Improving Guideline Adherence in Urology

CONTEXT: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) distil an evidence base into recommendations. CPG adherence is associated with better patient outcomes. However, preparation and dissemination of CPGs are a costly task involving multiple skilled personnel. Furthermore, dissemination alone does not ensure CPG adherence. Reasons for nonadherence are often complex, but understanding practice variations and reasons for nonadherence is key to improving CPG adherence and harmonising clinically appropriate and cost-effective care. OBJECTIVE: To overview approaches to improving guideline adherence, to provide urology-specific examples of knowledge-practice gaps, and to highlight potential solutions informed by implementation science. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Three common approaches to implementation science (the Knowledge-To-Action framework, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and the Behaviour Change Wheel), are summarised. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Three implementation problems in urology are illustrated: underuse of single instillation of intravesical chemotherapy in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, overuse of androgen deprivation therapy in localised prostate cancer, and guideline-discordant imaging in prostate cancer. Research using implementation science approaches to address these implementation problems is discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Urologists, patients, health care providers, funders, and other key stakeholders must commit to reliably capturing and reporting data on patient outcomes, practice variations, guideline adherence, and the impact of adherence on outcomes. Leverage of implementation science frameworks is a sound next step towards improving guideline adherence and the associated benefits of evidence-based care. PATIENT SUMMARY: Clinical practice guideline documents are created by expert panels. These documents provide overviews of the evidence for the tests and treatments used in patient care. They also provide recommendations and it is expected that in most circumstances clinicians will follow these recommendations. Sometimes, health care professionals cannot or do not follow these recommendations and it is not always clear why. In this review article we look at some examples of research approaches to addressing this problem of nonadherence and we provide some examples specific to urology

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 to control the cancer because of long waiting lists; and patient preference (changing one's mind from radiotherapy to surgery after neoadjuvant ADT had commenced or feeling that the side effects were intolerable). Although we purposively sampled for variety within countries (public/private, academic/community, high/low-volume), a selection bias toward centres with awareness of guidelines is possible, so adherence rates may be overestimated. Conclusions: EAU guidelines recommend against ADT use before prostate cancer surgery, yet some guideline-discordant ADT use remains at the cost of patient experience and an additional payer and provider burden. Strategies towards discontinuation of inappropriate preoperative ADT use should be pursued. Patient summary: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is sometimes used in men with prostate cancer who will not benefit from it. ADT causes side effects such as weight gain and emotional changes and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and osteoporosis. Guidelines strongly recommend that men opting for surgery should not receive ADT, but it is unclear how well the guidance is followed. We asked urologists across Europe how patients in their institutions were treated over the past few years. Most do not use ADT before surgery, but this still happens in some places. More research is needed to help doctors to stop using ADT in patients who will not benefit from it

Evaluation of changes to work patterns in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings due to the COVID-19 pandemic: A national mixed-method survey study

Background It is not well understood the overall changes that multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) have had to make in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, nor the impact that such changes, in addition to the other challenges faced by MDTs, have had on decision-making, communication, or participation in the context of MDT meetings specifically. Methods This was a mixed method, prospective cross-sectional survey study taking place in the United Kingdom between September 2020 and August 2021. Results The participants were 423 MDT members. Qualitative findings revealed hybrid working and possibility of virtual attendance as the change introduced because of COVID-19 that MDTs would like to maintain. However, IT-related issues, slower meetings, longer lists and delays were identified as common with improving of the IT infrastructure necessary going forward. In contrast, virtual meetings and increased attendance/availability of clinicians were highlighted as the positive outcomes resulting from the change. Quantitative findings showed significant improvement from before COVID-19 for MDT meeting organisation and logistics (M = 45, SD = 20) compared to the access (M = 50, SD = 12, t(390) = 5.028, p = 0.001), case discussions (M = 50, SD = 14, t(373) = −5.104, p = 0.001), and patient representation (M = 50, SD = 12, t(382) = −4.537, p = 0.001) at MDT meetings. Discussion Our study explored the perception of change since COVID-19 among cancer MDTs using mixed methods. While hybrid working was preferred, challenges exist. Significant improvements in the meeting organisation and logistics were reported. Although we found no significant perceived worsening across the four domains investigated, there was an indication in this direction for the case discussions warranting further ‘live’ assessments of MDT meetings

Designing high-quality implementation research: development, application, feasibility and preliminary evaluation of the implementation science research development (ImpRes) tool and guide

Background:  Designing implementation research can be a complex and daunting task, especially for applied health researchers who have not received specialist training in implementation science. We developed the Implementation Science Research Development (ImpRes) tool and supplementary guide to address this challenge and provide researchers with a systematic approach to designing implementation research. Methods:  A multi-method and multi-stage approach was employed. An international, multidisciplinary expert panel engaged in an iterative brainstorming and consensus-building process to generate core domains of the ImpRes tool, representing core implementation science principles and concepts that researchers should consider when designing implementation research. Simultaneously, an iterative process of reviewing the literature and expert input informed the development and content of the tool. Once consensus had been reached, specialist expert input was sought on involving and engaging patients/service users; and economic evaluation. ImpRes was then applied to 15 implementation and improvement science projects across the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South London, a research organisation in London, UK. Researchers who applied the ImpRes tool completed an 11-item questionnaire evaluating its structure, content and usefulness. Results:  Consensus was reached on ten implementation science domains to be considered when designing implementation research. These include implementation theories, frameworks and models, determinants of implementation, implementation strategies, implementation outcomes and unintended consequences. Researchers who used the ImpRes tool found it useful for identifying project areas where implementation science is lacking (median 5/5, IQR 4–5) and for improving the quality of implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4–5) and agreed that it contained the key components that should be considered when designing implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4–4). Qualitative feedback from researchers who applied the ImpRes tool indicated that a supplementary guide was needed to facilitate use of the tool. Conclusions:  We have developed a feasible and acceptable tool, and supplementary guide, to facilitate consideration and incorporation of core principles and concepts of implementation science in applied health implementation research. Future research is needed to establish whether application of the tool and guide has an effect on the quality of implementation research

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy: functional outcomes 18 months after diagnosis from a national cohort study in England.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been rapidly adopted without robust evidence comparing its functional outcomes against laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) or open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP) approaches. This study compared patient-reported functional outcomes following RARP, LRP or ORP. METHODS: All men diagnosed with prostate cancer in England during April - October 2014 who underwent radical prostatectomy were identified from the National Prostate Cancer Audit and mailed a questionnaire 18 months after diagnosis. Group differences in patient-reported sexual, urinary, bowel and hormonal function (EPIC-26 domain scores) and generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL; EQ-5D-5L scores), with adjustment for patient and tumour characteristics, were estimated using linear regression. RESULTS: In all, 2219 men (77.0%) responded; 1310 (59.0%) had RARP, 487 (21.9%) LRP and 422 (19.0%) ORP. RARP was associated with slightly higher adjusted mean EPIC-26 sexual function scores compared with LRP (3·5 point difference; 95% CI: 1.1-5.9, P=0.004) or ORP (4.0 point difference; 95% CI: 1.5-6.5, P=0.002), which did not meet the threshold for a minimal clinically important difference (10-12 points). There were no significant differences in other EPIC-26 domain scores or HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that the rapid adoption of RARP in the English NHS has produced substantial improvements in functional outcomes for patients

Characterizing Associations and SNP-Environment Interactions for GWAS-Identified Prostate Cancer Risk Markers—Results from BPC3

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified multiple single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with prostate cancer risk. However, whether these associations can be consistently replicated, vary with disease aggressiveness (tumor stage and grade) and/or interact with non-genetic potential risk factors or other SNPs is unknown. We therefore genotyped 39 SNPs from regions identified by several prostate cancer GWAS in 10,501 prostate cancer cases and 10,831 controls from the NCI Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium (BPC3). We replicated 36 out of 39 SNPs (P-values ranging from 0.01 to 10−28). Two SNPs located near KLK3 associated with PSA levels showed differential association with Gleason grade (rs2735839, P = 0.0001 and rs266849, P = 0.0004; case-only test), where the alleles associated with decreasing PSA levels were inversely associated with low-grade (as defined by Gleason grade <8) tumors but positively associated with high-grade tumors. No other SNP showed differential associations according to disease stage or grade. We observed no effect modification by SNP for association with age at diagnosis, family history of prostate cancer, diabetes, BMI, height, smoking or alcohol intake. Moreover, we found no evidence of pair-wise SNP-SNP interactions. While these SNPs represent new independent risk factors for prostate cancer, we saw little evidence for effect modification by other SNPs or by the environmental factors examined