Estimating patient health in prostate cancer treatment counseling.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the concordance among urologists' judgment of health quartiles for patients with localized prostate cancer, and compared the life expectancy (LE) and ensuing treatment recommendations when following National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines based on actuarial life tables versus the Kent model, a validated LE prediction model. METHODS: NCCN suggests using actuarial life tables and relying on surgeon assessment of patient health to increase (for the best quartile) or decrease (for the worst quartile) LE by 50%. Eleven urologic surgeons allocated quartile of health and recommended treatments for ten patient vignettes. The 10-year survival probability was calculated using the Kent model and compared to the life-table estimate based on health quartile by surgeon consensus. RESULTS: Surgeon assessment agreed with the presumed true quartile of health based on a validated model in 41% of cases. For no case did three-quarters of surgeons assign health quartile correctly; in half of cases, <50% of surgeons assigned the correct quartile. The NCCN comorbidity-adjusted LE estimates underestimated risk of death in the best health quartile and overestimated risk of death in the worst health quartile, compared to the Kent model. Patients with LE > 10 years on NCCN estimation were recommended more frequently for surgery (81%) and those with ≤10 years estimated LE were more commonly recommended for radiation (57%) or observation (29%). CONCLUSIONS: A method based on physician-assessed health quartiles for LE estimation, as suggested by the NCCN guidelines, appears too crude to be used in the treatment counseling of men with localized prostate cancer, as compared to a validated prediction model, such as the Kent model.

Increased Risk of Infections with Anti-TNF Agents in Patients with Crohn's Disease After Elective Surgery: Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative complication rates in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) receiving preoperative biologics have been analyzed without considering the surgical context. Emergency surgery may be associated with an increased risk of infectious complications, compared to elective operations. AIMS: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the relationship between preoperative biologic therapy and postoperative outcomes in Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), focusing on elective surgery. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched up to February 12, 2020, for studies of patients with IBD undergoing elective abdominal surgery receiving biologic therapy within 3 months before surgery compared to no therapy, or another biologic therapy. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. The primary outcomes were the rate of infections and total complications within 30 days. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were included. Preoperative treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy in patients with CD undergoing elective surgery was associated with increased odds of infection (OR 2.05; 95% CI 1.40-3.01), but not total complications (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.71-1.51). In elective surgery for UC, preoperative anti-TNF therapy was not associated with infectious (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.34-3.07) or total complications (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.29-1.58). Limited data indicate that emergency surgery did not significantly affect the rate of complications. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-TNF therapy prior to elective surgery may increase the odds of postoperative infection in CD, although the certainty of evidence is very low. More evidence is needed, particularly for newer biologics.

Do North American colorectal surgeons use mesh to prevent parastomal hernia? A survey of current attitudes and practice

Background: The use of prophylactic mesh in end colostomy procedures has been shown to reduce the rate of parastomal hernia. However, the degree to which the practice has been adopted clinically remains unknown. We conducted a study to evaluate the current opinions and practice patterns of Canadian and US colorectal surgeons with regard to the use of prophylactic mesh in end colostomy. Methods: Between May and July 2017, we conducted an internet-based survey of colorectal surgeons in Canada and the United States (selected at random). Using a questionnaire designed and tested for this study, we assessed the rate of mesh use, types of mesh and placement techniques, and perceived barriers and facilitators associated with the practice. Results: Forty-eight (51.6%) of 93 invited Canadian surgeons and 253 (16.6%) of 1521 invited US surgeons responded (overall response rate 18.6%). Of the 301 respondents, 32 (10.6%) were currently using mesh, 32 (10.6%) had previously used mesh, and 237 (78.7%) had never used mesh. Of 29 respondents currently using mesh, 12 (41.4%) used it only in selected patients; the majority used a sublay technique (20 [69.0%]) and biologic mesh (17 [58.6%]). Most respondents agreed that parastomal hernias are common and negatively affect quality of life; however, there remained concerns about evidence quality and the perceived risk associated with mesh among those who had never or had previously used mesh. Conclusion: Prophylactic mesh placement remains relatively uncommon; when used, biologic mesh was the most common type. Many surgeons were not convinced of the safety or efficacy of prophylactic mesh placement.

Contexte: Il a été démontré que la pose d'un treillis prophylactique durant une colostomie terminale réduit le risque de hernie parastomale. On ignore toutefois à quel point cette pratique a été adoptée en contexte clinique. Nous avons mené une étude pour connaître l'opinion et les habitudes des chirurgiens colorectaux canadiens et américains quant à cette intervention. Méthodes: De mai à juillet 2017, nous avons mené un sondage en ligne auprès de chirurgiens colorectaux canadiens et américains sélectionnés aléatoirement. À l'aide d'un questionnaire conçu et validé pour cette étude, nous avons évalué le taux de pose de treillis, le type de treillis et la technique utilisé, ainsi que les facteurs facilitant ou limitant l'intervention. Résultats: Au total, 48 des 93 chirurgiens canadiens (51,6 %) et 253 des 1521 chirurgiens américains (16,6 %) approchés ont répondu au sondage (taux de réponse global : 18,6 %). Sur les 301 répondants, 32 (10,6 %) ont dit qu'ils installent actuellement des treillis, 32 (10,6 %) ont dit en avoir installé, et 237 (78,7 %) ont dit n'en avoir jamais installé. Parmi 29 répondants posant actuellement des treillis, 12 (41,4 %) ont déclaré y avoir recours pour certains patients seulement; la majorité pose les treillis dans l'espace prépéritonéal (20 [69,0 %]) et se sert de treillis biologiques (17 [58,6 %]). La plupart des répondants s'entendaient pour dire que les hernies parastomales sont courantes et ont des répercussions négatives sur la qualité de vie des patients; cependant, les chirurgiens n'ayant jamais installé de treillis ou en ayant seulement installé par le passé se sont dits préoccupés par la qualité des données et les risques perçus associés aux treillis. Conclusion: La pose d'un treillis à des fins prophylactiques demeure relativement rare. Les treillis biologiques étaient les plus fréquemment utilisés par les répondants. Bon nombre des chirurgiens questionnés n'étaient pas convaincus de l'innocuité ou de l'efficacité de l'intervention.

Comparison of Physician-Documented Versus Patient-Reported Collection of Comorbidities Among Patients With Prostate Cancer Upon First Visit to the Urology Clinic.

PURPOSE: To determine whether patient-reported collection of comorbidities online is sufficiently accurate to warrant use as part of a physician-reviewed, baseline medical history. METHODS: Comorbidities were collected for a sample of 213 new prostate cancer visits to our urology clinic through an online survey (called Baseline Medical History) before the clinical encounter. The frequency distributions of comorbidities as reported by patients before physician review were compared with those documented by physicians for a sample of 298 consecutive patients presenting to the same urology clinic before the survey went live. RESULTS: The overall frequency distribution of comorbidities and life expectancy estimates were similar between the two groups. A few comorbidity categories were reported with higher frequency in the patient-reported group compared with the physician-documented group, including neurologic comorbidities (7.5% v 1.7%; difference 6%; 95% CI, 2.0% to 10%; P = .001) and back pain (24% v 13%; difference 12%; 95% CI, 4.8% to 19%; P = .001). A similar trend was seen for vascular conditions, although the difference did not meet conventional levels of statistical significance. Genitourinary comorbidities, including problems with urination and erectile dysfunction, were better captured by the physician-reported group compared with the patient-reported group (68% v 53%; difference 15%; 95% CI, 7% to 24%; P = .001), as were other musculoskeletal comorbidities (8.7% v 1.9%; difference 7%; 95% CI, 3.2% to 11%; P = .001). CONCLUSION: Patients completing a medical history, at their own pace and in the comfort of their own home, provide relatively accurate and complete information, even before physician review. Patient reporting of comorbidities thus seems to be a reliable starting point for the documentation of the medical history in the clinic.

What false-negative rates of non-invasive testing are active surveillance patients and uro-oncologists willing to accept in order to avoid prostate biopsy?

INTRODUCTION: Repeat prostate biopsies in active surveillance patients are associated with significant complications. Novel imaging and blood/urine-based non-invasive tests are being developed to better predict disease grade and volume progression. We conducted a theoretical study to determine what test performance characteristics and costs would a non-invasive test(s) require in order for patients and their physicians to comfortably avoid biopsy. METHODS: Surveys were administered to two populations to determine an acceptable false-negative rate and cost for such test(s). Active surveillance patients were recruited at time of followup in clinic at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. Physician members of the Society of Urological Oncology were targeted via an online survey. Participants were questioned about their demographics and other characteristics that might influence chosen error rates and cost. RESULTS: 136 patients and 670 physicians were surveyed, with 130 (95.6%) and 104 (15.5%) responses obtained, respectively. A vast majority of patients (90.6%) were comfortable with a non-invasive test(s) in place of biopsy, with 64.8% accepting a false-negative rate of 5-20%. Most physicians (93.3%) were comfortable with a non-invasive test, with 77.9% accepting a rate of 5-20%. Most patients and physicians felt that a cost of less than $1000 per administration would be reasonable. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients/physicians are comfortable with a non-invasive test(s). Although a 5% error rate seems acceptable to many, a substantial subset feels that 99% or higher negative predictive value is required. Thus, a personalized approach with shared decision-making between patients and physicians is essential to optimize patient care in such situations.

The effect of the USPSTF PSA screening recommendation on prostate cancer incidence patterns in the USA.

Guidelines regarding recommendations for PSA screening for early detection of prostate cancer are conflicting. In 2012, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) assigned a grade of D (recommending against screening) for men aged ≥75 years in 2008 and for men of all ages in 2012. Understanding temporal trends in rates of screening before and after the 2012 recommendation in terms of usage patterns in PSA screening, changes in prostate cancer incidence and biopsy patterns, and how the recommendation has influenced physician's and men's attitudes about PSA screening and subsequent ordering of other screening tests is essential within the scope of prostate cancer screening policy. Since the 2012 recommendation, rates of PSA screening decreased by 3-10% in all age groups and across most geographical regions of the USA. Rates of prostate biopsy and prostate cancer incidence have declined in unison, with a shift towards tumours being of higher grade and stage upon detection. Despite the recommendation, some physicians report ongoing willingness to screen appropriately selected men, and many men report intending to continue to ask for the PSA test from their physician. In the coming years, we expect to have an improved understanding of whether these decreased rates of screening will affect prostate cancer metastasis and mortality.

Clinical Findings and Treatment Outcomes in Patients with Extraprostatic Extension Identified on Prostate Biopsy.

PURPOSE: We describe histopathological, clinical and imaging findings among men with extraprostatic extension on prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched our institutional pathology database between 2004 and 2015 for pathology reports detailing extraprostatic extension on prostate biopsy in untreated patients. Patient characteristics, biopsy features, imaging interpretations and outcomes were examined. RESULTS: Of 19,950 patients with prostate cancer on biopsy 112 had extraprostatic extension for a prevalence of 0.6% (95% CI 0.5-0.7). Most of the 112 patients had palpable, high grade (Gleason score 9), high volume disease, which was classified as high risk in 34 (30%), locally advanced in 17 (15%) and metastatic in 39 (35%). Most patients had 1 or 2 cores with extraprostatic extension, typically at the base and with concomitant perineural invasion. Extraprostatic extension was identified by magnetic resonance imaging in 32 of 40 patients (80%). Median followup in those who did not die was 1.3 years (IQR 0.3-4.2). Outcomes in the subgroup of 24 men treated with radical prostatectomy were consistent with high risk disease, including positive margins in 14 (58%), seminal vesicle invasion in 10 (42%) and lymph node invasion in 11 (46%). In the entire cohort the 3-year risks of metastasis and overall mortality were 32% (95% CI 22-44) and 37% (95% CI 27-50), respectively. We did not find evidence to suggest that the proportion of cores with cancer that also had extraprostatic extension was associated with overall mortality (p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Extraprostatic extension is a rare finding on prostate biopsy. It is strongly associated with other features of aggressive prostate cancer.