[Geriatric assessment - What should be done and considered before starting therapy of mHSPC and mCRPC?] / Geriatrisches Assessment ­ Was sollte vor Therapiebeginn des mHSPC und des mCRPC gemacht und bedacht werden?

The systemic treatment of prostate cancer nowadays is predominantly carried out with combination therapies. A range of aspects should be respected in older and comorbid patients, in order to avoid toxicities and to achieve a successful therapy alongside good quality of life. The definition of geriatric patients is not primarily based on chronological age but rather on the overall health condition and life expectancy. Comorbid patients > 70 years should undergo a three-step geriatric screening before treatment initiation. If the G8 screening and/or mini-COG shows abnormalities (taking into account nutrition, comorbidity/medication, mobility, and cognition), a simplified geriatric assessment is recommended. Patients can then be stratified into three groups (fit, vulnerable, frail). Only a few cases warrant a complete geriatric assessment. Treatable deficits in the above mentioned domains should be improved if possible. When choosing a systemic therapy, fit patients can be treated the same as non-geriatric patients. Vulnerable and frail patients are under a higher risk for toxicities, so special care should be taken. While the diverse substances of hormonal therapy are usually well tolerated (even though some substance-specific toxicities can occur), haematotoxic substances such as taxanes or olaparib can only be recommended in select cases. As falls - especially under hormonal therapy - are a common problem, osteoprotective therapy should especially be considered. Upon progression of the tumour disease, there should not be a reflex to simply switch to the next line of treatment, but an individual concept should be established together with the patient and his relatives, taking into account aspects of palliative care and patient needs and focussing on quality of life and also setting therapy limitations.

[Another encroachment on our liberal profession-The German Federal Ministry of Health continues to stubbornly ignore the self-government]. / Ein weiterer Eingriff in unsere Freiberuflichkeit ­ das Bundesgesundheitsministerium ignoriert weiter hartnäckig die Selbstverwaltung.

Overall, the German healthcare system is shaped by numerous players and institutions. With the state medical associations as public corporations for self-governance and the Heilberufsgesetz (German Health Professions Act), professional practice, professional representation and professional jurisdiction are regulated at the state level. The Joint Federal Committee ("Gemeinsame Bundesausschuss"), the highest decision-making body of joint self-governance in the German health care system, plays a central role. Practicing a liberal profession is intended to guarantee an undisturbed physician-patient relationship. Neither in hospitals nor in outpatient care can medical care be separated from economic constraints, but the fundamental binding of medical care to pure service catalogs leads to mismanagement. The goal of the hospital reform proposals currently being developed by the German Federal Ministry of Health is to avoid unnecessary hospital closures and to ensure high-quality care throughout the country, even in rural regions. In the age of strict separation of outpatient and inpatient care, the diagnosis-related group (DRG) system has primarily led to services migrating to the inpatient sector. It may no longer be possible to offer all continuing education courses at all continuing education centers following a reform of the care structure.

Discriminative capacity of guideline recommendations in the assessment of patients with asymptomatic microhematuria.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Asymptomatic microhematuria (aMh) remains a diagnostic challenge in urological practice: while aMh is a risk factor of urothelial carcinoma (UC), prevalence of aMh is high. Guidelines were developed to permit risk stratification and reduce diagnostic workload. This study investigates the efficacy of several recommendations. MATERIAL & METHODS: Sixty hundred eight patients with newly diagnosed aMh without previous UC from an academic referral center (A; n = 320) and a private outpatient clinic (B; n = 288) were included. All patients underwent clinical workup including medical history, urine cytology, upper tract imaging and cystoscopy. Eleven former and current guidelines were applied to each patient individually; every patient was classified as either low risk (no further workup recommended) or high risk. Furthermore, a recently developed nomogram for hematuria assessment was included. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 142 females and 466 males (mean age 62 [range 18-92] years). Sixty-one patients (10.0%) were diagnosed with UC. Excluding the Swedish and recent NICE guideline generally advising against urologic workup, application of 9 other recommendations would have diagnosed all UCs and saved 1.6% to 16.1% of patients from workup. For the 2020 US guideline, solely applied to cohort B, 10.6% of patients were classified as low risk. The use of the nomogram would have saved 17.1% to 25% of patients from workup. CONCLUSIONS: Practical relevance of current guidelines is limited as they do not sufficiently identify patients not requiring clinical work up. Thus, guideline adherence may trigger overdiagnosis and even overtreatment. New ways of risk stratification are needed to improve aMh assessment.

Microhematuria assessment an IBCN consensus-Based upon a critical review of current guidelines.

RATIONALE: Assessment of patients with asymptomatic microhematuria (aMh) has been a challenge to urologists for decades. The aMh is a condition with a high prevalence in the general population and also an established diagnostic indicator of bladder cancer. Acknowledging aMh needs to be assessed within a complex context, multiple guidelines have been developed to identify individuals at high risk of being diagnosed with bladder cancer. MATERIAL & METHODS: This structured review and consensus of the International Bladder Cancer Network (IBCN) identified and examined 9 major guidelines. These recommendations are partly based on findings from a long-term study on the effects of home dipstick testing, but also on the assumption that early detection of malignancy might be beneficial. RESULTS: Despite similar designs, these guidelines differ in a variety of parameters including definition of aMh, rating of risks, use of imaging modalities, and the role of urine cytology. In addition, recommendations for further follow-up after negative initial assessment are controversial. In this review, different aspects for aMh assessment are analyzed based upon the evidence currently available. DISCUSSION: We question whether adherence to the complicated algorithms as recommended by most guidelines is practical for routine use. Based upon a consensus, the authors postulate a need for better tools. New concepts for risk assessment permitting improved risk stratification and prepone cystoscopy before refined imaging procedures (computed tomography scan and magnetic resonance imaging) are suggested.

Assessment of the extent of unpublished studies in prognostic factor research: a systematic review of p53 immunohistochemistry in bladder cancer as an example.

OBJECTIVES: When study groups fail to publish their results, a subsequent systematic review may come to incorrect conclusions when combining information only from published studies. p53 expression measured by immunohistochemistry is a potential prognostic factor in bladder cancer. Although numerous studies have been conducted, its role is still under debate. The assumption that unpublished studies too harbour evidence on this research topic leads to the question about the attributable effect when adding this information and comparing it with published data. Thus, the aim was to identify published and unpublished studies and to explore their differences potentially affecting the conclusion on its function as a prognostic biomarker. DESIGN: Systematic review of published and unpublished studies assessing p53 in bladder cancer in Germany between 1993 and 2007. RESULTS: The systematic search revealed 16 studies of which 11 (69%) have been published and 5 (31%) have not. Key reason for not publishing the results was a loss of interest of the investigators. There were no obviously larger differences between published and unpublished studies. However, a meaningful meta-analysis was not possible mainly due to the poor (ie, incomplete) reporting of study results. CONCLUSIONS: Within this well-defined population of studies, we could provide empirical evidence for the failure of study groups to publish their results that was mainly caused by loss of interest. This fact may be coresponsible for the role of p53 as a prognostic factor still being unclear. We consider p53 and the restriction to studies in Germany as a specific example, but the critical issues are probably similar for other prognostic factors and other countries.