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

Funding/Support and role of the sponsor: This research was supported by funding under the PIONERR Consortium. The Consortium played a role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

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

Funding PIONEER is funded through the IMI2 Joint Undertaking and is listed under Grant Agreement No. 777492 and is part of the Big Data for Better Outcomes Programme (BD4BO). IMI2 receives support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). The views communicated within are those of PIONEER. Neither the IMI nor the European Union, EFPIA, or any Associated Partners are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Benefits and Risks of Primary Treatments for High-risk Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer : An International Multidisciplinary Systematic Review

Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Peer reviewedPostprin

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

none38siContext: There is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate criteria for recruitment, monitoring, and reclassification in active surveillance (AS) protocols for localised prostate cancer (PCa). Objective: To perform a qualitative systematic review (SR) to issue recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and repeat biopsy strategy. Evidence acquisition: A protocol-driven, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-adhering SR incorporating AS protocols published from January 1990 to October 2020 was performed. The main outcomes were criteria for inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, monitoring, reclassification, and repeat biopsy strategies (per protocol and/or triggered). Clinical effectiveness data were not assessed. Evidence synthesis: Of the 17 011 articles identified, 333 studies incorporating 375 AS protocols, recruiting 264 852 patients, were included. Only a minority of protocols included the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for recruitment (n = 17), follow-up (n = 47), and reclassification (n = 26). More than 50% of protocols included patients with intermediate or high-risk disease, whilst 44.1% of protocols excluded low-risk patients with more than three positive cores, and 39% of protocols excluded patients with core involvement (CI) >50% per core. Of the protocols, ≥80% mandated a confirmatory transrectal ultrasound biopsy; 72% (n = 189) of protocols mandated per-protocol repeat biopsies, with 20% performing this annually and 25% every 2 yr. Only 27 protocols (10.3%) mandated triggered biopsies, with 74% of these protocols defining progression or changes on MRI as triggers for repeat biopsy. Conclusions: For AS protocols in which the use of MRI is not mandatory or absent, we recommend the following: (1) AS can be considered in patients with low-volume International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 (three or fewer positive cores and cancer involvement ≤50% CI per core) or another single element of intermediate-risk disease, and patients with ISUP 3 should be excluded; (2) per-protocol confirmatory prostate biopsies should be performed within 2 yr, and per-protocol surveillance repeat biopsies should be performed at least once every 3 yr for the first 10 yr; and (3) for patients with low-volume, low-risk disease at recruitment, if repeat systematic biopsies reveal more than three positive cores or maximum CI >50% per core, they should be monitored closely for evidence of adverse features (eg, upgrading); patients with ISUP 2 disease with increased core positivity and/or CI to similar thresholds should be reclassified. Patient summary: We examined the literature to issue new recommendations on active surveillance (AS) for managing localised prostate cancer. The recommendations include setting criteria for including men with more aggressive disease (intermediate-risk disease), setting thresholds for close monitoring of men with low-risk but more extensive disease, and determining when to perform repeat biopsies (within 2 yr and 3 yearly thereafter).noneWillemse, Peter-Paul M; Davis, Niall F; Grivas, Nikolaos; Zattoni, Fabio; Lardas, Michael; Briers, Erik; Cumberbatch, Marcus G; De Santis, Maria; Dell'Oglio, Paolo; Donaldson, James F; Fossati, Nicola; Gandaglia, Giorgio; Gillessen, Silke; Grummet, Jeremy P; Henry, Ann M; Liew, Matthew; MacLennan, Steven; Mason, Malcolm D; Moris, Lisa; Plass, Karin; O'Hanlon, Shane; Omar, Muhammad Imran; Oprea-Lager, Daniela E; Pang, Karl H; Paterson, Catherine C; Ploussard, Guillaume; Rouvière, Olivier; Schoots, Ivo G; Tilki, Derya; van den Bergh, Roderick C N; Van den Broeck, Thomas; van der Kwast, Theodorus H; van der Poel, Henk G; Wiegel, Thomas; Yuan, Cathy Yuhong; Cornford, Philip; Mottet, Nicolas; Lam, Thomas B LWillemse, Peter-Paul M; Davis, Niall F; Grivas, Nikolaos; Zattoni, Fabio; Lardas, Michael; Briers, Erik; Cumberbatch, Marcus G; De Santis, Maria; Dell'Oglio, Paolo; Donaldson, James F; Fossati, Nicola; Gandaglia, Giorgio; Gillessen, Silke; Grummet, Jeremy P; Henry, Ann M; Liew, Matthew; Maclennan, Steven; Mason, Malcolm D; Moris, Lisa; Plass, Karin; O'Hanlon, Shane; Omar, Muhammad Imran; Oprea-Lager, Daniela E; Pang, Karl H; Paterson, Catherine C; Ploussard, Guillaume; Rouvière, Olivier; Schoots, Ivo G; Tilki, Derya; van den Bergh, Roderick C N; Van den Broeck, Thomas; van der Kwast, Theodorus H; van der Poel, Henk G; Wiegel, Thomas; Yuan, Cathy Yuhong; Cornford, Philip; Mottet, Nicolas; Lam, Thomas B

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Clinical Effectiveness of Shock Wave Lithotripsy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Lower-pole Renal Stones

Copyright © 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Funding/Support and role of the sponsor: None.Peer reviewedPostprin

Evaluation of Oncological Outcomes and Data Quality in Studies Assessing Nerve-sparing Versus Non–Nerve-sparing Radical Prostatectomy in Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

Context: Surgical techniques aimed at preserving the neurovascular bundles during radical prostatectomy (RP) have been proposed to improve functional outcomes. However, it remains unclear if nerve-sparing (NS) surgery adversely affects oncological metrics. Objective: To explore the oncological safety of NS versus non-NS (NNS) surgery and to identify factors affecting the oncological outcomes of NS surgery. Evidence acquisition: Relevant databases were searched for English language articles published between January 1, 1990 and May 8, 2020. Comparative studies for patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PCa) treated with primary RP were included. NS and NNS techniques were compared. The main outcomes were side-specific positive surgical margins (ssPSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding assessments were performed. Evidence synthesis: Out of 1573 articles identified, 18 studies recruiting a total of 21 654 patients were included. The overall RoB and confounding were high across all domains. The most common selection criteria for NS RP identified were characteristic of low-risk disease, including low core-biopsy involvement. Seven studies evaluated the link with ssPSM and showed an increase in ssPSM after adjustment for side-specific confounders, with the relative risk for NS RP ranging from 1.50 to 1.53. Thirteen papers assessing BCR showed no difference in outcomes with at least 12 mo of follow-up. Lack of data prevented any subgroup analysis for potentially important variables. The definitions of NS were heterogeneous and poorly described in most studies. Conclusions: Current data revealed an association between NS surgery and an increase in the risk of ssPSM. This did not translate into a negative impact on BCR, although follow-up was short and many men harbored low-risk PCa. There are significant knowledge gaps in terms of how various patient, disease, and surgical factors affect outcomes. Adequately powered and well-designed prospective trials and cohort studies accounting for these issues with long-term follow-up are recommended. Patient summary: Neurovascular bundles (NVBs) are structures containing nerves and blood vessels. The NVBs close to the prostate are responsible for erections. We reviewed the literature to determine if a technique to preserve the NVBs during removal of the prostate causes worse cancer outcomes. We found that NVB preservation was poorly defined but, if applied, was associated with a higher risk of cancer at the margins of the tissue removed, even in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. The long-term importance of this finding for patients is unclear. More data are needed to provide recommendations

Biochemical Recurrence in Prostate Cancer : The European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel Recommendations

Biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary treatment of localized prostate cancer does not necessarily lead to clinically apparent progressive disease. To aid in prognostication, the European Association of Urology prostate cancer guidelines panel undertook a systematic review and successfully developed a novel BCR risk stratification system (groups with a low risk or high risk of BCR) based on disease and prostate-specific antigen characteristics. Patient summary: Following treatment to cure prostate cancer, some patients can develop recurrence of disease identified via a prostate-specific antigen blood test (ie, biochemical recurrence, or BCR). However, not every man who experiences BCR develops progressive disease (symptoms or evidence of disease progression on imaging). We conducted a review of the literature and developed a classification system for predicting which patients might progress to optimize treatment decisions. The EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG prostate cancer guidelines panel recommends stratifying patients experiencing biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary treatment for localized prostate cancer into EAU low-risk and high-risk BCR groups. Each patient's risk profile and life expectancy should be considered when discussing the benefits and toxicities of salvage treatments

A Systematic Review of the Impact of Surgeon and Hospital Caseload Volume on Oncological and Nononcological Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer

Context: The impact of surgeon and hospital volume on outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) for localised prostate cancer (PCa) remains unknown. Objective: To perform a systematic review on the association between surgeon or hospital volume and oncological and nononcological outcomes following RP for PCa. Evidence acquisition: Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. All comparative studies for nonmetastatic PCa patients treated with RP published between January 1990 and May 2020 were included. For inclusion, studies had to compare hospital or surgeon volume, defined as caseload per unit time. Main outcomes included oncological (including prostate-specific antigen persistence, positive surgical margin [PSM], biochemical recurrence, local and distant recurrence, and cancer-specific and overall survival) and nononcological (perioperative complications including need for blood transfusion, conversion to open procedure and within 90-d death, and continence and erectile function) outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding assessments were undertaken. Both a narrative and a quantitative synthesis were planned if the data allowed. Evidence synthesis: Sixty retrospective comparative studies were included. Generally, increasing surgeon and hospital volumes were associated with lower rates of mortality, PSM, adjuvant or salvage therapies, and perioperative complications. Combining group size cut-offs as used in the included studies, the median threshold for hospital volume at which outcomes start to diverge is 86 (interquartile range [IQR] 35–100) cases per year. In addition, above this threshold, the higher the caseload, the better the outcomes, especially for PSM. RoB and confounding were high for most domains. Conclusions: Higher surgeon and hospital volumes for RP are associated with lower rates of PSMs, adjuvant or salvage therapies, and perioperative complications. This association becomes apparent from a caseload of >86 (IQR 35–100) per year and may further improve hereafter. Both high- and low-volume centres should measure their outcomes, make them publicly available, and improve their quality of care if needed. Patient summary: We reviewed the literature to determine whether the number of prostate cancer operations (radical prostatectomy) performed in a hospital affects the outcomes of surgery. We found that, overall, hospitals with a higher number of operations per year have better outcomes in terms of cancer recurrence and complications during or after hospitalisation. However, it must be noted that surgeons working in hospitals with lower annual operations can still achieve similar or even better outcomes. Therefore, making hospital's outcome data publicly available should be promoted internationally, so that patients can make an informed decision where they want to be treated

Updating and Integrating Core Outcome Sets for Localised, Locally Advanced, Metastatic, and Nonmetastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: An Update from the PIONEER Consortium

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 with PCa, the PIONEER Consortium has standardised and recommended outcomes (and their definitions) that should be collected as a minimum in all future studies