Mapping European Association of Urology Guideline Practice Across Europe:An Audit of Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use Before Prostate Cancer Surgery in 6598 Cases in 187 Hospitals Across 31 European Countries

Background: Evidence-practice gaps exist in urology. We previously surveyed European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for strong recommendations underpinned by high-certainty evidence that impact patient experience for which practice variations were suspected. The recommendation “Do not offer neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) before surgery for patients with prostate cancer” was prioritised for further investigation. ADT before surgery is neither clinically effective nor cost effective and has serious side effects. The first step in improving implementation problems is to understand their extent. A clear picture of practice regarding ADT before surgery across Europe is not available. Objective: To assess current ADT use before prostate cancer surgery in Europe. Design, setting, and participants: This was an observational cross-sectional study. We retrospectively audited recent ADT practices in a multicentre international setting. We used nonprobability purposive sampling, aiming for breadth in terms of low- versus high-volume, academic, versus community and public versus private centres. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Our primary outcome was adherence to the ADT recommendation. Descriptive statistics and a multilevel model were used to investigate differences between countries across different factors (volume, centre type, and funding type). Subgroup analyses were performed for patients with low, intermediate, and high risk, and for those with locally advanced prostate cancer. We also collected reasons for nonadherence. Results and limitations: We included 6598 patients with prostate cancer from 187 hospitals in 31 countries from January 1, 2017 to May 1, 2020. Overall, nonadherence was 2%, (range 0–32%). Most of the variability was found in the high-risk subgroup, for which nonadherence was 4% (range 0–43%). Reasons for nonadherence included attempts to improve oncological outcomes or preoperative tumour parameters; attempts t