En bloc resection of bladder tumour: the rebirth of past through reminiscence.

PURPOSE: To learn about the history and development of en bloc resection of bladder tumour (ERBT), and to discuss its future directions in managing bladder cancer. METHODS: In this narrative review, we summarised the history and early development of ERBT, previous attempts in overcoming the tumour size limitation, consolidative effort in standardising the ERBT procedure, emerging evidence in ERBT, evolving concepts in treating large bladder tumours, and the future directions of ERBT. RESULTS: Since the first report on ERBT in 1980, there has been tremendous advancement in terms of its technique, energy modalities and tumour retrieval methods. In 2020, the international consensus statement on ERBT has been developed and it serves as a standard reference for urologists to practise ERBT. Recently, high-quality evidence on ERBT has been emerging. Of note, the EB-StaR study showed that ERBT led to a reduction in 1-year recurrence rate from 38.1 to 28.5%. An individual patient data meta-analysis is currently underway, and it will be instrumental in defining the true value of ERBT in treating non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. For large bladder tumours, modified approaches of ERBT should be accepted, as the quality of resection is more important than a mere removal of tumour in one piece. The global ERBT registry has been launched to study the value of ERBT in a real-world setting. CONCLUSION: ERBT is a promising surgical technique in treating bladder cancer and it has gained increasing interest globally. It is about time for us to embrace this technique in our clinical practice.

Assessing the quality of patient-reported outcome measurements for gynecological cancers: a systematic review.

Aim: To provide perspective on patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) instruments to adopt in patients diagnosed with gynecological cancers. Methods: A systematic search was conducted to identify PROMs developed for or applied in gynecological cancer populations. PROMs identified in more than one study subsequently underwent assessment according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. Results: Overall, 55 PROMs were identified within the gynecological cancer setting, and 20 were assessed according to COSMIN guidelines. Most PROMs had limited information reported, but a best fit approach was adopted to recommend a number of instruments for use in patients with gynecological cancer. Conclusion: Further study to assess the methodological quality of each PROM utilized in gynecological cancers is warranted to endorse the recommendations of this review.

Gynecological cancers are cancers which occur in the reproductive system of women. The cervical cancer screening program and development of new treatments mean that women with gynecological cancers are now living longer than before. However, these new treatments may have side effects that can affect the quality of life of women with cancer. Many care providers now agree that looking at women's quality of life during their gynecological cancer journey is an important part of their treatment. Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are questionnaires that the patient completes to measure their symptoms and quality of life. There are a lot of PROMs available to choose from, and it can be difficult to select one that is relevant and understandable for all women with gynecological cancer. This article searched the literature to find all PROMs that can be completed by women with gynecological cancer and then measured each of the PROM's quality. PROM quality was measured by looking at validity (whether the questionnaire measures what it is supposed to measure), reliability (that the questionnaire is not subject to different errors in measuring), and sensitivity (that the questionnaire can measure changes in questionnaire scores over time). Overall, this study found that there were a few PROMs that were of good enough quality to be completed by women with gynecological cancers. These questionnaires are called the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Cervical Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-CX24), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Endometrial Cancer (EORTC QLQ-EN24), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Gynecologic Oncology Group ­ Neurotoxicity (FACT-GOG/Ntx), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy ­ Ovarian (FACT-O) and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Each questionnaire can be filled out by women with different types of gynecological cancer, and the FSFI measures sexual problems that women may experience after cancer treatment.

A BURST-BAUS consensus document for best practice in the conduct of scrotal exploration for suspected testicular torsion: the Finding consensus for orchIdopeXy In Torsion (FIX-IT) study.

OBJECTIVES: To produce a best practice consensus guideline for the conduct of scrotal exploration for suspected testicular torsion using formal consensus methodology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of 16 expert urologists, representing adult, paediatric, general, and andrological urology used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Consensus Methodology to score a 184 statement pre-meeting questionnaire on the conduct of scrotal exploration for suspected testicular torsion. The collated responses were presented at a face-to-face online meeting and each item was rescored anonymously after a group discussion, facilitated by an independent chair with expertise in consensus methodology. Items were scored for agreement and consensus and the items scored with consensus were used to derive a set of best practice guidelines. RESULTS: Statements scored as with consensus increased from Round 1 (122/184, 66.3%) to Round 2 (149/200, 74.5%). Recommendations were generated in ten categories: consent, assessment under anaesthetic, initial incision, intraoperative decision making, fixation, medical photography, closure, operation note, logistics and follow-up after scrotal exploration. Our statements assume that the decision to operate has already been made. Key recommendations in the consent process included the discussion of the possibility of orchidectomy and the possibility of subsequent infection of the affected testis or wound requiring antibiotic therapy. If after the examination under anaesthesia, the index of suspicion of testicular torsion is lower than previously thought, then the surgeon should still proceed to scrotal exploration as planned. A flow chart guiding decision making dependent on intraoperative findings has been designed. If no torsion is present on exploration and the bell clapper deformity is absent, the testis should not be fixed. When fixing a testis using sutures, 3 or 4-point is acceptable and non-absorbable sutures are preferred. CONCLUSIONS: We have produced consensus recommendations to inform best practice in the conduct of scrotal exploration for suspected testicular torsion.

Nonantibiotic Strategies for the Prevention of Infectious Complications following Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: We identify which nonantibiotic strategies could reduce the risk of infectious complications following prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a literature search on MEDLINE®, Embase® and the Cochrane Database for randomized controlled trials (inception to May 2020) assessing nonantibiotic interventions in prostate biopsy. Primary outcome was pooled infectious complications (fever, sepsis and symptomatic urinary tract infection) and secondary outcome was hospitalization. Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE approach were used to assess the bias and the certainty of evidence. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015026354). RESULTS: A total of 90 randomized controlled trials (16,941 participants) were included in the analysis, with 83 trials being categorized into one of 10 different interventions. Transperineal biopsy was associated with significantly reduced infectious complications as compared to transrectal biopsy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33-0.92, p=0.02, I2=0%, 1,330 participants, 7 studies). Rectal preparation with povidone-iodine was also shown to reduce infectious complications (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38-0.65, p <0.000001, I2=27%, 1,686 participants, 8 studies) as well as hospitalization (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.69, p=0.002, I2=0%, 620 participants, 4 studies). We found no difference in infectious complications/hospitalization for 6 other interventions, ie number of biopsy cores, periprostatic nerve block, number of injections for periprostatic nerve block, needle guide type, needle type and rectal preparation with enema. In 2 interventions (needle diameter, rectal preparation with chlorhexidine) meta-analysis was not possible. Finally, 7 studies had unique interventions. The certainty of evidence was rated as low/very low for all interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal biopsy significantly reduces infectious complications compared to transrectal biopsy and should therefore be preferred. If transrectal biopsy is performed, rectal preparation with povidone-iodine is highly recommended. The other investigated nonantibiotic strategies did not significantly influence infection and hospitalization after prostate biopsy.

Consensus statements on PSMA PET/CT response assessment criteria in prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) is used for (re)staging prostate cancer (PCa) and as a biomarker for evaluating response to therapy, but lacks established response criteria. A panel of PCa experts in nuclear medicine, radiology, and/or urology met on February 21, 2020, in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, to formulate criteria for PSMA PET/CT-based response in patients treated for metastatic PCa and optimal timing to use it. METHODS: Panelists received thematic topics and relevant literature prior to the meeting. Statements on how to interpret response and progression on therapy in PCa with PSMA PET/CT and when to use it were developed. Panelists voted anonymously on a nine-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (9). Median scores described agreement and consensus. RESULTS: PSMA PET/CT consensus statements concerned utility, best timing for performing, criteria for evaluation of response, patients who could benefit, and handling of radiolabeled PSMA PET tracers. Consensus was reached on all statements. PSMA PET/CT can be used before and after any local and systemic treatment in patients with metastatic disease to evaluate response to treatment. Ideally, PSMA PET/CT imaging criteria should categorize patients as responders, patients with stable disease, partial response, and complete response, or as non-responders. Specific clinical scenarios such as oligometastatic or polymetastatic disease deserve special consideration. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of PSMA PET/CT should be supported by indication for appropriate use and precise criteria for interpretation. PSMA PET/CT criteria should categorize patients as responders or non-responders. Specific clinical scenarios deserve special consideration.

What influences adherence to guidance for postoperative instillation of intravesical chemotherapy to patients with bladder cancer?

OBJECTIVE: To understand the barriers and facilitators to single instillation of intravesical chemotherapy (SI-IVC) use after resection of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) in Scotland and England using a behavioural theory-informed approach. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional descriptive study of practices at seven hospitals, we investigated care pathways, policies, and interviewed 30 urology staff responsible for SI-IVC. We used the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to organise our investigation and conducted deductive thematic analyses, while inductively coding emergent beliefs. RESULTS: Barriers to SI-IVC were present at different organisational levels and professional roles. In four hospitals, there was a policy to not instil SI-IVC in theatre. Six hospitals' staff reported delays in mitomycin C (MMC) ordering and/or local storage. Lack of training, skills and perceived workload affected motivation. Facilitators included access to modern instilling devices (four hospitals) and incorporating reminders in operation proforma (four hospitals). Performance targets (with audit and feedback) within a national governance framework were present in Scotland but not England. Differences in coordinated leadership, sharing best practices, and disliking being perceived as underperforming, were evident in Scotland. CONCLUSIONS: High-certainty evidence shows that SI-IVC, such as MMC, after NMIBC resection reduces recurrences. This evidence underpins international guidance. The number of eligible patients receiving SI-IVC is variable indicating suboptimal practice. Improving SI-IVC adherence requires modifications to theatre instilling policies, delivery and storage of MMC, staff training, and documentation. Centralising care, with bladder cancer expert leadership and best practices sharing with performance targets, likely led to improvements in Scotland. National quality improvement, incorporating audit and feedback, with additional implementation strategies targeted to professional role could improve adherence and patient outcomes elsewhere. This process should be controlled to clarify implementation intervention effectiveness.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis for the Prevention of Infectious Complications following Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Infectious complications following prostate biopsy are increasing and fluoroquinolone prophylaxis has recently been banned by the European Commission. In this systematic review we summarize the evidence for different antibiotic prophylaxis regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase® and Cochrane Database for randomized controlled trials (inception to October 2019) assessing antimicrobial interventions in prostate biopsy. Primary outcome was infectious complications. Exclusion criteria were simultaneous interfering interventions. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015026354). RESULTS: Overall 59 randomized controlled trials (14,153 participants) and 7 different antimicrobial interventions were included. Antibiotic prophylaxis reduced infectious complications compared to no prophylaxis (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40-0.77, p=0.0005, I2=15%, participants 1,753, studies 11). A short-term prophylaxis (single shot to 3 days) was inferior to a long-term prophylaxis (1 to 7 days) with fluoroquinolone (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.37-2.61, p=0.0001, I2=0%, participants 3,999, studies 17). Fosfomycin trometamol was an alternative to fluoroquinolone with reduced rates of infectious complications (RR 0.49, 95 CI 0.27-0.87, p=0.02, I2=54%, participants 1,239, studies 3). Empiric prophylaxis was inferior to targeted prophylaxis (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.28-2.55, p=0.0008, I2=48%, participants 1,511, studies 6). Standard prophylaxis was inferior to augmented prophylaxis (using multiple rather than single agent) using a fixed model (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.53-2.88, p <0.0001, I2=71%, participants 2,597, studies 9), but not using a random model (p=0.07). No difference was observed in infectious complications based on route or timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis. The certainty of evidence was rated as low/very low. CONCLUSIONS: In countries where fluoroquinolones are allowed as antibiotic prophylaxis, a minimum of a full 1-day administration as well as targeted therapy in case of fluoroquinolone resistance is recommended. In countries with a ban on fluoroquinolones, fosfomycin is a good alternative, as is augmented prophylaxis, although no established standard combination exists to date.

A core outcome set for localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a core outcome set (COS) applicable for effectiveness trials of all interventions for localised prostate cancer. Many treatments exist for localised prostate cancer, although it is unclear which offers the optimal therapeutic ratio; which is confounded by inconsistencies in the selection, definition, measurement and reporting of outcomes in clinical trials. PATIENTS, SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A list of 79 outcomes was derived from a systematic review of published localised prostate cancer effectiveness studies and semi-structured interviews with 15 patients with prostate cancer patients. A two-stage consensus process involving 118 patients and 56 international healthcare professionals (HCPs; cancer specialist nurses, urological surgeons and oncologists) was undertaken, consisting of a three-round Delphi survey followed by a face-to-face consensus panel meeting of 13 HCPs and eight patients. RESULTS: The final COS included 19 outcomes. In all, 12 apply to all interventions: death from prostate cancer, death from any cause, local disease recurrence, distant disease recurrence/metastases, disease progression, need for salvage therapy, overall quality of life, stress urinary incontinence, urinary function, bowel function, faecal incontinence, and sexual function. Seven were intervention-specific: perioperative deaths (surgery), positive surgical margin (surgery), thromboembolic disease (surgery), bothersome or symptomatic urethral or anastomotic stricture (surgery), need for curative treatment (active surveillance), treatment failure (ablative therapy), and side-effects of hormonal therapy (hormone therapy). The UK-centric participants may limit the generalisability to other countries, but trialists should reason why the COS would not be applicable. The default position should not be that a COS developed in one country will automatically not be applicable elsewhere. CONCLUSION: We have established a COS for trials of effectiveness in localised prostate cancer, applicable across all interventions that should be measured in all localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials.

Systematic review of the oncological and functional outcomes of pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy (RC) compared with standard RC in women who undergo curative surgery and orthotopic neobladder substitution for bladder cancer.

CONTEXT: Pelvic organ-preserving radical cystectomy (POPRC) for women may improve postoperative sexual and urinary functions without compromising the oncological outcome compared with standard radical cystectomy (RC). OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of POPRC on sexual, oncological and urinary outcomes compared with RC in women who undergo standard curative surgery and orthotopic neobladder substitution for bladder cancer. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline, Embase, Cochrane controlled trials databases and clinicaltrial.gov were systematically searched for all relevant publications. Women with bladder cancer who underwent POPRC or standard RC and orthotopic neobladder substitution with curative intent were included. Prospective and retrospective comparative studies and single-arm case series were included. The primary outcomes were sexual function at 6-12 months after surgery and oncological outcomes including disease recurrence and overall survival (OS) at >2 years. Secondary outcomes included urinary continence at 6-12 months. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment was performed using standard Cochrane review methodology including additional domains based on confounder assessment. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The searches yielded 11 941 discrete articles, of which 15 articles reporting on 15 studies recruiting a total of 874 patients were eligible for inclusion. Three papers had a matched-pair study design and the rest of the studies were mainly small, retrospective case series. Sexual outcomes were reported in seven studies with 167/194 patients (86%) having resumed sexual activity within 6 months postoperatively, with median (range) patients' sexual satisfaction score of 88.5 (80-100)%. Survival outcomes were reported in seven studies on 197 patients, with a mean follow-up of between 12 and 132 months. At 3 and 5 years, cancer-specific survival was 70-100% and OS was 65-100%. In all, 11 studies reported continence outcomes. Overall, the daytime and night-time continence rates were 58-100% and 42-100%, respectively. Overall, the self-catheterisation rate was 9.5-78%. Due to poor reporting and large heterogeneity between studies, instead of subgroup-analysis, a narrative synthesis approach was used. The overall RoB was high across all studies. CONCLUSION: For well-selected patients, POPRC with orthotopic neobladder may potentially be comparable to standard RC for oncological outcomes, whilst improving sexual and urinary function outcomes. However, in women undergoing RC, oncological and functional data regarding POPRC remain immature and require further evaluation in a prospective comparative setting.

Sentinel node biopsy for prostate cancer: report from a consensus panel meeting.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the evidence and knowledge gaps in sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in prostate cancer through a consensus panel of experts. METHODS: A two-round Delphi survey among experts was followed by a consensus panel meeting of 16 experts in February 2016. Agreement voting was performed using the research and development project/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methodology on 150 statements in nine domains. The disagreement index based on the interpercentile range, adjusted for symmetry score, was used to assess consensus and non-consensus among panel members. RESULTS: Consensus was obtained on 91 of 150 statements (61%). The main outcomes were: (1) the results from an extended lymph node dissection (eLND) are still considered the 'gold standard', and sentinel node (SN) detection should be combined with eLND, at least in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer; (2) the role of SN detection in low-risk prostate cancer is unclear; and (3) future studies should contain oncological endpoints as number of positive nodes outside the eLND template, false-negative and false-positive SN procedures, and recurrence-free survival. A high rate of consensus was obtained regarding outcome measures of future clinical trials on SNB (89%). Consensus on tracer technology was only obtained in 47% of statements, reflecting a need for further research and standardization in this area. The low-level evidence in the available literature and the composition of mainly SNB users in the panel constitute the major limitations of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus on a majority of elementary statements on SN detection in prostate cancer was obtained.; therefore, the results from this consensus report will provide a basis for the design of further studies in the field. A group of experts identified evidence and knowledge gaps on SN detection in prostate cancer and its application in daily practice. Information from the consensus statements can be used to direct further studies.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of bipolar compared with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

To compare monopolar and bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for clinical effectiveness and adverse events. We conducted an electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Science Citation Index, and also searched reference lists of articles and abstracts from conference proceedings for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monopolar and bipolar TURP. Two reviewers independently undertook data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials using the tool recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. From the 949 abstracts that were identified, 94 full texts were assessed for eligibility and a total of 24 trials were included in the review. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) or health-related quality of life (HRQL) score. Results for maximum urinary flow rate were significant at 3, 6 and 12 months (all P < 0.001), but no clinically significant differences were found and the meta-analysis showed evidence of heterogeneity Bipolar TURP was associated with fewer adverse events including transurethral resection syndrome (risk ratio [RR] 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-0.31, P < 0.001), clot retention (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30-0.77, P = 0.002) and blood transfusion (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.82, P = 0.004) Several major methodological limitations were identified in the included trials; 22/24 trials had a short follow-up of ≤1 year, there was no evidence of a sample size calculation in 20/24 trials and the application of GRADE showed the evidence for most of the assessed outcomes to be of moderate quality, including all those in which statistical differences were found. Whilst there is no overall difference between monopolar and bipolar TURP for clinical effectiveness, bipolar TURP is associated with fewer adverse events and therefore has a superior safety profile. Various methodological limitations were highlighted in the included trials and as such the results of this review should be interpreted with caution. There is a need for further well-conducted, multicentre RCTs with long-term follow-up data.

Survivorship Data in Prostate Cancer: Where Are We and Where Do We Need To Be?

Cancer survivorship was recently identified as a prostate cancer (PCa) research priority by PIONEER, a European network of excellence for big data in PCa. Despite being a research priority, cancer survivorship lacks a clear and agreed definition, and there is a distinct paucity of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data available on the subject. Data collection on cancer survivorship depends on the availability and implementation of (validated) routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). There have been recent advances in the availability of such PROMs. For instance, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group (EORTC QLG) is developing survivorship questionnaires. This provides an excellent first step in improving the data available on cancer survivorship. However, we propose that an agreed, standardised definition of (prostate) cancer survivorship must first be established. Only then can real-world data on survivorship be collected to strengthen our knowledge base. With more men than ever surviving PCa, this type of research is imperative to ensure that the quality of life of these men is considered as much as their quantity of life. Patient summary: As there are more prostate cancer survivors than ever before, research into cancer survivorship is crucial. We highlight the importance of such research and provide recommendations on how to carry it out. The first step should be establishing agreement on a standardised definition of survivorship. From this, patient-reported outcome measures can then be used to collect important survivorship data.

How Can We Improve Patient-Clinician Communication for Men Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer?

Background and objective: The ability of health care professionals to communicate with patients compassionately and effectively is crucial for shared decision-making, but little research has investigated patient-clinician communication. As part of PIONEER-an international Big Data Consortium led by the European Association of Urology to answer key questions for men with prostate cancer (PCa), funded through the IMI2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement 777492- we investigated communication between men diagnosed with PCa and the health care professional(s) treating them across Europe. Methods: We used the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Communication 26, which was shared via the PIONEER and patient organisations on March 11, 2022. We sought men who spoke French, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch, or English who were diagnosed with PCa and were undergoing or had already received treatment for their PCa. Results and limitations: A total of 372 men reported that they communicated with their clinician during either the diagnostic or the treatment period. Overall, the majority of participants reported positive experiences. However, important opportunities to enhance communication were identified, particularly with regard to correcting misunderstandings, understanding the patient's preferred approach to information presentation, addressing challenging questions, supporting the patient's comprehension of information, attending to the patient's emotional needs, and assessing what information had already been given to patients about their disease and treatment, and how much of it was understood. Conclusions and clinical implications: These results help us to identify gaps and barriers to shared treatment decision making. This knowledge will help devise measures to improve patient-health care professional communication in the PCa setting. Patient summary: As part of the PIONEER initiative, we investigated the communication between men diagnosed with prostate cancer and their health care professionals across Europe. A total of 372 men from six different countries participated in the study. Most participants reported positive experiences, but areas where communication could be improved were identified. These included addressing misunderstandings, tailoring the presentation of information to the patient's preferences, handling difficult questions, supporting emotional needs, and assessing the patient's understanding of their diagnosis and treatment.

Unpacking overuse of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer to inform de-implementation strategies.

BACKGROUND: Many men with prostate cancer will be exposed to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). While evidence-based ADT use is common, ADT is also used in cases with no or limited evidence resulting in more harm than benefit, i.e., overuse. Since there are risks of ADT (e.g., diabetes, osteoporosis), it is important to understand the behaviors facilitating overuse to inform de-implementation strategies. For these reasons, we conducted a theory-informed survey study, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), to better understand ADT overuse and provider preferences for mitigating overuse. METHODS: Our survey used the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time (AACTT) framework, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) Model, and a DCE to elicit provider de-implementation strategy preferences. We surveyed the Society of Government Service Urologists listserv in December 2020. We stratified respondents based on the likelihood of stopping overuse as ADT monotherapy for localized prostate cancer ("yes"/"probably yes," "probably no"/"no"), and characterized corresponding Likert scale responses to seven COM-B statements. We used multivariable regression to identify associations between stopping ADT overuse and COM-B responses. RESULTS: Our survey was completed by 84 respondents (13% response rate), with 27% indicating "probably no"/"no" to stopping ADT overuse. We found differences across respondents who said they would and would not stop ADT overuse in demographics and COM-B statements. Our model identified 2 COM-B domains (Opportunity-Social, Motivation-Reflective) significantly associated with a lower likelihood of stopping ADT overuse. Our DCE demonstrated in-person communication, multidisciplinary review, and medical record documentation may be effective in reducing ADT overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Our study used a behavioral theory-informed survey, including a DCE, to identify behaviors and context underpinning ADT overuse. Specifying behaviors supporting and gathering provider preferences in addressing ADT overuse requires a stepwise, stakeholder-engaged approach to support evidence-based cancer care. From this work, we are pursuing targeted improvement strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03579680.

European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 5: Consensus on Molecular Imaging and Theranostics in Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In prostate cancer (PCa), questions remain on indications for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and PSMA radioligand therapy, integration of advanced imaging in nomogram-based decision-making, dosimetry, and development of new theranostic applications. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to critically review developments in molecular hybrid imaging and systemic radioligand therapy, to reach a multidisciplinary consensus on the current state of the art in PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The results of a systematic literature search informed a two-round Delphi process with a panel of 28 PCa experts in medical or radiation oncology, urology, radiology, medical physics, and nuclear medicine. The results were discussed and ratified in a consensus meeting. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Forty-eight statements were scored on a Likert agreement scale and six as ranking options. Agreement statements were analysed using the RAND appropriateness method. Ranking statements were analysed using weighted summed scores. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After two Delphi rounds, there was consensus on 42/48 (87.5%) of the statements. The expert panel recommends PSMA PET to be used for staging the majority of patients with unfavourable intermediate and high risk, and for restaging of suspected recurrent PCa. There was consensus that oligometastatic disease should be defined as up to five metastases, even using advanced imaging modalities. The group agreed that [177Lu]Lu-PSMA should not be administered only after progression to cabazitaxel and that [223Ra]RaCl2 remains a valid therapeutic option in bone-only metastatic castration-resistant PCa. Uncertainty remains on various topics, including the need for concordant findings on both [18F]FDG and PSMA PET prior to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high proportion of agreement among a panel of experts on the use of molecular imaging and theranostics in PCa. Although consensus statements cannot replace high-certainty evidence, these can aid in the interpretation and dissemination of best practice from centres of excellence to the wider clinical community. PATIENT SUMMARY: There are situations when dealing with prostate cancer (PCa) where both the doctors who diagnose and track the disease development and response to treatment, and those who give treatments are unsure about what the best course of action is. Examples include what methods they should use to obtain images of the cancer and what to do when the cancer has returned or spread. We reviewed published research studies and provided a summary to a panel of experts in imaging and treating PCa. We also used the research summary to develop a questionnaire whereby we asked the experts to state whether or not they agreed with a list of statements. We used these results to provide guidance to other health care professionals on how best to image men with PCa and what treatments to give, when, and in what order, based on the information the images provide.

Effectiveness of de-implementation strategies for low-value prescribing in secondary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Considerable efforts have been made to improve guideline adherence in healthcare through de-implementation, such as decreasing the prescription of inappropriate medicines. However, we have limited knowledge about the effectiveness, barriers, facilitators and consequences of de-implementation strategies targeting inappropriate medication prescribing in secondary care settings. This review was conducted to understand these factors to contribute to better replication and optimisation of future de-implementation efforts to reduce low-value care. METHODS: A systematic review of randomised control trials was conducted. Papers were identified through CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane register of controlled trials to February 2021. Eligible studies were randomised control trials evaluating behavioural strategies to de-implement inappropriate prescribing in secondary healthcare. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Intervention characteristics, effectiveness, barriers, facilitators and consequences were identified in the study text and tabulated. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included, of which seven were reported as effectively de-implementing low-value prescribing. Included studies were judged to be mainly at low to moderate risk for selection biases and generally high risk for performance and reporting biases. The majority of these strategies were clinical decision support at the 'point of care'. Clinical decision support tools were the most common and effective. They were found to be a low-cost and simple strategy. However, barriers such as clinician's reluctance to accept recommendations, or the clinical setting were potential barriers to their success. Educational strategies were the second most reported intervention type however the utility of educational strategies for de-implementation remains varied. Multiple barriers and facilitators relating to the environmental context, resources and knowledge were identified across studies as potentially influencing de-implementation. Various consequences were identified; however, few measured the impact of de-implementation on usual appropriate practice. CONCLUSION: This review offers insight into the intervention strategies, potential barriers, facilitators and consequences that may affect the de-implementation of low-value prescribing in secondary care. Identification of these key features helps understand how and why these strategies are effective and the wider (desirable or undesirable) impact of de-implementation. These findings can contribute to the successful replication or optimisation of strategies used to de-implement low-value prescribing practices in future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021243944).

A protocol for the development of core outcome sets for effectiveness trials and clinical audits in renal cell cancer (R-COS).

Background: There is inconsistency in outcomes collected in renal cell cancer (RCC) intervention effectiveness studies and variability in their definitions. This makes critical summaries of the evidence base difficult and sub-optimally informative for clinical practice guidelines and decision-making by patients and healthcare professionals. A solution is to develop a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials in a clinical area. Objectives: To develop three COS for (a) localised, (b) locally advanced and (c) metastatic. RCC study design participants and methods: The methods are the same for each of our three COS and are structured in two phases. Phase 1 identifies potentially relevant outcomes by conducting both a systematic literature review and patient interviews (N ~ 30 patients). Qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis. In phase 2, all outcomes identified in phase 1 will be entered in a modified eDelphi, whereby patients and healthcare professionals (50 of each) will score each outcome's importance (Likert scale from 1 [not important] to 9 [critically important]). Outcomes scored in the 7-9 range by ≥70% and 1-3 by ≤15% will be regarded as 'consensus in', and the vice versa of this will constitute 'consensus out'. All other combinations will be regarded as equivocal and discussed at consensus meetings (including 10 patients and 10 healthcare professionals) in order to vote on them and ratify the results of the eDelphi. Discussion: The R-COS will reduce outcome reporting heterogeneity and improve the evidence base for RCC. Study registration: The study is registered with the COMET initiative: https://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1406.

Mapping European Association of Urology Guideline Practice Across Europe: An Audit of Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use Before Prostate Cancer Surgery in 6598 Cases in 187 Hospitals Across 31 European Countries.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-practice gaps exist in urology. We previously surveyed European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for strong recommendations underpinned by high-certainty evidence that impact patient experience for which practice variations were suspected. The recommendation "Do not offer neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) before surgery for patients with prostate cancer" was prioritised for further investigation. ADT before surgery is neither clinically effective nor cost effective and has serious side effects. The first step in improving implementation problems is to understand their extent. A clear picture of practice regarding ADT before surgery across Europe is not available. OBJECTIVE: To assess current ADT use before prostate cancer surgery in Europe. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was an observational cross-sectional study. We retrospectively audited recent ADT practices in a multicentre international setting. We used nonprobability purposive sampling, aiming for breadth in terms of low- versus high-volume, academic, versus community and public versus private centres. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Our primary outcome was adherence to the ADT recommendation. Descriptive statistics and a multilevel model were used to investigate differences between countries across different factors (volume, centre type, and funding type). Subgroup analyses were performed for patients with low, intermediate, and high risk, and for those with locally advanced prostate cancer. We also collected reasons for nonadherence. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We included 6598 patients with prostate cancer from 187 hospitals in 31 countries from January 1, 2017 to May 1, 2020. Overall, nonadherence was 2%, (range 0-32%). Most of the variability was found in the high-risk subgroup, for which nonadherence was 4% (range 0-43%). Reasons for nonadherence included attempts to improve oncological outcomes or preoperative tumour parameters; attempts to control the cancer because of long waiting lists; and patient preference (changing one's mind from radiotherapy to surgery after neoadjuvant ADT had commenced or feeling that the side effects were intolerable). Although we purposively sampled for variety within countries (public/private, academic/community, high/low-volume), a selection bias toward centres with awareness of guidelines is possible, so adherence rates may be overestimated. CONCLUSIONS: EAU guidelines recommend against ADT use before prostate cancer surgery, yet some guideline-discordant ADT use remains at the cost of patient experience and an additional payer and provider burden. Strategies towards discontinuation of inappropriate preoperative ADT use should be pursued. PATIENT SUMMARY: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is sometimes used in men with prostate cancer who will not benefit from it. ADT causes side effects such as weight gain and emotional changes and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and osteoporosis. Guidelines strongly recommend that men opting for surgery should not receive ADT, but it is unclear how well the guidance is followed. We asked urologists across Europe how patients in their institutions were treated over the past few years. Most do not use ADT before surgery, but this still happens in some places. More research is needed to help doctors to stop using ADT in patients who will not benefit from it.

A Systematic Review of Heterogeneity in Outcome Definition and Reporting in Localised Renal Cancer.

Context: Outcomes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are reported inconsistently, with variability in definitions and measurement. Hence, it is difficult to compare intervention effectiveness and synthesise outcomes for systematic reviews and to create clinical practice guidelines. This uncertainty in the evidence makes it difficult to guide patient-clinician decision-making. One solution is a core outcome set (COS): an agreed minimum set of outcomes. Objective: To describe outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement heterogeneity as the first stage in co-creating a COS for localised renal cancer. Evidence acquisition: We systematically reviewed outcome reporting heterogeneity in effectiveness trials and observational studies in localised RCC. In total, 2822 studies (randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, systematic reviews) up to June 2020 meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers; in cases of disagreement, a third reviewer arbitrated. Data extractions were double-checked. Evidence synthesis: We included 149 studies and found that there was inconsistency in which outcomes were reported across studies and variability in the definitions used for outcomes that were conceptually the same. We structured our analysis using the outcome classification taxonomy proposed by Dodd et al. Outcomes linked to adverse events (eg, bleeding, outcomes linked to surgery) and renal injury outcomes (reduced renal function) were reported most commonly. Outcomes related to deaths from any cause and from cancer were reported in 44% and 25% of studies, respectively, although the time point for measurement and the analysis methods were inconsistent. Outcomes linked to life impact (eg, global quality of life) were reported least often. Clinician-reported outcomes are more frequently reported than patient-reported outcomes in the renal cancer literature. Conclusions: This systematic review underscores the heterogeneity of outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement in research on localised renal cancer. It catalogues the variety of outcomes and serves as a first step towards the development of a COS for localised renal cancer. Patient summary: We reviewed studies on localised kidney cancer and found that multiple terms and definitions have been used to describe outcomes. These are not defined consistently, and often not defined at all. Our review is the first phase in developing a core outcome set to allow better comparisons of studies to improve medical care.