Tag Archive for: #urojc

Posts

The 6th BJUI Social Media Awards (2018)

It’s hard to believe that we have been doing the BJUI Social Media Awards for six years now! I recall vividly our inaugural BJUi Social Media Awards in 2013, as the burgeoning social media community in urology gathered in the back of an Irish Bar in San Diego to celebrate all things social. At that time, many of us had only got to know each other through Twitter, and it was certainly fun going around the room putting faces with twitter handles for the first time. That spirit continues today as the “uro-twitterati” continues to grow, and the BJUi Awards, remain a fun annual focus for the social-active urology community to meet up in person.

We continue to alternate the Awards between the annual congresses of the American Urological Association (AUA) and of the European Association of Urology (EAU). Last year we descended on Boston, MA, to join the 15,000 or so other delegates attending the AUA Annual Meeting and to enjoy beautiful Boston. This year, we set sail for the #EAU18 Annual Meeting in the wonderful (but very cold) city of Copenhagen, along with over 13,000 delegates from 100 different countries.

On therefore to the Awards. These took place on Sunday 18th March 2018 in the Crowne Plaza Hotel, Copenhagen. Over 50 of the most prominent uro-twitterati from all over the world turned up to enjoy the hospitality of the BJUI and to hear who would be recognised in the 2018 BJUI Social Media Awards. Individuals and organisations were recognised across 12 categories including the top gong, The BJUI Social Media Award 2018, awarded to an individual, organization, innovation or initiative who has made an outstanding contribution to social media in urology in the preceding year. The 2013 Award was won by the outstanding Urology Match portal, followed in 2014 by Dr Stacy Loeb for her outstanding individual contributions, and in 2015 by the #UroJC twitter-based journal club. In 2017 we recognised the #ilooklikeaurologist social media campaign which we continue to promote. This year our Awards Committee consisted of members of the BJUI Editorial Board – Declan Murphy, Prokar Dasgupta, Matt Bultitude, Stacy Loeb, John Davis, as well as BJUI Managing Editor Scott Millar whose team in London drive the content across our social platforms. The Committee reviewed a huge range of materials and activity before reaching their final conclusions.

The full list of winners is as follows:

  • Most Read [email protected] – “Changing the LATITUDE of Treatment for High-Risk Hormone-Naïve Prostate Cancer: STAMPEDE-ing Towards Androgen Biosynthesis Inhibition”. Dr Zach Klaassen, Toronto, Canada

 

 

  • Most Social Paper – “Unprofessional content on Facebook accounts of US urology residency graduates”. Accepted by Dr Matt Bultitude on behalf of Dr Ann Gormley and colleagues

  • Best BJUI Tube Video – “The value of In-111 PSMA radioguided surgery for salvage lymphadenectomy in recurrent prostate cancer”. Dr Tobias Maurer, Munich, Germany.

  • Best Urology Conference for Social Media – awarded to the EAU for #EAU17 and #EAU18. Accepted by Prof Jim Catto on behalf of the EAU Communications Department.

  • Innovation Award EAU Communications Department, for their excellent Twitter strategy. Accepted by Prof Jim Catto onbehalf of Marc van Gurp and EAU colleagues

  • #UroJC AwardDr David Penson, Vanderbilt, USA. Accepted by Matt Bultitude

  • Best Social Media Campaign – awarded to The Urology Foundation, London, UK. In recognition of their use of social media to promote their advocacy, awareness and fundraising efforts in urology. Also an acknowledgement of twitter super-user Stephen Fry as a supporter of TUF, and his use of twitter to share his recent personal prostate cancer journey.

  • Most Social Trainee – Awarded to the “Bellclapper Podcasts”, featuring Jesse Ory, Kyle Lehman, Jeff Himmelman, from Dalhousie University, Canada.

  • The BJUI Social Media Award 2018 – awarded to @BURSTurology, in recognition of their use of social media to engage with other urology trainee and research groups around the world to drive collaborative research, including the #identify project. Collected by BURST Chair Veeru Kasi.

 

A number of the BJUI senior editorial team were also present to join the fun!

 

A special thanks to our outstanding BJUI team at BJUI in London, Scott Millar, Max Cobb and team, who manage our social media and website activity as well as the day-to-day running of our busy journal.

See you all in Chicago for #AUA19 where we will present the 7th BJUI Social Media Awards ceremony!

 

Declan Murphy

Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia

Associate Editor, BJUI

@declangmurphy

 

Have the days of ADT Monotherapy for Hormone Sensitive Prostate Cancer Come to an End? STAMPEDE in the June #urojc

The much awaited results of the STAMPEDE study of abiraterone for hormone naive prostate cancer was simultataneously presented at #ASCO17 and published ‘on line ahead of print’ in the NEJM. The formal title of the study was “Abiraterone for Prostate Cancer Not Previously Treated with Hormone Therapy”.

Briefly, the study randomised 1917 men with locally advanced or metastatic hormone naive prostate cancer  to receive either ADT alone or ADT in combination with abiraterone and prednisolone.  significantly higher rates of overall and failure-free survival than ADT alone.We were privileged to have the lead author Professor Nick James join us for the June #urojc.  He posted the following video which is a lovely summary about STAMPEDE.  All of us could benefit from watching this and it is a useful link for our patients.

The data from the study is clear and it was not surprising that the majority of the discussion surrounding this paper was not going to be a dissection of the methodology or dataset and its analysis but rather how these results might impact upon urological practice.

There was a somewhat provocative start to the discussion with:-

To turn the question around, we saw the following tweet:-

But @urogeek came out swinging

But he was not alone in these thoughts.

But lets be fair, these responses are from urologists immersed in clinical trials experience and highly academic centers.  The following tweet perhaps brought out what many were thinking.

But perhaps the onus is upon us to make that extra effort to learn. As has been mentioned, we manage one of the most toxic agents competently in the form of intravesical BCG for bladder cancer.

Naturally, there was bound to be some discussion about cost of treatment.

For a bit of light hearted banter, there was the following exchange which we hope nobody took too seriously.

The twitter account of the journal Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases posted a poll which was responded to by 117 participants with only 10% choosing the ADT alone option.  Whilst far from scientific, does this represent a significant change in thinking?  It was not long ago where we could have predicted that almost all respondents would have chosen the ADT alone option.

And to finish up, a question answered by Nick James as follows:-

A big thanks to all who participated in the June #urojc discussion. A special thanks to lead author Nick James for his insightful comments that really added to the discussion.  We will be back for another installment of the #urojc in July.  See you then.

Henry Woo (@drhwoo) is the Director of Uro-Oncology and Professor of Robotic Cancer Surgery at the Chris O’Brien Lifehouse in Sydney, Australia. He is also Professor Surgery at the Sydney Adventist Hospital Clinical School of the University of Sydney.

 

The Surgical Safety Check List – May #urojc

Ever since the World Health Organisation launched the Safe Surgery Saves Lives campaign in 2007, surgical safety has been drawn to the forefront of the daily surgical routine. The introduction of the 19-point Surgical Safety Checklist, aimed at reducing preventable complications, has become key, with shouts of ‘time-out’ or ‘checklist’ becoming the norm at the start of each case. Equally whether known as the ‘huddle’ or ‘team brief’, the meeting of all team members at the beginning of the list not only helps plan for any changes from the normal routine, but gives a good chance to get to know any new members of staff and helps to promote the team-based atmosphere that encompasses a productive operating list. In the 2009 study evaluating the benefits of the Surgical Safety Checklist, a reduction in both the mortality rate and rate of inpatient complications were found to be significantly reduced1. Implementation of these safety protocols however requires effort and engagement from all members of the theatre team.

In the May, the International Urology Journal Club (@iurojc) #urojc debated a study by Haynes et al in which the reduction of 30-day mortality following the implementation of a voluntary, checklist-based surgical quality improvement program2. The study identified that hospitals completing the program had a significantly lower rate of 30-day mortality following inpatient surgery.

One of the first topics brought up in the debate is the variability in the implementation of safety checklists.

1-1

@StorkBrian raised the possibility that due to the addition of more items at the surgical time out, effectiveness decreases. Whether there is a lack of ability to concentrate on too much paper work was discussed

Conflicting evidence regarding the effect surgical checklists have on mortality was identified, with @WallisCJD bringing up the paper by Urbach et al as an example3.

The different outcomes from the two studies may however be attributed to the difference in follow up period and study design.

1-4

Another aspect of study design discussed was the inclusion criteria – which excluded day case procedures. Whether the outcome in 30-day mortality would be different if these are included, as they are more likely to be lower-risk surgery, is unclear.

Equally whether 30-day mortality is the most appropriate endpoint for the study was questioned – although clearly very important, it would be interesting to know if other factors, such as significant morbidity, altered following the quality improvement program.

1-6

Although the surgical checklist has become part of our daily life, the question as to why they are important was raised by @CanesDavid, with a variety of responses.

For many, it seemed that alongside the safety promotion, it helps to promote cohesive teamwork and communication, which may give all team members the confidence to voice any concerns.

1

Giving all team members the ability to speak up with confidence if they identify any concerns will only benefit patients and staff.

Equally, the culture of safety promoted in teams who engage with the surgical checklist process may not be limited to the checklist itself, but to the surgical environment in general

1-10

One clear concern some have with the mandating of the surgical checklist is ensuring it does not just become a ‘tick-box’ exercise

1-11

Regardless of whether you find the checklist another form to fill, or a key part of your operating list, the goal of the process is clear: to protect our patients from preventable mistakes.

This study, confirming the original findings from the 2009 study that surgical safety checklists improve operative mortality, adds to the argument that this must become an inherent part of our practice. Key in this study however was the entire program promoting engagement in the concept of surgical safety, and supporting the team as a unit in this. The debate around this paper has highlighted that although the process of completing the mandatory checklists is important, perhaps the more important aspect is creating a culture of safety, openness and honest communication in which all team members can work together to promote safe surgery.

 

Sophia Cashman is a urology trainee working in the East of England region, UK. Her main areas of interest are female and functional urology. @soph_cash

 

References

1. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, et al. A Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in a Global Population. New England Journal of Medicine 2009;360(5):491-9
2. Haynes AB, Edmondson LBA, Lipsitz SR, et al. Mortality Trends After a Voluntary Checklist-based Surgical Safety Collaborative. Annals of Surgery 2017. Published Ahead-of-Print
3. Urbach DR, Govindarajan A, Saskin R, et al. Introduction of Surgical Safety Checklists in Ontario, Canada. New England Journal of Medicine 2014;370(11):1029-1038

 

The 5th BJUI Social Media Awards

It’s hard to believe that we have been doing the BJUI Social Media Awards for five years now! I recall vividly our inaugural BJUI Social Media Awards in 2013, as the burgeoning social media community in urology gathered in the back of an Irish Bar in San Diego to celebrate all things social. At that time, many of us had only got to know each other through Twitter, and it was certainly fun going around the room putting faces with twitter handles for the first time. That spirit continues today as the “uro-twitterati” continues to grow, and the BJUI Awards, (or the “Cult” Awards as our Editor-in-Chief likes to call them), remains a fun annual focus for the social-active urology community to meet up in person.

As you may know, we alternate the Awards between the annual congresses of the American Urological Association (AUA) and of the European Association of Urology (EAU). Last year, we descended on Munich, Germany to join the 13,000 or so other delegates attending the EAU Annual Meeting and to enjoy all the wonderful Bavarian hospitality on offer. This year, we set sail for the #AUA17 Annual Congress in Boston, MA, along with over 16,000 delegates from 100 different countries. What a great few days in beautiful Boston and a most welcome return for the AUA to this historic city. Hopefully it will have a regular spot on the calendar, especially with the welcome dumping of Anaheim and Orlando as venues for the Annual Meeting.

Awards

On therefore to the Awards. These took place on Saturday 13th May 2017 in the City Bar of the Westin Waterfront Boston. Over 80 of the most prominent uro-twitterati from all over the world turned up to enjoy the hospitality of the BJUI and to hear who would be recognised in the 2017 BJUI Social Media Awards. We actually had to shut the doors when we reached capacity so apologies to those who couldn’t get in! Individuals and organisations were recognised across 12 categories including the top gong, The BJUI Social Media Award 2017, awarded to an individual, organization, innovation or initiative who has made an outstanding contribution to social media in urology in the preceding year. The 2013 Award was won by the outstanding Urology Match portal, followed in 2014 by Dr Stacy Loeb for her outstanding individual contributions, and in 2015 by the #UroJC twitter-based journal club. Last year’s award went to the #ilooklikeaurologist social media campaign which we continue to promote.

This year our Awards Committee consisted of members of the BJUI Editorial Board – Declan Murphy, Prokar Dasgupta, Matt Bultitude, Stacy Loeb, John Davis, as well as BJUI Managing Editor Scott Millar whose team in London (Max and Clare) drive the content across our social platforms. The Committee reviewed a huge range of materials and activity before reaching their final conclusions.

The full list of winners is as follows:

Most Read [email protected] – “The optimal treatment of patients with localized prostate cancer: the debate rages on”. Dr Chris Wallis, Toronto, Canada

1-1

Most Commented [email protected] – “It’s not about the machine, stupid”. Dr Declan Murphy, Melbourne, Australia

1-2

Most Social Paper – “Novel use of Twitter to disseminate and evaluate adherence to clinical guidelines by the European Association of Urology”. Accepted by Stacy Loeb on behalf of herself and her colleagues.

1-3

Best BJUI Tube Video – “Combined mpMRI Fusion and Systematic Biopsies Predict the Final Tumour Grading after Radical Prostatectomy”. Dr Angela Borkowetz, Dresden, Germany

AUA

Best Urology Conference for Social Media – #USANZ17 – The Annual Scientific Meeting of the Urological Association of Australia & New Zealand (USANZ) 2017. Accepted by Dr Peter Heathcote, Brisbane, Australia. President of USANZ.

1-5

Best Urology App – The EAU Guidelines App. Accepted by Dr Maria Ribal, Barcelona, Spain, on behalf of the EAU.

1-6

Innovation Award – BJUI Urology Ontology Hashtags keywords. Accepted by Dr Matthew Bultitude, London, UK, on behalf of the BJUI.

1-7

#UroJC Award – Dr Brian Stork, Michigan, USA. Accepted by Dr Henry Woo of Brian’s behalf.

UroJC
Most Social Trainee – Dr Chris Wallis, Toronto, Canada

1-9

Best Urology Journal for Social Media –Journal of Urology/Urology Practice. Accepted by Dr Angie Smith, Chapel Hill, USA, on behalf of the AUA Publications Committee.

1-10

Best Urology Organisation – Canadian Urological Association. Accepted by Dr Mike Leveridge, Vice-President of Communications for CUA.

1-11

The BJUI Social Media Award 2017 – The Urology Green List, accepted by Dr Henry Woo, Sydney, Australia.

1-12

All the Award winners (except Dr Brian Stork who had to get home to work), were present to collect their awards themselves. A wonderful spread of socially-active urology folk from all over the world, pictured here with BJUI Editor-in-Chief, Prokar Dasgupta.

1-13

A special thanks to our outstanding BJUI team at BJUI in London, Scott Millar, Max Cobb and Clare Dunne, who manage our social media and website activity as well as the day-to-day running of our busy journal.

See you all in Copenhagen for #EUA18 where we will present the 6th BJUI Social Media Awards ceremony!

 

Declan Murphy

Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia

Associate Editor, BJUI

@declangmurphy

April 2017 #urojc summary: Is SABR a viable therapeutic option for managing renal tumors in patients deemed unsuitable for surgery?

saji_author-photo5April 2017 #urojc summary: Is SABR a viable therapeutic option for managing renal tumors in patients deemed unsuitable for surgery?

In April 2017, the International Twitter-based Urology Journal Club (@iurojc) #urojc reviewed an interesting recent article by Siva et. Al reporting their experience in a prospective cohort study utilizing Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) on inoperable primary renal cell carcinomas. The article was made freely available courtesy of BJUI for the duration of the discussion (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bju.13811/full). The journal club ran for 48 hours beginning on April 2nd at 21:00 UTC. The first author of the manuscript, Dr. Shankar Siva, a radiation oncologist at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center joined the discussion using the Twitter handle @_ShankarSiva.

The study enrolled 37 total patients (T1a n=13, T1b n=23, and T2a n=1) due to one of three reasons: (1) deemed medically inoperable (n=28 Charlson Comorbidity >6), (2) high-risk group for surgery (n=11 high risk post-surgical dialysis), (3) refused surgery (n=1). The primary outcome measured was the successful delivery of radiotherapy. Secondary outcomes included (1) adverse events of radiotherapy, (2) local progression of the disease, (3) distant progression of the disease, and (4) overall survival.

@iurojc kicked things off with a starter question

There was immediate debate regarding the validity of treating patients with inoperable tumors using alternative modalities.

@PatrickKenneyMD cited a retrospective analysis by Kutikov et. al (@uretericbud) of the SEER database on competing causes of mortality in elderly patients with localized RCC. The study reported the 5-year probability of mortality from non-cancer related etiology to be 11% while the RCC related mortality probability was 4%. The authors of the paper encourage that management decisions for localized RCC in older patients should take into account competing causes of mortality. @DrewMoghanaki argued that many patients will still suffer from the sequelae of cancer progression that could be prevented by treating with non-surgical modalities such as SABR.
@_ShankarSiva chimed in

@uretericbud questioned the comparison of two discrepant neoplasms

@_ShankarSiva explained

From Belgium, an important point was made about the question itself.

While this conversation was occurring, a lively discussion on the utility of SABR compared to other established non-surgical modalities was taking place.

@_ShankarSiva replied

Next, @CanesDavid posed a question regarding the most frequent factors of surgical disqualification in the cohort

@benchallacombe noted a limitation of the study which led to a discussion of the utility of one of the four secondary outcomes of the study- local progression.

@nickbrookMD (co-author) cited an article by Crispen et. al that characterized the growth rate of untreated solid enhancing renal masses. @Rad_Nation proposed two follow-up studies that could be conducted.

Even if these studies are conducted, there is skepticism around whether Urologists will view SBRT as a viable alternative treatment modality for RCC.

@iurojc posed an important question. What should be the overall goal of the urologist? Is it to cure cancer by all means? Or perhaps to find a balance between quality of life and management of the disease? SBRT may play a crucial role in the latter situation.

To wrap things up, @iurojc asked a summary question.

The authors of the manuscript provided a response and their thoughts on what needs to be done next.

Thank you to everyone who participated in the April 2017 #urojc. Special thanks to the authors @_ShankarSiva and @nickbrookMD for joining in on the discussion and providing further insight to their work.

Akhil Saji is a third-year medical student at New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY.

Twitter @AkhilASaji

 

References

1. Siva, Shankar, et al. “Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for inoperable primary kidney cancer: a prospective clinical trial.” BJU international (2017)

2. Kutikov, Alexander, et al. “Evaluating overall survival and competing risks of death in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma using a comprehensive nomogram.” Journal of Clinical Oncology 28.2 (2009): 311-317.

3. Crispen, Paul L., et al. “Predicting growth of solid renal masses under active surveillance.” Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. Vol. 26. No. 5. Elsevier, 2008

 

March 2017 #urojc summary: Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection with Radical Prostatectomy – Is there enough evidence for and against?

The twitter-based international urology journal club @iurojc #urojc is back with a splash after a brief hiatus. For the March 2017 #urojc, a lively discussion takes the theme of pelvic node dissection (PLND) on radical prostatectomy (RP) reviewing a timely article by Nicola Fossati et al. The paper was made available open access courtesy of European Urology @EUplatinum.

A systematic review of the literature was performed including all comparative studies of both randomized and non randomized studies, with at least one experimental and one control arm. This summarised 66 studies including more than 250.000 patients with particular focus on different extents of pelvic lymphadenectomy as proposed by the European Association of Urology. Outcome measures studied included oncological features of biochemical recurrence, development of metastases, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival. Adverse events were covered under secondary outcomes, both intra- and postoperatively observed. Finally, quality of PLND was addressed in terms of total number of nodes and total number of positive nodes. Risk of bias was assessed for all studies judging on basis of specific confounders.

The journal club ran for 48 hours from Sunday 5th march. The central question addressed is balance of benefits and drawbacks of lymph node dissection. The corresponding author of the manuscript, Steven Joniau from the University Hospitals of Leuven, Belgium highlighted the role of lymph nodes in prostate cancer recurrence.

However despite this idea, the benefit of PLND is heavily scrutinized from the start. Long term data from a single centre  suggested limited benefit.

 

However PLND has since earlier times been employed as a diagnostic tool, where an optimal template (presacral in addition to extended LND) may be optimal for staging and removal of lymph nodes.

Despite the current state of evidence, PLND is frequently mentioned in the various guidelines available for prostate cancer. However the exact situations when to employ them is questioned by some participants.

The various therapeutic options for lymph node metastases also coloured the discussion.

The discussion further continued to the important issue of morbidity, and the associated question of performing an extended PLND (ePLND).

Despite the current state of evidence, PLND is frequently mentioned in the various guidelines available for prostate cancer. However the exact situations when to employ them is questioned by some participants.

The

The discussion further continued to the important issue of morbidity, and the associated question of performing an extended PLND (ePLND).

The increasing use of PSMA PET/CT provided other spread pattern data to be considered. And finally temporal changes in PSA testing is observed to affect the need for LND.

 

From the poll which ran during the discussion, about half responders would perform extended PLND for staging, while the rest were divided almost equally between therapeutic benefit and adherence to guideline recommendations.

Probably all participants of the discussion agrees for the need of a proper randomised study addressing role of PLND.

At the end of a busy 48 hours, the discussion had been joined by top experts in the field of prostate cancer, generated more than 200 tweets and reached more than 700 thousand impressions the world over.

Yodi Soebadi (@yodisoebadi) is an Indonesian urologist, trained at Universitas Airlangga, currently pursuing doctoral research at KU Leuven in Belgium.

 

April #UROJC: The Surgeon Scorecard – Merits of Publicly Reported Surgical Outcomes

The April 2016 International Urology Journal Club on Twitter (#urojc) hosted a discussion on our paper, “Comparing Publicly Reported Surgical Outcomes with Quality Measures from a Statewide Improvement Collaborative”. Published in JAMA Surgery on March 16, 2016, the paper was authored by Gregory Auffenberg MD, David Miller MD, Khurshid Ghani, Zaojun Ye, Apoorv Dhir, Yoquing Gao. I contributed as a member of MUSIC.

It was an honor to have the paper selected for a #urojc discussion, and the authors would like to thank JAMA Surgery for providing open access during the discussion period. This post serves as an overview, and the entire #urojc transcript is available for reading courtesy of Symplur

For those not familiar, the #urojc Twitter chat is a 48-hour asynchronous conversation amongst urologists around the world on Twitter on a selected journal paper, taking place on the first Sunday/Monday of every month.

 

The ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard

The subject of our research centered on the online U.S. surgeon ratings compiled for ProPublica’s Surgeon Scorecard. ProPublica is an investigative journalism organization that was given exclusive access to U.S. Medicare data for the years 2009 to 2013.

“Reporters Olga Pierce and Marshall Allen studied almost 75 million hospital visits billed to Medicare looking for eight common, elective surgeries. They then looked to see whether the same person returned to the hospital for what appeared to be complications from the surgery. Their full methodology is spelled out here.

 

The Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collective

Specifically, our research paper looked at ProPublica’s ratings for only one procedure – results on radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer – and correlation to reporting by MUSIC, the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative. MUSIC is a state-specific quality initiative in the U.S. in which I am a participating surgeon. Participation in MUSIC is voluntary, over 85 percent of urologists in the State of Michigan participate in the collaborative.

 

 

April #UROJC

As our paper states, the recent release of the Surgeon Scorecard accelerated debate around the merits of publicly reporting surgical outcomes. Surgical outcomes assessment is not a new concept, even dating back to 1860 as this tweet by @mattbultitude surfaced.


What does our community of urologists think about public reporting? Does greater transparency correlate with better outcomes? What are the benefits of a collaborative method like MUSIC? What methods are used in other parts of the world?

 

The #urojc discussion found that many urologists outside the U.S. were not familiar with the ProPublica ratings or debate. Some were not surprised that we did not find a correlation between our MUSIC outcomes data and the ProPublica data, thereby validating the need for quality outcomes data.

 

 

If the Surgeon Scorecard is flawed, what needs to be done to create an acceptable public reporting system?

 

Is public reporting of surgical outcomes taking place in Australia, UK, Canada & elsewhere?

 

 

How are ‘outliers’ identified by this study handled by MUSIC?

 

Do ratings lead to cherry-picking of patients?

 

According to New York cardiologist, Sandeep Jauhar, MD via Medscape, 63 percent of cardiac surgeons acknowledged accepting only relatively healthy patients for heart bypass surgery owing to report cards in New York State.

 

Moving Surgical Outcomes Forward 

On behalf of the authors of the paper and the entire MUSIC collaborative, I would like to thank our #urojc colleagues around the world for their thoughts, insights, criticisms and questions about the paper.

The ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard has generated significant and serious discussion in the U.S. about the challenges and merits of the public reporting of surgical outcomes. In an increasingly connected world, it’s difficult to imagine how this can remain simply an American debate.

Urologists by their very nature are leaders. Personally, I see this debate as yet another opportunity for us to develop and implement systems and strategies that reassure the public and advance patient care.

MUSIC JAMA Paper

 

March #urojc: Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer – Is it a gift that keeps on giving?

The International Urology Journal Club on Twitter is now well into its 4th year.  The subject for the March 2016 discussion was a paper published in the BMJ entitled Second Malignancies after radiotherapy for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis”.

Lead and senior authors, Chris Wallis and Rob Nam were kind enough to  make themselves available to participate in this discussion.  Rob Nam made use of the  #urojc guest twitter account.

UrojcMarch1

The literature was searched using Medline and Embase and the method of review was the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis of Observational studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines for reporting of this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chris Wallis provided an excellent TL:DR summary with the following tweet.

UrojcMarch2

It is well recognized that secondary malignancies following radiation exposure could take many years to become apparent.

UrojcMarch3

The responses were fairly predictable but nevertheless an important point to explore.

UrojcMarch4

Early in the discussion, there was also relevant reminder of the issue of differences in odds ratios and absolute risk.  That said, consideration needs to be given to the ‘big ticket’ nature of secondary malignancy where even a small absolute risk drives a great deal of interest in this subject matter.

UrojcMarch5

UrojcMarch6UrojcMarch7

An interesting finding from the study was that the risk of secondary malignancy was less with brachytherapy compared with external beam radiation.

UrojcMarch8UrojcMarch9

UrojcMarch10

Further to this, is it possible that there could be a difference between HDR and seed brachytherapy?  An interesting thought although not specifically covered in the paper.

UrojcMarch11UrojcMarch12

A more controversial aspect to the discussion was whether the risk of secondary malignancy would justify screening or surveillance. The following exchange was worthy of note.

Whilst there is nothing in the way of documented guidelines or actual evidence to demonstrate a benefit of surveillance, it seems something worthy of consideration for future practice guidelines –  in other words, recommendations one way or the other.

UrojcMarch13

UrojcMarch14

UrojcMarch15UrojcMarch16UrojcMarch17

Rob Nam refers to a third paper on radiation outcomes in the context of previous surgery.  This BJC paper, the Lancet Oncology paper (previous discussed at a #urojc in 2014) and now the current paper could cheekily be called the Nam Trilogy – make note that you heard this term here for the first time.

UrojcMarch18UrojcMarch19

To what extent should we be counseling our patients on the risk of secondary malignancy if they are to undergo radiation for prostate cancer?  Is this just another factor to encourage surgery over radiotherapy?  Will there be no change in practice, particularly in the US where many lucrative radiation oncology services are actually owned by urological surgeon private practice groups?

UrojcMarch20UrojcMarch21UrojcMarch22UrojcMarch23UrojcMarch24

The state of radiation oncology practice is different outside the US and my own personal thoughts on the matter are that the Nam Trilogy of papers will create a series of well cited ‘evidence’ that will further shift the weight of opinion towards surgery over radiotherapy as a primary treatment for localized prostate cancer.

UrojcMarch25

Anybody who followed the March installment of the #urojc would have been impressed by the high level of interaction by the authors Chris Wallis and Rob Nam.  A particular mention should be given to Sabin Motwani who as a radiation oncologist, provided valuable input to the discussion.

Please do join us for the April installment of the #urojc and I encourage you all to email, tweet or DM your suggestions for papers to be discussed.  Please also, feel free to volunteer to write up a monthly summary for publication on the BJUI blogs.  I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Rustom Manecksha who was the winner of the 2016 BJUI SoMe Award for #urojc – a reflection to the quality of his participation and support for this online educational activity.

 

Henry Woo is an Associate Professor of Surgery at the Sydney Adventist Hospital Clinical School of the University of Sydney.  He is the coordinator of the International Urology Journal Club on Twitter.

Should radiotherapy be a routine added-treatment for patients with N0,N+ non-metastatic prostate cancer on hormonal therapy?

ISTOnce again we are approaching the end of another productive year in urological research. The final meeting of the year of the International Urology Journal Club #urojc was held from Monday December 7th to Wednesday December 8th AEDT. This month’s topic was a recent paper published in @JAMAOnc by the well-known STAMPEDE group.

In this new analysis of the STAMPEDE trial, the subject was the control arm. The trial’s definitive primary outcome was to evaluate the overall survival when adding radiotherapy (RT) to the cohort of N0 and N+ M0 high risk prostate cancer patients receiving hormonal therapy. The intermediate primary outcome was the failure-free survival (FFS), which was defined as biochemical failure, progression (locally, lymph nodes, or distant metastases) or death from prostate cancer.

The first comments of the discussion were about the satisfaction of a new study evaluating the beneficial effect of RT in addition to ADT in N+M0 disease. For the N0M0 Sub-cohort, 2 year survival was 97% (95% CI, 93%-99%), and 84% (95% CI, 74%-91%) were still alive after 5 years. On the other hand, for the N+M0 sub-cohort, 2 year survival was 93% (95% CI, 88%-96%), and 71% (95% CI, 56%-82%) were still alive after 5 years.

FFS was better with received RT in both groups: In the N0M0 sub-cohort the adjusted HR was 0.25 (95% CI, 0.13-0.49) with 2 year FFS of 96% (95% CI, 90%-98%) in patients receiving RT compared with 73% (95% CI, 57%-84%) in those not reporting RT (Figure). In the N+M0 the results were similar, with an adjusted HR of 0.35 (95% CI, 0.19-0.65), and a 2-year FFS of 89% (95% CI, 77%-94%) and 64% (95% CI, 51%-75%), respectively.

dec15-urojc-1dec15-urojc-2dec15-urojc-3dec15-urojc-4dec15-urojc-5

Since this approach to high-risk N0,+ M0 disease is not a standard of treatment, there were some concerns about urologist opinions, and mainly, about the side-effects of pelvic radiation.

dec15-urojc-6dec15-urojc-7

This trial showed the adverse effects associated with RT, split by N0M0 and N+M0. The majority (78%) of N+M0 received conventionally fractionated RT to prostate and pelvis, and of the N0M0, 46% received it only to prostate and 42% to prostate and pelvis. The reported adverse effects were similar for patients with and without nodal involvement, with no grade 4 or 5 adverse effects reported.

dec15-urojc-8dec15-urojc-9

Another question during the discussion was about the control group and the different baseline characteristics of the patients if comparing to other countries (mainly previous surgery).

dec15-urojc-10dec15-urojc-11

Most urologists conclude that this information contributes to the growing evidence of the different modalities of treatment that should be offered to patients with prostate cancer. Every urologist focused on the importance of determining the risk and stage of the patient to give an appropriate treatment. They also mentioned how these results correlate with other treatment outcomes.

dec15-urojc-12dec15-urojc-13 dec15-urojc-14 dec15-urojc-15 dec15-urojc-16

The previous published trials about the subject conclude that this combination reduces the risk of prostate cancer death; however, the population of those studies varies. Most patients were low-risk N0M0 prostate cancer and none were N+M0.

dec15-urojc-17 dec15-urojc-18 dec15-urojc-19 dec15-urojc-20

Other thoughts were shared, such as the usefulness of ADT for high-risk M0 prostate cancer, the prostate cancer stage and its relation to treatment response, and the needed collaboration of other specialties for study trials.

dec15-urojc-21dec15-urojc-22 dec15-urojc-23 dec15-urojc-24

We still have to remember that the study has some limitations, though: The study population is drawn from a control arm of a clinical trial. There is no randomization of patients, and those planned for radiotherapy were the ones considered fit for it, so there might be an overestimated benefit biased by a better prognosis.

dec15-urojc-25 dec15-urojc-26

Indeed this is not the last of the STAMPEDE trials. One of the authors, @Prof_Nick_James mentioned redoing analysis of all the arms to evaluate more parameters about the outcomes of the different treatments.

dec15-urojc-27 dec15-urojc-28 dec15-urojc-29 dec15-urojc-30

This topic raises many questions about the treatment approaches to high-risk prostate cancer. As the authors expressed “There is a need for randomized clinical trials within the N+M0 population to address questions prospectively”. So far the results shown seem to be of benefit, and support the routine use of radiotherapy in patients with N+M0 prostate cancer. But as usual, we always need more proof.

This is the last meeting of 2015, so I have to finish this summary with a “Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2016” to all the Urological twitter family!

 

Irela Soto Troya is a urologist born and trained in the Republic of Panama, and is a Fellow at Severance Hospital/Yonsei Medical Health System, Seoul, South Korea.
Twitter @irela_soto

 

 

Does presentation with metastatic prostate cancer matter?

CaptureNovember saw the return of the International Urology Journal Club #urojc on Twitter. The annual meetings of the World Congress for Endourology (#WCE2015) and Société Internationale D’Urologie (#SIU15) led to an October break for #urojc. This month’s discussion was based around a recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine by Welch et al on the effects of screening on the incidences of metastatic-at-diagnosis prostate and breast cancers. In the three days prior to the start of the discussion the editorial and it’s now well-known graph had been trending amongst medical Twitter users.

nov15urojc1

The issue of PSA screening for prostate cancer has been a topic of debate amongst urologists for a number of years. PSA and DRE are first line for early detection of prostate cancer. Supporters of PSA screening argue that it leads to a significant fall in prostate cancer specific mortality. Many others believe there is insufficient evidence to support universal PSA screening given the risks of prostate biopsy and potential overtreatment of low risk prostate cancer.

The editorial presented data showing a significant fall in the number of patients first presenting with metastatic prostate cancer (advanced stage incidence) following the introduction of universal screening. However no effect was shown on similar data for breast cancer. Variations in disease dynamics were suggested to play a role.

The conversation started on Sunday 1st November at 20:00 (GMT), marking the beginning of the fourth year of #urojc. The first questions centred around the reasons behind the trends seen in the graph. Being a urology journal club the conversation was based almost exclusively on the prostate cancer aspect of the editorial.

nov15urojc2nov15urojc3nov15urojc4

One suggestion for the discrepancy between the two cancers is that PSA is a better detector of metastatic disease, whilst mammography can only detect localised disease.

nov15urojc5

Based on incidence of metastatic prostate cancer, the article makes a convincing statement in support of universal PSA screening. However, a successful screening programme should result in a reduction in the incidence of advanced cancers, decreased advanced-stage incidence and reduced mortality. Leading to the question of whether looking solely at advanced-stage incidence is useful.

nov15urojc6nov15urojc7

The importance of responsible treatment and active surveillance was mentioned early on.

nov15urojc8 nov15urojc9 nov15urojc10

One of the most important questions of the discussion: What impact and relevance does the image have? Views were polarised. Some contributors were cautious about drawing conclusions from the graph whilst others were satisfied that it justified PSA screening.

nov15urojc11nov15urojc12 nov15urojc13 nov15urojc14 nov15urojc15 nov15urojc16 nov15urojc17

The article drew comparison between Halsted’s and Fisher’s descriptions of cancer progression. Halsted suggested cancer originates from a single site and spreads, whereas Fisher’s paradigm proposed that breast cancer is a systemic disease by the time it is detectable.

nov15urojc18nov15urojc19 nov15urojc20

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended against universal screening of prostate cancer, suggesting the risks of testing outweighed the benefits. However, many believe this to be based on outdated evidence.

nov15urojc21

The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial results showed a 12% higher incidence of prostate in the screening arm versus control, with no difference in mortality. Yet, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) has shown screening to result in a 1.6 fold increase in prostate cancer with a 21% reduction in mortality.

nov15urojc22

The debate briefly discussed the morbidity and cost of metastatic disease.

nov15urojc23nov15urojc24 nov15urojc25 nov15urojc26 nov15urojc27

The editorial certainly raised a number of interesting points. It seems the topic of universal PSA screening will continue to be debated. There is a significant benefit to screening in the prevention of metastatic prostate cancer. Whether this is due to differing disease dynamics or PSA being a better screening tool than mammography is as yet unclear.

One point we can all agree on is that increasing utilisation of active surveillance with timely biopsies is important in preventing overtreatment of low risk disease and identifying those at risk of disease progression for curative treatment.

 

Anthony Noah Urology Speciality Trainee, West Midlands, UK
Twitter: @antnoah

 

© 2020 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.