Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: Treatment Options.

BACKGROUND: There are many treatment options for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer with radiotherapy and surgery representing the main local therapeutic strategies. SUMMARY: Depending on the risk of disease recurrence, we can stratify patients into low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups, which will guide patients' treatment. For low-risk patients, active surveillance is an option. Brachytherapy is also an option for low- and intermediate-risk patients and can be used as a boost following external beam radiotherapy for high-risk patients. For intermediate- and high-risk patients, radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy should be considered. Moreover, in addition to radiotherapy, concomitant androgen deprivation therapy may be needed. Finally, after radical prostatectomy and depending on pathological, biological and clinical factors, radiotherapy ± androgen deprivation therapy can be proposed as an adjuvant or salvage treatment. Key Messages: With radiotherapy and surgery being well-established treatment options for localized prostate cancer patients with equally good overall survival rates, priority must be given to patients' choice concerning the logistics and the toxicity profile of each option.

Decision Making Criteria in Oncology.

Decision making is one of the most complex skills required of an oncologist and is affected by a broad range of parameters. For example, the wide variety of treatment options, with various outcomes, side-effects and costs present challenges in selecting the most appropriate treatment. Many treatment choices are affected by limited scientific evidence, availability of therapies or patient-specific factors. In the decision making process, standardized approaches can be useful, but a multitude of criteria are relevant to this process. Thus, the aim of this review is to summarize common types of decision criteria used in oncology by focusing on 3 main categories: criteria associated with the decision maker (both patient and doctor), decision specific criteria, and the often-overlooked contextual factors. Our review aims to highlight the broad range of decision criteria in use, as well as variations in their interpretation.

Insular Decision Criteria in Clinical Practice: Analysis of Decision-Making in Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Medical decision-making is complex and involves a variety of decision criteria, many of which are universally recognised. However, decision-making analyses have demonstrated that certain decision criteria are not used uniformly among clinicians. AIM: We describe decision criteria, which for various contexts are only used by a minority of decision makers. For these, we introduce and define the term "insular criteria". METHODS: 19 studies analysing clinical decision-making based on decision trees were included in our study. All studies were screened for decision-making criteria that were mentioned by less than three local decision makers in studies involving 8-26 participants. RESULTS: 14 out of the 19 included studies reported insular criteria. We identified 42 individual insular criteria. They could be intuitively allocated to seven major groups, these were: comorbidities, treatment, patients' characteristics/preferences, caretaker, scores, laboratory and tumour properties/staging. CONCLUSION: Insular criteria are commonly used in clinical decision-making, yet, the individual decision makers may not be aware of them. With this analysis, we demonstrate the existence of insular criteria and their variety. In daily practice and clinical studies, awareness of insular criteria is important.

Surgical management of urolithiasis - a systematic analysis of available guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Several societies around the world issue guidelines incorporating the latest evidence. However, even the most commonly cited guidelines of the European Association of Urology (EAU) and the American Urological Association (AUA) leave the clinician with several treatment options and differ on specific points. We aimed to identify discrepancies and areas of consensus between guidelines to give novel insights into areas where low consensus between the guideline panels exists, and therefore where more evidence might increase consensus. METHODS: The webpages of the 61 members of the Societé Internationale d'Urologie were analysed to identify all listed or linked guidelines. Decision trees for the surgical management of urolithiasis were derived, and a comparative analysis was performed to determine consensus and discrepancies. RESULTS: Five national and one international guideline (EAU) on surgical stone treatment were available for analysis. While 7 national urological societies refer to the AUA guidelines and 11 to the EAU guidelines, 43 neither publish their own guidelines nor refer to others. Comparative analysis revealed a high degree of consensus for most renal and ureteral stone scenarios. Nevertheless, we also identified a variety of discrepancies between the different guidelines, the largest being the approach to the treatment of proximal ureteral calculi and larger renal calculi. CONCLUSIONS: Six guidelines with recommendations for the surgical treatment of urolithiasis to support urologists in decision-making were available for inclusion in our analysis. While there is a high grade of consensus for most stone scenarios, we also detected some discrepancies between different guidelines. These are, however, controversial situations where adequate evidence to assist with decision-making has yet to be elicited by further research.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with metastatic, non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer and high PD-L1 expression in Switzerland.

INTRODUCTION: Pembrolizumab monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy are two new treatment options for patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high (≥ 50%) programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis for Switzerland comparing these two options but also pembrolizumab to chemotherapy. METHODS: We constructed a 3-state Markov model with a time horizon of 10 years. Parametric functions were fitted to Kaplan-Meier overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) using 2-year follow-up data from the KN-024 and KN-189 registration trials. We included estimated costs for further treatment lines and costs for best supportive care. Costs were assessed from the Swiss healthcare payer perspective. We used published utility values. RESULTS: Combination therapy resulted in an expected gain of 0.17 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient and incremental costs of Swiss Francs (CHF) 81,085 as compared to pembrolizumab. These estimates led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CHF 475,299/QALY. Pembrolizumab in comparison to chemotherapy was estimated to generate mean incremental QALYs of 0.83 and incremental costs of CHF 56,585, resulting in an ICER of CHF 68,580/QALY. Results were most sensitive to changes in costs of 1L pembrolizumab and combination therapy, together with changes in PFS. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, we estimated combination therapy was cost-effective in 4.9% of the simulations and pembrolizumab monotherapy in 82.9%, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF 100,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab is likely to be cost-effective from the Swiss healthcare payer perspective, whereas pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is not.