Tag: BJUI Blog

Posts

The times they are a-changin’

February 15, 2017/2 Comments/by Prokar Dasgupta

The other day, as the New York Times was getting excited about Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan new album ‘Triplicate’, I had the opportunity of remembering one of his classic songs. Let me explain. I turned up at the School of Surgery in central London for an academic committee meeting early that morning only to find that it had been cancelled. Due to a IT problem the email with this information never reached me! Rather than brave the London tube again, I decided to walk back to my hospital, which took me past my old hospital which sadly no longer exists.

The old hospital in question was The Middlesex Hospital in Mortimer Street, London (Fig.1). The original institution was built in 1745 at Windmill Street and moved in 1757 to Mortimer Street. I arrived there over 20 years ago to train at the Institute of Urology/St. Peter’s Hospital, a highly desirable post amongst surgical residents.

The Middlesex Hospital was closed in 2005 and sold to developers. It now houses swanky apartments and businesses around a beautiful Pearson Square, named after John Loughborough Pearson, who designed the Fitzrovia Chapel (Fig. 2) in 1890 inside the hospital. The Chapel survived the redevelopment as it is a protected building. So did one of the walls of the old hospital along Nassau Street which housed the radiotherapy building (Fig. 3). That facade has been preserved beautifully although there are no patients housed behind it anymore (Fig. 4).

So why I am telling you all this? Nostalgia you may say. But in fact much more. The 3 mile walk that morning allowed me to reflect on my own contribution to science and that of two friends who although slightly ahead of me in the training program at The Middlesex Hospital are gentlemen that I greatly admire.

One is Mark Emberton, now Professor at UCL, who has, through the PROMIS study, established the use of MRI prior to prostate biopsies rather than random TRUS biopsies for patients with a raised PSA. The other is David Ralph, an acclaimed Andrologist, who has just published our Priapism Guidelines, a must read for everyone managing this emergency. There is no doubt that both have made significant contributions to British Urology and patient care in the last 20 years during which so many things have changed.

As for me, I headed to Queen Square from The Middlesex Hospital, where many years of basic research in a Medical Research Council (MRC) funded lab led to the description of the so called “Dasgupta technique” of injecting Botox into overactive bladders. I was pleasantly surprised to hear that it had made its way into a number of texts including Smith’s Textbook of Endourology.

There are however certain things that do not change much. Next to the Middlesex Hospital, on Cleveland Street was the legendary Ragam’s (Fig. 5), which many would regard as THE go to South Indian restaurant. The masala dosa (pancake with spicy potatoes and hot lentil soup) used to cost £3.95 in 1994; 20 years later the price has gone up by only £2 to £5.95 (Fig. 6), while the quality remains as outstanding as ever.

Prokar Dasgupta @prokarurol

Editor-in-Chief, BJUI

5th International Neuro-Urology Meeting (INUM)

February 1, 2017/by Thomas Kessler

The Annual Congress of the International Neuro-Urology Society (INUS), organized by the Swiss Continence Foundation (SCF)

Neurogenic urinary tract, sexual and bowel dysfunction is highly prevalent and affects the lives of millions of people worldwide. It has a major impact on quality of life and, besides the debilitating manifestations for patients, it also imposes a substantial economic burden on every healthcare system.

It was a great honour and pleasure to organize the 5^th International Neuro-Urology Meeting (INUM), which took place from 25-28 January 2017, in Zürich, Switzerland. We are proud to announce that the International Neuro-Urology Meeting, organized under the umbrella of the Swiss Continence Foundation (www.swisscontinencefoundation.ch), has become the official annual congress of the International Neuro-Urology Society (INUS, www.neuro-uro.org), a charitable, non-profit organization aiming to promote all areas of Neuro-Urology at a global level and whose inauguration was inspired during the last INUMs.

The world’s leading experts in Neuro-Urology provided an overview on the latest advances in research and clinical practice of this rapidly developing and exciting discipline. This unique meeting combined state-of-the-art lectures, lively panel discussions, and hands-on workshops with emphasis placed on interactive components. There were many opportunities to exchange thoughts, experiences and ideas and also to make new friendship.

The Swiss Continence Foundation Award: To promote the next generation of outstanding young researchers and clinicians who represent the future of Neuro-Urology, the prestigious Swiss Continence Foundation Award of 10’000 Swiss francs was awarded to the best contribution from a young Neuro-Urology talent: Marc Schneider from Zürich, Switzerland, convinced the international jury with the presentation of his PhD project “Anti-Nogo-A antibodies as a potential causal treatment for neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction after spinal cord injury”. He demonstrated in an animal model that intrathecally applied antibodies against the central nervous system protein Nogo-A which inhibits nerve fibre growth had beneficial effects on lower urinary tract dysfunction in rats with incomplete spinal cord injury by re-establishing a physiological micturition and preventing detrusor sphincter dyssynergia. This effect presumably occurs due to neuronal re-wiring of descending micturition circuits facilitated by the anti-Nogo-A antibodies. Anti-Nogo-A immunotherapy enters currently clinical trials in humans and could become a unique causal treatment option for lower urinary tract dysfunction in patients with incomplete spinal cord injury.

One of many other highlights was the joint presentation of the EAU Secretary General Christopher R. Chapple and the BJUI Editor-in-Chief Prokar Dasgupta on the challenging topic “What should the neuro-urologist learn from the onco-urologist and vice-versa?”

Finally, we are delighted to announce the 6^th International Neuro-Urology Meeting to be held in Zürich, 25 to 28 January 2018. Save the date! For details please visit: www.swisscontinencefoundation.ch. We are looking forward to seeing you in Zürich!

Thomas M. Kessler, SCF Chairman and INUS Vice-President

Ulrich Mehnert, SCF Vice-Chairman and INUS Treasurer

January 2017 Editorial: Infographics

January 5, 2017/by admin Z.9

‘A picture is worth a thousand words’ is an English idiom that has been in use for over a 100 years. Never has it been truer than in the age of social media, when fans are perhaps more interested in ‘selfies’ with their celebrity superstars than in their autographs!

With this in mind, we at the BJUI launched infographics last year for some of our very best papers. And what a success it has been based on the positive responses from our avid readers on Twitter. The titles of the articles that were selected for this format were:

Oncological and functional outcomes 1 year after radical prostatectomy for very-low-risk prostate cancer: results from the prospective LAPPRO trial [1].
Nephron-sparing surgery across a nation – outcomes from the British Association of Urological Surgeons 2012 national partial nephrectomy audit [2].
Oral enclomiphene citrate raises testosterone and preserves sperm counts in obese hypogonadal men, unlike topical testosterone: restoration instead of replacement [3].

All three featured amongst the list of the top 20 papers with most page views on www.bjui.org and the top 10 most downloaded articles from Wiley online library (WOL), reaching a figure of >2500. This compares well to our most downloaded ‘Guideline of Guidelines’on thromboprophylaxis [4] at 2264. The infographics lay out clear messages on important topics in a concise manner and have undeniable appeal to busy clinicians, who often have just a few valuable minutes to keep abreast with the latest highlights (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Extract of infographics for the Fernando et al. [2] paper ‘Nephron-sparing surgery across a nation – outcomes from the British Association of Urological Surgeons 2012 national partial nephrectomy audit’. NSS, nephron-sparing surgery.

We also thought we would kick off the New Year with Guidelines on minimally invasive adrenalectomy from the International Consultation on Urological Diseases (ICUD) consultation [5]. And of course the ‘hot topic’ of enhanced recovery to try and reduce the length of stay for our cystectomy patients without increasing complications or readmission rates [6].

We are looking forward to engaging with you with more infographics in 2017.

Prokar Dasgupta, BJUI Editor-in-Chief

King’s Health Partners, London, UK

References

Carlsson S, Jaderling F, Wallerstedt A et al. Oncological and functional outcomes 1 year after radical prostatectomy for very-low-risk prostate cancer: results from the prospective LAPPRO trial. BJU Int 2016; 118: 205–12
Fernando A, Fowler S, O’Brien T, British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS). Nephron-sparing surgery across a nation – outcomes from the British Association of Urological Surgeons 2012 national partial nephrectomy audit. BJU Int 2016; 117: 874–82
Kim ED, McCullough A, Kaminetsky J. Oral enclomiphene citrate raises testosterone and preserves sperm counts in obese hypogonadal men, unlike topical testosterone: restoration instead of replacement. BJU Int 2016; 117: 677–85
Violette PD, Cartwright R, Briel M, Tikkinen KA, Guyatt GH. Guideline of guidelines: thromboprophylaxis for urological surgery. BJU Int 2016; 118: 351–8
Ball MW, Hemal AK, Allaf ME. International Consultation on Urological Diseases and European Association of Urology International Consultation on Minimally Invasive Surgery in Urology: laparoscopic and robotic adrenalectomy. BJU Int 2017; 119: 13–21
Baack Kukreja JE, Kiernan M, Schempp B et al. Quality improvement in cystectomy care with enhanced recovery (QUICCER study). BJU Int 2017; 119: 38–49

See more infographics

Immunotherapy in urological malignancies: can you take your knowledge to the next level?

October 12, 2016/by John Davis

In this month’s issue of the BJUI, we highlight the evolving era of immunotherapy in solid tumour therapy. As urological surgeons, we spend a large portion of our time working with anatomy, instruments, and robots – things we can see, touch, and control. Immunotherapy is a different conversation – cartoon pathways, process blockades, molecular expression levels, combination therapies, and treatment resistance. Curing a patient with a successful operation is a major draw to our field, but we know our limitations when faced with lethal variant prostate cancer, and high-grade/high-stage bladder and kidney cancers in particular. Systemic therapies have been around for decades and are part of our guidelines – so why all the excitement over immunotherapy?

Our highlighted articles are a review from Mataraza and Gotwals [1] and a comment from Elhage et al. [2]. I urge you to start with the review article [1] and give it a full line-by-line read. You may need to pull out pen and paper, and practice spelling and pronouncing a number of new compounds. They may sound as awkward as abiraterone did the first time you heard of it years ago but will eventually become familiar and attached to yet another catchy trade name from pharma. Here is a quick list/homework assignment: ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, pidilizumab, atezolizumab. Another 20 or more are in development. Challenge yourself to write out their pathways, and you may re-learn a thing or two about familiar agents like sipuleucel-T, interferon α, and interleukin 2.

A major theme in both articles is the experience with immunotherapy in advanced melanoma. The enticing message is that a cohort of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ipilimumab survived 3 years and the Kaplan–Meier curves plateau out to 10 years. This observation sparks different possible futures such as immune ‘memory’, durable response, and ultimately the word we like to use in surgery – cure.

The picture in urological cancers is not entirely as rosy as the melanoma Kaplan–Meier curve. Multiple trials are highlighted by our review with familiar themes of single agent trials, combination immunotherapies, and combined immunotherapy plus anti-angiogenesis agents. Many trials enrol heavily pre-treated populations with limited remaining options. Many endpoints still observe responses followed by resistance patterns. An important theme to follow is the coupling of biomarkers that link expression to treatment response (i.e. predictive vs prognostic), and the USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved such a biomarker for nivolumab response. However, even this story line is perplexing, as drug response is not always linked to the marker, and immune cell expression may be ‘inducible and dynamic’ [1].

Last step – re-read the review and comment articles and see if you can write down some key agenda items for future immunotherapy. How are checkpoint inhibitors different from vaccines? How do we generate a durable immune response? What is the ‘abscopal effect’? What are three major areas of research and development in immunotherapy?

If you can spend the time on these articles and ponder these challenging questions, you will move up to the next level of understanding and enjoy a greater appreciation of the next abstract you hear at a major meeting. In closing, I am reminded of the oft-repeated words from the hit television show Game of Thrones (based on the novels of George R.R. Martin) from the House Stark: ‘Winter is Coming’. In urological oncology, ‘Immunotherapy is Coming’, so be prepared!

John W. Davis

BJUI Associate Editor Urological Oncology

References

1 Mataraza JM, Gotwals P. Recent advances in immuno-oncology and its application to urological cancers. BJU Int 2016; 118: 506– 14

2 Elhage O, Galustian C , Dasgupta P. Immune checkpoint blockade – a treatment for urological cancers? BJU Int 2016; 118: 498–505

Asia-Pacific Prostate Cancer Conference 2016 Highlights

September 8, 2016/1 Comment/by admin Z.9

After briefly venturing to tropical Cairns in 2015, the Asia-Pacific Prostate Cancer Conference returned to its traditional home in Melbourne for its 17th edition in 2016 (#APCC16). The meeting has previously featured the who’s who of prostate cancer and this year was no different with an all-star multidisciplinary faculty consisting of 18 international members in addition to our local experts. The meeting was well attended by over the 750 delegates from all parts of the globe and remains one of the largest prostate cancer educational events worldwide.

Conference president Professor Tony Costello opened the conference with the famous Whitmore aphorisms and outlined the impressive progress and discoveries we have made in the field over the last century. The first case of prostate cancer was described in 1853 in the London Hospital and was noted by the surgeon to be a “very rare disease” whereas now it is known to be the most commonly diagnosed malignancy amongst men. Pleasingly, research and emphasis on men’s health has grown with the disease highlighted by the newly completed, world-class Parkville Biomedical precinct in Melbourne, which includes “The Royal Men’s Hospital” (@APCR). Melbourne’s Lord Mayor (@LordMayorMelb) also dropped-by to reiterate his support for the meeting and the advancements made in men’s health.

In what is becoming an annual tradition, honourary Melbournian and Australian, Dr Stacy Loeb (@LoebStacy) once again got the sessions off to a flying start by delivering the ‘prostate cancer year in review’ which was an excellent overview of the abstracts produced over the last 12 months. The male attendees in particular were excited by the recent paper suggesting that more than 21 ejaculations per month acted as a protective factor for the development of prostate cancer. Although confounding factors may have played a role in the association seen, these were easily over-looked and its results were accepted as gospel and promoted as a public health message. The abstract featured the following day on the home page of The Australian Financial Review (https://www.afr.com/lifestyle/health/mens-health/tell-your-partner-frequency-counts-even-against-cancer-20160831-gr5fs4) – who knew that the answer to the world economic problems was so simple!

The meeting did however become more scientific as we heard from a range of international and local experts on the challenges of trying to find the balance of precision oncology in a time of tumour heterogeneity. It was clear that the future has arrived with recent advances in the field of genomics and biomarkers. These discoveries appear to be only the tip of the iceberg and further research holds the key in understanding tumour behavior in order to tailor treatment on a patient-to-patient level. Having witnessed a variety of experts from all parts of the globe present their finding there is little doubt that a major breakthrough is just around the corner. A special mention to Dr Niall Corcoran whose research was of such high quality that A/Prof Henry Woo (@DrHWoo) raised the white flag early in the Melbourne vs. Sydney inter-city rivalry.

The named lectures of #APCC16 were highlights of the conference. Keeping with the theme of the first morning, Dr Martin Gleave delivered the 4^th Patrick C Walsh lecture titled ‘Two Tales of Precision Oncology.” Prof Peter Wiklund gave the inaugural ERUS lecture on the role of surgery for high risk and metastatic prostate cancer.

It wouldn’t have been a prostate cancer conference without the age-old debate of surgery vs. radiotherapy being revisited. Over three days Dr Robert Nam presented a series of talks on Canadian long-term outcomes and meta-analysis showing favourable results for team surgery. He also predicted that the highly anticipated ProtecT randomised trial due in the NEJM would show no difference ensuring the debate prolongs into the future and vowed to “eat my shorts” if the trial demonstrated a result favouring either modality. Dr John Violet flew the flag strongly for radiation oncologists in presenting the promising outcomes for 177Lu-PSMA in the mCRPC setting. Similarly, Dr Andrew Kneebone presented a compelling case for stereotactic radiation for oligometastatic disease.

Imaging of the prostate was a hot topic throughout the conference. The excitement around PSMA-PET was at a climax following The Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre’s (@VCCC) experience that was presented by Associate Professors Michael Hofman (@DrMHofman) and Nathan Lawrentschuk (@lawrentschuk). The proceeding panel discussion focused on how to best utilise the technology and the role it currently plays in the prostate cancer landscape. Despite not being FDA approved, its role in evaluating recurrence appears to be entrenched with data to support its superiority over other modalities but it was also proposed that it might have a place in initial staging of high-risk cancer. The advancement of PSMA over conventional imaging also raised the question of how we now interpret previous trials such as CHAARTED and STAMPEDE whose results are based on superseded technology.

The hype surrounding PSMA-PET only just eclipsed that of mpMRI in the imaging landscape. Professor Philip Stricker presented a nomogram, which integrated MRI in determining who to biopsy and Dr Rob Reiter reported a terrific novel study of using 3D modeling to compare MRI results to final histopathology to determine correlation but did caution us with performing targeted biopsies alone which risks missing clinically significant cancers. Dr Nam also chimed in with a pilot study of using MRI as a screening test.

Suspense was built until Friday for the highly anticipated session on open vs. robotic surgery featuring the first presentation of the Brisbane RCT. The results of the trial have been already widely debated in the urological community and a discussion similar to the recent BJUI blog (https://www.bjuinternational.com/bjui-blog/its-not-about-the-machine-stupid/) ensued. Regardless of individual opinions on the trial, there is no dispute about the volume of work required to conduct a surgical randomised trial and there was wide praise for the efforts of the Brisbane team. Prof Peter Wiklund and Dr Homi Zargar (@hzargar) also reported the Swedish and Victorian experience respectively. The overall consensus was that robotic surgery offers the benefit of minimally invasive surgery but it is the surgeon rather than the modality, which has the most significant impact on outcomes.

There was a strong multi-disciplinary theme throughout the conference. The Nursing & Allied Health and Translational Science streams both had strong contingents attending. The quality of research presented and engagement amongst attendee was of the highest standard. This was exemplified by the session ‘MDT 2020’, which was a case-centred discussion by a panel of experts from a variety of professions and highlighted the value of a multidisciplinary approach in patient care.

The social program of #APCC16 was not overshadowed by its academic counterpart. The conference dinner was held at The Glasshouse where the food was exquisite and entertainment was provided by three waiters come tenors. Their classical renditions were received by guests with napkin twirling and swinging wine glasses. The frivolities were thoroughly enjoyed by all.

The final day of the conference was highlighted by the masterclasses. The 6th da Vinci© Prostatectomy Masterclass was convened by Drs Daniel Moon (@DrDanielMoon) and Geoff Coughlin and featured international faculty involvement by Dr John Davis (@jhdavis) and Professors Thalman and Wiklund. Considering the hype surrounding MRI it was no surprise that the 3^rd Prostate MRI Imaging and Biopsy masterclass reached capacity many months ago. It should also be mentioned that the sponsored satellite meetings and breakfast sessions in the previous days which starred Dr Stacy Loeb, Dr Tia Higano (@thigano), Dr Jaspreet Sandhu, Prof Bertrand Tombal (@BertrandTOMBAL) and Genevieve Muir-Smith drew large numbers of attendees.

We would like to congratulate all attendees and their teams on the abstracts presented throughout the conference. The BJUI once again proudly supported the meeting with all accepted abstracts published in a special supplements issue and BJUI Associate Editors Declan Murphy (@declanmurphy), John Davis, and Nathan Lawrentschuk being prominent figures throughout the conference. A special mention to the poster prize winners from this year:

Clinical Urology: Jonathan Kam – Do multi-parametric MRI guided biopsies add value to the standard systematic prostate needle biopsy? – early experience in an Australian regional centre
Nursing & Allied Health: Thea Richardson – An Androgen Deprivation Therapy Clinic: An integrative approach to treatment
Translational Science: Natalie Kurganovs – Identifying the origins and drivers of castration resistant prostate cancer

On behalf of all the delegates, we thank the entire international and local faculty who shared their knowledge over the conference and devote their time to improving men’s health. Furthermore, meetings such as this would not occur without the unheralded behind the scenes work. We extend our thanks to president Prof Costello, the convenors of the streams (A/Prof Declan Murphy, Dr Niall Corcoran, A/Prof Chris Hovens, Ms Helen Crowe (@helenrcrowe) & Mr Dave Gray (@DavidGrayAust)) and the APCC committee. We also graciously thank our sponsors without whom none of this would be possible and are vital to further advancements in men’s health.

Last but not least, given the rich history of social media seen at this conference, it would be remiss not to acknowledge another #SoMe landmark. Melbourne has previously been responsible in welcoming urology SoMe royalty, Dr Stacy Loeb, to the twitter world and this year the twitterati were introduced to Dr Peter Carroll (@pcarroll_). He managed to send out 4 tweets and eclipse 100 followers before the end of the conference.

#APCC17 will return to Melbourne on 30^th of August 2017 – we hope to see you there!

Dr Niranjan Sathianathen (@NiranjanJS) is a researcher at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne.

Randomised Controlled Trials in Robotic Surgery

August 17, 2016/by admin Z.9

It has been nearly 15 years since one of the first ever randomised controlled trials (RCT) in robotic surgery was conducted in 2002. The STAR-TRAK compared telerobotic percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) to standard PCNL and showed that the robot was slower but more accurate than the human hand [1].

In the 24 h since the much anticipated RCT of open vs robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was published in The Lancet [2], our BJUI blog from @declangmurphy was viewed >2500 times, receiving >40 comments, making it one of our most read and interactive blogs ever. It is a negative trial showing no differences in early functional outcomes between the two approaches.

And it is not the only negative trial of its kind as a number of others have matured and reported recently. The RCT of open vs robot-assisted radical cystectomy and extracorporeal urinary diversion showed no differences in the two arms [3], and likewise a comparison of the two approaches to cystectomy as a prelude to the RAZOR (randomised open vs robotic cystectomy) trial showed no differences in quality of life at 3-monthly time points up to a year [4]. The only RCT comparing open, laparoscopic and robotic cystectomy, the CORAL, took a long time to recruit and yet again showed no differences in 90-day complication rates between the three techniques [5].

In all likelihood, despite the level 1 evidence provided in The Lancet paper showing no superiority of the robotic over the open approach, the Brisbane study may not change the current dominance of robotic prostatectomy in those countries who can afford this technology. Why is this? Apart from the inherent limitations that the BJUI blog identifies, there are other factors to consider. In particular, as observed previously in a memorable article ‘Why don’t Mercedes Benz publish randomised trials?’ [6], there may be reasons why surgical technique is not always suited to the RCT format.

A few additional reflections are perhaps appropriate at this time:

Despite the best statistical input many of these and future studies are perhaps underpowered.
Many have argued that the RCTs have shown robotics to be as good, although not better than open surgery, even in the hands of less experienced surgeons.
Patient reported quality of life should perhaps become the primary outcome measure because that in the end that is what truly matters.
Cost-effectiveness ratios should feature prominently, as otherwise there is much speculation by the lay press without any hard data.
Industry has a role to play here in keeping costs manageable, so that these ratios can become more palatable to payers.
Surgery is more of an art than a science. The best surgeons armed with the best technology that they are comfortable with will achieve the best outcomes for their patients.

While this debate will continue and influence national healthcare providers and decision makers, the message looks much clearer when it comes to training the next generation of robotic surgeons. A cognitive- and performance-based RCT using a device to simulate vesico-urethral anastomosis after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) showed a clear advantage in favour of such structured training [7]. In this months’ issue of the BJUI, we present the first predictive validity of robotic simulation showing better clinical performance of RARP in patients [8]. This is a major step forward in patient safety and would reassure policy makers that investment in simulation of robotic technology rather than the traditional unstructured training is the way forward.

Most of our patients are knowledgeable, extensively research their options on ‘Dr Google’ and decide what is good for them. It is for this reason that many did not agree to randomisation in other robotic vs open surgery RCTs, like LopeRA (RCT of laparoscopic, open and robot assisted prostatectomy as treatment for organ-confined prostate cancer) and BOLERO (Bladder cancer: Open vs Lapararoscopic or RObotic cystectomy). Many of them continue to choose robotic surgery without necessarily paying heed to the best scientific evidence. Perhaps what patients will now do is select an experienced surgeon whom they can trust to use their best technology to deliver the best clinical outcomes.

Prokar Dasgupta @prokarurol

Editor-in-Chief, BJUI

@declangmurphy
Associate Editor BJUI

References

1 Challacombe B, Patriciu A, Glass J et al. A randomized controlled trial of human versus robotic and telerobotic access to the kidney as the ﬁrst step in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Comput Aided Surg 2005; 10: 165–71

2 Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambe rs SK et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 2016 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30592-X

3 Bochner BH, Sjoberg DD, Laudone VP, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Bladder Cancer Surgical Trials Group. A randomized trial of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy. N Engl J Med 2014; 371:389–90

Messer JC, Punnen S , Fitzgerald J et al. Health-related quality of life from a

prospective randomised clinical trial of robot-assisted laparoscopic vs open radical cystectomy. BJU Int 2014; 114: 896–902

Khan MS, Gan C, Ahmed K et al. A single-centre early phase randomised controlled three-arm trial of open, robotic, and laparoscopic radical cystectomy (CORAL). Eur Urol 2016; 69: 613–21

6 O’Brien T, Viney R , Doherty A, Thomas K. Why don’t Mercedes Benz publish

randomised trials? BJU Int 2010; 105 : 293–5

7 Chowriappa A, Raza SJ, Fazili A et al. Augmented-reality-based skills training for robot-assisted urethrovesical anastomosis: a multi- institutional randomised controlled trial. BJU Int 2015; 115: 336–45

8 Aghazadeh MA, Mercado MA, Pan MM , Miles BJ, Goh AC. Performance of

robotic simulated skills tasks is positively associated with clinical robotic surgical performance. BJU Int 2016; 118: 4 75 –81

The impact factor may be flawed but important

August 11, 2016/2 Comments/by Prokar Dasgupta

It has been a nice summer for the BJUI. Our impact factor has gone up to 4.387, the highest ever in the history of the Journal and we made the Altmetrics Top 50 for the first time ever with a score of 1166, Nature being the numero uno. I wanted to thank our editorial team, readers, authors and reviewers for their dedication and commitment, which made this possible.

The question is how did we do this? For a journal without official society guidelines, it was not easy. So we had to focus on original articles rather than reviews and guidelines. There were three essential steps:

Publishing the highest quality, citable papers irrespective of geographical location [1] – for example, this month we have highlighted the importance of personalised medicine in BPH from Taiwan [2], whereby the authors show that an endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) genetic polymorphism has a negative impact on response to α-blockers.
Reducing the number of papers published while selecting clinically relevant, large prospective studies and trials – an example of this is the LAParoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open (LAPPRO) study from Sweden [3], showing that even in very-low-risk prostate cancer, upgrading after radical prostatectomy occurs in over a third of patients and that the functional outcomes are not as good as expected.
Amplifying our content through social media – this means that we believe in interaction with a wider audience, immediacy of response, and are not afraid of the occasional controversy and debate. An example is the comment on clostridium histolyticum collagenase followed by a brief editorial on what may increasingly be seen as an important treatment option for Peyronie’s disease [4].

Many consider the impact factor of a journal as a ‘gaming’ exercise, flawed by its very nature. I was very pleased to receive a WhatsApp from one of my colleagues saying how pleased he was that at the BJUI we have always played ‘with a straight bat’. An important consideration is that Universities often count original papers in the best journals for measuring academic output, which in turn drives income from various sources. In the UK this is given the term ‘returnable’ when considered within a system called the Research Excellence Framework. I am really pleased that the BJUI is now ‘returnable’ with its new impact factor and is seen as a serious player within a highly demanding system. I am aware that this also true for other international institutions, which is in keeping with our global presence as a journal without boundaries.

Prokar Dasgupta @prokarurol

Editor-in-Chief, BJUI

References

1 Dasgupta P. Quality has no boundaries. BJU Int 2014; 113: 1

2 Lee Y-C, Juan Y-S, Liu C-C et al. The association of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) G894T gene polymorphism with responsiveness to a selective a 1-blocker in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia related lower urinary tract symptoms. BJU Int 2016; 118: 313–19

3 Carlsson S, Jaderling F, Wallerstedt A et al. Oncological and functional outcomes 1 year after radical prostatectomy for very low risk prostate cancer. Results from the prospective LAPPRO trial. BJU Int 2016; 118: 205–12

4 Poullis C, Shabbir M, Eardley I, Mulhall J, Minhas S. Clostridium histolyticum collagenase – Is this revolutionary medical treatment for Peyronie’s disease? BJU Int 2016; 118: 186–92

Urology in Zomba, Malawi. Reflecting on surgical care in a Resource-Limited country

June 28, 2016/13 Comments/by Rajiv Singal

At the recent AUA meeting in San Diego as at all of our major meetings, a tremendous amount of data was presented and technology displayed to advance our specialty. Walking through exhibit hall one sees an expensive bauble at every turn. The advancement of urology over the last 50 years has been remarkable. We have a lot to be proud of. I think we have the most interesting, exciting specially in all of medicine. Urologist are generally technophiles and have always loved to push surgical procedures to new heights. From robotics, lasers and endourology to advancing the molecular understanding of disease, urologists have always aimed to drive the bus.

As many of you know, I am on a short trip to Malawi Africa. I have written about this elsewhere. I am here on one hand as a board member for Dignitas International. On the surgical side it is not a mission under the guise of anyone but rather my own personal attempt to understand what urology and surgery in a resource poor country might look like. I have been here in Zomba, Malawi and working at Zomba Central Hospital, which is one of four central hospitals in the country.

A goal has been to try and assess what the basic urological needs might be in this part of the world and see how I could help bridge the gap, whether it would be with equipment, external manpower or ultimately by improving training and leaving something sustainable. I optimistically set out, confident in my abilities to eventually network and bring colleagues together and establish over time a reasonable urology program that at least resembles something familiar. I have the COSECSA guidelines on what it takes to establish a training program at my side. Perhaps nothing illustrates what a daunting task this will be like my days in surgery this week.

To start with, a typical OR at ZCH requires some refocusing compared to what I am used to. My DaVinci robot is nowhere to be seen

I made ward rounds with my clinical officer yesterday and lined up several TUR type cases to try and do, with men bleeding from bladder tumours (all invariably Bilharzial disease) as well as men in retention. Some have had catheters for months, even years.

First there is the set up. No discussion about lasers and lifts or any other such fun. We don’t even have the 3L irrigation bags. For my irrigation set up, with a little water and some chlorine pucks we are ready to go.

My first patient was a TURBT. A very large, incompletely resected lesion, actively bleeding. I clearly left disease behind but perhaps he won’t bleed for a while. The tissue will not be sent to pathology. Patients need to pay 16,000 MWK for it. The typical pay for many is 20,000-30000/month and 1$USD=700 MWK. Managing him from any even rudimentary oncological perspective is a non-starter.

The second patient also had a bladder tumour. It was palpable as a mass to just under the skin. Again, the goal was to stop some bleeding, at least for a few weeks. He almost certainly has metastatic disease but I have no way to image and know for sure. I did order a chest xray to look for obvious pulmonary nodules. He will eventually just quietly die.

Before I could start a third case I found myself in the gynecology OR 2 weeks after a hysterectomy post-delivery for bleeding. Following an injury, the left ureter was leaking. I attempted the repair as best as I could with no proper light, no electrocautery no retractors and no ability to stent my freshly re-implanted ureter. All of this on an HIV+ve new mother. I hope it heals open. I am not sure if it will. I have come to understand that ureteral injuries are a not uncommon consequence of obstetrical care in Malawi.

My third patient had a TURP which was fairly straightforward. He should hopefully void assuming reasonable residual bladder function. He has had a catheter in place for months.

At least we did do some work Thursday. On Tuesday my four patient list turned into one as my anesthetist did not attend. Before surgical care can be improved, the critical shortage of anesthesia care has to also be addressed. I also wrote about that earlier.

I did bring a surgery checklist to ZCH on Tuesday.

And Thursday in follow up, I gave a talk to the surgical team about checklists and so that is certainly good.

They keep asking me to see men in the clinic with catheters. With the inefficiencies of late start times, anesthesia shortages and only a week to go, most will get left behind. It is really a depressing thought.

My OR team though is there to help and keen to learn.

Daniel, Rex (T Rex) and Maryeuster

As I reflect on my experience in the operating room during week one I am struck by how discordant what I saw in San Diego was from the realities still faced in much of the world. Basic endoscopic equipment does not exist. Serendipitously, a retired colleague of mine did bring some basic equipment a few months ago and this one set, washed and then resterilized (in a pail of chlorinated water) is all that we have. I am still not clear what happens when the loops wear out.

I do question when we pull millions of dollars and much intellectual capital into improving technology and chasing robots as to what are we really doing to benefit the care of our urological patients on a global scale. Do we have some obligation as champions of mens’ health and urologic care more broadly, to play a part? I do wonder whether some of our intellectual energy and financial resources could be better spent simply bringing parts of this world even into the 1970s. If this was valued as worthy of academic support and promotion the way oncology, endourology and everything else is in our specialty is, then some of the bright young minds in our field might move this along further. Whether we do a robot prostatectomy retroperitoneally or intraperitoneally, debate about a Rocco stitch or tweak this or do that, these changes are often incremental at best. Supine versus prone PCNL? Who cares. Other parts of the world I think deserve some of our high-level expertise to meet their complex challenges. I would invite the urological community to try and collectively address this problem. Should we keep pouring all of our massive resources only to steady, incremental benefit? Clearly we always must advance the body of knowledge and the state of the art. However, is there a role for reserving some resource and energy to advocate for simpler things that could affect a change on the order of several magnitudes? Some of the easier things we might do is to at least act as advocates and lead some process change whether it be a surgical checklist, counting instruments and sutures pre and post operatively and ensure better preoperative screening and post-operative care. Updating equipment and building surgical expertise necessarily follows.

Laser TURP? Plasma button? Urolift? The men in Malawi and much of Africa would be happy just to get rid of their catheters.

We often joke about our ‘first world problems’. It’s time to get serious.

Let’s do better.

Dr Rajiv Singal is a Urologist at Michael Garron Hospital and an Assistant Professor in the Department of Surgery at the University of Toronto

Follow him on Twitter at @DrRKSingal

To read more about Dr Singal’s experience in Malawi follow this link https://www.rajivsingal.com/blogCategories/view/malawi-june-2016/

Consensus guidelines for reporting prostate cancer Gleason Grade

June 7, 2016/by Prokar Dasgupta

The International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) has endorsed modifications to the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer [1]. Five Grade Groups have been defined with tumors of Grade Group 1 being the least aggressive and having the lowest likelihood of progression, whereas those of Grade Group 5 have the highest likelihood of early systemic spread. This new system provides clearer guidance for pathologists to classify cancers on the basis of gland morphology, and it aligns better with contemporary management including active surveillance.

The editors of the major uro-oncology journals believe this is a helpful change for clinicians, researchers, and patients alike and are eager to help this system establish itself in the reporting of pathologic grade. To that end we are now asking investigators to use the new system in the reporting of prostate cancers in their publications. As the Grade Groups correspond to current Gleason scores 6, 3+4, 4+3, 8, 9 and 10, the translation should be relatively simple. Over the next one to two years, side-by-side reporting of old and new histology may temporarily be necessary. We do recognize that some institutional and national databases are not set up to make the translation and exceptions will be granted in these cases.

Anthony Zietman, Editor-in-Chief*, Joseph Smith, Editor†, Eric Klein , Editor-in-Chief‡, Michael Droller, Editor-in-Chief§, Prokar Dasgupta, Editor-in-Chief¶ and James Catto, Editor-in-Chief**

*International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, †Journal of Urology, ‡Urology, §Urologic Oncology, ¶BJUI and **European Urology

Reference

1 Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference of Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2016; 40: 244–52

West Coast Urology: Highlights from the AUA 2016 in San Diego… Part 2

May 12, 2016/1 Comment/by Jonathan Makanjuola

By Ben Challacombe (@benchallacombe) and Jonathan Makanjuola (@jonmakurology)

The AUA meeting was starting to hot up with the anticipation of the Crossfire sessions, PSA screening and the MET debate that appeared to rumble on. We attended the MUSIC (Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative) session. It is a fantastic physician led program including >200 urologists, which aims to improve the quality of care for men with urological diseases. It is a forum for urologists across Michigan, USA to come together to collect clinical data, share best practices and implement evidence based quality improvement activities. One of their projects is crowd reviewing of RALP by international experts for quality of the nerve spare in order to improve surgical outcomes.

The MET debate continues to cause controversy. In the UK there has been almost uniform abandonment of the use of tamsulosin for ureteric stones following The Lancet SUSPEND RCT.

The MET crossfire debate was eagerly awaited. The debate was led by James N’Dow (@NDowJames) arguing against and Philipp Dahm (@EBMUrology) in favour of MET. Many have criticised the SUSPEND paper for lack of CT confirmation of stone passage. Dr Matlaga (@BrianMatlaga) stated that comparing previous studies of MET to SUSPEND is like comparing apples to oranges due to different outcome measures. He recommended urologists continue MET until more data is published. More conflicting statements were made suggesting that MET is effective in all patients especially for large stones in the ureter. The AUA guidelines update was released and stated that MET can be offered for distal ureteric stones less than 10mm.

In a packed Endourology video session there were many high quality video presentations. One such video was a demonstration of the robotic management for a missed JJ ureteric stent. Khurshid Ghani (@peepeeDoctor) presented a video demonstrating the pop-corning and pop-dusting technique with a 100w laser machine.

One of the highlights of the Sunday was the panel discussion plenary session, Screening for Prostate Cancer: Past, Present and Future. In a packed auditorium Stacy Loeb (@LoebStacy), gave an excellent overview of PSA screening with present techniques including phi, 4K and targeted biopsies. Freddie Hamdy looked into the crystal ball and gave a talk on future directions of PSA testing and three important research questions that still needed to be answered. Dr. Catalona presented the data on PSA screening and the impact of the PLCO trial. He argued that due to inaccurate reporting, national organisations should restore PSA screening as he felt it saved lives.

There was a twitter competition for residents and fellows requiring participants to tweet an answer to a previously tweeted question including the hashtag #scopesmart and #aua16. The prize was Apple Watch. Some of the questions asked included; who performed the 1st fURS? And what is the depth of penetration of the Holmium laser?

UK trainees picked up the prizes on the first two days.

The British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) / BJU International (BJUI) / Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ) session was a real highlight of day three of the AUA meeting. There were high quality talks from opinion leaders in their sub specialities. Freddie Hamdy from Oxford University outlined early thoughts from the protecT study and the likely direction of travel for management of clinically localised prostate cancer. Prof Emberton (@EmbertonMark) summarised the current evidence for the role of MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis including his thoughts on the on going PROMIS trial. Hashim Ahmed was asked if HIFU was ready for the primetime and bought us up to speed with the latest evidence.

The eagerly awaited RCT comparing open prostatectomy vs RALP by the Brisbane group was summarised with regards to study design and inclusion criteria. It is due for publication on the 18th May 2016 so there was a restriction of presenting results. Dr Coughlin left the audience wanting more despite Prof. Dasgupta’s best effort to get a sneak preview of the results! We learnt from BAUS president Mark Speakman (@Parabolics) about the UK effort to improve the quality of national outcomes database for a number of index urological procedures.

Oliver Wiseman (@OJWiseman) gave us a flavour of outcomes from the BAUS national PCNL database and how they are trying drive up standards to improve patient care. A paediatric surgery update was given by Dr Gundeti. The outcomes of another trial comparing open vs laparoscopic vs RALP was presented. There was no difference in outcomes between the treatment modalities but Prof. Fydenburg summarised by saying that the surgeon was more important determinant of outcome than the tool. Stacy Loeb closed the meeting with an excellent overview of the use of twitter in Urology, followed by a drinks reception.

It was not all about stones and robots. The results of the Refractory Overactive Bladder: Sacral NEuromodulation vs. BoTulinum Toxin Assessment (ROSETTA) trial results were presented. Botox came out on top against neuromodulation in urgency urinary incontinence episodes over 6 months, as well as other lower urinary tract symptoms.

The late breaking abstract session presented by Stacy Loeb highlighted a paper suggesting a 56% reduction in high-grade prostate cancer for men on long term testosterone. This was a controversial abstract and generated a lot of discussion on social media.

It has been an excellent meeting in San Diego and we caught up with old and met new friends. It was nice to meet urologists from across the globe with differing priorities and pressures. There was a good British, Irish and Australian contingent flying the flag for their respective countries. It was another record-breaking year for the #AUA16 on twitter. It surpassed the stats for #AUA15 with over 30M impressions, 16,659 tweets 2,377 participants. See you all in Boston for AUA 2017.