| 1. |
- Beyer, Katharina, et al.
(författare)
-
Diagnostic and prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer : a systematic review
- 2022
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 12:4
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives As part of the PIONEER Consortium objectives, we have explored which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are available in relation to our previously defined clinician and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa). Design We performed a systematic review to identify validated and non-validated studies. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched on 21 January 2020. Eligibility criteria Only quantitative studies were included. Single studies with fewer than 50 participants, published before 2014 and looking at outcomes which are not prioritised in the PIONEER core outcome set were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis After initial screening, we extracted data following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of prognostic factor studies (CHARMS-PF) criteria and discussed the identified factors with a multidisciplinary expert group. The quality of the included papers was scored for applicability and risk of bias using validated tools such as PROBAST, Quality in Prognostic Studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Results The search identified 6604 studies, from which 489 DPFs were included. Sixty-four of those were internally or externally validated. However, only three studies on diagnostic and seven studies on prognostic factors had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. Conclusion Most of the DPFs identified require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before they can be recommended for use in clinical practice. The PIONEER online search tool for DPFs for PCa will enable researchers to understand the quality of the current research and help them design future studies. Ethics and dissemination There are no ethical implications.
|
|
| 2. |
- Beyer, Katharina, et al.
(författare)
-
A Systematic Review of Heterogeneity in Outcome Definition and Reporting in Localised Renal Cancer
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Urology Open Science. - : Elsevier BV. - 2666-1691 .- 2666-1683. ; 48, s. 1-11
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Fanti, Stefano, et al.
(författare)
-
EAU-EANM Consensus Statements on the Role of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Patients with Prostate Cancer and with Respect to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA Radioligand Therapy
- 2022
-
Ingår i: European Urology Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 2588-9311. ; 5:5, s. 530-536
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) is useful for selected clinical indications in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) but it may have broader clinical utility owing to the emergence of lutetium-177-PSMA-617 ([177Lu]Lu-PSMA) therapy. However, robust data regarding the impact of PSMA PET/CT on patient management and treatment are lacking, and in many areas, the role of next-generation imaging has not been defined. OBJECTIVE: To assess expert opinion on the use of PSMA-based imaging and therapy to develop interim guidance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A panel of 21 PCa experts from various disciplines received thematic topics and relevant literature. A questionnaire to assess proposed guidance statements regarding PSMA PET/CT and [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy was developed for completion remotely in a first e-Delphi round. A subsequent panel discussion was conducted during a 1-d meeting, which included a second Delphi round. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Panellists voted anonymously on statements using a nine-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 9 = strongly agree. Median scores were calculated and consensus was assessed using methods proposed by the Research and Development (RAND) corporation. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Statements were developed to cover the following topics: PSMA PET/CT utility, clinical use, and choice of tracer; patient selection; and management of patients receiving [177Lu]Lu-PSMA for metastatic PCa. Consensus was reached for 33/36 statements. In-group bias is a potential limitation, as some statements were rephrased during discussions at the 1-d meeting. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of PSMA PET/CT as an imaging tool to guide [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy should be supported by indications for appropriate use. PATIENT SUMMARY: A panel of experts in prostate cancer reached a consensus for the majority of statements proposed regarding the role of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based imaging and therapy, particularly the use of PSMA-based imaging in patients suitable for [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy and the need to perform PSMA-based imaging before considering patients as candidates for this therapy.
|
|
| 5. |
- MacLennan, Steven, et al.
(författare)
-
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
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838. ; 83:5, s. 393-401
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Oprea-Lager, Daniela Elena, et al.
(författare)
-
European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 5 : Consensus on Molecular Imaging and Theranostics in Prostate Cancer
- 2024
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - 0302-2838. ; 85:1, s. 49-60
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Witjes, J. Alfred, et al.
(författare)
-
EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer – An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort : Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 77:2, s. 223-250
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference.SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.CONCLUSIONS: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach.PATIENT SUMMARY: This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.
|
|
