Treatment of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) in Belgium: a real world data analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Abiraterone acetate + prednisone (AAP) and docetaxel have proven their efficacy in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) in clinical trials. However, real-world data are scarce. The goal of this study is to evaluate real-world data on the efficacy and safety of these therapies in mHSPC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Records of 93 patients from 21 different centres were retrospectively reviewed. Primary and secondary endpoints were radiographic and PSA progression-free survival (RPFS - PSA-PFS) and cancer specific and overall survival (CSS - OS), respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Differences in oncological outcome and AEs were evaluated between three treatment groups: ADT only (N=26) - ADT + AAP (N=48) - ADT + docetaxel (N=19). Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier statistics. RESULTS: Median RPFS was 13 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9-17) for ADT only, 21 months (95% CI: 19-23) for ADT + AAP and 12 months (95% CI: 11-14) for ADT + docetaxel (p = 0.004). The 1-year PSA-PFS, CSS and OS were 73.5%, 90.7% and 88.7%, respectively, with no significant differences between the three groups. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were not observed more frequently. CONCLUSION: Retrospective real-world data show a significantly longer RPFS for mHSPC patients treated with ADT + AAP compared to ADT only or ADT + docetaxel at short-term follow-up. This can aid in counselling of mHSPC patients in daily clinical practice.

Making surgery safer in an increasingly digital world: the internet-friend or foe?

PURPOSE: The internet has resulted in huge efficiency gains in health care, the ability to deal with massive data accumulation and better manage patient data. However, potential and real pitfalls exist, including breeches in security of data and patient confidentiality, data storage issues, errors, and user interface issues. METHODS: A MEDLINE review was performed using MeSH terms "health care" and "information technology." Cross-referencing was used to explore the different opportunities and challenges the internet has to offer. RESULTS: As health professionals, we are fast adopting technologies at our fingertips, such as WhatsApp and video capabilities, into our clinical practice to increase productivity and improve patient care. However, the potential security breaches are significant for the health professional and health service. Further, electronic medical records have theoretical advantages to improve patient care, reduce medication errors, and expedite referrals. The downside is a less personalized approach to patient care, as well as the potential for these systems to be even more cumbersome. In regard to the acquisition of knowledge, there is no doubt the internet is our friend. Health care professionals as well as patients have unlimited resources for learning, including podcasts videos, apps, simulators, and wearable devices. Unfortunately, this comes with a risk of misinformation and poorly referenced data with little to no regulation of content. CONCLUSION: In this increasing digital world, it is our task as health care providers to embrace these new technologies but develop guidelines and control systems to minimize the pitfalls.

Four-defect repair in women with symptomatic anterior compartment prolapse: a large cohort study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to collect long-term follow-up data and report on both objective and subjective outcome, including morbidity, reinterventions, and sexual function following four-defect repair (FDR) as surgical correction of symptomatic anterior vaginal wall prolapse with or without stress urinary incontinence (SUI). METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent FDR between 1999 and 2005 were included in this study. We performed a retrospective analysis to evaluate anatomical and functional outcome by reviewing medical charts and sending validated questionnaires (Urogenital Distress Inventory and Defecatory Distress Inventory) to all patients. We also sent a self-developed, nonvalidated questionnaire to assess sexual function and inform the patient about reinterventions for pelvic floor dysfunction. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-nine (60 %) of the 381 patients who underwent FDR participated. At a median follow-up of 40 months (range 5-88), 21 % of patients reported bothersome prolapse symptoms, and 11 % reported bothersome SUI. Temporary postoperative urinary retention occurred in 23 %. During follow-up, posterior vaginal wall prolapse was observed in 14 % of patients. Overall surgical reintervention rates were 15 % and 4 % for (all types of) pelvic organ prolapse and SUI, respectively; dyspareunia was reported by 30 %. CONCLUSIONS: Functional cure rates of FDR as surgical treatment for anterior vaginal wall prolapse with or without SUI are satisfying. Nevertheless, given the negative side effects of FDR (urinary retention, high reintervention rate for posterior vaginal wall prolapse, high risk of sexual dysfunction), we question the superiority of FDR over standard anterior colporrhaphy in patients with anterior vaginal wall prolapse only.