Presentation, follow-up, and outcomes among African/Afro-Caribbean men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: experiences of a high-volume UK centre.

BACKGROUND: Experiences of African/Afro-Caribbean men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) in the United Kingdom (UK) are not well documented. We compared follow-up appointments, adherence, and clinical outcomes among African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS at a high-volume UK hospital with other ethnicities. METHODS: Men with confirmed low-intermediate risk Pca who attended the AS clinic (2005-2016) and had undergone ≥1 follow-up biopsy (n = 458) were included. Non-adherence (defined as >20% missed appointments), suspicion of disease progression (any upgrading, >30% positive cores, cT-stage > 3, PIRADS > 3), any upgrading from diagnostic biopsy and conversion to active treatment (prostatectomy, radiotherapy or hormone therapy) according to ethnicity (African/Afro-Caribbean versus other ethnicities) were assessed using multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-three percent of eligible men were recorded as African/Afro-Caribbean, while the remainder were predominantly Caucasian. African/Afro-Caribbean men had slightly lower PSA at diagnosis (median 5.0 vs. 6.0 ng/mL) and more positive cores at diagnosis (median 2 vs. 1). They had a substantially higher rate of non-attendance at scheduled follow-up visits (24% vs. 10%, p < 0.001). Adjusted analyses suggest African/Afro-Caribbean men may be at increased risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.91, P = 0.054) and upgrading (HR: 1.29; 95% CI 0.87-1.92, P = 0.305), though neither reached statistical significance. No difference in risk of conversion to treatment was observed between ethnic groups (HR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.64-1.47, P = 0.873). CONCLUSIONS: African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS for PCa in the UK are less likely to adhere to scheduled appointments, suggesting a more tailored service addressing their specific needs may be required. While African/Afro-Caribbean men were no more likely to convert to treatment than Caucasian/other men, findings of a potentially higher risk of disease progression signal the need for careful selection and monitoring of African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS. Larger prospective, multicentre studies with longer follow-up are required to provide more definitive conclusions.

Non-technical skills for urological surgeons (NoTSUS): development and evaluation of curriculum and assessment scale.

OBJECTIVE: In the last decade non-technical skills (NTS) have emerged as a vital area for improvement within surgery. This study aims to develop and evaluate a Non-technical Skills for Urological Surgeons (NoTSUS) training curriculum and assessment scale. METHODS: This international, longitudinal and observational study began with a 3-round Delphi methodology to refine curriculum contents and rating scale. Sessions with up to four participants were delivered where each candidate undertook an independent scenario within the validated full immersion simulation environment. Candidates were assessed using both the NoTSS (Non-technical Skills for Surgeons) and NoTSUS rating scales by NTS-trained and non-trained experts. A post-training evaluation survey was distributed. RESULTS: 62 participants comprising trainees (n = 43) and specialists (n = 19) undertook the NoTSUS course. The NoTSS and NoTSUS scales correlated well, with a mean difference of 3.3 in the overall total (p = 0.10, r = 0.53). However, there was significant differences in scores between the NoTSS-trained and non-trained raters (n = 28, p = 0.03). A one-way ANOVA test revealed significant improvement throughout the four simulation scenarios in each session (p = 0.02). The NoTSUS curriculum received positive feedback from participants and demonstrated educational value and acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: The NoTSUS curriculum has demonstrated high educational value for NTS training aimed at urologists, with marked improvement throughout sessions. Correlation of NoTSUS and NoTSS scales proves its suitability for evaluating NTS in future training. Demonstration of inter-rater reliability indicates that the scale is reliable for use in assessment by expert faculty members. Furthermore, qualitative feedback from participants suggests gain of transferrable skills over the course.

External aortic clamping versus endoaortic balloon occlusion in minimally invasive cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery is safe, effective and increasingly popular. It is performed worldwide with the use of either external aortic clamping or endoaortic balloon occlusion. METHODS: We conducted a literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science. Primary outcomes included aortic dissection, conversion to sternotomy, mortality, stroke and cross-clamp time. Secondary outcomes included atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, reoperation for bleeding, cardiopulmonary bypass times, myocardial infarction, use of intra-aortic balloon pump and length of hospital stay. The random effects model was used to calculate the outcomes of both binary and continuous data. RESULTS: Thirty retrospective studies were included in the meta-analysis. The incidence of aortic dissection (pooled odds ratio = 3.88, 95% confidence interval = 1.06-14.18; P =0.04) and conversion to sternotomy (pooled odds ratio = 3.07, 95% confidence interval = 1.33-7.10; P = 0.009) was higher in the endoaortic balloon occlusion group than in the external aortic clamping group, in whom a direct comparison was possible. The remaining observational studies did not show any significant differences in either group. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (P = 0.37), stroke (P = 0.26), cross-clamp time (P = 0.20), atrial fibrillation (P = 0.18), acute kidney injury (P = 0.49), reoperation for bleeding (P = 0.24), cardiopulmonary bypass time (P = 0.06), myocardial infarction (P = 0.74), use of intra-aortic balloon pump (P = 0.11) or length of hospital stay (P = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: External aortic clamping may be safer than endoaortic balloon occlusion with respect to aortic dissection and conversion to sternotomy. However, mortality, length of stay, stroke, cross-clamp time and other cardiovascular complication rates were similar between the 2 techniques.