Shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment for adults with ureteric stones: the TISU non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Urinary stone disease affects 2-3% of the general population. Ureteric stones are associated with severe pain and can have a significant impact on a patient's quality of life. Most ureteric stones are expected to pass spontaneously with supportive care; however, between one-fifth and one-third of patients require an active intervention. The two standard interventions are shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic stone treatment. Both treatments are effective, but they differ in terms of invasiveness, anaesthetic requirement, treatment setting, number of procedures, complications, patient-reported outcomes and cost. There is uncertainty around which is the more clinically effective and cost-effective treatment. OBJECTIVES: To determine if shockwave lithotripsy is clinically effective and cost-effective compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment in adults with ureteric stones who are judged to require active intervention. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial of shockwave lithotripsy as a first-line treatment option compared with primary ureteroscopic stone treatment for ureteric stones. SETTING: Urology departments in 25 NHS hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 16 years presenting with a single ureteric stone in any segment of the ureter, confirmed by computerised tomography, who were able to undergo either shockwave lithotripsy or ureteroscopic stone treatment and to complete trial procedures. INTERVENTION: Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 to shockwave lithotripsy (up to two sessions) or ureteroscopic stone treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary clinical outcome measure was resolution of the stone episode (stone clearance), which was operationally defined as 'no further intervention required to facilitate stone clearance' up to 6 months from randomisation. This was determined from 8-week and 6-month case report forms and any additional hospital visit case report form that was completed by research staff. The primary economic outcome measure was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 6 months from randomisation. We estimated costs from NHS resources and calculated quality-adjusted life-years from participant completion of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, at baseline, pre intervention, 1 week post intervention and 8 weeks and 6 months post randomisation. RESULTS: In the shockwave lithotripsy arm, 67 out of 302 (22.2%) participants needed further treatment. In the ureteroscopic stone treatment arm, 31 out of 302 (10.3%) participants needed further treatment. The absolute risk difference was 11.4% (95% confidence interval 5.0% to 17.8%); the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval ruled out the prespecified margin of non-inferiority (which was 20%). The mean quality-adjusted life-year difference (shockwave lithotripsy vs. ureteroscopic stone treatment) was -0.021 (95% confidence interval 0.033 to -0.010) and the mean cost difference was -£809 (95% confidence interval -£1061 to -£551). The probability that shockwave lithotripsy is cost-effective is 79% at a threshold of society's willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year of £30,000. The CEAC is derived from the joint distribution of incremental costs and incremental effects. Most of the results fall in the south-west quadrant of the cost effectiveness plane as SWL always costs less but is less effective. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of the trial was low return and completion rates of patient questionnaires. The study was initially powered for 500 patients in each arm; however, the total number of patients recruited was only 307 and 306 patients in the ureteroscopic stone treatment and shockwave lithotripsy arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving shockwave lithotripsy needed more further interventions than those receiving primary ureteroscopic retrieval, although the overall costs for those receiving the shockwave treatment were lower. The absolute risk difference between the two clinical pathways (11.4%) was lower than expected and at a level that is acceptable to clinicians and patients. The shockwave lithotripsy pathway is more cost-effective in an NHS setting, but results in lower quality of life. FUTURE WORK: (1) The generic health-related quality-of-life tools used in this study do not fully capture the impact of the various treatment pathways on patients. A condition-specific health-related quality-of-life tool should be developed. (2) Reporting of ureteric stone trials would benefit from agreement on a core outcome set that would ensure that future trials are easier to compare. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN92289221. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Approximately 1 in 20 people suffers from kidney stones that pass down the urine drainage tube (ureter) into the urinary bladder and cause episodes of severe pain (ureteric colic). People with ureteric colic attend hospital for pain relief and diagnosis. Although most stones smaller than 10 mm eventually reach the bladder and are passed during urination, some get stuck and have to be removed using telescopic surgery (called ureteroscopic stone treatment) or shockwave therapy (called shockwave lithotripsy). Ureteroscopic stone treatment involves passing a telescope-containing instrument through the bladder and into the ureter to fragment and/or remove the stone. This is usually carried out under general anaesthetic as a day case. For shockwave lithotripsy, the patient lies flat on a couch and the apparatus underneath them generates shockwaves that pass through the skin to the ureter and break the stones into smaller fragments, which can be passed naturally in the urine. This involves using X-ray or ultrasound to locate the stone, but can be carried out on an outpatient basis and without general anaesthetic. Telescopic surgery is known to be more successful at removing stones after just one treatment, but it requires more time in hospital and has a higher risk of complications than shockwave lithotripsy (however, shockwave lithotripsy may require more than one session of treatment). Our study, the Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter trial, was designed to establish if treatment for ureteric colic should start with telescopic surgery or shockwave therapy. Over 600 NHS patients took part and they were split into two groups. Each patient had an equal chance of their treatment starting with either telescopic surgery or shockwave lithotripsy, which was decided by a computer program (via random allocation). We counted how many patients in each group had further procedures to remove their stone. We found that telescopic surgery was 11% more effective overall, with an associated slightly better quality of life (10 more healthy days over the 6-month period), but was more expensive in an NHS setting. The finding of a lack of any significant additional clinical benefit leads to the conclusion that the more cost-effective treatment pathway is shockwave lithotripsy with telescopic surgery used only in those patients in whom shockwave lithotripsy is unsuccessful.

Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons. 1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants. 2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants.  3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants.  4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab Sunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.

Bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is a well-established surgical method for treatment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). This has traditionally been provided as monopolar TURP (MTURP), but morbidity associated with MTURP has led to the introduction of other surgical techniques. In bipolar TURP (BTURP), energy is confined between electrodes at the site of the resectoscope, allowing the use of physiological irrigation medium. There remains uncertainty regarding differences between these surgical methods in terms of patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of bipolar and monopolar TURP. SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive systematic electronic literature search was carried out up to 19 March 2019 via CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and WHO ICTRP. Handsearching of abstract proceedings of major urological conferences and of reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, and health technology assessment reports was undertaken to identify other potentially eligible studies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared monopolar and bipolar TURP in men (> 18 years) for management of LUTS secondary to BPO. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed eligible RCTs for risk of bias. Statistical analyses were undertaken according to the statistical guidelines presented in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The quality of evidence (QoE) was rated according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 59 RCTs with 8924 participants were included. The mean age of included participants ranged from 59.0 to 74.1 years. Mean prostate volume ranged from 39 mL to 82.6 mL. Primary outcomes BTURP probably results in little to no difference in urological symptoms, as measured by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months on a scale of 0 to 35, with higher scores reflecting worse symptoms (mean difference (MD) -0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39 to -0.09; participants = 2531; RCTs = 16; I² = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence (CoE), downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. BTURP probably results in little to no difference in bother, as measured by health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score at 12 months on a scale of 0 to 6, with higher scores reflecting greater bother (MD -0.12, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.02; participants = 2004; RCTs = 11; I² = 53%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. BTURP probably reduces transurethral resection (TUR) syndrome events slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.30; participants = 6745; RCTs = 44; I² = 0%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. This corresponds to 20 fewer TUR syndrome events per 1000 participants (95% CI 22 fewer to 17 fewer). Secondary outcomes BTURP may carry a similar risk of urinary incontinence at 12 months (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; participants = 751; RCTs = 4; I² = 0%; low CoE, downgraded for study limitations and imprecision), compared to MTURP. This corresponds to four fewer events of urinary incontinence per 1000 participants (95% CI five fewer to 16 more). BTURP probably slightly reduces blood transfusions (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.59; participants = 5727; RCTs = 38; I² = 0%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. This corresponds to 28 fewer events of blood transfusion per 1000 participants (95% CI 34 fewer to 20 fewer). BTURP may result in similar rates of re-TURP (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.40; participants = 652; RCTs = 6; I² = 0%; low CoE, downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). This corresponds to one more re-TURP per 1000 participants (95% CI 19 fewer to 48 more). Erectile function as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function score (IIEF-5) at 12 months on a scale from 5 to 25, with higher scores reflecting better erectile function, appears to be similar (MD 0.88, 95% CI -0.56 to 2.32; RCTs = 3; I² = 68%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations) for the two approaches. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: BTURP and MTURP probably improve urological symptoms, both to a similar degree. BTURP probably reduces both TUR syndrome and postoperative blood transfusion slightly compared to MTURP. The impact of both procedures on erectile function is probably similar. The moderate certainty of evidence available for the primary outcomes of this review suggests that there is no need for further RCTs comparing BTURP and MTURP.