Patient Benefits of Radical Prostatectomy in Certified Prostate Cancer Centers: Comparative Results from the Multicenter IMPROVE Study.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated differences in treatment outcomes following radical prostatectomy (RP) between certified centers (CCs) and noncertified centers (nCCs) within the IMPROVE study group. METHODS: A validated survey assessing various factors, including stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and decision regret (DR), was administered to 950 patients who underwent RP across 19 hospitals (12 CCs and 7 nCCs) at a median follow-up of 15 months after RP (interquartile range: 11-20). The response rate was 74%, with 703 patients participating, including 480 (68%) from CCs. Multivariate binary regression models were used to analyze differences between CCs and nCCs regarding the following binary endpoints: nerve-sparing (NS), positive surgical margins (PSM), SUI (defined as >1 safety pad), complications based on the Clavien-Dindo classification (grade ≥1, grade ≥3) and DR (>15 points indicating critical DR). RESULTS: Considering the multivariate analysis, the rate of NS surgery was lower in CCs than in nCCs (OR = 0.52; p = 0.004). No significant differences were observed in the PSM rate (OR = 1.67; p = 0.051), SUI (OR = 1.03; p = 0.919), and DR (OR = 1.00; p = 0.990). SUI (OR 0.39; p < 0.001) and DR (OR 0.62; p = 0.026) were reported significantly less frequently by patients treated with robotic-assisted RP, which was significantly more often performed in CCs than in nCCs (68.3% vs. 18%; p < 0.001). The total complication rate was 45% lower in CCs (OR = 0.55; p = 0.004), although the number of complications requiring intervention (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥3) did not differ significantly between CCs and nCCs (OR = 2.52; p = 0.051). CONCLUSION: Within the IMPROVE study group, similarly favorable outcomes after RP were found in both CCs and nCCs, which, however, cannot be transferred to the general treatment landscape of PCA in Germany. Of note, robotic-assisted RP was more often performed in CCs and associated with less SUI and DR, while open prostatectomy was the treatment of choice in low-volume nCCs. Future prospective and region wide studies should also investigate the surgeon caseload and experience as well as a spillover effect of the certification process on nCCs.

Patient's Desire and Real Availability Concerning Supportive Measures Accompanying Radical Prostatectomy: Differences between Certified Prostate Cancer Centers and Non-Certified Centers Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes within the Cross-Sectional Study Improve.

Certification as a prostate cancer center requires the offer of several supportive measures to patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). However, it remains unclear how patients estimate the relevance of these measures and whether the availability of these measures differs between certified prostate cancer centers (CERTs) and non-certified centers (NCERTs). In 20 German urologic centers, a survey comprising questions on the relevance of 15 supportive measures was sent to 1000 patients at a median of 15 months after RP. Additionally, patients were asked to rate the availability of these measures using a four-item Likert scale. The aim of this study was to compare these ratings between CERTs and NCERTs. The response rate was 75.0%. In total, 480 patients underwent surgery in CERTs, and 270 in NCERTs. Patients rated 6/15 supportive measures as very relevant: preoperative medical counselling concerning treatment options, a preoperative briefing answering last questions, preoperative pelvic floor exercises (PFEs), postoperative PFEs, postoperative social support, and postoperative rehabilitation addressing physical fitness recovery. These ratings showed no significant difference between CERTs and NCERTs (p = 0.133-0.676). In addition, 4/9 of the remaining criteria were rated as more detailed by patients in CERTs. IMPROVE represents the first study worldwide to evaluate a patient-reported assessment of the supportive measures accompanying RP. Pertinent offers vary marginally between CERTs and NCERTs.

Patients Regret Their Choice of Therapy Significantly Less Frequently after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy as Opposed to Open Radical Prostatectomy: Patient-Reported Results of the Multicenter Cross-Sectional IMPROVE Study.

Patient's regret (PatR) concerning the choice of therapy represents a crucial endpoint for treatment evaluation after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCA). This study aims to compare PatR following robot-assisted (RARP) and open surgical approach (ORP). A survey comprising perioperative-functional criteria was sent to 1000 patients in 20 German centers at a median of 15 months after RP. Surgery-related items were collected from participating centers. To calculate PatR differences between approaches, a multivariate regressive base model (MVBM) was established incorporating surgical approach and demographic, center-specific, and tumor-specific criteria not primarily affected by surgical approach. An extended model (MVEM) was further adjusted by variables potentially affected by surgical approach. PatR was based on five validated questions ranging 0−100 (cutoff >15 defined as critical PatR). The response rate was 75.0%. After exclusion of patients with laparoscopic RP or stage M1b/c, the study cohort comprised 277/365 ORP/RARP patients. ORP/RARP patients had a median PatR of 15/10 (p < 0.001) and 46.2%/28.1% had a PatR >15, respectively (p < 0.001). Based on the MVBM, RARP patients showed PatR >15 relative 46.8% less frequently (p < 0.001). Consensual decision making regarding surgical approach independently reduced PatR. With the MVEM, the independent impact of both surgical approach and of consensual decision making was confirmed. This study involving centers of different care levels showed significantly lower PatR following RARP.

[Systematic review on conservative treatment options in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients refractory to Bacillus Calmette-Guérin instillation therapy]. / Konservative Therapieoptionen beim nicht-muskelinvasiven Urothelkarzinom der Harnblase nach BCG-Versagen: Systematische Übersichtsarbeit.

Background Adjuvant Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) intravesical instillation is the recommended standard treatment in patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). However, a significant proportion of patients fail treatment, and radical cystectomy (RC) is the subsequent gold standard. On the other hand, there is an unmet need for conservative alternatives for patients who are unfit or unwilling to undergo surgery. This study aimed to identify conservative treatment options in NMIBC patients after BCG failure. Material and Methods We performed a systematic search in the databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE, including all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and single-arm studies, in which patients with NMIBC were treated with second-line intravesical or systemic therapy after BCG failure. A minimum of eight patients were included in each treatment arm. Full papers were restricted to English language. Literature research and data analysis were assessed independently by two reviewers. Data on treatment response, recurrence, time to recurrence, progression and rate of cystectomy were collected and analysed. Results This systematic review included 42 publications with a total of 3521 patients (2371 BCG failures). Valrubicin, taxanes, gemcitabine, combination chemotherapy, thermochemotherapy, photodynamic therapy, combination of BCG and interferon and immunotherapies or targeted therapies were identified as conservative treatment options. For taxanes, gemcitabine and thermochemotherapy there is the highest evidence for a clinical meaningful response with minor toxicities. Conclusions Despite some promising response rates for taxanes, gemcitabine or thermochemotherapy, an evidence-based recommendation for treatment options superior to RC in patients failing BCG therapy cannot be made. The definition of BCG failure is still inconsistent and heterogeneous outcomes in patients with BCG failure have been reported. In order to identify effective conservative therapy options in patients failing BCG therapy, prospective trials with a standardised trial design are needed.