A core outcome set for localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials: protocol for a systematic review of the literature and stakeholder involvement through interviews and a Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is a growing health problem worldwide. The management of localised prostate cancer is controversial. It is unclear which of several surgical, radiotherapeutic, ablative, and surveillance treatments is the most effective. All have cost, process and recovery, and morbidity implications which add to treatment decision-making complexity for patients and healthcare professionals. Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal because of uncertainty as to what constitutes important outcomes. Another issue hampering evidence synthesis is heterogeneity of outcome definition, measurement, and reporting. This project aims to determine which outcomes are the most important to patients and healthcare professionals, and use these findings to recommend a standardised core outcome set for comparative effectiveness trials of treatments for localised prostate cancer, to optimise decision-making. METHODS/DESIGN: The range of potentially important outcomes and measures will be identified through systematic reviews of the literature and semi-structured interviews with patients. A consultation exercise involving representatives from two key stakeholder groups (patients and healthcare professionals) will ratify the list of outcomes to be entered into a three round Delphi study. The Delphi process will refine and prioritise the list of identified outcomes. A methodological substudy (nested RCT design) will also be undertaken. Participants will be randomised after round one of the Delphi study to one of three feedback groups, based on different feedback strategies, in order to explore the potential impact of feedback strategies on participant responses. This may assist the design of a future core outcome set and Delphi studies. Following the Delphi study, a final consensus meeting attended by representatives from both stakeholder groups will determine the final recommended core outcome set. DISCUSSION: This study will inform clinical practice and future trials of interventions of localised prostate cancer by standardising a core outcome set which should be considered in comparative effectiveness studies for localised prostate cancer.

Systematic review of adrenalectomy and lymph node dissection in locally advanced renal cell carcinoma.

CONTEXT: Controversy remains over whether adrenalectomy and lymph node dissection (LND) should be performed concomitantly with radical nephrectomy (RN) for locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) cT3-T4N0M0. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review all relevant literature comparing oncologic, perioperative, and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes for locally advanced RCC managed with RN with or without concomitant adrenalectomy or LND. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant databases were searched up to August 2012. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative studies were included. Outcome measures were overall survival, QoL, and perioperative adverse effects. Risks of bias (RoB) were assessed using Cochrane RoB tools. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 3658 abstracts and 252 full-text articles were screened. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria: six LNDs (one RCT and five nonrandomised studies [NRSs]) and two adrenalectomies (two NRSs). RoB was high across the evidence base, and the quality of evidence from outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. Meta-analyses were not undertaken because of diverse study designs and data heterogeneity. There was no significant difference in survival between the groups, even though 5-yr overall survival appears better for the RN plus LND group compared with the no-LND group in one randomised study. There was no evidence of a difference in adverse events between the RN plus LND and no-LND groups. No studies reported QoL outcomes. There was no evidence of an oncologic difference between the RN with adrenalectomy and RN without adrenalectomy groups. No studies reported adverse events or QoL outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions on oncologic outcomes for patients having concomitant LND or ipsilateral adrenalectomy compared with patients having RN alone for cT3-T4N0M0 RCC. The quality of evidence is generally low and the results potentially biased. Further research in adequately powered trials is needed to answer these questions.