Arterio-ureteral fistula:a nationwide cross-sectional questionnaire analysis

PURPOSE: Arterio-ureteral fistula (AUF) is an uncommon diagnosis, but potentially lethal. Although the number of reports has increased over the past two decades, the true incidence and contemporary urologists’ experience and approach in clinical practice remains unknown. This research is conducted to provide insight in the incidence of AUF in The Netherlands, and the applied diagnostic tests and therapeutic approaches in modern practice. METHODS: A nationwide cross-sectional questionnaire analysis was performed by sending a survey to all registered Dutch urologists. Data collection included information on experience with patients with AUF; and their medical history, diagnostics, treatment, and follow-up, and were captured in a standardized template by two independent reviewers. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: Response rate was 62% and 56 AUFs in 53 patients were reported between 2003 and 2018. The estimated incidence of AUF in The Netherlands in this time period is 3.5 AUFs per year. Hematuria was observed in all patients; 9% intermittent microhematuria, and 91% presenting with, or building up to massive hematuria. For the final diagnosis, angiography was the most efficient modality, confirming diagnosis in 58%. Treatment comprised predominantly endovascular intervention. CONCLUSION: The diagnosis AUF should be considered in patients with persistent intermittent or massive hematuria. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00345-021-03910-3

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

Clinical Characterization of Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer and Undergoing Conservative Management:A PIONEER Analysis Based on Big Data

Background: Conservative management is an option for prostate cancer (PCa) patients either with the objective of delaying or even avoiding curative therapy, or to wait until palliative treatment is needed. PIONEER, funded by the European Commission Innovative Medicines Initiative, aims at improving PCa care across Europe through the application of big data analytics. Objective: To describe the clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of PCa patients on conservative management by using an international large network of real-world data. Design, setting, and participants: From an initial cohort of &gt;100 000 000 adult individuals included in eight databases evaluated during a virtual study-a-thon hosted by PIONEER, we identified newly diagnosed PCa cases (n = 527 311). Among those, we selected patients who did not receive curative or palliative treatment within 6 mo from diagnosis (n = 123 146). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Patient and disease characteristics were reported. The number of patients who experienced the main study outcomes was quantified for each stratum and the overall cohort. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate the distribution of time to event data. Results and limitations: The most common comorbidities were hypertension (35–73%), obesity (9.2–54%), and type 2 diabetes (11–28%). The rate of PCa-related symptomatic progression ranged between 2.6% and 6.2%. Hospitalization (12–25%) and emergency department visits (10–14%) were common events during the 1st year of follow-up. The probability of being free from both palliative and curative treatments decreased during follow-up. Limitations include a lack of information on patients and disease characteristics and on treatment intent. Conclusions: Our results allow us to better understand the current landscape of patients with PCa managed with conservative treatment. PIONEER offers a unique opportunity to characterize the baseline features and outcomes of PCa patients managed conservatively using real-world data. Patient summary: Up to 25% of men with prostate cancer (PCa) managed conservatively experienced hospitalization and emergency department visits within the 1st year after diagnosis; 6% experienced PCa-related symptoms. The probability of receiving therapies for PCa decreased according to time elapsed after the diagnosis.</p

Reply to Laura Evangelista and Egesta Lopci's Letter to the Editor re:Hendrik Van Poppel, Renée Hogenhout, Peter Albers, et al. Early Detection of Prostate Cancer in 2020 and Beyond: Facts and Recommendations for the European Union and the European Commission. Eur Urol 2021;79:327-9: Early Detection of Prostate Cancer in High-risk Patients with Negative Fusion Biopsy

Item does not contain fulltex

Comparison of risk-calculator and MRI and consecutive pathways as upfront stratification for prostate biopsy

Purpose: In biopsy naïve men suspected for prostate cancer (PCa), it is uncertain how a risk-calculator and bi-parametric (bp) MRI should be combined to decide on prostate biopsy, balancing cancer detection rates and diagnostic burden. Methods: Prospective, single centre cohort study (August 2018–April 2019). All patients referred with serum PSA ≥ 3 ng/ml or abnormal digital rectal examination received bpMRI and risk for PCa was calculated using the ERSPC risk-calculator. Men with either PI-RADS ≥ 3 or calculator risk-score > 20% were recommended to undergo systematic biopsy (SB) and targeted biopsy (TB) of any visible lesion (reference pathway). Eight different derived diagnostic pathways were compared to the reference pathway regarding cancer detection, number of biopsies and bpMRIs performed. Results: Of 496 patients; 233 (47%) had a risk-calculator score of > 20%; 201 (41%) had PI-RADS score ≥ 3. The reference pathway detected PCa in 32.1%, clinically significant (cs) PCa in 19.4%, with 41% avoided biopsies, but 0% avoided bpMRI. Stratification with only risk-calculator: 76% csPCa diagnosed, 53% avoided biopsies and 100% avoided bpMRI. Stratification with only bpMRI: 97% csPCa diagnosed, 59% avoided biopsies, but 0% avoided bpMRI. A pathway with risk-calculator first, followed only with bpMRI when high-risk: 81% csPCa diagnosed, 72% avoided biopsies and 53% avoided bpMRI. Conclusion: Upfront bpMRI as a risk stratification tool outperforms risk-calculator in detecting significant disease. Applying the risk-calculator first to decide on performing an MRI, avoids 1 out of 2 MRIs, but up to 1 out of 5 significant cancers are missed

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

Development and Internal Validation of a Novel Nomogram Predicting the Outcome of Salvage Radiation Therapy for Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy in Patients without Metastases on Restaging Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography

Background and objective: Owing to the greater use of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer (PCa) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), patient selection for local salvage radiation therapy (sRT) has changed. Our objective was to determine the short-term efficacy of sRT in patients with BCR after RARP, and to develop a novel nomogram predicting BCR-free survival after sRT in a nationwide contemporary cohort of patients who underwent PSMA PET/CT before sRT for BCR of PCa, without evidence of metastatic disease. Methods: All 302 eligible patients undergoing PCa sRT in four reference centers between September 2015 and August 2020 were included. We conducted multivariable logistic regression analysis using a backward elimination procedure to develop a nomogram for predicting biochemical progression of PCa, defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥0.2 ng/ml above the post-sRT nadir within 1 yr after sRT. Key findings and limitations: Biochemical progression of disease within 1 yr after sRT was observed for 56/302 (19%) of the study patients. The final predictive model included PSA at sRT initiation, pathological grade group, surgical margin status, PSA doubling time, presence of local recurrence on PSMA PET/CT, and the presence of biochemical persistence (first PSA result ≥0.1 ng/ml) after RARP. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for this model was 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.64–0.79). Using our nomogram, patients with a predicted risk of >20% had a 30.8% chance of developing biochemical progression within 1 yr after sRT. Conclusions: Our novel nomogram may facilitate better patient counseling regarding early oncological outcome after sRT. Patients with high risk of biochemical progression may be candidates for more extensive treatment. Patient summary: We developed a new tool for predicting cancer control outcomes of radiotherapy for patients with recurrence of prostate cancer after surgical removal of their prostate. This tool may help in better counseling of these patients with recurrent cancer regarding their early expected outcome after radiotherapy