lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS)

Posts

Podcast: NICE guidelines on LUTS in men

December 13, 2023/by Admin

Part of the BJUI/BURST podcast series

BJUI – BJU International · BJUI/BURST: NICE guidance on LUTS in men

Arman Zachariah Chacko is in the second year of core surgical training in the Southwest Peninsula Deanery, UK.

In this podcast Arman summarises the NICE guidelines on lower urinary tract symptoms in men, published in 2010 and updated in 2015: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg97.

He is part of BURST urology. British Urology Researchers in Surgical Training (BURST) is a research collaborative primarily of urological researchers in the UK. Their aim is to produce high impact multi-centre audits and research which can improve patient care.

Urodynamics is acceptable and well-tolerated but best practice is not always provided: lessons from male patients interviewed during the UPSTREAM trial

November 15, 2018/by Lucy E. Selman

In a recently published qualitative study, we found that urodynamic testing was acceptable to men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), despite some reporting apprehension, discomfort or embarrassment and, at times, inadequate provision of information. Men’s experiences of urodynamics highlight ways in which clinical practice can be improved, including better communication about what to expect during and after the test, minimising embarrassment by ensuring privacy, and timely discussion of test results in sufficient detail.

Ninety percent of men aged 50‐80 live with at least one LUTS, which can negatively impact quality of life. LUTS prevalence and severity increase with age, and with demographic aging the management of LUTS is an increasing priority. Urodynamics with invasive multichannel cystometry is widely used when medications haven’t successfully relieved symptoms and surgery for bladder outlet obstruction is being considered. But there is ongoing debate about the extent to which urodynamics should be used, reflecting lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of urodynamics and how acceptable it is to patients.

What we did

The Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery: Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods (UPSTREAM) randomised controlled trial is a 4-year study funded by the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (UK). The trial randomised 820 men with LUTS from urology departments in 26 hospitals in England to either a care pathway consisting of non-invasive routine tests, or one of routine tests plus urodynamics. At 18-months after randomisation, UPSTREAM assessed the effect of urodynamics on symptoms and rates of surgery in men with bothersome LUTS seeking further treatment.

In a large qualitative study nested within the UPSTREAM trial, we explored men’s attitudes to and experiences of urodynamics, to provide in‐depth qualitative evidence to inform clinical practice. We interviewed a diverse group of 41 men with LUTS, including those who had had urodynamics and those who had not.

What we found

All 25 men who underwent urodynamics reported that it was acceptable.
Of the 16 men who had not had urodynamics previously, 14 said they would have been willing to have it if needed (with four reporting some apprehension), while two said they would want more information about the test and its purpose.
Among patients who had had urodynamics, the test was well-tolerated, although there was variation in how uncomfortable men found it. Some men experienced short-lived negative after-effects (e.g. stinging, a urinary tract infection), but despite these issues said they would willingly have the test again.
A minority of men reported embarrassment, due to the intimate nature of urodynamics or not being prepared for its effects (e.g. spraying while urinating).
Embarrassment also depended on the degree of privacy available, including the number of people in the room during the test, room location and size (a larger room near a busy corridor was more socially awkward).
Patients valued urodynamics for its diagnostic insight, perceiving it as more informative than other tests. Patients felt that having urodynamics meant they had received all the investigative tests available and so had all possible facts regarding their condition.
Patients described gaps in the information provided by clinicians before, during, and after the test; for example, what to expect when the test was conducted and what the test results meant.
How and when results were explained varied: explanations were given during the test by the technician or nurse undertaking it, from a doctor straight after receiving the test, or at a separate appointment with a doctor a short time later. Men appreciated it when test results were available and discussed with a clinician immediately after the test.
While most men were satisfied with clinicians’ explanation of the results of urodynamics, this was not universal; rushed explanations were highlighted as problematic.

Recommendations

Based on men’s experiences, we recommend:

Good communication before and during the procedure, in line with patient preferences, to ensure patients are well prepared and informed.
Prioritising patient privacy, including minimising the number of people present during the test and introducing the staff members who are present.
Discussing test results with patients promptly, in the amount of detail they wish.
Training and guidance for urology clinicians and urodynamics technicians in these areas.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge and thank the patients and clinicians involved in the UPSTREAM trial as well as the NHS trusts involved. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program (project number 12/140/01). This study was designed and delivered in collaboration with the Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration (BRTC), a UKCRC registered clinical trials unit which, as part of the Bristol Trials Centre, is in receipt of National Institute for Health Research CTU support funding. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the HTA program, NIHR, NHS, or the Department of Health and Social Care.

About the authors:

Dr Selman and Dr Horwood are Senior Research Fellows at University of Bristol, specialising in qualitative research in randomised trials. Twitter: @Lucy_Selman, @JPHorwood

Prof Drake is Professor of Physiological Urology at Bristol Urological Institute, North Bristol NHS Trust, and at Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol. Twitter: @MarcusDrakeUrol, @UroweESU

Dr Amanda Lewis is a Clinical Trial Manager at the University of Bristol, currently working in the area of Urology research. Twitter: @ALBrooks2015

Residents’ Podcast: UK‐ROPE Study

August 1, 2018/1 Comment/by Maria Uloko & Giulia Lane

Maria Uloko is a Urology Resident at the University of Minnesota Hospital and Giulia Lane is a Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Fellow at the University of Michigan

In this podcast they discuss the BJUI Article of the Month ‘Efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an observational study and propensity‐matched comparison with transurethral resection of the prostate (the UK‐ROPE study)’

Efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an observational study and propensity‐matched comparison with transurethral resection of the prostate (the UK‐ROPE study)

Alistair F. Ray*, John Powell†‡, Mark J. Speakman§, Nicholas T. Longford¶, Ranan DasGupta**, Timothy Bryant††, Sachin Modi††, Jonathan Dyer‡‡, Mark Harris‡‡, Grace Carolan-Rees* and Nigel Hacking††

*Cedar, Cardiff University/Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, †Centre for Health Technology Evaluation, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, ‡Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, §Department of Urology, Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust, Taunton, ¶SNTL Statistics Research and Consulting, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, **Department of Urology, St. Mary’s Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, ††Department of Interventional Radiology, and ‡‡Department of Urology, Southampton General Hospital, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK

Read the full article

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization (PAE) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and to conduct an indirect comparison of PAE with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

Patients and Methods

As a joint initiative between the British Society of Interventional Radiologists, the British Association of Urological Surgeons and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, we conducted the UK Register of Prostate Embolization (UK‐ROPE) study, which recruited 305 patients across 17 UK urological/interventional radiology centres, 216 of whom underwent PAE and 89 of whom underwent TURP. The primary outcomes were International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) improvement in the PAE group at 12 months post‐procedure, and complication data post‐PAE. We also aimed to compare IPSS score improvements between the PAE and TURP groups, using non‐inferiority analysis on propensity‐score‐matched patient pairs. The clinical results and urological measurements were performed at clinical sites. IPSS and other questionnaire‐based results were mailed by patients directly to the trial unit managing the study. All data were uploaded centrally to the UK‐ROPE study database.

Results

The results showed that PAE was clinically effective, producing a median 10‐point IPSS improvement from baseline at 12 months post‐procedure. PAE did not appear to be as effective as TURP, which produced a median 15‐point IPSS score improvement at 12 months post‐procedure. These findings are further supported by the propensity score analysis, in which we formed 65 closely matched pairs of patients who underwent PAE and patients who underwent TURP. In terms of IPSS and quality‐of‐life (QoL) improvement, there was no evidence of PAE being non‐inferior to TURP. Patients in the PAE group had a statistically significant improvement in maximum urinary flow rate and prostate volume reduction at 12 months post‐procedure. PAE had a reoperation rate of 5% before 12 months and 15% after 12 months (20% total rate), and a low complication rate. Of 216 patients, one had sepsis, one required a blood transfusion, four had local arterial dissection and four had a groin haematoma. Two patients had non‐target embolization that presented as self‐limiting penile ulcers. Additional patient‐reported outcomes, pain levels and return to normal activities were very encouraging for PAE. Seventy‐one percent of PAE cases were performed as outpatient or day cases. In contrast, 80% of TURP cases required at least 1 night of hospital stay, and the majority required 2 nights.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that PAE provides a clinically and statistically significant improvement in symptoms and QoL, although some of these improvements were greater in the TURP arm. The safety profile and quicker return to normal activities may be seen as highly beneficial by patients considering PAE as an alternative treatment to TURP, with the concomitant advantages of reduced length of hospital stay and need for admission after PAE. PAE is an advanced embolization technique demanding a high level of expertise, and should be performed by experienced interventional radiologists who have been trained and proctored appropriately. The use of cone‐beam computed tomography is encouraged to improve operator confidence and minimize non‐target embolizations. The place of PAE in the care pathway is between that of drugs and surgery, allowing the clinician to tailor treatment to individual patients’ symptoms, requirements and anatomical variation.

Read more articles of the week

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

Video: The Metabolic Syndrome & the Prostate

May 2, 2018/by admin Z.9

Association between metabolic syndrome and intravesical prostatic protrusion in patients with benign prostatic enlargement and lower urinary tract symptoms (MIPS Study)

Read the full article

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the association between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and morphological features of benign prostatic enlargement (BPE), including total prostate volume (TPV), transitional zone volume (TZV) and intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP).

Patients and Methods

Between January 2015 and January 2017, 224 consecutive men aged >50 years presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) suggestive of BPE were recruited to this multicentre cross‐sectional study. MetS was defined according to International Diabetes Federation criteria. Multivariate linear and logistic regression models were performed to verify factors associated with IPP, TZV and TPV.

Results

Patients with MetS were observed to have a significant increase in IPP (P < 0.01), TPV (P < 0.01) and TZV (P = 0.02). On linear regression analysis, adjusted for age and metabolic factors of MetS, we found that high‐density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol was negatively associated with IPP (r = −0.17), TPV (r = −0.19) and TZV (r = −0.17), while hypertension was positively associated with IPP (r = 0.16), TPV (r = 0.19) and TZV (r = 0.16). On multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for age and factors of MetS, hypertension (categorical; odds ratio [OR] 2.95), HDL cholesterol (OR 0.94) and triglycerides (OR 1.01) were independent predictors of TPV ≥ 40 mL. We also found that HDL cholesterol (OR 0.86), hypertension (OR 2.0) and waist circumference (OR 1.09) were significantly associated with TZV ≥ 20 mL. On age‐adjusted logistic regression analysis, MetS was significantly associated with IPP ≥ 10 mm (OR 34.0; P < 0.01), TZV ≥ 20 mL (OR 4.40; P < 0.01) and TPV ≥ 40 mL (OR 5.89; P = 0.03).

Conclusion

We found an association between MetS and BPE, demonstrating a relationship with IPP.

Read more articles of the week

Article of the Week: Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tolterodine 2 mg and 4 mg combined with an alpha-blocker

February 10, 2016/2 Comments/by admin Z.9

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 Dr. Tae Heon Kim, discussing his paper.

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

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tolterodine 2 mg and 4 mg combined with an alpha-blocker in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and overactive bladder: a randomized controlled trial

Tae Heon Kim*, Wonho Jung†, Yoon Seok Suh*, Soonhyun Yook‡, Hyun Hwan Sung* and Kyu-Sung Lee*‡

*Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, †Department of Urology, Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Daegu, and ‡Department of Medical Device Management and Research, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea Tae Heon Kim and Wonho Jung contributed equally to this work.

Read the full article

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-dose (2 mg) tolterodine extended release (ER) with an a-blocker compared with standard-dose (4 mg) tolterodine ER with an α-blocker for the treatment of men with residual storage symptoms after α-blocker monotherapy.

Patients and Methods

The study was a 12-week, single-blind, randomized, parallel group, non-inferiority trial that included men with residual storage symptoms despite receiving at least 4 weeks of α-blocker
treatment. Inclusion criteria were total International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) ≥12, IPSS quality-of-life item score ≥3, and ≥8 micturitions and ≥2 urgency episodes per 24 h. The primary outcome was change in the total IPSS score from baseline. Bladder diary variables, patient-reported
outcomes and safety were also assessed.

Results

Patients were randomly assigned to addition of either 2 mg tolterodine ER (n = 47) or 4 mg tolterodine ER (n = 48) to α-blocker therapy for 12 weeks. Patients in both treatment groups had a significant improvement in total IPSS score (5.5 and 6.3, respectively), micturition per 24 h (1.3 and
1.7, respectively) and nocturia per night (0.4 and 0.4, respectively). Changes in IPSS, bladder diary variables, and patient-reported outcomes were not significantly different between the treatment groups. All interventions were well tolerated by patients.

Conclusions

These results suggest that 12 weeks of low-dose tolterodine ER add-on therapy is similar to standard-dose tolterodine ER add-on therapy in terms of efficacy and safety for patients experiencing residual storage symptoms after receiving α-blocker monotherapy.

Read more articles of the week

Editorial: Should we start with low-dose anti-cholinergics when alpha-blockers alone fail?

February 10, 2016/1 Comment/by Arjun Nambiar

Kim et al. [1] asked the question whether we should start by treating men who have persistent storage LUTS despite α-blocker monotherapy, with a low-dose anti-cholinergic as opposed to the standard dose (given the potentially increased risk of side-effects such as acute urinary retention and high discontinuation rates with the standard dose). It is a valid question, for we know that discontinuation rates with standard doses of anti-cholinergics can be as high as 50% in the first 3 months due to a combination of ineffectiveness and side-effects [2]. However, the problem lies in the multifactorial nature of the causes of storage vs voiding LUTS, and the difficulty in assessing and distinguishing them accurately with our current tools.

The authors have conducted a randomised controlled trial of 2 mg vs 4 mg tolterodine added to the participants’ on-going α-blocker regime and selected reduction in total IPSS as their primary outcome measure. They have also assessed IPSS sub-scores, 3-day bladder diary variables, and the Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) and Overactive Bladder (OAB-q) questionnaires, as secondary outcomes. As would be expected of a peer-reviewed publication the trial has been seemingly well conducted and fairly well reported. Recruitment met the requirement set by the power calculation based on a clinically significant difference of a 4-point drop in total IPSS, and the authors concluded that 2 mg tolterodine is not inferior to the 4 mg dose in achieving a significant reduction in total IPSS at 12 weeks. They also report no difference in patient perception of treatment benefit or satisfaction at this time point.

These results are interesting, especially considering some of the details of the study. First of all, patients were not on the same α-blocker at baseline; the most common was tamsulosin (62.8%), but alfuzosin, doxazosin, and others were also being used. This in itself may not be a problem because all patients continued on the same α-blocker through the study, and in fact this better represents real-world practice. However, the mean (sd) duration of α-blocker therapy at baseline was 9.1 (19.9) months. We know that α-blocker therapy can improve IPSS by up to 30–40% [3], but the pertinent question for this study is whether these patients had achieved this level of improvement initially then stabilised and improved no further, or whether they had no improvement at all? It could conceivably make a difference to participants approach to the IPSS if they were previously familiar with it and, more importantly, aware of their results. The Hawthorne effect, also known as the observer effect, and the related Heisenberg uncertainty principle, are factors that we must necessarily encounter in clinical trials but we sometimes fail to account for.

Another aspect of the study that warrants consideration is the choice of primary outcome itself. This is a particular bug-bear of mine and indeed has been commented on by many authors including in the European Association of Urology (EAU) guideline on urinary incontinence in relation to anti-muscarinics [4]. Outcomes that lend themselves to easier power calculations and statistically significant results have almost evolved to be ‘un’-naturally selected for the purpose of clinical trial primary outcome measures. Drug trials are especially notorious for this. Here again, the choice of the total IPSS to assess whether an anti-muscarinic will help improve persistent storage LUTS is a case in point. Not least because it renders the significance of all the secondary outcomes dependant on the same power calculation. It is no doubt convenient, but is it appropriate? It is easy to point the finger at trialists for this, but the business-like, ‘bottom-line’ nature of medical publishing and research today is equally, if not more, to blame.

Finally, I would like to call the reader’s attention to the difference in baseline urgency and urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) episodes. The author’s state there was no statistically significant difference, but one might argue that when assessing improvement in storage LUTS, a group with a mean (sd) baseline number of UUI episodes of 3.9 (8.6) may perceive improvement quite differently compared with a group with a baseline of 1.6 (1.1). This has borne out in the difference in the bladder diary outcome of UUI/24 h; significant improvement in the first group (who were wetter at baseline and got 4 mg tolterodine) but no difference in the latter group (comparatively drier and got 2 mg tolterodine). But almost paradoxically this does not seem to have made a difference to the patient-reported outcome measures. One possible explanation for this could be the relatively few patients who were incontinent at baseline.Overall this paper gives us a lot of food for thought. The direct result – should we indeed start men with persistent storage LUTS on low-dose anti-cholinergics rather than standard dose, and then titrate upwards? But it also challenges us to consider whether we simply accept researcher’s and sponsor’s decisions on outcome measures. What do you think? Do we simply sit back and accept what is put before us because statistics scares us a little? Or, as researchers and consumers of medical literature, do we struggle to make the hard choices, risk our results being rejected by the top journals, and stand up for good science?

Conflicts of Interest

The author has received a travel grant to attend an international conference from Ferring pharmaceuticals.

Read the full article

Arjun K. Nambiar

Clinical Research Registrar
Department of Urology, Morriston Hospital, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg (ABM) University Local Health Board, Swansea, SA6 6NL, UK

References

1 Kim TH, Jung W, Suh YS, Yook S, Sung HH, Lee KS. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tolterodine 2 mg and 4 mg combined with an a-blocker in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and overactive bladder: a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int 2015; 117: 307–15

2 Lucas MG, Bedretdinova D, Berghmanset LC et al. Guidelines on Urinary Incontinence, Section 4.2.4. In: EAU Guidelines, edition presented at the 30th EAU Annual Congress, Madrid 2015. ISBN 978-90-79754-80-9. Available at: https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/17-Urinary-Incontinence_LR.pdf. Accessed September 2015

3 Gravas S, Bach T, Bachmann A et al. Guidelines on Non-Neurogenic Male LUTS Including Benign Prostatic Obstruction, Section 3C.2. In: EAU Guidelines, edition presented at the 30th EAU Annual Congress, Madrid 2015. ISBN 978-90-79754-80-9. Available at: https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/11-Male-LUTS_LR.pdf. Accessed September 2015

4 Lucas MG, Bedretdinova D, Berghmanset LC et al. Guidelines on Urinary Incontinence, Section 4.2.1. In: EAU Guidelines, edition presented at the 30th EAU Annual Congress, Madrid 2015. ISBN 978-90-79754-80-9. Available at: https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/17- Urinary-Incontinence_LR.pdf. Accessed September 2015

Video: Tolterodine combined with an alpha-blocker in men with LUTS and OAB

February 10, 2016/by admin Z.9

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tolterodine 2 mg and 4 mg combined with an α-blocker in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and overactive bladder: a randomized controlled trial

Tae Heon Kim*, Wonho Jung†, Yoon Seok Suh*, Soonhyun Yook‡, Hyun Hwan Sung*
and Kyu-Sung Lee*‡

Read the full article

Objective

Patients and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Read more articles of the week

The Urological Ten Commandments

September 7, 2015/3 Comments/by Jonathan Glass

“It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

The EAU guidelines on lower urinary tract symptoms have been published recently. These contain 36,000 words. It was pointed out to me that the American declaration of independence contained 1300 words and The Ten Commandments just 179 words.

The challenge was therefore to write ten commandments for urology in 179 words. The rules I set were that I should write them whilst keeping the spirit of the structure of the decalogue as closely as possible. (It may be worth rereading the original before reading on). So here goes.

1) I am a logical specialty. Thou shall investigate thoroughly prior to undertaking intervention for I am a specialty that avoids surprises.
2) Though interested in the whole of medicine thou will perform no other procedures other than urological.
3) Thou shalt not base intervention on old imaging for the clinical situation could have changed.
4) Remember that 80% of diagnoses can be made with history alone. Thou shalt listen carefully to your patient to this end.
5) Honour sound surgical principles. Urological tissue is forgiving but anastamoses under tension will not heal.
6) Thou shall not ignore haematuria.
7) Thou shall not leave a stent and forget it has been placed.
8) Thou shall not adopt new technology without proper clinical evaluation unless it is part of a trial.
9) Thou shall not fail to see the images yourself in assessing the patient before you.
10) Thou shall not fail to assess the potential for harm before embarking on a surgical procedure. If you would not do it to your family, your neighbour or friends, you will not do it to the patient who is in your clinic.

I put these out for discussion. Other offerings please.

Jonathan M. Glass @jonathanmglass1

The Urology Centre, Guy’s Hospital, London, UK.

[email protected]

Could Urolift stand the test of time for LUTS management?

August 4, 2015/by admin Z.9

Several new surgical technologies have been assessed during the last decades in order to improve the management of LUTS (Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms): HoLEP (Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate), HoLAP (Holmium laser ablation of the prostate), TUMT (transurethral microwave therapy), TUNA (transurethral needle ablation), HIFU (high-intensity frequency ultrasound) and more recently Greenlight laser vaporization. All these techniques have been compared to TURP (transurethral resection of the prostate), which it is currently considered as the surgical standard procedure for men with mid-size prostate gland associated with moderate-severe LUTS and obstruction.
This month, the #urojc tribe discussed a multicentric randomized trial of a new surgical treatment option for LUTS caused by prostate enlargement: the Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL), which supposedly reduces the negative effects of other surgical therapies on sexual function. One important controversy of the article is the use of a composite end-point, the BPH6 that includes the assessment of 1) LUTS relief, 2) postoperative recovery experience, 3) erectile function, 4) ejaculatory function, 5) urinary continence preservation and 6) safety, a concept that may resemble the Pentafecta from the surgical treatment of prostate cancer.
The PUL vs TURP – BPH6 study seems to be a well done RCT that accurately follows the CONSORT
statement.

Despite of this, #urojc participants showed reluctance to accept the main outcomes of the study. Interestingly, comments about COI (conflict of interest) and the impact of the industry in manuscripts were mentioned…

People were not completely convinced about using a novel endpoint to compare TURP and PUL… the BPH6 seems to balance the impact of the 6 elements… or perhaps it gave more magnitude to the sexual side effects…

As usual in this #urojc, urologists mentioned specific details about the design and methods of the study…

And participants questioned about why authors emphasized in the manuscript specific points that may favor PUL over TURP…

Good discussion went throughout the 48 hours session, constructive comments about the study, and some other tweets revealed skepticism at this new technique….

And then, @sivanrij evoked the truth about LUTS (by the way, one of the most retweeted/favorited comments)…

Despite being something completely related to the type of health care system, and the specific conditions of each continent or region, costs were compared…

Some experts in PUL shared their thoughts…
Final thoughts were mentioned…

Only time will determine the real success of this novel therapy…

But some questions remain unanswered…

… And helpful references were mentioned…

https://www.bmj.com/content/326/7400/1167

#urojc Commentary on #BPH endpoints “Patients not p-values” by Rees @MattBultitude @CanesDavid @antnoah @soph_cash https://t.co/IMVK6DbAvL — Stacy Loeb, MD (@LoebStacy) July 6, 2015

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=25885560

Classic Barry paper-BPH minimum clinically important difference #urojc @MattBultitude @CanesDavid @antnoah @soph_cash https://t.co/KDdzc0uZpy

— Stacy Loeb, MD (@LoebStacy) July 6, 2015

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7563343

At this time we do not have any treatment options for LUTS/BPO that preserves the ejaculatory function, and PUL may be an option in selected cases; we should accept that it is another option to increase our therapeutic armamentarium…
#urojc demonstrates that Twitter is a powerful tool to share our scientific thoughts all over the world. #urojc gives the opportunity to discuss articles with world-wide experts and authors of the published articles. Following and participating in these discussing definitely opens our minds, expands our medical knowledge and contributes to offer better health care to our patients.

Daniel Olvera-Posada (@OlveraPosada) is a Mexican Urologist, trained at @incmnszmx, currently in his second year of the Endourology Fellowship (@EndourolSoc) at @westernu, in London Ontario, Canada.

Highlights from #BAUS15

June 24, 2015/by Rebecca Tregunna

#BAUS15 started to gain momentum from as early as the 26^th June 2014 and by the time we entered the Manchester Central Convention Complex well over 100 tweets had been made. Of course it wasn’t just Twitter that started early with a group of keen urologists cycling 210 miles to conference in order to raise money for The Urology Foundation.

Monday 15^th June 2015

By the time the cyclists arrived conference was well under way with the andrology, FNUU and academic section meetings taking place on Monday morning:

The BJU International Prize for the Best Academic Paper was awarded to Richard Bryant from the University of Oxford for his work on epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition changes found within the extraprostatic extension component of locally invasive prostate cancers.
Donna Daly from the University of Sheffield received the BJUI John Blandy prize for her work on Botox, demonstrating reductions in afferent bladder signaling and urothelial ATP release.

Professor Reisman’s talk on ‘Porn, Paint and Piercing’ as expected drew in the crowds and due to a staggering 44% complication rate with genital piercings it is important for us to try to manage these without necessarily removing the offending article as this will only serve to prevent those in need from seeking medical attention.
With the worsening worldwide catastrophe of antibiotic resistance, the cycling of antibiotics for prevention of recurrent UTIs is no longer recommended. Instead, Tharani Nitkunan provided convincing evidence for the use of probiotics and D-Mannose.

The afternoon was dominated by the joint oncology and academic session with Professor Noel Clarke presenting the current data from the STAMPEDE trial. Zolendronic acid conferred no survival benefit over hormones alone and consequently has been removed from the trial (stampede 1). However, Docetaxal plus hormones has shown benefit, demonstrated significantly in M1 patients with disease-free survival of 65 months vs. 43 months on hormones alone (Hazard ratio 0.73) (stampede 2). This means that the control arm of M1 patients who are fit for chemotherapy will now need to be started on this treatment as the trial continues to recruit in enzalutamide, abiraterone and metformin arms.

The evening was rounded off with the annual BAUS football tournament won this year by team Manchester (obviously a rigged competition!), whilst some donned the

lycra and set out for a competition at the National Cycle Centre. For those of us not quite so energetic, it was fantastic to catch up with old friends at the welcome drinks reception.

Tuesday 16^th June 2015

Tuesday kicked off bright and early with Professor John Kelly presenting results from the BOXIT clinical trial, which has shown some benefit over standard treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, but with significant cardiovascular toxicity.

The new NICE bladder cancer guidelines were presented with concerns voiced by Professor Marek Babjuk over discharging low-risk bladder cancer at 12 months given a quoted 30-50% five-year recurrence risk. Accurate risk stratification, it would seem, is going to be key.

The President’s address followed along with the presentation of the St. Peter’s medal for notable contribution to the advancement of urology, which was presented to Pat Malone from Southampton General Hospital. Other medal winners included Adrian Joyce who received the BAUS Gold Medal, and the St. Paul’s medal went to Mark Soloway.

A plethora of other sessions ensued but with the help of the new ‘native’ BAUS app my programme was already conveniently arranged in advance:

‘Heartsink Conditions’ included pelvic and testicular pain and a fascinating talk by Dr Gareth Greenslade highlighted the importance of early and motivational referral to pain management services once no cause has been established and our treatments have been exhausted. The patient’s recovery will only start once we have said no to further tests: ‘Fix the thinking’

Poster sessions are now presented as ‘e-posters’, abolishing the need to fiddle with those little pieces of Velcro and allowing for an interactive review of the posters.

Pravisha Ravindra from Nottingham demonstrated that compliance with periodic imaging of patients with asymptomatic small renal calculi (n=147) in primary care is poor, and indeed, these patients may be better managed with symptomatic imaging and re-referral as no patients required intervention based on radiograph changes alone.

Archana Fernando from Guy’s presented a prospective study demonstrating the value of CTPET in the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with retroperitoneal fibrosis (n=35), as well as demonstrating that those with positive PET are twice as likely to respond to steroids.

Wednesday 17^th June 2015

Another new addition to the programme this year was the Section of Endourology ‘as live surgery’ sessions. This was extremely well received and allowed delegates to benefit from observing operating sessions from experts in the field whilst removing the stressful environment and potential for risk to patient associated with live surgery. This also meant that the surgeon was present in the room to answer questions and talk through various steps of the operation allowing for a truly interactive session.
Wednesday saw multiple international speakers dominating the Exchange Auditorium:

The BJU International guest lecture was given by Professor Hendrik Van Poppel: a heartfelt presentation describing what he believes to be the superiority of surgery over radiotherapy for high-risk localised prostate cancer.
The Urology Foundation presented the Research Scholar Medal to Ashwin Sachdeva from Freeman Hospital, Newcastle for his work on the ‘Role of mitochondrial DNA mutations in prostate carcinogenesis’. This was followed by an inspiring guest lecture by Inderbir Gill on ‘Robotic Urologic Oncology: the best is yet to come’ with the tag line ‘the only thing that should be open in 2015 is our minds’
Robotic Surgery in UK Urology: Clinical & Commissioning Priorities was a real highlight in the programme with talks from Jim Adshead and Professor Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg focussing on the fact that only 40% of T1a tumours in the UK were treated with partial (as opposed to radical) nephrectomy, and that the robot really is the ‘game-changer’ for this procedure. Inderbir Gill again took to the stage to stress that all current randomised trials into open vs. robotic cystectomy have used extracorporeal reconstruction and so do not reflect the true benefits of the robotic procedure as the dominant driver of complications is in the open reconstruction.

These lectures were heard by James Palmer, Clinical Director of Specialised Commissioning for NHS England who then discussed difficulties in making decisions to provide new technologies, controlling roll out and removing them if they show no benefit. Clinical commissioning policies are currently being drafted for robotic surgery in kidney and bladder cancer. This led to a lively debate with Professor Alan McNeill having the last word as he pointed out that what urologists spend on the robot to potentially cure cancer is a drop in the ocean compared with what the oncologists spend to palliate!

Thursday 18^th June 2015

The BJU International session on evidence-based urology highlighted the need for high-quality evidence, especially in convincing commissioners to spend in a cash-strapped NHS. Professor Philipp Dahm presented a recent review in the Journal of Urology indicated that the quality of systematic reviews in four major urological journals was sub-standard. Assistant Professor Alessandro Volpe then reviewed the current evidence behind partial nephrectomy and different approaches to this procedure.

Another fantastic technology, which BAUS adopted this year, was the BOD-POD which allowed delegates to catch-up on sessions in the two main auditoria that they may have missed due to perhaps being in one of the 21 well designed teaching courses that were available this year. Many of these will soon be live on the BAUS website for members to view.

The IBUS and BAUS joint session included a lecture from Manoj Monga from The Cleveland Clinic, which led to the question being posed on Twitter: ‘Are you a duster or a basketer?’The audience was also advised to always stent a patient after using an access sheath unless the patient was pre-stented.

The updates session is always valuable especially for those studying for the FRCS (Urol) exam with far too many headlines to completely cover:

Endourology: The SUSPEND trial published earlier this year was a large multi-centre RCT that showed no difference in terms of rates of spontaneous passage of ureteric stone, time to stone passage or analgesic use between placebo, tamsulosin and nifedipine. There was a hot debate on this: should we be waiting for the meta-analysis or should a trial of this size and design be enough to change practice?
Oncology-Prostate: The Klotz et al., paper showed active surveillance can avoid over treatment, with 98% prostate cancer survival at 10 years.
Oncology-Kidney: Ellimah Mensah’s team from Imperial College London (presented at BAUS earlier in the week) demonstrated that over a 14-year period there were a higher number of cardiovascular-related admissions to hospital in patients who have had T1 renal tumours resected than the general population, but no difference between those who have had partial or radical nephrectomy.
Oncology-Bladder: Arends’s team presented at EAU in March on the favourable results of hyperthermic mitomycin C vs. BCG in the treatment of intermediate- and high-risk bladder cancer.
Female and BPH: The BESIDE study has demonstrated increased efficacy with combination solifenacin and mirabegron.
Andrology: Currently recruiting in the UK is the MASTER RCT to evaluate synthetic sling vs. artificial sphincter in men with post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence.

Overall BAUS yet again put on a varied and enjoyable meeting. The atmosphere was fantastic and the organisers should be proud of the new additions in terms of allowing delegates to engage with new technologies, making for a memorable week. See you all in Liverpool!

Rebecca Tregunna, Urological Trainee, West Midlands Deanery @rebeccatregunna

Dominic Hodgson, Consultant Urologist, Portsmouth @hodgson_dominic