Search

Context The findings of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are used for clinical decision making. The European Association of Urology has committed increasing resources into the development of high quality clinical guidelines based on such SRs and MAs. Objective In this paper, we have summarised the process of conducting SRs for underpinning clinical practice guidelines under the auspices of the European Association of Urology Guidelines Office. Evidence acquisition The process involves explicit methods and the findings should be reproducible. When conducting a SR, the essential first step is to formulate a clear and answerable research question. An extensive literature search lays the foundation for evidence synthesis. Data are extracted independently by two reviewers and any disagreements are resolved by discussion or arbitration by a third reviewer. Evidence synthesis In SRs, data for particular outcomes in individual randomised controlled trials may be combined statistically in a meta-analysis to increase power when the studies are similar enough. Biases in studies included in a SR/MA can lead to either an over estimation or an under estimation of true intervention effect size, resulting in heterogeneity in outcome between studies. A number of different tools are available such as Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool for randomised controlled trials. In circumstances where there is too much heterogeneity, or when a review has included nonrandomised comparative studies, it is more appropriate to conduct a narrative synthesis . The GRADE tool for assessing quality of evidence strives to be a structured and transparent system, which can be applied to all evidence, regardless of quality. A SR not only identifies, evaluates, and summarises the best available evidence, but also the gaps to be targeted by future studies. Conclusions SRs and MAs are integral in developing sound clinical practice guidelines and recommendations. Patient summary Clinical practice guidelines should be evidence based, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential in their production. We have discussed the key steps of conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Context Practice patterns for the management of urinary retention (UR) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO; UR/BPO) vary widely and remain unstandardized. Objective To review the evidence for managing patients with UR/BPO with pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments included in the European Association of Urology guidelines on non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms. Evidence acquisition Search was conducted up to April 22, 2018, using CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. This systematic review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies. Methods as detailed in the Cochrane handbook were followed. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Evidence synthesis Literature search identified 2074 citations. Twenty-one studies were included (qualitative synthesis). The evidence for managing patients with UR/BPO with pharmacological or nonpharmacological treatments is limited. CoE for most outcomes was low/very low. Only α1-blockers (alfuzosin and tamsulosin) have been evaluated in more than one RCT. Pooled results indicated that α1-blockers provided significantly higher rates of successful trial without catheter compared with placebo [alfuzosin: 322/540 (60%) vs 156/400 (39%) (odds ratio {OR} 2.28, 95% confidence interval {CI} 1.55 to 3.36; participants = 940; studies = 7; I 2 = 41%; low CoE); tamsulosin: 75/158 (47%) vs 40/139 (29%) (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.45; participants = 297; studies = 3; I 2 = 30%; low CoE)] with rare adverse events. Similar rates were achieved with tamsulosin or alfuzosin [51/87 (59%) vs 45/84 (54%) (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.41; participants = 171; studies = 2; I 2 = 0%; very low CoE)]. Nonpharmacological treatments have been evaluated in RCTs/prospective comparative studies only sporadically. Conclusions There is some evidence that usage of α1-blockers (alfuzosin and tamsulosin) may improve resolution of UR/BPO. As most nonpharmacological treatments have not been evaluated in patients with UR/BPO, the evidence is inconclusive about their benefits and harms. Patient summary There is some evidence that alfuzosin and tamsulosin may increase the rates of successful trial without catheter, but little or no evidence on various nonpharmacological treatment options for managing patients with urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction. Take Home Message Alfuzosin and tamsulosin appear to provide higher rates of successful trial without catheter. Most nonpharmacological treatment options have not been evaluated in patients with urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction. Consequently, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions for the management of urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The optimal treatment for men with high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains unknown. To perform a systematic review of the existing literature on the effectiveness of the different primary treatment modalities for high-risk localized and locally advanced PCa. The primary oncological outcome is the development of distant metastases at ≥5 yr of follow-up. Secondary oncological outcomes are PCa-specific mortality, overall mortality, biochemical recurrence, and need for salvage treatment with ≥5 yr of follow-up. Nononcological outcomes are quality of life (QoL), functional outcomes, and treatment-related side effects reported. Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Controlled Trials were searched. All comparative (randomized and nonrandomized) studies published between January 2000 and May 2019 with at least 50 participants in each arm were included. Studies reporting on high-risk localized PCa (International Society of Urologic Pathologists [ISUP] grade 4–5 [Gleason score {GS} 8–10] or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/ml or ≥ cT2c) and/or locally advanced PCa (any PSA, cT3–4 or cN+, any ISUP grade/GS) or where subanalyses were performed on either group were included. The following primary local treatments were mandated: radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) (≥64 Gy), brachytherapy (BT), or multimodality treatment combining any of the local treatments above (±any systemic treatment). Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding factors were assessed for each study. A narrative synthesis was performed. Overall, 90 studies met the inclusion criteria. RoB and confounding factors revealed high RoB for selection, performance, and detection bias, and low RoB for correction of initial PSA and biopsy GS. When comparing RP with EBRT, retrospective series suggested an advantage for RP, although with a low level of evidence. Both RT and RP should be seen as part of a multimodal treatment plan with possible addition of (postoperative) RT and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), respectively. High levels of evidence exist for EBRT treatment, with several randomized clinical trials showing superior outcome for adding long-term ADT or BT to EBRT. No clear cutoff can be proposed for RT dose, but higher RT doses by means of dose escalation schemes result in an improved biochemical control. Twenty studies reported data on QoL, with RP resulting mainly in genitourinary toxicity and sexual dysfunction, and EBRT in bowel problems. Based on the results of this systematic review, both RP as part of multimodal treatment and EBRT + long-term ADT can be recommended as primary treatment in high-risk and locally advanced PCa. For high-risk PCa, EBRT + BT can also be offered despite more grade 3 toxicity. Interestingly, for selected patients, for example, those with higher comorbidity, a shorter duration of ADT might be an option. For locally advanced PCa, EBRT + BT shows promising result but still needs further validation. In this setting, it is important that patients are aware that the offered therapy will most likely be in the context a multimodality treatment plan. In particular, if radiation is used, the combination of local with systemic treatment provides the best outcome, provided the patient is fit enough to receive both. Until the results of the SPCG15 trial are known, the optimal local treatment remains a matter of debate. Patients should at all times be fully informed about all available options, and the likelihood of a multimodal approach including the potential side effects of both local and systemic treatment. We reviewed the literature to see whether the evidence from clinical studies would tell us the best way of curing men with aggressive prostate cancer that had not spread to other parts of the body such as lymph glands or bones. Based on the results of this systematic review, there is good evidence that both surgery and radiation therapy are good treatment options, in terms of prolonging life and preserving quality of life, provided they are combined with other treatments. In the case of surgery this means including radiotherapy (RT), and in the case of RT this means either hormonal therapy or combined RT and brachytherapy. High-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients are likely to undergo multimodality treatment. Patients should at all times be fully informed about all available options and the likelihood of a multimodal approach, including the potential side effects of both local and systemic treatment. For high-risk localized and locally advanced PCa, both radical prostatectomy as part as multimodal therapy and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) + long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) can be recommended as primary treatment. For high-risk localized PCa, EBRT + BT can also be offered despite a less favorable toxicity profile. In selected high-risk PCa patients, a shorter duration of ADT might be considered. Until the results of the SPCG15 trial are known, the optimal local treatment remains a matter of debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]