Search

Background Radiation-induced cystitis is a common side effect of radiotherapy (RT) to the pelvic area. Hyaluronic acid (HA) and chondroitin sulfate (CS) are components of the urothelial mucosa and positive results have been obtained for intravesical HA/CS instillations for the treatment of urinary tract infections and bladder pain syndrome. HA/CS may also have a protective effect against RT bladder toxicity. Objective To investigate whether HA and CS protect the urothelium during RT, alleviate lower urinary tract symptoms, and improve quality of life. Design, setting, and participants This multicentre randomised controlled trial was conducted across seven centres in four countries. Male patients aged ≥18 yr scheduled to undergo primary intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer were enrolled. Intervention Patients were randomised to intravesical HA/CS plus an oral formulation of curcumin, quercetin, HA, and CS (group A) or no treatment (group B). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The primary endpoint was absolute changes from baseline to follow-up in urinary domain scores for the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-MLUTS), and the EuroQol Group EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Data analysis for efficacy and safety outcomes was performed using an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach; the ITT population was defined as all randomised patients. Results and limitations Of 57 patients screened, 49 were enrolled and randomly assigned to either active treatment (group A, n = 25) or the control (group B, n = 24). Three patients in the control group withdrew after randomisation. Changes from baseline to 12 mo were worse in the control group for subtotal scores for urinary symptoms and impact of symptoms on quality of life and for the total score (p = 0.05, p = 0.003, and p = 0.008, respectively). There was a significant time × group interaction in favour of active treatment for the incontinence symptom score (p = 0.011) and bother score (p = 0.017). The absence of a sham procedure and/or placebo is the main limitation. Conclusions Our results suggest that intravesical HA/CS in combination with an oral formulation may reduce urinary symptoms and improve QoL at short-term (1 yr) follow-up. Patient summary We investigated whether hyaluronic acid (HA) and chondroitin sulfate (CS) have a protective effect against the bladder toxicity of radiotherapy for prostate cancer. HA/CS used for weekly bladder irrigation for 6 wk and given orally with curcumin and quercetin for 12 wk reduced urinary incontinence symptoms and bother measured at 1-year follow-up. This may hold promise as a preventive treatment if the results are confirmed in further trials., Take Home Message Our findings show a beneficial effect of intravesical hyaluronic acid (HA)/chondroitin sulfate (SC) plus the oral combination of curcumin, quercetin, HA, and CS for prevention of acute and late (1 yr) radiation-induced cystitis and improvement in quality of life. The current strategy may have a place among treatment options for the prevention of radiation-induced bladder complications, which until now have been limited to symptom-relieving and temporary modalities.

In a subset analysis of data from a 6-month, multicenter, non-interventional study, we compared change in symptoms and quality of life (QoL), and treatment tolerability, in men with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) receiving tamsulosin (TAM, 0.4 mg/day) or the hexanic extract of Serenoa repens (HESr, 320 mg/day) as monotherapy. Symptoms and QoL were assessed using the IPSS and BII questionnaires, respectively. Patients in the treatment groups were matched using two statistical approaches (iterative and propensity score matching). Within the iterative matching approach, data was available from a total of 737 patients (353 TAM, 384 HESr). After 6 months, IPSS scores improved by a mean (SD) of 5.0 (4.3) points in the TAM group and 4.5 (4.7) points in the HESr group (p = 0.117, not significant). Improvements in QoL were equivalent in the two groups. TAM patients reported significantly more adverse effects than HESr patients (14.7% vs 2.1%; p

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.

Background: \ud Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.\ud \ud Objective: \ud To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.\ud \ud Design: \ud 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.\ud \ud Setting: \ud Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.\ud \ud Participants: \ud The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.\ud \ud Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: \ud 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).\ud \ud Results and limitations: \ud 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.\ud \ud Conclusions: \ud 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.\ud \ud Patient summary: \ud 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.

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.

Background Late onset of radiation-induced haemorrhagic cystitis (RHC) after radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PCa) may present or evolve severely, requiring hospitalization with invasive interventions. In the present study, we have analysed the prevalence and risk factors associated with the onset of RHC. Methods From January 2002 to May 2017, 1421 patients undertook RT for PCa as a primary, adjuvant, or salvage treatment option. RHC presented in 5.6% (n = 80) of the patients; the diagnosis was based on clinical and endoscopic characteristics. Variables in observation included patients, tumours, and RT-dosimetry characteristics. Patients with a previous history of bladder cancer were excluded. Univariate (Student t/Chi square) and uni-/multivariate Cox regression analysis were performed; the events and time-points were hospitalization and time-to-event, respectively. Results There were 80 patients with a mean age at RT of 70.1 years (SD 6.4), mean time lag to RHC of 43.9 months (SD 37.5). Median Emergency attendance was two and three times for patients without/with hospitalization, respectively. There were in total 64 admissions with invasive treatment required in 26/36 (72.2%) of the patients hospitalised, including transurethral fulguration in 22 and radical cystectomy in 5. Patients at higher risk of hospitalization were those undertaking antiplatelet/anticoagulant treatment (HR:3.30; CI 95%:1.53–3.30; p = 0.002) and those treated with salvage RT with higher bladder volume receiving >70 Gy (bladder V70) (HR:1.03; CI 95%:1.01–1.05; p = 0.027). At receiving operating characteristic analysis, the cutoff for bladder V70 was 29%. Conclusion Nearly half of patients presenting RHC may require invasive treatment including cystectomy. Risk factors associated with hospitalization are patients undertaking antiplatelet/coagulant treatment and bladder V70 > 29% in salvage RT patients.

Korrektur zu 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.035

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.