Annual report prostatectomy-registry Dutch Association of Urology 2017

© 2019, The Author(s). The annual report of the www.nvukwaliteit.nl prostatectomy registry shows an increased number of entered prostatectomies in comparison to earlier years whereas the number of participating institutes decreased. In over 80% the prostatectomy procedures were performed robot assisted

Confirmation of quantitative trait loci affecting fatness in chickens

In this report we describe the analysis of an advanced intercross line (AIL) to confirm the quantitative trait locus (QTL) regions found for fatness traits in a previous study. QTL analysis was performed on chromosomes 1, 3, 4, 15, 18, and 27. The AIL was created by random intercrossing in each generation from generation 2 (G2) onwards until generation 9 (G9) was reached. QTL for abdominal fat weight (AFW) and/or percentage abdominal fat (AF%) on chromosomes 1, 3 and 27 were confirmed in the G9 population. In addition, evidence for QTL for body weight at the age of 5 (BW5) and 7 (BW7) weeks and for the percentage of intramuscular fat (IF%) were found on chromosomes 1, 3, 15, and 27. Significant evidence for QTL was detected on chromosome 1 for BW5 and BW7. Suggestive evidence was found on chromosome 1 for AFW, AF% and IF%, on chromosome 15 for BW5, and on chromosome 27 for AF% and IF%. Furthermore, evidence on the chromosome-wise level was found on chromosome 3 for AFW, AF%, and BW7 and on chromosome 27 for BW5. For chromosomes 4 and 18, test statistics did not exceed the significance threshold

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

PSMA, EpCAM, VEGF and GRPR as Imaging Targets in Locally Recurrent Prostate Cancer after Radiotherapy

In this retrospective pilot study, the expression of the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), the epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM), the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and the gastrin-releasing peptide receptor (GRPR) in locally recurrent prostate cancer after brachytherapy or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) was investigated, and their adequacy for targeted imaging was analyzed. Prostate cancer specimens were collected of 17 patients who underwent salvage prostatectomy because of locally recurrent prostate cancer after brachytherapy or EBRT. Immunohistochemistry was performed. A pathologist scored the immunoreactivity in prostate cancer and stroma. Staining for PSMA was seen in 100% (17/17), EpCAM in 82.3% (14/17), VEGF in 82.3% (14/17) and GRPR in 100% (17/17) of prostate cancer specimens. Staining for PSMA, EpCAM and VEGF was seen in 0% (0/17) and for GRPR in 100% (17/17) of the specimens’ stromal compartments. In 11.8% (2/17) of cases, the GRPR staining intensity of prostate cancer was higher than stroma, while in 88.2% (15/17), the staining was equal. Based on the absence of stromal staining, PSMA, EpCAM and VEGF show high tumor distinctiveness. Therefore, PSMA, EpCAM and VEGF can be used as targets for the bioimaging of recurrent prostate cancer after EBRT to exclude metastatic disease and/or to plan local salvage therapy

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

Current training on the basics of robotic surgery in the Netherlands: Time for a multidisciplinary approach?

Introduction: The following research questions were answered: (1) What are the training pathways followed by the current robot professionals? (2) Are there any differences between the surgical specialties in robot training and robot use? (3) What is their opinion about multidisciplinary basic skills training? Methods: An online questionnaire was sent to 91 robot professionals in The Netherlands. The questionnaire contained 21 multiple-choice questions focusing on demographics, received robot training, and their opinion on basic skills training in robotic surgery. Results: The response rate was 62 % (n = 56): 13 general surgeons, 16 gynecologists, and 27 urologists. The urologists performed significantly more robotic procedures than surgeons and gynecologists. The kind of training of all professionals varied from a training program by Intuitive Surgical, master-apprenticeship with or without duo console, fellowship, and self-designed training programs. The training did neither differ significantly among the different specialties nor the year of starting robotic surgery. Majority of respondents favor an obliged training program including an examination for the basics of robot skills training. Conclusion: Training of the current robot professionals is mostly dependent on local circumstances and the manufacturer of the robot system. Training is independent of the year of start with robotic surgery and speciality. To guarantee the quality of future training of residents and fellows in robot-assisted surgery, clear training goals should be formulated and implemented. Since this study shows that current training of different specialities does not differ, training in robotic surgery could be started by a multidisciplinary basic skills training and assessment

Specialist versus primary care prostate cancer follow-up:A process evaluation of a randomized controlled trial

Background: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently comparing the effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. This process evaluation assesses the reach and identified constructs for the implementation of primary care-based follow-up. Methods: A mixed-methods approach is used to assess the reach and the implementation through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We use quantitative data to evaluate the reach of the RCT and qualitative data (interviews) to indicate the perspectives of patients (n = 15), general practitioners (GPs) (n = 10), and specialists (n = 8). Thematic analysis is used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results: In total, we reached 402 (67%) patients from 12 hospitals and randomized them to specialist- (n = 201) or to primary care-based (n = 201) follow-up. From the interviews, we identify several advantages of primary care- versus specialist-based follow-up: it is closer to home, more accessible, and the relationship is more personal. Nevertheless, participants also identified challenges: guidelines should be implemented, communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care should be improved, quality indicators should be collected, and GPs should be compensated. Conclusion: Within an RCT context, 402 (67%) patients and their GPs were willing to receive/provide primary care-based follow-up. If the RCT shows that primary care is equally as effective as specialist-based follow-up, the challenges identified in this study need to be addressed to enable a smooth transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care. Netherlands Trial Registry, Trial NL7068 (NTR7266)