CI 0.62-0.64) with moderate consistency (I² 64%). Combining PRS with clinical variables increased the pooled AUC to 0.74 (0.68-0.81). Meta-regression showed only negligible increase in AUC for adding incremental SNPs. Despite moderate heterogeneity, publication bias was not evident.

CONCLUSION

Typically, PRS accuracy is comparable to PSA or family history with a pooled AUC value 0.63 indicating mediocre performance for PRS alone.

Improving Guideline Adherence in Urology

CONTEXT

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) distil an evidence base into recommendations. CPG adherence is associated with better patient outcomes. However, preparation and dissemination of CPGs are a costly task involving multiple skilled personnel. Furthermore, dissemination alone does not ensure CPG adherence. Reasons for nonadherence are often complex, but understanding practice variations and reasons for nonadherence is key to improving CPG adherence and harmonising clinically appropriate and cost-effective care.

OBJECTIVE

To overview approaches to improving guideline adherence, to provide urology-specific examples of knowledge-practice gaps, and to highlight potential solutions informed by implementation science.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Three common approaches to implementation science (the Knowledge-To-Action framework, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and the Behaviour Change Wheel), are summarised.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Three implementation problems in urology are illustrated: underuse of single instillation of intravesical chemotherapy in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, overuse of androgen deprivation therapy in localised prostate cancer, and guideline-discordant imaging in prostate cancer. Research using implementation science approaches to address these implementation problems is discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Urologists, patients, health care providers, funders, and other key stakeholders must commit to reliably capturing and reporting data on patient outcomes, practice variations, guideline adherence, and the impact of adherence on outcomes. Leverage of implementation science frameworks is a sound next step towards improving guideline adherence and the associated benefits of evidence-based care.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Clinical practice guideline documents are created by expert panels. These documents provide overviews of the evidence for the tests and treatments used in patient care. They also provide recommendations and it is expected that in most circumstances clinicians will follow these recommendations. Sometimes, health care professionals cannot or do not follow these recommendations and it is not always clear why. In this review article we look at some examples of research approaches to addressing this problem of nonadherence and we provide some examples specific to urology.

A BURST-BAUS consensus document for best practice in the conduct of scrotal exploration for suspected testicular torsion: the Finding consensus for orchIdopeXy In Torsion (FIX-IT) study

OBJECTIVES

To produce a best practice consensus guideline for the conduct of scrotal exploration for suspected testicular torsion using formal consensus methodology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A panel of 16 expert urologists, representing adult, paediatric, general, and andrological urology used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Consensus Methodology to score a 184 statement pre-meeting questionnaire on the conduct of scrotal exploration for suspected testicular torsion. The collated responses were presented at a face-to-face online meeting and each item was rescored anonymously after a group discussion, facilitated by an independent chair with expertise in consensus methodology. Items were scored for agreement and consensus and the items scored with consensus were used to derive a set of best practice guidelines.

RESULTS

Statements scored as with consensus increased from Round 1 (122/184, 66.3%) to Round 2 (149/200, 74.5%). Recommendations were generated in ten categories: consent, assessment under anaesthetic, initial incision, intraoperative decision making, fixation, medical photography, closure, operation note, logistics and follow-up after scrotal exploration. Our statements assume that the decision to operate has already been made. Key recommendations in the consent process included the discussion of the possibility of orchidectomy and the possibility of subsequent infection of the affected testis or wound requiring antibiotic therapy. If after the examination under anaesthesia, the index of suspicion of testicular torsion is lower than previously thought, then the surgeon should still proceed to scrotal exploration as planned. A flow chart guiding decision making dependent on intraoperative findings has been designed. If no torsion is present on exploration and the bell clapper deformity is absent, the testis should not be fixed. When fixing a testis using sutures, 3 or 4-point is acceptable and non-absorbable sutures are preferred.

CONCLUSIONS

We have produced consensus recommendations to inform best practice in the conduct of scrotal exploration for suspected testicular torsion.

Diagnostic and prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

As part of the PIONEER Consortium objectives, we have explored which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are available in relation to our previously defined clinician and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa).

DESIGN

We performed a systematic review to identify validated and non-validated studies.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched on 21 January 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Only quantitative studies were included. Single studies with fewer than 50 participants, published before 2014 and looking at outcomes which are not prioritised in the PIONEER core outcome set were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

After initial screening, we extracted data following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of prognostic factor studies (CHARMS-PF) criteria and discussed the identified factors with a multidisciplinary expert group. The quality of the included papers was scored for applicability and risk of bias using validated tools such as PROBAST, Quality in Prognostic Studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2.

RESULTS

The search identified 6604 studies, from which 489 DPFs were included. Sixty-four of those were internally or externally validated. However, only three studies on diagnostic and seven studies on prognostic factors had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability.

CONCLUSION

Most of the DPFs identified require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before they can be recommended for use in clinical practice. The PIONEER online search tool for DPFs for PCa will enable researchers to understand the quality of the current research and help them design future studies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

There are no ethical implications.

Systematic Review of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer to Develop Recommendations Regarding Inclusion of Intermediate-risk Disease, Biopsy Characteristics at Inclusion and Monitoring, and Surveillance Repeat Biopsy Strategy

CONTEXT

There is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate criteria for recruitment, monitoring, and reclassification in active surveillance (AS) protocols for localised prostate cancer (PCa).

OBJECTIVE

To perform a qualitative systematic review (SR) to issue recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and repeat biopsy strategy.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A protocol-driven, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-adhering SR incorporating AS protocols published from January 1990 to October 2020 was performed. The main outcomes were criteria for inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, monitoring, reclassification, and repeat biopsy strategies (per protocol and/or triggered). Clinical effectiveness data were not assessed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Of the 17 011 articles identified, 333 studies incorporating 375 AS protocols, recruiting 264 852 patients, were included. Only a minority of protocols included the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for recruitment (n = 17), follow-up (n = 47), and reclassification (n = 26). More than 50% of protocols included patients with intermediate or high-risk disease, whilst 44.1% of protocols excluded low-risk patients with more than three positive cores, and 39% of protocols excluded patients with core involvement (CI) >50% per core. Of the protocols, ≥80% mandated a confirmatory transrectal ultrasound biopsy; 72% (n = 189) of protocols mandated per-protocol repeat biopsies, with 20% performing this annually and 25% every 2 yr. Only 27 protocols (10.3%) mandated triggered biopsies, with 74% of these protocols defining progression or changes on MRI as triggers for repeat biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

For AS protocols in which the use of MRI is not mandatory or absent, we recommend the following: (1) AS can be considered in patients with low-volume International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 (three or fewer positive cores and cancer involvement ≤50% CI per core) or another single element of intermediate-risk disease, and patients with ISUP 3 should be excluded; (2) per-protocol confirmatory prostate biopsies should be performed within 2 yr, and per-protocol surveillance repeat biopsies should be performed at least once every 3 yr for the first 10 yr; and (3) for patients with low-volume, low-risk disease at recruitment, if repeat systematic biopsies reveal more than three positive cores or maximum CI >50% per core, they should be monitored closely for evidence of adverse features (eg, upgrading); patients with ISUP 2 disease with increased core positivity and/or CI to similar thresholds should be reclassified.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We examined the literature to issue new recommendations on active surveillance (AS) for managing localised prostate cancer. The recommendations include setting criteria for including men with more aggressive disease (intermediate-risk disease), setting thresholds for close monitoring of men with low-risk but more extensive disease, and determining when to perform repeat biopsies (within 2 yr and 3 yearly thereafter).

Standardising the Assessment of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Localised Prostate Cancer. A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer among men worldwide. Urinary, bowel, and sexual function, as well as hormonal symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), were prioritised by patients and professionals as part of a core outcome set for localised PCa regardless of treatment type.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in localised PCa and recommend PROMs for use in routine practice and research settings.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The psychometric properties of PROMs measuring functional and HRQoL domains used in randomised controlled trials including patients with localised PCa were assessed according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology. MEDLINE and Embase were searched to identify publications evaluating psychometric properties of the PROMs. The characteristics and methodological quality of the studies included were extracted, tabulated, and assessed according to the COSMIN criteria.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 27 studies evaluating psychometric properties of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life core 30 (QLQ-C30) and prostate cancer 25 (QLQ-PR25) modules, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), and the 36-item (SF-36) and 12-item Short-Form health survey (SF-12) PROMs were identified and included in the systematic review. EPIC and EORTC QLQ-C30, a general module that assesses patients' physical, psychological, and social functions, were characterised by high internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.46-0.96 and 0.68-0.94 respectively) but low content validity. EORTC QLQ-PR25, which is primarily designed to assess PCa-specific HRQoL, had moderate content validity and internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.39-0.87). UCLA-PCI was characterised by moderate content validity and high internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.21-0.94). However, it does not directly assess hormonal symptoms, whereas EORTC QLQ-PR25 does.

CONCLUSION

The tools with the best evidence for psychometric properties and feasibility for use in routine practice and research settings to assess PROMs in patients with localised PCa were EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25. Since EORTC QLQ-C30 is a general module that does not directly assess PCa-specific issues, it should be adopted in conjunction with the QLQ-PR25 module.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed and appraised the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measure questionnaires used for patients with localised prostate cancer. We found good evidence to suggest that two questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25) can be used to measure urinary, bowel, and sexual functions and health-related quality of life.

The Key Role of Patient Involvement in the Development of Core Outcome Sets in Prostate Cancer

Patients are the stewards of their own care and hence their voice is important when designing and implementing research. Patients should be involved not only as participants in research that impacts their care, as the recipients of that care and any associated harms, but also as research collaborators in prioritising important questions from the patient perspective and designing the research and the ways in which is it most appropriate to involve patients. The PIONEER Consortium, an international multistakeholder collaboration lead by the European Association of Urology, has developed a core outcome set (COS) for localised and metastatic prostate cancer relevant to all stakeholders in particular patients. Throughout the work of PIONEER, patient representatives were involved as collaborators in setting the research agenda, and a wider group of patients was involved as participants in developing COSs, for instance in consensus meetings on choosing important outcomes and appropriate definitions. This publication showcases the process for COS development and highlights the most important recommendations to ultimately inform future research projects co-created between patients and other stakeholders. PATIENT SUMMARY: An important step in involving patients in the selection of outcomes for clinical trials, clinical audits, and real-world evidence is the development of a core outcome set (COS) that is relevant to all stakeholders. This report highlights the patient participation throughout our PIONEER COS development. TAKE HOME  MESSAGE: An important step in involving patients in the selection of outcomes for clinical trials, clinical audits, and real-world evidence is to develop a core outcome set (COS) that is relevant to all stakeholders. As part of the work of the PIONEER Consortium, we aim to highlight the patient participation throughout our PIONEER COS development.

Providing a Framework for Meaningful Patient Involvement in Clinical Practice Guideline Development and Implementation

The importance of patient involvement in guideline development is internationally recognised, yet there is a lack of clear methodology for integrating patient preferences and values in guidelines and a need to identify the optimum stages for involving patients in guideline production. European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines have international reach, a rigorous guideline production process, an established patient information section, and existing links with European cancer patient organisations. This makes the EAU the ideal setting to test a framework for patient involvement in guideline development for genitourinary cancers. The EVOLVE study is a unique collaboration involving a professional society, guideline panels, researchers, clinicians, and patient organisations with the aim of designing a framework for meaningful patient involvement in guideline production. Stages for considering patient preferences and values were identified via systematic review and interviews with key stakeholders, then prioritised by patients and clinicians via an international Delphi study. The final EVOLVE framework will be tested within EAU guideline panels and a strategy to assess the impact of patient involvement in guidelines will be developed. PATIENT SUMMARY: There is increasing awareness of the need to include patient values and preferences when developing guidelines for medical practice. The EVOLVE study is designing a framework for patient involvement in guideline development. TAKE HOME  MESSAGE: A framework for meaningful patient involvement in guideline development and implementation has been developed. The EVOLVE framework can help guideline developers to involve patients at the optimum stages of guideline production, which may improve the quality and relevance of guidelines.

A Systematic Review of Outcome Reporting, Definition and Measurement Heterogeneity in Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Effectiveness Trials of Adjuvant, Prophylactic Treatment After Transurethral Resection

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Heterogenous outcome reporting in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) effectiveness trials of adjuvant treatment after transurethral resection (TURBT) has been noted in systematic reviews (SRs). This hinders comparing results across trials, combining them in meta-analyses, and evidence-based decision-making for patients and clinicians. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review the extent of reporting and definition heterogeneity. METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from SRs comparing adjuvant treatments after TURBT or TURBT alone in patients with NMIBC (with or without carcinoma in situ) published between 2000–2020. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. RESULTS: We screened 807 abstracts; from 15 SRs, 57 RCTs were included. Verbatim outcome names were coded to standard outcome names and organised using the Williamson and Clarke taxonomy. Recurrence (98%), progression (74%), treatment response (in CIS studies) (40%), and adverse events (77%) were frequently reported across studies. However, overall (33%) and cancer-specific (33%) survival, treatment completion (17%) and treatment change (37%) were less often reported. Quality of Life (3%) and economic outcomes (2%) were rarely reported. Heterogeneity was evident throughout, particularly in the definitions of progression and recurrence, and how CIS patients were handled in the analysis of studies with predominantly papillary patients, highlighting further issues with the definition of recurrence and progression vs treatment response for CIS patients. Data reporting was also inconsistent, with some trials reporting event rates at various time-points and others reporting time-to-event with or without Hazard Ratios. Adverse events were inconsistently reported. QoL data was absent in most trials. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogenous outcome reporting is evident in NMIBC effectiveness trials. This has profound implications for meta-analyses, SRs and evidence-based treatment decisions. A core outcome set is required to reduce heterogeneity. PATIENT SUMMARY: This systematic review found inconsistencies in outcome definitions and reporting, pointing out the urgent need for a core outcome set to help improve evidence-based treatment decisions.

What influences adherence to guidance for postoperative instillation of intravesical chemotherapy to patients with bladder cancer?

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.

Diagnostic and prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

As part of the PIONEER (Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Enhancement Through the Power of Big Data in Europe) Consortium, we will explore which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are currently being researched to previously defined clinical and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This research project will follow the following four steps: (1) a broad systematic literature review of DPFs for all stages of PCa, covering evidence from 2014 onwards; (2) discussion of systematic review findings by a multidisciplinary expert panel; (3) risk of bias assessment and applicability with Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool criteria, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool (QUIPS) and (4) additional quantitative assessments if required.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We aim to develop an online tool to present the DPFs identified in this research and make them available across all stakeholders. There are no ethical implications.

Consensus statements on PSMA PET/CT response assessment criteria in prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) is used for (re)staging prostate cancer (PCa) and as a biomarker for evaluating response to therapy, but lacks established response criteria. A panel of PCa experts in nuclear medicine, radiology, and/or urology met on February 21, 2020, in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, to formulate criteria for PSMA PET/CT-based response in patients treated for metastatic PCa and optimal timing to use it.

METHODS

Panelists received thematic topics and relevant literature prior to the meeting. Statements on how to interpret response and progression on therapy in PCa with PSMA PET/CT and when to use it were developed. Panelists voted anonymously on a nine-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (9). Median scores described agreement and consensus.

RESULTS

PSMA PET/CT consensus statements concerned utility, best timing for performing, criteria for evaluation of response, patients who could benefit, and handling of radiolabeled PSMA PET tracers. Consensus was reached on all statements. PSMA PET/CT can be used before and after any local and systemic treatment in patients with metastatic disease to evaluate response to treatment. Ideally, PSMA PET/CT imaging criteria should categorize patients as responders, patients with stable disease, partial response, and complete response, or as non-responders. Specific clinical scenarios such as oligometastatic or polymetastatic disease deserve special consideration.

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of PSMA PET/CT should be supported by indication for appropriate use and precise criteria for interpretation. PSMA PET/CT criteria should categorize patients as responders or non-responders. Specific clinical scenarios deserve special consideration.

"Vicarious thinking" was a key driver of score change in Delphi surveys for COS development and is facilitated by feedback of results

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this nested study were to (1) assess whether changes in scores between rounds altered the final degree of consensus achieved in three Delphi surveys conducted as part of COS development projects (anal, gastric, and prostate cancer), and (2) explore participants' reasons for changing scores between rounds.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

All Delphi surveys were conducted online using DelphiManager software and included healthcare professionals and participating patients. Participants were invited to give a free-text reason whenever they changed their score across an important threshold on a 1-9 Likert scale (1-3 not important, 4-5 important, 7-9 critically important). Reasons for score change were coded by four researchers independently using an inductive-iterative approach.

RESULTS

In all three Delphi surveys, the number of outcomes reaching criteria for consensus was greater in R2 than R1. Twelve themes and 23 subthemes emerged from 2298 discrete reasons given for score change. The most common reasons for the change were "time to reflect" (482 responses, 23%) and vicarious thinking (424, 21%), with 68% (291) of vicarious thinking attributed to seeing other participant's scores.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support conducting a Delphi survey over the use of a single questionnaire where building consensus is the objective. Time to reflect and vicarious thinking, facilitated by seeing other participant's scores, were important drivers of score change. How results are presented to participants between rounds and the duration of and time between rounds in a Delphi survey may, therefore, influence the results and should be clearly reported.

The clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical interventions for stones in the lower pole of the kidney: the percutaneous nephrolithotomy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole kidney stones randomised controlled trial (PUrE RCT) protocol

INTRODUCTION

Renal stones are common, with a lifetime prevalence of 10% in adults. Global incidence is increasing due to increases in obesity and diabetes, with these patient populations being more likely to suffer renal stone disease. Flank pain from stones (renal colic) is the most common cause of emergency admission to UK urology departments. Stones most commonly develop in the lower pole of the kidney (in ~35% of cases) and here are least likely to pass without intervention. Currently there are three technologies available within the UK National Health Service to remove lower pole kidney stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) with laser lithotripsy. Current evidence indicates there is uncertainty regarding the management of lower pole stones, and each treatment has advantages and disadvantages. The aim of this trial is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of FURS compared with ESWL or PCNL in the treatment of lower pole kidney stones.

METHODS

The PUrE (PCNL, FURS and ESWL for lower pole kidney stones) trial is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating FURS versus ESWL or PCNL for lower pole kidney stones. Patients aged ≥16 years with a stone(s) in the lower pole of either kidney confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder (CTKUB) and requiring treatment for a stone ≤10 mm will be randomised to receive FURS or ESWL (RCT1), and those requiring treatment for a stone >10 mm to ≤25 mm will be randomised to receive FURS or PCNL (RCT2). Participants will undergo follow-up by questionnaires every week up to 12 weeks post-intervention and at 12 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is health status measured by the area under the curve calculated from multiple measurements of the EuroQol five dimensions five-level version (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire up to 12 weeks post-intervention. The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained at 12 months post-randomisation.

DISCUSSION

The PUrE trial aims to provide robust evidence on health status, quality of life, clinical outcomes and resource use to directly inform choice and National Health Service provision of the three treatment options.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN: ISRCTN98970319. Registered on 11 November 2015.

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

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.

Is There Outcome Reporting Heterogeneity in Trials That Aim to Assess the Effectiveness of Surgical Treatments for Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women?

CONTEXT

Inconsistent reporting of effectiveness outcomes in surgical trials of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) has hindered direct comparisons of various surgical treatments for SUI.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the verbatim outcome names, outcome definitions, and tools used to measure the outcomes in surgical trials of SUI in women.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Trials of women with SUI who have undergone surgical interventions were included. We conducted a systematic review (SR) on outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials of surgical management published in 2014-2019, covering the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CDSR. Verbatim outcome names extracted from the included studies were categorized and then grouped into domains using the Williamson-Clarke (W/C) outcome taxonomy. A matrix was also created to visualize and quantify the dimensions of outcome reporting heterogeneity in SUI trials.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 844 verbatim outcome names were extracted, of which, 514 varied terms were reduced to 71 standardized outcome names. They were further categorized into 11 domains from the W/C taxonomy. There were 7.24 different terms on average to describe each outcome, and the four outcomes with the most heterogeneity evident in terms used to describe them were "urinary retention", "reoperation", "subjective cure rate" and "quality of life". Each of them had ≥20 different terms. Only 28% of the outcome definitions were reported and a variety of measuring tools was noted, particularly in subjective outcomes. High heterogeneity was found in the outcome names, outcome definitions, choice and number of measuring instruments of the outcomes, and choice and number of outcomes reported across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This SR provides objective evidence of heterogeneity in outcome reporting in SUI surgical trials. Our categorization of outcomes highlights the difficulties in summarizing the current evidence base. A core outcome set, developed using the methods advocated by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) initiatives, is required.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this research, we have highlighted the diversity in outcomes reporting in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) surgical trials and have categorized the outcomes. We support the development of a core outcome set for SUI, which will promote future clinical researchers to measure the same outcome in the same way in all trials. This will, in turn, help researchers summarize the evidence more effectively and aid decision making for patients and doctors.

How Do We Meet the Supportive Care and Information Needs of Those Living With and Beyond Bladder Cancer?

This perspective paper presents the case for adopting a new approach to the design and delivery of supportive care for those with bladder cancer. It is our assertion that the design and delivery of supportive care for those diagnosed with bladder cancer needs to (1) build on existing research and available tools and (2) address current limitations due to lack of use of said tools, lack of understanding of research and needs, lack of a shared language, and method of assessment and evaluation. This, we argue, can be achieved through a network-based approach (1) focussed on the structure, process, and outcome of supportive care.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel Consensus Statements for Deferred Treatment with Curative Intent for Localised Prostate Cancer from an International Collaborative Study (DETECTIVE Study)

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty in deferred active treatment (DAT) programmes, regarding patient selection, follow-up and monitoring, reclassification, and which outcome measures should be prioritised.

OBJECTIVE

To develop consensus statements for all domains of DAT.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A protocol-driven, three phase study was undertaken by the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Association of Urology Section of Urological Research (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel in conjunction with partner organisations, including the following: (1) a systematic review to describe heterogeneity across all domains; (2) a two-round Delphi survey involving a large, international panel of stakeholders, including healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients; and (3) a consensus group meeting attended by stakeholder group representatives. Robust methods regarding what constituted the consensus were strictly followed.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 109 HCPs and 16 patients completed both survey rounds. Of 129 statements in the survey, consensus was achieved in 66 (51%); the rest of the statements were discussed and voted on in the consensus meeting by 32 HCPs and three patients, where consensus was achieved in additional 27 statements (43%). Overall, 93 statements (72%) achieved consensus in the project. Some uncertainties remained regarding clinically important thresholds for disease extent on biopsy in low-risk disease, and the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in determining disease stage and aggressiveness as a criterion for inclusion and exclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus statements and the findings are expected to guide and inform routine clinical practice and research, until higher levels of evidence emerge through prospective comparative studies and clinical trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We undertook a project aimed at standardising the elements of practice in active surveillance programmes for early localised prostate cancer because currently there is great variation and uncertainty regarding how best to conduct them. The project involved large numbers of healthcare practitioners and patients using a survey and face-to-face meeting, in order to achieve agreement (ie, consensus) regarding best practice, which will provide guidance to clinicians and researchers.

Ensuring Consistent European-Wide Urological Care by the Use of Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines: Can We Do Better

The European Association of Urology (EAU) annually updates 21 clinical practice guidelines in which summaries of the evidence base and best practice recommendations are made. The methodology applied to achieve this and integrate stakeholder opinion is continuously improving. However, there is evidence to suggest wide variation in clinical practice indicating that many patients receive suboptimal and heterogeneous care. Studies from certain countries suggest that 2 out of 5 patients do not receive care according to the current scientific evidence, and in 1 out of 4 cases the care provided is potentially harmful. Clearly, the harmonisation of care in alignment with evidence-based best practice recommendations is something to strive for. Development of robust methods to disseminate and implement guideline recommendations and measure their impact is an objective the EAU is committed to improving. An important strategy for achieving harmonisation in urological care across Europe is to ensure the availability of high-quality clinical practice guidelines and to actively promote their implementation by clinicians and healthcare providers.

A core outcome set for localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials

OBJECTIVE

To develop a core outcome set (COS) applicable for effectiveness trials of all interventions for localised prostate cancer. Many treatments exist for localised prostate cancer, although it is unclear which offers the optimal therapeutic ratio; which is confounded by inconsistencies in the selection, definition, measurement and reporting of outcomes in clinical trials.

PATIENTS, SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A list of 79 outcomes was derived from a systematic review of published localised prostate cancer effectiveness studies and semi-structured interviews with 15 patients with prostate cancer patients. A two-stage consensus process involving 118 patients and 56 international healthcare professionals (HCPs; cancer specialist nurses, urological surgeons and oncologists) was undertaken, consisting of a three-round Delphi survey followed by a face-to-face consensus panel meeting of 13 HCPs and eight patients.

RESULTS

The final COS included 19 outcomes. In all, 12 apply to all interventions: death from prostate cancer, death from any cause, local disease recurrence, distant disease recurrence/metastases, disease progression, need for salvage therapy, overall quality of life, stress urinary incontinence, urinary function, bowel function, faecal incontinence, and sexual function. Seven were intervention-specific: perioperative deaths (surgery), positive surgical margin (surgery), thromboembolic disease (surgery), bothersome or symptomatic urethral or anastomotic stricture (surgery), need for curative treatment (active surveillance), treatment failure (ablative therapy), and side-effects of hormonal therapy (hormone therapy). The UK-centric participants may limit the generalisability to other countries, but trialists should reason why the COS would not be applicable. The default position should not be that a COS developed in one country will automatically not be applicable elsewhere.

CONCLUSION

We have established a COS for trials of effectiveness in localised prostate cancer, applicable across all interventions that should be measured in all localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials.

A randomized trial comparing three Delphi feedback strategies found no evidence of a difference in a setting with high initial agreement

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to explore the impact of different feedback strategies on (1) subsequent agreement and (2) variability in Delphi studies.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A two-round Delphi survey, with a list of outcomes generated from the results of a systematic review and interviews, was undertaken while developing a core outcomes set for prostate cancer including two stakeholder groups (health professionals and patients). Seventy-nine outcomes were scored on a scale of one (not important) to nine (critically important). Participants were randomized in round 2 to receive round 1 feedback from peers only, multiple stakeholders separately, or multiple stakeholders combined.

RESULTS

Agreement on outcomes retained for all feedback groups was high (peer: 92%, multiple separate: 90%, multiple combined: 84%). There were no statistically significant reduction in variability for peer vs. multiple separate (0.016 [-0.035, 0.067]; P = 0.529), or multiple separate vs. multiple combined feedback (0.063 [-0.003, 0.129]; P = 0.062). Peer feedback statistically significantly reduced variability compared with multiple combined feedback (0.079 [0.001, 0.157]; P = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of a difference between different feedback strategies in terms of the number of outcomes retained or reduction in variability of opinion. However, this may be explained by the high level of existing agreement in round 1. Further methodological studies nested within Delphi surveys will help clarify the best strategy.