Tag Archive for: Anticoagulation

Posts

Article of the week: The role of extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for major urological cancer operations

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 editorial written by a prominent member of the urology community, a video prepared by the authors and a visual abstract; 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.

The role of extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for major urological cancer operations

Rishi Naik*, Indrajeet Mandal*, Alexander Hampson, Tim Lane, Jim Adshead, Bhavan Prasad Rai and Nikhil Vasdev†§

*Faculty of Medical Sciences, UCL Medical School, University College London, London, Department of Urology, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne and §School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK

Rishi Naik and Indrajeet Mandal are joint first authors.

Abstract

Objectives

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), consisting of both pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thromboses (DVT), remains a well‐recognised complication of major urological cancer surgery. Several international guidelines recommend extended thromboprophylaxis (ETP) with LMWH, whereby the period of delivery is extended to the post‐discharge period, where the majority of VTE occurs. In this literature review we investigate whether ETP should be indicated for all patients undergoing major urological cancer surgery, as well as procedure specific data that may influence a clinician’s decision.

Methods

We performed a search of six databases (PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, and British Nursing Index (BNI)) from inception to June 2019, for studies looking at adult patients who received VTE prophylaxis after surgery for a major urological malignancy.

Results

Eighteen studies were analysed. VTE risk is highest in open and robotic Radical Cystectomy (RC) (2.6–11.6%) and ETP demonstrates a significant reduction in risk of VTE, but not a significant difference in Pulmonary Embolism (PE) or mortality. Risk of VTE in open Radical Prostatectomy (RP) (0.8–15.7%) is comparable to RC, but robotic RP (0.2–0.9%), open partial/radical nephrectomy (1.0–4.4%) and robotic partial/radical nephrectomy (0.7–3.9%) were lower risk. It has not been shown that ETP reduces VTE risk specifically for RP or nephrectomy.

Conclusion

The decision to use ETP is a fine balance between variables such as VTE incidence, bleeding risk and perioperative morbidity/mortality. This balance should be assessed for each specific procedure type. While ETP still remains of net benefit for open RP as well as open and robotic RC, the balance is closer for minimally invasive RP as well as radical and partial nephrectomy. Due to a lack of procedure specific evidence for the use of ETP, adherence with national guidelines remains poor. Therefore, we advocate further studies directly comparing ETP vs standard prophylaxis, for specific procedure types, in order to allow clinicians to make a more informed decision in future.

Editorial: How long is long enough for pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in urology?

Each year, millions of patients who undergo urological surgery incur the risk of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, together referred to as venous thromboembolism (VTE), and major bleeding. Because pharmacological prophylaxis decreases the risk of VTE, but increases the risk of bleeding, and because knowledge of the magnitude of these risks remains uncertain, both clinical practice and guideline recommendations vary widely [1]. One of the uncertainties is the recommended duration of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis.

In this issue of the BJUI, Naik et al. [2] provide an up‐to‐date review that summarises the articles that examined extended thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP), radical cystectomy (RC) or nephrectomy. The outcomes on which they focussed include risks of VTE, bleeding, renal failure and mortality – all potentially influenced by whether or not patients receive extended prophylaxis.

After screening >3500 articles, the authors included 18 studies, none of them randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [2]. They found that VTE risk is highest in open and robot‐assisted RC, and that, based on observational studies, extended thromboprophylaxis significantly reduces the risk of VTE relative to shorter duration prophylaxis. Evidence suggested that robot‐assisted RP, as well as both open and robot‐assisted partial and radical nephrectomies, incur lower VTE risk than RCs or open RP. They did not find studies comparing extended prophylaxis to standard prophylaxis for RPs or nephrectomies [2].

Overall, these findings are consistent with systematic reviews that estimated the procedure‐ and patient risk factor‐specific risks for 20 urological cancer procedures [3]. As these reviews suggested substantial procedure‐specific differences in the VTE risk estimates, the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines provided separate recommendations for each procedure [4]. For urological (as well as gastrointestinal and gynaecological) patients, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guidelines suggest to ‘consider extending pharmacological VTE prophylaxis to 28 days postoperatively for people who have had major cancer surgery in the abdomen’ [5]. Because of variation in both bleeding and thrombosis risks across procedures, this advice is appropriate for some procedures and misguided for others. For instance, the procedure‐specific EAU Guidelines recommend extended VTE prophylaxis for open RC but not for robot‐assisted RP without lymphadenectomy [4].

The review by Naik et al. [2] identified the lack of urology‐specific studies comparing the in‐hospital‐only prophylaxis to extended prophylaxis. The few included studies were observational with considerable limitations (e.g. limited adjustment for possible confounders).

A recent update of a Cochrane review compared the impact of extended thromboprophylaxis with low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) for at least 14 days to in‐hospital‐only prophylaxis in abdominal or pelvic surgery procedures [6]. The authors identified seven RCTs (1728 participants) evaluating extended thromboprophylaxis with LMWH and generated pooled estimates for the incidence of any VTE (symptomatic or asymptomatic) after major abdominal or pelvic surgery of 13.2% in the control group compared with 5.3% in the patients receiving extended out‐of‐hospital LMWH (odds ratio [OR] 0.38, 95% CI 0.26–0.54).

Most events were asymptomatic, although the incidence of symptomatic VTE was also reduced from 1.0% in the in‐hospital‐only group to 0.1% in patients receiving extended thromboprophylaxis (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.08–1.11). The authors reported no persuasive difference in the incidence of bleeding complications within 3 months of surgery (defined as major or minor bleeding according to the definition provided in the individual studies) between the in‐hospital‐only group (2.8%) and extended LMWH (3.4%) group (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.67–1.81).

These findings are consistent with our own modelling study that demonstrated an approximately constant hazard of VTE up to 4 weeks after surgery [7]. That study also found that bleeding risk, by contrast, is concentrated in the first 4 days after surgery [7] (Fig.1). Using these findings, the EAU Guidelines suggest for patients in whom pharmacological prophylaxis is appropriate, extended pharmacological prophylaxis for 4 weeks [4]. Consistent with these recommendations, Naik et al. [2] found that 15 studies of 18 included in their review recommended extended prophylaxis.

Fig.1 Proportion of cumulative risk (%) of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding by week since surgery during the first 4 postoperative weeks. Reproduced from: Tikkinen et al. [7].

(This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.)

 

Overall, as shown also by this review [2], the evidence base for urological thromboprophylaxis is limited. Although current evidence supports extended prophylaxis, definitively establishing the optimal duration of thromboprophylaxis will require large‐scale RCTs. Other unanswered key questions include: baseline risks of various procedures, timing of prophylaxis, patient risk stratification, as well as effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants. In the meanwhile, suggesting extended duration to patients whose risk of VTE is sufficiently high constitutes a reasonable evidence‐based approach to VTE prophylaxis.

by Kari A.O. Tikkinen and Gordon H. Guyatt

 

References

  1. Violette PDCartwright RBriel MTikkinen KAGuyatt GH Guidelines of guidelines: thromboprophylaxis for urological surgery. BJU Int 2016118351– 8
  2. Naik RMandal IHampson A et al. The role of extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for major urological cancer operations. BJU Int 2019; 124: 935-44
  3. Tikkinen KACraigie SAgarwal A et al. Procedure‐specific risks of thrombosis and bleeding in urological cancer surgery: systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. Eur Urol 201873242– 51
  4. Tikkinen KACartwright RGould MK et al. EAU Guidelines on Thromboprophylaxis in Urological Surgery, 2017. European Association of Urology, 2018. Accessed November 2019
  5. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)Venous Thromboembolism in over 16s: reducing the risk of hospital‐acquired deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. NICE guideline [NG89]. London: NICE, 2018. Accessed November 2019
  6. Felder SRasmussen MSKing R et al. Prolonged thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin for abdominal or pelvic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 20193CD004318
  7. Tikkinen KAAgarwal ACraigie S et al. Systematic reviews of observational studies of risk of thrombosis and bleeding in urological surgery (ROTBUS): introduction and methodology. Syst Rev 201423150. DOI: 10.1186/2046‐4053‐3‐150.

 

Video: Role of extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for major urological cancer operations

The role of extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for major urological cancer operations

Read the full article

Abstract

Objectives

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), consisting of both pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thromboses (DVT), remains a well‐recognised complication of major urological cancer surgery. Several international guidelines recommend extended thromboprophylaxis (ETP) with LMWH, whereby the period of delivery is extended to the post‐discharge period, where the majority of VTE occurs. In this literature review we investigate whether ETP should be indicated for all patients undergoing major urological cancer surgery, as well as procedure specific data that may influence a clinician’s decision.

Methods

We performed a search of six databases (PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, and British Nursing Index (BNI)) from inception to June 2019, for studies looking at adult patients who received VTE prophylaxis after surgery for a major urological malignancy.

Results

Eighteen studies were analysed. VTE risk is highest in open and robotic Radical Cystectomy (RC) (2.6–11.6%) and ETP demonstrates a significant reduction in risk of VTE, but not a significant difference in Pulmonary Embolism (PE) or mortality. Risk of VTE in open Radical Prostatectomy (RP) (0.8–15.7%) is comparable to RC, but robotic RP (0.2–0.9%), open partial/radical nephrectomy (1.0–4.4%) and robotic partial/radical nephrectomy (0.7–3.9%) were lower risk. It has not been shown that ETP reduces VTE risk specifically for RP or nephrectomy.

Conclusion

The decision to use ETP is a fine balance between variables such as VTE incidence, bleeding risk and perioperative morbidity/mortality. This balance should be assessed for each specific procedure type. While ETP still remains of net benefit for open RP as well as open and robotic RC, the balance is closer for minimally invasive RP as well as radical and partial nephrectomy. Due to a lack of procedure specific evidence for the use of ETP, adherence with national guidelines remains poor. Therefore, we advocate further studies directly comparing ETP vs standard prophylaxis, for specific procedure types, in order to allow clinicians to make a more informed decision in future.

View more videos

Visual abstract: The role of extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for major urological cancer operations

See more infographics

Article of the Month: Guideline of Guidelines – Thromboprophylaxis for Urological Surgery

Every Month the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month 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 Kari Tikkinen, discussing his paper.

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

Guideline of guidelines: thromboprophylaxis for urological surgery

Philippe D. Violette*, Rufus Cartwright†‡, Matthias Briel§, Kari A.O. Tikkinen¶ and Gordon H. Guyatt**,

 

*Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Woodstock Hospital, Woodstock, ON, Canada, † Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College London, London, UK, Department of Urogynaecology, St. MaryHospital, London, UK, §Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland, Departments of Urology and Public Health, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland, **Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, and ††Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

 

Read the full article

 

Decisions regarding thromboprophylaxis in urologic surgery involve a trade-off between decreased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and increased risk of bleeding. Both patient- and procedure-specific factors are critical in making an informed decision on the use of thromboprophylaxis. Our systematic review of the literature revealed that existing guidelines in urology are limited. Recommendations from national and international guidelines often conflict and are largely based on indirect as opposed to procedure-specific evidence. These issues have likely contributed to large variation in the use of VTE prophylaxis within and between countries. The majority of existing guidelines typically suggest prolonged thromboprophylaxis for high-risk abdominal or pelvic surgery, without clear clarification of what these procedures are, for up to 4 weeks post-discharge. Existing guidance may result in the under-treatment of procedures with low risk of bleeding and the over-treatment of oncological procedures with low risk of VTE. Guidance for patients who are already anticoagulated are not specific to urological procedures but generally involve evaluating patient and surgical risks when deciding on bridging therapy. The European Association of Urology Guidelines Office has commissioned an ad hoc guideline panel that will present a formal thromboprophylaxis guideline for specific urological procedures and patient risk factors.

AOTM Key Points

Read more articles of the week

 

Editorial: Optimal Thromboprophylaxis Remains a Challenge

The ‘Guideline of guidelines: thromboprophylaxis for urological surgery’, published in this month’s issue of BJUI by Violette et al. [1], addresses a critical issue in urological practice and offers a comprehensive overview of available guidelines. Many urological surgeries, especially cancer surgeries, present a significant risk of thromboembolism, as well as bleeding. Therefore, urological surgeons should be well educated in the matter in order to be able to offer optimal prophylaxis to patients. Reading through the current recommendations and guidelines, one realises the wide variety of possible ways to risk stratify a patient, but also the large differences in opinions on how and when to offer prophylaxis. Consequently, even members within the same national society treat their patients in completely different ways.

The ideal recommendation will have to be individualised, taking thromboembolic and bleeding risk into account for each individual patient and specific surgery type. This stratification of patients not only presents a challenge in clinical practice but also for the design of meaningful clinical trials. As many medical questions regarding thromboprophylaxis remain unanswered, the currently available recommendations are based on our pathophysiological understanding and remain eminence-based, rather than evidence-based.

For many years, the ‘Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines’ [2] were viewed as the most respected guidelines in surgery. They include recommendations for a wide variety of surgical procedures, including urological surgeries. With an ageing population, our patients will more often be on anticoagulant treatment before surgery. While most guidelines still recommend stopping the anticoagulant treatment and bridging with heparin, new evidence from randomised controlled trials [3, 4] indicate that bridging by heparin significantly increases the risk for major bleeding without reducing the thromboembolic risk in most patients. Despite a recent appeal by internists and cardiologists [5], revised guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians to replace the partially outdated recommendations have yet to be published. As mentioned by Violette et al. [1] in their current review, bridging should probably only be offered to a limited number of patients with a very high risk of thromboembolic complications.

The European Association of Urology has recognised the problem and presented the prospect of providing a guideline on thromboprophylaxis for urological procedures later this year. Looking at the landscape of available high-quality publications it will still be highly challenging to provide clear recommendations for urological surgeries. The key to a comprehensive application will be the clinical practicality. With this review, the authors have set the stage to a critical review of the recommendations from a urological point of view.

Read the full article

 

Daniel Eberli
University and University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

 

References

 

1 Violette PD, Cartwright R, Briel M, Tikkinen KAO, Guyatt GHGuideline of guidelines: thromboprophylaxis for urological surgery. BJU Int 2016; 118: 35158

 

 

 

4 Douketis JD, Spyropoulos AC, Kaatz S et al. Perioperative bridging anticoagulation in patients with atrial brillation. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 82333

 

 

6 Devereaux PJ, Mrkobrada M, Sessler DI et al. Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1494503

 

Video: Guideline of Guidelines – Thromboprophylaxis for Urological Surgery

Guideline of guidelines: thromboprophylaxis for urological surgery

Philippe D. Violette*, Rufus Cartwright†‡, Matthias Briel§, Kari A.O. Tikkinen¶ and Gordon H. Guyatt**,

 

*Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Woodstock Hospital, Woodstock, ON, Canada, † Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College London, London, UK, Department of Urogynaecology, St. MaryHospital, London, UK, §Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland, Departments of Urology and Public Health, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland, **Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, and ††Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
Read the full article
Decisions regarding thromboprophylaxis in urologic surgery involve a trade-off between decreased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and increased risk of bleeding. Both patient- and procedure-specific factors are critical in making an informed decision on the use of thromboprophylaxis. Our systematic review of the literature revealed that existing guidelines in urology are limited. Recommendations from national and international guidelines often conflict and are largely based on indirect as opposed to procedure-specific evidence. These issues have likely contributed to large variation in the use of VTE prophylaxis within and between countries. The majority of existing guidelines typically suggest prolonged thromboprophylaxis for high-risk abdominal or pelvic surgery, without clear clarification of what these procedures are, for up to 4 weeks post-discharge. Existing guidance may result in the under-treatment of procedures with low risk of bleeding and the over-treatment of oncological procedures with low risk of VTE. Guidance for patients who are already anticoagulated are not specific to urological procedures but generally involve evaluating patient and surgical risks when deciding on bridging therapy. The European Association of Urology Guidelines Office has commissioned an ad hoc guideline panel that will present a formal thromboprophylaxis guideline for specific urological procedures and patient risk factors.
Read more articles of the week

 

EAU 2016 Congress Day 3

Das bringt mich weiter! While the sun was shining in Munich, the 3rd day of the 31st EAU Annual Congress continued with very well attended plenary and poster sessions. And that is no wonder because the EAU Scientific Committee had created such an attractive program, including amazing plenary sessions during the morning and a plethora of informative poster sessions in the afternoon.

 

Professor Hendrik Borgmann (@HendrikBorgmann) has already covered highlights of the opening days 1 and 2 of this year’s Congress in his BJUI blog. We will give you some highlights of Day 3 and highly recommend you to take a look on EAU congress website, Day 3, which has archived a huge amount of material to allow you to catch up on sessions you may have missed. Indeed, lots of webcasts are available!

 

We focused on non-oncology plenary morning sessions and oncology poster sessions afternoon. Here are some of our highlights:

SURGERY IN THE ELDERLY – As our urological patients become older and older, surgery for octogenarians, or even nonagenarians, is increasingly common. The morning session covered various aspects on diagnosis and treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and other urological conditions in the ageing patient.

Professor Cosimo De Nunzio began the morning with “Highlights” on lower urinary tract symptoms and prostatic disease presented during this year’s EAU congress. Also this year, as many as every third abstract was on either prostate cancer or prostatic hyperplasia.

EAU 3-1

Indeed, the plenary session on Day 3 also covered prostatic disease.

Professor Alexander Bachmann talked about surgery for BPO in the elderly. He pointed out that in elderly (high-risk) patients we do not need a complete anatomical tissue removal, we do not need a (very) long-term follow-up and that we do not need tissue for prostate cancer diagnosis. Instead, we need a safe and efficient operation with individual adaptation of the technique and preferably feasibility in an ambulatory setting or local anaesthesia.

EAU 3-2

Professor Bachmann further emphasized that it would be preferable if surgery for the elderly would be performed by experienced surgeons, and that age per se is not a reason to not operate. There are several new minimally invasive operations available, and especially for elderly less is often more.

HOW AND WHEN TO STOP ANTICOAGULATION – Managing perioperative thromboprophylaxis for patients who already receive anticoagulants remains a challenge. Associate professor Daniel Eberli and Professor Per Morten Sandset covered many of these aspects in their helpful presentations.

EAU 3-3

Dr. Eberli told us that bridging therapy (options for stopping or not stopping anticoagulation in the above figure) is eminence-based, as no papers exist showing benefits. He also presented data from the recent NEJM trial (BRIDGE study; see Table below), which showed that stopping anticoagulation without bridging was non-inferior to perioperative bridging for the prevention of arterial thromboembolism and decreased the risk of major bleeding.

EAU 3-4

Dr. Eberli gave us all a take home message to discuss and question our local bridging guidelines as new evidence is very likely not supporting them (concluding slide below).

EAU 3-5

Professor Sandset recommended that during the perioperative period only use aspirin in high-risk patients, that is, those with recent thrombotic event or extensive coronary heart disease. He also informed us that stopping antiplatelet therapy 5 days before surgery (figure below) is often the way to go, and agreed with Dr. Eberli regarding bridging therapy statements.

EAU 3-6

Professor Sandset also gave helpful information regarding use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in urological surgery:

EAU 3-7

There were numerous poster sessions available on Day 3, as usual, many of them on prostate cancer. We have selected some of the highlight abstracts presented.

PROSTATE CANCER – On Day 3, prostate cancer presentations dominated once again in a number of poster, abstract and thematic sessions but also kidney, bladder, testicular and penile cancer sessions, which provided new interesting data.

Molecular markers, genomic profiling and individualized risk and treatment assessments were presented and discussed in poster session 58, and summarized by Stacy Loeb (@LoebStacy). Further advances in prostate cancer biomarkers in prostate cancer were presented in poster session 84. These new tools are moving from bench to bedside and urologists can hopefully incorporate these new tools to cancer care sooner rather than later.

In sessions on prostate cancer diagnostics, more advanced risk profiling tools were highlighted. For instance, STHLM3 test combines history of the patient, clinical parameters, biochemical markers and genetic markers. It was presented earlier in the congress and on Day 3 further health, economic and clinical evaluations were presented in Thematic session 12. It is one example of the tests showing promising results to potentially decrease the number of prostate biopsies needed. Other similar risk profiling tools were also presented during the congress. In addition to PSA only, evaluation of the smart use of already available clinical and biochemical parameters and the combination of genetic markers may bring individualized risk assessment of prostate cancer to the next level.

In poster session 62 on Day 3, diagnostic proceedings in prostate cancer with co-morbidity evaluation, biopsy strategies and MRI imaging were presented.  A combination of molecular markers and imaging may be the way to proceed in future. These aspects were covered nicely in Thematic session 12.

MRIs have been heavily integrated in prostate cancer diagnostics during recent years. Image guidance in prostate biopsies seem to be making a breakthrough in prostate cancer diagnostics. Targeted biopsies with cognitive or MRI-TRUS fusion imaging were shown to be the way to enhance the results and reliability of biopsies and cut down the number of biopsies. However, as biopsies are still needed in prostate cancer diagnostics, use of the pre-biopsy MRI protocols were suggested to be done only in clinical trial setting. Many aspects of MRI diagnostics of prostate cancer were elegantly summarized in Thematic session 11.

New sophisticated imaging technologies in addition to MRI were present in several sessions during the meeting. Diagnostic enhancement has been seen also in metastatic prostate cancer. PSMA-PET seems to be replacing choline-PET-TT in evaluation of relapsing and metastatic prostate cancer (e.g. Thematic session 10). More reliable diagnostics and imaging of prostate cancer are also enhancing the treatment decision and treatment choice of patients with local prostate cancer. Finding the right patients for the active surveillance protocols is also being helped with advanced diagnostics. Indeed, finding only patients who need treatment for prostate cancer should be the ultimate goal for enhanced diagnostics as discussed in poster sessions 66 and 75 on Day 3. There are also high expectations on focal therapy (e.g. poster session 66), which at the moment is still experimental but will likely be a real option for patients with low volume prostate cancer verified by imaging.

The role of quality of life evaluations and patient reported outcomes measured were heavily discussed during the congress in all treatment modalities of both local and advanced prostate cancer. Survivorship issues are an increasingly important issue when more effective treatments both in local and advanced prostate cancer are available.

In metastatic disease, the use of early chemotherapy in combination with hormonal treatment has been implemented very rapidly to clinical use after the results of the CHAARTED and STAMPEED studies. Further evaluation of early chemo in metastatic disease is still needed and the patient selection needs still clarification. Hormonal therapy still has a very marked role in metastatic prostate cancer and new advances can also be found in new strategies of using castration therapy as presented in poster session 67. Urologists should actively follow the changing landscape of the medical treatment of metastatic prostate cancer and be active in treatment planning and treatment of these patients. At the same time with poster session 62 novel drugs and new forms of isotope radiation therapy in castration resistant prostate cancer were discussed in poster session 61. These open new possibilities for potential treatments.

The clinical and scientific content of the program of the Day 3 was of a very high standard, and reflective of the breadth of contemporary research in many areas within urology. Besides this session, it was our pleasure to meet old and new urological friends worldwide. The annual EAU meeting remains a highly effective method of knowledge translation and provides the opportunity for collaboration between surgeon scientists and other researchers in the field. As always in big congresses, there are so many interesting sessions going on at the same time, that it is hard to pick up and follow everything you would like to. We hope that this report provides some memories and take home messages of the Day 3 to the readers of the BJUI and BJUI blogs.

We look forward to future BJUI and EAU happenings!

 

Kari Tikkinen

Urology resident, adjunct professor of clinical epidemiology

Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

@KariTikkinen

 

Mika Matikainen

Chief of urology, adjunct professor of urology

Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

 

 

© 2022 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.