How Surgeons Think to Avoid Error: A Case Study of the Neurovascular Bundle Sparing During a Robotic Prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To illustrate how experts efficiently navigate a "slowing down moment" to obtain optimal surgical outcomes using the neurovascular bundle sparing during a robotic prostatectomy as a case study. DESIGN: A series of semistructured interviews with four expert uro-oncologists were completed using a cognitive task analysis methodology. Cognitive task analysis, CTA, refers to the interview and extraction of a general body of knowledge. Each interview participant completed four 1 to 2-hour semistructured CTA interviews. The interview data were then deconstructed, coded, and analyzed using a grounded theory analysis to produce a CTA-grid for a robotic prostatectomy for each surgeon, with headings of: surgical steps, simplification maneuvers, visual cues, error/complication recognition, and error/complication management and avoidance. SETTING: The study took place at an academic teaching hospital located in an urban center in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Four expert uro-oncologists participated in the study. RESULTS: Visual cues, landmarks, common pitfalls, and technique were identified as the 4 key components of the decision-making happening during a slowing down moment in the neurovascular bundle sparing during a robotic prostatectomy. CONCLUSION: The data obtained from the CTA is novel information identifying patterns and cues that expert surgeons use to inform their surgical decision-making and avoid errors. This decision-making knowledge of visual cues, landmarks, common pitfalls and techniques is also generalizable for other surgical subspecialties. Surgeon educators, surgical teaching programs and trainees looking to improve their decision-making skills could use these components to guide their educational strategies.

Addressing controversial areas in the management of advanced prostate cancer in Canada Areas of consensus and controversy from the third Canadian consensus forum.

INTRODUCTION: The management of prostate cancer (PCa) is rapidly evolving. Treatment and diagnostic options grow annually, however, high-level evidence for the use of new therapeutics and diagnostics is lacking. In November 2022, the Genitourinary Research Consortium held its 3rd Canadian Consensus Forum (CCF3) to provide guidance on key controversial areas for management of PCa. METHODS: A steering committee of eight multidisciplinary physicians identified topics for discussion and adapted questions from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022 for CCF3. Questions focused on management of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC); use of novel imaging, germline testing, and genomic profiling; and areas of non-consensus from CCF2. Fifty-eight questions were voted on during a live forum, with threshold for "consensus agreement" set at 75%. RESULTS: The voting panel consisted of 26 physicians: 13 urologists/uro-oncologists, nine medical oncologists, and four radiation oncologists. Consensus was reached for 32 of 58 questions (one ad-hoc). Consensus was seen in the use of local treatment, to not use metastasis-directed therapy for low-volume mCSPC, and to use triplet therapy for synchronous high-volume mCSPC (low prostate-specific antigen). Consensus was also reached on sufficiency of conventional imaging to manage disease, use of germline testing and genomic profiling for metastatic disease, and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for BRCA-positive prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: CCF3 identified consensus agreement and provides guidance on >30 practice scenarios related to management of PCa and nine areas of controversy, which represent opportunities for research and education to improve patient care. Consensus initiatives provide valuable guidance on areas of controversy as clinicians await high-level evidence.

Yield of second-round MRI targeted ultrasound-guided fusion prostate biopsy after initial first-round targeted biopsy.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to determine the yield of second-round magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion biopsy and factors that may predict eventual clinically significant (CS) prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. METHODS: From 2013 to 2021, 85 men underwent second-round MRI-US fusion biopsy of 92 lesions (47.8% [44/92] peripheral zone and 52.2% [48/92] transition zone). Patient age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density (PSAD), size/location of lesions, ADC value, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), and PRECISE scores were recorded and compared to histopathological diagnosis (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] grade-group 1 PCa, CS PCa=ISUP grade group ≥2 PCa) using logistic regression. RESULTS: Mean patient age, PSA, and PSAD were 64±7 years, 8.5±7.0 ng/ml, and 0.17±0.11, respectively. Results from first-round targeted biopsy were 63% (58/92) negative and 37% (34/92) clinically insignificant (grade group 1) PCa. Overall, second-round targeted biopsy identified 25% (23/92) CS PCa (grade group 2, n=19; grade group 3, n=4). Considering only lesions with initial negative targeted-biopsy results (n=58), 21% (12/58; grade group 2, n=8; grade group 3, n=4) CS PCa and 13 grade group 1 PCa were diagnosed at second-round biopsy. There was no difference in PSA (p=0.564), size (p=0.595), location (p=0.293), or PI-RADS score (p=0.342) of lesions by eventual CS PCa diagnosis. PSAD (0.2±1.4 vs. 0.16±0.10, p=0.167), ADC (0.748±0.199 vs. 0.833±0.257, p=0.151), and PRECISE score (p<0.01) showed a trend towards association or association with eventual CS PCa diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat second-round targeted MRI-US fusion biopsy yielded CS PCa diagnosis in the targeted biopsy specimen in approximately 20% of patients in our study. PRECISE score may be a useful marker to help predict which patients require second-round biopsy.

Estimated glomerular filtration rate from the renal hypothermia trial: clinical implications.

OBJECTIVE: To assess if estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) can replace measured GFR (mGFR) in partial nephrectomy (PN) trials, using data from a randomised clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of the renal hypothermia trial. Patients underwent mGFR with diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) plasma clearance preoperatively and 1 year after PN. The eGFR was calculated using the 2009 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) creatinine equations incorporating age and sex, with and without race: 2009 eGFRcr(ASR) and 2009 eGFRcr(AS), and the 2021 equation that only incorporates age and sex: 2021 eGFRcr(AS). Performance was evaluated by determining the median bias, precision (interquartile range [IQR] of median bias), and accuracy (percentage of eGFR within 30% of mGFR). RESULTS: Overall, 183 patients were included. Pre- and postoperative median bias and precision were similar between the 2009 eGFRcr(ASR) (-0.2 mL/min/1.73 m2 , 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.2 to 1.7, IQR 18.8; and -2.9, 95% CI -5.1 to -1.5, IQR 15, respectively) and 2009 eGFRcr(AS) (-0.3 mL/min/1.73 m2 , 95% CI -2.4 to 1.5, IQR 18.8; and -3.0, 95% CI -5.7 to -1.7, IQR 15.0, respectively). Bias and precision were worse for the 2021 eGFRcr(AS) (-8.8 mL/min/1.73 m2 , 95% CI -10.9 to -6.3, IQR 24.7; and -12.0, 95% CI -15.8 to -8.9, IQR 23.5, respectively). Similarly, pre- and postoperative accuracy was >90% for the 2009 eGFRcr(ASR) and 2009 eGFRcr(AS) equations. Accuracy was 78.6% preoperatively and 66.5% postoperatively for 2021 eGFRcr(AS). CONCLUSION: The 2009 eGFRcr(AS) can accurately estimate GFR in PN trials and could be used instead of mGFR to reduce cost and patient burden.

Patterns of care for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A population-based study.

Objectives: To describe patterns of practice of PSA testing and imaging for Ontario men receiving continuous ADT for the treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective, longitudinal, population-based study of administrative health data from 2008 to 2019. Men 65 years and older receiving continuous androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with documented CRPC were included. An administrative proxy definition was applied to capture patients with nmCRPC and excluded those with metastatic disease. Patients were indexed upon progression to CRPC and were followed until death or end of study period to assess frequency of monitoring with PSA tests and conventional imaging. A 2-year look-back window was used to assess patterns of care leading up to CRPC as well as baseline covariates. Results: At a median follow-up of 40.1 months, 944 patients with nmCRPC were identified. Their median time from initiation of continuous ADT to CRPC was 26.0 months. 60.7% of patients had their PSA measured twice or fewer in the year prior to index, and 70.7% patients did not receive any imaging in the year following progression to CRPC. Throughout the study period, 921/944 (97.6%) patients with CRPC progressed to high-risk (HR-CRPC) with PSA doubling time ≤ 10 months, of which more than half received fewer than three PSA tests in the year prior to developing HR-CRPC, and 30.9% received no imaging in the subsequent year. Conclusion: PSA testing and imaging studies are underutilized in a real-world setting for the management of nmCRPC, including those at high risk of developing metastatic disease. Infrequent monitoring impedes proper risk stratification, disease staging and detection of treatment failure and/or metastases, thereby delaying the necessary treatment intensification with life-prolonging therapies. Adherence to guideline recommendations and the importance of timely staging should be reinforced to optimize patient outcomes.

Primary Adenosquamous Carcinoma of the Prostate with Rectal Invasion.

Prostate adenosquamous carcinoma (pASC) is a rare form of prostate cancer accounting for <1% of all cases. It is generally considered an aggressive variant often presenting with significant symptom burden and/or metastatic disease. Given its rarity, optimal management of this cancer is unknown. We present a case of a patient with pASC treated with radiotherapy and chemotherapy with excellent symptomatic improvement and local control.

A survey of physician perception and practices regarding pharmacological thromboprophylaxis during chemotherapy for bladder cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with advanced bladder cancer receiving chemotherapy have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE); however, we hypothesized these patients were not routinely offered thromboprophylaxis. The objective of this study was to characterize practice patterns and perceptions of Canadian urologic and medical oncologists, and to identify research needs regarding thromboprophylaxis for patients with bladder cancer. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to Canadian urologic and medical oncologists who manage advanced bladder cancer. The survey explored physician opinions regarding VTE rates, risk stratification scores, thromboprophylaxis use in different treatment settings, and interest in clinical trials. RESULTS: Seventy physicians were invited and 36 (51%) completed the survey, including 20 (56%) urologic oncologists and 16 (44%) medical oncologists. Most respondents (35; 97%) believed that exposure to platinum chemotherapy increases VTE risk. For patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 34 (94%) respondents estimated the risk of VTE to be 10% or higher, yet 25 (69%) indicated they do not routinely recommend thromboprophylaxis. Physicians frequently (10; 40%) defer the decision to another physician, while eight (32%) believe there is not enough evidence to guide best management. Similar responses were obtained for metastatic patients. Almost all (94%) respondents were interested in participating in a thromboprophylaxis trial for patients with bladder cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with bladder cancer receiving chemotherapy in Canada are not routinely offered thromboprophylaxis. We found strong interest among Canadian oncologists to participate in clinical trials examining this topic.

Venous thromboembolism risk in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for bladder cancer.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited evidence to inform thromboprophylaxis use for patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to surgery in bladder cancer. We sought to determine the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and cystectomy. We also assessed if the Khorana score was associated with VTE risk. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed on consecutive patients who received a radical cystectomy for bladder cancer at The Ottawa Hospital between January 2016 and August 2020. Demographic information, chemotherapy data, operative characteristics, VTE and bleeding outcomes were collected from the start of treatment to 90 days postoperative. A Khorana score was calculated for each patient who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The primary outcome for this study was the incidence of VTE from the time the patient started treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy until 90 days post-cystectomy. Secondary outcomes included risk factors for VTE during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: Among 181 radical cystectomy cases during the study period, 123 had muscle-invasive disease and 72 (39.8%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eighteen (25.0%) patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical cystectomy developed a VTE from the start of chemotherapy to 90 days postoperative. Thirteen of the 18 VTEs (72%) occurred while the patient was receiving chemotherapy. In multivariable analysis, the only factor associated with a significantly increased risk of VTE was treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Relative risk (RR) 3.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-8.02; P = 0.02). A higher Khorana score was not associated with an increased risk of VTE in patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.08-1.28, P = 0.11). One (1.4%) patient had a major bleeding event during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical cystectomy are at very high-risk of VTE. Prospective studies that assess the benefits and harms of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in this population are needed.

Real-world use of systemic therapies in men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Management of advanced prostate cancer has evolved rapidly with the availability of multiple systemic treatments such as androgen-receptor axis-targeted therapies (ARATs), taxane-based chemotherapy, radium-223, and other approaches. However, limited data exists on real-world treatment selection and clinical outcomes. This study examines the utilization and survival impact of these therapies in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the real-world setting of Ontario, Canada. METHODS: This study was a retrospective, longitudinal, population-based study of administrative claims data between January 2016 and April 2020. Men ≥ 66 years with mCRPC receiving advanced treatment were included. Patients were indexed on the day they initiated mCRPC treatment and followed up until death or end of study period to assess treatment and survival. Multinomial regression was used to model the association between baseline covariates, treatment and survival. RESULTS: Median age was 75 years among the 944 mCRPC patients who received life-prolonging therapies during this time period. Over 90% of patients used an ARAT as a first-line therapy, and 71.5% received only first-line therapy before death or censoring. Of patients that received two or more lines, over 80% received subsequent therapy with a different mechanism of action. Median overall survival was 18.9 months. CONCLUSIONS: ARATs have become the predominant first-line systemic treatment option for mCRPC patients in recent years. Notably, the majority of patients received only a single line of life-prolonging therapy after developing mCRPC. In keeping with the recognized efficacy-effectiveness gap, real-world outcomes in this cohort appear poorer than in clinical trials.

Real-World Use of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy: Intensification Among Older Canadian Men With de Novo Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

Background: Despite the wealth of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of treatment intensification beyond androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) among patients with de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), little is known of its real-world use. This study examined the real-world uptake of ADT treatment intensification among older men in a large Canadian province. Methods: We performed a retrospective population-based cohort study using province-wide linked administrative data in Ontario, Canada. Patients 66 years of age and older with de novo mCSPC were included and their treatment with conventional ADT-based regimens, ADT plus next-generation androgen receptor axis-targeted therapy, and ADT plus docetaxel were identified and stratified by time. Results: From 2014 to 2019, 3556 patients were identified with de novo mCSPC. Most patients (n = 2794 [78.6%]) were treated with a conventional ADT regimen, whereas 399 (11.2%) patients received ADT intensification with docetaxel and 52 (1.5%) patients received abiraterone acetate plus prednisone. In a time-stratified analysis of ADT intensification before and after the pivotal AA+P trial (LATITUDE), AA+P uptake increased from 0.5% to 3.0%, whereas docetaxel use dropped from 12.0% to 10.0%. The median survival of the study population was 18 months (interquartile range = 10-31). Conclusions: The majority of patients with de novo mCSPC are treated with ADT alone in the Canadian real-world setting, despite randomized clinical trial evidence of benefit with the use of ADT-intensified regimens. As ADT treatment intensification is substantially underused, better understanding of the barriers to treatment and targeted education to address them are needed.

Timing of Perioperative Pharmacologic Thromboprophylaxis Initiation and its Effect on Venous Thromboembolism and Bleeding Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative thromboprophylaxis guidelines offer conflicting recommendations on when to start thromboprophylaxis. As a result, there is considerable variation in clinical practice, which can lead to worse patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between the start time of perioperative thromboprophylaxis with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Embase, Medline, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases were searched on October 23, 2020. Randomized controlled trials that evaluated VTE and/or bleeding among groups receiving the initial dose of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis at different times preoperatively, intraoperatively, or postoperatively were included. Only trials that randomized patients to the same medication among groups were eligible. Studies on any type of operation were included. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used. The review was registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; CRD42019142079). The outcomes of interest were VTE and bleeding. Prespecified subgroup analyses of studies including orthopaedic and nonorthopaedic operations were performed. RESULTS: A total of 22 trials (n = 17,124 patients) met eligibility criteria. Pooled results showed a nonstatistically significant decrease in the rate of VTE with preoperative initiation of thromboprophylaxis compared with postoperative initiation (risk ratio 0.77; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.08; I2 = 0%, n = 1,933). There was also a nonstatistically significant increase in the rate of bleeding with preoperative compared with postoperative initiation (risk ratio 1.17; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.46; I2 = 35%, n = 2,752). Risk of bias was moderate. Heterogeneity between studies was low (I2 = 0% to 35%). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis found a nonstatistically significant decrease in the rate of VTE and an increase in the rate of bleeding when thromboprophylaxis was initiated preoperatively compared with postoperatively.

Prognostic Association between Common Laboratory Tests and Overall Survival in Elderly Men with De Novo Metastatic Castration Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Population-Based Study in Canada.

De novo cases of metastatic prostate cancer (mCSPC) are associated with poorer prognosis. To assist in clinical decision-making, we aimed to determine the prognostic utility of commonly available laboratory-based markers with overall survival (OS). In a retrospective population-based study, a cohort of 3556 men aged ≥66 years diagnosed with de novo mCSPC between 2014 and 2019 was identified in Ontario (Canada) administrative database. OS was assessed by using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between laboratory markers and OS adjusting for patient and disease characteristics. Laboratory markers that were assessed include neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), albumin, hemoglobin, serum testosterone and PSA kinetics. Among the 3556 older men with de novo mCSPC, their median age was 77 years (IQR: 71-83). The median survival was 18 months (IQR: 10-31). In multivariate analysis, a statistically significant association with OS was observed with all the markers (NLR, PLR, albumin, hemoglobin, PSA decrease, reaching PSA nadir and a 50% PSA decline), except for testosterone levels. Our findings support the use of markers of systemic inflammation (NLR, PLR and albumin), hemoglobin and PSA metrics as prognostic indicators for OS in de novo mCSPC.

Association between radical cystectomy prophylactic antimicrobial regimen and postoperative infection.

INTRODUCTION: Infections are common after radical cystectomy. The objective of this study was to determine the association between antimicrobial prophylactic regimen and infection after radical cystectomy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed on patients who underwent radical cystectomy at one tertiary Canadian center between January 2016 and April 2020. Patients received antimicrobial prophylaxis based on surgeon preference (cefazolin/metronidazole or ampicillin/ciprofloxacin/metronidazole, or other). A univariable and multivariable logistic regression model was created to determine the association between antimicrobial regimen and postoperative infection within 30 days. The association between patient demographic factors, as well as preoperative and intraoperative variables and infection, was also determined. Infection characteristics, including type, timing, and antimicrobial susceptibilities were reported. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-five patients were included. Mean age was 69.8 years, 121 (73.3%) were male, and 72 (43.6%) received orthotopic neobladder diversion. Ninety-six patients (58%) received cefazolin/metronidazole prophylaxis, 50 (30%) received ampicillin/ciprofloxacin/metronidazole, and 19 (11.5%) received another regimen. Fifty-four patients (32.7%) developed a postoperative infection (surgical site infection or urinary tract infection). Surgical site infection occurred in 35 patients (21.2%) and urinary tract infection occurred in 34 (21.0%). There was no association between antimicrobial regimen and incidence of postoperative infection (surgical site infection or urinary tract infection, relative risk 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.50-1.99). CONCLUSIONS: The overall incidence of infection was 32.7% following radical cystectomy. The preoperative prophylactic antibiotic regimen used was not associated with incidence of postoperative infection.

Results from a Canadian consensus forum of key controversial areas in the management of advanced prostate cancer: Recommendations for Canadian healthcare providers.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid progress in diagnostics and therapeutics for the management of prostate cancer (PCa) has created areas where high-level evidence to guide practice is lacking. The Genitourinary Research Consortium (GURC) conducted its second Canadian consensus forum to address areas of controversy in the management of PCa and provide recommendations to guide treatment. METHODS: A panel of PCa specialists discussed topics related to the management of PCa. The core scientific committee finalized the design, questions, and analysis of the consensus results. Attendees then voted to indicate their management choice regarding each statement/topic. Questions for voting were adapted from the 2019 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference. The thresholds for agreement were set at ≥75% for "consensus agreement," >50% for "near-consensus," and ≤50% for "no consensus." RESULTS: The panel was comprised of 29 PCa experts, including urologists (n=12), medical oncologists (n=12), and radiation oncologists (n=5). Voting took place for 65 predetermined questions and three ad hoc questions. Consensus was reached for 34 questions, spanning a variety of areas, including biochemical recurrence, treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive PCa, management of non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant PCa, bone health, and molecular profiling. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus forum identified areas of consensus or near-consensus in more than half of the questions discussed. Areas of consensus typically aligned with available evidence, and areas of variability may indicate a lack of high-quality evidence and point to future opportunities for further research and education.

Performance Feedback May Not Improve Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes: The Surgical Report Card (SuRep) Study.

PURPOSE: Oncologic, urinary, and sexual outcomes are important to patients receiving prostate cancer surgery. The objective of this study was to determine if providing surgical report cards (SuReps) to surgeons resulted in improved patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective before-and-after study was conducted at The Ottawa Hospital. A total of 422 consecutive patients undergoing radical prostatectomy were enrolled. The intervention was provision of report cards to surgeons. The control cohort was patients treated before report card feedback (pre-SuRep), and the intervention cohort was patients treated after report card feedback (post-SuRep). The primary outcomes were postoperative erectile function, urinary continence, and positive surgical margins. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Almost all patients (99%) were continent and the majority (59%) were potent prior to surgery. Complete 1-year followup was available for 400 patients (95%). Nerve sparing surgery increased from 70% pre-SuRep to 82% post-SuRep (p=0.01). There was a nonstatistically significant increase in the proportion of patients with a positive surgical margin post-SuRep (31% pre-SuRep vs 39% post-SuRep, p=0.08). There was no difference in postoperative erectile function (17% vs 18%, p=0.7) and a decrease in continence (75% vs 65%, p=0.02) at 1 year postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The SuRep platform allows accurate reporting of surgical outcomes that can be used for patient counseling. However, the provision of surgical report cards did not improve functional or oncologic outcomes. Longer durations of feedback, report card modifications, or targeted interventions are likely necessary to improve outcomes.

Returning to the emergency room: An analysis of emergency encounters following urological outpatient surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Previous reports indicate urological surgeries are associated with high rates of hospital re-admission. This study aims to identify factors associated with emergency room (ER) encounters following urological outpatient surgery. METHODS: All outpatient surgeries performed at The Ottawa Hospital between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2018 by urology, general surgery, gynecology, and thoracic surgery were identified. All ER encounters within 90 days of surgery were captured. Rates of ER encounters by surgical service and procedure type were determined. Patient and surgical factors associated with ER encounters were identified. Factors included age, sex, marital status, presence of primary care provider, procedure, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score. RESULTS: A total of 38 377 outpatient surgeries by the included surgical services were performed during the study period, of which urology performed 16 552 (43.1%). Overall, 5641 (14.7%) ER encounters were identified within 90 days of surgery, including 2681 (47.5%) after urological surgery. On multivariable analysis, higher ASA score IV vs. I was associated with higher risk of ER encounter (relative risk [RR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46-2.5) and being married was associated with a lower risk of ER encounter (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.93). Urological surgeries with the highest risk of ER encounters, compared to the lowest risk procedure (circumcision), were greenlight laser photo vaporization of the prostate (PVP) (RR 3.2, 95% CI 1.8-5.61), ureteroscopy (RR 3.2, 95% CI 1.9-5.4), and ureteric stent insertion (RR 3.1, 95% CI 1.8-5.5). CONCLUSIONS: ER encounters following outpatient surgery are common. This study identifies risk factors to recognize patients that may benefit from additional support to reduce ER care needs.

Do androgen-directed therapies improve outcomes in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 50% of patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer are treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). While some men will be cured with surgery alone, a substantial proportion will experience cancer recurrence. Androgen-directed therapy (ADT) is an effective adjuvant therapy for patients treated with prostate radiation. Comparatively, the efficacy of ADT in surgical patients has not been well-studied. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to July 2020 was performed. Randomized trials comparing ADT with RP vs. prostatectomy alone in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were included. Neoadjuvant ADT and adjuvant ADT interventions were assessed separately. The primary outcomes were cancer recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Pathological outcomes following neoadjuvant ADT were also evaluated. RESULTS: Fifteen randomized trials met eligibility criteria; 11 evaluated neoadjuvant ADT (n=2322) and four evaluated adjuvant ADT (n=5205). Neoadjuvant ADT (three months of treatment) did not improve RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-1.11) or OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.62-2.41). Neoadjuvant ADT significantly decreased the risk of positive surgical margins (relative risk [RR] 0.48, 95% CI 0.41-0.56) and extraprostatic tumor extension (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.89). Adjuvant ADT improved RFS (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.45-0.93) but did not improve OS (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.84-1.24). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant ADT causes a pathological downstaging of prostate tumors but has not been found to delay cancer recurrence nor extend survival. Few studies have evaluated adjuvant ADT. Trials are needed to determine the benefits and harms of intermediate- or long-term adjuvant ADT for RP patients.

Hypothermia During Partial Nephrectomy for Patients with Renal Tumors: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Surgeons induce renal hypothermia during partial nephrectomy to preserve kidney function, without strong evidence of benefit. This trial examined the effectiveness and safety of renal hypothermia during partial nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a parallel randomized controlled trial of hypothermia versus no hypothermia (control group) during partial nephrectomy at 6 academic hospitals. Eligible patients had a planned open partial nephrectomy for the treatment of a renal tumor. During surgery, after clamping the renal hilum, patients were randomized to the intervention or control arm in a 1:1 ratio using permuted blocks of variable lengths (2 and 4), stratified by institution, using a computer-based program. Surgeons and study coordinators were masked to treatment allocation until the renal hilum was clamped. Overall glomerular filtration rates were determined before, and 1-year after, surgery. The primary outcome was measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) assessed by the plasma clearance of 99mTc-DTPA. The trial (NCT01529658) was designed with 90% power to detect a minimal clinically important difference in mGFR of 10 ml/minute/1.73 m2 at a 5% significance level. RESULTS: Of the 184 patients randomized, hypothermia and control patients had similar baseline mean mGFR (87.1 vs 81.0 ml/minute/1.73 m2). One hundred and sixty-one (79 hypothermia, 82 control) were alive with primary outcome data 1 year after surgery. The change in mGFR 1 year after surgery was -6.6 ml/minute/1.73 m2 in the hypothermia group and -7.8 ml/minute/1.73 m2 in the control group (mean difference 1.2 ml/minute/1.73 m2, 95% CI -3.3 to 5.6). Operated-kidney change in mGFR was similar between groups (-5.8 vs -6.3 ml/minute/1.73 m2; mean difference 0.5 ml/minute/1.73 m2, 95% CI -2.9 to 3.8). No clinically significant difference in the mGFR was observed when patients were stratified by pre-planned subgroups. Renal hypothermia did not impact the secondary outcomes of surgical complications and patient reported quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Renal hypothermia during partial nephrectomy does not preserve kidney function in patients with normal or mildly impaired renal function.

Thromboprophylaxis practice patterns and beliefs among physicians treating patients with abdominopelvic cancers at a Canadian centre.

Background: There is inadequate high-quality evidence on thromboprophylaxis for patients undergoing surgery for abdominopelvic cancer. We surveyed physicians who treat patients with abdominopelvic cancer to determine current thromboprophylaxis practice patterns and to determine where research is needed. Methods: We created an online survey with questions on thromboprophylaxis topics, including type of thromboprophylaxis used, timing of initial thromboprophylaxis dose, use of thromboprophylaxis during chemotherapy, use of extended-duration thromboprophylaxis and areas for future research. The survey questions were reviewed by external content experts to ensure they were appropriate and relevant. Surgeons, thrombosis experts and medical oncologists who manage patients with abdominopelvic cancers at 1 large Canadian academic centre were invited to complete the survey between January and April 2019. Results: Of the 57 physicians invited, 42 (74%) completed the survey, including 27 surgeons (response rate 79%), 9 thrombosis experts (response rate 75%) and 6 medical oncologists (response rate 55%). Most surgeons (22 [82%]) reported using mechanical thromboprophylaxis, whereas only 1 thrombosis expert (11%) recommended mechanical thromboprophylaxis. There was substantial variability in the timing of the initial dose of thromboprophylaxis, with 9/10 urologists (90%) and all 7 general surgeons giving the first dose intraoperatively, and three-quarters of thoracic surgeons (3/4 [75%]), gynecologists (3/4 [75%]) and thrombosis experts (7/9 [78%]) starting thromboprophylaxis after surgery. All medical oncologists believed chemotherapy increases the risk of venous thromboembolism, but 4 (67%) reported that they do not routinely prescribe thromboprophylaxis owing to bleeding concerns. Most respondents (35/38 [92%]) felt there was a need for more research on thromboprophylaxis and indicated willingness to participate in future clinical trials. Conclusion: Variability exists in contemporary thromboprophylaxis practice patterns among physicians treating patients with abdominopelvic cancer. Future research is needed to standardize care and improve outcomes for patients.

Contexte: On manque de données de qualité élevée sur la thromboprophylaxie chez les patients traités en chirurgie pour un cancer abdomino-pelvien. Nous avons sondé des médecins traitant ces patients afin de déterminer les tendances actuelles relatives à cette pratique et pour cerner les besoins en recherche. Méthodes: Nous avons créé un sondage en ligne sur la thromboprophylaxie, comprenant des questions sur le type utilisé, le moment d'administration de la dose initiale, le recours durant la chimiothérapie, l'utilisation prolongée et les domaines de recherche à explorer. Les questions ont été validées par des experts de contenu externes, qui ont veillé à ce qu'elles soient appropriées et pertinentes. Des chirurgiens, des experts en thrombose et des oncologues qui s'occupent de patients atteints de cancers abdomino-pelviens dans un grand centre hospitalier universitaire canadien ont été invités à remplir le sondage entrer janvier et avril 2019. Résultats: Des 57 médecins sollicités, 42 (74%) ont répondu au sondage, dont 27 chirurgiens (taux de réponse de 79%), 9 experts en thrombose (taux de réponse de 75 %) et 6 oncologues (taux de réponse de 55 %). La majorité des chirurgiens (22 [82 %]) recouraient à la thromboprophylaxie mécanique, alors qu'un seul expert en thrombose (11 %) recommandait cette pratique. Le moment d'administration de la dose initiale variait considérablement: 9 urologues sur 10 (90%) et chacun des 7 chirurgiens généralistes administraient la première dose durant l'opération, alors que les trois quarts des chirurgiens thoraciques (3/4 [75%]), des gynécologues (3/4 [75%]) et des experts en thrombose (7/9 [78%]) commençaient la thromboprophylaxie après l'intervention. Tous les oncologues étaient d'avis que la chimiothérapie augmentait le risque de thromboembolie veineuse, mais 4 (67%) ont indiqué qu'ils ne prescrivaient pas d'emblée de thromboprophylaxie en raison des risques de saignements. La plupart des répondants (35/38 [92%]) considéraient qu'il faudrait étudier davantage la thromboprophylaxie et ont indiqué leur volonté de participer à d'éventuels essais cliniques. Conclusion: À l'heure actuelle, les pratiques liées à la thromboprophylaxie varient chez les médecins traitant des patients atteints de cancers abdomino-pelviens. Il faudra mener d'autres études pour normaliser la prestation des soins et améliorer les résultats pour les patients.