Purpose: We sought to identify and validate known predictors of disease reclassification at 1 or 4 years to support risk-based selection of patients suitable for active surveillance.Materials and... Show morePurpose: We sought to identify and validate known predictors of disease reclassification at 1 or 4 years to support risk-based selection of patients suitable for active surveillance.Materials and Methods: An individual participant data meta-analysis using data from 25 established cohorts within the Movember Foundations GAP3 Consortium. In total 5,530 men were included. Disease reclassification was defined as any increase in Gleason grade group at biopsy at 1 and 4 years. Associations were estimated using random effect logistic regression models. The discriminative ability of combinations of predictors was assessed in an internaleexternal validation procedure using the AUC curve.Results: Among the 5,570 men evaluated at 1 year, we found 815 reclassifications to higher Gleason grade group at biopsy (pooled reclassification rate 13%, range 0% to 31%). Important predictors were age, prostate specific antigen, prostate volume, T-stage and number of biopsy cores with prostate cancer. Among the 1,515 men evaluated at 4 years, we found 205 reclassifications (pooled reclassification rates 14%, range 3% to 40%), with similar predictors. The average areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve at internaleexternal validation were 0.68 and 0.61 for 1-year and 4-year reclassification, respectively.Conclusions: Disease reclassification occurs typically in 13% to 14% of biopsies at 1 and 4 years after the start of active surveillance with substantial between-study heterogeneity. Current guidelines might be extended by considering prostate volume to improve individualized selection for active surveillance. Additional predictors are needed to improve patient selection for active surveillance. Show less
Witjes, J.A.; Babjuk, M.; Bellmunt, J.; Bruins, H.M.; Reijke, T.M. de; Santis, M. de; ... ; Horwich, A. 2020
Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To... Show moreBackground: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference.Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as >= 70% agreement and <= 15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder canceir management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach.Patient summary: This report summarises findings from an international, multistake-holder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available. (C) 2019 European Society of Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Show less
Horwich, A.; Babjuk, M.; Bellmunt, J.; Bruins, H.M.; Reijke, T.M. de; Santis, M. de; ... ; Witjes, J.A. 2019
Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To... Show moreBackground: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference.Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as >= 70% agreement and <= 15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach. Show less
