Do men with bladder stones benefit from treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO)?

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Machine learning for improved pathological staging of prostate cancer : A performance comparison on a range of classifiers

Peer reviewedPostprin

Use of drug therapy in the management of symptomatic ureteric stones in hospitalized adults (SUSPEND), a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of a calcium-channel blocker (nifedipine) and an α-blocker (tamsulosin) : study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Systematic review of perioperative and quality-of-life outcomes following surgical management of localised renal cancer

UCAN Cancer Charity (www.ucanhelp.org.uk) and MacMillan Cancer Charity (www.macmillan.org.uk) helped design and conduct the study.Peer reviewedPostprin

The clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical interventions for stones in the lower pole of the kidney : the percutaneous nephrolithotomy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole kidney stones randomised controlled trial (PUrE RCT) protocol

PUrE is a UK Collaborative Trial funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme (project no. 13/152/02). The Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Chief Scientists Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Health Technology Assessment Programme, the National Institute of Health Research, the National Health Service or the Department of Health. The funder (through their peer-review and funding board review process) approved the study proposal but had no role in the collection, analysis or interpretation of data or writing of the report.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

A core outcome set for localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials

Objective: To develop a core outcome set (COS) applicable for effectiveness trials of all interventions for localised prostate cancer. Background: Many treatments exist for localised prostate cancer, although it is unclear which offers the optimal therapeutic ratio. This is confounded by inconsistencies in the selection, definition, measurement and reporting of outcomes in clinical trials. Subjects and methods: A list of 79 outcomes was derived from a systematic review of published localised prostate cancer effectiveness studies and semi-structured interviews with 15 prostate cancer patients. A two-stage consensus process involving 118 patients and 56 international healthcare professionals (HCPs) (cancer specialist nurses, urological surgeons and oncologists) was undertaken, consisting of a three-round Delphi survey followed by a face-to-face consensus panel meeting of 13 HCPs and 8 patients. Results: The final COS included 19 outcomes. Twelve apply to all interventions: death from prostate cancer, death from any cause, local disease recurrence, distant disease recurrence/metastases, disease progression, need for salvage therapy, overall quality of life, stress urinary incontinence, urinary function, bowel function, faecal incontinence, sexual function. Seven were intervention-specific: perioperative deaths (surgery), positive surgical margin (surgery), thromboembolic disease (surgery), bothersome or symptomatic urethral or anastomotic stricture (surgery), need for curative treatment (active surveillance), treatment failure (ablative therapy), and side effects of hormonal therapy (hormone therapy). The UK-centric participants may limit the generalisability to other countries, but trialists should reason why the COS would not be applicable. The default position should not be that a COS developed in one country will automatically not be applicable elsewhere. Conclusion: We have established a COS for trials of effectiveness in localised prostate cancer, applicable across all interventions which should be measured in all localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials

Endovascular control of haemorrhagic urological emergencies: an observational study

BACKGROUND: Transarterial embolisation (TAE) is an effective method in control of haemorrhage irrespective of the nature of urological emergency. As the technique and technology have evolved, it is now possible to perform highly selective embolisation. The aim of this study was to critically appraise feasibility and efficacy of therapeutic TAE in control of haemorrhagic urological emergencies using selective and non-selective embolisation. Specifically, we aimed to assess the impact of timing of embolisation on the requirement of blood transfusion and long-term morphological and functional follow-up of embolised organs. METHODS: This is a single institutional observational study carried out between March 1992 and March 2006. Records of all patients who underwent selective and non-selective angioembolisation to control bleeding in urological emergencies were reviewed. Data on success rate, periprocedural complications, timing of embolisation, requirement of blood transfusion and the long-term morphological and functional outcomes of embolised organs was recorded. RESULTS: Fourteen patients underwent endovascular control of bleeding as a result of trauma, iatrogenic injury and spontaneous perinephric haemorrhage during a period of 14 years. All these patients would have required emergency open surgery without the option of embolisation procedure. The mean time between the first presentation and embolisation was 22 hours (range 30 minutes to 60 hours). Mean pre-embolisation transfusion requirement was 6.8 units (range 0–22 units). None of the patients with successful embolisation required post-procedural blood transfusion. Permanent haemostasis was achieved in all but one patient, who required emergency nephrectomy. There were no serious procedure related post-embolisation complications. CONCLUSION: Endovascular control using transarterial angioembolisation is an effective method for managing haematuria or haemorrhage in urological emergencies. Wherever and whenever indicated, this option should be considered early in the management of these cases

Cost−utility analysis of shockwave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopic stone treatment in adults

Objectives: To assess the cost‐effectiveness, resource use implications, quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs) and cost per QALY of care pathways starting with either extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) or with ureteroscopic retrieval (ureteroscopy [URS]) for the management of ureteric stones. Patients and Methods: Data on quality of life and resource use for 613 patients, collected prospectively in the Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter (TISU) randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN 92289221), were used to assess the cost‐effectiveness of two care pathways, SWL and URS. A health provider (UK National Health Service) perspective was adopted to estimate the costs of the interventions and subsequent resource use. Quality‐of‐life data were calculated using a generic instrument, the EuroQol EQ‐5D‐3L. Results are expressed as incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios and cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: The mean QALY difference (SWL vs URS) was −0.021 (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.033 to −0.010) and the mean cost difference was −£809 (95% CI −£1061 to −£551). The QALY difference translated into approximately 10 more healthy days over the 6‐month period for the patients on the URS care pathway. The probabaility that SWL is cost‐effective is 79% at a society's willingness to pay (WTP) threshold for 1 QALY of £30,000 and 98% at a WTP threshold of £20,000. Conclusion: The SWL pathway results in lower QALYs than URS but costs less. The incremental cost per QALY is £39 118 cost saving per QALY lost, with a 79% probability that SWL would be considered cost‐effective at a WTP threshold for 1 QALY of £30 000 and 98% at a WTP threshold of £20 000. Decision‐makers need to determine if costs saved justify the loss in QALYs

Urological cancer care pathways: development and use in the context of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines

Background: Making healthcare treatment decisions is a complex process involving a broad stakeholder base including patients, their families, health professionals, clinical practice guideline developers and funders of healthcare. Methods: This paper presents a review of a methodology for the development of urological cancer care pathways (UCAN care pathways), which reflects an appreciation of this broad stakeholder base. The methods section includes an overview of the steps in the development of the UCAN care pathways and engagement with clinical content experts and patient groups. Results: The development process is outlined, the uses of the urological cancer care pathways discussed and the implications for clinical practice highlighted. The full set of UCAN care pathways is published in this paper. These include care pathways on localised prostate cancer, locally advanced prostate cancer, metastatic prostate cancer, hormone-resistant prostate cancer, localised renal cell cancer, advanced renal cell cancer, testicular cancer, penile cancer, muscle invasive and metastatic bladder cancer and non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Conclusion: The process provides a useful framework for improving urological cancer care through evidence synthesis, research prioritisation, stakeholder involvement and international collaboration. Although the focus of this work is urological cancers, the methodology can be applied to all aspects of urology and is transferable to other clinical specialties.11 page(s