Radiofrequency for chronic lumbosacral and cervical pain: Results of a consensus study using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

BACKGROUND: Despite the routine use of radiofrequency (RF) for the treatment of chronic pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region, there remains uncertainty on the most appropriate patient selection criteria. This study aimed to develop appropriateness criteria for RF in relation to relevant patient characteristics, considering RF ablation (RFA) for the treatment of chronic axial pain and pulsed RF (PRF) for the treatment of chronic radicular pain. METHODS: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) was used to explore the opinions of a multidisciplinary European panel on the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a variety of clinical scenarios. Depending on the type of pain (axial or radicular), the expert panel rated the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a total of 219 clinical scenarios. RESULTS: For axial pain in the lumbosacral or cervical region, appropriateness of RFA was determined by the dominant pain trigger and location of tenderness on palpation with higher appropriateness scores if these variables were suggestive of the diagnosis of facet or sacroiliac joint pain. Although the opinions on the appropriateness of PRF for lumbosacral and cervical radicular pain were fairly dispersed, there was agreement that PRF is an appropriate option for well-selected patients with radicular pain due to herniated disc or foraminal stenosis, particularly in the absence of motor deficits. The panel outcomes were embedded in an educational e-health tool that also covers the psychosocial aspects of chronic pain, providing integrated recommendations on the appropriate use of (P)RF interventions for the treatment of chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary European expert panel established patient-specific recommendations that may support the (pre)selection of patients with chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region for either RFA or PRF (accessible via https://rftool.org). Future studies should validate these recommendations by determining their predictive value for the outcomes of (P)RF interventions.

Genetic Aspects and Molecular Testing in Prostate Cancer: A Report from a Dutch Multidisciplinary Consensus Meeting.

Background: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined. Objective: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa. Design setting and participants: The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was reached if ≥75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Results and limitations: Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hereditary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveillance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as follows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline. Conclusions: The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa. Patient summary: A group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa.

Applicability and Validity of an e-Health Tool for the Appropriate Referral and Selection of Patients With Chronic Pain for Spinal Cord Stimulation: Results From a European Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVES: To support rational decision-making on spinal cord stimulation (SCS), a European expert panel developed an educational e-health tool using the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles Appropriateness Method. This retrospective study aimed to determine the applicability and validity of the tool using data from patients for whom SCS had been considered. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 12 European implant centers retrieved data from 25 to 50 consecutive patients for whom SCS was considered in 2018-2019. For each patient, data were captured on the clinical and psychosocial variables included in the e-health tool, center decisions on SCS, and patient outcomes. Patient outcomes included global perception of effect by the patient and observer, and pain reduction (numeric pain rating scale) at six-month follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 483 patients were included, of whom 133 received a direct implant, 258 received an implant after a positive trial, 32 had a negative trial, and 60 did not receive SCS for reasons other than a negative trial. The most frequent indication was persistent spinal pain syndrome type 1 and type 2 (74%), followed by neuropathic pain syndromes (13%), complex regional pain syndrome (12%), and ischemic pain syndromes (0.8%). Data on the clinical and psychosocial variables were complete for 95% and 93% of patients, respectively, and missing data did not have a significant impact on the study outcomes. In patients who had received SCS, panel recommendations were significantly associated with patient outcomes (p < 0.001 for all measures). Substantial improvement ranged from 25% if the e-health tool outcome was "not recommended" to 83% if SCS was "strongly recommended". In patients who underwent a trial (N = 290), there was 3% of trial failure when SCS was "strongly recommended" vs 46% when SCS was "not recommended". CONCLUSIONS: Retrospective application of the e-health tool on patient data showed a strong relationship between the panel recommendations and both SCS trial results and treatment outcomes.

Personalised versus non-individualised case-based CME: A randomised pilot study.

The PinPoint Case Platform (PPCP) offers independent online case-based CME. To align with personal learning needs, a functionality of needs assessments ("QuickScan") was developed, directing users to follow personalised case journeys. A randomised study was conducted, comparing its effectiveness, time efficiency and user experience with a format of non-individualised case-based learning. Forty-two residents in urology from five European countries were randomly assigned to follow non-individualised case-based learning (control group) or a needs assessment plus personalised case journeys on different topics in prostate cancer. After performing a pre- and post-assessment, both groups showed a similar increase in test scores (Mann-Whitney U = 247; p = .113), but the time needed for completing the learning exercise was significantly lower in the group with the personalised approach (median: 45 vs 90 minutes; Mann-Whitney U = 97.5; p = .0141). The quality of the two learning methods was similarly well received by both groups. In conclusion, learners who followed personalised case journeys learned similarly effective but more time efficient than non-individualised case-based learners. Future studies should determine if these findings can be extrapolated to board-certified physicians following CME activities.

Patient selection for spinal cord stimulation: The importance of an integrated assessment of clinical and psychosocial factors.

BACKGROUND: A previously developed educational e-health tool considers both clinical and psychosocial factors when selecting patients with chronic pain for spinal cord stimulation (SCS). The validity of the composite recommendations was evaluated in a retrospective study, demonstrating a strong relationship with patient outcomes after SCS. METHODS: An additional retrospective analysis was performed to determine the added value of a psychosocial evaluation as part of the decision-making process on SCS. Data concerned 482 patients who were considered for SCS in 2018-2019. The analysis focused on the relationship between the different layers of the tool recommendations (clinical, psychosocial, composite) with trial results and patient outcomes at 6 months after SCS. Of the initial study population, 381 patients underwent SCS and had follow-up data on at least one of three pain-related outcome measures. RESULTS: Pain improvement was observed in 76% of the patients for whom SCS was strongly recommended based on merely the clinical aspects. This percentage varied by the level of psychosocial problems and ranged from 86% in patients without any compromising psychosocial factors to 60% in those with severe problems. Similarly, the severity of psychosocial problems affected trial results in patients for whom SCS was either recommended or strongly recommended. CONCLUSIONS: The strong relationship between psychosocial factors embedded in the SCS e-health tool and patient outcomes supports an integrated and multidisciplinary approach in the selection of patients for SCS. The educational e-health tool, combining both clinical and psychosocial aspects, is believed to be helpful for further education and implementation of this approach. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This study confirms the relevance of the psychosocial factors embedded in the educational SCS e-health tool (https://scstool.org/). The strong relationship between the severity of psychosocial factors with patient outcomes supports conducting a comprehensive psychological and behavioural assessment when determining the eligibility of patients for SCS.

Standardizing HIPEC and perioperative care for patients with ovarian cancer in the Netherlands using a Delphi-based consensus.

OBJECTIVE: Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) is standard of care in the Netherlands in patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer following interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS). Differences in patient selection, technical aspects, and perioperative management exist between centers performing HIPEC. Standardization aims to reduce unwanted variation in clinical practice. As part of an implementation process, we aimed to standardize perioperative care for patients treated with CRS and HIPEC using a Delphi-based consensus approach. METHODS: We performed a two-phase modified Delphi method involving a multidisciplinary panel of 40 experts who completed a survey on CRS and HIPEC. During a consensus meeting, survey outcomes and available scientific evidence was discussed. Items without consensus (<75% agreement) were adjusted and evaluated in a second survey. RESULTS: Consensus was reached in the first round on 51% of items. After two rounds, consensus was reached on the majority of items (82%) including patient selection, preoperative workup, technical aspects of CRS and HIPEC, and postoperative care. No consensus was reached on the role of HIPEC in rare ovarian cancer types, preoperative bowel preparation, timing to create bowel anastomoses, and manipulation of the perfusate. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch experts reached consensus on most items regarding interval CRS and HIPEC for ovarian cancer. This consensus study may help to align treatment protocols and to minimize practice variation. Topics without consensus may be put on the research agenda of HIPEC for ovarian cancer.

M1a prostate cancer: Results of a Dutch multidisciplinary consensus meeting.

Objectives: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the diagnostic evaluation and treatment of de novo and recurrent metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) limited to non-regional lymph nodes (M1a) in daily clinical practice. Materials and methods: The panel consisted of 37 Dutch specialists from disciplines involved in the management of M1a PCa (urology, medical and radiation oncology, radiology, and nuclear medicine). We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a consensus meeting (video conference). Consensus (good agreement) was defined as the situation in which ≥ 75% of the panelists chose the same option. Results: Consensus existed for 57% of the items. The panel agreed that prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) is the most appropriate standard imaging modality to identify de novo (100%) and recurrent (97%) M1a PCa. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with radiotherapy to the prostate ± the M1a lesion(s) was most frequently considered an option for de novo M1a PCa. For M1a as recurrent disease, ADT alone, deferring treatment, or local radiotherapy to the M1a lesion(s) were judged to be the most important treatment options. However, no specific indications for treatment choice in relation to disease characteristics could be formulated. Conclusions: The Dutch consensus panel preferred PSMA-PET/CT as the standard diagnostic modality to detect M1a PCa. Although potential treatment options were identified, explicit recommendations could not be formulated. This might (partly) be explained by the absence of high-level clinical evidence in this subset of patients. Further research is, therefore, strongly encouraged.

Appropriate referral and selection of patients with chronic pain for spinal cord stimulation: European consensus recommendations and e-health tool.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment for chronic neuropathic, neuropathic-like and ischaemic pain. However, the heterogeneity of patients in daily clinical practice makes it often challenging to determine which patients are eligible for this treatment, resulting in undesirable practice variations. This study aimed to establish patient-specific recommendations for referral and selection of SCS in chronic pain. METHODS: A multidisciplinary European panel used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) to assess the appropriateness of (referral for) SCS for 386 clinical scenarios in four pain areas: chronic low back pain and/or leg pain, complex regional pain syndrome, neuropathic pain syndromes and ischaemic pain syndromes. In addition, the panel identified a set of psychosocial factors that are relevant to the decision for SCS treatment. RESULTS: Appropriateness of SCS was strongly determined by the neuropathic or neuropathic-like pain component, location and spread of pain, anatomic abnormalities and previous response to therapies targeting pain processing (e.g. nerve block). Psychosocial factors considered relevant for SCS selection were as follows: lack of engagement, dysfunctional coping, unrealistic expectations, inadequate daily activity level, problematic social support, secondary gain, psychological distress and unwillingness to reduce high-dose opioids. An educational e-health tool was developed that combines clinical and psychosocial factors into an advice on referral/selection for SCS. CONCLUSIONS: The RUAM was useful to establish a consensus on patient-specific criteria for referral/selection for SCS in chronic pain. The e-health tool may help physicians learn to apply an integrated approach of clinical and psychosocial factors. SIGNIFICANCE: Determining the eligibility of SCS in patients with chronic pain requires careful consideration of a variety of clinical and psychosocial factors. Using a systematic approach to combine evidence from clinical studies and expert opinion, a multidisciplinary European expert panel developed detailed recommendations to support appropriate referral and selection for SCS in chronic pain. These recommendations are available as an educational e-health tool (https://www.scstool.org/).

Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer: Results of a Dutch Multidisciplinary Consensus Meeting.

BACKGROUND: Oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC) is a heterogeneous disease state that is imperfectly understood, and its clinical implications are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on biological aspects, treatment goals, and management of OMPC in daily clinical practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised a modified Delphi method including an explorative survey with various statements and questions, followed by a consensus meeting to discuss and determine the agreement with revised statements and related items. The panel consisted of 34 Dutch representatives from urology, medical and radiation oncology, radiology, nuclear medicine, and basic research. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Agreement was determined with statements (five-point scale). Consensus was defined as ≥75% panel agreement with a statement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Consensus existed for 56% of statements. The panel agreed that OMPC comprises a limited metastatic spread in the hormone-sensitive setting, in both the synchronous and the metachronous presentation. Limited metastatic spread was believed to involve three to five metastases and a maximum of two organs. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan was currently perceived as the most accurate diagnostic imaging modality. Although there was a consensus that targeted treatment of all metastases in OMPC will delay further dissemination of the disease, opinions on specific treatment regimens were divided. Panel outcomes were limited by the lack of scientific evidence on OMPC. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary panel reached a consensus that OMPC is a specific disease state requiring a tailored treatment approach. OMPC registries and clinical studies should focus on both the biology and the clinical parameters in relation to optimal treatment strategies in synchronous and metachronous OMPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: A group of Dutch medical specialists agreed that prostate cancer patients having few metastases may benefit from a new therapeutic approach. Clinical studies need to determine which treatment is best for each specific situation.

The appropriate management of persisting pain after spine surgery: a European panel study with recommendations based on the RAND/UCLA method.

PURPOSE: Management of patients with persisting pain after spine surgery (PPSS) shows significant variability, and there is limited evidence from clinical studies to support treatment choice in daily practice. This study aimed to develop patient-specific recommendations on the management of PPSS. METHODS: Using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (RUAM), an international panel of 6 neurosurgeons, 6 pain specialists, and 6 orthopaedic surgeons assessed the appropriateness of 4 treatment options (conservative, minimally invasive, neurostimulation, and re-operation) for 210 clinical scenarios. These scenarios were unique combinations of patient characteristics considered relevant to treatment choice. Appropriateness had to be expressed on a 9-point scale (1 = extremely inappropriate, 9 = extremely appropriate). A treatment was considered appropriate if the median score was ≥ 7 in the absence of disagreement (≥ 1/3 of ratings in each of the opposite sections 1-3 and 7-9). RESULTS: Appropriateness outcomes showed clear and specific patterns. In 48% of the scenarios, exclusively one of the 4 treatments was appropriate. Conservative treatment was usually considered appropriate for patients without clear anatomic abnormalities and for those with new pain differing from the original symptoms. Neurostimulation was considered appropriate in the case of (predominant) neuropathic leg pain in the absence of conditions that may require surgical intervention. Re-operation could be considered for patients with recurrent disc, spinal/foraminal stenosis, or spinal instability. CONCLUSIONS: Using the RUAM, an international multidisciplinary panel established criteria for appropriate treatment choice in patients with PPSS. These may be helpful to educate physicians and to improve consistency and quality of care. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Management of vertebral fragility fractures: a clinical care pathway developed by a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs), mostly due to osteoporosis, are very common and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is a lack of consensus on the appropriate management of patients with or suspected of having a VFF. PURPOSE: This work aimed at developing a comprehensive clinical care pathway (CCP) for VFF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to develop patient-specific recommendations for the various components of the CCP. The study included two individual rating rounds and two plenary discussion sessions. METHODS: A multispecialty expert panel (orthopedic and neurosurgeons, interventional [neuro]radiologists and pain specialists) assessed the importance of 20 signs and symptoms for the suspicion of VFF, the relevance of 5 diagnostic procedures, the appropriateness of vertebral augmentation versus nonsurgical management for 576 clinical scenarios, and the adequacy of 6 aspects of follow-up care. RESULTS: The panel identified 10 signs and symptoms believed to be relatively specific for VFF. In patients suspected of VFF, advanced imaging was considered highly desirable, with MRI being the preferred diagnostic modality. Vertebral augmentation was considered appropriate in patients with positive findings on advanced imaging and in whom symptoms had worsened and in patients with 2 to 4 unfavorable conditions (eg, progression of height loss and severe impact on functioning), dependent on their relative weight. Time since fracture was considered less relevant for treatment choice. Follow-up should include evaluation of bone mineral density and treatment of osteoporosis. CONCLUSIONS: Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, a multispecialty expert panel established a comprehensive CCP for the management of VFF. The CCP may be helpful to support decision-making in daily clinical practice and to improve quality of care.

The Appropriate Management Of Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures : A Single Institute Evaluation Using The VCF Monitor.

From the Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Klinikum Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany Osteoporosis-related vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) are commonly seen in clinical practice. Treatment choice is often challenging due to heterogeneity of the patient population. A European multidisciplinary expert panel developed patient-specific recommendations for reatment choice that were embedded in an online evaluation tool (VCF Monitor). This study aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of treatment choice in patients with OVCF in a German hospital. The prospective observational study included 190 patients with OCVF (2013-2015). Using the VCF Monitor, treatment choices were compared with the recommendations of the European expert panel. Treatment choices included balloon kyphoplasty (61%), non-surgical management (36%) and other surgical procedures (3%). Compared to the panel recommendations, 70% of treatment choices were appropriate, 24% uncertain, and 3% inappropriate. Less appropriate choices were partly due to patient preferences. The VCF Monitor proved to be a helpful tool for quality assurance in the management of OVCF.

Treatment of Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: Applicability of Appropriateness Criteria in Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate treatment choice for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) is challenging due to patient heterogeneity. Using the RAND/UCLA method, an international multidisciplinary expert panel established patient-specific criteria for the choice between non-surgical management (NSM), vertebroplasty (VP), and balloon kyphoplasty (BKP). OBJECTIVES: To assess the applicability of the appropriateness criteria in real-life practice. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Eight practices of experts who participated in the panel study, including 2 interventional radiologists, one internal medicine specialist, 2 neurosurgeons, and 3 orthopedic/trauma surgeons. Practices were located in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. METHODS: Using an online data capture program, participants documented the clinical profile (age, gender, previous VCFs, time since fracture, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, evolution of symptoms, impact of symptoms on quality of life, spinal deformity, ongoing fracture process, and presence of pulmonary dysfunction) and treatment choice for consecutive patients who consulted them for OVCF. RESULTS: In total 426 patients were included. BKP was the most frequently chosen treatment option (49%), followed by VP (34%) and NSM (14%). When compared with the panel recommendations, inappropriate treatment choices were rare (5% for NSM, 2% for VP, none for BKP). Treatment choice was strongly associated with the clinical variables used in the panel study. Differences in treatment decisions between interventional radiologists and surgeons were largely determined by differences in patient characteristics, with time of clinical presentation being the dominant factor. LIMITATION: The study population was restricted to the practices of the participants of the panel study. CONCLUSION: This international, multi-specialty utilization review showed excellent applicability of, and good adherence with RAND/UCLA-based recommendations on treatment choice in OVCF.

Referring Parkinson's disease patients for deep brain stimulation: a RAND/UCLA appropriateness study.

In 2005, a European expert panel developed and validated an electronic tool to support the appropriate referral of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) for the consideration of deep brain stimulation (DBS). Since new evidence has become available over the last decade an update of the tool is necessary. A world-wide expert panel (71 neurologists and 11 neurosurgeons) used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to assess the appropriateness of referral for 1296 scenarios (9-point scale). Scenarios were permutations of 8 clinical variables relevant to the decision of referral. Appropriateness of referral was calculated on the basis of the median score and the extent of agreement. Compared to 2005, the impact of clinical variables on the appropriateness of referral was similar for severity of on-off fluctuations, dyskinesias and refractory tremor (positive association, p < 0.001), and cognitive impairment (negative association, p < 0.001). A relatively stronger negative impact was seen for levodopa-unresponsive gait and balance disturbances as well as older age, the latter most likely due to a higher cut-off value (75 versus 70 years in the previous study). The impact of PD duration on the appropriateness of referral was less pronounced than in 2005. The contribution of the newly included variable 'non-motor side effects of anti-PD medication' was very modest. Based on these results the panel produced new recommendations on the appropriateness of referral for the evaluation of DBS in PD patients. Differences from the previous study reflect the new clinical evidence, particularly related to the use of DBS in an earlier stage of PD. The validation of the updated recommendations is in progress.

A decision support tool for appropriate glucose-lowering therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Optimal glucose-lowering therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus requires a patient-specific approach. Although a good framework, current guidelines are insufficiently detailed to address the different phenotypes and individual needs of patients seen in daily practice. We developed a patient-specific decision support tool based on a systematic analysis of expert opinion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on the American Diabetes Association (ADA)/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2012 position statement, a panel of 12 European experts rated the appropriateness (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method) of treatment strategies for 930 clinical scenarios, which were permutations of clinical variables considered relevant to treatment choice. These included current treatment, hemoglobin A1c difference from individualized target, risk of hypoglycemia, body mass index, life expectancy, and comorbidities. Treatment options included addition of a second or third agent, drug switches, and replacement by monotherapies if the patient was metformin-intolerant. Treatment costs were not considered. Appropriateness (appropriate, inappropriate, uncertain) was based on the median score and expert agreement. The panel recommendations were embedded in an online decision support tool (DiaScope(®); Novo Nordisk Health Care AG, Zürich, Switzerland). RESULTS: Treatment appropriateness was associated with (combinations of) the patient variables mentioned above. As second-line agents, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were considered appropriate in all scenarios, followed by glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (50%), insulins (33%), and sulfonylureas (25%), but not pioglitazone (0%). Ratings of third-line combinations followed a similar pattern. Disagreement was highest for regimens including pioglitazone, sulfonylureas, or insulins and was partly due to differences in panelists' opinions and in drug availability and reimbursement across European countries (although costs were disregarded in the rating process). CONCLUSIONS: A novel decision support tool based on the ADA/EASD 2012 position statement and a systematic analysis of expert opinion has been developed to help healthcare professionals to individualize glucose-lowering therapy in daily clinical situations.

Criteria for the appropriate treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.

BACKGROUND: The heterogeneity of patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCF) necessitates a tailored approach of balancing the benefits and limitations of available treatments. Current guidelines are divergent, sometimes contradictory, and often insufficiently detailed to guide practice decisions. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed at establishing treatment recommendations at the patient-specific level. STUDY DESIGN: Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM), the appropriateness of different treatment options for osteoporotic VCFs was assessed. SETTING: The assessment was conducted by a European multidisciplinary panel of 12 experts. METHODS: The appropriateness of non-surgical management (NSM), vertebroplasty (VP), and balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) was determined for 128 hypothetical patient profiles. These were unique combinations of clinical factors considered relevant to treatment choice (time since fracture, MRI findings, impact and evolution of symptoms, spinal deformity, ongoing fracture process, and pulmonary dysfunction). After 2 individual rating rounds and plenary meetings, appropriateness statements (appropriate, inappropriate, and uncertain) were calculated for all clinical scenarios. RESULTS: Disagreement dropped from 31% in the first round to 7% in the second round. Appropriateness outcomes showed specific patterns for the 3 treatments. For three-quarters of the profiles, only one treatment was considered appropriate: NSM 25%, VP 6%, and BKP 45%. NSM was usually appropriate in patients with a negative MRI or a positive MRI without other unfavorable conditions (poor outcomes for the other variables). VP was usually appropriate in patients with a positive MRI, time since fracture ≥ 6 weeks, and no spinal deformity. BKP was recommended for all patients with an ongoing fracture process, and also in most patients with a positive MRI and ≥ 1 other unfavorable factor. LIMITATIONS: The prevalence of the patient profiles in daily practice is yet unknown. CONCLUSION: The panel results may help to support treatment choice in the heterogeneous population of patients with osteoporotic VCF.

Clinical judgment versus biomarker prostate cancer gene 3: which is best when determining the need for repeat prostate biopsy?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of best clinical judgment (BCJ) and the prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) assay in guiding the decision to perform a repeat prostate biopsy (PBx) after a previous negative PBx. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, 12 European urologists established recommendations (BCJ) for the appropriateness of PBx according to the prostate-specific antigen level, digital rectal examination findings, number of previous negative PBxs, prostate volume, and life expectancy, with and without consideration of the PCA3 scores. These recommendations were applied to 1024 subjects receiving placebo in the Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events trial, including men with a previous negative PBx, a baseline prostate-specific antigen level of 2.5-10 ng/mL, and a PCA3 test performed before the protocol-mandated 2- and 4-year repeat PBxs. Three scenarios (ie, BCJ alone, BCJ with PCA3, and the PCA3 score alone) were tested for their ability to reduce the repeat PBx rate versus missing Gleason sum ≥ 7 prostate cancer (PCa). RESULTS: BCJ with PCA3 would have avoided 64% of repeat PBxs compared with 26% for BCJ alone and 55% for PCA3 alone (cutoff score 20). Of 55 PCa cases (Gleason sum ≥ 7), 13 would have been missed using BCJ alone compared with 7 using PCA3 (cutoff score 20) alone and 8 using BCJ plus PCA3. The diagnostic accuracy for Gleason sum ≥ 7 PCa of the BCJ with PCA3 scenario was superior to that of the other scenarios, with a negative predictive value of 99%. CONCLUSION: Application of the BCJ together with PCA3 testing can reduce the number of repeat PBxs while maintaining the sensitivity to detect Gleason sum ≥ 7 PCa.

Impact of adoption of a decision algorithm including PCA3 for repeat biopsy on the costs for prostate cancer diagnosis in France.

OBJECTIVE: A recent expert study (RAND Appropriateness Method (RAM)) including a panel of 12 European urologists reported that the PCA3 score may be instrumental in taking appropriate prostate biopsy (PBx) decisions, mainly for repeat PBx. This study determined the cost/benefit balance of introducing PCA3 in the decision-making for PBx in France. METHODS: Two RAM models, without and with PCA3, were retrospectively applied to a sample of 808 French men who had PBx in 2010 (78% first, 22% repeat). Outcome measures included the proportion of PBx that could have been avoided (i.e., judged inappropriate) in the French sample according to both RAM models, and the estimated impact of application of these models on the annual number of PBx and associated costs for France (based on most recent published data). RESULTS: Complete profiles were available for 698 men. In the model without PCA3, 2% of PBx were deemed inappropriate. Knowledge of PCA3 would have avoided another 7% of PBx. Repeat PBx would have been avoided in 5% of cases without PCA3 and in 37% with PCA3. For France, application of the RAM model including PCA3 would result in 18,345 fewer repeat PBx. It would be budget-neutral in the unlikely hypothesis of no complications or no costs incurred by complications and would save €1.7 million for a mean cost for complications of €100/procedure or €5 million for a mean cost for complications of €280/procedure, calculated based on US and Canadian data. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the study are the theoretical nature of the analysis and the fact that PCA3 distributions had to be derived from other sources. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of RAM expert recommendations including PCA3 for repeat PBx decisions in clinical practice in France would reduce the number of repeat PBx and control costs.

Biopsy and treatment decisions in the initial management of prostate cancer and the role of PCA3; a systematic analysis of expert opinion.

PURPOSE: The Prostate CAncer gene 3 (PCA3) assay may guide prostate biopsy decisions and predict prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness. This study explored the appropriateness of (1) PCA3 testing; (2) biopsy; (3) active surveillance (AS) and the value of the PCA3 Score for biopsy and AS decisions. METHODS: Using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, 12 urologists assessed the appropriateness of PCA3, biopsy and AS for theoretical patient profiles, constructed by combining clinical variables. They individually scored the appropriateness for all profiles using a 9-point scale. Based on the median score and extent of agreement, the appropriateness for each profile was calculated. RESULTS: The PCA3 Assay was mainly considered appropriate in men with ≥1 negative biopsy, PSA ≥ 3 ng/mL and life expectancy (LE) ≥10 years. A LE < 10 years, ≥2 negative biopsies and PCA3 Score <20 decreased biopsy appropriateness, while PSA ≥ 3 ng/mL and PCA3 Score >50 increased it. In men without a prior biopsy, LE ≥ 10 years and a suspicious DRE, PCA3 did not affect biopsy appropriateness. In other men, a PCA3 Score <20 discouraged biopsy, while a value ≥35 supported biopsy. AS was mainly considered appropriate if LE < 10 years, T1c PCa, ≤20% positive cores and PSA < 3 ng/mL. A PCA3 Score <20 pleads for and higher scores (particularly >50) against AS. CONCLUSIONS: These findings illustrate in which men PCA3 can be of additional value when taking biopsy and treatment decisions in clinical practice.