Search

Contains fulltext : 294430.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Ta grade 3 (G3) non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is a relatively rare diagnosis with an ambiguous character owing to the presence of an aggressive G3 component together with the lower malignant potential of the Ta component. The European Association of Urology (EAU) NMIBC guidelines recently changed the risk stratification for Ta G3 from high risk to intermediate, high, or very high risk. However, prognostic studies on Ta G3 carcinomas are limited and inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic value of categorizing Ta G3 compared to Ta G2 and T1 G3 carcinomas. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Individual patient data for 5170 primary Ta-T1 bladder tumors from 17 hospitals were analyzed. Transurethral resection of the tumor was performed between 1990 and 2018. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Time to recurrence and time to progression were analyzed using cumulative incidence functions, log-rank tests, and multivariable Cox-regression models with interaction terms stratified by institution. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Ta G3 represented 7.5% (387/5170) of Ta-T1 carcinomas of which 42% were classified as intermediate risk. Time to recurrence did not differ between Ta G3 and Ta G2 (p = 0.9) or T1 G3 (p = 0.4). Progression at 5 yr occurred for 3.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.7-4.8%) of Ta G2, 13% (95% CI 9.3-17%) of Ta G3, and 20% (95% CI 17-23%) of T1 G3 carcinomas. Time to progression for Ta G3 was shorter than for Ta G2 (p < 0.001) and longer than for T1 G3 (p = 0.002). Patients with Ta G3 NMIBC with concomitant carcinoma in situ (CIS) had worse prognosis and a similar time to progression as for patients with T1 G3 NMIBC with CIS (p = 0.5). Multivariable analyses for recurrence and progression showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis of Ta G3 tumors in terms of progression appears to be in between that of Ta G2 and T1 G3. However, patients with Ta G3 NMIBC with concomitant CIS have worse prognosis that is compar

Item does not contain fulltext, Over the past decade, social media (SoMe) platforms have been embraced by the medical community across all specialties. This engagement creates a valuable opportunity for scientific organizations to use the broad reach, accessibility, functionality, and informal environment of SoMe to raise awareness, reinforce trust with stakeholders, and disseminate scientific information. In this field, the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines Office has been a pioneer and has constantly set out to disseminate the recommendations established annually by its guidelines panels. Here we describe the dissemination strategy used by the EAU Guidelines Office and the results obtained in the past few years. The EAU Guidelines Office proposes various types of content to disseminate on the different SoMe platforms. An ad hoc dissemination committee adapts attractive content for different target audiences to fit the specific requirements of the platforms on which it is published. Over the past 5 yr, the dissemination committee has been able to constantly improve the engagement of different audiences, especially using Twitter, Facebook, and, more recently, Instagram. It has been shown that use of a multifaceted strategy to improve dissemination of the guidelines, such as campaigns for awareness days, is successful. PATIENT SUMMARY: We describe the strategy used by the European Association of Urology Guidelines Office to disseminate recommendations from the association's guidelines to different target audiences via social media and we summarize the main results.

Item does not contain fulltext, CONTEXT: Harmonisation of outcome reporting and definitions for clinical trials and routine patient records can enable health care systems to provide more efficient outcome-driven and patient-centred interventions. We report on the work of the PIONEER Consortium in this context for prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To update and integrate existing core outcome sets (COS) for PCa for the different stages of the disease, assess their applicability, and develop standardised definitions of prioritised outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We followed a four-stage process involving: (1) systematic reviews; (2) qualitative interviews; (3) expert group meetings to agree standardised terminologies; and (4) recommendations for the most appropriate definitions of clinician-reported outcomes. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Following four systematic reviews, a multinational interview study, and expert group consensus meetings, we defined the most clinically suitable definitions for (1) COS for localised and locally advanced PCa and (2) COS for metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa. No new outcomes were identified in our COS for localised and locally advanced PCa. For our COS for metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa, nine new core outcomes were identified. CONCLUSIONS: These are the first COS for PCa for which the definitions of prioritised outcomes have been surveyed in a systematic, transparent, and replicable way. This is also the first time that outcome definitions across all prostate cancer COS have been agreed on by a multidisciplinary expert group and recommended for use in research and clinical practice. To limit heterogeneity across research, these COS should be recommended for future effectiveness trials, systematic reviews, guidelines and clinical practice of localised and metastatic PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patient outcomes after treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) are difficult to compare because of variability. To allow better use of data from patients

Item does not contain fulltext, 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 alpha 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 alpha 0.39-0.87

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: The pathological existence and clinical consequence of stage T1 grade 1 (T1G1) bladder cancer are the subject of debate. Even though the diagnosis of T1G1 is controversial, several reports have consistently found a prevalence of 2-6% G1 in their T1 series. However, it remains unclear if T1G1 carcinomas have added value as a separate category to predict prognosis within the non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) spectrum. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic value of T1G1 carcinomas compared to TaG1 and T1G2 carcinomas within the NMIBC spectrum. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Individual patient data for 5170 primary Ta and T1 bladder tumors from 17 hospitals in Europe and Canada were analyzed. Transurethral resection (TUR) was performed between 1990 and 2018. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Time to recurrence and progression were analyzed using cumulative incidence functions, log-rank tests, and multivariable Cox regression models stratified by institution. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: T1G1 represented 1.9% (99/5170) of all carcinomas and 5.3% (99/1859) of T1 carcinomas. According to primary TUR dates, the proportion of T1G1 varied between 0.9% and 3.5% per year, with similar percentages in the early and later calendar years. We found no difference in time to recurrence between T1G1 and TaG1 (p = 0.91) or between T1G1 and T1G2 (p = 0.30). Time to progression significantly differed between TaG1 and T1G1 (p < 0.001) but not between T1G1 and T1G2 (p = 0.30). Multivariable analyses for recurrence and progression showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: The relative prevalence of T1G1 diagnosis was low and remained constant over the past three decades. Time to recurrence of T1G1 NMIBC was comparable to that for other stage/grade NMIBC combinations. Time to progression of T1G1 NMIBC was comparable to that for T1G2 but not for TaG1, suggesting that treatment and surveillance of T1G1 carcinomas should be more like the approaches for T1G2 NMIBC in

Item does not contain fulltext, CONTEXT: Harmonisation of outcome reporting and definitions for clinical trials and routine patient records can enable health care systems to provide more efficient outcome-driven and patient-centred interventions. We report on the work of the PIONEER Consortium in this context for prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To update and integrate existing core outcome sets (COS) for PCa for the different stages of the disease, assess their applicability, and develop standardised definitions of prioritised outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We followed a four-stage process involving: (1) systematic reviews; (2) qualitative interviews; (3) expert group meetings to agree standardised terminologies; and (4) recommendations for the most appropriate definitions of clinician-reported outcomes. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Following four systematic reviews, a multinational interview study, and expert group consensus meetings, we defined the most clinically suitable definitions for (1) COS for localised and locally advanced PCa and (2) COS for metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa. No new outcomes were identified in our COS for localised and locally advanced PCa. For our COS for metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa, nine new core outcomes were identified. CONCLUSIONS: These are the first COS for PCa for which the definitions of prioritised outcomes have been surveyed in a systematic, transparent, and replicable way. This is also the first time that outcome definitions across all prostate cancer COS have been agreed on by a multidisciplinary expert group and recommended for use in research and clinical practice. To limit heterogeneity across research, these COS should be recommended for future effectiveness trials, systematic reviews, guidelines and clinical practice of localised and metastatic PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patient outcomes after treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) are difficult to compare because of variability. To allow better use of data from patients

Item does not contain fulltext, 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 alpha 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 alpha 0.39-0.87

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: The pathological existence and clinical consequence of stage T1 grade 1 (T1G1) bladder cancer are the subject of debate. Even though the diagnosis of T1G1 is controversial, several reports have consistently found a prevalence of 2-6% G1 in their T1 series. However, it remains unclear if T1G1 carcinomas have added value as a separate category to predict prognosis within the non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) spectrum. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic value of T1G1 carcinomas compared to TaG1 and T1G2 carcinomas within the NMIBC spectrum. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Individual patient data for 5170 primary Ta and T1 bladder tumors from 17 hospitals in Europe and Canada were analyzed. Transurethral resection (TUR) was performed between 1990 and 2018. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Time to recurrence and progression were analyzed using cumulative incidence functions, log-rank tests, and multivariable Cox regression models stratified by institution. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: T1G1 represented 1.9% (99/5170) of all carcinomas and 5.3% (99/1859) of T1 carcinomas. According to primary TUR dates, the proportion of T1G1 varied between 0.9% and 3.5% per year, with similar percentages in the early and later calendar years. We found no difference in time to recurrence between T1G1 and TaG1 (p = 0.91) or between T1G1 and T1G2 (p = 0.30). Time to progression significantly differed between TaG1 and T1G1 (p < 0.001) but not between T1G1 and T1G2 (p = 0.30). Multivariable analyses for recurrence and progression showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: The relative prevalence of T1G1 diagnosis was low and remained constant over the past three decades. Time to recurrence of T1G1 NMIBC was comparable to that for other stage/grade NMIBC combinations. Time to progression of T1G1 NMIBC was comparable to that for T1G2 but not for TaG1, suggesting that treatment and surveillance of T1G1 carcinomas should be more like the approaches for T1G2 NMIBC in

Item does not contain fulltext, Over the past decade, social media (SoMe) platforms have been embraced by the medical community across all specialties. This engagement creates a valuable opportunity for scientific organizations to use the broad reach, accessibility, functionality, and informal environment of SoMe to raise awareness, reinforce trust with stakeholders, and disseminate scientific information. In this field, the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines Office has been a pioneer and has constantly set out to disseminate the recommendations established annually by its guidelines panels. Here we describe the dissemination strategy used by the EAU Guidelines Office and the results obtained in the past few years. The EAU Guidelines Office proposes various types of content to disseminate on the different SoMe platforms. An ad hoc dissemination committee adapts attractive content for different target audiences to fit the specific requirements of the platforms on which it is published. Over the past 5 yr, the dissemination committee has been able to constantly improve the engagement of different audiences, especially using Twitter, Facebook, and, more recently, Instagram. It has been shown that use of a multifaceted strategy to improve dissemination of the guidelines, such as campaigns for awareness days, is successful. PATIENT SUMMARY: We describe the strategy used by the European Association of Urology Guidelines Office to disseminate recommendations from the association's guidelines to different target audiences via social media and we summarize the main results.

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 244306.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), 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.

Item does not contain fulltext, 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 tria

Item does not contain fulltext, CONTEXT: Clinical practice guideline (CPG) uptake does not occur spontaneously and requires active implementation, especially for long-term implementation. Social media (SoMe) with its power of rapid and global information exchange among physicians, patients, organizations, and stakeholders in the medical field can open up unprecedented opportunities for CPG dissemination. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to assess the current use of SoMe in CPG dissemination across different medical specialties. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review (SR) of the literature was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases and the general platform Google were searched for all relevant publications (no limitation for publication time and no language restrictions). The search revealed 1881 citations; following title and abstract review, 22 studies were identified; and five studies were finally included after full-text review. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: All included studies were published in the past 5 yr; there was a significant improvement in knowledge, awareness, compliance, and positive behavior toward CPGs with the use of SoMe dissemination compared with traditional methods. A large audience (healthcare professionals and patients) viewed and engaged with the SoMe process of CPG dissemination, and expressed an intent to engage in this method in the future. The studies included in the SR reported variable methods of SoMe use and similarly variable methods of analyzing the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Owing to the recent application of SoMe in the context of CPG dissemination, there is no standardized format for its use, and the data available are variable and limited. However, encouraging preliminary results have been reported using SoMe for CPG dissemination in multiple fields, and we have provided a pragmatic method of SoMe usage in CPG dissemination based on the review. It is vital to ens

Contains fulltext : 237261.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), Adherence to national and international clinical practice guidelines is suboptimal throughout Europe. The European Association of Urology Guidelines Office project "IMAGINE" (IMpact Assessment of Guidelines Implementation and Education) has been developed to measure baseline adherence to urological guideline recommendations across Europe and to identify issues that drive nonadherence.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: The European Association of Urology (EAU) prognostic factor risk groups for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) are used to provide recommendations for patient treatment after transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT). They do not, however, take into account the widely used World Health Organization (WHO) 2004/2016 grading classification and are based on patients treated in the 1980s. OBJECTIVE: To update EAU prognostic factor risk groups using the WHO 1973 and 2004/2016 grading classifications and identify patients with the lowest and highest probabilities of progression. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Individual patient data for primary NMIBC patients were collected from the institutions of the members of the EAU NMIBC guidelines panel. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent TURBT followed by intravesical instillations at the physician's discretion. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression models were fitted to the primary endpoint, the time to progression to muscle-invasive disease or distant metastases. Patients were divided into four risk groups: low-, intermediate-, high-, and a new, very high-risk group. The probabilities of progression were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 3401 patients treated with TURBT ± intravesical chemotherapy were included. From the multivariable analyses, tumor stage, WHO 1973/2004-2016 grade, concomitant carcinoma in situ, number of tumors, tumor size, and age were used to form four risk groups for which the probability of progression at 5 yr varied from <1% to >40%. Limitations include the retrospective collection of data and the lack of central pathology review. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides updated EAU prognostic factor risk groups that can be used to inform patient treatment and follow-up. Incorporating the WHO 2004/2016 and 1973 grading classifications, a new, very high-risk group has been identified for wh

Contains fulltext : 238700.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 244306.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), 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.

Contains fulltext : 244196.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), 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 tria

Item does not contain fulltext, CONTEXT: Clinical practice guideline (CPG) uptake does not occur spontaneously and requires active implementation, especially for long-term implementation. Social media (SoMe) with its power of rapid and global information exchange among physicians, patients, organizations, and stakeholders in the medical field can open up unprecedented opportunities for CPG dissemination. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to assess the current use of SoMe in CPG dissemination across different medical specialties. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review (SR) of the literature was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases and the general platform Google were searched for all relevant publications (no limitation for publication time and no language restrictions). The search revealed 1881 citations; following title and abstract review, 22 studies were identified; and five studies were finally included after full-text review. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: All included studies were published in the past 5 yr; there was a significant improvement in knowledge, awareness, compliance, and positive behavior toward CPGs with the use of SoMe dissemination compared with traditional methods. A large audience (healthcare professionals and patients) viewed and engaged with the SoMe process of CPG dissemination, and expressed an intent to engage in this method in the future. The studies included in the SR reported variable methods of SoMe use and similarly variable methods of analyzing the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Owing to the recent application of SoMe in the context of CPG dissemination, there is no standardized format for its use, and the data available are variable and limited. However, encouraging preliminary results have been reported using SoMe for CPG dissemination in multiple fields, and we have provided a pragmatic method of SoMe usage in CPG dissemination based on the review. It is vital to ens

Contains fulltext : 238700.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 237261.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), Adherence to national and international clinical practice guidelines is suboptimal throughout Europe. The European Association of Urology Guidelines Office project "IMAGINE" (IMpact Assessment of Guidelines Implementation and Education) has been developed to measure baseline adherence to urological guideline recommendations across Europe and to identify issues that drive nonadherence.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: The European Association of Urology (EAU) prognostic factor risk groups for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) are used to provide recommendations for patient treatment after transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT). They do not, however, take into account the widely used World Health Organization (WHO) 2004/2016 grading classification and are based on patients treated in the 1980s. OBJECTIVE: To update EAU prognostic factor risk groups using the WHO 1973 and 2004/2016 grading classifications and identify patients with the lowest and highest probabilities of progression. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Individual patient data for primary NMIBC patients were collected from the institutions of the members of the EAU NMIBC guidelines panel. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent TURBT followed by intravesical instillations at the physician's discretion. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression models were fitted to the primary endpoint, the time to progression to muscle-invasive disease or distant metastases. Patients were divided into four risk groups: low-, intermediate-, high-, and a new, very high-risk group. The probabilities of progression were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 3401 patients treated with TURBT ± intravesical chemotherapy were included. From the multivariable analyses, tumor stage, WHO 1973/2004-2016 grade, concomitant carcinoma in situ, number of tumors, tumor size, and age were used to form four risk groups for which the probability of progression at 5 yr varied from <1% to >40%. Limitations include the retrospective collection of data and the lack of central pathology review. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides updated EAU prognostic factor risk groups that can be used to inform patient treatment and follow-up. Incorporating the WHO 2004/2016 and 1973 grading classifications, a new, very high-risk group has been identified for wh

Contains fulltext : 244196.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), 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 tria

Contains fulltext : 238700.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 244306.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), 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.

Adherence to national and international clinical practice guidelines is suboptimal throughout Europe. The European Association of Urology Guidelines Office project “IMAGINE” (IMpact Assessment of Guidelines Implementation and Education) has been developed to measure baseline adherence to urological guideline recommendations across Europe and to identify issues that drive nonadherence.

Contains fulltext : 220648.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is unlike anything seen before by modern science-based medicine. Health systems across the world are struggling to manage it. Added to this struggle are the effects of social confinement and isolation. This brings into question whether the latest guidelines are relevant in this crisis. We aim to support urologists in this difficult situation by providing tools that can facilitate decision making, and to minimise the impact and risks for both patients and health professionals delivering urological care, whenever possible. We hope that the revised recommendations will assist urologist surgeons across the globe to guide the management of urological conditions during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

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 stateme

Contains fulltext : 220648.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is unlike anything seen before by modern science-based medicine. Health systems across the world are struggling to manage it. Added to this struggle are the effects of social confinement and isolation. This brings into question whether the latest guidelines are relevant in this crisis. We aim to support urologists in this difficult situation by providing tools that can facilitate decision making, and to minimise the impact and risks for both patients and health professionals delivering urological care, whenever possible. We hope that the revised recommendations will assist urologist surgeons across the globe to guide the management of urological conditions during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

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 sta

Contains fulltext : 215784.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), 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

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 sta

Contains fulltext : 215784.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), 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

Contains fulltext : 215784.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), 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

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

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext, CONTEXT: Controversy exists regarding the therapeutic value of lymphadenectomy (LND) in patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the relevant literature assessing the impact of LND on oncologic and perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing RC for MIBC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information (LILACS) were searched up to December 2013. Comparative studies reporting on no LND, limited LND (L-LND), standard LND (S-LND), extended LND (E-LND), superextended LND (SE-LND), and oncologic and perioperative outcomes were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-three studies reporting on 19 793 patients were included. All but one study were retrospective. Planned meta-analyses were not possible because of study heterogeneity; therefore, data were synthesized narratively. There were high risks of bias and confounding across most studies as well as extreme heterogeneity in the definition of the anatomic boundaries of LND templates. All seven studies comparing LND with no LND favored LND in terms of better oncologic outcomes. Seven of 14 studies comparing (super)extended LND with L-LND or S-LND reported a beneficial outcome for (super)extended LND in at least a subset of patients. No difference in outcome was reported in two studies comparing E-LND and S-LND. The comparative harms of different extents of LND remain unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Although the quality of the data was poor, the available evidence indicates that any kind of LND is advantageous over no LND. Similarly, E-LND appears to be superior to lesser degrees of dissection, while SE-LND offered no additional benefits. It is hoped that data from ongoing randomized clinical trials will clarify remaining uncertainties. PATIENT SUMMARY: The curr

Item does not contain fulltext, CONTEXT: Controversy exists regarding the therapeutic value of lymphadenectomy (LND) in patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the relevant literature assessing the impact of LND on oncologic and perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing RC for MIBC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information (LILACS) were searched up to December 2013. Comparative studies reporting on no LND, limited LND (L-LND), standard LND (S-LND), extended LND (E-LND), superextended LND (SE-LND), and oncologic and perioperative outcomes were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-three studies reporting on 19 793 patients were included. All but one study were retrospective. Planned meta-analyses were not possible because of study heterogeneity; therefore, data were synthesized narratively. There were high risks of bias and confounding across most studies as well as extreme heterogeneity in the definition of the anatomic boundaries of LND templates. All seven studies comparing LND with no LND favored LND in terms of better oncologic outcomes. Seven of 14 studies comparing (super)extended LND with L-LND or S-LND reported a beneficial outcome for (super)extended LND in at least a subset of patients. No difference in outcome was reported in two studies comparing E-LND and S-LND. The comparative harms of different extents of LND remain unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Although the quality of the data was poor, the available evidence indicates that any kind of LND is advantageous over no LND. Similarly, E-LND appears to be superior to lesser degrees of dissection, while SE-LND offered no additional benefits. It is hoped that data from ongoing randomized clinical trials will clarify remaining uncertainties. PATIENT SUMMARY: The curr

Item does not contain fulltext, CONTEXT: Controversy exists regarding the therapeutic value of lymphadenectomy (LND) in patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the relevant literature assessing the impact of LND on oncologic and perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing RC for MIBC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information (LILACS) were searched up to December 2013. Comparative studies reporting on no LND, limited LND (L-LND), standard LND (S-LND), extended LND (E-LND), superextended LND (SE-LND), and oncologic and perioperative outcomes were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-three studies reporting on 19 793 patients were included. All but one study were retrospective. Planned meta-analyses were not possible because of study heterogeneity; therefore, data were synthesized narratively. There were high risks of bias and confounding across most studies as well as extreme heterogeneity in the definition of the anatomic boundaries of LND templates. All seven studies comparing LND with no LND favored LND in terms of better oncologic outcomes. Seven of 14 studies comparing (super)extended LND with L-LND or S-LND reported a beneficial outcome for (super)extended LND in at least a subset of patients. No difference in outcome was reported in two studies comparing E-LND and S-LND. The comparative harms of different extents of LND remain unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Although the quality of the data was poor, the available evidence indicates that any kind of LND is advantageous over no LND. Similarly, E-LND appears to be superior to lesser degrees of dissection, while SE-LND offered no additional benefits. It is hoped that data from ongoing randomized clinical trials will clarify remaining uncertainties. PATIENT SUMMARY: The curr

1 mei 2012, Item does not contain fulltext, CONTEXT: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for 2-3% of adult malignancies. There remain uncertainties over the oncological outcomes for the surgical management of localised RCC. OBJECTIVE: Systematically review relevant literature comparing oncological outcomes of surgical management of localised RCC (T1-2N0M0). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant databases including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to October 2010, and an updated scoping search was performed up to January 2012. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs, prospective observational studies with controls, retrospective matched-pair studies, and comparative studies from well-defined registries/databases were included. The main outcomes were overall survival, cancer-specific survival, recurrence, and metastases. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess RCTs, and an extended version was used to assess nonrandomised studies (NRSs). The quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 4580 abstracts and 389 full-text articles were assessed. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria (6 RCTs and 28 NRSs). Meta-analyses were planned but were deemed inappropriate due to data heterogeneity. There were high risks of bias and low-quality evidence across the evidence base. Open radical nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy showed similar cancer-specific and overall survival, but when both open and laparoscopic approaches are considered together, the evidence showed improved survival for partial nephrectomy for tumours

01 mei 2012, Item does not contain fulltext, CONTEXT: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for 2-3% of adult malignancies. There remain uncertainties over the oncological outcomes for the surgical management of localised RCC. OBJECTIVE: Systematically review relevant literature comparing oncological outcomes of surgical management of localised RCC (T1-2N0M0). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant databases including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to October 2010, and an updated scoping search was performed up to January 2012. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs, prospective observational studies with controls, retrospective matched-pair studies, and comparative studies from well-defined registries/databases were included. The main outcomes were overall survival, cancer-specific survival, recurrence, and metastases. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess RCTs, and an extended version was used to assess nonrandomised studies (NRSs). The quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 4580 abstracts and 389 full-text articles were assessed. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria (6 RCTs and 28 NRSs). Meta-analyses were planned but were deemed inappropriate due to data heterogeneity. There were high risks of bias and low-quality evidence across the evidence base. Open radical nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy showed similar cancer-specific and overall survival, but when both open and laparoscopic approaches are considered together, the evidence showed improved survival for partial nephrectomy for tumours

01 mei 2012, Item does not contain fulltext, CONTEXT: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for 2-3% of adult malignancies. There remain uncertainties over the oncological outcomes for the surgical management of localised RCC. OBJECTIVE: Systematically review relevant literature comparing oncological outcomes of surgical management of localised RCC (T1-2N0M0). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant databases including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to October 2010, and an updated scoping search was performed up to January 2012. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs, prospective observational studies with controls, retrospective matched-pair studies, and comparative studies from well-defined registries/databases were included. The main outcomes were overall survival, cancer-specific survival, recurrence, and metastases. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess RCTs, and an extended version was used to assess nonrandomised studies (NRSs). The quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 4580 abstracts and 389 full-text articles were assessed. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria (6 RCTs and 28 NRSs). Meta-analyses were planned but were deemed inappropriate due to data heterogeneity. There were high risks of bias and low-quality evidence across the evidence base. Open radical nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy showed similar cancer-specific and overall survival, but when both open and laparoscopic approaches are considered together, the evidence showed improved survival for partial nephrectomy for tumours