| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
