Development of Prostate Bed Delineation Consensus Guidelines for Magnetic Resonance Image-Guided Radiotherapy and Assessment of Its Effect on Interobserver Variability.

PURPOSE: The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in radiotherapy planning is becoming more widespread, particularly with the emergence of MRI-guided radiotherapy systems. Existing guidelines for defining the prostate bed clinical target volume (CTV) show considerable heterogeneity. This study aimed to establish baseline interobserver variability (IOV) for prostate bed CTV contouring on MRI, develop international consensus guidelines, and evaluate its effect on IOV. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Participants delineated the CTV on 3 MRI scans, obtained from the Elekta Unity MR-Linac, as per their normal practice. Radiation oncologist contours were visually examined for discrepancies, and interobserver comparisons were evaluated against simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) contours using overlap metrics (Dice similarity coefficient and Cohen's kappa), distance metrics (mean distance to agreement and Hausdorff distance), and volume measurements. A literature review of postradical prostatectomy local recurrence patterns was performed and presented alongside IOV results to the participants. Consensus guidelines were collectively constructed, and IOV assessment was repeated using these guidelines. RESULTS: Sixteen radiation oncologists' contours were included in the final analysis. Visual evaluation demonstrated significant differences in the superior, inferior, and anterior borders. Baseline IOV assessment indicated moderate agreement for the overlap metrics while volume and distance metrics demonstrated greater variability. Consensus for optimal prostate bed CTV boundaries was established during a virtual meeting. After guideline development, a decrease in IOV was observed. The maximum volume ratio decreased from 4.7 to 3.1 and volume coefficient of variation reduced from 40% to 34%. The mean Dice similarity coefficient rose from 0.72 to 0.75 and the mean distance to agreement decreased from 3.63 to 2.95 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver variability in prostate bed contouring exists among international genitourinary experts, although this is lower than previously reported. Consensus guidelines for MRI-based prostate bed contouring have been developed, and this has resulted in an improvement in contouring concordance. However, IOV persists and strategies such as an education program, development of a contouring atlas, and further refinement of the guidelines may lead to additional improvements.

COmparing Urolift and Standard Transurethral resection of prostate Ahead of Radiotherapy in men with urinary symptoms secondary to prostate enlargement in Southwest London and North Cumbria (CO-STAR): a study protocol for a randomised feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing prostate radiotherapy with an enlarged prostate can have short-term and long-term urinary complications. Currently, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the mainstay surgical intervention for men with urinary symptoms due to an enlarged prostate prior to radiotherapy. UroLift (NeoTract, Pleasanton, CA, USA) is a recent minimally invasive alternative, widely used in benign disease but is untested in men with prostate cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, two-arm study designed in collaboration with a Patient Reference Group to assess the feasibility of randomising men with prostate cancer and coexisting urinary symptoms due to prostate enlargement to TURP or UroLift ahead of radiotherapy. 45 patients will be enrolled and randomised (1:1) using a computer-generated programme to TURP or UroLift. Recruitment and retention will be assessed over a 12 month period. Information on clinical outcomes, adverse events and costs will be collected. Clinical outcomes and patient reported outcome measures will be measured at baseline, 6 weeks postintervention and 3 months following radiotherapy. A further 12 in-depth interviews will be conducted with a subset of patients to assess acceptability using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Descriptive analysis on all outcomes will be performed using Stata (StataCorp V.2021). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) NHS Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW). The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at national meetings and disseminated to patients via social media, charity and hospital websites. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05840549.

Does Radical Local Treatment in Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer Improve Overall Survival: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of radical local treatment (RLT) on overall survival (OS) and other survival outcomes in patients with OligoMetastatic Prostate Cancer (OMPC). METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases until May 2023. We included RCTs that randomized patients to RLT (either radical prostatectomy [RP] or external beam radiotherapy [EBRT]) and standard of care and reported on OMPC. Our primary objective was to analyze OS with a minimum median follow-up of 4years (PROSPERO-CRD42023422736). RESULTS: We analyzed 3 RCTs, presenting data across 5 papers. OS was significantly higher in the RLT group (HR - 0.643, 95%CI 0.514-0.8, P-value <.001). The data on EBRT was drawn from 520 patients and that of RP was from 85. The post-hoc power analysis showed 81% power to detect a difference of 10% with an alpha error of 0.01. Pooled prevalence of grade 3-4 bowel and bladder toxicity was 4.5%. Health-Related Quality of Life was similar in both groups (mean difference - 1.54, 95%CI -0.625 -3.705, P-value .163). The risk of bias as per the RoB2 tool was low for all domains and overall bias. As per GRADE criteria, the certainty of evidence was high. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis underscores the evidence-based significance of RLT, particularly emphasizing the benefits of EBRT in patients with OMPC. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of studies and the relatively small sample sizes, especially in the RP subgroup. Future investigations in OMPC should consider incorporating EBRT in their standard treatment approach.

Mobile Health Solutions for Prostate Cancer Diagnostics-A Systematic Review.

Prostate cancer, the most common cause of cancer in men in the UK and one of the most common around the world to date, has no consensus on screening. Multiple large-scale trials from around the world have produced conflicting outcomes in cancer-specific and overall mortality. A main part of the issue is the PSA test, which has a high degree of variability, making it challenging to set PSA thresholds, as well as limited specificity. Prostate cancer has a predisposition in men from black backgrounds, and outcomes are worse in men of lower socioeconomic groups. Mobile targeted case finding, focusing on high-risk groups, may be a solution to help those that most need it. The aim of this systematic review was to review the evidence for mobile testing for prostate cancer. A review of all mobile screening studies for prostate cancer was performed in accordance with the Cochrane guidelines and the PRISMA statement. Of the 629 unique studies screened, 6 were found to be eligible for the review. The studies dated from 1973 to 2017 and came from four different continents, with around 30,275 men being screened for prostate cancer. Detection rates varied from 0.6% in the earliest study to 8.2% in the latest study. The challenge of early diagnosis of potentially lethal prostate cancer remains an issue for developed and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although further studies are needed, mobile screening of a targeted population with streamlined investigation and referral pathways combined with raising awareness in those communities may help make the case for screening for prostate cancer.

Developing a consensus statement for psychosocial support in active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Purpose: Our objective was to prioritise the psychosocial support needs of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer and to develop a consensus statement to provide guidance on best practice psychosocial support for men choosing active surveillance and their families. Subjects and methods: We undertook a patient and public involvement Delphi process over two rounds, informed by qualitative data and a comprehensive literature review, to prioritise the information and support needs of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Two panels were surveyed, a patient/carer panel (n = 55) and a health care provider panel (n = 114). Based on the findings of the Delphi surveys, an expert active surveillance discussion group developed a consensus statement to guide best practice. Results: Patients and health care professionals differed slightly in their ideas concerning priorities for active surveillance psychosocial support. Broadly, agreed priority areas included -patients being involved in decision-making, continuity of care, more streamlined access to health care teams, improved understanding of the risk of prostate cancer progression and information and support provided through both health care professionals and peers. Based on the identified priorities, the expert discussion group agreed on 22 consensus statements for best practice in psychosocial care for active surveillance in respect of (1) principles of an active surveillance programme; (2) structure of consultations; (3) content of information and support; and (4) delivery of information. Conclusion: This consensus statement provides a framework for patient-focused psychosocial support, which, if adopted, should increase uptake and adherence to active surveillance among men with prostate cancer.

Understanding reasons for non-adherence to active surveillance for low-intermediate risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is recommended by most national medical organizations as the preferred treatment option for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). However, studies report that up to one third of men on AS dropout within 5 years, without evidence of disease progression. Despite high dropout rates, few studies have purposively explored the opinions and experiences of men who discontinued AS. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the reasons why some men on AS for PCa discontinue active treatment without evidence of disease progression. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 14 men from diverse socio-cultural backgrounds who had been on AS for PCa but dropped out of surveillance to undergo active treatment without signs of disease progression. Purposive sampling to reach data saturation was used to select participants based on their experience of AS and willingness to share their experiences. Interviews were transcribed and analysis undertaken in an inductive thematic manner. RESULTS: The following themes arose from interviews as factors that potentially influence adherence to AS: men's experience at diagnosis and follow-up consultations, involvement in shared decision-making, the extent of supportive care and information, administrative procedures and support from partner and peers. A poor experience during diagnosis could adversely influence long-term adherence to AS, given the same diagnostic tests are frequently repeated. The provision of consistent information and support while on AS, similar to that offered to men undergoing radical treatment, was also highlighted as being important to increase confidence in the process. CONCLUSIONS: Effective communications skills among health professionals, aimed at building trust in patient-clinician relationships, providing opportunities for shared decision-making and developing self-efficacy, along with structured information and support, are key to enhancing long-term adherence to AS.

Oncological outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer in the contemporary era: A multicenter retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) historically yields poor functional outcomes and high complication rates. However, recent reports on robotic sRP show improved results. Our objectives were to evaluate sRP oncological outcomes and predictors of positive margins and biochemical recurrence (BCR). METHODS: We retrospectively collected data of sRP for recurrent prostate cancer after local nonsurgical treatment at 18 tertiary referral centers in United States, Australia and Europe, from 2000 to 2016. SM and BCR were evaluated in a univariate and multivariable analysis. Overall and cancer-specific survival were also assessed. RESULTS: We included 414 cases, 63.5% of them performed after radiotherapy. Before sRP the majority of patients had biopsy Gleason score (GS) ≤7 (55.5%) and imaging negative or with prostatic bed involvement only (93.3%). Final pathology showed aggressive histology in 39.7% (GS ≥9 27.6%), with 52.9% having ≥pT3 disease and 16% pN+. SM was positive in 29.7%. Five years BCR-Free, cancer-specific survival and OS were 56.7%, 97.7% and 92.1%, respectively. On multivariable analysis pathological T (pT3a odds ratio [OR] 2.939, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.469-5.879; ≥pT3b OR 2.428-95% CI 1.333-4.423) and N stage (pN1 OR 2.871, 95% CI 1.503-5.897) were independent predictors of positive margins. Pathological T stage ≥T3b (OR 2.348 95% CI 1.338-4.117) and GS (up to OR 7.183, 95% CI 1.906-27.068 for GS >8) were independent predictors for BCR. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and limited follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary series, sRP showed promising oncological control in the medium term despite aggressive pathological features. BCR risk increased in case of locally advanced disease and higher GS. Future studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Effect of a brief physical activity-based presentation by a former patient for men treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a mixed methods pilot study.

PURPOSE: Existing research indicates that physical activity (PA) is beneficial to men with prostate cancer (PCa). We examined the potential of a single-contact peer-support-based behavioural intervention to promote PA engagement in men treated for PCa. METHODS: A mixed methods design was employed, comprising a two-arm pragmatic trial and semi-structured interviews. The intervention was a 10-min PA-based presentation by a former patient, delivered in group seminars that are provided for patients as standard care. Seminars were alternately allocated to (a) cancer exercise specialist talk + patient speaker talk or (b) cancer exercise specialist talk only. Self-reported PA, exercise motivation, quality of life, fatigue and clinical and demographic characteristics were obtained from n = 148 (intervention: n = 69; control: n = 79) patients immediately prior to the seminar, and at follow-up ≈ 100 days later. Data were analysed using ANCOVA models and χ2 tests. Fourteen semi-structured interviews with intervention participants, which explored how the intervention was experienced, were analysed using a grounded theory-style approach. RESULTS: The intervention had no significant effect on quantitatively self-reported PA (p = 0.4). However, the intervention was statistically and clinically beneficial for fatigue (p = 0.04) and quality of life (p = 0.01). Qualitative analysis showed that the intervention was beneficial to psychological wellbeing and some participants had increased intention to engage in PA as a result of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A brief one-off PA-based presentation for men with PCa, delivered by a former patient alongside cancer exercise specialist advice, may result in clinically significant benefits to quality of life and may influence PA intention in certain individuals.

Retzius-Sparing versus Standard Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Comparative Prospective Study of Nearly 500 Patients.

PURPOSE: We compared standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a multicenter study using prospective patient reported outcome measures of functional recovery and quality of life plus standard pentafecta outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient and physician reported data on 483 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy from August 2017 to April 2020 by 3 experienced surgeons had been prospectively collected. Perioperative and pentafecta outcomes were analyzed using SPSS software. Patient reported outcome measures for urinary function, erectile function and quality of life were reported at baseline and at 7 days and 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and 282 had Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Patient and tumor characteristics were similar except for fewer low risk and more intermediate risk disease in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (p <0.001). High risk disease was similar between groups (p=0.071). Immediate urinary continence was higher in Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy group (70.4% vs 58.1%, p=0.02), with less nocturnal enuresis prevalence (p=0.011) and bother (p=0.009) with no significant differences afterwards. A better quality of life (p=0.004) was reported 1 week after surgery. No other differences in functional or quality of life outcomes, perioperative parameters, complications or margin rates were found. CONCLUSIONS: Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is associated with better immediate continence than anterior robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with no differences in longer-term functional recovery, quality of life or other important outcomes. The overall similarity in outcomes between groups lends support to the view that the surgical technique matters less than the surgeon performing it.

Association Between Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Urethral Parameters and Continence Recovery Following Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Studies demonstrated the significance of membranous urethral length (MUL) as a predictor of continence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). There are other magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters that might be linked to continence outcome. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between preoperative urethral parameters on MRI and continence outcome, to estimate the risk of incontinence using different cut-off values, and to assess interobserver variability in measuring urethral parameters. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with localised prostate cancer who underwent RARP were retrospectively reviewed. Baseline patient characteristics, perioperative, and pathological outcomes were assessed. Continence was defined as no pad or a safety pad with <2g/24h pad weight. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Several MRI variables were measured by a uroradiologist, a uro-oncology fellow, and a urologist. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of incontinence. Interclass correlation was used to evaluate interobserver variability. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 190 patients met the study inclusion criteria. The mean MUL was 14.6mm. Age and MUL were significantly associated with incontinence outcome. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for continence based on MUL was 0.78 at 12 mo. The risk of incontinence in patients with MUL of <10mm was 27.8% (13.8% and 39.1% for patients aged <65 and >65 yr respectively). Conversely, the risk of incontinence with MUL >15mm was 2.7% (1.5% and 4.5% for patients aged <65 and >65 yr, respectively). The concordance rate between different observers was 89% for coronal MUL, but 77%, 74%, and 62% for sagittal MUL, membranous urethral thickness, and intraprostatic urethral length, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the significance of MUL for the continence outcome following RARP. There was also excellent consistency in measuring MUL values between different observers. PATIENT SUMMARY: Although further studies would be required to verify our findings, we support the significance of membranous urethral length in predicting the risk of incontinence and the need to incorporate it as part of preoperative assessment and counselling. This can reliably be measured by urologists and can further facilitate a patient-tailored approach to radical treatment of prostate cancer.

Barriers and facilitators to physical activity in men with prostate cancer: A qualitative and quantitative systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Existing research indicates that moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (PA) alleviates treatment side effects and is associated with survival in men with prostate cancer. We aimed to ascertain the state of research investigating barriers and facilitators to PA in men with prostate cancer and synthesise existing qualitative research on this topic. METHODS: A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies was conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge, CINAHL, PEDro, OATD, and WorldCat were searched to June 2019 for quantitative studies investigating causes or predictors of PA or qualitative studies describing patient-reported barriers/facilitators to PA, amongst men with prostate cancer of any stage. Thirty-two studies (n = 17 quantitative; n = 15 qualitative) were included from 3698 screened articles. RESULTS: Heterogeneity and unsystematic reporting of quantitative study methods prohibited a quantitative data synthesis. Thematic synthesis of qualitative studies produced five analytical themes: individual needs by treatment pathway, self-determination and its relationship with prostate cancer-related events, co-ordination and support of the clinical care team, individual preferences in discrete aspects of PA engagement style, and the potential for a bidirectional facilitative relationship between structured group PA and spontaneous peer support. Both qualitative and quantitative studies indicated incontinence as a barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Unsystematic reporting of interventions hinders a robust quantitative understanding of behavioural intervention research in this subject area. Good co-ordination of multidisciplinary care personnel could facilitate PA, by enabling a more comprehensive approach to targeting social cognitive processes. Well-timed intervention and access to highly individualised PA support, including optional group PA classes, seem to also be important facilitators.

PCASTt/SPCG-17-a randomised trial of active surveillance in prostate cancer: rationale and design.

INTRODUCTION: Overtreatment of localised prostate cancer is substantial despite increased use of active surveillance. No randomised trials help define how to monitor patients or when to initiate treatment with curative intent. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised, multicentre, intervention trial designed to evaluate the safety of an MRI-based active surveillance protocol, with standardised triggers for repeated biopsies and radical treatment. The aim is to reduce overtreatment of prostate cancer. 2000 men will be randomly allocated to either surveillance according to current practice or to standardised triggers at centres in Sweden, Norway, Finland and the UK. Men diagnosed in the past 12 months with prostate cancer, ≤T2a, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <15 ng/mL, PSA density ≤0.2 ng/mL/cc, any International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1 are eligible. Men with ISUP grade 2 in <30% of cores on systematic biopsy and <10 mm cancer in one core on systematic or targeted biopsy are also eligible. Men diagnosed on systematic biopsy should have an MRI and targeted biopsies against Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System V.2 3-5 lesions before inclusion. Identical follow-up in the two study arms: biannual PSA testing, yearly clinical examination and MRI every second year. In the experimental arm, standardised triggers based on MRI and PSA density elicit repeated biopsies. MRI and histopathological progression trigger radical treatment. Primary outcome measure is progression-free survival. Secondary outcome measures are cumulative incidence of metastatic disease, treatments with curative intent, pT3-4 at radical prostatectomy, switch to watchful waiting, prostate cancer mortality and quality of life. Inclusion started in October 2016 and in October 2018; 275 patients have been enrolled. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained in each participating country. Results for the primary and secondary outcome measures will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02914873.

A Single Educational Seminar Increases Confidence and Decreases Dropout from Active Surveillance by 5 Years After Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Researchers remain divided on the major causes of dropout from active surveillance (AS), with rates of up to 38% among men with no evidence of prostate cancer (PC) progression. OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate an educational intervention in terms of adherence to AS among men with low- to intermediate-risk PC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We first carried out focus group discussions with men who had remained on and dropped out of AS to inform an intervention to increase adherence to AS. A total of 255 consecutive men who had selected AS were then recruited to either standard care (written information and access to a nurse specialist) or standard care and the intervention. INTERVENTION: An educational seminar was designed by patients and clinicians including information on imaging, biopsy techniques, understanding pathology, large AS cohorts - mortality and morbidity risk and diet and lifestyle advice. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The proportion of men dropping out of AS for reasons other than disease progression was assessed at 1 and 5yr after AS selection using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Common themes influencing decision-making by men on AS were identified: (1) clinical consistency; (2) information; and (3) lifestyle advice. Addition of an educational seminar led to significantly fewer men dropping out of AS: at 1 and 5yr the dropout rate was 25% and 42%, respectively, in the standard care group, compared to 11% and 22% (p=0.001) in the intervention group. In the intervention group, 18 men failed to attend the seminar. CONCLUSIONS: The AS dropout rate was halved following a single educational seminar delivered to groups of men with intermediate- or low-risk PC, even at 5yr. PATIENT SUMMARY: Men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer feel more supported when provided with an educational seminar within 3 mo of their treatment choice. The seminar halved the number of men dropping-out of AS, even at 5yr.

Salvage Radical Prostatectomy for Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Morbidity and Functional Outcomes from a Large Multicenter Series of Open versus Robotic Approaches.

PURPOSE: Salvage radical prostatectomy has historically yielded a poor functional outcome and a high complication rate. However, recent reports of robotic salvage radical prostatectomy have demonstrated improved results. In this study we assessed salvage radical prostatectomy functional outcomes and complications when comparing robotic and open approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected data on salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer after local nonsurgical treatment at 18 tertiary referral centers from 2000 to 2016. The Clavien-Dindo classification was applied to classify complications. Complications and functional outcomes were evaluated by univariable and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: We included 395 salvage radical prostatectomies, of which 186 were open and 209 were robotic. Robotic salvage radical prostatectomy yielded lower blood loss and a shorter hospital stay (each p <0.0001). No significant difference emerged in the incidence of major and overall complications (10.1%, p=0.16, and 34.9%, p=0.67), including an overall low risk of rectal injury and fistula (1.58% and 2.02%, respectively). However, anastomotic stricture was more frequent for open salvage radical prostatectomy (16.57% vs 7.66%, p <0.01). Overall 24.6% of patients had had severe incontinence, defined as 3 or more pads per day, for 12 or 6 months. On multivariable analysis robotic salvage radical prostatectomy was an independent predictor of continence preservation (OR 0.411, 95% CI 0.232-0.727, p=0.022). Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the absence of a standardized surgical technique. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary series to our knowledge salvage radical prostatectomy showed a low risk of major complications and better functional outcomes than previously reported. Robotic salvage radical prostatectomy may reduce anastomotic stricture, blood loss and hospital stay, and improve continence outcomes.

Correction to: Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a single-centre experience.

In the original version of this article, Oussama Elhage's name was spelled incorrectly. It is correct as displayed above.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a single-centre experience.

BACKGROUND: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is characterised by an obstruction compromising the passage of urine from the renal pelvis into the ureter, and can be corrected by Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty (RALP). We aimed to evaluate the surgical outcomes of RALP, and examine the rates of true pain resolution following the procedure. METHODS: We retrospectively explored the records of all patients who underwent RALP between April 2005 and January 2017. Measures of success were defined as the prevention of deterioration in split renal function and resolution of obstruction, and the resolution or improvement in subjective pain levels. RESULTS: 83 patients were included in this series. Mean patient age was 40.8 years. 38 patients had a left sided RALP, whilst 45 underwent RALP on the right. Crossing vessels were identified in 53.0% of patients. Mean operative time was 148.0 min. 68 patients had pain as their presenting feature. Following RALP, the pain resolved in 69.2% (n = 47), improved in 26.5% (n = 18), and remained the same in 4.4% (n = 3). 11.8% (n = 8) of patients required referral to other specialities for pain management. Success from a radiological perspective of cleared obstruction and arrest of deteriorating renal function was 97.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Our individual outcomes demonstrate a high success rate regarding resolution of obstruction and preventing deterioration in renal function. We also report that a number of patients, who despite meeting the radiological criteria to undergo RALP, had alternate underlying causes for their pain symptoms. For this reason, we propose that the primary measure of success for RALP should be based on renal function and radiological outcomes, rather than the outcomes relating to pain. Both surgeons and patients should be aware that whilst RALP is a highly successful procedure, persistence of pain may be due to overlapping clinical conditions which can be managed by a multidisciplinary approach.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of contemporary worldwide practices.

In the last decade, active surveillance (AS) has emerged as an acceptable choice for low-risk prostate cancer (PC), however there is discordance amongst large AS cohort studies with respect to entry and monitoring protocols. We systematically reviewed worldwide AS practices in studies reporting ≥5 years follow-up. We searched PubMed and Medline 2000-now and identified 13 AS cohorts. Three key areas were identified: (I) patient selection; (II) monitoring protocols; (III) triggers for intervention-(I) all studies defined clinically localised PC diagnosis as T2b disease or less and most agreed on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) threshold (<10 µg/L) and Gleason score threshold (3+3). Inconsistency was most notable regarding pathologic factors (e.g., number of positive cores); (II) all agreed on PSA surveillance as crucial for monitoring, and most agreed that confirmatory biopsy was required within 12 months of initiation. No consensus was reached on optimal timing of digital rectal examination (DRE), general health assessment or re-biopsy strategies thereafter; (III) there was no universal agreement for intervention triggers, although Gleason score, number or percentage of positive cancer cores, maximum cancer length (MCL) and PSA doubling time were used by several studies. Some also used imaging or re-biopsy. Despite consistent high progression-free/cancer-free survival and conversion-to-treatment rates, heterogeneity exists amongst these large AS cohorts. Combining existing evidence and gathering more long-term evidence [e.g., the Movember's Global AS database or additional information on use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)] is needed to derive a broadly supported guideline to reduce variation in clinical practice.

Factors Influencing Men's Choice of and Adherence to Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: A Mixed-method Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Despite support for active surveillance (AS) as a first treatment choice for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PC), this strategy is largely underutilised. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review barriers and facilitators to selecting and adhering to AS for low-risk PC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched PsychINFO, PubMed, Medline 2000-now, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central databases between 2002 and 2017 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings and Significance (PREFS) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) quality criteria were applied. Forty-seven studies were identified. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Key themes emerged as factors influencing both choice and adherence to AS: (1) patient and tumour factors (age, comorbidities, knowledge, education, socioeconomic status, family history, grade, tumour volume, and fear of progression/side effects); (2) family and social support; (3) provider (speciality, communication, and attitudes); (4) healthcare organisation (geography and type of practice); and (5) health policy (guidelines, year, and awareness). CONCLUSIONS: Many factors influence men's choice and adherence to AS on multiple levels. It is important to learn from the experience of other chronic health conditions as well as from institutions/countries that are making significant headway in appropriately recruiting men to AS protocols, through standardised patient information, clinician education, and nationally agreed guidelines, to ultimately decrease heterogeneity in AS practice. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the scientific literature for factors affecting men's choice and adherence to active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer. Our findings suggest that the use of AS could be increased by addressing a variety of factors such as information, psychosocial support, clinician education, and standardised guidelines.

Brief behavioural intervention, delivered as standard care, to support physical activity engagement in men with prostate cancer: a pilot study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Physical activity is beneficial to men with prostate cancer, but there remain barriers to fulfilling the potential of National Health Service trusts to support men with prostate cancer to be physically active. This article describes protocols for two pilot studies, each conducted in a different setting, designed to assess the potential of a behavioural intervention to affect patients' motivation to exercise. The intervention is theory based and inspired by recent empirical observations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The intervention consists of a 10 min talk, delivered to patients by a man with a history of prostate cancer treatment and a good experience of exercise, as part of their standard care. This talk either takes place in a preradical prostatectomy seminar (study one), or a post-treatment seminar designed to assist patients in adjusting to life after treatment (study two). Outcomes will be compared between patients attending the existing seminar format, and patients attending the novel seminar format. The two primary outcomes are: (1) differences in self-reported physical activity before and 90 days after the seminar and (2) the likelihood of the patient seeing an in-house exercise physiotherapist in those 90 days. Data on quality of life, fatigue and exercise behavioural regulations will also be captured at the same time points. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: These two projects have been approved by internal clinical audit committees due to their focus on service improvement. Findings from these pilot studies will be presented at oncology meetings and submitted for publication in academic journals.