Analysis of active surveillance uptake for low-risk localized prostate cancer in Canada: a Canadian multi-institutional study.

PURPOSE: Although the uptake of active surveillance (AS) appears to be increasing in published series, the uptake in most geographic regions remains largely unknown. Our aim was to examine practice patterns around the use of AS in low-risk prostate cancer in Canada. In addition, we examined regional variations in AS uptake, predictors of AS uptake, and persistent use for 12 months. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicentre review of low-risk patients who underwent a prostate biopsy in 2010 in six centres in four provinces (BC, QC, MB and ON). AS was identified based on chart review and required a minimum of 6 months of follow-up after diagnosis without any active treatment. RESULTS: Of 986 patients, 781 patients (mean age 64 years) were incident cases and over three-quarters (77.3 %) chose AS at diagnosis. There were significant differences in uptake of AS by centre (range 65.0-98.0 %, p ≤ 0.05). Key multivariate predictors of pursuing AS included older age (OR 1.34, p = 0.044), centre (p = 0.021), lower number of cores (OR 1.09, p = 0.025), lower number of positive biopsy cores (OR 0.52, p < 0.001), and lower percent core involvement (OR 0.84, p < 0.001). In total, 516 (85.4 %) men remained on AS over 12 months. Maintenance with AS over 12 months differed by centre, ranging from 64.1 to 93.9 % (p = 0.001). Predictors of maintenance with AS over 12 months included older age, centre, and lower number of positive cores. CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance is widely practiced across Canada, but important regional differences were observed. Further analyses are required to understand the root causes of differences and to determine whether AS uptake is changing over time.

Evaluating the circular economy for sanitation: Findings from a multi-case approach.

Addressing the lack of sanitation globally is a major global challenge with 700 million people still practicing open defecation. Circular Economy (CE) in the context of sanitation focuses on the whole sanitation chain which includes the provision of toilets, the collection of waste, treatment and transformation into sanitation-derived products including fertiliser, fuel and clean water. After a qualitative study from five case studies across India, covering different treatment technologies, waste-derived products, markets and contexts; this research identifies the main barriers and enablers for circular sanitation business models to succeed. A framework assessing the technical and social system changes required to enable circular sanitation models was derived from the case studies. Some of these changes can be achieved with increased enforcement, policies and subsidies for fertilisers, and integration of sanitation with other waste streams to increase its viability. Major changes such as the cultural norms around re-use, demographic shifts and soil depletion would be outside the scope of a single project, policy or planning initiative. The move to CE sanitation may still be desirable from a policy perspective but we argue that shifting to CE models should not be seen as a panacea that can solve the global sanitation crisis. Delivering the public good of safe sanitation services for all, whether circular or not, will continue to be a difficult task.

Comparison of open and robotic-assisted prostatectomy: The University of British Columbia experience.

INTRODUCTION: We assessed outcomes and costs of open prostatectomy (OP) versus robotic-assisted prostatectomy (RAP) at a single tertiary care university hospital. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 200 consecutive OP by 1 experienced open surgeon (MG) and 200 consecutive RAP by an experienced open surgeon (SLG), after allowing for a short learning curve of 70 cases. RESULTS: The 2 groups had similar demographics, including mean age (64.7 vs. 64.2) and mean body mass index (27.2 vs. 27.2). The OP group had a higher proportion of higher risk cancers compared to the RAP group (32.5% vs. 8.5%). Mean skin-to-skin operative room time was less for the OP (114.2 vs. 234.1 minutes). Transfusion rates were similar at 1.5% with OP compared to 3.5% with RAP. The mean length of stay was 1.78 days for OP compared to 1.76 days for RAP, for the last 100 patients in each group. The OP group had more high-grade disease in the prostatectomy specimen, with Gleason ≥8 in 23.5% compared to 3.5% in the RAP group. Positive surgical margin rates were comparable at 31% for OP and 24.6% for RAP, and remained similar after stratification for pT2 and pT3 disease. The grade I and II perioperative complication rate (Clavien-Dindo classification) was lower in the OP group (8.5% vs. 20%). Postoperative stress urinary incontinence rates (4.8% for OP and 4.6% for RAP) and biochemical-free status (91.8% for OP and 96% for RAP) did not differ at 12 months post-surgery. The additional cost of RAP was calculated as $5629 per case. The main limitations of this study are its retrospective nature and lack of validated questionnaires for evaluation of postoperative functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: While hospital length of stay, transfusion rates, positive surgical margin rates and postoperative urinary incontinence were similar, OP had a shorter operative time and a lower cost compared to the very early experience of RAP. Future parallel prospective analysis will address the impact of the learning curve on these outcomes.