Archive for category: Article of the Week

Editorial: Some prostate cancers are invisible to magnetic resonance imaging!

A test to exclude the presence of aggressive prostate cancer would be highly desirable. In the article by Wysock et al. [1], the authors examine pathological results in 75 men who underwent 12-core systematic biopsy using the Artemis device; all had a pre-biopsy MRI showing no suggestion of cancer. In 74 patients no cancer with Gleason score ≥7 was found on biopsy, which translates into a remarkable 98.7% negative predictive value (NPV) for potentially aggressive disease. The implication is that virtually all serious prostate cancers can be seen on MRI, and thus a negative MRI obviates the need for a biopsy. If this finding were to be confirmed, the majority of prostate biopsies could be avoided, a truly laudable goal.

However, for several reasons, we are not yet able to endorse the blanket concept, ‘get a negative MRI and skip the biopsy’. The authors acknowledged their study is not definitive: it is a retrospective look at 29% of eligible participants; how were they chosen? Further, the ‘gold standard’ for identifying cancer, microscopic examination of whole mount prostatectomy specimens, was not available. Thus, the data presented are striking because of the near-perfect findings, but not entirely convincing. Our work, involving >2 000 MRI/ultrasound-fusion biopsies, teaches that if biopsy is indicated on clinical grounds e.g., palpable abnormality, family or racial history, persistent PSA suspicion, a negative MRI should not preclude a systematic (template) biopsy [2]. Clinical information, especially increased PSA density, may help to select patients for biopsy beyond use of MRI data alone.

Another reason why a ‘negative’ MRI should not always negate the need for biopsy relates to the current proliferation of prostate MRI studies. Many of the new MRI studies are being performed and interpreted by radiologists not adequately trained in this niche. Despite attempts at standardisation [3], the variability of MRI readings, from place to place and from one radiologist to another, can be remarkable. In the recent past I have seen lesions called Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Grade 5 ‘disappear’ when scrutinised by more-experienced readers; the reverse has also been seen. Even among expert readers using the latest Version 2 of PI-RADS, agreement in prostate MRI interpretation is only moderate at best (κ ≈0.5) [4]. Therefore, widely varying interpretations of prostate MRI can be expected for the near-term future. A formal training programme and certification in MRI interpretation, which is sorely needed, has not yet been established.

In Figure 1 above, a falsely negative MRI from our institution is shown [2]. The MRI-invisible cancer is not a rarity. In a consecutive series of 1 042 men undergoing template biopsy regardless of MRI findings, the incidence of clinically significant prostate cancer in men with no MRI-suspicious lesions (biopsy-naïve subgroup) was 12% [5]. Further, when looking carefully at whole-mount prostatectomy specimens, the incidence of clinically significant prostate cancer not seen on expertly read MRI was 28% [6]. Still further, some Gleason 6 cancers thought to be insignificant may have the biological potential for de-differentiation [7] and require follow-up. Therefore, at this point in time, a negative MRI should not preclude prostate biopsy, which otherwise would be indicated on clinical grounds. We are still learning about prostate MRI!

aotw2-ed-fig-1

Figure 1: Example of falsely negative MRI. Patient was a Caucasian male (PSA level 3.8 ng/mL) aged 68 years, who on a previous conventional biopsy was found to have a microfocus of Gleason 3 + 3 = 6 prostate cancer. He was considered for active surveillance, and multiparametric MRI of prostate was obtained (A): prostate volume was found to be 35 mL; no region of interest was identified. Mapping biopsy was performed by following the 12-point template of the Artemis device (B). A tissue core from the left lateral apex revealed 6 mm of Gleason 3 + 5 = 8 prostate cancer (C, ×4; D, ×20). Radical prostatectomy was performed, revealing a tumour on the left side of the prostate with diameters of 15 × 12 × 9 mm. Falsely negative MRI is not uncommon. When biopsy is clinically indicated, a negative MRI should not preclude mapping biopsy. Reproduced with permission from Nassiri et al., 2015 [1].

 

 

Leonard S. Marks

Professor and deKernion Endowed Chair, Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA

 

1 Wysock JS, Mendhiratta N, Zattoni F et al. Predictive value of negative 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate on 12-core biopsy results. BJU Int 2016; 118: 515–20

2 Nassiri N, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Marks LS. Targeted prostate biopsy: lessons learned midst the evolution of a disruptive technology. Urology 2015; 86: 432–8

3 Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 16–40

4 Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D et al. Inter-observer reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: A multi-center study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 2016; 280: 793–804

5 Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ et al.Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer 2016; [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29874

6 Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E et al. Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 569–76

7 Palapattu GS, Cani AK, Huang J et al. Progression of low- to high-grade prostate cancer: Molecular profiling of tissue obtained by serial targeted biopsy. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33 (Suppl.): Abstract 501

 

 

Article of the Month: Recent advances in immuno-oncology and its application to urological cancers

Every Month the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying comment written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Recent advances in immuno-oncology and its application to urological cancers

Jennifer M. Mataraza and Philip Gotwals

 

Exploratory Immuno-Oncology, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Cambridge, MA, USA

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Recent advances in immuno-oncology have the potential to transform the practice of medical oncology. Antibodies directed against negative regulators of T-cell function (checkpoint inhibitors), engineered cell therapies and innate immune stimulators, such as oncolytic viruses, are effective in a wide range of cancers. Immune‘based therapies have had a clinically meaningful impact on the treatment of advanced melanoma, and the lessons regarding use of single agents and combinations in melanoma may be applicable to the treatment of urological cancers. Checkpoint inhibitors, cytokine therapy and therapeutic vaccines are already showing promise in urothelial bladder cancer, renal cell carcinoma and prostate cancer. Critical areas of future immuno-oncology research include the prospective identification of patients who will respond to current immune-based cancer therapies and the identification of new therapeutic agents that promote immune priming in tumours, and increase the rate of durable clinical responses.

oct-aotm-results

Read more articles of the week

Comment: Immune checkpoint blockade – a treatment for urological cancers?

Introduction

In the last few years there have been concerted attempts at using the power of the immune system as an effective treatment option for cancer. This has become possible as our understanding of the workings of the immune system has improved. Tumours form because of failure of the organism to destroy a rogue, mutated cell in an appropriate way. Once the tumour is formed it can further develop when the immune system fails to contain and control it and certain equilibrium is lost in favour of the tumour. This is referred to as the immune editing theory. At this point of failure of the immune system, tumour growth and progression become possible and tumours develop various mechanisms to evade the immune systems surveillance. Therefore, a mechanism to restore the lost equilibrium or to tip it in favour of the immune system would be a new modality in anti-cancer treatment. The initial approach was to use stimulators of the immune system systemically such as interleukin 2 and interferon γ i.v. in patients with metastatic cancers including melanoma and renal cancers [1]. A sustained response was shown in 22% of patients with metastatic kidney cancer, lasting for over a year. Although this treatment was not a resounding success, it did highlight an approach that could yield a durable tumour regression in a minority of cases. As our understanding of the immune system–tumour interaction further developed, new research focused on a specific mechanism in the immune system that seems to be exploited by tumours. This is an activation-inhibition mechanism, which controls the extent of adaptive immune response to invading organisms or to mutated cancer cells. In healthy individuals, this mechanism is a ‘safety’ feature allowing cessation of the immune response once it has performed its task. This is controlled by ‘receptor’ molecules at the T-cell surface and their corresponding ‘ligands’ at the surface of the cells interacting with the T-cell, which can be an antigen presenting cell or a tumour cell surface. This mechanism is called the immune checkpoint [2] (Fig. 1). Cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed death 1 (PD-1) are the most well-known checkpoints but there are up to 20 others (and counting) [2]. Their main role is to inhibit an immune response by blocking the activation of T-cells when those cells are presented with a foreign antigen or cancer proteins. This inhibition leads to immune ‘tolerance’ of the presence of cancer cells. So the policeman (T cell) is oblivious to the robbery in front of him. Thus an anti-tumour treatment strategy to disrupt the immune checkpoints seems to be a valid one (Table 1).

image

Figure 1. Blocking checkpoint inhibitors with antibodies is the new immunotherapy strategy to unlock T-cell activation and improve anti-tumour immune response. MHC, major histocompatibility complex; PD-L1, programmed death ligand 1; TCR, T-cell antigen receptor.

Table 1. A selected group of trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors in urological cancers
Tumour Phase Treatment N Results Trial.gov identifier
  1. mCRPC, metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer; PD-L1, programmed death ligand 1. The total number of current trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors is 46 for lung, breast, ovarian, rectal, prostate, pancreatic, bladder, renal cancers and melanoma.

mCRPC 1 Dendritic cell therapy and ipilimumab 20 Recruiting NCT02423928
All advanced solid tumours 1 Various combinations of ipilimumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab 122 Recruiting NCT02467361
RCC 3 Nivolumab vs everolimus 822 Recruiting NCT01668784
RCC 3 Atezolizumab (anti PD-L1) 70 Good safety profile with antitumour activity NCT01375842
mCRPC 3 Ipilimumab vs placebo 799 No improvement of survival in treatment group NCT00861614
Urothelial 2 Gemcitabine, cisplatin and ipilimumab combinations 36 Recruiting NCT01524991

In recent years, a plethora of various inhibitors in the form of monoclonal antibodies to the checkpoint molecules were developed and to date three at least have been approved by the USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – ipilimumab (Yervoy), nivolumab (Opdivo), and pembrolizumab (Keytruda). They are anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD-1 antibodies. At least another eight checkpoint inhibitors are being developed. These agents have been shown to have survival benefit in some malignancies and limited benefit in others. However, the breakthrough seems to be happening in the treatment of metastatic malignant melanomas where immune checkpoint inhibitors treatment may become the standard of care. Patients with metastatic malignant melanoma who were treated with ipilimumab had a median survival of ~11 months; however, 22% of patients survived for ≥3 years with a plateau in the survival curve and in a subset of patients up to 10 years [3]. This success has not yet been replicated in prostate cancer [4]. In a more recent clinical trial involving patients with melanoma who progressed, nivolumab showed survival benefit of 72% at 1 year as compared with 42% with dacarbazine [5]. The latest approach is to combine anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 in one treatment regime as they are expected to act synergistically to remove the inhibition to the immune response, and clinical results seem to show survival benefit for combined therapy [6]. Combination of different treatment methods may potentiate the ‘abscopal effect’, which is seen when local radiation therapy can cause regression of tumour distant to the radiation site. This seems to be mediated by the immune system and potentiated by checkpoint inhibitors. Until now checkpoint inhibitors were used in patients with end-stage metastatic cancer, but recently anti-CTLA-4 has been trialled in pre-radical cystectomy patients not as a neoadjuvant therapy but rather to monitor immune response and surgical safety [2]. It is likely that checkpoint inhibitors will have a place in cancer treatment including urological cancers. However, this new class of anti-cancer treatment comes with a price. The emerging risks and side-effect profile of checkpoint inhibitors are completely different from those seen with the conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Those side-effects are related to the activation of the immune system. Although most are not uncommon, they can occasionally have devastating effect on the patients. These side-effects include autoimmune conditions like dermatitis, mild colitis, and occasionally hepatitis. A severe form of colitis resulting in perforation has been reported. Unfortunately, the rate of adverse effects seems to correlate with positive clinical response. A list of some of the side-effects is summarised in Table 2. Treatment is usually with steroids, and clinicians are starting to develop strategies to minimise those risks.

Table 2. Autoimmune-based adverse effects that are associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors treatment. Most are tolerated. Severe ones are rare but can be devastating. Treatment is usually with steroids [2, 5, 6]
Adverse effects
Common Rare
Diarrhoea Severe colitis – colonic perforation
Pruritus/dermatitis Adrenal insufficiency
Rash Panhypopituitarism
Colitis Hepatitis
Fatigue Uveitis
Decreased appetite Temporal arteritis

The cost of checkpoint inhibitors remains relatively high and a full treatment course of ipilimumab costs >£18 000. One dose of pembrolizumab can cost >£3 500. However, the National Institute for Health and Care excellence (NICE) in the UK deemed this to be cost-effective and approved it for patients with metastatic melanoma that has progressed despite ipilimumab treatment.

Will the 21st century be the era for immunotherapy? It is still too early to tell. At present it remains rather expensive and beyond the means of many patients with cancer.

Read the full article
Oussama Elhage*, Christine Galustian* and Prokar Dasgupta*,

 

*Medical Research Council (MRC) Centre for Transplantation, and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, Kings Health Partners, Kings College London and Guys Hospital, London, UK

 

References
1 Rosenberg SA, Lotze MT, Yang JC et al. Experience with the use of high-dose interleukin-2 in the treatment of 652 cancer patients. Ann Surg 1989; 210: 47485

 

2 Allison JP, Freeman GJ, Gotwals P. Targeting cancer pathways: understanding immune checkpoints. Science Webinar Series. Science 2016; 351: 303

 

 

4 Mataraza J, Gotwals P. Recent advances in immuno-oncology and its application to urological cancers. BJU Int 2016; 118: 50614

 

5 Robert C, Long GV, Brady B et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 32030

 

6 Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 2334

 

Article of the Week: Performance of robotic simulated skills tasks is positively associated with clinical robotic surgical performance

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Alvin Goh, discussing his paper.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Performance of robotic simulated skills tasks is positively associated with clinical robotic surgical performance

 

Monty A. Aghazadeh*,, Miguel A. Mercado*,, Michael M. Pan, Brian J. Miles
‡ and Alvin C. Goh*,

 

*Methodist Institute for Technology, Innovation, and Education (MITIE), Houston Methodist Hospital, Scott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, and Department of Urology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA

 

Read the full article

Objective

To compare user performance of four fundamental inanimate robotic skills tasks (FIRST) as well as eight da Vinci Skills Simulator (dVSS) virtual reality tasks with intra-operative performance (concurrent validity) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and to show that a positive correlation exists between simulation and intra-operative performance.

Materials and Methods

A total of 21 urological surgeons with varying robotic experience were enrolled. Demographics were captured using a standardized questionnaire. User performance was assessed concurrently in simulated (FIRST exercises and dVSS tasks) and clinical environments (endopelvic dissection during RARP). Intra-operative robotic clinical performance was scored using the previously validated six-metric Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) tool. The relationship between simulator and clinical performance was evaluated using Spearman’s rank correlation.

dffdbd

Results

Performance was assessed in 17 trainees and four expert robotic surgeons with a median (range) number of previous robotic cases (as primary surgeon) of 0 (0–55) and 117 (58–600), respectively (P = 0.001). Collectively, the overall FIRST (ρ = 0.833, P < 0.001) and dVSS (ρ = 0.805, P < 0.001) simulation scores correlated highly with GEARS performance score. Each individual FIRST and dVSS task score also demonstrated a significant correlation with intra-operative performance, with the exception of Energy Switcher 1 exercise (P = 0.063).

Conclusions

This is the first study to show a significant relationship between simulated robotic performance and robotic clinical performance. Findings support implementation of these robotic training tools in a standardized robotic training curriculum.

Read more articles of the week

Editorial: Robotic simulation: are we ready to go?

In a study in this issue of BJUI, Aghazadeh et al. [1] were able to show that there was a significant relationship between simulated robotic performance and robotic clinical performance. The authors conclude that this supports the implementation of such robotic training tools in a standardized robotic training curriculum. Evidently, particularly in minimally invasive surgery, we must assess and learn from our surgical errors in order to prevent them in future [2]. For this, the dream scenario would be the ability to simulate a surgical procedure before being allowed to perform the real operation on the patient, similarly to pilots being trained on a flight simulator [3]. A robotic (virtual) simulator would be the ideal way to provide training on the respective robot-assisted procedure [1].

The authors are to be congratulated in their effort to prove the transfer validity of their training model using 12 previously validated robotic skill tasks consisting of four inanimate models and eight selected virtual reality tasks on the da Vinci Skills Simulator [1]. Endopelvic fascial dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was chosen to assess clinical robotic performance. Trainees were evaluated using the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) scoring system, which distinguishes among depth perception, bimanual dexterity, efficiency, force sensitivity, autonomy, robotic control in relationship to the case difficulty using scores ranging from 1 to 5.

Nevertheless, there is still a long way to go! The authors have already conceded that there are some limitations to their study. It involved a small cohort of urological surgeons of different levels of expertise. It was not a randomized study comparing the impact of virtual simulator training on the surgical outcome, therefore, the authors could only show that they might be able to predict a surgeon’s performance during a real case based on his/her performance at the simulator. Based on this, the simulator training could theoretically pre-assess surgeon’s quality in robot-assisted surgery.

The authors probably chose endopelvic dissection because it represents a relatively easy part of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Accordingly, it remains unclear whether such basic tasks are really the best models to prepare a surgeon for this operation. Using low-fidelity training models, including vesico-urethral anastomosis, we were able to demonstrate the transfer validity of a six-step training programme [4]. It would be interesting to see the impact of the simulator training on clinical performance of robot-assisted vesico-urethral anastomosis because a valuable exercise for this already exists on the da Vinci Skills Simulator.

Despite this progress, we must recognize that we are far away from equalling the simulator training of pilots [3]. It is much easier to simulate turbulence during a flight than significant bleeding during robot-assisted surgery. Trials in simulating a complete laparoscopic procedure are still in their infancy [5]. This may differ with regard to other minimally invasive procedures such as ureteroscopy, where sophisticated trainer exercises exist; however, even in this field there is actually no proven evidence of the significant impact of simulators on shortening the learning curve. For all ‘hands-on’ simulation there will be always the problem of soft-tissue engineering and navigation [6]. Robotic simulators have the advantage compared with laparoscopy of three-dimensional video technology and the fact that there is no tactile feedback for the surgeon.

Evidently, information technology is continuously advancing and we may one day have a robotic simulator that can compare with the flight simulators used in aviation; however, to date, only training on basic skills can be provided and evaluated using the existing simulation systems in urology.

Read the full article
Jens Rassweiler
Department of Urology, SLK Kliniken Heilbronn, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg , Germany

 

1 Aghazadeh MA, Mercado MA, Pan MM, Miles BJ, Goh AC.

 

2 Rassweiler MC, Mamoulakis C, Kenngott HG et al. Classication and
171321

 

3 Sommer KJ. Pilot training: what can surgeons learn from it? Arab J Urol 2014; 12: 325

 

5 Shamim Khan M, Ahmed K, Gavazzi A et al. Development and
51823

 

6 Baumhauer M, Feuerstein M, Meinzer HP, Rassweiler J. Navigation in

 

Video: Performance of robotic simulated skills tasks is positively associated with clinical robotic surgical performance

Performance of robotic simulated skills tasks is positively associated with clinical robotic surgical performance

Monty A. Aghazadeh*,, Miguel A. Mercado*,, Michael M. Pan, Brian J. Miles
‡ and Alvin C. Goh*,

 

*Methodist Institute for Technology, Innovation, and Education (MITIE), Houston Methodist Hospital, Scott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, and Department of Urology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA

 

Read the full article

Objective

To compare user performance of four fundamental inanimate robotic skills tasks (FIRST) as well as eight da Vinci Skills Simulator (dVSS) virtual reality tasks with intra-operative performance (concurrent validity) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and to show that a positive correlation exists between simulation and intra-operative performance.

Materials and Methods

A total of 21 urological surgeons with varying robotic experience were enrolled. Demographics were captured using a standardized questionnaire. User performance was assessed concurrently in simulated (FIRST exercises and dVSS tasks) and clinical environments (endopelvic dissection during RARP). Intra-operative robotic clinical performance was scored using the previously validated six-metric Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) tool. The relationship between simulator and clinical performance was evaluated using Spearman’s rank correlation.

dffdbd

Results

Performance was assessed in 17 trainees and four expert robotic surgeons with a median (range) number of previous robotic cases (as primary surgeon) of 0 (0–55) and 117 (58–600), respectively (P = 0.001). Collectively, the overall FIRST (ρ = 0.833, P < 0.001) and dVSS (ρ = 0.805, P < 0.001) simulation scores correlated highly with GEARS performance score. Each individual FIRST and dVSS task score also demonstrated a significant correlation with intra-operative performance, with the exception of Energy Switcher 1 exercise (P = 0.063).

Conclusions

This is the first study to show a significant relationship between simulated robotic performance and robotic clinical performance. Findings support implementation of these robotic training tools in a standardized robotic training curriculum.

Read the full article

Article of the Week: Symptom Burden and Information Needs in PCa Survivors

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Symptom burden and information needs in prostate cancer survivors: a case for tailored long-term survivorship care

Jennifer K. Bernat*, Daniela A. Wittman, Sarah T. Hawley, Daniel A. HamstraAlexander M. Helfand, David A. Haggstrom*, May Darwish-Yassine‡ and Ted A. Skolarus

 

*Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Public Health Institute, Okemos, and §VA HSR&D Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

 

Read the full article

Objectives

To determine the relationship between long-term prostate cancer survivors’ symptom burden and information needs.

Patients and Methods

We used population-based data from the Michigan Prostate Cancer Survivor Study (2499 men). We examined unadjusted differences in long-term information needs according to symptom burden and performed multivariable logistic regression to examine symptom burden and information needs adjusting for patient characteristics.

aotw-sep-3-results

Results

High symptom burden was reported across all domains (sexual 44.4%, urinary 14.4%, vitality 12.7%, bowel 8.4%, emotional 7.6%) with over half of respondents (56%) reporting they needed more information. Top information needs involved recurrence, relationships, and long-term effects. Prostate cancer survivors with high symptom burden more often searched for information regardless of domain (P < 0.05). High sexual burden was associated with greater need for information about relationships [odds ratio (OR) 2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54–2.72] and long-term effects (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.23–2.07). High bowel burden was associated with greater information need for long-term effects (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.43–3.63).

Conclusions

Long-term prostate cancer survivors with high symptom burden need more supportive information. Tailoring information to these needs may be an efficient approach to support the growing population of long-term prostate cancer survivors.

Read more articles of the week

Editorial: Tailored prostate cancer survivorship: one size does not fit all

One of the great triumphs in Urology is the transition of prostate cancer surgery from a universally morbid operation to one that now focuses on postoperative quality of life. This paradigm of cancer survivorship focuses on managing new, recurrent, or persistent symptoms. In this article by Bernat et al. [1], men within the Michigan Prostate Cancer Survivor Study were surveyed to identify factors that increase the need for additional prostate cancer survivorship information. Previous studies have shown discrepancies between subsets of prostate cancer survivors, based upon social, pathological, and treatment-based factors [2-5]. Indeed, the need for improved patient-centric information for all cancer survivors has resulted in the American Cancer Society publishing guidelines on how to best manage prostate cancer survivors, which account for four of every 10 male cancer survivors [6].

The authors [1] identify several critical aspects of post-treatment prostate cancer survivors. First, more than half of patients needed more information about their symptoms. This may be a departure from the views of many urological surgeons, who believe their patients are symptom-free after treatment. Second, the information needs of respondents were intuitively tied to their specific symptoms. For example, men who received combined therapy – thus, suggesting concern for incomplete control with primary treatment – were more concerned about recurrence; married men were more concerned about the effects of prostate cancer on their significant other; and men with more profound bowel or sexual symptom burdens were more concerned about the long-term effects and recovery period. Third, prostate cancer survivors remain concerned about diagnosis and treatment of their disease, even after they have received curative treatment. Topics such as early detection, diagnosis, and prevention of cancer were identified in double-digit percentages of respondents. Finally, there exists a correlation between the severity of symptom burden and associated information needs. A subset of symptoms (urinary, sexual, and bowel) may be directly related to treatment techniques and technologies. Thus, improvements in these fields may have long-term survivorship benefits.

While enlightening, these results are nevertheless susceptible to the inherent limitations of a survey-based study. Selection bias suggests that the true range of information needs and associated symptom burdens are not completely captured in these results. Additionally, these findings are not subdivided based on pathological stage or treatment method, which probably play important roles in cancer treatment, post-treatment symptoms, and patient concerns.

What are we to do with the results presented in this report? Clearly, easy access to informational resources about cancer survivorship needs to be offered as a standard of care for men with prostate cancer, which should be initiated before starting treatment. Additionally, men who are at-risk for requiring additional information on cancer survivorship (non-White race, received multimodality treatment, recurrent cancer, or high symptom burden) should receive additional counselling to ensure their informational needs are met. Finally, studies validating the effectiveness of these resources should be studied prospectively. Just as no two prostates are the same, so too should the paradigm be for prostate cancer treatment and survivorship.

Read the full article
Michael H. Johnson

 

Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA

 

 

2 Hudson SV, OMalley DM, Miller SM. Achieving optimal delivery of follow-up care for prostate cancer survivors: improving patient outcomes. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 2015; 6: 7590

 

3 Bourke L, Boorjian SA, Briganti A et al. Survivorship and improving quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 37483

 

4 Chamie K, Connor SE, Maliski SL, Fink A, Kwan L, Litwin MS. Prostate cancer survivorship: lessons from caring for the uninsured. Urol Oncol

 

2012; 30: 1028
5 AmericanCancerSociety. National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center. Avaliable at: https://www.cancer.org/survivorshipcenter. Accessed October 2015

 

6 Gore JL, Kwan L, Lee SP, Reiter RE, Litwin MS. Survivorship beyond convalescence: 48-month quality-of-life outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 88892

 

Article of the Month: Guideline of Guidelines – Thromboprophylaxis for Urological Surgery

Every Month the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Kari Tikkinen, discussing his paper.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Guideline of guidelines: thromboprophylaxis for urological surgery

Philippe D. Violette*, Rufus Cartwright†‡, Matthias Briel§, Kari A.O. Tikkinen¶ and Gordon H. Guyatt**,

 

*Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Woodstock Hospital, Woodstock, ON, Canada, † Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College London, London, UK, Department of Urogynaecology, St. MaryHospital, London, UK, §Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland, Departments of Urology and Public Health, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland, **Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, and ††Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

 

Read the full article

 

Decisions regarding thromboprophylaxis in urologic surgery involve a trade-off between decreased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and increased risk of bleeding. Both patient- and procedure-specific factors are critical in making an informed decision on the use of thromboprophylaxis. Our systematic review of the literature revealed that existing guidelines in urology are limited. Recommendations from national and international guidelines often conflict and are largely based on indirect as opposed to procedure-specific evidence. These issues have likely contributed to large variation in the use of VTE prophylaxis within and between countries. The majority of existing guidelines typically suggest prolonged thromboprophylaxis for high-risk abdominal or pelvic surgery, without clear clarification of what these procedures are, for up to 4 weeks post-discharge. Existing guidance may result in the under-treatment of procedures with low risk of bleeding and the over-treatment of oncological procedures with low risk of VTE. Guidance for patients who are already anticoagulated are not specific to urological procedures but generally involve evaluating patient and surgical risks when deciding on bridging therapy. The European Association of Urology Guidelines Office has commissioned an ad hoc guideline panel that will present a formal thromboprophylaxis guideline for specific urological procedures and patient risk factors.

AOTM Key Points

Read more articles of the week

 

Editorial: Optimal Thromboprophylaxis Remains a Challenge

The ‘Guideline of guidelines: thromboprophylaxis for urological surgery’, published in this month’s issue of BJUI by Violette et al. [1], addresses a critical issue in urological practice and offers a comprehensive overview of available guidelines. Many urological surgeries, especially cancer surgeries, present a significant risk of thromboembolism, as well as bleeding. Therefore, urological surgeons should be well educated in the matter in order to be able to offer optimal prophylaxis to patients. Reading through the current recommendations and guidelines, one realises the wide variety of possible ways to risk stratify a patient, but also the large differences in opinions on how and when to offer prophylaxis. Consequently, even members within the same national society treat their patients in completely different ways.

The ideal recommendation will have to be individualised, taking thromboembolic and bleeding risk into account for each individual patient and specific surgery type. This stratification of patients not only presents a challenge in clinical practice but also for the design of meaningful clinical trials. As many medical questions regarding thromboprophylaxis remain unanswered, the currently available recommendations are based on our pathophysiological understanding and remain eminence-based, rather than evidence-based.

For many years, the ‘Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines’ [2] were viewed as the most respected guidelines in surgery. They include recommendations for a wide variety of surgical procedures, including urological surgeries. With an ageing population, our patients will more often be on anticoagulant treatment before surgery. While most guidelines still recommend stopping the anticoagulant treatment and bridging with heparin, new evidence from randomised controlled trials [3, 4] indicate that bridging by heparin significantly increases the risk for major bleeding without reducing the thromboembolic risk in most patients. Despite a recent appeal by internists and cardiologists [5], revised guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians to replace the partially outdated recommendations have yet to be published. As mentioned by Violette et al. [1] in their current review, bridging should probably only be offered to a limited number of patients with a very high risk of thromboembolic complications.

The European Association of Urology has recognised the problem and presented the prospect of providing a guideline on thromboprophylaxis for urological procedures later this year. Looking at the landscape of available high-quality publications it will still be highly challenging to provide clear recommendations for urological surgeries. The key to a comprehensive application will be the clinical practicality. With this review, the authors have set the stage to a critical review of the recommendations from a urological point of view.

Read the full article

 

Daniel Eberli
University and University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

 

References

 

1 Violette PD, Cartwright R, Briel M, Tikkinen KAO, Guyatt GHGuideline of guidelines: thromboprophylaxis for urological surgery. BJU Int 2016; 118: 35158

 

 

 

4 Douketis JD, Spyropoulos AC, Kaatz S et al. Perioperative bridging anticoagulation in patients with atrial brillation. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 82333

 

 

6 Devereaux PJ, Mrkobrada M, Sessler DI et al. Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1494503

 

© 2024 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.