Intraoperative margin assessment during radical prostatectomy: is microscopy frozen in time or ready for digital defrost?

Intraoperative frozen section (IFS) is used with the intention to improve functional and oncological outcomes for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). High resource requirements of IFS techniques such as NeuroSAFE may preclude widespread adoption, even if there are benefits to patients. Recent advances in fresh-tissue microscopic digital imaging technologies may offer an attractive alternative, and there is a growing body of evidence regarding these technologies. In this narrative review, we discuss some of the familiar limitations of IFS and compare these to the attractive counterpoints of modern digital imaging technologies such as the speed and ease of image generation, the locality of equipment within (or near) the operating room, the ability to maintain tissue integrity, and digital transfer of images. Confocal laser microscopy (CLM) is the modality most frequently reported in the literature for margin assessment during RP. We discuss several imitations and obstacles to widespread dissemination of digital imaging technologies. Among these, we consider how the ‘en-face’ margin perspective will challenge urologists and pathologists to understand afresh the meaning of positive margin significance. As a part of this, discussions on how to describe, categorize, react to, and evaluate these technologies are needed to improve patient outcomes. Limitations of this review include its narrative structure and that the evidence base in this field is relatively immature but developing at pace

Development of a modified Cambridge Multimorbidity Score for use with SNOMED CT:an observational English primary care sentinel network study

Background People with multiple health conditions are more likely to have poorer health outcomes and greater care and service needs; a reliable measure of multimorbidity would inform management strategies and resource allocation. Aim To develop and validate a modified version of the Cambridge Multimorbidity Score in an extended age range, using clinical terms that are routinely used in electronic health records across the world (Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine — Clinical Terms, SNOMED CT). Design and setting Observational study using diagnosis and prescriptions data from an English primary care sentinel surveillance network between 2014 and 2019. Method In this study new variables describing 37 health conditions were curated and the associations modelled between these and 1-year mortality risk using the Cox proportional hazard model in a development dataset (n = 300 000). Two simplified models were then developed — a 20-condition model as per the original Cambridge Multimorbidity Score and a variable reduction model using backward elimination with Akaike information criterion as the stopping criterion. The results were compared and validated for 1-year mortality in a synchronous validation dataset (n = 150 000), and for 1-year and 5-year mortality in an asynchronous validation dataset (n = 150 000). Results The final variable reduction model retained 21 conditions, and the conditions mostly overlapped with those in the 20-condition model. The model performed similarly to the 37- and 20-condition models, showing high discrimination and good calibration following recalibration. Conclusion This modified version of the Cambridge Multimorbidity Score allows reliable estimation using clinical terms that can be applied internationally across multiple healthcare settings

Adverse events after first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccination in England: a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study

Objectives: To estimate the incidence of adverse events of interest (AEIs) after receiving their first and second doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations, and to report the safety profile differences between the different COVID-19 vaccines. Design: We used a self-controlled case series design to estimate the relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners national sentinel network. We compared the AEIs that occurred seven days before and after receiving the COVID-19 vaccinations to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021. Setting: England, UK. Participants: Individuals experiencing AEIs after receiving first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Main outcome measures: AEIs determined based on events reported in clinical trials and in primary care during post-license surveillance. Results: A total of 7,952,861 individuals were vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines within the study period. Among them, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs. Within the first seven days post-vaccination, 4.85% of all the AEIs were reported. There was a 3–7% decrease in the overall RI of AEIs in the seven days after receiving both doses of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (RI = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91–0.94) and 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94–0.98), respectively) and Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (RI = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95–0.98) for both doses), but a 20% increase after receiving the first dose of Moderna mRNA-1273 (RI = 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00–1.44)). Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in the incidence of medically attended AEIs. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, which could contribute to reporting vaccine safety

The Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Focal Therapy (TARGET):A Systematic Review and International Consensus Recommendations

Background and objective: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can detect recurrences after focal therapy for prostate cancer but there is no robust guidance regarding its use. Our objective was to produce consensus recommendations on MRI acquisition, interpretation, and reporting after focal therapy. Methods:A systematic review was performed in July 2022 to develop consensus statements. A two-round consensus exercise was then performed, with a consensus meeting in January 2023, during which 329 statements were scored by 23 panellists from Europe and North America spanning urology, radiology, and pathology with experience across eight focal therapy modalities. Using RAND Corporation/University of California-Los Angeles methodology, the Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with MRI after Focal Therapy (TARGET) were based on consensus for statements scored with agreement or disagreement. Key findings and limitations: In total, 73 studies were included in the review. All 20 studies (100%) reporting suspicious imaging features cited focal contrast enhancement as suspicious for cancer recurrence. Of 31 studies reporting MRI assessment criteria, the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score was the scheme used most often (20 studies; 65%), followed by a 5-point Likert score (six studies; 19%). For the consensus exercise, consensus for statements scored with agreement or disagreement increased from 227 of 295 statements (76.9%) in round one to 270 of 329 statements (82.1%) in round two. Key recommendations include performing routine MRI at 12 mo using a multiparametric protocol compliant with PI-RADS version 2.1 standards. PI-RADS category scores for assessing recurrence within the ablation zone should be avoided. An alternative 5-point scoring system is presented that includes a major dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) sequence and joint minor diffusion-weighted imaging and T2-weighted sequences. For the DCE sequence, focal nodular strong early enhancement was the most suspicious imaging finding. A structured minimum reporting data set and minimum reporting standards for studies detailing MRI data after focal therapy are presented. Conclusions and clinical implications: The TARGET consensus recommendations may improve MRI acquisition, interpretation, and reporting after focal therapy for prostate cancer and provide minimum standards for study reporting. Patient summary:Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans can detect recurrent of prostate cancer after focal treatments, but there is a lack of guidance on MRI use for this purpose. We report new expert recommendations that may improve practice.</p

Adverse events following first and second dose COVID-19 vaccination in England, October 2020 to September 2021 : a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study

Background Post-authorisation vaccine safety surveillance is well established for reporting common adverse events of interest (AEIs) following influenza vaccines, but not for COVID-19 vaccines. Aim To estimate the incidence of AEIs presenting to primary care following COVID-19 vaccination in England, and report safety profile differences between vaccine brands. Methods We used a self-controlled case series design to estimate relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the national sentinel network, the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub. We compared AEIs (overall and by clinical category) 7 days pre- and post-vaccination to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021. Results Within 7,952,861 records, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs, 4.85% within 7 days post-vaccination. Overall, medically attended AEIs decreased post-vaccination against background levels. There was a 3–7% decrease in incidence within 7 days after both doses of Comirnaty (RI: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91–0.94 and RI: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94–0.98, respectively) and Vaxzevria (RI: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95–0.98). A 20% increase was observed after one dose of Spikevax (RI: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00–1.44). Fewer AEIs were reported as age increased. Types of AEIs, e.g. increased neurological and psychiatric conditions, varied between brands following two doses of Comirnaty (RI: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.28–1.56) and Vaxzevria (RI: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97–1.78). Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in medically attended AEI incidence. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, contributing to reporting vaccine safety

Adverse events after first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccination in England: a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study

Objectives To estimate the incidence of adverse events of interest (AEIs) after receiving their first and second doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations, and to report the safety profile differences between the different COVID-19 vaccines. Design We used a self-controlled case series design to estimate the relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners national sentinel network. We compared the AEIs that occurred seven days before and after receiving the COVID-19 vaccinations to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021. Setting England, UK. Participants Individuals experiencing AEIs after receiving first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Main outcome measures AEIs determined based on events reported in clinical trials and in primary care during post-license surveillance. Results A total of 7,952,861 individuals were vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines within the study period. Among them, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs. Within the first seven days post-vaccination, 4.85% of all the AEIs were reported. There was a 3–7% decrease in the overall RI of AEIs in the seven days after receiving both doses of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (RI = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91–0.94) and 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94–0.98), respectively) and Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (RI = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95–0.98) for both doses), but a 20% increase after receiving the first dose of Moderna mRNA-1273 (RI = 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00–1.44)). Conclusions COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in the incidence of medically attended AEIs. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, which could contribute to reporting vaccine safety

Long-term efficacy of hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy for BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer

Background: The recommended treatment for patients with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is radical cystectomy (RC). However, many patients refuse, or are unfit for RC. Therefore, alternative bladder-sparing treatment modalities are needed for BCG-unresponsive NMIBC. In this study we sought to assess the long-term efficacy of hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy (HIVEC) as alternative to radical cystectomy in BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer patients. Methods and materials: Retrospectively collected data from 56 patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC who received ≥5 HIVEC instillations between October 2014 and March 2020 was analyzed. All patients met the BCG-unresponsive criteria according to the current EAU guideline on NMIBC 2020. Patients were followed-up with cystoscopy and/or bladder biopsies, urine cytology and annually CT-urography. The Primary outcome was the high grade (HG) recurrence-free survival (RFS), defined as the time from the first HIVEC instillation until histologically confirmed intravesical recurrence or last follow-up. The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate survival outcomes. Secondary outcomes were: complete response rate (CR), adverse events (AE), assessed by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0 (CTCAE) and tumor progression to muscle invasive disease or distant metastases. Results: The median follow-up was 32.2 months (IQR 13.7–44.8). The 1- and 2-year HG-RFS was 53% (SE:6.8) and 35% (SE:6.9), respectively. The CR for patients with CIS was 70% (21/30) at 6 months. Overall, 80% of the population developed an AE, only 1 was classified as CTCAE ≥3. Limitation of this study was the small sample size. Conclusion: HIVEC resulted in a 2-year HG-RFS of 35% for BCG-unresponsive NMIBC patients without severe side-effects and therefore HIVEC seems to be an alternative treatment option for patients who refuse or are unfit for RC

Clinical outcomes of anterior prostate cancers treated with robotic assisted radical prostatectomy

Abstract Introduction A prospective cohort study comparing peri‐ and postoperative outcomes for patients with predominantly anterior prostate cancer (APC) identified preoperatively against non‐anterior prostate cancer (NAPC) treated via robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Patients and Methods Of the 757 RARP's completed between January 2016 and April 2018, two comparative cohorts for anterior and an equivalent group of non‐anterior prostate tumours each consisting of 152 patients were compared against each other. Data were collected on the following variables: patient age; operating consultant; preoperative PSA, ISUP grade, degree of nerve sparing; tumour staging; presence and location of positive surgical margins; PSA density, postoperative ISUP grade; treatment paradigm and postoperative PSA, erectile function, and continence outcomes with 2‐year follow‐up. Results APCs were found to have significantly lower ISUP grading postoperatively; increased diagnosis via active surveillance over new diagnosis; more frequently undertaken bilateral nerve‐sparing and long‐term poorer continence outcomes at 18 and 24 months postoperatively (p  0.05). Conclusion The lower ISUP grading could indicate APC as overall being less aggressive than NAPC, whereas the poorer long‐term continence outcomes require further investigating. The non‐significant differences amongst tumour staging, PSA density, preoperative PSA levels and PSM rates suggest that APC may not be as significant as predicted in diagnostic evaluation. Overall, this study provides useful information on the growing literature of anterior prostate cancer. Being the largest comparative cohort study to date on APC post‐RARP, these results indicate the true characteristics of anterior tumours and their functional outcomes to help improve education, patient expectations and management

Differences in Clinical Presentation With Long COVID After Community and Hospital Infection and Associations With All-Cause Mortality:English Sentinel Network Database Study

BACKGROUND: Most studies of long COVID (symptoms of COVID-19 infection beyond 4 weeks) have focused on people hospitalized in their initial illness. Long COVID is thought to be underrecorded in UK primary care electronic records. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine which symptoms people present to primary care after COVID-19 infection and whether presentation differs in people who were not hospitalized, as well as post–long COVID mortality rates. METHODS: We used routine data from the nationally representative primary care sentinel cohort of the Oxford–Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (N=7,396,702), applying a predefined long COVID phenotype and grouped by whether the index infection occurred in hospital or in the community. We included COVID-19 infection cases from March 1, 2020, to April 1, 2021. We conducted a before-and-after analysis of long COVID symptoms prespecified by the Office of National Statistics, comparing symptoms presented between 1 and 6 months after the index infection matched with the same months 1 year previously. We conducted logistic regression analysis, quoting odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. RESULTS: In total, 5.63% (416,505/7,396,702) and 1.83% (7623/416,505) of the patients had received a coded diagnosis of COVID-19 infection and diagnosis of, or referral for, long COVID, respectively. People with diagnosis or referral of long COVID had higher odds of presenting the prespecified symptoms after versus before COVID-19 infection (OR 2.66, 95% CI 2.46-2.88, for those with index community infection and OR 2.42, 95% CI 2.03-2.89, for those hospitalized). After an index community infection, patients were more likely to present with nonspecific symptoms (OR 3.44, 95% CI 3.00-3.95; P<.001) compared with after a hospital admission (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.56-2.80; P<.001). Mental health sequelae were more strongly associated with index hospital infections (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.64-2.96) than with index community infections (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.21-1.53; P<.001). People presenting to primary care after hospital infection were more likely to be men (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.25-1.64; P<.001), more socioeconomically deprived (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.24-1.63; P<.001), and with higher multimorbidity scores (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.26-1.57; P<.001) than those presenting after an index community infection. All-cause mortality in people with long COVID was associated with increasing age, male sex (OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.34-9.24; P=.01), and higher multimorbidity score (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.34-3.29; P<.001). Vaccination was associated with reduced odds of mortality (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.03-0.35; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The low percentage of people recorded as having long COVID after COVID-19 infection reflects either low prevalence or underrecording. The characteristics and comorbidities of those presenting with long COVID after a community infection are different from those hospitalized. This study provides insights into the presentation of long COVID in primary care and implications for workload