Characteristics of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer who access palliative care: An observational study.

PURPOSE: Despite the benefits of palliative care (PC) in pancreatic cancer, little is known about patients who access PC. This observational study examines the characteristics of patients with pancreatic cancer at their first episode of PC. METHODS: First-time, specialist PC episodes captured through the Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration (PCOC), in Victoria, Australia between 2014 and 2020, for pancreatic cancer, were identified. Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined the impact of patient- and service-level characteristics on symptom burden (measured through patient-reported outcome measures and clinician-rated scores) at first PC episode. RESULTS: Of 2890 eligible episodes, 45% began when the patient was deteriorating and 32% ended in death. High fatigue and appetite-related distress were most common. Generally, increasing age, higher performance status and more recent year of diagnosis predicted lower symptom burden. No significant differences were noted between symptom burden of regional/remote versus major city dwellers; however, only 11% of episodes recorded the patient as a regional/remote resident. A greater proportion of first episodes for non-English-speaking patients began when the patient was unstable, deteriorating or terminal, ended in death and were more likely to be associated with high family/carer problems. Community PC setting predicted high symptom burden, with the exception of pain. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of first-time specialist PC episodes in pancreatic cancer begin at a deteriorating phase and end in death, suggesting late access to PC. Timely referrals to community-based specialist PC, access in regional/remote areas, as well as development of culturally diverse support systems require further investigation.

Mapping disadvantage: identifying inequities in functional outcomes for prostate cancer survivors based on geography.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common internal malignancy in Australian men, and although most patients have good survival outcomes, treatment toxicities can impair function, leading to diminished quality of life for prostate cancer survivors. Socioeconomic disadvantage and geographical remoteness have been shown to be related to worse oncologic outcomes, and it is expected that they would similarly influence functional outcomes in prostate cancer. METHODS: Using data from the Victorian Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry (n = 10,924), we investigated functional outcomes as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26) following prostate cancer treatment, focusing on associations with socioeconomic status and geographical remoteness and controlling for clinicopathologic characteristics. A single composite score was developed from the five separate EPIC-26 domains for use in geo-mapping. RESULTS: A total of 7690 patients had complete EPIC-26 data, allowing mapping hotspots of poor function using our composite score. These hotspots were observed to relate to areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. Significant heterogeneity in outcomes was seen in urban areas, with hotspots of good and poor function. Both socioeconomic disadvantage and geographical remoteness were found to predict for worse functional outcomes, although only the former is significant on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Geo-mapping of functional outcomes in prostate cancer has the potential to guide health care service provision and planning. A nuanced policy approach is required so as not to miss disadvantaged patients who live in urban areas. We have demonstrated the potential of geo-mapping to visualise population-level outcomes, potentially allowing targeted interventions to address inequities in quality of care.

Neuroendocrine cells in prostate cancer correlate with poor outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to understand the variation in the reporting of neuroendocrine staining and determine the influence of reporting neuroendocrine staining at diagnosis on patient outcomes. METHODS: Medical databases were searched to identify studies in which adenocarcinoma specimens were stained with any of the following four neuroendocrine markers: chromogranin A (CgA), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), synaptophysin and CD56. The prevalence of neuroendocrine staining and correlation of the prevalence of neuroendocrine staining to patient outcomes were analysed using a random-effects model. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Sixty-two studies spanning 7616 patients were analysed. The pooled prevalence for the most common marker, CgA (41%), was similar to that of NSE (39%) and higher than that of synaptophysin (31%). The prevalence of CgA staining was significantly influenced by reporting criteria, where objective thresholds reduced the variation in prevalence to 26%. No correlation was found between CgA prevalence and tumour grade. Patients positive for CgA staining using objective criteria had more rapid biochemical progression (hazard ratio [HR] 1.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49 to 2.65) and poorer prostate cancer-specific survival (HR 7.03, 95% CI 2.55 to 19.39) compared to negative patients, even among those with low-risk cancers. CONCLUSION: Discrepancies in the reported prevalence of neuroendocrine cells in adenocarcinoma are driven by the inconsistent scoring criteria. This study unequivocally demonstrates that when neuroendocrine cell staining is assessed with objective criteria it identifies patients with poor clinical outcomes. Future studies are needed to determine the exact quantifiable thresholds for use in reporting neuroendocrine cell staining to identify patients at higher risk of progression.

Self-reported lack of energy or feeling depressed 12 months after treatment in men diagnosed with prostate cancer within a population-based registry.

OBJECTIVE: Feeling depressed and lethargic are common side effects of prostate cancer (PCa) and its treatments. We examined the incidence and severity of feeling depressed and lack of energy in patients in a population based PCa registry. METHODS: We included men diagnosed with PCa between 2015 and 2019 in Victoria, Australia, and enrolled in the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry. The primary outcome measures were responses to two questions on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) patient reported instrument: problems with feeling depressed and problems with lack of energy 12 months following treatment. We evaluated associations between these and age, cancer risk category, treatment type, and urinary, bowel, and sexual function. RESULTS: Both outcome questions were answered by 9712 out of 12,628 (77%) men. 981 patients (10%) reported at least moderate problems with feeling depressed; 1563 (16%) had at least moderate problems with lack of energy and 586 (6.0%) with both. Younger men reported feeling depressed more frequently than older men. Lack of energy was more common for treatments that included androgen deprivation therapy than not (moderate/big problems: 31% vs. 13%), irrespective of disease risk category. Both outcomes were associated with poorer urinary, bowel, and sexual functional domain scores. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported depressive feelings and lack of energy were frequent in this population-based registry. Problems with feeling depressed were more common in younger men and lack of energy more common in men having hormonal treatment. Clinicians should be aware of the incidence of these symptoms in these at-risk groups and be able to screen for them.

Comparison of urinary and sexual patient-reported outcomes between open radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity score matched, population-based study in Victoria.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) rates have been increasing worldwide despite a lack of evidence of superior patient-reported outcomes (PROs) compared to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). METHODS: This retrospective study included men who contributed data to the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Victoria (PCOR-Vic), underwent ORP or RARP between January 2014 and May 2018, and completed the EPIC-26 questionnaire 12 months post-surgery. Urinary and sexual bother items, the urinary incontinence domain score, the urinary irritative/obstructive domain score, the sexual domain score and the pad usage item from the EPIC-26 questionnaire were compared between the two cohorts. Unmatched and propensity score matched cohorts were used to determine if there were differences in urinary and sexual PROs between ORP and RARP after accounting for the patient case-mix and surgeon characteristics. RESULTS: Of 3826 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP), 1047 received ORP and 2779 received RARP. Propensity score matching reduced the magnitude of the observed differences in four out of six outcomes (urinary bother, urinary incontinence domain, pad usage and sexual domain). Using a propensity score matched cohort, there were no statistically significant differences for RARP patients, compared to ORP patients, in terms of urinary bother (Rd = 0.47%, P = 0.707), urinary incontinence domain scores (Coeff = - 0.84, P = 0.506), urinary irritative/obstructive domain scores (Coeff = 1.03, P = 0.105), pad usage (Rd = - 0.75%, P = 0.771) and sexual bother (Rd = - 0.89%, P = 0.731). RARP patients had slightly higher sexual domain scores (Coeff = 3.65, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: There were no differences in urinary PROs between ORP and RARP when assessed 12 months post-surgery. The sexual domain slightly favoured RARP, however this was not deemed clinically significant.

Prognostic models to predict survival in patients with pancreatic cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has poor survival. Current treatments offer little likelihood of cure or long-term survival. This systematic review evaluates prognostic models predicting overall survival in patients diagnosed with PDAC. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of eight electronic databases from their date of inception through to December 2019. Studies that published models predicting survival in patients with PDAC were identified. RESULTS: 3297 studies were identified; 187 full-text articles were retrieved and 54 studies of 49 unique prognostic models were included. Of these, 28 (57.1%) were conducted in patients with advanced disease, 17 (34.7%) with resectable disease, and four (8.2%) in all patients. 34 (69.4%) models were validated, and 35 (71.4%) reported model discrimination, with only five models reporting values >0.70 in both derivation and validation cohorts. Many (n = 27) had a moderate to high risk of bias and most (n = 33) were developed using retrospective data. No variables were unanimously found to be predictive of survival when included in more than one study. CONCLUSION: Most prognostic models were developed using retrospective data and performed poorly. Future research should validate instruments performing well locally in international cohorts and investigate other potential predictors of survival.

The association between quality care and outcomes for a real-world population of Australian patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study: (i) assessed compliance with a consensus set of quality indicators (QIs) in pancreatic cancer (PC); and (ii) evaluated the association between compliance with these QIs and survival. METHODS: Four years of data were collected for patients diagnosed with PC. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A multivariable analysis tested the relationship between significant patient and hospital characteristics, patient cluster effects within hospitals and survival. RESULTS: 1061 patients were eligible for this study. Significant association with improved survival were: (i) in the potentially resectable group having adjuvant chemotherapy administered following surgery or a reason documented (HR, 0.29; 95 CI, 0.19-0.46); (ii) in the locally advanced group included having chemotherapy ± chemoradiation, or a reason documented for not undergoing treatment (HR, 0.38; 95 CI, 0.25-0.58); and (iii) in the metastatic disease group included having documented performance status at presentation (HR, 0.65; 95 CI, 0.47-0.89), being seen by an oncologist in the absence of treatment (HR, 0.48; 95 CI, 0.31-0.77), and disease management discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting (HR, 0.79; 95 CI, 0.64-0.96). CONCLUSION: Capture of a concise data set has enabled quality of care to be assessed.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in pancreatic cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review is to examine patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), their attributes and application in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC). METHOD: A systematic literature search was undertaken of articles published to June 2018 to identify PROMs applied in primary studies in PC. Characteristics of the included studies and PROMs were described with identified scales grouped into five domains. The psychometric properties of the identified PROMs were further assessed for reliability and validity among patients with PC. RESULTS: From 1688 studies screened, 170 were included. Almost half (48%) were conducted in patients with unresectable PC; the majority of these (68%) were evaluated in randomized controlled trials. Median questionnaire completion rates fell below 10% of the original cohort within 12 months in patients with unresectable PC compared to 75% in patients with resectable PC. Seventy PROMs were identified, 32 measuring unidimensional parameters (e.g. pain) and 35 measuring multidimensional (e.g. quality of life) constructs. Only five (7%) PROMs were disease-specific and 13 (19%) were validated in patients with PC. Fifty scales were grouped into 19 physical, 9 psychological, 6 psychiatric, 9 social and 7 other domains. CONCLUSION: Three multidimensional PROMs, the: (i) FACT-HEP in unresectable PC; (ii) QLQ-PAN26 (in conjunction with its core QLQ-C30 PROM) in resectable PC; and (iii) MDASI-GI are recommended as instruments to capture quality of life in patients with PC. Summarised scales and psychometric evaluation provide a framework to choose PROMs for scales not captured by the recommended PROMs.

A randomised controlled trial comparing completeness of responses of three methods of collecting patient-reported outcome measures in men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to compare completeness, timeliness and cost of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collection using telephone, email and post in men with prostate cancer. METHODS: A parallel, three-arm randomised controlled equivalence trial. 1168 patients were randomised to telephone (n = 295), postal (n = 388) and email (n = 385) arms. Participants were asked to provide self-reported responses for 26 items of Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite. Cost and resource data were collected from a provider perspective. RESULTS: Equivalence tests showed no difference in completeness in the three arms within a 10% equivalence margin. Men diagnosed in public hospitals were less likely to complete the survey compared to those in private hospitals, OR = 0.19 (95% CI 0.04-0.89) (p = 0.035). The email survey required significantly less time to complete than telephone and postal methods [median time of 2 min (IQR 1,8) vs. 7 min (IQR 6,9) vs. 10 min (IQR 9,12), respectively (p < 0.001)]. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for email compared to telephone was AUD$1.90, cost-effective if users valued an additional 1% improvement in survey completion greater than AUD$1.90. CONCLUSION: Email method took less time and cost and should be used as the primary PROMs collection, with telephone if men without email or do not respond to email.

Monitoring quality of care for patients with pancreatic cancer: a modified Delphi consensus.

BACKGROUND: Best practise care optimises survival and quality of life in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC), but there is evidence of variability in management and suboptimal care for some patients. Monitoring practise is necessary to underpin improvement initiatives. We aimed to develop a core set of quality indicators that measure quality of care across the disease trajectory. METHODS: A modified, three-round Delphi survey was performed among experts with wide experience in PC care across three states in Australia. A total of 107 potential quality indicators were identified from the literature and divided into five areas: diagnosis and staging, surgery, other treatment, patient management and outcomes. A further six indicators were added by the panel, increasing potential quality indicators to 113. Rated on a scale of 1-9, indicators with high median importance and feasibility (score 7-9) and low disagreement (<1) were considered in the candidate set. RESULTS: From 113 potential quality indicators, 34 indicators met the inclusion criteria and 27 (7 diagnosis and staging, 5 surgical, 4 other treatment, 5 patient management, 6 outcome) were included in the final set. CONCLUSIONS: The developed indicator set can be applied as a tool for internal quality improvement, comparative quality reporting, public reporting and research in PC care.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted vs open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in men with localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We included all randomized or pseudo-randomized controlled trials that directly compared LRP and RARP with ORP. Two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The primary outcomes were prostate cancer-specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions. RESULTS: We included two unique studies in a total of 446 randomized participants with clinically localized prostate cancer. All available outcome data were short-term (up to 3 months). We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer-specific survival. Based on one trial, RARP probably results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (mean difference [MD] -1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.65 to 2.05; moderate quality of evidence) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI: -1.84 to 9.64; moderate quality of evidence). No study addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence-free survival or overall survival. Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (risk ratio [RR] 0.41, 95% CI: 0.16-1.04; low quality of evidence) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI: 0.02-1.32; low quality of evidence). Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at 1 day (MD -1.05, 95% CI: -1.42 to -0.68; low quality of evidence) and up to 1 week (MD -0.78, 95% CI: -1.40 to -0.17; low quality of evidence). Based on one study, RARP probably results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI: -0.32 to 0.34; moderate quality of evidence). Based on one study, RARP probably reduces the length of hospital stay (MD -1.72, 95% CI: -2.19 to -1.25; moderate quality of evidence). Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; low quality of evidence). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1,000 men (95% CI: 78-48 fewer). CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared with ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life appear similar. Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions.

Active surveillance of men with low risk prostate cancer: evidence from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Victoria.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise the practice of active surveillance (AS) for men with low risk prostate cancer by examining the characteristics of those who commence AS, the rate of adherence to accepted AS follow-up protocols over 2 years, and factors associated with good adherence. Design, setting: Retrospective cohort study; analysis of data collected from 38 sites participating in the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Victoria. PARTICIPANTS: Men diagnosed with prostate cancer between August 2008 and December 2014 aged 75 years or less at diagnosis, managed by AS for at least 2 years, and with an ISUP grade group of 3 or less (Gleason score no worse than 4 + 3 = 7). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to an AS schedule consisting of at least three PSA measurements and at least one biopsy in the 2 years following diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 1635 men eligible for inclusion in the analysis, 433 (26.5%) adhered to the AS protocol. The significant predictor of adherence in the multivariate model was being diagnosed in a private hospital (v public hospital: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.42-2.37; P < 0.001). Significant predictors of non-adherence included being diagnosed by transurethral resection of the prostate (v transrectal ultrasound biopsy [TRUS]: OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39-0.77; P < 0.001) or transperineal biopsy (v TRUS: OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.19-0.52; P < 0.001), and being 66 years of age or more at diagnosis (v < 55 years: OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.92; P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Almost three-quarters of men who had prostate cancer with low risk of disease progression did not have follow-up investigations consistent with standard AS protocols. The clinical consequences of this shortcoming are unknown.

Do patients have a say? A narrative review of the development of patient-reported outcome measures used in elective procedures for coronary revascularisation.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) capture health information from the patient's perspective that can be used when weighing up benefits, risks and costs of treatment. This is important for elective procedures such as those for coronary revascularisation. Patients should be involved in the development of PROMs to accurately capture outcomes that are important for the patient. The aims of this review are to identify if patients were involved in the development of cardiovascular-specific PROMs used for assessing outcomes from elective coronary revascularisation, and to explore what methods were used to capture patient perspectives. METHODS: PROMs for evaluating outcomes from elective coronary revascularisation were identified from a previous review and an updated systematic search. The studies describing the development of the PROMs were reviewed for information on patient input in their conceptual and/or item development. RESULTS: 24 PROMs were identified from a previous review and three additional PROMs were identified from the updated search. Full texts were obtained for 26 of the 27 PROMs. The 26 studies (11 multidimensional, 15 unidimensional) were reviewed. Only nine studies reported developing PROMs using patient input. For eight PROMs, the inclusion of patient input could not be judged due to insufficient information in the full text. CONCLUSIONS: Only nine of the 26 reviewed PROMs used in elective coronary revascularisation reported involving patients in their conceptual and/or item development, while patient input was unclear for eight PROMs. These findings suggest that the patient's perspective is often overlooked or poorly described in the development of PROMs.

Cross-sectional study of characteristics of clinical registries in Australia: a resource for clinicians and policy makers.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the attributes of Australian clinical quality registries (CQR). DESIGN AND SETTING: Survey of 40 CQRs between September 2015 and April 2016. PARTICIPANTS: CQR lead investigators/project managers. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Registry organization, geographical coverage, data quality, management, characteristics, output and outcomes. RESULTS: Of those who responded (34/40; 85.0%), 12 (34.3%) were binational (Australia and New Zealand); 22 (64.7%) were Australian-only registries; and 13 (38.2%) had national coverage. CQRs covered critical care, infection control, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, chronic diseases, procedures and devices, and transplants. Overall, 24/34 CQRs (70.6%) were public sector funded. In total, 14 (41.2%) scored >75% on a composite score developed to assess data quality. Overall, 29/34 (85.3%) produced an annual multi-centred report; only 15/34 (44.1%) produced provider-specific reports. Mortality/survival and quality of life were collected by 82.4 and 32.4% of CQRs, respectively. Most CQRs displayed data in bar/column charts (28/34, 82.4%) and funnel plots (17/34, 50%). Most CQRs adopted an opt-out consent process (n = 17/31; 54.8%). Linear regression indicated that longer duration of CQR was associated with higher data quality (>20 vs 0-5 years coefficient = 4.76, 95% CI: 0.26, 9.26). Opt-in consent was associated with lower data quality (no active consent vs opt-in approval method, coefficient = -5.22, 95% CI: -8.71, -1.72). Six CQRs self-reported having undertaken an economic evaluation of their registry. CONCLUSION: CQRs varied in geographical coverage; stage of development, approach to recruitment; method and frequency of reporting their output; and data quality assurance. An accreditation system for CQRs would likely assist in recognizing high-quality registries.

Pressure injury identification, measurement, coding, and reporting: Key challenges and opportunities.

Pressure injury (PI) rates are a commonly used indicator of performance of health care facilities, both in acute and subacute settings. However, measuring PI rates in an accurate and reproducible fashion has been challenging. The consequences of poor measurement may include failure to identify poorly performing institutions or incorrect accusations of poor quality care. In this article, we describe the main challenges in identification, coding, and reporting of PIs. Issues include inconsistent identification of PIs at the time of admission, variations in the intensity of PI detection, and differing approaches to coding and the adjustment for differing risks amongst different patient population. These are compounded by differences in the epidemiological approach because rates will differ according to whether patients are surveyed cross-sectionally (eg, on a set day per month) or if the survey is undertaken at discharge. In some cases, financial incentives may also influence PI reporting. We also discuss potential strategies for improving data collection and benchmarking as an aid to reducing PI prevalence.

Lung cancer prognostic index: a risk score to predict overall survival after the diagnosis of non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Non-small-cell lung cancer outcomes are poor but heterogeneous, even within stage groups. To improve prognostic precision we aimed to develop and validate a simple prognostic model using patient and disease variables. METHODS: Prospective registry and study data were analysed using Cox proportional hazards regression to derive a prognostic model (hospital 1, n=695), which was subsequently tested (Harrell's c-statistic for discrimination and Cox-Snell residuals for calibration) in two independent validation cohorts (hospital 2, n=479 and hospital 3, n=284). RESULTS: The derived Lung Cancer Prognostic Index (LCPI) included stage, histology, mutation status, performance status, weight loss, smoking history, respiratory comorbidity, sex, and age. Two-year overall survival rates according to LCPI in the derivation and two validation cohorts, respectively, were 84, 77, and 68% (LCPI 1: score⩽9); 61, 61, and 42% (LCPI 2: score 10-13); 33, 32, and 14% (LCPI 3: score 14-16); 7, 16, and 5% (LCPI 4: score ⩾15). Discrimination (c-statistic) was 0.74 for the derivation cohort, 0.72 and 0.71 for the two validation cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The LCPI contributes additional prognostic information, which may be used to counsel patients, guide trial eligibility or design, or standardise mortality risk for epidemiological analyses.

Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is commonly diagnosed in men worldwide. Surgery, in the form of radical prostatectomy, is one of the main forms of treatment for men with localised prostate cancer. Prostatectomy has traditionally been performed as open surgery, typically via a retropubic approach. The advent of laparoscopic approaches, including robotic-assisted, provides a minimally invasive alternative to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy or robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy in men with localised prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We also searched bibliographies of included studies and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a direct comparison of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) to ORP, including pseudo-RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. The primary outcomes were prostate cancer-specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included two unique studies with 446 randomised participants with clinically localised prostate cancer. The mean age, prostate volume, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of the participants were 61.3 years, 49.78 mL, and 7.09 ng/mL, respectively. Primary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer-specific survival. Based on data from one trial, RARP likely results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (MD -1.30, 95% CI -4.65 to 2.05) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI -1.84 to 9.64). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate for both quality of life outcomes, downgrading for study limitations. Secondary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence-free survival or overall survival.Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.04) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.32). We rated the quality of evidence as low for both surgical complications, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision.Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at one day (MD -1.05, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.68 ) and up to one week (MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.17). We rated the quality of evidence for both time-points as low, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision. Based on one study, RARP likely results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.34). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on one study, RARP likely reduces the length of hospital stay (MD -1.72, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.25). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on two study, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.46). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1000 men (95% CI 78 fewer to 48 fewer). We rated the quality of evidence as low, downgrading for study limitations and indirectness.We were unable to perform any of the prespecified secondary analyses based on the available evidence. All available outcome data were short-term and we were unable to account for surgeon volume or experience. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no high-quality evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared to ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life-related outcomes appear similar.Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions. All available outcome data were short-term, and this study was unable to account for surgeon volume or experience.

Study protocol of an equivalence randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of three different approaches to collecting Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) data using the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Victoria (PCOR-VIC).

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used by clinical quality registries to assess patients' perspectives of care outcomes and quality of life. PROMs can be assessed through a self-administered survey or by a third party. Use of mixed mode approaches where PROMs are completed using a single or combination of administration method is emerging. The aim of this study is to identify the most cost-effective efficient approach to collecting PROMs among three modes (telephone, postal service/mail and email) in a population-based clinical quality registry monitoring survivorship after a diagnosis of prostate cancer. This is important to assist the registry in achieving representative PROMs capture using the most cost-effective technique and in developing cost projections for national scale-up. METHODS/DESIGN: This study will adopt an equivalence randomised controlled design. Participants are men diagnosed with and/or treated for prostate cancer (PCa) participating in PCOR-VIC and meet the criteria for 12-month follow-up. Participants will be individually randomized to three independent groups: telephone, mail/postal, or email to complete the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) survey. It is estimated each group will have 229 respondents. We will compare the proportion of completed surveys across the three groups. The economic evaluation will be undertaken from the perspective of the data collection centre and consider all operating costs (personnel, supplies, training, operation and maintenance). Cost data will be captured using an Activity Based Costs method. To estimate the most cost-effective approach, we will calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. A cost projection model will be developed based on most cost-effective approach for nationwide scale-up of the PROMs tool for follow-up of PCa patients in Australia. DISCUSSION: This study will identify the most cost-effective approach for collecting PROMs from men with PCa, and enable estimation of costs for national implementation of the PCa PROMs survey. The findings will be of interest to other registries embarking on PROMs data collection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12615001369516 (Registered on December 16, 2015).

Comparison of oncological and health-related quality of life outcomes between open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer - findings from the population-based Victorian Prostate Cancer Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the short-term oncological and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes between open (ORP) and robot-assisted (RARP) radical prostatectomy in the population-based Victorian Prostate Cancer Registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a prospective cohort of patients with prostate cancer who had RP (1117 ORP and 885 RARP) between January 2009 and June 2012. The oncological outcomes of interest were: positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR), defined as postoperative PSA level of >0.2 ng/mL. The HRQOL outcomes were: sexual and urinary bother, assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at 1- and 2-years after diagnosis. For univariate comparison of continuous variables the Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test were used, and the Pearson's chi-squared test was used for categorical variables. Bonferroni correction was applied to account for multiple testing, with a threshold for significance of P < 0.003 for univariate analyses. The inverse-probability-treatment-weighting (IPTW) approach was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between ORP and RARP patients [including age, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk categories, hospitals, and year of RP] in all multivariate analyses. Logistic regressions were used to analyse for PSM, Cox regressions for BCR, and ordinal logistic regressions for HRQOL outcomes. All multivariate analyses also adjusted for surgeons' average annual caseload, and employed the robust standard errors for clustering by surgeon. RESULTS: ORP and RARP patients were followed for a median of 19 and 17 months, respectively. The proportion of patients with NCCN low-risk prostate cancer was significantly higher among RARP patients (21% vs 26%; P = 0.002). Most RPs was done in private hospitals (77% ORP, and 85% RARP, P < 0.001). A higher proportion of RARP patients were operated by surgeons with higher annual caseloads (65% RARP and 53% ORP operated by surgeons with >20 case/year; P < 0.001). In the IPTW-adjusted multivariate analyses, RARP patients had a lower risk of PSM (odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.81), and BCR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.99). In the sensitivity analyses (excluding public hospital patients), the lower PSM risk with RARP remained (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.38-0.81), but the lower BCR risk with RARP was no longer statistically significant (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57-1.12). At 1-year follow-up, 61% of ORP and 59% of RARP patients reported 'moderate-big' sexual bother (P = 0.2), while 14% of ORP and 11% of RARP patients reported 'moderate-big' urinary bother (P = 0.08). The sexual and urinary bothers at 2 years were similar between ORP and RARP. In multivariate analyses, there were no statistically significant differences in the HRQOL outcomes between ORP and RARP. CONCLUSIONS: We report on a large population-based comparative study of ORP and RARP with better short-term oncological outcomes favouring RARP, but no significant differences in HRQOL outcomes. The results have to be interpreted taking into account significant surgeon heterogeneity in a population-based study.