Assessment of the oncological outcomes of three different bacillus Calmette-Guérin strains in patients with high-grade T1 non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVE: : To determine whether there are significant differences in oncological outcomes between three different bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) strains used for adjuvant intravesical immunotherapy in patients with high-grade T1 (T1HG) non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: : Data of 590 patients with a diagnosis of primary T1HG NMIBC were retrospectively reviewed. The study included 138 (23.4%) patients who were treated with the Moreau, 272 (46.1%) with the TICE, and 180 (30.5%) with the RIVM strains. All patients included in the analysis received at least five instillations of an induction course and at least two installations of a maintenance course. Due to existing differences in baseline patient characteristics, the association between oncological outcomes and strain groups was investigated by complementary analysis with the implementation of inverse probability weighting (IPW). RESULTS: : The 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate was 70.5%, 66.7% and 55.2% for the Moreau, TICE and RIVM groups, respectively (P = 0.016). The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 84.4%, 85% and 77.8% in the Moreau, TICE and RIVM groups, respectively (P = 0.215). The IPW-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression analysis did not show any differences in RFS between the Moreau and TICE groups (P = 0.69), whereas the RIVM strain was significantly associated with worse RFS compared to the Moreau (hazard ratio [HR] 1.69 for RIVM; P = 0.034) and TICE (HR 1.87 for RIVM; P = 0.002) strains. The IPW-adjusted analysis did not show any significant differences between study groups in terms of PFS. CONCLUSIONS: : The results of the present study suggest that the Moreau and TICE strains might be superior to the RIVM strain in terms of RFS in patients with T1HG NMIBC.Abbreviations: CIS: carcinoma in situ; IPW: inverse probability weighting; IQR: interquartile range; HR: hazard ratio; HG: high grade; LVI: lymphovascular invasion; MP: muscularis priopria; NMIBC: non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer; PFS: progression-free survival; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RFS: recurrence-free survival; T1HG, high-grade T1; (re-)TURB: (re-staging) transurethral resection of bladder; VH: variant histology.

Cross-continental comparison of safety and protection measures amongst urologists during COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the well-being of urologists worldwide during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and whether they have adequate personal protective equipment knowledge and supplies appropriate to their clinical setting. METHODS: Urologists worldwide completed a Société Internationale d'Urologie online survey from 16 April 2020 until 1 May 2020. Analysis was carried out to evaluate their knowledge about protecting themselves and others in the workplace, including their confidence in their ability to remain safe at work, and any regional differences. RESULTS: There were 3488 respondents from 109 countries. Urologists who stated they were moderately comfortable that their work environment offers good protection against coronavirus disease 2019 showed a total mean satisfaction level of 5.99 (on a "0 = not at all" to "10 = very" scale). A large majority (86.33%) were confident about protecting themselves from coronavirus disease 2019 at work. However, only about one-third reported their institution provided the required personal protective equipment (35.78%), and nearly half indicated their hospital has or had limited personal protective equipment availability (48.08%). Worldwide, a large majority of respondents answered affirmatively for testing the healthcare team (83.09%). Approximately half of the respondents (52.85%) across all regions indicated that all surgical team members face an equal risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (52.85%). Nearly one-third of respondents reported that they had experienced social avoidance (28.97%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that urologists lack up-to-date knowledge of preferred protocols for personal protective equipment selection and use, social distancing, and coronavirus disease 2019 testing. These data can provide insights into functional domains from which other specialties could also benefit.

[Training program in oncologic urology. Future prospectives.] / Programa formativo en urología oncológica. Perspectivas de futuro.

Urology is a medical-surgical specialty that deals with the study, diagnosis and treatment of the medical and surgical diseases of the urinary apparatus and retroperitoneum in both sexes and the male genital apparatus without age limit, due to congenital, traumatic, septic, metabolic, obstructive and oncological conditions. Urologic oncology is the broadest urological part, where research and new advances make continuous learning essential. In this chapter we treat all academic features related with training in the field of Urooncology.

Development Methodology of the Novel Endoscopic Stone Treatment Step 1 Training/Assessment Curriculum: An International Collaborative Work by European Association of Urology Sections.

Background: Simulation-based technical skill assessment is a core topic of debate, especially in high-risk environments. After the introduction of the E-BLUS (European Basic Laparoscopic Urological Skills) exam for basic laparoscopy, no more technical training/assessment urological protocols have been developed in Europe. Objective: We describe the methodology used in the development of the novel Endoscopic Stone Treatment step 1 (EST s1) assessment curriculum. Materials and Methods: The "full life cycle curriculum development" template was followed for curriculum development. A cognitive task analysis was run to define the most important steps and details of retrograde intrarenal surgery, in accordance with European Association of Urology (EAU) Urolithiasis guidelines. Training tasks were created between April 2015 and September 2015. Tasks and metrics were further analyzed by a consensus meeting with the European Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) board in February 2016. A review, aimed to study available simulators and their accordance with task requirements, was subsequently run in London in March 2016. After initial feedback and further tests, content validity of this protocol was achieved during European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) 2016. Results: The EST s1 curriculum development, took 23 months. Seventy-two participants tested the five preliminary tasks during EUREP 2015, with sessions of 45 minutes each. Likert-scale questionnaires were filled out to score the quality of training. The protocol was modified accordingly and 25 participants tested the four tasks during the hands-on training sessions of the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) 2016 congress. One hundred thirty-four participants finally participated in the validation study in EUREP 2016. During the same event, 10 experts confirmed content validity by filling out a Likert-scale questionnaire. Conclusion: We described a reliable and replicable methodology that can be followed to develop training/assessment protocols for surgical procedures. The expert consensus meetings, strict adherence to guidelines, and updated literature search toward an Endourology curriculum allowed correct training and assessment protocol development. It is the first step toward standardized simulation training in Endourology with a potential for worldwide adoption.