17 research outputs found

    Adherence to the EAU guideline recommendations for systemic chemotherapy in penile cancer: results of the E-PROPS study group survey

    No full text
    Objectives To validate the adherence of urologists to chemotherapy recommendations given in the EAU guidelines on PeCa. The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on penile cancer (PeCa) are predominantly based on retrospective studies with low level of evidence. Materials and methods A 14-item-survey addressing general issues of PeCa treatment was developed and sent to 45 European hospitals. 557 urologists participated in the survey of which 43.5%, 19.3%, and 37.2% were in-training, certified, and in leading positions, respectively. Median response rate among participating departments was 85.7% (IQR 75-94%). Three of 14 questions addressed clinical decisions on neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and palliative chemotherapy. Survey results were analyzed by bootstrap-adjusted multivariate logistic-regression-analysis to identify predictors for chemotherapy recommendations consistent with the guidelines. Results Neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and palliative chemotherapy was recommended according to EAU guidelines in 21%, 26%, and 48%, respectively. For neoadjuvant chemotherapy, urologists holding leading positions or performing chemotherapy were more likely to recommend guideline-consistent treatment (OR 1.85 and 1.92 withp((bootstrap)) = 0.007 and 0.003, respectively). Supporting resources (i.e., guidelines, textbooks) were used by 23% of survey participants and significantly improved consistency between treatment recommendations and Guideline recommendations in all chemotherapy settings (p((bootstrap)) = 0.010-0.001). Department size and university center status were no significant predictors for all three endpoints. Conclusions In this study, we found a very low rate of adherence to the EAU guidelines on systemic treatment for PeCa. Further investigations are needed to clarify whether this missing adherence is a consequence of limited individual knowledge level or of the low grade of guideline recommendations

    Was wissen Patienten mit einem Prostatakarzinom über das Rauchen?

    No full text
    According to the results of a recent meta-analysis, cancer-specific mortality of prostate cancer (PCA) patients is enhanced by 24 % in case of a positive smoking history with a dose-dependent impact of smoking. Until now it is unknown whether this information actually reaches the patients and how extensively an informational discussion about this topic is pursued by physicians. Three study hypotheses were defined: (1) the knowledge of PCA patients about the potential relationship between tumor progression and cigarette consumption is low, (2) only in rare cases has a clear statement been provided by treating physicians including the explicit advice to stop smoking, and (3) there was a direct association between tumor stage and the extent of cigarette consumption. A questionnaire comprising 23 items was developed and validated with 25 uro-oncological patients prior to study start. Between September 2013 and December 2014 a total of 124 PCA patients (median age 65 years) from two urology departments were included in this questionnaire-based survey. The study population comprised 43 % (n = 54), 39 % (n = 48), and 18 % (n = 22) nonsmokers, former smokers and active smokers, respectively. Active and former smokers differed insignificantly in the number of pack-years only (24.8 vs. 23.7 years, p = 0.995). Of the patients, 56 % regarded an influence of cigarette consumption on the PCA-specific prognosis as possible. However, because a significant (p < 0.001) number of patients wrongly suspected smoking to be causative for PCA development, their knowledge about PCA prognosis is supposedly not based on adequate knowledge. Two of 22 active smokers (9.1 %), 5 of 48 former smokers (10.4 %), and 2 of 54 nonsmokers (3.7 %) had an informational discussion with their urologist about the association of cigarette consumption and PCA-related prognosis (a further 9.1, 4.2 and 3.7 %, respectively, received this information solely from other medical specialties). Only 1 of 22 active smokers (4.5 %) was offered medical aids for smoking cessation by the general practitioner; none of the patients received such support by an urologist. There was no association between a positive smoking history or number of pack-years and PCA tumor stage. Education of PCA patients about the relationship between cigarette consumption and cancer-related prognosis is currently inadequate. Following the latest findings on this topic, urologists should pursue informational discussions with their patients, thereby strengthening their position as the primary contact person for decision making in PCA management

    Interrater-Übereinstimmung und klinischer Nutzen der „Post-Ureteroscopic Lesion Scale“ (PULS) zur Graduierung von intraoperativen Harnleiterverletzungen einer Ureterorenoskopie

    No full text
    Background. The Post-ureteroscopic Lesion Scale (PULS) was designed as a standardized classification system for ureteral lesions after uretero(reno)scopy (URS). This study evaluates its routine use and a possible clinical impact based on a representative patient cohort. Materials and methods. Data of 307 patients in 14 German centers within the BUSTER project were used to test 3 hypotheses (H): PULS score shows a high interrater reliability (IRR) after independent assessment by urologic surgeon and assistance personnel (H1); PULS score is correlated with the frequency of postoperative complications during hospital stay (H2); post-URS stenting of the ureter is associated with higher PULS scores (H3). Results. Median age of patients was 54.4 years (interquartile range [IQR] 44.4-65.8; 65.5% male). Median diameter of index stones was 6mm (IQR 4-8) with 117 (38.4%) pyelocaliceal and 188 (61.6%) ureteral stones. Overall, 70 and 82.4% of patients had prestenting and post-URS stenting, respectively. Stone-free status was achieved in 68.7% after one URS procedure with a complication rate of 10.8% (mostly grade 1-2 according to Clavien-Dindo). PULS scores 0, 1, 2 and 3 were assessed in 40%, 52.1%, 6.9% and 1% of patients, respectively, when estimated by urologic surgeons. PULS score showed a high IRR between the urologic surgeon and assistance personnel (kappa = 0.883, p < 0.001), but was not significantly correlated with complications (rho = 0.09, p = 0.881). In contrast, a significant positive correlation was found between PULS score and post-URS stenting (rho = 0.287, p < 0.001). A PULS score of 1 multiplied the likelihood of post-URS stenting by 3.24 (95% confidence interval 1.43-7.34; p = 0.005) as opposed to PULS score 0. Conclusions. Removal of upper urinary tract stones using URS is safe and efficacious. Real-world data provided by this study confirm a high IRR of the PULS score and its clinical impact on the indication for post-URS stenting. A future prospective randomized trial should evaluate a possible standardization of post-URS stenting based on PULS score assessment
    corecore