Tag Archive for: adherence

Posts

Article of the Week: Patterns of prescription and adherence to EAU guidelines on ADT in PCa

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects an 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 editorial 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 from Giuseppe Morgia and Giorgio Ivan Russo, discussing their paper.

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

Patterns of prescription and adherence to European Association of Urology guidelines on androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer: an Italian multicentre cross-sectional analysis from the Choosing Treatment for Prostate Cancer (CHOICE) study

Giuseppe Morgia1, Giorgio Ivan Russo1, Andrea Tubaro2, Roberto Bortolus3, Donato Randone4, Pietro Gabriele5, Fabio Trippa6, Filiberto Zattoni7, Massimo Porena8Vincenzo Mirone9, Sergio Serni10, Alberto Del Nero11, Giancarlo Lay12 , Umberto Ricardi13, Francesco Rocco14, Carlo Terrone15, Arcangelo Pagliarulo16, Giuseppe Ludovico17, Giuseppe Vespasiani18, Maurizio Brausi19, Claudio Simeone20, Giovanni Novella21, Giorgio Carmignani22, Rosario Leonardi23, Paola Pinnaro5, Ugo De Paula24Renzo Corvo25, Raffaele Tenaglia26, Salvatore Siracusano27, Giovanna Mantini28, Paolo Gontero29, Gianfranco Savoca30 and Vincenzo Ficarra31 (Members of the LUNA Foundation, Societa Italiana dUrologia)

 

Department of Urology, University of Catania, Catania, Department of Urology, Sant Andrea Hospital, La Sapienza’ University of Roma, Roma, S.O. Oncologia Radioterapica, Pordenone, Urology, Presidio Ospedaliero Gradenigo, Torino, Radiotherapy, IRCC Candiolo, Torino, Radiotherapy, A.O. Santa Maria, Terni, Department of Urology, University of Padova, Padova, Department of Urology, University of Perugia, Perugia, Department of Urology, Universita Federico II of Napoli, Napoli,
10 Department of Urology, University of Firenze, Firenze, 11 Urologia I, Azienda Ospedaliera San Paolo, Milano, 12 Radiotherapy, ASL of Cagliari, Cagliari, 1Radiotherapy, AOU University S. Giovanni Battista Molinette, Torino, 14 Department of Urology, University of Milano, Milano, 15Urology, University Hospital Maggioredella Carita, Novara,16 Urology, University of Bari, Bari, 17 Urology, Ospedale Generale Regionale F. Miulli, Acquaviva delle Fonti, 18 Department of Urology, University Tor Vergata, Roma, 19 Urology, Ospedale Civile Ramazzini, Carpi, 20 Department of Urology, University of Brescia, Brescia, 21 Department of Surgery, Urology Clinic, AOUI Verona, Verona, 22 Department of Urology, University of Genova, Genova, 23 Urology, Centro Uro-Andrologico La CURA, Acireale, 24 Radiotherapy, AO S. Giovanni Addolorata, Roma, 25 Radiotherapy, Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca, Genova, 26 Department of Urology, University of Chieti, Chieti, 27 Department of Urology, University of Trieste, Trieste, 28 Radiotherapy, Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, Roma, 29 Department of Surgical Sciences, Città della Salutee della Scienza, University of Torino, Torino, 30 Urology, Fondazione Istituto San Raffaele G. Giglio di Cefalù, Cefalù, and 31 Department of Experimental and Clinical Medical Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy

 

Objective

To evaluate both the patterns of prescription of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) and the adherence to European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for ADT prescription.

Methods

The Choosing Treatment for Prostate Cancer (CHOICE) study was an Italian multicentre cross-sectional study conducted between December 2010 and January 2012. A total of 1 386 patients, treated with ADT for PCa (first prescription or renewal of ADT), were selected. With regard to the EAU guidelines on ADT, the cohort was categorized into discordant ADT (Group A) and concordant ADT (Group B).

AOTWJun5Results

Results

The final cohort included 1 075 patients with a geographical distribution including North Italy (n = 627, 58.3%), Central Italy (n = 233, 21.7%) and South Italy (n = 215, 20.0%). In the category of patients treated with primary ADT, a total of 125 patients (56.3%) were classified as low risk according to D’Amico classification. With regard to the EAU guidelines, 285 (26.51%) and 790 patients (73.49%) were classified as discordant (Group A) and concordant (Group B), respectively. In Group A, patients were more likely to receive primary ADT (57.5%, 164/285 patients) than radical prostatectomy (RP; 30.9%, 88/285 patients), radiation therapy (RT; 6.7%, 19/285 patients) or RP + RT (17.7%, 14/285 patients; P < 0.01). Multivariate logistic regression analysis, adjusted for clinical and pathological variables, showed that patients from Central Italy (odds ratio [OR] 2.86; P < 0.05) and South Italy (OR 2.65; P < 0.05) were more likely to receive discordant ADT.

Conclusion

EAU guideline adherence for ADT was low in Italy and was influenced by geographic area. Healthcare providers and urologists should consider these results in order to quantify the inadequate use of ADT and to set policy strategies to overcome this risk.

Editorial: EAU guidelines – do we care? Reflections from the EAU Impact Assessment of Guidelines Implementation and Education group

There is increasing evidence in the literature that androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is overused among practising urologists in the setting of localized, and even locally advanced, prostate cancer (PCa) [1, 2]. Morgia et al. [1] report a misuse of ADT prescriptions among Italian urologists in roughly a quarter of cases, mainly in the setting of low-risk/localized disease where ADT may harm patients without proven benefit with regard to disease-specific outcomes [3]. Such clinical practice behaviours are even more unjustifiable given the high level of evidence upon which the current European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines recommendations on ADT use are based [4].

Morgia et al. [1] should be congratulated for highlighting the magnitude of the problems the urological community currently face in terms of the gap between evidence and practice. Unfortunately, while the authors report significant geographical differences in ADT prescriptions within the same country (Italy), the methods they used in their study do not allow an understanding of the reasons for the discrepancy. It is currently unknown whether the gap between evidence and practice is attributable to physician or patient attitude or to the national health system structure. The inclusion of qualitative methods, such as semi-structured interviews, would have been ideal to probe clinician reasoning for discordant adherence. This is crucial because knowledge of possible barriers to the application of guidelines represents a key step in their implementation process. Indeed, once the issue is raised, the next logical questions to pose would be: how can we reduce such variation in urological practice especially where there is a real risk of causing harm to patients and how can we improve and implement the use of guideline recommendations when clearly underpinned by high-quality evidence?

It is indeed intuitive that any huge evidence–practice gap may have profound implications not only in the process of patient care optimization but also in the context of national healthcare efficiency.

Certainly the issue of ADT overuse raised by Morgia et al. [1] can be considered the perfect setting to scale up and prioritize efforts aimed at improving current urological practice for three main reasons: (i) the high prevalence of the disease studied (namely, PCa); (ii) the availability of an up-to-date evidence-based guideline showing the impact of ADT in terms of patient side effects and costs; and (iii) the now known gap between evidence and practice patterns.

Given this setting, it should then be mandatory to promote ways not only to assess the use of guideline recommendations but also to increase dissemination among users (not only healthcare professionals, but also patients and policy makers) and to evaluate their impact. The aim of this highly articulated process of knowledge translation is eventually to move research findings into clinical practice. Ideally, this approach should be based on the following five crucial questions: (i) What should be transferred? (ii) To whom should research knowledge be transferred? (iii) By whom should research knowledge be transferred? (iv) How should research knowledge be transferred? and (v) To what effect should research knowledge be transferred? [5]. Each of these questions represents a crucial step in any knowledge translation process. To optimize this approach, it is critical to identify barriers to knowledge implementation and to choose the optimum interventions to limit or to overcome them. This ‘global process’ is much more complicated than commonly thought, given the significant cultural, social, economic and health system differences not only between countries but also within the same country, as shown by Morgia et al. [1]. It is likely, therefore, that any knowledge implementation approach should be tailored according to each country and should be based on key steps, such as: selection of a credible ‘messenger’; development of the appropriate technological and organizational instruments to facilitate access to disseminate and use existing high-quality evidence; and the setting up of education programmes to improve clinical research literacy skills.

Finally, we believe that the paper by Morgia et al. [1] strongly supports the notion that ‘evidence-based medicine should be complemented by evidence-based implementation’ [6]. It is indeed likely that creating a knowledge translation setting where the gap between evidence and practice is eventually bridged is as important as producing accurate, scientifically sound and meticulous guidelines that can be trusted by all stakeholders.

Tackling the crucially important problem of discordant guideline adherence is the remit of the recently established EAU Guidelines Office ‘IMAGINE’ project (IMpact Assessment of Guidelines Implementation and Education) which aims to: ascertain adherence to prioritized guideline recommendations; elucidate the barriers and facilitators to change; design bespoke knowledge transfer interventions; and evaluate the impact of the EAU guidelines, thereby optimizing adherence, with the ultimate goal of improving patient care.

Alberto Briganti*, Steven MacLennan, Lorenzo MarconiKarin Plass§ and James NDow on behalf of EAU Guidelines Ofce IMAGINE project
*Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy, Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK, Department of Urology, Coimbra University Hospital, Coimbra, Portugal and §EAU Central Ofce, Guidelines Ofce, Arnhem, The Netherlands

 

References

 

 

Video: Patterns of prescription and adherence to EAU guidelines on ADT in PCa

Patterns of prescription and adherence to European Association of Urology guidelines on androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer: an Italian multicentre cross-sectional analysis from the Choosing Treatment for Prostate Cancer (CHOICE) study

Giuseppe Morgia1, Giorgio Ivan Russo1, Andrea Tubaro2, Roberto Bortolus3, Donato Randone4, Pietro Gabriele5, Fabio Trippa6, Filiberto Zattoni7, Massimo Porena8Vincenzo Mirone9, Sergio Serni10, Alberto Del Nero11, Giancarlo Lay12 , Umberto Ricardi13, Francesco Rocco14, Carlo Terrone15, Arcangelo Pagliarulo16, Giuseppe Ludovico17, Giuseppe Vespasiani18, Maurizio Brausi19, Claudio Simeone20, Giovanni Novella21, Giorgio Carmignani22, Rosario Leonardi23, Paola Pinnaro5, Ugo De Paula24Renzo Corvo25, Raffaele Tenaglia26, Salvatore Siracusano27, Giovanna Mantini28, Paolo Gontero29, Gianfranco Savoca30 and Vincenzo Ficarra31 (Members of the LUNA Foundation, Societa Italiana dUrologia)

 

Department of Urology, University of Catania, Catania, Department of Urology, Sant Andrea Hospital, La Sapienza’ University of Roma, Roma, S.O. Oncologia Radioterapica, Pordenone, Urology, Presidio Ospedaliero Gradenigo, Torino, Radiotherapy, IRCC Candiolo, Torino, Radiotherapy, A.O. Santa Maria, Terni, Department of Urology, University of Padova, Padova, Department of Urology, University of Perugia, Perugia, Department of Urology, Universita Federico II of Napoli, Napoli,
10 Department of Urology, University of Firenze, Firenze, 11 Urologia I, Azienda Ospedaliera San Paolo, Milano, 12 Radiotherapy, ASL of Cagliari, Cagliari, 1Radiotherapy, AOU University S. Giovanni Battista Molinette, Torino, 14 Department of Urology, University of Milano, Milano, 15Urology, University Hospital Maggioredella Carita, Novara,16 Urology, University of Bari, Bari, 17 Urology, Ospedale Generale Regionale F. Miulli, Acquaviva delle Fonti, 18 Department of Urology, University Tor Vergata, Roma, 19 Urology, Ospedale Civile Ramazzini, Carpi, 20 Department of Urology, University of Brescia, Brescia, 21 Department of Surgery, Urology Clinic, AOUI Verona, Verona, 22 Department of Urology, University of Genova, Genova, 23 Urology, Centro Uro-Andrologico La CURA, Acireale, 24 Radiotherapy, AO S. Giovanni Addolorata, Roma, 25 Radiotherapy, Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca, Genova, 26 Department of Urology, University of Chieti, Chieti, 27 Department of Urology, University of Trieste, Trieste, 28 Radiotherapy, Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, Roma, 29 Department of Surgical Sciences, Città della Salutee della Scienza, University of Torino, Torino, 30 Urology, Fondazione Istituto San Raffaele G. Giglio di Cefalù, Cefalù, and 31 Department of Experimental and Clinical Medical Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy

 

Objective

To evaluate both the patterns of prescription of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) and the adherence to European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for ADT prescription.

Methods

The Choosing Treatment for Prostate Cancer (CHOICE) study was an Italian multicentre cross-sectional study conducted between December 2010 and January 2012. A total of 1 386 patients, treated with ADT for PCa (first prescription or renewal of ADT), were selected. With regard to the EAU guidelines on ADT, the cohort was categorized into discordant ADT (Group A) and concordant ADT (Group B).

AOTWJun5Results

Results

The final cohort included 1 075 patients with a geographical distribution including North Italy (n = 627, 58.3%), Central Italy (n = 233, 21.7%) and South Italy (n = 215, 20.0%). In the category of patients treated with primary ADT, a total of 125 patients (56.3%) were classified as low risk according to D’Amico classification. With regard to the EAU guidelines, 285 (26.51%) and 790 patients (73.49%) were classified as discordant (Group A) and concordant (Group B), respectively. In Group A, patients were more likely to receive primary ADT (57.5%, 164/285 patients) than radical prostatectomy (RP; 30.9%, 88/285 patients), radiation therapy (RT; 6.7%, 19/285 patients) or RP + RT (17.7%, 14/285 patients; P < 0.01). Multivariate logistic regression analysis, adjusted for clinical and pathological variables, showed that patients from Central Italy (odds ratio [OR] 2.86; P < 0.05) and South Italy (OR 2.65; P < 0.05) were more likely to receive discordant ADT.

Conclusion

EAU guideline adherence for ADT was low in Italy and was influenced by geographic area. Healthcare providers and urologists should consider these results in order to quantify the inadequate use of ADT and to set policy strategies to overcome this risk.

© 2022 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.