Search

Abstract No pan‐India‐specific guidelines exist for the management of urological cancers. Although western guidelines are useful for informing management strategies, they do not account for the nuances of management in the Indian context. A modified Delphi method was used to provide a framework for the systematic development of India‐centric guidelines for the management of three uro‐oncology disease states: small renal masses, non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer and high‐risk/locally advanced prostate cancer.

Abstract Background When faced with treatment options, patients are asked to participate in decision‐making. We sought to determine which treatment aspects matter most for individuals treated for muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), with an aim to improve understanding of patient preferences and what trade‐offs patients are willing to accept. Our study consisted of a discrete choice experiment (DCE): a type of questionnaire used to elicit preferences in the absence of real‐world choice. Methods The DCE had five attributives, each with three levels. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire in which they were asked to choose between two hypothetical MIBC treatments. The data were analysed using a conditional logit model, and preferences for, and trade‐offs between, attributes were estimated. Results We recruited patients with MIBC who had either already completed, were undergoing or had yet to commence radical treatment for MIBC (n = 60). Participants indicated a strong preference for treatments that increased their life expectancy (p =

Abstract Introduction Radical cystectomy (RC) is historically considered the gold standard treatment for muscle invasive and high‐risk non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer. However, this technique leaves the majority of patients of both sexes with poor sexual and urinary function. Organ‐sparing cystectomy (OSC) techniques are emerging as an alternative to the standard procedure to preserve these functions, without compromising the oncological outcomes. We present a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the published literature. Methods MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched for eligible studies on 6 April 2021. Primary outcomes studied were both oncological outcomes, specifically overall recurrence, and functional outcomes, specifically sexual function, and daytime and nighttime continence. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. The PROSPERO registration reference number was CRD42018118897. Results From 13 894 identified abstracts, 19 studies (1886 male and 305 female patients) were eligible for inclusion in this review. These studies included patients who underwent either whole prostate, prostate capsule, seminal vesicle, nerve, uterus, ovary, vagina and fallopian tube sparing techniques. Four studies included only female patients. Thirteen studies reported oncological outcomes, and overall recurrence rate was similar between the two groups (five studies; OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.38–1.40, p = 0.34). Thirteen studies reported on male sexual function. In men, OSC had significantly greater odds of retaining potency (five studies; OR 9.05; 95% CI 5.07–16.16, p

Abstract Objectives The aim of this study is to gain experienced nursing perspective on current and future complication reporting and grading in Urology, establish the CAMUS CCI and quality control the use of the Clavien‐Dindo Classification (CDC) in nursing staff. Subjects and Methods The 12‐part REDCap‐based Delphi survey was developed in conjunction with expert nurse, urologist and methodologist input. Certified local and international inpatient and outpatient nurses specialised in urology, perioperative nurses and urology‐specific advanced practice nurses/nurse practitioners will be included. A minimum sample size of 250 participants is targeted. The survey assesses participant demographics, nursing experience and opinion on complication reporting and the proposed CAMUS reporting recommendations; grading of intervention events using the existing CDC and the proposed CAMUS Classification; and rating various clinical scenarios. Consensus will be defined as ≥75% agreement. If consensus is not reached, subsequent Delphi rounds will be performed under Steering Committee guidance. Results Twenty participants completed the pilot survey. Median survey completion time was 58 min (IQR 40–67). The survey revealed that 85% of nursing participants believe nurses should be involved in future complication reporting and grading but currently have poor confidence and inadequate relevant background education. Overall, 100% of participants recognise the universal demand for reporting consensus and 75% hold a preference towards the CAMUS System. Limitations include variability in nursing experience, complexity of supplemental grades and survey duration. Conclusion The integration of experienced nursing opinion and participation in complication reporting and grading systems in a modern and evolving hospital infrastructure may facilitate the assimilation of otherwise overlooked safety data. Incorporation of focused teaching into routine nursing education will be essential to ensure quality control and stimulate awareness of complication‐related burden. This, in turn, has the potential to improve patient counselling and quality of care.

Abstract Objective The objective of this study is to summarise the contemporary evidence regarding the prevalence, diagnosis, and management of osteitis pubis (OP) specially from urological point of view, while proposing an algorithm for the best management based on the current evidence. Methods We performed a literature search using the PubMed database for the term ‘osteitis pubis’ until December 2020. We assessed pre‐clinical and clinical studies regarding the aetiology, pathophysiology, and management of OP. Case reports and case series were evaluated by study quality and patient outcomes to determine a potential clinical management algorithm. Results Osteitis pubis is a chronic painful condition of the symphysis pubis joint and its surrounding structures. Still, there is a paucity of data outlining the management plan and the possible triggers. The aetiology seems to be multifactorial with different proposals trying to explain the pathophysiology and correlate the findings to the outcome. The diagnosis is usually based on high suspicion index and clinical experience. The infective variant of the disease is aggressive and requires strict and active management. Universal consensus is still lacking regarding a formal algorithm of management of the condition, especially due to multiple specialities involved in the decision‐making process. Conservative management remains the cornerstone; nevertheless, surgical interventions may be needed in special settings. Hence, a multi‐disciplinary approach is of pivotal value in fashioning the plan for each case. The prognosis is usually satisfactory; however, a longstanding debilitating disease form is not uncommon. Conclusion OP remains a rare condition with real challenges in its diagnosis. The current management is focused on conservative management; however, surgical intervention is still needed in some difficult scenarios. Continued research into the triggers of OP, multidisciplinary approach, and standardised clinical pathways can improve the quality of care for patients suffering from this condition.

Abstract Objective To report on the outcomes of urological cancer patients undergoing radical surgery between March–September 2020 (compared with 2019) in the European Institute of Oncology (IEO) in Milan and the South East London Cancer Alliance (SELCA). Materials and Methods Since March 2020, both institutions implemented a COVID‐19 minimal ‘green’ pathway, whereby patients were required to isolate for 14 days prior to admission and report a negative COVID‐19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test within 3 days of surgery. COVID‐19 positive patients had surgery deferred until a negative swab. Surgical outcomes assessed were: American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade; surgery time; theatre time; intensive care unit (ICU) stay >24 h; pneumonia; length of stay (LOS); re‐admission. Postoperative COVID‐19 infection rates and associated mortality were also recorded. Results At IEO, uro‐oncological surgery increased by 4%, as compared with the same period in 2019 (n = 515 vs. 534). The main increase was observed for renal (16%, n = 98 vs. 114), bladder (24%, n = 45 vs. 56) and testicular (27%, n = 26 vs. 33). Patient demographics were all comparable between 2019 and 2020. Only one bladder cancer patient developed COVID‐19, reporting mild/moderate disease. There was no COVID‐19 associated mortality. In the SELCA cohort, uro‐oncological surgery declined by 23% (n = 403 vs. 312) compared with the previous year. The biggest decrease was seen for prostate (−42%, n = 156 vs. 91), penile (−100%, n = 4 vs. 0) and testicular cancers (−46%, n = 35 vs. 24). Various patient demographic characteristics were notably different when comparing 2020 versus 2019. This likely reflects the clinical decision of deferring COVID‐19 vulnerable patients. One patient developed COVID‐19, with no COVID‐19 related mortality. Conclusion The COVID‐19 minimal ‘green’ pathways that were put in place have shown to be safe for uro‐oncological patients requiring radical surgery. There were limited complications, almost no peri‐operative COVID‐19 infection and no COVID‐19‐related mortality in either cohort.

Abstract Objectives The objective of this study is to determine the long‐term efficacy and safety of office‐based Holmium:YAG laser ablation for the treatment of recurrent non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Methods We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all consecutive patients who underwent office‐based laser ablation for recurrent bladder cancer between 2008 and 2016. The following data were collected: original histology, date of original histology, date of laser ablation, number of repeat laser ablation procedures required, date of tumor recurrence or progression, number of general anesthesia procedures (transurethral resection or cystodiathermy) required after first laser ablation, and number and severity of complications. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were produced for recurrence‐free survival, progression‐free survival, and overall survival. Results A total of 97 patients, with an average age of 84 (62–98) years and an average Charlson Comorbidity Index of 6.9 (4–13), were included. The median follow‐up was 61 (2–150) months. Fifty‐five (56.7%) patients presented with tumor recurrence, and the median recurrence‐free survival time was 1.69 years (95% CI 1.20–2.25). Only 9 (9.3%) patients had evidence of tumor progression to a higher grade or stage, 8 (89%) of which initially had low‐grade tumors; however, no patient progressed to muscle‐invasive disease. The median progression‐free survival time was 5.70 years (95% CI 4.10–7.60), and the median overall survival time was 7.60 years (95% CI 4.90–8.70). No patient required emergency inpatient admission after laser ablation. Conclusion Office‐based Holmium:YAG laser ablation offers a safe and effective alternative method for treating low‐volume, low‐grade recurrent NMIBC, especially in elderly patients with significant co‐morbidity, while avoiding general anesthesia and inpatient admission.

Abstract Objectives To determine the safety of urological admissions and procedures during the height of the COVID‐19 pandemic using “hot” and “cold” sites. The secondary objective is to determine risk factors of contracting COVID‐19 within our cohort. Patients and methods A retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients admitted from March 1 to May 31, 2020 at a high‐volume tertiary urology department in London, United Kingdom. Elective surgery was carried out at a “cold” site requiring a negative COVID‐19 swab 72‐hours prior to admission and patients were required to self‐isolate for 14‐days preoperatively, while all acute admissions were admitted to the “hot” site. Complications related to COVID‐19 were presented as percentages. Risk factors for developing COVID‐19 infection were determined using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results A total of 611 patients, 451 (73.8%) male and 160 (26.2%) female, with a median age of 57 (interquartile range 44‐70) were admitted under the urology team; 101 (16.5%) on the “cold” site and 510 (83.5%) on the “hot” site. Procedures were performed in 495 patients of which eight (1.6%) contracted COVID‐19 postoperatively with one (0.2%) postoperative mortality due to COVID‐19. Overall, COVID‐19 was detected in 20 (3.3%) patients with two (0.3%) deaths. Length of stay was associated with contracting COVID‐19 in our cohort (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13‐1.39). Conclusions Continuation of urological procedures using “hot” and “cold” sites throughout the COVID‐19 pandemic was safe practice, although the risk of COVID‐19 remained and is underlined by a postoperative mortality.