Best Current Practice and Research Priorities in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer-A Report of a Movember International Consensus Meeting.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is recommended for low-risk and some intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Uptake and practice of AS vary significantly across different settings, as does the experience of surveillance-from which tests are offered, and to the levels of psychological support. OBJECTIVE: To explore the current best practice and determine the most important research priorities in AS for prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A formal consensus process was followed, with an international expert panel of purposively sampled participants across a range of health care professionals and researchers, and those with lived experience of prostate cancer. Statements regarding the practice of AS and potential research priorities spanning the patient journey from surveillance to initiating treatment were developed. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Panel members scored each statement on a Likert scale. The group median score and measure of consensus were presented to participants prior to discussion and rescoring at panel meetings. Current best practice and future research priorities were identified, agreed upon, and finally ranked by panel members. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There was consensus agreement that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which allows digital rectal examination (DRE) to be omitted, that repeat standard biopsy can be omitted when MRI and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics are stable, and that changes in PSA or DRE should prompt MRI ± biopsy rather than immediate active treatment. The highest ranked research priority was a dynamic, risk-adjusted AS approach, reducing testing for those at the least risk of progression. Improving the tests used in surveillance, ensuring equity of access and experience across different patients and settings, and improving information and communication between and within clinicians and patients were also high priorities. Limitations include the use of a limited number of panel members for practical reasons. CONCLUSIONS: The current best practice in AS includes the use of high-quality MRI to avoid DRE and as the first assessment for changes in PSA, with omission of repeat standard biopsy when PSA and MRI are stable. Development of a robust, dynamic, risk-adapted approach to surveillance is the highest research priority in AS for prostate cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: A diverse group of experts in active surveillance, including a broad range of health care professionals and researchers and those with lived experience of prostate cancer, agreed that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging, which can allow digital rectal examination and some biopsies to be omitted. The highest research priority in active surveillance research was identified as the development of a dynamic, risk-adjusted approach.

Recurrence pattern in localized RCC: results from a European multicenter database (RECUR).

INTRODUCTION: The impact of open versus minimally invasive surgery on recurrence pattern in the management of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains uncertain. We thus aimed to determine the impact of surgical approach on survival and recurrence pattern. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a multi-institutional, matched cohort study on patients with pT1-3aN0M0 RCC from the RECUR database. After propensity score matching between open and minimally invasive surgery, disease-free (DFS) survival and risk of first recurrence according to recurrence site, namely local recurrence, abdominal/retroperitoneal, thoracic/mediastinal or uncommon site metastases were investigated with Cox regression analysis. Overall (OS) and Cancer Specific Survival (CSS) were also assessed. RESULTS: After matching, 1,019 patients who underwent open and 1,019 who underwent minimally invasive surgery were included (of which 70 robot-assisted). At 5.2 years of median follow-up, 130 patients in open and 125 in minimally invasive group experienced disease progression. A higher risk of local recurrence (HR 2.06; 95% CI 1.18-3.58, P-value = 0.01) and uncommon site metastases (HR 1.09; 95% CI 1.01-1.16; P-value = .04) was found for minimally invasive surgery relative to open surgery, while no difference was found in terms of DFS (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.64-1.06; P-value = .14). No differences were found in terms of OS and CSS. Main limitation is the retrospective nature of the study. CONCLUSIONS: The risk for local recurrence and uncommon site metastases was higher for minimally invasive surgery compared to open surgery, although no differences were found for OS, CSS, and DFS.

Prostate Cancer Detection Percentages of Repeat Biopsy in Patients with Positive Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert 3-5) and Negative Initial Biopsy. A Mini Systematic Review.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has high sensitivity but low specificity for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. The aim of our systematic review was to investigate the proportion of PCa found at a repeat biopsy in patients with a negative initial prostate biopsy, despite initial positive mpMRI. Included patients had a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS)/Likert 3-5 lesion on mpMRI prior to the initial mpMRI-targeted prostate biopsy, which was negative for PCa on histology. The main outcomes were the overall and clinically significant PCa (csPCa; International Society of Urological Pathology >1 or any provided definition) percentages at a repeat biopsy. Out of 1179 articles identified, nine studies were included (a total of 485 patients). For patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions, overall and csPCa detection percentages ranged from 0% to 80% and from 0% to 20%, respectively, while for patients with PI-RADS ≥4 lesions, the corresponding percentages were 15.4-86% and 7.7-57%. An overall cancer detection percentage of 87.5% was reported in patients with Likert 5 lesions. Limitation of our review is the small number of studies and the protocol revision that allowed studies with <50 patients. In patients with a positive MRI result and a negative initial MRI-targeted biopsy, we suggest MRI re-reading and follow-up with repeat mpMRI or the standard repeat biopsy in cases at the highest risk. PATIENT SUMMARY: Literature has shown that in men with an abnormal prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan but a normal biopsy, a significant prostate cancer can be present. MRI scans should be double checked, followed by standard checkups or repeat prostate biopsy, especially in highly suspicious cases.

European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: The 2022 Update.

CONTEXT: The European Association of Urology (EAU) Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) Guideline Panel has prepared evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for the management of RCC. OBJECTIVE: To present a summary of the 2022 RCC guideline, which is based on a standardised methodology including systematic reviews (SRs) and provides transparent and reliable evidence for the management of RCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: For the 2022 update, a new literature search was carried out with a cutoff date of May 28, 2021, covering the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. The data search focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective or controlled comparator-arm studies, SRs, and meta-analyses. Evidence synthesis was conducted using modified GRADE criteria as outlined for all the EAU guidelines. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: All chapters of the RCC guideline were updated on the basis of a structured literature assessment, and clinical practice recommendations were developed. The majority of the studies included were retrospective with matched or unmatched cohorts and were based on single- or multi-institution data or national registries. The exception was systemic treatment of metastatic RCC, for which there are several large RCTs, resulting in recommendations that are based on higher levels of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The 2022 RCC guidelines have been updated by a multidisciplinary panel of experts using the highest methodological standards. These guidelines provide the most reliable contemporary evidence base for the management of RCC in 2022. PATIENT SUMMARY: The European Association of Urology panel for guidelines on kidney cancer has thoroughly evaluated the research data available to establish up-to-date international standards for the care of patients with kidney cancer.

Updating and Integrating Core Outcome Sets for Localised, Locally Advanced, Metastatic, and Nonmetastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: An Update from the PIONEER Consortium.

CONTEXT: Harmonisation of outcome reporting and definitions for clinical trials and routine patient records can enable health care systems to provide more efficient outcome-driven and patient-centred interventions. We report on the work of the PIONEER Consortium in this context for prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To update and integrate existing core outcome sets (COS) for PCa for the different stages of the disease, assess their applicability, and develop standardised definitions of prioritised outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We followed a four-stage process involving: (1) systematic reviews; (2) qualitative interviews; (3) expert group meetings to agree standardised terminologies; and (4) recommendations for the most appropriate definitions of clinician-reported outcomes. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Following four systematic reviews, a multinational interview study, and expert group consensus meetings, we defined the most clinically suitable definitions for (1) COS for localised and locally advanced PCa and (2) COS for metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa. No new outcomes were identified in our COS for localised and locally advanced PCa. For our COS for metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa, nine new core outcomes were identified. CONCLUSIONS: These are the first COS for PCa for which the definitions of prioritised outcomes have been surveyed in a systematic, transparent, and replicable way. This is also the first time that outcome definitions across all prostate cancer COS have been agreed on by a multidisciplinary expert group and recommended for use in research and clinical practice. To limit heterogeneity across research, these COS should be recommended for future effectiveness trials, systematic reviews, guidelines and clinical practice of localised and metastatic PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patient outcomes after treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) are difficult to compare because of variability. To allow better use of data from patients with PCa, the PIONEER Consortium has standardised and recommended outcomes (and their definitions) that should be collected as a minimum in all future studies.

Systematic Review of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer to Develop Recommendations Regarding Inclusion of Intermediate-risk Disease, Biopsy Characteristics at Inclusion and Monitoring, and Surveillance Repeat Biopsy Strategy.

CONTEXT: There is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate criteria for recruitment, monitoring, and reclassification in active surveillance (AS) protocols for localised prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To perform a qualitative systematic review (SR) to issue recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and repeat biopsy strategy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A protocol-driven, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-adhering SR incorporating AS protocols published from January 1990 to October 2020 was performed. The main outcomes were criteria for inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, monitoring, reclassification, and repeat biopsy strategies (per protocol and/or triggered). Clinical effectiveness data were not assessed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of the 17 011 articles identified, 333 studies incorporating 375 AS protocols, recruiting 264 852 patients, were included. Only a minority of protocols included the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for recruitment (n = 17), follow-up (n = 47), and reclassification (n = 26). More than 50% of protocols included patients with intermediate or high-risk disease, whilst 44.1% of protocols excluded low-risk patients with more than three positive cores, and 39% of protocols excluded patients with core involvement (CI) >50% per core. Of the protocols, ≥80% mandated a confirmatory transrectal ultrasound biopsy; 72% (n = 189) of protocols mandated per-protocol repeat biopsies, with 20% performing this annually and 25% every 2 yr. Only 27 protocols (10.3%) mandated triggered biopsies, with 74% of these protocols defining progression or changes on MRI as triggers for repeat biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: For AS protocols in which the use of MRI is not mandatory or absent, we recommend the following: (1) AS can be considered in patients with low-volume International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 (three or fewer positive cores and cancer involvement ≤50% CI per core) or another single element of intermediate-risk disease, and patients with ISUP 3 should be excluded; (2) per-protocol confirmatory prostate biopsies should be performed within 2 yr, and per-protocol surveillance repeat biopsies should be performed at least once every 3 yr for the first 10 yr; and (3) for patients with low-volume, low-risk disease at recruitment, if repeat systematic biopsies reveal more than three positive cores or maximum CI >50% per core, they should be monitored closely for evidence of adverse features (eg, upgrading); patients with ISUP 2 disease with increased core positivity and/or CI to similar thresholds should be reclassified. PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined the literature to issue new recommendations on active surveillance (AS) for managing localised prostate cancer. The recommendations include setting criteria for including men with more aggressive disease (intermediate-risk disease), setting thresholds for close monitoring of men with low-risk but more extensive disease, and determining when to perform repeat biopsies (within 2 yr and 3 yearly thereafter).

Patient- and Tumour-related Prognostic Factors for Urinary Incontinence After Radical Prostatectomy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: While urinary incontinence (UI) commonly occurs after radical prostatectomy (RP), it is unclear what factors increase the risk of UI development. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of patient- and tumour-related prognostic factors for post-RP UI. The primary outcome was UI within 3 mo after RP. Secondary outcomes included UI at 3-12 mo and ≥12 mo after RP. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Databases including Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched between January 1990 and May 2020. All studies reporting patient- and tumour-related prognostic factors in univariable or multivariable analyses were included. Surgical factors were excluded. Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding assessments were performed using the Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for all prognostic factor, where possible. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 119 studies (5 randomised controlled trials, 24 prospective, 88 retrospective, and 2 case-control studies) with 131 379 patients were included. RoB was high for study participation and confounding; moderate to high for statistical analysis, study attrition, and prognostic factor measurement; and low for outcome measurements. Significant prognostic factors for postoperative UI within 3 mo after RP were age (odds ratio [OR] per yearly increase 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.05), membranous urethral length (MUL; OR per 1-mm increase 0.81, 95% CI 0.74-0.88), prostate volume (PV; OR per 1-ml increase 1.005, 95% CI 1.000-1.011), and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI; OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.09-1.50). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing age, shorter MUL, greater PV, and higher CCI are independent prognostic factors for UI within 3 mo after RP, with all except CCI remaining prognostic at 3-12 mo. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the literature to identify patient and disease factors associated with urinary incontinence after surgery for prostate cancer. We found increasing age, larger prostate volume, shorter length of a section of the urethra (membranous urethra), and lower fitness were associated with worse urinary incontinence for the first 3 mo after surgery, with all except lower fitness remaining predictive at 3-12 mo.

Evaluation of Oncological Outcomes and Data Quality in Studies Assessing Nerve-sparing Versus Non-Nerve-sparing Radical Prostatectomy in Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Surgical techniques aimed at preserving the neurovascular bundles during radical prostatectomy (RP) have been proposed to improve functional outcomes. However, it remains unclear if nerve-sparing (NS) surgery adversely affects oncological metrics. OBJECTIVE: To explore the oncological safety of NS versus non-NS (NNS) surgery and to identify factors affecting the oncological outcomes of NS surgery. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant databases were searched for English language articles published between January 1, 1990 and May 8, 2020. Comparative studies for patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PCa) treated with primary RP were included. NS and NNS techniques were compared. The main outcomes were side-specific positive surgical margins (ssPSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding assessments were performed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Out of 1573 articles identified, 18 studies recruiting a total of 21 654 patients were included. The overall RoB and confounding were high across all domains. The most common selection criteria for NS RP identified were characteristic of low-risk disease, including low core-biopsy involvement. Seven studies evaluated the link with ssPSM and showed an increase in ssPSM after adjustment for side-specific confounders, with the relative risk for NS RP ranging from 1.50 to 1.53. Thirteen papers assessing BCR showed no difference in outcomes with at least 12 mo of follow-up. Lack of data prevented any subgroup analysis for potentially important variables. The definitions of NS were heterogeneous and poorly described in most studies. CONCLUSIONS: Current data revealed an association between NS surgery and an increase in the risk of ssPSM. This did not translate into a negative impact on BCR, although follow-up was short and many men harbored low-risk PCa. There are significant knowledge gaps in terms of how various patient, disease, and surgical factors affect outcomes. Adequately powered and well-designed prospective trials and cohort studies accounting for these issues with long-term follow-up are recommended. PATIENT SUMMARY: Neurovascular bundles (NVBs) are structures containing nerves and blood vessels. The NVBs close to the prostate are responsible for erections. We reviewed the literature to determine if a technique to preserve the NVBs during removal of the prostate causes worse cancer outcomes. We found that NVB preservation was poorly defined but, if applied, was associated with a higher risk of cancer at the margins of the tissue removed, even in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. The long-term importance of this finding for patients is unclear. More data are needed to provide recommendations.

2021 Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines on the Use of Adjuvant Pembrolizumab for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Adjuvant treatment of nonmetastatic high-risk renal cell carcinoma is an unmet medical need. In the past, several tyrosine kinase inhibitor trials have failed to demonstrate an improvement of disease-free survival (DFS) in this setting. Only one trial (S-TRAC) provided evidence for improved DFS with sunitinib but without an overall survival (OS) signal. Keynote-564 is the first trial of an immune checkpoint inhibitor that significantly improved DFS with adjuvant pembrolizumab, a programmed death receptor-1 antibody, in clear cell renal cell carcinoma with a high risk of relapse. The intention-to-treat population, which included a group of patients after metastasectomy and no evidence of disease (M1 NED), had a significant DFS benefit. The OS data are not mature as yet. The Renal Cell Carcinoma Guideline Panel issues a weak recommendation for the adjuvant use of pembrolizumab for high-risk clear cell renal carcinoma, as defined by the trial until final OS data are available. However, the trial reilluminates the discussion on when and in whom metastasectomy should be performed. Here, caution is necessary not to perform metastasectomy in patients with poor prognostic features and rapid progressive disease, which must be excluded by a confirmatory scan of disease status prior to planned metastasectomy. PATIENT SUMMARY: New data from the adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor trial with pembrolizumab (a programmed death receptor-1 antibody) for the treatment of high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) after surgery showed that the drug prolonged the period of being cancer free significantly, although whether it prolonged survival remained uncertain. Consequently, pembrolizumab is cautiously recommended as additional (ie, adjuvant) treatment in high-risk ccRCC after kidney cancer surgery.

The 2021 Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-based Combination Therapies for Treatment-naive Metastatic Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Are Standard of Care.

The recent randomized controlled phase III CLEAR trial results are the last to complement immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based doublet combination therapies for treatment-naïve metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. The CLEAR trial demonstrated an improved progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and an objective response rate (ORR) benefit for the combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib. The CheckMate-9ER trial update demonstrated an ongoing PFS, OS, and quality-of-life benefit for cabozantinib plus nivolumab over sunitinib as did the update of Keynote-426 for axitinib plus pembrolizumab in the intention-to-treat population, with a PFS benefit seen across all International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) subgroups. In the IMDC intermediate- and poor-risk groups, the CheckMate-214 trial of ipilimumab plus nivolumab confirmed the OS benefit with a PFS plateauing after 30 months. The RCC Guidelines Panel recommends three tyrosine kinase inhibitors + ICI combinations of axitinib plus pembrolizumab, cabozantinib plus nivolumab, and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab across all IMDC risk groups in advanced first-line RCC, and dual immunotherapy of ipilimumab and nivolumab in IMDC intermediate- and poor-risk groups. PATIENT SUMMARY: New data from combination trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced kidney cancer confirm a survival benefit for lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, cabozantinib plus nivolumab (with improved quality-of-life), axitinib plus pembrolizumab, and ipilimumab plus nivolumab. These combination therapies are recommended as first-line treatment for advanced kidney cancer.

A Systematic Review of the Impact of Surgeon and Hospital Caseload Volume on Oncological and Nononcological Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer.

CONTEXT: The impact of surgeon and hospital volume on outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) for localised prostate cancer (PCa) remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review on the association between surgeon or hospital volume and oncological and nononcological outcomes following RP for PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. All comparative studies for nonmetastatic PCa patients treated with RP published between January 1990 and May 2020 were included. For inclusion, studies had to compare hospital or surgeon volume, defined as caseload per unit time. Main outcomes included oncological (including prostate-specific antigen persistence, positive surgical margin [PSM], biochemical recurrence, local and distant recurrence, and cancer-specific and overall survival) and nononcological (perioperative complications including need for blood transfusion, conversion to open procedure and within 90-d death, and continence and erectile function) outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding assessments were undertaken. Both a narrative and a quantitative synthesis were planned if the data allowed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Sixty retrospective comparative studies were included. Generally, increasing surgeon and hospital volumes were associated with lower rates of mortality, PSM, adjuvant or salvage therapies, and perioperative complications. Combining group size cut-offs as used in the included studies, the median threshold for hospital volume at which outcomes start to diverge is 86 (interquartile range [IQR] 35-100) cases per year. In addition, above this threshold, the higher the caseload, the better the outcomes, especially for PSM. RoB and confounding were high for most domains. CONCLUSIONS: Higher surgeon and hospital volumes for RP are associated with lower rates of PSMs, adjuvant or salvage therapies, and perioperative complications. This association becomes apparent from a caseload of >86 (IQR 35-100) per year and may further improve hereafter. Both high- and low-volume centres should measure their outcomes, make them publicly available, and improve their quality of care if needed. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the literature to determine whether the number of prostate cancer operations (radical prostatectomy) performed in a hospital affects the outcomes of surgery. We found that, overall, hospitals with a higher number of operations per year have better outcomes in terms of cancer recurrence and complications during or after hospitalisation. However, it must be noted that surgeons working in hospitals with lower annual operations can still achieve similar or even better outcomes. Therefore, making hospital's outcome data publicly available should be promoted internationally, so that patients can make an informed decision where they want to be treated.

Should patients with low-risk renal cell carcinoma be followed differently after nephron-sparing surgery vs radical nephrectomy?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether pT1 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should be followed differently after partial (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) based on a retrospective analysis of a multicentre database (RECUR). SUBJECTS: A retrospective study was conducted in 3380 patients treated for nonmetastatic RCC between January 2006 and December 2011 across 15 centres from 10 countries, as part of the RECUR database project. For patients with pT1 clear-cell RCC, patterns of recurrence were compared between RN and PN according to recurrence site. Univariate and multivariate models were used to evaluate the association between surgical approach and recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM). RESULTS: From the database 1995 patients were identified as low-risk patients (pT1, pN0, pNx), of whom 1055 (52.9%) underwent PN. On multivariate analysis, features associated with worse RFS included tumour size (hazard ratio [HR] 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.39; P < 0.001), nuclear grade (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.73-3.08; P < 0.001), tumour necrosis (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.03-2.3; P = 0.037), vascular invasion (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3-4.4; P = 0.005) and positive surgical margins (HR 4.4, 95% CI 2.3-8.5; P < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis of CSM revealed that the survival of patients with recurrence after PN was significantly better than those with recurrence after RN (P = 0.02). While the above-mentioned risk factors were associated with prognosis, type of surgery alone was not an independent prognostic variable for RFS nor CSM. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that follow-up protocols should not rely solely on stage and type of primary surgery. An optimized regimen should also include validated risk factors rather than type of surgery alone to select the best imaging method and to avoid unnecessary imaging. A follow-up of more than 3 years should be considered in patients with pT1 tumours after RN. A novel follow-up strategy is proposed.

Shockwave Lithotripsy Versus Ureteroscopic Treatment as Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter (TISU): A Multicentre Randomised Controlled Non-inferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Renal stone disease is common and can cause emergency presentation with acute pain due to ureteric colic. International guidelines have stated the need for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine whether a non-invasive outpatient (shockwave lithotripsy [SWL]) or surgical (ureteroscopy [URS]) intervention should be the first-line treatment for those needing active intervention. This has implications for shaping clinical pathways. OBJECTIVE: To report a pragmatic multicentre non-inferiority RCT comparing SWL with URS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This trial tested for non-inferiority of up to two sessions of SWL compared with URS as initial treatment for ureteric stones requiring intervention. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was whether further intervention was required to clear the stone, and secondary outcomes included quality of life assessment, severity of pain, and serious complications; these were based on questionnaires at baseline, 8 wk, and 6 mo. We included patients over 16 yr with a single ureteric stone clinically deemed to require intervention. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were planned. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The study recruited between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2017. We recruited 613 participants from a total of 1291 eligible patients, randomising 306 to SWL and 307 to URS. Sixty-seven patients (22.1%) in the SWL arm needed further treatment compared with 31 patients (10.3%) in the URS arm. The absolute risk difference was 11.7% (95% confidence interval 5.6%, 17.8%) in favour of URS, which was inside the 20% threshold we set for demonstrating noninferiority of SWL. CONCLUSIONS: This RCT was designed to test whether SWL is non-inferior to URS and confirmed this; although SWL is an outpatient noninvasive treatment with potential advantages both for patients and for reducing the use of inpatient health care resources, the trial showed a benefit in overall clinical outcomes with URS compared with SWL, reflecting contemporary practice. The Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter (TISU) study provides new evidence to help guide the choice of modality for this common health condition. PATIENT SUMMARY: We present the largest trial comparing ureteroscopy versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteric stones. While ureteroscopy had marginally improved outcome in terms of stone clearance, as expected, shockwave lithotripsy had better results in terms of health care costs. These results should enable patients and health care providers to optimise treatment pathways for this common urological condition.

A Systematic Review of Focal Ablative Therapy for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer in Comparison with Standard Management Options: Limitations of the Available Evidence and Recommendations for Clinical Practice and Further Research.

CONTEXT: The clinical effectiveness of focal therapy (FT) for localised prostate cancer (PCa) remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the evidence base for primary FT for localised PCa via a systematic review (SR) to formulate clinical practice recommendations. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A protocol-driven, PRISMA-adhering SR comparing primary FT (sub-total, focal, hemi-gland, or partial ablation) versus standard options (active surveillance [AS], radical prostatectomy [RP], or external beam radiotherapy [EBRT]) was undertaken. Only comparative studies with ≥50 patients per arm were included. Primary outcomes included oncological, functional, and quality-of-life outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding assessments were undertaken. Eligible SRs were reviewed and appraised (AMSTAR) and ongoing prospective comparative studies were summarised. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Out of 1119 articles identified, four primary studies (1 randomised controlled trial [RCT] and 3 retrospective studies) recruiting 3961 patients and ten eligible SRs were identified. Only qualitative synthesis was possible owing to clinical heterogeneity. Overall, RoB and confounding were moderate to high. An RCT comparing vascular-targeted focal photodynamic therapy (PDT) with AS found a significantly lower rate of treatment failure at 2 yr with PDT. There were no differences in functional outcomes, although PDT was associated with worse transient adverse events. However, the external validity of the study was contentious. A retrospective study comparing focal HIFU with robotic RP found no significant differences in treatment failure at 3 yr, with focal HIFU having better continence and erectile function recovery. Two retrospective cohort studies using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results data compared focal laser ablation (FLA) against RP and EBRT, reporting significantly worse oncological outcomes for FLA. The overall data quality and applicability of the primary studies were limited because of clinical heterogeneity, RoB and confounding, lack of long-term data, inappropriate outcome measures, and poor external validity. Virtually all the SRs identified concluded that there was insufficient high-certainty evidence to make definitive conclusions regarding the clinical effectiveness of FT, with the majority of SRs judged to have a low or critically low confidence rating. Eight ongoing prospective comparative studies were identified. Ways of improving the evidence base are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The certainty of the evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness of FT as a primary treatment for localised PCa was low, with significant uncertainties. Until higher-certainty evidence emerges from robust prospective comparative studies measuring clinically meaningful outcomes at long-term time points, FT should ideally be performed within clinical trials or well-designed prospective cohort studies. PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined the literature to determine the effectiveness of prostate-targeted treatment compared with standard treatments for untreated localised prostate cancer. There was no strong evidence showing that focal treatment compares favourably with standard treatments; consequently, focal treatment is not recommended for routine standard practice.

The Impact of Histological Subtype on the Incidence, Timing, and Patterns of Recurrence in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma After Surgery-Results from RECUR Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Current follow-up strategies for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after curative surgery rely mainly on risk models and the treatment delivered, regardless of the histological subtype. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of RCC histological subtype on recurrence and to examine the incidence, pattern, and timing of recurrences to improve follow-up recommendations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study included consecutive patients treated surgically with curative intention (ie, radical and partial nephrectomy) for nonmetastatic RCC (cT1-4, M0) between January 2006 and December 2011 across 15 centres from 10 countries, as part of the euRopEan association of urology renal cell carcinoma guidelines panel Collaborative multicenter consortium for the studies of follow-Up and recurrence patterns in Radically treated renal cell carcinoma patients (RECUR) database project. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The impact of histological subtype (ie, clear cell RCC [ccRCC], papillary RCC [pRCC], and chromophobe RCC [chRCC]) on recurrence-free survival (RFS) was assessed via univariate and multivariate analyses, adjusting for potential interactions with important variables (stage, grade, risk score, etc.) Patterns of recurrence for all histological subtypes were compared according to recurrence site and risk criteria. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 3331 patients, 62.2% underwent radical nephrectomy and 37.8% partial nephrectomy. A total of 2565 patients (77.0%) had ccRCC, 535 (16.1%) had pRCC, and 231 (6.9%) had chRCC. The median postoperative follow-up period was 61.7 (interquartile range: 47-83) mo. Patients with ccRCC had significantly poorer 5-yr RFS than patients with pRCC and chRCC (78% vs 86% vs 91%, p = 0.001). The most common sites of recurrence for ccRCC were the lung and bone. Intermediate-/high-risk pRCC patients had an increased rate of lymphatic recurrence, both mediastinal and retroperitoneal, while recurrence in chRCC was rare (8.2%), associated with higher stage and positive margins, and predominantly in the liver and bone. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study. CONCLUSIONS: The main histological subtypes of RCC exhibit a distinct pattern and dynamics of recurrence. Results suggest that intermediate- to high-risk pRCC may benefit from cross-sectional abdominal imaging every 6 mo until 2 yr after surgery, while routine imaging might be abandoned for chRCC except for abdominal computed tomography in patients with advanced tumour stage or positive margins. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this analysis of a large database from 15 countries around Europe, we found that the main histological subtypes of renal cell carcinoma have a distinct pattern and dynamics of recurrence. Patients should be followed differently according to subtype and risk score.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II-2020 Update: Treatment of Relapsing and Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2016-2019). The guidelines were updated, and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the literature. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography scanning has developed an increasingly important role in men with biochemical recurrence after local therapy. Early salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy appears as effective as adjuvant radiotherapy and, in a subset of patients, should be combined with androgen deprivation. New treatments have become available for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PCa), nonmetastatic CRPC, and metastatic CRPC, along with a role for local radiotherapy in men with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa. Also included is information on quality of life outcomes in men with PCa. CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge in the field of advanced and metastatic PCa and CRPC is changing rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines are first endorsed by the EANM and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office or online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/). PATIENT SUMMARY: This article summarises the guidelines for the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. These guidelines are evidence based and guide the clinician in the discussion with the patient on the treatment decisions to be taken. These guidelines are updated every year; this summary spans the 2017-2020 period of new evidence.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.

OBJECTIVE: To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2016 and 2020. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. Risk-adapted screening should be offered to men at increased risk from the age of 45 yr and to breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, who have been confirmed to be at risk of early and aggressive disease (mainly BRAC2), from around 40 yr of age. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is performed, a combination of targeted and systematic biopsies must be offered. There is currently no place for the routine use of tissue-based biomarkers. Whilst prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography is the most sensitive staging procedure, the lack of outcome benefit remains a major limitation. Active surveillance (AS) should always be discussed with low-risk patients, as well as with selected intermediate-risk patients with favourable International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the AS journey and the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A strong recommendation to consider moderate hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term hormonal treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for their use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. PATIENT SUMMARY: Updated prostate cancer guidelines are presented, addressing screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. These guidelines rely on the available scientific evidence, and new insights will need to be considered and included on a regular basis. In some cases, the supporting evidence for new treatment options is not yet strong enough to provide a recommendation, which is why continuous updating is important. Patients must be fully informed of all relevant options and, together with their treating physicians, decide on the most optimal management for them.

Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: Nivolumab plus Cabozantinib Joins Immune Checkpoint Inhibition Combination Therapies for Treatment-naïve Metastatic Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Longer follow-up and new trial data from phase 3 randomised controlled trials investigating immune checkpoint blockade (PD-1 or its ligand PD-L1) in advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have recently become available. The CheckMate 9ER trial demonstrated an improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefit for the combination of cabozantinib plus nivolumab. A Keynote-426 update demonstrated an ongoing OS benefit for pembrolizumab plus axitinib in the intention-to-treat population, with a PFS benefit seen across all International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) subgroups, while an update of CheckMate 214 confirmed the long-term benefit of ipilimumab plus nivolumab in IMDC intermediate and poor risk patients. The RCC Guidelines Panel continues to recommend these tyrosine kinase inhibitors + immunotherapy (IO) combination across IMDC risk groups in advanced first-line RCC and dual immunotherapy of ipilimumab and nivolumab in IMDC intermediate and poor risk. PATIENT SUMMARY: New data from trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced kidney cancer confirm a survival benefit with the combination of cabozantinib plus nivolumab and pembrolizumab plus axitinib and ipilimumab plus nivolumab. These combination therapies are recommended as first-line treatment for advanced kidney cancer.

A Narrative Overview of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: -Active surveillance (AS) is a strategy employed as an alternative to immediate standard active treatments for patients with low-risk localised prostate cancer (PCa). Active treatments such as radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy are associated with significant adverse effects which impair quality of life. The majority of patients with low-risk PCa undergo a slow and predictable course of cancer growth and do not require immediate curative treatment. AS provides a means to identify and monitor patients with low-risk PCa through regular PSA testing, imaging using MRI scans and regular repeat prostate biopsies. These measures enable the identification of progression, or increase in cancer extent or aggressiveness, which necessitates curative treatment. Alternatively, some patients may choose to leave AS to pursue curative interventions due to anxiety. The main benefit of AS is the avoidance of unnecessary radical treatments for patients at the early stages of the disease, hence avoiding over-treatment, whilst identifying those at risk of progression to be treated actively. The objective of this article is to provide a narrative summary of contemporary practice regarding AS based on a review of the available evidence base and clinical practice guidelines. Elements of discussion include the clinical effectiveness and harms of AS, what AS involves for healthcare professionals, and patient perspectives. The pitfalls and challenges for healthcare professionals are also discussed. DATA SOURCES: We consulted international guidelines, collaborative studies and seminal prospective studies on AS in the management of clinically localised PCa. CONCLUSION: AS is a feasible alternative to radical treatment options for low-risk PCa, primarily as a means of avoiding over-treatment, whilst identifying those who are at risk of disease progression for active treatment. There is emerging data demonstrating the long-term safety of AS as an oncological management strategy. Uncertainties remain regarding variation in definitions, criteria, thresholds and the most effective types of diagnostic interventions pertaining to patient selection, monitoring and reclassification. Efforts have been made to standardise the practice and conduct of AS. As data from high-quality prospective comparative studies mature, the practice of AS will continue to evolve. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: The practice of AS involves a multi-disciplinary team of healthcare professionals consisting of nurses, urologists, oncologists, pathologists and radiologists. Nurses play a prominent role in managing AS programmes, and are closely involved in patient selection and recruitment, counselling, organising and administering diagnostic interventions including prostate biopsies, and ensuring patients' needs are being met throughout the duration of AS.

Reprint - Bipolar vs. monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction: A Cochrane review.

INTRODUCTION: There remains uncertainty regarding the differences in patient outcomes between monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (MTURP) and bipolar TURP (BTURP) in the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out up to March 19, 2019. Methods in the Cochrane Handbook were followed. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 59 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 8924 participants were included. BTURP probably results in little to no difference in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months (mean difference -0.24, 95% confidence internal [CI] -0.39--0.09; participants=2531; RCTs=16; moderate CoE) or health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 12 months (mean difference -0.12, 95% CI -0.25-0.02; participants=2004, RCTs=11; moderate CoE), compared to MTURP. BTURP probably reduces TUR syndrome (relative risk [RR] 0.17, 95% CI 0.09-0.30; participants= 6,745, RCTs=44; moderate CoE) and blood transfusions (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.30-0.59; participants=5727, RCTs=38; moderate CoE), compared to MTURP. BTURP may carry similar risk of urinary incontinence at 12 months (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01-4.06; participants=751; RCTs=4; low CoE), re-TURP (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.44-2.40; participants=652, RCTs=6, I2=0%; low CoE) and erectile dysfunction (International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF-5]) at 12 months (mean difference 0.88, 95% CI -0.56-2.32; RCTs=3; moderate CoE), compared to MTURP. CONCLUSIONS: BTURP and MTURP probably improve urological symptoms to a similar degree. BTURP probably reduces TUR syndrome and blood transfusion slightly postoperatively. The moderate certainty of evidence available for primary outcomes suggests no need for further RCTs comparing BTURP and MTURP.