| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Ahmed, Kamran, et al.
(författare)
-
Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: a consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts
- 2015
-
Ingår i: BJU International. - : Wiley. - 1464-4096 .- 1464-410X. ; 116:1, s. 93-101
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: To explore the views of experts about the development and validation of a robotic surgery training curriculum, and how this should be implemented. Materials and methods: An international expert panel was invited to a structured session for discussion. The study was of a mixed design, including qualitative and quantitative components based on focus group interviews during the European Association of Urology (EAU) Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) (2012), EAU (2013) and ERUS (2013) meetings. After introduction to the aims, principles and current status of the curriculum development, group responses were elicited. After content analysis of recorded interviews generated themes were discussed at the second meeting, where consensus was achieved on each theme. This discussion also underwent content analysis, and was used to draft a curriculum proposal. At the third meeting, a quantitative questionnaire about this curriculum was disseminated to attendees to assess the level of agreement with the key points. Results: In all, 150 min (19 pages) of the focus group discussion was transcribed (21 316 words). Themes were agreed by two raters (median agreement kappa 0.89) and they included: need for a training curriculum (inter-rater agreement kappa 0.85); identification of learning needs (kappa 0.83); development of the curriculum contents (kappa 0.81); an overview of available curricula (kappa 0.79); settings for robotic surgery training ((kappa 0.89); assessment and training of trainers (kappa 0.92); requirements for certification and patient safety (kappa 0.83); and need for a universally standardised curriculum (kappa 0.78). A training curriculum was proposed based on the above discussions. Conclusion: This group proposes a multi-step curriculum for robotic training. Studies are in process to validate the effectiveness of the curriculum and to assess transfer of skills to the operating room.
|
|
| 3. |
- Van der Poel, Henk G., et al.
(författare)
-
Sentinel node biopsy for prostate cancer : Report from a consensus panel meeting
- 2017
-
Ingår i: BJU International. - : Wiley. - 1464-4096. ; 120:2, s. 204-211
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Wit, Esther M K, et al.
(författare)
-
Sentinel Node Procedure in Prostate Cancer : A Systematic Review to Assess Diagnostic Accuracy
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838. ; 71:4, s. 596-605
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Context: Extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) is the gold standard for detecting lymph node (LN) metastases in prostate cancer (PCa). The benefit of sentinel node biopsy (SNB), which is the first draining LN as assessed by imaging of locally injected tracers, remains controversial. Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of SNB in PCa. Evidence acquisition: A systematic literature search of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (1999-2016) was undertaken using PRISMA guidelines. All studies of SNB in men with PCa using PLND as reference standard were included. The primary outcomes were the nondiagnostic rate (NDR), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and false positive (FP) and false negative (FN) rates. Relevant sensitivity analyses based on SN definitions, ePLND as reference standard, and disease risk were undertaken, including a risk of bias (RoB) assessment. Evidence synthesis: Of 373 articles identified, 21 studies recruiting a total of 2509 patients were eligible for inclusion. Median cumulative percentage (interquartile range) results were 4.1% (1.5-10.7%) for NDR, 95.2% (81.8-100%) for sensitivity, 100% (95.0-100%) for specificity, 100% (87.0-100%) for PPV, 98.0% (94.3-100%) for NPV, 0% (0-5.0%) for the FP rate, and 4.8% (0-18.2%) for the FN rate. The findings did not change significantly on sensitivity analyses. Most studies (17/22) had low RoB for index test and reference standard domains. Conclusions: SNB appears to have diagnostic accuracy comparable to ePLND, with high sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV, and a low FN rate. With a low FP rate (rate of detecting positive nodes outside the ePLND template), SNB may not have any additional diagnostic value over and above ePLND, although SNB appears to increase nodal yield by increasing the number of affected nodes when combined with ePLND. Thus, in high-risk disease it may be prudent to combine ePLND with SNB. Patient summary: This literature review showed a high diagnostic accuracy for sentinel node biopsy in detecting positive lymph nodes in prostate cancer, but further studies are needed to explore the effect of sentinel node biopsy on complications and oncologic outcome. The accuracy of sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in detecting positive lymph nodes in prostate cancer appears to have diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND). However, SNB may not have any additional diagnostic value over and above ePLND.
|
|
| 5. |
- Azzouzi, Abdel Rahmène, et al.
(författare)
-
Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy versus active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer (CLIN1001 PCM301) : An open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045. ; 18:2, s. 181-191
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy, a novel tissue-preserving treatment for low-risk prostate cancer, has shown favourable safety and efficacy results in single-arm phase 1 and 2 studies. We compared this treatment with the standard of care, active surveillance, in men with low-risk prostate cancer in a phase 3 trial. Methods: This randomised controlled trial was done in 47 European university centres and community hospitals. Men with low-risk, localised prostate cancer (Gleason pattern 3) who had received no previous treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (4 mg/kg padeliporfin intravenously over 10 min and optical fibres inserted into the prostate to cover the desired treatment zone and subsequent activation by laser light 753 nm with a fixed power of 150 mW/cm for 22 min 15 s) or active surveillance. Randomisation was done by a web-based allocation system stratified by centre with balanced blocks of two or four patients. Best practice for active surveillance at the time of study design was followed (ie, biopsy at 12-month intervals and prostate-specific antigen measurement and digital rectal examination at 3-month intervals). The co-primary endpoints were treatment failure (histological progression of cancer from low to moderate or high risk or death during 24 months' follow-up) and absence of definite cancer (absence of any histology result definitely positive for cancer at month 24). Analysis was by intention to treat. Treatment was open-label, but investigators assessing primary efficacy outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. This trial is registered with . ClinicalTrials.gov, number . NCT01310894. Findings: Between March 8, 2011, and April 30, 2013, we randomly assigned 206 patients to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy and 207 patients to active surveillance. Median follow-up was 24 months (IQR 24-25). The proportion of participants who had disease progression at month 24 was 58 (28%) of 206 in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group compared with 120 (58%) of 207 in the active surveillance group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·34, 95% CI 0·24-0·46; p<0·0001). 101 (49%) men in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group had a negative prostate biopsy result at 24 months post treatment compared with 28 (14%) men in the active surveillance group (adjusted risk ratio 3·67, 95% CI 2·53-5·33; p<0·0001). Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy was well tolerated. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were prostatitis (three [2%] in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group . vs one [<1%] in the active surveillance group), acute urinary retention (three [2%] . vs one [<1%]) and erectile dysfunction (two [1%] . vs three [1%]). The most common serious adverse event in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group was retention of urine (15 patients; severe in three); this event resolved within 2 months in all patients. The most common serious adverse event in the active surveillance group was myocardial infarction (three patients). Interpretation: Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy is a safe, effective treatment for low-risk, localised prostate cancer. This treatment might allow more men to consider a tissue-preserving approach and defer or avoid radical therapy. Funding: Steba Biotech.
|
|
| 6. |
- Murphy, Declan G., et al.
(författare)
-
Downsides of Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Limitations and Complications
- 2010
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-7560 .- 0302-2838. ; 57:5, s. 735-746
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Context: Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) using the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is now in widespread use for the management of localised prostate cancer (PCa). Many reports of the safety and efficacy of this procedure have been published. However, there are few specific reports of the limitations and complications of RALP. Objective: The primary purpose of this review is to ascertain the downsides of RALP by focusing on complications and limitations of this approach. Evidence acquisition: A Medline search of the English-language literature was performed to identify all papers published since 2001 relating to RALP. Papers providing data on technical failures, complications, learning curve, or other downsides of RALP were considered. Of 412 papers identified, 68 were selected for review based on their relevance to the objective of this paper. Evidence synthesis: RALP has the following principal downsides: (1) device failure occurs in 0.2-0.4% of cases; (2) assessment of functional outcome is unsatisfactory because of nonstandardised assessment techniques; (3) overall complication rates of RALP are low, although higher rates are noted when complications are reported using a standardised system; (4) long-term oncologic data and data on high-risk PCa are limited; (5) a steep learning curve exists, and although acceptable operative times can be achieved in <20 cases, positive surgical margin (PSM) rates may require experience with >80 cases before a plateau is achieved; (6) robotic assistance does not reduce the difficulty associated with obese patients and those with large prostates, middle lobes, or previous surgery, in whom outcomes are less satisfactory than in patients without such factors; (7) economic barriers prevent uniform dissemination of robotic technology. Conclusions: Many of the downsides of RALP identified in this paper can be addressed with longer-term data and more widespread adoption of standardised reporting measures. The significant learning curve should not be understated, and the expense of this technology continues to restrict access for many patients. (C) 2009 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 7. |
- van der Poel, Henk, et al.
(författare)
-
Role of active surveillance and focal therapy in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancers
- 2015
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Urology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0724-4983 .- 1433-8726. ; 33:7, s. 907-916
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: Low-risk prostate cancer is found in about half of newly diagnosed men subjected to PSA screening. Methods: To define the role of active surveillance and focal therapy in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancers, an invited international panel of practicing physicians in the field of localized prostate cancer discussed the available literature in three consecutive meetings to come to a broad interpretation of the available data. Results: The panel (“new prostate cancer management group,” npm) agreed on the following observations. In most men with a low-volume Gleason 6 tumor, initial conservative management is appropriate. In men with a larger unifocal Gleason score 6 or 3 + 4 lesion, focal therapy, although still considered an investigational approach, appears to be a suitable option in early non-randomized comparison studies. Furthermore, in patients with multifocal small satellite Gleason 6 lesions in the presence of a larger index lesion, focal therapy of the index lesion is an option. For patients with high-grade, large-volume disease, or in young men with evidence of high-volume multifocal low-grade prostate cancer, whole-gland treatment should be considered. Conclusion: Active surveillance is a preferred and safe option for low-risk prostate cancer. Focal therapy is still under investigation, but the available phase II data are promising. Clinical benefits must be shown in prospective trials. With improved imaging, focal therapy may be an option for patients not choosing active surveillance with low-risk disease, progression upon active surveillance or intermediate-risk cancers with a localizable lesion.
|
|
