Tag Archive for: #BJUI

You are here: / #BJUI

Posts

Editorial: NICE guidelines on prostate cancer 2019

/1 Comment/by

The much‐anticipated National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guidelines are finally published [1] after a period of consultation when they were in the draft phase. These are updated from the previous 2008 and 2014 versions and reflect the changes in our knowledge and practice over the last 10 years. While there are many similarities, the astute reader will find distinct differences from the AUA Guidelines, which feature in a summary booklet released at the #AUA19 meeting in Chicago this spring.

NICE does not comment on screening for prostate cancer so many of us continue to rely on our Guideline of Guidelines [2], which make pragmatic recommendations such as smart screening in well‐informed men who are at higher risk because of their family history. For staging, bone scan has not been replaced by prostate‐specific membrane antigen (PSMA)‐positron‐emission tomography/CT, and Lu‐PSMA theranostics is yet to become an option in castrate‐resistant disease as the international trials are not mature.

Multiparametric MRI before prostate biopsy in men suitable for radical treatment is a new addition, based on the PROMIS [3] and PRECISION trials [1]. This approach is thought to be cost‐effective through reducing the number of biopsies and side effects despite the initial added cost of MRI scanning. In Grade Group 1 and some low‐volume Grade Group 2 cancers, protocol‐based active surveillance is recommended provided the patients are well counselled and it has been discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

To reduce variations in active surveillance, Prostate Cancer UK has carefully examined eight different guidelines and published a consensus statement for the benefit of our patients [4]. We have already promoted this widely on social media and hope that our readers will use this practical tool in their clinics. We often find that some patients just cannot live with a cancer inside their body and seek surgery as a result, however small their tumour. Careful discussion about management options and their risks vs benefits [1] can help patients arrive at a pragmatic decision. The effect of a cancer diagnosis on patients’ minds should therefore not be underestimated and a trained psychologist should be available for appropriate counselling.

NICE also recommends hypofractionated intensity‐modulated radiotherapy, if appropriate, in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for localized disease, and methods of decreasing the side effects while increasing accuracy of radiation. As in 2014, robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy remains a surgical option in centres performing at least 150 of these procedures per year [1]. These numbers are similar to those published from other health services such as Canada. One such very high‐volume centre is the Martini Clinic which has reported its comparison of open and robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy in >10 000 patients. The oncological and functional outcomes are no different, open surgery is quicker and there is less blood loss and shorter time to catheter removal after robotic surgery. Just like the randomized trial of the two techniques, this large series highlights that surgeon experience rather than the technique is more important for clinical outcomes [5]. Finally, based on the STAMPEDE results, docetaxel is recommended for metastasis in addition to ADT and can be considered for high‐risk patients receiving ADT and radiotherapy [6]. NICE has also identified a number of important research questions which we hope will be answered by ongoing studies in coming years.

by Prokar Dasgpta, John Davis & Simon Hughes

 

References

  1. NICE Guidance. NICE guidelines prostate cancer. BJU Int 2019; 124: 9– 26.
  2. Loeb, S. Review of prostate cancer screening guidelines. BJU Int 2014; 114: 323– 5
  3. Ahmed, HU. The PROMIS of MRI. BJU Int 2016; 118: 7
  4. Merriel, SWD, Hetherington, L, Seggie, A et al. PCUK consensus statement. BJUI 2019; 124: 47– 54
  5. Haese, A, Knipper, S, Isbarn, H et al. A comparative study of robot‐assisted and open radical prostatectomy in 10 790 men treated by highly trained surgeons for both procedures. BJU Int 2019; 123: 1031– 40
  6. Sathianathen, NJ, Philippou, YA, Kuntz, GM et al. Taxane‐based chemohormonal therapy for metastatic hormone‐sensitive prostate cancer: a Cochrane Review. BJU Int 2019; [Epub ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14711

 

Article of the week: Suture techniques during laparoscopic and robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy

/by

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 a video produced by the authors. Please use the tools at the bottom of the post if you would like to make a comment. 

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

Suture techniques during laparoscopic and robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and quantitative synthesis of peri‐operative outcomes

Riccardo Bertolo*, Riccardo Campi†, Tobias Klatte‡, Maximilian C. Kriegmair§, Maria Carmen Mir, Idir Ouzaid**, Maciej Salagierski††, Sam Bhayani‡‡, Inderbir Gill§§¶¶, Jihad Kaouk* and Umberto Capitanio‡‡§§***††† On behalf of the Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Kidney Cancer working group of the European Urological Association (EAU)

 

*Department of Urology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA, †Department of Urology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy, ‡Department of Urology, Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals, Bournemouth, UK, §Department of Urology, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany, Department of Urology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain, **Department of Urology, Bichat Hospital, APHP, Paris Diderot University, Paris, France, ††Urology Department, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Zielona Góra, Zielona Góra, Poland, ‡‡Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, §§Keck School of Medicine, USC Institute of Urology, ¶¶Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, ***Department of Urology, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, and †††Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Objective

To summarize the available evidence on renorrhaphy techniques and to assess their impact on peri‐operative outcomes after minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN).

Materials and Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed in January 2018 without time restrictions, using MEDLINE, Cochrane and Web of Science databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses statement recommendations. Studies providing sufficient details on renorrhaphy techniques during laparoscopic or robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy and comparative studies focused on peri‐operative outcomes were included in qualitative and quantitative analyses, respectively.

Fig. 4. Integrated overview of evidence‐based technical principles for renal reconstruction during minimally invasive partial nephrectomy and suggested standardized reporting of key renorrhaphy features in clinical studies on this topic.

Results

Overall, 67 and 19 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses, respectively. The overall quality of evidence was low. Specific tumour features (i.e. size, hilar location, anatomical complexity, nearness to renal sinus and/or urinary collecting system), surgeon’s experience, robot‐assisted technology, as well as the aim of reducing warm ischaemia time and the amount of devascularized renal parenchyma preserved represented the key factors driving the evolution of the renorrhaphy techniques during MIPN over the past decade. Quantitative synthesis showed that running suture was associated with shorter operating and ischaemia time, and lower postoperative complication and transfusion rates than interrupted suture. Barbed suture had lower operating and ischaemia time and less blood loss than non‐barbed suture. The single‐layer suture technique was associated with shorter operating and ischaemia time than the double‐layer technique. No comparisons were possible concerning renal functional outcomes because of non‐homogeneous data reporting.

Conclusions

Renorrhaphy techniques significantly evolved over the years, improving outcomes. Running suture, particularly using barbed wires, shortened the operating and ischaemia times. A further advantage could derive from avoiding a double‐layer suture.

 

Read more Articles of the week

 

 

Video: Suture techniques during laparoscopic and robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy

/by

Suture techniques during laparoscopic and robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and quantitative synthesis of peri‐operative outcomes

by Riccardo Bertolo (@RicBertolo)

Read the full article

Abstract

Objective

To summarize the available evidence on renorrhaphy techniques and to assess their impact on peri‐operative outcomes after minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN).

Materials and Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed in January 2018 without time restrictions, using MEDLINE, Cochrane and Web of Science databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses statement recommendations. Studies providing sufficient details on renorrhaphy techniques during laparoscopic or robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy and comparative studies focused on peri‐operative outcomes were included in qualitative and quantitative analyses, respectively.

Results

Overall, 67 and 19 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses, respectively. The overall quality of evidence was low. Specific tumour features (i.e. size, hilar location, anatomical complexity, nearness to renal sinus and/or urinary collecting system), surgeon’s experience, robot‐assisted technology, as well as the aim of reducing warm ischaemia time and the amount of devascularized renal parenchyma preserved represented the key factors driving the evolution of the renorrhaphy techniques during MIPN over the past decade. Quantitative synthesis showed that running suture was associated with shorter operating and ischaemia time, and lower postoperative complication and transfusion rates than interrupted suture. Barbed suture had lower operating and ischaemia time and less blood loss than non‐barbed suture. The single‐layer suture technique was associated with shorter operating and ischaemia time than the double‐layer technique. No comparisons were possible concerning renal functional outcomes because of non‐homogeneous data reporting.

Conclusions

Renorrhaphy techniques significantly evolved over the years, improving outcomes. Running suture, particularly using barbed wires, shortened the operating and ischaemia times. A further advantage could derive from avoiding a double‐layer suture.

View more videos

Visual abstract: Early and rapid prediction of postoperative infections following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with complex kidney stones

/by

See more infographics

Article of the week: Early and rapid prediction of postoperative infections following PCNL in patients with complex kidney stones

/by

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 editorial  and a visual abstract prepared by prominent members of the urological community. These are 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.

Early and rapid prediction of postoperative infections following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with complex kidney stones

Dong Chen*, Chonghe Jiang†, Xiongfa Liang*, Fangling Zhong*, Jian Huang*, Yongping Lin‡, Zhijian Zhao*, Xiaolu Duan*, Guohua Zeng* and Wenqi Wu*

 

*Department of Urology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, †Department of Urology, The People’s Hospital of Qingyuan City, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Qingyuan, and ‡Department of Laboratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Objectives

To obtain more accurate and rapid predictors of postoperative infections following percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in patients with complex kidney stones, and provide evidence for early prevention and treatment of postoperative infections.

Patients and Methods

A total of 802 patients with complex kidney stones who underwent PCNL, from September 2016 to September 2017, were recruited. Urine tests, urine cultures (UCs) and stone cultures (SCs) were performed, and the perioperative data were prospectively recorded.

Results

In all, 19 (2.4%) patients developed postoperative urosepsis. A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that an operating time of ≥100 min, urine test results with both positive urine white blood cells (WBC+) and positive urine nitrite (WBC+NIT+), positive UCs (UC+), and positive SCs (SC+) were independent risk factors of urosepsis. The incidence of postoperative urosepsis was higher in patients with WBC+NIT+ (10%) or patients with both UC+ and SC+ (UC+SC+; 8.3%) than in patients with negative urine test results or negative cultures (P < 0.01). Preoperative WBC+NIT+ was predictive of UC+SC+, with an accuracy of >90%. The main pathogens found in kidney stones were Escherichia coli (44%), Proteus mirabilis (14%) and Staphylococcus (7.4%); whilst the main pathogens found in urine were E. coli (54%), Enterococcus (9.4%) and P. mirabilis (7.6%). The incidence of E. coli was more frequent in the group with urosepsis than in the group without urosepsis (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

WBC+NIT+ in preoperative urine tests could be considered as an early and rapid predictor of UC+SC+ and postoperative urosepsis. Urosepsis following PCNL was strongly associated with E. coli infections in patients with complex kidney stones.

 

Read more Articles of the week

 

 

Editorial: Predicting sepsis after percutaneous nephrolithotomy

/by

In this month’s BJUI, Chen et al. [1] report on a large series of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) procedures from Guangzhou in China. The authors studied patients who developed postoperative urosepsis and looked for any predictive factors that would herald impending sepsis.

In this latest report, the authors analysed 802 patients with complex kidney stones undergoing PCNL in a single centre. ‘Complex’ was defined as complete staghorn, partial staghorn or pelvic stone with at least two calyceal stones. Midstream urines (MSU) were collected and analysed for white blood cells (WBC) and nitrites (NIT). Antibiotics were given preoperatively if the urine culture (UC) was positive for WBC (WBC+) or NIT (NIT+). Standard single‐dose antibiotic was given on induction of anaesthesia and only continued for 48 h if the culture was positive. Stone cultures (SCs) were routinely collected. Of the 802 patients, UCs were positive (UC+) in 171 (21%) and SCs subsequently positive (SC+) in 30%. Postoperatively, 98 (12%) developed a fever, 62 (7.7%) developed systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and 19 (2.4%) developed sepsis as defined by the quick Sequential (sepsis‐related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA).

Multiple factors were significantly associated with sepsis: female sex (79% vs 40%), infection stone (47% vs 21%), long operating time ≥100 min (74% vs 45%), multiple accesses (32% vs 10%), UC+ (63% vs 20%), SC+ (89% vs 29%), fever (74% vs 11%), as well as being both WBC+ and NIT+ (63% vs 13%). Conversely, if WBC and NIT were negative (WBC–NIT–) the risk of sepsis was only 5.3%. On multivariate analysis SC+ (odds ratio [OR] 8.0), operating time ≥100 min (OR 4.4), WBC+ and NIT+ (OR 3.9), UC+ (OR 3.2), were independent risk factors for sepsis. Not surprisingly having UC+, SC+ or both showed a statistically higher incidence of fever, SIRS, and sepsis. Being WBC+ and NIT+ was the best predictor of having both UC+ and SC+ with an impressive 92% sensitivity and 98% specificity.* Similarly, WBC+ and NIT+ was the best predictor of sepsis with 92% sensitivity and 82% specificity. The absolute risk of sepsis was only 0.2% if WBC–NIT–, 2.8% if only one was positive, and 10% if WBC+NIT+.

The authors also report on the bacterial findings of the UCs and SCs. In the SCs, Escherichia coli (44%), Proteus mirabilis (14%) and Staphylococcus (7.4%) were the most common; whilst in the UCs, E. coli (54%), Enterococcus (9.4%) and P. mirabilis (7.6%) were predominant. It is important to remember the potential differences when interpreting UCs preoperatively and to ensure broad‐spectrum cover is given and this justifies the sending of SCs, particularly in high‐risk patients [1].

The recognition of early sepsis is paramount and has been recognised in previous studies leading to the ‘golden hour’, when early aggressive treatment of the infection has been shown to lead to better outcomes [2]. In a large study by Kumar et al. [2], early antimicrobial administration (within the first hour of hypotension from septic shock) led to a higher overall survival; but worryingly, only 50% of patients received appropriate antibiotics within 6 h. Thus, if high‐risk patients could be predicted then closer monitoring, aggressive fluid management, and early broad‐spectrum antibiotics with intensive care support could be targeted at those specific patients.

There are multiple definitions for infection, e.g., sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock, and SIRS. The 2016 International Consensus attempted to clarify these and defined sepsis as ‘A life‐threatening organ dysfunction due to dysregulated host response to infection’ [3]. They found the term ‘severe sepsis’ to be obsolete. Septic shock is defined as ‘a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone’ [3]. The Consensus recommended organ dysfunction is assessed by a SOFA score increase of ≥2, as this is associated with a mortality of 10%. This then led to the bedside assessment clinical score called qSOFA. Poorer outcomes were associated with two or more of the qSOFA criteria: respiratory rate ≥22 breaths/min, altered mentation (as judged by the Glasgow Coma Scale), and systolic blood pressure ≤100 mmHg.

In this current study [1], many of the factors associated with postoperative sepsis are logical and have been demonstrated before, e.g., female sex, infection stone, prolonged operating times, and multiple accesses. This paper has shown that careful attention to the preoperative urine dipstick can provide important prediction of potential severe infective complications postoperatively. In an era of antibiotic stewardship this could help guide targeted preoperative and prolonged postoperative antibiotics for a small group of patients, whilst managing WBC–NIT– patients with standard prophylaxis only. The high‐risk group should also be observed very closely postoperatively and moved to a high‐dependence setting rapidly if clinical signs of sepsis develop. It would also suggest that in this high‐risk group, operating times and intra‐renal pressure should be minimised. It may be that in these patients it is better to use larger tract PCNL sizes to allow rapid fragmentation and evacuation of the stone and that consideration should be given to staged procedures in complicated stones where multiple access is being considered to minimise operating time and allow analysis of intraoperative SCs.

It should of course be remembered that antibiotic decisions should be based on local policies and sensitivities, which may be very different from this population. Rapid treatment of sepsis is paramount and the most recent ‘Hour‐1’ bundle provides the most up‐to‐date guidance for immediate resuscitation and management with lactate management, blood cultures, broad‐spectrum antibiotics, i.v. fluids, and early use of vasopressors if the blood pressure does not respond to fluid replacement [4].

by Matt Bultitude and Kay Thomas

References

  1. Chen, D, Jiang, C, Liang, X et al. Early and rapid prediction for postoperative infections following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with complex kidney stones. BJU Int 2019; 123: 1041– 7
  2. Kumar, A, Roberts, D, Wood, KE et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med 2006; 34: 1589– 96
  3. Singer, M, Deutschman, CS, Seymour, CW et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis‐3). JAMA 2016; 315: 801– 10
  4. Levy, MM, Evans, LE, Rhodes, A. The surviving sepsis campaign bundle: 2018 update. Crit Care Med 2018; 46: 997– 1000

*FileS1; FileS2

 

What’s the diagnosis?

/by

This lady had an incidental finding of severe hydronephrosis on an ultrasound scan.

No such quiz/survey/poll

Resident’s podcast: Palliative care use amongst patients with bladder cancer

/by

Maria Uloko is a Urology Resident at the University of Minnesota Hospital. In this podcast she discusses the following BJUI Article of the Week:

Palliative care use amongst patients with bladder cancer

Read the full article

Abstract

Objectives

To describe the rate and determinants of palliative care use amongst Medicare beneficiaries with bladder cancer and encourage a national dialogue on improving coordinated urological, oncological, and palliative care in patients with genitourinary malignancies.

Patients and methods

Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results‐Medicare data, we identified patients diagnosed with muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) between 2008 and 2013. Our primary outcome was receipt of palliative care, defined as the presence of a claim submitted by a Hospice and Palliative Medicine subspecialist. We examined determinants of palliative care use using logistic regression analysis.

Results

Over the study period, 7303 patients were diagnosed with MIBC and 262 (3.6%) received palliative care. Of 2185 patients with advanced bladder cancer, defined as either T4, N+, or M+ disease, 90 (4.1%) received palliative care. Most patients that received palliative care (>80%, >210/262) did so within 24 months of diagnosis. On multivariable analysis, patients receiving palliative care were more likely to be younger, female, have greater comorbidity, live in the central USA, and have undergone radical cystectomy as opposed to a bladder‐sparing approach. The adjusted probability of receiving palliative care did not significantly change over time.

Conclusions

Palliative care provides a host of benefits for patients with cancer, including improved spirituality, decrease in disease‐specific symptoms, and better functional status. However, despite strong evidence for incorporating palliative care into standard oncological care, use in patients with bladder cancer is low at 4%. This study provides a conservative baseline estimate of current palliative care use and should serve as a foundation to further investigate physician‐, patient‐, and system‐level barriers to this care.

BJUI Podcasts now available on iTunes, subscribe here https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/bju-international/id1309570262

Article of the week: Palliative care use amongst patients with bladder cancer

/by

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 editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community, a video produced by the authors and a visual abstract created by Charles Scott and Nurhan Abbud. These are 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.

Palliative care use among patients with bladder cancer

Lee A. Hugar*, Samia H. Lopa*, Jonathan G. Yabes†, Justin A. Yu‡, Robert M. Turner II*, Mina M. Fam*, Liam C. MacLeod*, Benjamin J. Davies*, Angela B. Smith§¶ and Bruce L. Jacobs*

 

*Department of Urology, †Department of Medicine, ‡Department of Medicine, Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, §Department of Urology and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Objectives

To describe the rate and determinants of palliative care use amongst Medicare beneficiaries with bladder cancer and encourage a national dialogue on improving coordinated urological, oncological, and palliative care in patients with genitourinary malignancies.

Patients and methods

Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results‐Medicare data, we identified patients diagnosed with muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) between 2008 and 2013. Our primary outcome was receipt of palliative care, defined as the presence of a claim submitted by a Hospice and Palliative Medicine subspecialist. We examined determinants of palliative care use using logistic regression analysis.

Fig. 1. Time from diagnosis to receipt of palliative care. The timing of palliative care receipt for those patients who received palliative care (n = 262). Strata with <11 patients were suppressed in accordance with SEER‐Medicare guidelines

Results

Over the study period, 7303 patients were diagnosed with MIBC and 262 (3.6%) received palliative care. Of 2185 patients with advanced bladder cancer, defined as either T4, N+, or M+ disease, 90 (4.1%) received palliative care. Most patients that received palliative care (>80%, >210/262) did so within 24 months of diagnosis. On multivariable analysis, patients receiving palliative care were more likely to be younger, female, have greater comorbidity, live in the central USA, and have undergone radical cystectomy as opposed to a bladder‐sparing approach. The adjusted probability of receiving palliative care did not significantly change over time.

Conclusions

Palliative care provides a host of benefits for patients with cancer, including improved spirituality, decrease in disease‐specific symptoms, and better functional status. However, despite strong evidence for incorporating palliative care into standard oncological care, use in patients with bladder cancer is low at 4%. This study provides a conservative baseline estimate of current palliative care use and should serve as a foundation to further investigate physician‐, patient‐, and system‐level barriers to this care.

 

Read more Articles of the week

 

 

© 2025 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.