Archive for category: Article of the Week

Article of the Week: Pain relief after ureteric stent removal: think NSAIDs

Every week the Editor-in-Chief selects the Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying blog written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation. QC Kinetix’s charleston pain management relief center has decades of collective experience treating patients with all kinds of conditions. We make a concerted effort to treat each patient with professionalism and dignity as they work their way back to a pain-free life. We do everything in our power to earn the trust of each person that walks through our doors for treatment. Regenerative medicine is the future of medical care. QC Kinetix is offering non-invasive treatments that allow people to avoid going under the knife, while accelerating their recovery times and minimizing side effects. Discover why people across the state of South Carolina trust QC Kinetix when it comes to pain relief. At our clinic for pain management in Mt. Pleasant, SC, our specialists take the time to understand each patient’s needs and symptoms. We go out of our way to understand each person’s unique situation and how we can best treat their condition. Then, we very carefully formulate a plan to get them back to an active and healthy lifestyle. One of our most common treatments is laser therapy. We use non-invasive laser energy to target the affected area and reduce inflammation and pain. This triggers a photochemical response that initiates tissue repair and quickly improves a patient’s range of motion and functionality. Laser therapy is often the first step in our pain management plan before moving onto stem cell-based treatments.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video of  Michael Conlin discussing his paper.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

A single dose of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prevents severe pain after ureteric stent removal: a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Nicholas N. Tadros, Lisa Bland, Edith Legg, Ali Olyaei and Michael J. Conlin

OBJECTIVES

• To determine the incidence of severe pain after ureteric stent removal.

• To evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) in preventing this complication.

 PATIENTS AND METHODS

• A prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed at our institution.

• Adults with an indwelling ureteric stent after ureteroscopy were randomised to receive either a single dose of placebo or an NSAID (rofecoxib 50 mg) before ureteric stent removal.

• Pain was measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS) just before and 24 h after stent removal.

• Pain medication use after ureteric stent removal was measured using morphine equivalents.

RESULTS

• In all, 22 patients were enrolled and randomised into the study before ending the study after interim analysis showed significant decrease in pain level in the NSAID group.

• The most common indication for ureteroscopy was urolithiasis (14 patients).

• The proportion of patients with severe pain (VAS score of [1]7) during the 24 h after ureteric stent removal was six of 11 (55%) in the placebo group and it was zero of 10 in the NSAID group (P < 0.01).

• There were no complications related to the use of rofecoxib.

 CONCLUSIONS

• We found a 55% incidence of severe pain after ureteric stent removal.

• A single dose of a NSAID before stent removal prevents severe pain after ureteric stent removal.

Read Previous Articles of the Week

Editorial: Stent removal need not be painful

Matthew Bultitude

Matthew Bultitude
Urology Centre, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

Ureteric stents are undoubtedly a significant cause of morbidity while in situ [1].Whilst there are different options for removal, they are usually removed under local anaesthetic with the aid of a flexible cystoscope. This is an uncomfortable procedure and a proportion of patients seem to get fairly severe pain afterwards, which may be attributable to ureteric spasm. The pain after stent removal has not been well reported in the literature. In this issue of the BJUI we present a randomised controlled trial of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) to dramatically reduce pain after stent removal.

This beautifully simple study by Tadros et al. [2] had simple aims: to determine the incidence of pain after stent removal and whether this could be reduced using a single oral dose of a NSAID given before the procedure. In a prospective randomised double-blind placebo controlled trial, the authors have shown a clear advantage to the use of active medication over placebo, such that the trial was stopped after an interim analysis. Using a visual analogue scale (VAS) the mean pain after stent removal was 2.7 in the NSAID group compared with 5.5 with placebo.More impressively the proportion of patients with severe pain (as defined as aVAS >=7) within 24 hours of stent removal was 0% vs. 55%. A corresponding reduction in narcotic use was seen (1.67 mg vs. 4.77 mg).

With increasing healthcare pressures on emergency departments and beds, and in the UK with financial penalties for re-admissions, this simple intervention has the potential to improve our own patients pain ratings and satisfaction and also reduce emergency consultations and even re-admissions. It should be noted that in this trial, there were two visits to the emergency department and one re-admission, all in the placebo group.

NSAIDs are thought to work through a number of mechanisms such as direct effect on pain pathways, reduced ureteric contractility and renal blood flow. This is thought to be a class effect for all NSAIDs. The drug used in this trial (rofecoxib) has subsequently been withdrawn from the market, although one would expect similar outcomes with other NSAID medications.

References
1 Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP et al. Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol 2003; 169: 1065–9
2 Tadros NN, Bland L, Legg E et al. A single dose of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prevents severe pain after ureteric stent removal: a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. BJU Int 2013; 111: 116–20

Michael Conlin’s commentary on NSAIDs

Pain relief after ureteric stent removal: think NSAIDs

Nicholas N. Tadros, Lisa Bland, Edith Legg, Ali Olyaei and Michael J. Conlin*
Oregon Health & Science University and *Portland Veterans Administration Medical Center, Portland, OR, USA

OBJECTIVES

• To determine the incidence of severe pain after ureteric stent removal.

• To evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) in preventing this complication.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• A prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed at our institution.

• Adults with an indwelling ureteric stent after ureteroscopy were randomised to receive either a single dose of placebo or an NSAID (rofecoxib 50 mg) before ureteric stent removal.

• Pain was measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS) just before and 24 h after stent removal

• Pain medication use after ureteric stent removal was measured using morphine equivalents.

RESULTS

• In all, 22 patients were enrolled and randomised into the study before ending the study after interim analysis showed significant decrease in pain level in the NSAID group.

• The most common indication for ureteroscopy was urolithiasis (14 patients).

• The proportion of patients with severe pain (VAS score of ≥7) during the 24 h after ureteric stent removal was six of 11 (55%) in the placebo group and it was zero of 10 in the NSAID group (P < 0.01).

• There were no complications related to the use of rofecoxib.

CONCLUSIONS

• We found a 55% incidence of severe pain after ureteric stent removal.

• A single dose of a NSAID before stent removal prevents severe pain after ureteric stent removal.

Tadros NN, Bland L, Legg E, et al. A single dose of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prevents severe pain after ureteric stent removal: a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. BJU Int 2013, 111: 101–105.

Article of the Week: The botulinum toxin benefit for overactive bladder

Every week the Editor-in-Chief selects the Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying blog written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

 

Long-term outcome of the use of intravesical botulinum toxin for the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB)

Amar Mohee, Ayisha Khan, Neil Harris, Ian Eardley

OBJECTIVES

• To assess the long-term compliance with repeated injections of intravesical botulinum toxin (BT) in a ‘real-life’ mixed population of patients with idiopathic detrusor overactivity and neurogenic detrusor overactivity.

• To identify the reasons why patients discontinued BT therapy and to explore the outcomes of those patients who did discontinue treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• Retrospective evaluation of the case notes of a series of patients who had received intravesical BT treatment at a large UK teaching hospital.

• No antibiotic prophylaxis was given for the procedure.

RESULTS

•Over a period of 7 years, 268 patients were initiated on intravesical BT treatment for overactive bladder (OAB) at our institution, with 137 followed up for ≥36 months, with 80 patients having ≥60 months follow-up after their first injection.

• Almost two-thirds of patients (61.3%) had discontinued intravesical BT therapy at 36 months, with a 63.8% discontinuation rate at 60 months.

• The main reasons for discontinuation were tolerability issues, mainly urinary tract infections and the need for clean intermittent self-catheterisation. Primary and secondary losses of efficacy were of secondary importance.

• Most of the patients that discontinued have remained under urology care and now receive alternative methods of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

• Intravesical BT therapy is an effective short-term treatment for OAB.

• With time, two-thirds of patients discontinued treatment usually because of the tolerability issues associated with treatment.

 

Read Previous Articles of the Week

Editorial: Is botulinum toxin not the solution to OAB after all?

Dirk De Ridder
Department of Urology, University Hospital Leuven, Belgium

The article by Mohee et al. highlights a problem that is often neglected: the outomes we see in clinical trials do not predict the success of the therapy in real life. We know this from anticholinergics: the study results are good, but the performance in real life is much poorer. Only 20-40% will continue to take the medication.

For botulinum toxin in OAB it is surprising to see that even in experienced hands only 38.7% of patients continued with the treatment at 36 months. The reasons to abandon the treatment were retention, the need for CISC and urinary tract infections. Moreover, 8.6% of the patients had no response at all after the initial injection.

Of course infections could have been avoided by using prophylactic antibiotics, but the other issues remain. How to explain the primary failures? How to manage the risk of CISC?

Given the fact that most patients abandoned the treatment within the first 3 years, more research would be needed on how to increase the treatment adherence of the patients after the initial injection.

This challenging article also stresses the fact that in a time where only RCTs stand a good chance of being published in journals, good retrospective cohort studies can be extremely important too.

Article of the Week: The New Partin Tables

Every week the Editor-in-Chief selects the Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying blog written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video of John Eifler and Alan Partin discussing their paper.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

 

An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011

John B. Eifler, Zhaoyang Feng, Brian M. Lin, Michael T. Partin, Elizabeth B. Humphreys, Misop Han, Jonathan I. Epstein, Patrick C. Walsh, Bruce J. Trock, Alan W. Partin

OBJECTIVE

• To update the 2007 Partin tables in a contemporary patient population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study population consisted of 5,629 consecutive men who underwent RP and staging lymphadenectomy at the Johns Hopkins Hospital between January 1, 2006 and July 30, 2011 and met inclusion criteria.

• Polychotomous logistic regression analysis was used to predict the probability of each pathologic stage category: organ-confined disease (OC), extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle involvement (SV+), or lymph node involvement (LN+) based on preoperative criteria.

• Preoperative variables included biopsy Gleason score (6, 3+4, 4+3, 8, and 9–10), serum PSA (0–2.5, 2.6–4.0, 4.1–6.0, 6.1–10.0, greater than 10.0 ng/mL), and clinical stage (T1c, T2c, and T2b/T2c).

• Bootstrap re-sampling with 1000 replications was performed to estimate 95% confidence intervals for predicted probabilities of each pathologic state.

RESULTS

• The median PSA was 4.9 ng/mL, 63% had Gleason 6 disease, and 78% of men had T1c disease.

• 73% of patients had OC disease, 23% had EPE, 3% had SV+ but not LN+, and 1% had LN+ disease. Compared to the previous Partin nomogram, there was no change in the distribution of pathologic state.

• The risk of LN+ disease was significantly higher for tumors with biopsy Gleason 9–10 than Gleason 8 (O.R. 3.2, 95% CI 1.3–7.6).

• The c-indexes for EPE vs. OC, SV+ vs. OC, and LN+ vs. OC were 0.702, 0.853, and 0.917, respectively.

• Men with biopsy Gleason 4+3 and Gleason 8 had similar predicted probabilities for all pathologic stages.

• Most men presenting with Gleason 6 disease or Gleason 3+4 disease have <2% risk of harboring LN+ disease and may have lymphadenectomy omitted at RP.

CONCLUSIONS

• The distribution of pathologic stages did not change at our institution between 2000–2005 and 2006–2011.

• The updated Partin nomogram takes into account the updated Gleason scoring system and may be more accurate for contemporary patients diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Erratum:

A typographical error was identified in Table 2, for the cell corresponding to the probability for EPE in a man with clinical stage T1c, PSA >10, and biopsy Gleason 4+3. The cell should read “38 (32-45)” rather than “28 (32-45).” Also, in the third paragraph of the Results section, the fourth sentence should be changed to “In contrast, the predicted risk of LN+ is no more than 3% for T1c tumours with biopsy Gleason score <9 for an PSA below 10.”

Editorial: What have we learned from the Partin table update?

The controversies surrounding a physician’s best treatment strategy advice to an individual patient with clinically localized prostate cancer create a continuing need for advanced statistics. Historically, the Partin tables [1] were one of the first statistical tools that physicians and patients found readily usable. The tables have been updated and always focused on prediction of pathologic stage from standard clinical variables. The next commonly cited/used tool was the Kattan nomogram [2] that carried the prediction the next step to the endpoint of biochemical relapse. By 2008, Shariat et al catalogued over 100 predictive tools published from 1966 to 2007 on various endpoints of prostate cancer [3].

 

 

 

What have we learned from this update of the Partin tables?

  1. The pre-operative grade distribution has shifted up slightly with no change in prostatectomy grade/stage distribution. The authors discuss possible causes such as changes in interpreting the Gleason scoring system, shifts in selection for surgery away from lower grade patients, and a possible plateau in stage migration.
  2. The tables have split off Gleason 3+4, 4+3, 8, and 9–10, and found the latter significantly more aggressive, while Gleason 4+3 and 4+4 are more similar. Gleason 9–10 must have a pattern 5 component >5% and may therefore have more aggressive biology. On the other hand, two cases of prostate cancer may have identical volumes of 4 pattern, but if one adds additional 3 pattern, that additional tumour foci paradoxically lowers the sum to 7, but perhaps not the risk of non-organ confined stage.
  3. In the past, the tables were commonly used to predict pT3 stage, with possible change in management away from surgery as that risk increased. Clearly the literature on surgery for higher risk disease has matured, and augmented by the adjuvant/salvage radiation literature such that it is less likely to use the tables for this reason any more. On the other hand, prediction of N1 disease for the purpose of omitting a lymph node dissection remains a useful tool. In this update, using a <2% cut-off you would essentially omit all node dissections in Gleason 6 with PSA < 10 and cT1c/cT2a, while continuing with a dissection for any dominant Gleason 4 pattern. It is noteworthy that this experience was largely based upon standard templates, and those advocating extended templates will find these N1 rates too low. Indeed, when our center adopted the extended template using a robotic technique, the N1 rate for high-risk disease was 39% and 9% for intermediate risk [4]. Moving forward, what tools do we need to provide useful statistics to our patients? Updating old tools with more contemporary patient cohorts is certainly a worthy exercise. Multicentre study based tools will be required for endpoints such as positive surgical margins, quality of life, biochemical recurrence, and other endpoints that may be significantly affected by the experience of the treating physician. Beyond this, the next step should be adaptive nomograms that update in real time rather than en masse every 4–5 years [5].

John W. Davis
Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

References
1 Eifler JB, Feng Z, Lin BM et al. An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU Int 2013; 111: 26–33
2 Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM et al. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90: 766–71
3 Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Roehborn CG, Kattan MW. An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools. Cancer 2008; 113: 3075–99
4 Davis JW, Shah JB, Achim M. Robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at the time of radical prostatectomy (RP): a video-based illustration of technique, results, and unmet patient selection needs. BJUI 2011; 108: 993–8
5 Vickers AJ, Fearn P, Scardino PT et al. Why can’t nomograms be more like Neflix? Urology 2010; 75: 511–3

John Eifler and Alan Partin discuss their article

An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011.

John B. Eifler, Zhaoyang Feng, Brian M. Lin, Michael T. Partin, Elizabeth B. Humphreys, Misop Han, Jonathan I. Epstein, Patrick C. Walsh, Bruce J. Trock and Alan W. Partin
James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and the Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA

Objective

  • To update the 2007 Partin tables in a contemporary patient population.

Patients and Methods

The study population consisted of 5,629 consecutive men who underwent RP and staging lymphadenectomy at the Johns Hopkins Hospital between January 1, 2006 and July 30, 2011 and met inclusion criteria.

  • Polychotomous logistic regression analysis was used to predict the probability of each pathologic stage category: organ-confined disease (OC), extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle involvement (SV+), or lymph node involvement (LN+) based on preoperative criteria.
  • Preoperative variables included biopsy Gleason score (6, 3+4, 4+3, 8, and 9–10), serum PSA (0–2.5, 2.6–4.0, 4.1–6.0, 6.1–10.0, greater than 10.0 ng/mL), and clinical stage (T1c, T2c, and T2b/T2c).
  • Bootstrap re-sampling with 1000 replications was performed to estimate 95% confidence intervals for predicted probabilities of each pathologic state.

Results

  • The median PSA was 4.9 ng/mL, 63% had Gleason 6 disease, and 78% of men had T1c disease.
  • 73% of patients had OC disease, 23% had EPE, 3% had SV+ but not LN+, and 1% had LN+ disease. Compared to the previous Partin nomogram, there was no change in the distribution of pathologic state.
  • The risk of LN+ disease was significantly higher for tumors with biopsy Gleason 9–10 than Gleason 8 (O.R. 3.2, 95% CI 1.3–7.6).
  • The c-indexes for EPE vs. OC, SV+ vs. OC, and LN+ vs. OC were 0.702, 0.853, and 0.917, respectively.
  • Men with biopsy Gleason 4+3 and Gleason 8 had similar predicted probabilities for all pathologic stages.
  • Most men presenting with Gleason 6 disease or Gleason 3+4 disease have <2% risk of harboring LN+ disease and may have lymphadenectomy omitted at RP.

Conclusions

  • The distribution of pathologic stages did not change at our institution between 2000–2005 and 2006–2011.
  • The updated Partin nomogram takes into account the updated Gleason scoring system and may be more accurate for contemporary patients diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Eifler JB, Feng Z, Lin BM, et al. An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU Int 2013; 111: 26–33.

© 2021 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.