Search

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 ensure a uniform method of application and assessment of SoMe use in CPG dissemination and implementation going forward. PATIENT SUMMARY: Social media (SoMe) plays an important role in rapid and global information exchange among physicians, patients, organizations, and stakeholders in the medical field, and its power can be harnessed in the dissemination of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that guide clinicians in practice. Our review reveals that SoMe use for CPG dissemination is a relatively new concept published approximately 5 yr ago, and it has led to significant improvement in knowledge, awareness, compliance, and positive behavior with respect to the CPGs compared with traditional methods. A large audience (healthcare professionals and patients) viewed and engaged with the SoMe process. We have produced a pragmatic method of using SoMe in CPG dissemination. Considering the importance of CPGs in practice and the ever increasing role of SoMe in the medical profession, a new role for SoMe in CPG dissemination could be established.

Item does not contain fulltext

This is a study protocol for an observational health data analysis, submitted as a preprint to facilitate transparency and open science. Watchful waiting (WW) represents a deferred treatment option for prostate cancer (PCa) patients when curative treatment seems overtreatment right from the outset. Patients are ‘watched’ for the development of local or systemic progression with disease-related symptoms, at which stage they are then treated palliatively according to their symptoms, in order to maintain quality of life. When choosing WW, it is important to adequately assess life expectancy of patients. Although previous studies reported the outcomes of PCa patients managed with WW, which is the impact of individual patient characteristics and comorbidities on long-term outcomes is still largely unknown. The PIONEER, which is a novel project of the Innovative Medicine Initiative’s (IMI’s) “Big Data for Better Outcomes” program with the mission to transform PCa care with particular focus on improving cancer-related outcomes, health system efficiency and the quality of health and social care across Europe, aims at assessing which are the long-term outcomes of PCa patients undergoing WW overall and after stratification according to disease characteristics, comorbidities and life expectancy. Of note, this topic emerged as the second one with the highest agreement score among different stakeholders after an international consensus to identify and prioritize the most important questions in the field of PCa. This study aims to describe demographics, clinical characteristics and estimate outcomes of PCa patients under delayed treatment (WW) across a network of databases in the overall population and subgroups of patients identified by individual disease characteristics, demographics and comorbidities. The study will rely on large observational data, namely population-based registries, electronic health records and insurance claims data. The study will be an observational cohort study based on routinely collected health care data which has been mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM).

Introduction: There remains uncertainty regarding the differences in patient outcomes between monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (MTURP) and bipolar TURP (BTURP) in the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Methods: A systematic literature search was carried out up to March 19, 2019. Methods in the Cochrane Handbook were followed. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results: A total of 59 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 8924 participants were included. BTURP probably results in little to no difference in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months (mean difference -0.24, 95% confidence internal [CI] -0.39–-0.09; participants=2531; RCTs=16; moderate CoE) or health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 12 months (mean difference -0.12, 95% CI -0.25–0.02; participants=2004, RCTs=11; moderate CoE), compared to MTURP. BTURP probably reduces TUR syndrome (relative risk [RR] 0.17, 95% CI 0.09–0.30; participants= 6,745, RCTs=44; moderate CoE) and blood transfusions (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.30–0.59; participants=5727, RCTs=38; moderate CoE), compared to MTURP. BTURP may carry similar risk of urinary incontinence at 12 months (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01–4.06; participants=751; RCTs=4; low CoE), re-TURP (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.44–2.40; participants=652, RCTs=6, I2=0%; low CoE) and erectile dysfunction (International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF-5]) at 12 months (mean difference 0.88, 95% CI -0.56–2.32; RCTs=3; moderate CoE), compared to MTURP. Conclusions: BTURP and MTURP probably improve urological symptoms to a similar degree. BTURP probably reduces TUR syndrome and blood transfusion slightly postoperatively. The moderate certainty of evidence available for primary outcomes suggests no need for further RCTs comparing BTURP and MTURP.

Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Enhancement Through the Power of Big Data in Europe (PIONEER) is a European network of excellence for big data in prostate cancer, consisting of 32 private and public stakeholders from 9 countries across Europe. Launched by the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 and part of the Big Data for Better Outcomes Programme (BD4BO), the overarching goal of PIONEER is to provide high-quality evidence on prostate cancer management by unlocking the potential of big data. The project has identified critical evidence gaps in prostate cancer care, via a detailed prioritization exercise including all key stakeholders. By standardizing and integrating existing high-quality and multidisciplinary data sources from patients with prostate cancer across different stages of the disease, the resulting big data will be assembled into a single innovative data platform for research. Based on a unique set of methodologies, PIONEER aims to advance the field of prostate cancer care with a particular focus on improving prostate-cancer-related outcomes, health system efficiency by streamlining patient management, and the quality of health and social care delivered to all men with prostate cancer and their families worldwide.

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.

Introduction: In the past decade, mobile telephone use has surged in sub-Saharan Africa, creating new opportunities in health care. Mobile telephone interventions have been used in controlled trials to improve perinatal care, but in this first cohort study of birth outcomes from The Gambia, we report the value of mobile telephone follow-up. Methods: Between December 2012 and November 2015, 1,611 women entered the cohort at their first antenatal visit to be followed through pregnancy and beyond. Potential risk factors for adverse birth outcomes were measured throughout the pregnancy. As many women left the health center within a few hours of delivery, delivered elsewhere, or failed to attend the postnatal clinics, mobile telephone follow-up was used to identify stillbirths and neonatal deaths at 7 and 28 days. Results: The immediate birth outcome was known for 968 women who delivered at the health center (60.1%). The known outcomes at birth improved from 60.1% to 85.2% following telephone calls to women who delivered elsewhere. The known outcomes at 7 days improved from 43.6% to 82.5%, and the known outcomes at 28 days improved from 32.8% to 71.5% following a telephone call. Conclusions: Previous cohort studies of birth outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa have not followed the mothers and babies after leaving the birth facility. This cohort is the first to record birth outcomes up to 28 days after the birth. Mobile telephone communications have made an invaluable contribution in intervention studies. This study has shown that mobile telephone follow-up is also an important tool in an observational study.

Despite considerable public health initiatives in the past century, there remains a significant gender inequality in life expectancy. The Global Burden of Diseases study has highlighted that the life expectancy for men is 70.5 years, compared with 75.6 years for women. This discrepancy in mortality appears to be related to a disproportionately higher number of preventable and premature male deaths. Whilst there has been an increased focus on men's health, as evidenced by the establishment of men's health charities and governmental legislation promoting equality, a recent World Health Organization report has highlighted that there is still a prevailing misconception that the higher rate of premature mortality amongst men is a natural phenomenon. We explore the association of male sexual and reproductive health–related diseases and the potential role of a urologist in addressing gender inequality in life expectancy. Patient summary: In this report, we discuss the causes for the gender gap in life expectancy and highlight that men continue to have a higher rate of premature death than women, which is associated with diseases of the male reproductive system. Furthermore, this not only appears to be related to a number of metabolic and lifestyle factors, but may also be the result of the increased risk of cancer in men with sexual and reproductive health–related diseases. Globally, the life expectancy for men is 5.1 yr less than that of women. We describe the association between diseases of the male reproductive system and cardiovascular disease and cancers, and highlight the important role of a urologist in reducing premature male death.

The authors regret that a co-author was mistakenly missed from the authorship. The following co-author should have been included in the authorship: Peter-Paul M. Willemse Department of Oncological Urology, University Medical Center, Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Patients with primary localised prostate cancer (PCa) have a wide choice of curative therapeutic interventions, including active surveillance, surgical, focal and radiation therapies. Based on clinical and oncological characteristics, treatment decisions entail consideration of oncological and functional outcomes with important effects on quality of life. We aimed to highlight evidence surrounding present inconsistencies, the problems this presents to clinicians and patients alike and the rationale for using return to baseline as a more realistic and objective functional outcome measure for assessing sexual function in this particularly sensitive group of men. We performed a non-systematic literature review of numerous non-validated, arbitrary thresholds employed in evaluation of sexual function outcomes in men undergoing intervention for primary localised PCa. The literature presents much heterogeneity in measurement methods and outcome measures, which lack context and present difficulties when counselling patients to make informed, autonomous decisions. These include findings from the most widely used internationally validated tools, such as the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), UCLA prostate cancer index and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (QLQ-C30). There is a need for standardisation of reporting outcomes following PCa treatment to facilitate evaluation of existing and emerging technologies.

Conflicts of interest (COIs) can potentially introduce a risk of bias into the assessment of evidence and the formulation of recommendations for guidelines. It is essential that a systematic process for the disclosure and management of COIs is adopted to minimise potential bias in the guideline development process.

Background Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is a well-established surgical method for treatment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). This has traditionally been provided as monopolar TURP (MTURP), but morbidity associated with MTURP has led to the introduction of other surgical techniques. In bipolar TURP (BTURP), energy is confined between electrodes at the site of the resectoscope, allowing the use of physiological irrigation medium. There remains uncertainty regarding differences between these surgical methods in terms of patient outcomes. Objectives To compare the effects of bipolar and monopolar TURP. Search methods A comprehensive systematic electronic literature search was carried out up to 19 March 2019 via CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and WHO ICTRP. Handsearching of abstract proceedings of major urological conferences and of reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, and health technology assessment reports was undertaken to identify other potentially eligible studies. No language restrictions were applied. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared monopolar and bipolar TURP in men (> 18 years) for management of LUTS secondary to BPO. Data collection and analysis Two independent review authors screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed eligible RCTs for risk of bias. Statistical analyses were undertaken according to the statistical guidelines presented in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The quality of evidence (QoE) was rated according to the GRADE approach. Main results A total of 59 RCTs with 8924 participants were included. The mean age of included participants ranged from 59.0 to 74.1 years. Mean prostate volume ranged from 39 mL to 82.6 mL. Primary outcomes BTURP probably results in little to no difference in urological symptoms, as measured by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months on a scale of 0 to 35, with higher scores reflecting worse symptoms (mean difference (MD) -0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39 to -0.09; participants = 2531; RCTs = 16; I² = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence (CoE), downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. BTURP probably results in little to no difference in bother, as measured by health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score at 12 months on a scale of 0 to 6, with higher scores reflecting greater bother (MD -0.12, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.02; participants = 2004; RCTs = 11; I² = 53%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. BTURP probably reduces transurethral resection (TUR) syndrome events slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.30; participants = 6745; RCTs = 44; I² = 0%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. This corresponds to 20 fewer TUR syndrome events per 1000 participants (95% CI 22 fewer to 17 fewer). Secondary outcomes BTURP may carry a similar risk of urinary incontinence at 12 months (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; participants = 751; RCTs = 4; I² = 0%; low CoE, downgraded for study limitations and imprecision), compared to MTURP. This corresponds to four fewer events of urinary incontinence per 1000 participants (95% CI five fewer to 16 more). BTURP probably slightly reduces blood transfusions (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.59; participants = 5727; RCTs = 38; I² = 0%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. This corresponds to 28 fewer events of blood transfusion per 1000 participants (95% CI 34 fewer to 20 fewer). BTURP may result in similar rates of re-TURP (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.40; participants = 652; RCTs = 6; I² = 0%; low CoE, downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). This corresponds to one more re-TURP per 1000 participants (95% CI 19 fewer to 48 more). Erectile function as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function score (IIEF-5) at 12 months on a scale from 5 to 25, with higher scores reflecting better erectile function, appears to be similar (MD 0.88, 95% CI -0.56 to 2.32; RCTs = 3; I² = 68%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations) for the two approaches. Authors' conclusions BTURP and MTURP probably improve urological symptoms, both to a similar degree. BTURP probably reduces both TUR syndrome and postoperative blood transfusion slightly compared to MTURP. The impact of both procedures on erectile function is probably similar. The moderate certainty of evidence available for the primary outcomes of this review suggests that there is no need for further RCTs comparing BTURP and MTURP.

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. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.

The rate of postoperative complications might vary according to the method used to collect perioperative data. We aimed at assessing the impact of the prospective implementation of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on reporting and grading of complications in prostate cancer patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). From September 2016, an integrated method for reporting surgical morbidity based on the EAU guidelines was implemented at a single, tertiary center. Perioperative data were prospectively and systematically collected during a patient interview at 30 d after surgery as recommended by the EAU Guidelines Panel Recommendations on Reporting and Grading Complications. The rate and grading of complications of 167 patients who underwent RARP±pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) after the implementation of the prospective collection system (Group 1) were compared with 316 patients treated between January 2015 and August 2016 (Group 2) when a system based on patient chart review was used. No differences were observed in disease characteristics and PLND between the two groups (all p≥0.1). Postoperative complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Overall, the complication rate was higher when the prospective collection system based on the EAU guidelines was used (29%) than when retrospective chart review (10%; p0.001) was used. In particular, a substantially higher rate of grade 1 (8.4% vs 4.7%) and 2 (14% vs 2.8%) complications was detected in Group 1 versus Group 2 (p0.001). Although the rate of complications occurred during hospitalization did not differ (13% vs 10%; p=0.3), 31 (19%) complications after discharge were detected in Group 1. This resulted into a readmission rate of 16%. Conversely, no complications after discharge and readmissions were recorded for Group 2. The implementation of the EAU guidelines on reporting perioperative outcomes roughly doubled the complication rate after RARP and allowed for the detection of complications after discharge in more than 15% of patients that would have been otherwise missed, where patients assessed with the EAU implemented protocol had a threefold higher likelihood of reporting complications.The implementation of the European Association of Urology guidelines on reporting and grading of complications after urologic procedures in prostate cancer patients roughly doubled the complication rate after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to retrospective patient chart review. Moreover, it allowed for the detection of complications after discharge in more than 15% of patients that would have been otherwise missed.

BackgroundPeople carrying out clean intermittent self-catheterisation (CISC) to empty their bladder often suffer repeated urinary tract infections (UTIs). Continuous once-daily, low-dose antibiotic treatment (antibiotic prophylaxis) is commonly advised but knowledge of its effectiveness is lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the benefit, harms and cost-effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent UTIs in people who perform CISC.DesignParallel-group, open-label, patient-randomised 12-month trial of allocated intervention with 3-monthly follow-up. Outcome assessors were blind to allocation.SettingUK NHS, with recruitment of patients from 51 sites.ParticipantsFour hundred and four adults performing CISC and predicted to continue for ≥ 12 months who had suffered at least two UTIs in the previous year or had been hospitalised for a UTI in the previous year.InterventionsA central randomisation system using random block allocation set by an independent statistician allocated participants to the experimental group [once-daily oral antibiotic prophylaxis using either 50 mg of nitrofurantoin, 100 mg of trimethoprim (Kent Pharmaceuticals, Ashford, UK) or 250 mg of cefalexin (Sandoz Ltd, Holzkirchen, Germany);n = 203] or the control group of no prophylaxis (n = 201), both for 12 months.Main outcome measuresThe primary clinical outcome was relative frequency of symptomatic, antibiotic-treated UTI. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by cost per UTI avoided. The secondary measures were microbiologically proven UTI, antimicrobial resistance, health status and participants’ attitudes to antibiotic use.ResultsThe frequency of symptomatic antibiotic-treated UTI was reduced by 48% using prophylaxis [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.61;n = 361]. Reduction in microbiologically proven UTI was similar (IRR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.60;n = 361). Absolute reduction in UTI episodes over 12 months was from a median (interquartile range) of 2 (1–4) in the no-prophylaxis group (n = 180) to 1 (0–2) in the prophylaxis group (n = 181). The results were unchanged by adjustment for days at risk of UTI and the presence of factors giving higher risk of UTI. Development of antimicrobial resistance was seen more frequently in pathogens isolated from urine andEscherichia colifrom perianal swabs in participants allocated to antibiotic prophylaxis. The use of prophylaxis incurred an extra cost of £99 to prevent one UTI (not including costs related to increased antimicrobial resistance). The emotional and practical burden of CISC and UTI influenced well-being, but health status measured over 12 months was similar between groups and did not deteriorate significantly during UTI. Participants were generally unconcerned about using antibiotics, including the possible development of antimicrobial resistance.LimitationsLack of blinding may have led participants in each group to use different thresholds to trigger reporting and treatment-seeking for UTI.ConclusionsThe results of this large randomised trial, conducted in accordance with best practice, demonstrate clear benefit for antibiotic prophylaxis in terms of reducing the frequency of UTI for people carrying out CISC. Antibiotic prophylaxis use appears safe for individuals over 12 months, but the emergence of resistant urinary pathogens may prejudice longer-term management of recurrent UTI and is a public health concern. Future work includes longer-term studies of antimicrobial resistance and studies of non-antibiotic preventative strategies.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN67145101 and EudraCT 2013-002556-32.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology AssessmentVol. 22, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Context: Clinicians and treatment guideline developers are faced with a dilemma when the results of a new, large, well-conducted randomized controlled trial (RCT) are in direct conflict with the results of a previous systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA). Objective: To explore and discuss possible reasons for disagreement in results from SRs/MAs and RCTs and to provide guidance to clinicians and guideline developers for making well-informed treatment decisions and recommendations in the face of conflicting data. Evidence acquisition: The advantages and limitations of RCTs and SRs/MAs are reviewed. Two practical examples that have a direct bearing on European Association of Urology guidelines on treatment recommendations are discussed in detail to illustrate the points to be considered when conflicts exist between the results of large RCTs and SRs/MAs. Evidence synthesis: RCTs are the gold standard for providing evidence of the effectiveness of interventions. However, concerns regarding the internal and external validity of an RCT may limit its applicability to clinical practice. SRs/MAs synthesize all evidence related to a given research question, but two urologic examples show that the validity of the results depends on the quality of the individual studies, the clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the studies, and publication bias. Conclusions: Although SRs/MAs can provide a higher level of evidence than RCTs, the quality of the evidence from both RCTs and SRs/MAs should be investigated when their results conflict to determine which source provides the better evidence. Guideline developers should have a well-defined and robust process to assess the evidence from MAs and RCTs when such conflicts exist. Patient summary: We discuss the advantages and limitations of using data from randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews/meta-analyses in informing clinical practice when there are conflicting results. We provide guidance on how such conflicts should be dealt with by guideline organizations. New or existing data from randomized controlled trials can lead to conflicts with meta-analysis data. In this paper, we present examples of and explore reasons for such conflicts. Guidance is provided to guideline developers on how to assess conflicting data in such circumstances to help determine which source is more reliable. For guideline organizations, both within and outside of urology, having a well-defined and robust process to deal with such conflicts is essential to improve the quality of their guidelines.

BackgroundAlthough guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.ObjectiveTo bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.DesignA 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.SettingOnline Delphi survey and consensus conference.ParticipantsThe European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisStatements 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 limitationsOverall, 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.ConclusionsThese consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach.Patient summaryThis report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.

Deferred active treatment (DAT) strategies, including active surveillance and active monitoring, are a recognised management option for men with localised low-risk prostate cancer. However, there is uncertainty due to heterogeneity of patient selection criteria, follow-up and monitoring characteristics, reclassification thresholds, and which outcome measures should be prioritised. This protocol describes a study led by the European Association of Urology (EAU) Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel in conjunction with other guideline organisations and societies to develop consensus statements for all domains of deferred active treatment. The project is divided into 3 sequential phases: (1) Systematic review of studies reporting on DAT in order to summarise and define range of heterogeneity regarding all domains; (2) Two-round Delphi online survey involving a large, international panel of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients to initiate consensus; and (3) Consensus group meeting involving representatives from HCP and patient stakeholder groups to finalise the consensus process. The consensus statements are expected to be adopted by clinical practice guidelines in order to standardise and guide practice for clinicians and researchers until better evidence emerges. Patient summary: We describe a project aimed at standardising elements of practice in active surveillance/monitoring for early localised prostate cancer, because currently there is great variation and uncertainty regarding how best to conduct them. This will be achieved through a structured process of agreement (i.e. consensus) amongst a large, international panel of healthcare professionals and patients.

Context Most series have suggested better perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) over open RNU. However, the oncological safety of laparoscopic RNU remains controversial. Objective To systematically review all relevant literature comparing oncological outcomes of open versus laparoscopic RNU. Evidence acquisition A systematic literature search using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases and clinicaltrial.gov was performed in December 2014 and updated in August 2016. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective or retrospective nonrandomised comparative studies comparing the oncological outcomes of any laparoscopic RNU with those of open RNU were included. The primary outcome was cancer-specific survival. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Cochrane RoB tools. A narrative synthesis of the evidence is presented. Evidence synthesis Overall, 42 studies were included, which accounted for 7554 patients: 4925 in the open groups and 2629 in the laparoscopic groups. Most included studies were retrospective comparative series. Only one RCT was found. RoB and confounding were high in most studies. No study compared the oncological outcomes of robotic RNU with those of open RNU. Bladder cuff excision in laparoscopic groups was performed via an open approach in most studies, with only three studies reporting laparoscopic removal of the bladder cuff. Port-site metastasis rates ranged from 0% to 2.8%. No significant difference in oncological outcomes was reported in most series. However, three studies, including the only RCT, reported significantly poorer oncological outcomes in patients who underwent laparoscopic RNU, especially in the subgroups of patients with locally advanced (pT3/pT4) or high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), as well as in instances when the bladder cuff was excised laparoscopically. Conclusions The current available evidence suggests that the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic RNU may be poorer than those of open RNU when bladder cuff is excised laparoscopically and in patients with locally advanced high-risk (pT3/pT4 and/or high-grade) UTUC. Patient summary We reviewed the literature comparing the outcomes of two different surgical procedures for the treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Open radical nephroureterectomy is a surgical procedure in which the kidney is removed through a large incision in the abdomen, while in laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy, the kidney is removed through a number of small incisions. Our findings suggest that the outcomes of laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy may be poorer than those of open radical nephroureterectomy, particularly when the bladder cuff is also required to be removed. Laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy may also be less effective in patients with locally advanced (pT3/pT4) or high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinomas.

Aims: The treatment of prostate cancer has evolved markedly over the last 40 years, including radiotherapy, notably with escalated dose and targeting. However, the optimal treatment for localised disease has not been established in comparative randomised trials. The aim of this article is to describe the history ofprostate radiotherapy trials, including their quality assurance processes, and to compare these with the ProtecT trial.Materials and methods: The UK ProtecT randomised trial compares external beam conformal radiotherapy, surgery and active monitoring for clinically localized prostate cancer and will report on the primary outcome (disease-specific mortality) in 2016 following recruitment between 1999 and 2009. The embedded quality assurance programme consists of on-site machine dosimetry at the nine trial centres, a retrospective review of outlining and adherence to dose constraints based on the trial protocol in 54 participants (randomly selected, around 10% of the total randomised to radiotherapy, n ¼ 545). These quality assurance processes and results were compared with prostate radiotherapy trials of a comparable era.Results: There has been an increasingly sophisticated quality assurance programme in UK prostate radiotherapy trials over the last 15 years, reflecting dose escalation and treatment complexity. In ProtecT, machine dosimetry results were comparable between trial centres and with the UK RT01 trial. The outliningreview showed that most deviations were clinically acceptable, although three (1.4%) may have been of clinical significance and were related to outlining of theprostate. Seminal vesicle outlining varied, possibly due to several prostate trials running concurrently with different protocols. Adherence to dose constraints inProtecT was considered acceptable, with 80% of randomised participants having two or less deviations and planning target volume coverage was excellent.Conclusion: The ProtecT trial quality assurance results were satisfactory and comparable with trials of its era. Future trials should aim to standardise treatment protocols and quality assurance programmes where possible to reduce complexities for centres involved in multiple trials. 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Royal College of Radiologists.

Context The European Association of Urology non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) guidelines recommend that all low- and intermediate-risk patients receive a single immediate instillation of chemotherapy after transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB), but its use remains controversial. Objective To identify which NMIBC patients benefit from a single immediate instillation. Evidence acquisition A systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing the efficacy of a single instillation after TURB with TURB alone in NMIBC patients was carried out. Evidence synthesis A total of 13 eligible studies were identified. IPD were obtained for 11 studies randomizing 2278 eligible patients, 1161 to TURB and 1117 to a single instillation of epirubicin, mitomycin C, pirarubicin, or thiotepa. A total of 1128 recurrences, 108 progressions, and 460 deaths (59 due to bladder cancer [BCa]) occurred. A single instillation reduced the risk of recurrence by 35% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.74; p < 0.001) and the 5-yr recurrence rate from 58.8% to 44.8%. The instillation did not reduce recurrences in patients with a prior recurrence rate of more than one recurrence per year or in patients with an European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) recurrence score ≥5. The instillation did not prolong either the time to progression or death from BCa, but it resulted in an increase in the overall risk of death (HR: 1.26; 95% CI, 1.05-1.51; p = 0.015; 5-yr death rates 12.0% vs 11.2%), with the difference appearing in patients with an EORTC recurrence score ≥5. Conclusions A single immediate instillation reduced the risk of recurrence, except in patients with a prior recurrence rate of more than one recurrence per year or an EORTC recurrence score ≥5. It does not prolong either time to progression or death from BCa. The instillation may be associated with an increase in the risk of death in patients at high risk of recurrence in whom the instillation is not effective or recommended. Patient summary A single instillation of chemotherapy immediately after resection reduces the risk of recurrence in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer; however, it should not be given to patients at high risk of recurrence due to its lack of efficacy in this subgroup.

Purpose To systematically evaluate evidence regarding the unmet supportive care needs of men affected by penile cancer and their partners to create a holistic model of care and inform clinical practice guidelines. Methods We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (CCRT and CDSR) controlled trials databases and clinicaltrial.gov from 1990 to April 2020. This review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Results 18 articles were included, reporting the results from 17 studies. Included reports used qualitative (seven studies) and survey (ten studies). Across these studies, men reported that the diagnosis and subsequent treatment of penile cancer affected physical, psychological and sexual well-being with each facet impacting and being intertwined with the other at varying degrees. There was varying complexity of unmet needs in men and partners pre-surgery, post-surgery and into survivorship. Conclusions Moderate evidence exists that men affected by penile cancer experience a range of unmet supportive care needs across the international literature. Further work to evaluate the impact of penile cancer on partners is required.

Background: Repeated symptomatic urinary tract infections (UTIs) affect 25% of people who use clean intermittent self-catheterisation (CISC) to empty their bladder. We aimed to determine the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of continuous low-dose antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of recurrent UTIs in adult users of CISC. Methods: In this randomised, open-label, superiority trial, we enrolled participants from 51 UK National Health Service organisations. These participants were community-dwelling (as opposed to hospital inpatient) users of CISC with recurrent UTIs. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) to receive either antibiotic prophylaxis once daily (prophylaxis group) or no prophylaxis (control group) for 12 months by use of an internet-based system with permuted blocks of variable length. Trial and laboratory staff who assessed outcomes were masked to allocation but participants were aware of their treatment group. The primary outcome was the incidence of symptomatic, antibiotic-treated UTIs over 12 months. Participants who completed at least 6 months of follow-up were assumed to provide a reliable estimate of UTI incidence and were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. Change in antimicrobial resistance of urinary and faecal bacteria was monitored as a secondary outcome. The AnTIC trial is registered at ISRCTN, number 67145101; and EudraCT, number 2013-002556-32. Findings: Between Nov 25, 2013, and Jan 29, 2016, we screened 1743 adult users of CISC for eligibility, of whom 404 (23%) participants were enrolled between Nov 26, 2013, and Jan 31, 2016. Of these 404 participants, 203 (50%) were allocated to receive prophylaxis and 201 (50%) to receive no prophylaxis. 1339 participants were excluded before randomisation. The primary analysis included 181 (89%) adults allocated to the prophylaxis group and 180 (90%) adults in the no prophylaxis (control) group. 22 participants in the prophylaxis group and 21 participants in the control group were not included in the primary analysis because they were missing follow-up data before 6 months. The incidence of symptomatic antibiotic-treated UTIs over 12 months was 1·3 cases per person-year (95% CI 1·1–1·6) in the prophylaxis group and 2·6 (2·3–2·9) in the control group, giving an incidence rate ratio of 0·52 (0·44–0·61; p

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 current literature suggests that removal of lymph nodes in bladder cancer surgery is beneficial and might result in better outcomes in terms of prolonging survival; however, the quality of the available studies is poor, and high-quality studies are needed.

Objective: The study aimed to explore adherence to the European Urological Association (EAU) Guidelines (GLs) grade A recommendation among Italian urologists. Materials and Methods: A 13-item multiple-choice questionnaire covering oncological and non-oncological urological diseases was e-mailed to all Italian Urologist Society (Società Italiana di Urologia or SIU) members. We asked members to provide an explanation for their answer choice where needed. The quantitative data were tested using the Pearson’s chi-square test. For all statistical comparisons, significance was considered as p < 0.05. Results: Of the 2011 invited SIU members, 210 (10.4%) completed the survey. The sample was composed of 22 (10.5%) Academic Urologists (AcUs), 110 (52.4%) Attending Urologists (AtUs), 32 (15.2%) Private Practice Urologists (PPUs), and 41 (19.5%) Residents in Urology (RUs). The mean adherence to the EAU Oncologic GLs ranged from 54.5 to 97.1%, while the adherence to the non-oncologic GLs ranged from 45 to 87.6%. We found that adherence differed across the working categories assessed. Conclusion: Our survey showed that professional role, updates, and local facilities seem to be the drivers that influence the non-adherence to the GLs. Urologists who work in university hospital would be more inclined to adopt the GLs compared to those who practice in non-academic centers.

IntroductionSingle-incision mini-slings (SIMS) represent the third generation of midurethral slings. They have been developed with the aim of offering a true ambulatory procedure for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI) with reduced morbidity and earlier recovery while maintaining similar efficacy to standard midurethral slings (SMUS). The aim of this study is to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adjustable anchored SIMS compared with tension-free SMUS in the surgical management of female SUI, with 3-year follow-up.Methods and analysisA pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.Primary outcome measureThe primary outcome measure is the patient-reported success rate measured by the Patient Global Impression of Improvement at 12 months. The primary economic outcome will be incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained at 12 months.Secondary outcome measuresThe secondary outcomes measures include adverse events, objective success rates, impact on other lower urinary tract symptoms, health-related quality of life profile and sexual function, and reoperation rates for SUI. Secondary economic outcomes include National Health Service and patient primary and secondary care resource use and costs, incremental cost-effectiveness and incremental net benefit.Statistical analysisThe statistical analysis of the primary outcome will be by intention-to-treat and also a per-protocol analysis. Results will be displayed as estimates and 95% CIs. CIs around observed differences will then be compared with the prespecified non-inferiority margin. Secondary outcomes will be analysed similarly.Ethics and disseminationThe North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee has approved this study (13/NS/0143). The dissemination plans include HTA monograph, presentation at international scientific meetings and publications in high-impact, open-access journals. The results will be included in the updates of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the European Association of Urology guidelines; these two specific guidelines directly influence practice in the UK and worldwide specialists, respectively. In addition, plain English-language summary of the main findings/results will be presented for relevant patient organisations.Trial registration numberISRCTN93264234. The SIMS study is currently recruiting in 20 UK research centres. The first patient was randomised on 4 February 2014, with follow-up to be completed at the end of February 2020.

Effective stakeholder integration for guideline development should improve outcomes and adherence to clinical practice guidelines.

ispartof: Progress in preventive medicine pages:1-2 status: published

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of various surgical treatments for localised penile cancer, including oncological efficacy, quality of life and functional impact. (FS: do we need to be more specific than this?) The comparisons of interest are: one type of surgery versus another; ; surgical treatment versus non‐surgical treatment.

Background Urinary stone disease is very common with an estimated prevalence among the general population of 2–3%. Ureteric stones are associated with severe pain as they pass through the urinary tract and have significant impact on patients’ quality of life due to the detrimental effect on their ability to work and need for hospitalisation. Most ureteric stones can be expected to pass spontaneously with supportive care. However, between one-fifth and one-third of cases require an intervention. The two standard active intervention options are extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic stone retrieval. ESWL and ureteroscopy are effective in terms of stone clearance; however, they differ in terms of invasiveness, anaesthetic requirement, treatment setting, complications, patient-reported outcomes (e.g. pain after intervention, time off work) and cost. There is uncertainty around which is the most clinically effective in terms of stone clearance and the true cost to the NHS and to society (in terms of impact on patient-reported health and economic burden). The aim of this trial is to determine whether, in adults with ureteric stones, judged to require active intervention, ESWL is not inferior and is more cost-effective compared to ureteroscopic treatment as the initial management option. Methods The TISU study is a pragmatic multicentre non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of ESWL as the first treatment option compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment for ureteric stones. Patients aged over 16 years with a ureteric stone confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder (CTKUB) will be randomised to either ESWL or ureteroscopy. The primary clinical outcome is resolution of the stone episode (no further intervention required to facilitate stone clearance) up to six months from randomisation. The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained at six months from randomisation. Discussion Determining whether ESWL is not inferior clinically and is cost-effective compared to ureteroscopic treatment as the initial management in adults with ureteric stones who are judged to require active treatment is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to healthcare providers, both in the UK and globally. Trial registration ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN92289221. Registered on 21 February 2013. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2652-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The European Association of Urology was the first scientific association to systematically convert the clinical guidelines into social media posts for dissemination through twitter. Posts were classified using the hashtag #eauguidelines and each post was

Purpose Communication with health care providers is important to help meet cancer patients' information and support needs. It can significantly affect the extent to which patients feel cared for, respected and involved, and it can influence a range of cancer care processes and outcomes. This paper presents findings from a study which explored urological cancer patients' experiences of care, focussing on insights into what they appeared to value in their interactions with health care providers and why. Method In-depth interviews were undertaken with 20 men and 6 women with different types of urological cancer at a range of times since diagnosis. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed using an established interpretive approach. Results Patients valued being treated as someone who mattered and was worthy of care; being recognised and responded to as an individual; and experiencing support for autonomy/agency. Reasons for their valuations related to the implications of communicative interactions for the ways patients thought health professionals related to them ‘as persons'. Our findings highlight the value of relational aspects of communication for: indicating to patients what clinicians think of their worth; facilitating individualised care; and enabling patients to contribute to their own care. Conclusions Efforts to improve health care provider-patient communication should attend not only to the transfer of information about the condition and its management but to the range of features of interactions that can signal to people how health care providers relate to them as persons.

Context: Controversy remains over whether adrenalectomy and lymph node dissection (LND) should be performed concomitantly with radical nephrectomy (RN) for locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) cT3-T4N0M0. Objective: To systematically review all relevant literature comparing oncologic, perioperative, and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes for locally advanced RCC managed with RN with or without concomitant adrenalectomy or LND. Evidence acquisition: Relevant databases were searched up to August 2012. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative studies were included. Outcome measures were overall survival, QoL, and perioperative adverse effects. Risks of bias (RoB) were assessed using Cochrane RoB tools. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Evidence synthesis: A total of 3658 abstracts and 252 full-text articles were screened. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria: six LNDs (one RCT and five nonrandomised studies [NRSs]) and two adrenalectomies (two NRSs). RoB was high across the evidence base, and the quality of evidence from outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. Meta-analyses were not undertaken because of diverse study designs and data heterogeneity. There was no significant difference in survival between the groups, even though 5-yr overall survival appears better for the RN plus LND group compared with the no-LND group in one randomised study. There was no evidence of a difference in adverse events between the RN plus LND and no-LND groups. No studies reported QoL outcomes. There was no evidence of an oncologic difference between the RN with adrenalectomy and RN without adrenalectomy groups. No studies reported adverse events or QoL outcomes. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions on oncologic outcomes for patients having concomitant LND or ipsilateral adrenalectomy compared with patients having RN alone for cT3-T4N0M0 RCC. The quality of evidence is generally low and the results potentially biased. Further research in adequately powered trials is needed to answer these questions. (C) 2013 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.