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]

Simple Summary: Metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) is one of the most common solid tumors in men and both the disease and the treatments affect patients' quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported Outcome Measurements (PROMs) are important to assess the patient's subjective experience with disease and treatment. Our aim is to appraise, compare, and summarize the psychometric properties of Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Our findings can improve patients' care and their quality of life during treatment and the disease path. Introduction: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) represent important endpoints in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). However, the clinically valid and accurate measurement of health-related quality of life depends on the psychometric properties of the PROMs considered. Objective: To appraise, compare, and summarize the properties of PROMs in mPCa. Evidence acquisition: We performed a review of PROMs used in RCTs, including patients with mPCa, using Medline in September 2021, according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. This systematic review is part of PIONEER (an IMI2 European network of excellence for big data in PCa). Results: The most frequently used PROMs in RCTs of patients with mPCa were the Functional Assessment for Cancer Therapy—Prostate (FACT-P) (n = 18), the Brief Pain Inventory—Short Form (BPI-SF) (n = 8), and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) (n = 6). A total of 283 abstracts were screened and 12 full-text studies were evaluated. A total of two, one, and two studies reported the psychometric proprieties of FACT-P, Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and BPI-SF, respectively. FACT-P and BPI showed a high content validity, while BPI-SF showed a moderate content validity. FACT-P and BPI showed a high internal consistency (summarized by Cronbach's α 0.70–0.95). Conclusions: The use of BPI and FACT-P in mPCa patients is supported by their high content validity and internal consistency. Since BPI is focused on pain assessment, we recommend FACT-P, which provides a broader assessment of QoL and wellbeing, for the clinical evaluation of mPCa patients. However, these considerations have been elaborated on in a very limited number of studies. Patient summary: In this paper, we review the psychometric properties of PROMs used with patients with mPCa to find the questionnaires that best assess patients' QoL, in order to help professionals in their intervention and improve patients' QoL. We recommend the use of BPI and FACT-P for their high content validity and internal consistency despite the limited number of studies considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The PIONEER Consortium has updated and integrated existing core outcome sets for prostate cancer for the different stages of the disease, assessed their applicability, and developed standardised definitions of prioritised outcomes for use in research settings and clinical practice. Harmonisation of outcome reporting and definitions for clinical trials and routine patient records can enable health care systems to provide more efficient outcome-driven and patient-centred interventions. We report on the work of the PIONEER Consortium in this context for prostate cancer (PCa). To update and integrate existing core outcome sets (COS) for PCa for the different stages of the disease, assess their applicability, and develop standardised definitions of prioritised outcomes. We followed a four-stage process involving: (1) systematic reviews; (2) qualitative interviews; (3) expert group meetings to agree standardised terminologies; and (4) recommendations for the most appropriate definitions of clinician-reported outcomes. Following four systematic reviews, a multinational interview study, and expert group consensus meetings, we defined the most clinically suitable definitions for (1) COS for localised and locally advanced PCa and (2) COS for metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa. No new outcomes were identified in our COS for localised and locally advanced PCa. For our COS for metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa, nine new core outcomes were identified. These are the first COS for PCa for which the definitions of prioritised outcomes have been surveyed in a systematic, transparent, and replicable way. This is also the first time that outcome definitions across all prostate cancer COS have been agreed on by a multidisciplinary expert group and recommended for use in research and clinical practice. To limit heterogeneity across research, these COS should be recommended for future effectiveness trials, systematic reviews, guidelines and clinical practice of localised and metastatic PCa. Patient outcomes after treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) are difficult to compare because of variability. To allow better use of data from patients with PCa, the PIONEER Consortium has standardised and recommended outcomes (and their definitions) that should be collected as a minimum in all future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Context: For the treatment of localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC), uncertainties remain over the perioperative and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes for the many different surgical techniques and approaches of nephrectomy. Controversy also remains on whether newer minimally invasive nephron-sparing interventions offer better QoL and perioperative outcomes, and whether adrenalectomy and lymphadenectomy should be performed simultaneously with nephrectomy. These non-oncological outcomes are important because they may have a considerable impact on localised RCC treatment decision making. Objective: To review systematically all the relevant published literature comparing perioperative and QoL outcomes of surgical management of localised RCC (T1–2N0M0). Evidence acquisition: Relevant databases including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2012. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials, prospective observational studies with controls, retrospective matched-pair studies, and comparative studies from well-defined registries/databases were included. The outcome measures were QoL, analgesic requirement, length of hospital stay, time to normal activity level, surgical morbidity and complications, ischaemia time, renal function, blood loss, length of operation, need for blood transfusion, and perioperative mortality. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess RCTs, and an extended version was used to assess nonrandomised studies (NRSs). The quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Evidence synthesis: A total of 4580 abstracts and 380 full-text articles were assessed, and 29 studies met the inclusion criteria (7 RCTs and 22 NRSs). There were high risks of bias and low-quality evidence for studies meeting the inclusion criteria. There is good evidence indicating that partial nephrectomy results in better preservation of renal function and better QoL outcomes than radical nephrectomy regardless of technique or approach. Regarding radical nephrectomy, the laparoscopic approach has better perioperative outcomes than the open approach, and there is no evidence of a difference between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. Alternatives to standard laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) such as hand-assisted, robot-assisted, or single-port techniques appear to have similar perioperative outcomes. There is no good evidence to suggest that minimally invasive procedures such as cryotherapy or radiofrequency ablation have superior perioperative or QoL outcomes to nephrectomy. Regarding concomitant lymphadenectomy during nephrectomy, there were low event rates for complications, and no definitive difference was observed. There was no evidence to base statements about concomitant ipsilateral adrenalectomy during nephrectomy. Conclusions: Partial nephrectomy results in significantly better preservation of renal function over radical nephrectomy. For tumours where partial nephrectomy is not technically feasible, there is no evidence that alternative procedures or techniques are better than LRN in terms of perioperative or QoL outcomes. In making treatment decisions, perioperative and QoL outcomes should be considered in conjunction with oncological outcomes. Overall, there was a paucity of data regarding QoL outcomes, and when reported, both QoL and perioperative outcomes were inconsistently defined, measured, or reported. The current evidence base has major limitations due to studies of low methodological quality marked by high risks of bias. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Context: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for 2–3% of adult malignancies. There remain uncertainties over the oncological outcomes for the surgical management of localised RCC. Objective: Systematically review relevant literature comparing oncological outcomes of surgical management of localised RCC (T1–2N0M0). Evidence acquisition: Relevant databases including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to October 2010, and an updated scoping search was performed up to January 2012. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs, prospective observational studies with controls, retrospective matched-pair studies, and comparative studies from well-defined registries/databases were included. The main outcomes were overall survival, cancer-specific survival, recurrence, and metastases. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess RCTs, and an extended version was used to assess nonrandomised studies (NRSs). The quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Evidence synthesis: A total of 4580 abstracts and 389 full-text articles were assessed. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria (6 RCTs and 28 NRSs). Meta-analyses were planned but were deemed inappropriate due to data heterogeneity. There were high risks of bias and low-quality evidence across the evidence base. Open radical nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy showed similar cancer-specific and overall survival, but when both open and laparoscopic approaches are considered together, the evidence showed improved survival for partial nephrectomy for tumours ≤4cm. The overall evidence suggests either equivalent or better survival with partial nephrectomy. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy offered equivalent survival to open radical nephrectomy, and all laparoscopic approaches achieved equivalent survival. Open and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy achieved equivalent survival. The issue of ipsilateral adrenalectomy or complete lymph node dissection with radical nephrectomy or partial nephrectomy remains unresolved. Conclusions: The evidence base suggests localised RCCs are best managed by nephron-sparing surgery where technically feasible. However, the current evidence base has significant limitations due to studies of low methodological quality marked by high risks of bias. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Making healthcare treatment decisions is a complex process involving a broad stakeholder base including patients, their families, health professionals, clinical practice guideline developers and funders of healthcare. Methods: This paper presents a review of a methodology for the development of urological cancer care pathways (UCAN care pathways), which reflects an appreciation of this broad stakeholder base. The methods section includes an overview of the steps in the development of the UCAN care pathways and engagement with clinical content experts and patient groups. Results: The development process is outlined, the uses of the urological cancer care pathways discussed and the implications for clinical practice highlighted. The full set of UCAN care pathways is published in this paper. These include care pathways on localised prostate cancer, locally advanced prostate cancer, metastatic prostate cancer, hormone-resistant prostate cancer, localised renal cell cancer, advanced renal cell cancer, testicular cancer, penile cancer, muscle invasive and metastatic bladder cancer and non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Conclusion: The process provides a useful framework for improving urological cancer care through evidence synthesis, research prioritisation, stakeholder involvement and international collaboration. Although the focus of this work is urological cancers, the methodology can be applied to all aspects of urology and is transferable to other clinical specialties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]