Procedure-specific Risks of Thrombosis and Bleeding in Urological Non-cancer Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis involves a trade-off between a reduction in venous thromboembolism (VTE) and increased bleeding. No guidance specific for procedure and patient factors exists in urology. OBJECTIVE: To inform estimates of absolute risk of symptomatic VTE and bleeding requiring reoperation in urological non-cancer surgery. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched for contemporary observational studies and estimated the risk of symptomatic VTE or bleeding requiring reoperation in the 4 wk after urological surgery. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The 37 eligible studies reported on 11 urological non-cancer procedures. The duration of prophylaxis varied widely both within and between procedures; for example, the median was 12.3 d (interquartile range [IQR] 3.1-55) for open recipient nephrectomy (kidney transplantation) studies and 1 d (IQR 0-1.3) for percutaneous nephrolithotomy, open prolapse surgery, and reconstructive pelvic surgery studies. Studies of open recipient nephrectomy reported the highest risks of VTE and bleeding (1.8-7.4% depending on patient characteristics and 2.4% for bleeding). The risk of VTE was low for 8/11 procedures (0.2-0.7% for patients with low/medium risk; 0.8-1.4% for high risk) and the risk of bleeding was low for 6/7 procedures (≤0.5%; no bleeding estimates for 4 procedures). The quality of the evidence supporting these estimates was low or very low. CONCLUSIONS: Although inferences are limited owing to low-quality evidence, our results suggest that extended prophylaxis is warranted for some procedures (eg, kidney transplantation procedures in high-risk patients) but not others (transurethral resection of the prostate and reconstructive female pelvic surgery in low-risk patients). PATIENT SUMMARY: The best evidence suggests that the benefits of blood-thinning drugs to prevent clots after surgery outweigh the risks of bleeding in some procedures (such as kidney transplantation procedures in patients at high risk of clots) but not others (such as prostate surgery in patients at low risk of clots).

Systemic therapy in the curative treatment of head and neck squamous cell cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the available evidence and make recommendations regarding use of systemically administered drugs in combination or in sequence with radiation (RT) and/or surgery for cure and/or organ preservation in patients with locally advanced nonmetastatic (Stage III to IVB) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LASCCHN). METHOD: Recognizing the Meta-analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer (MACH-NC) group reports have de facto guided practice since 2000, we searched for systematic reviews in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published from January 2000 to February 2015 in reference to 4 research questions. A search was also conducted for randomized trials (RCTs) up to February 2015 not included in the meta-analyses. RESULT: The MACH-NC reports, 5 additional meta-analyses, and 30 RCTs not included by MACH-NC were identified. For chemotherapy, MACH-NC findings showing improved overall survival with concomitant chemoRT did not require modification. High-dose cisplatin was most commonly studied. We confirmed this benefit with cisplatin monotherapy in patients treated with with postoperative concurrent chemoRT. Other than cetuximab, no targeted agents and radiosensitizers studied in RCTs were shown effective. TPF induction chemotherapy was superior to PF for tumor response and larynx preservation but not survival. Larynx preservation was reported with both CRT and induction chemotherapy approaches. CONCLUSION: ChemoRT with cisplatin at least 40 mg/m2 per week given as radical or postoperative adjuvant remains a standard treatment approach for LASCCHN that improves overall survival but increases toxicity. 5-FU plus platinum is supported by less data but may be a reasonable alternative for patients unsuitable for cisplatin. Of note, stratification of outcomes by HPV-status was not available but outcomes for oropharynx cancer appeared similar to other subsites in chemoRT RCTs. No RCTs have yet demonstrated superiority or non-inferiority of cetuximab-RT to CRT. In view of this, cetuximab-RT is suggested only for patients not candidates for CRT. Taxane-based triplet induction chemotherapy is superior to doublets for rapid tumour downsizing and for larynx preservation, but does not improve overall survival and should be used with primary G-CSF prophylaxis. Further investigation of induction approaches for larynx preservation may be warranted.

Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: Guideline recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: The objective is to provide guidance on the role of active surveillance (AS) as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer patients and to ensure that AS is offered to appropriate patients assessed by a standardized protocol. Prostate cancer is often a slowly progressive or sometimes non-progressive indolent disease diagnosed at an early stage with localized tumours that are unlikely to cause morbidity or death. Standard active treatments for prostate cancer include radiotherapy (RT) or radical prostatectomy (RP), but the harms from over diagnosis and overtreatment are of a significant concern. AS is increasingly being considered as a management strategy to avoid or delay the potential harms caused by unnecessary radical treatment. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, guideline databases and relevant meeting proceedings was performed and a systematic review of identified evidence was synthesized to make recommendations relating to the role of AS in the management of localized prostate cancer. RESULTS: No exiting guidelines or reviews were suitable for use in the synthesis of evidence for the recommendations, but 59 reports of primary studies were identified. Due to studies being either non-comparative or heterogeneous, pooled meta-analyses were not conducted. CONCLUSION: The working group concluded that for patients with low-risk (Gleason score ≤6) localized prostate cancer, AS is the preferred disease management strategy. Active treatment (RP or RT) is appropriate for patients with intermediate-risk (Gleason score 7) localized prostate cancer. For select patients with low-volume Gleason 3+4=7 localized prostate cancer, AS can be considered.

Priority-based initiative for updating existing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: the results of two iterations.

OBJECTIVES: New evidence continues to emerge and requires attention after the release of a clinical practice guideline (CPG). The objective of this article is to describe the Document Assessment and Review (DAR) strategy designed to ensue that the CPGs remain current and their quality maintained and to present the results of two iteration of its implementation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The DAR process involves an annual assessment of our CPGs and a review of documents that require an update search. Two questionnaires are used to conduct the annual assessment and the review. The review involves evidence search, evidence review, and review approval. RESULTS: In 2011, 109 documents were assessed; 22 (20%) were archived, 1 (1%) was deferred for assessment in 2012, 24 (22%) were considered special cases and 62 (57%) needed a new systematic review of the evidence. Of those 62, 19 (31%) were categorized as urgent, 16 (26%) as high, and others as medium or low priority. In 2012, 88 total documents were assessed; 15 (17%) were archived, 32 (36%) deferred, 3 (3%) were considered special cases, and 38 (43%) were prioritized for review. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment and prioritization of existing CPGs are effective ways of ensuring that resources are directed toward the upkeep of those that are relevant and of highest priority.