Management of benign prostatic hyperplasia: practice variation and appropriateness of care

Many elderly men will wistfully remember the days that their voiding pattern was like that of the boy on the cover. As age increases, many physical changes take place, often resulting in the appearance of more or less significant health problems or 'inconveniences of old age'. Voiding dysfunction is a typical problem of elderly men. In many cases, this has its cause in a small but sometimes very troublesome organ: the prostate. The prostate gland is situated under the bladder, surrounding the proximal part of the urethra. A normal adult prostate is about the size and shape of a chestnut, and weighs about twenty grammes. Its exact function is unclear. Although the prostatic secretion, discharged into the urethra during ejaculation, has been thought to have some role in sustaining the sperm and to facilitate its passage into the uterus, it has been proven not to be essential for the fertilization process. The majority of the voiding problems in elderly men is due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), a nonmalignant enlargement of the central part of the prostate. Basically, BPH refers to a histological change of prostatic tissue, consisting of the proliferation of small nodules. As was demonstrated in various autopsy studies, this histopathological (microscopic) condition is very common in elderly males, varying from 32·52% in the age group of 51-60 years to 77-99% in men of 81 years and older

M1a prostate cancer:Results of a Dutch multidisciplinary consensus meeting

ObjectivesTo determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the diagnostic evaluation and treatment of de novo and recurrent metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) limited to non-regional lymph nodes (M1a) in daily clinical practice.Materials and methodsThe panel consisted of 37 Dutch specialists from disciplines involved in the management of M1a PCa (urology, medical and radiation oncology, radiology, and nuclear medicine). We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a consensus meeting (video conference). Consensus (good agreement) was defined as the situation in which ≥ 75% of the panelists chose the same option.ResultsConsensus existed for 57% of the items. The panel agreed that prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) is the most appropriate standard imaging modality to identify de novo (100%) and recurrent (97%) M1a PCa. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with radiotherapy to the prostate ± the M1a lesion(s) was most frequently considered an option for de novo M1a PCa. For M1a as recurrent disease, ADT alone, deferring treatment, or local radiotherapy to the M1a lesion(s) were judged to be the most important treatment options. However, no specific indications for treatment choice in relation to disease characteristics could be formulated.ConclusionsThe Dutch consensus panel preferred PSMA-PET/CT as the standard diagnostic modality to detect M1a PCa. Although potential treatment options were identified, explicit recommendations could not be formulated. This might (partly) be explained by the absence of high-level clinical evidence in this subset of patients. Further research is, therefore, strongly encouraged

Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer:Results of a Dutch Multidisciplinary Consensus Meeting

Background: Oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC) is a heterogeneous disease state that is imperfectly understood, and its clinical implications are unclear. Objective: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on biological aspects, treatment goals, and management of OMPC in daily clinical practice. Design, setting, and participants: The study comprised a modified Delphi method including an explorative survey with various statements and questions, followed by a consensus meeting to discuss and determine the agreement with revised statements and related items. The panel consisted of 34 Dutch representatives from urology, medical and radiation oncology, radiology, nuclear medicine, and basic research. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Agreement was determined with statements (five-point scale). Consensus was defined as ≥75% panel agreement with a statement. Results and limitations: Consensus existed for 56% of statements. The panel agreed that OMPC comprises a limited metastatic spread in the hormone-sensitive setting, in both the synchronous and the metachronous presentation. Limited metastatic spread was believed to involve three to five metastases and a maximum of two organs. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan was currently perceived as the most accurate diagnostic imaging modality. Although there was a consensus that targeted treatment of all metastases in OMPC will delay further dissemination of the disease, opinions on specific treatment regimens were divided. Panel outcomes were limited by the lack of scientific evidence on OMPC. Conclusions: A multidisciplinary panel reached a consensus that OMPC is a specific disease state requiring a tailored treatment approach. OMPC registries and clinical studies should focus on both the biology and the clinical parameters in relation to optimal treatment strategies in synchronous and metachronous OMPC. Patient summary: A group of Dutch medical specialists agreed that prostate cancer patients having few metastases may benefit from a new therapeutic approach. Clinical studies need to determine which treatment is best for each specific situation. A multidisciplinary panel reached consensus that oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC) is a specific disease state requiring a tailored treatment approach. OMPC registries and clinical studies should provide insight into the biology and clinical parameters in relation to optimal treatment strategies in synchronous and metachronous OMPC

Clinical Judgment Versus Biomarker Prostate Cancer Gene 3: Which Is Best When Determining the Need for Repeat Prostate Biopsy?

ObjectiveTo assess the value of best clinical judgment (BCJ) and the prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) assay in guiding the decision to perform a repeat prostate biopsy (PBx) after a previous negative PBx.Materials and MethodsUsing the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, 12 European urologists established recommendations (BCJ) for the appropriateness of PBx according to the prostate-specific antigen level, digital rectal examination findings, number of previous negative PBxs, prostate volume, and life expectancy, with and without consideration of the PCA3 scores. These recommendations were applied to 1024 subjects receiving placebo in the Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events trial, including men with a previous negative PBx, a baseline prostate-specific antigen level of 2.5-10 ng/mL, and a PCA3 test performed before the protocol-mandated 2- and 4-year repeat PBxs. Three scenarios (ie, BCJ alone, BCJ with PCA3, and the PCA3 score alone) were tested for their ability to reduce the repeat PBx rate versus missing Gleason sum ≥7 prostate cancer (PCa).ResultsBCJ with PCA3 would have avoided 64% of repeat PBxs compared with 26% for BCJ alone and 55% for PCA3 alone (cutoff score 20). Of 55 PCa cases (Gleason sum ≥7), 13 would have been missed using BCJ alone compared with 7 using PCA3 (cutoff score 20) alone and 8 using BCJ plus PCA3. The diagnostic accuracy for Gleason sum ≥7 PCa of the BCJ with PCA3 scenario was superior to that of the other scenarios, with a negative predictive value of 99%.ConclusionApplication of the BCJ together with PCA3 testing can reduce the number of repeat PBxs while maintaining the sensitivity to detect Gleason sum ≥7 PCa

Radiofrequency for chronic lumbosacral and cervical pain:Results of a consensus study using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method

Background: Despite the routine use of radiofrequency (RF) for the treatment of chronic pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region, there remains uncertainty on the most appropriate patient selection criteria. This study aimed to develop appropriateness criteria for RF in relation to relevant patient characteristics, considering RF ablation (RFA) for the treatment of chronic axial pain and pulsed RF (PRF) for the treatment of chronic radicular pain. Methods: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) was used to explore the opinions of a multidisciplinary European panel on the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a variety of clinical scenarios. Depending on the type of pain (axial or radicular), the expert panel rated the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a total of 219 clinical scenarios. Results: For axial pain in the lumbosacral or cervical region, appropriateness of RFA was determined by the dominant pain trigger and location of tenderness on palpation with higher appropriateness scores if these variables were suggestive of the diagnosis of facet or sacroiliac joint pain. Although the opinions on the appropriateness of PRF for lumbosacral and cervical radicular pain were fairly dispersed, there was agreement that PRF is an appropriate option for well-selected patients with radicular pain due to herniated disc or foraminal stenosis, particularly in the absence of motor deficits. The panel outcomes were embedded in an educational e-health tool that also covers the psychosocial aspects of chronic pain, providing integrated recommendations on the appropriate use of (P)RF interventions for the treatment of chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region. Conclusions: A multidisciplinary European expert panel established patient-specific recommendations that may support the (pre)selection of patients with chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region for either RFA or PRF (accessible via https://rftool.org). Future studies should validate these recommendations by determining their predictive value for the outcomes of (P)RF interventions.</p

A tool to improve pre-selection for deep brain stimulation in patients with Parkinson’s disease

Determining the eligibility of patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) for deep brain stimulation (DBS) can be challenging for general (non-specialised) neurologists. We evaluated the use of an online screening tool (Stimulus) that aims to support appropriate referral to a specialised centre for the further evaluation of DBS. Implementation of the tool took place via an ongoing European multicentre educational programme, currently completed in 15 DBS centres with 208 referring neurologists. Use of the tool in daily practice was monitored via an online data capture programme. Selection decisions of patients referred with the assistance of the Stimulus tool were compared to those of patients outside the screening programme. Three years after the start of the programme, 3,128 patient profiles had been entered. The intention for referral was made for 802 patients and referral intentions were largely in accordance with the tool recommendations. Follow-up at 6 months showed that actual referral took place in only 28%, predominantly due to patients’ reluctance to undergo brain surgery. In patients screened with the tool and referred to a DBS centre, the acceptance rate was 77%, significantly higher than that of the unscreened population (48%). The tool showed a sensitivity of 99% and a specificity of 12% with a positive and negative predictive value of 79 and 75%, respectively. The Stimulus tool is useful in assisting general neurologists to identify appropriate candidates for DBS consideration. The principal reason for not referring potentially eligible patients is their reluctance to undergo brain surgery

The management of iron deficiency in inflammatory bowel disease

__Background__ Iron deficiency is a common and undertreated problem in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). __Aim__ To develop an online tool to support treatment choice at the patient-specific level. __Methods__ Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM), a European expert panel assessed the appropriateness of treatment regimens for a variety of clinical scenarios in patients with non-anaemic iron deficiency (NAID) and iron deficiency anaemia (IDA). Treatment options included adjustment of IBD medication only, oral iron supplementation, high-/low-dose intravenous (IV) regimens, IV iron plus erythropoietin-stimulating agent (ESA), and blood transfusion. The panel process consisted of two individual rating rounds and three plenary discussion meetings. __Results__ The panel reached agreement on 71% of treatment indications. 'No treatment' was never considered appropriate, and repeat treatment after previous failure was generally discouraged. For 98% of scenarios, at least one treatment was appropriate. Adjustment of IBD medication was deemed appropriate in all patients with active disease. Use of oral iron was mainly considered an option in NAID and mildly anaemic patients without disease activity. IV regimens were often judged appropriate, with high-dose IV iron being the preferred option in 77% of IDA scenarios. Blood transfusion and IV+ESA were indicated in exceptional cases only. __Conclusions__ The RUAM revealed high agreement amongst experts on the management of iron deficiency in patients with IBD. High-dose IV iron was more often considered appropriate than other options. To facilitate dissemination of the recommendations, panel outcomes were embedded in an online tool, accessible via http://ferroscope.com/

Databases as policy instruments. About extending networks as evidence-based policy

Background. This article seeks to identify the role of databases in health policy. Access to information and communication technologies has changed traditional relationships between the state and professionals, creating new systems of surveillance and control. As a result, databases may have a profound effect on controlling clinical practice. Methods. We conducted three case studies to reconstruct the development and use of databases as policy instruments. Each database was intended to be employed to control the use of one particular pharmaceutical in the Netherlands (growth hormone, antiretroviral drugs for HIV and Taxol, respectively). We studied the archives of th

Appropriate referral and selection of patients with chronic pain for spinal cord stimulation: European consensus recommendations and e-health tool

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment for chronic neuropathic, neuropathic-like and ischaemic pain. However, the heterogeneity of patients in daily clinical practice makes it often challenging to determine which patients are eligible for this treatment, resulting in undesirable practice variations. This study aimed to establish patient-specific recommendations for referral and selection of SCS in chronic pain. Methods: A multidisciplinary European panel used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) to assess the appropriateness of (referral for) SCS for 386 clinical scenarios in four pain areas: chronic low back pain and/or leg pain, complex regional pain syndrome, neuropathic pain syndromes and ischaemic pain syndromes. In addition, the panel identified a set of psychosocial factors that are relevant to the decision for SCS treatment. Results: Appropriateness of SCS was strongly determined by the neuropathic or neuropathic-like pain component, location and spread of pain, anatomic abnormalities and previous response to therapies targeting pain processing (e.g. nerve block). Psychosocial factors considered relevant for SCS selection were as follows: lack of engagement, dysfunctional coping, unrealistic expectations, inadequate daily activity level, problematic social support, secondary gain, psychological distress and unwillingness to reduce high-dose opioids. An educational e-health tool was developed that combines clinical and psychosocial factors into an advice on referral/selection for SCS. Conclusions: The RUAM was useful to establish a consensus on patient-specific criteria for referral/selection for SCS in chronic pain. The e-health tool may help physicians learn to apply an integrated approach of clinical and psychosocial factors. Significance: Determining the eligibility of SCS in patients with chronic pain requires careful consideration of a variety of clinical and psychosocial factors. Using a systematic approach to combine evidence from clinical studies and expert opinion, a multidisciplinary European expert panel developed detailed recommendations to support appropriate referral and selection for SCS in chronic pain. These recommendations are available as an educational e-health tool (https://www.scstool.org/)

The appropriate management of persisting pain after spine surgery: a European panel study with recommendations based on the RAND/UCLA method

Purpose: Management of patients with persisting pain after spine surgery (PPSS) shows significant variability, and there is limited evidence from clinical studies to support treatment choice in daily practice. This study aimed to develop patient-specific recommendations on the management of PPSS. Methods: Using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (RUAM), an international panel of 6 neurosurgeons, 6 pain specialists, and 6 orthopaedic surgeons assessed the appropriateness of 4 treatment options (conservative, minimally invasive, neurostimulation, and re-operation) for 210 clinical scenarios. These scenarios were unique combinations of patient characteristics considered relevant to treatment choice. Appropriateness had to be expressed on a 9-point scale (1 = extremely inappropriate, 9 = extremely appropriate). A treatment was considered appropriate if the median score was ≥ 7 in the absence of disagreement (≥ 1/3 of ratings in each of the opposite sections 1–3 and 7–9). Results: Appropriateness outcomes showed clear and specific patterns. In 48% of the scenarios, exclusively one of the 4 treatments was appropriate. Conservative treatment was usually considered appropriate for patients without clear anatomic abnormalities and for those with new pain differing from the original symptoms. Neurostimulation was considered appropriate in the case of (predominant) neuropathic leg pain in the absence of conditions that may require surgical intervention. Re-operation could be considered for patients with recurrent disc, spinal/foraminal stenosis, or spinal instability. Conclusions: Using the RUAM, an international multidisciplinary panel established criteria for appropriate treatment choice in patients with PPSS. These may be helpful to educate physicians and to improve consistency and quality of care. Graphical abstract: These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [Figure not available: see fulltext.