An International Collaborative Consensus Statement on En Bloc Resection of Bladder Tumour Incorporating Two Systematic Reviews, a Two-round Delphi Survey, and a Consensus Meeting.

Bladder cancer En bloc resection of bladder tumour Transurethral resection of bladder tumour Urothelial carcinoma

Journal

European urology
ISSN: 1873-7560
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 7512719

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2020
Historique:
received: 09 02 2020
accepted: 22 04 2020
pubmed: 12 5 2020
medline: 16 7 2021
entrez: 12 5 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

There has been increasing interest in en bloc resection of bladder tumour (ERBT) as an oncologically noninferior alternative to transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) with fewer complications and better histology specimens. However, there is a lack of robust randomised controlled trial (RCT) data for making recommendations. We aimed to develop a consensus statement to standardise various aspects of ERBT for clinical practice and to guide future research. We developed the consensus statement on ERBT using a modified Delphi method. First, two systematic reviews were performed to investigate the clinical effectiveness of ERBT versus TURBT (effectiveness review) and to identify areas of uncertainty in ERBT (uncertainties review). Next, 200 health care professionals (urologists, oncologists, and pathologists) with experience in ERBT were invited to complete a two-round Delphi survey. Finally, a 16-member consensus panel meeting was held to review, discuss, and re-vote on the statements as appropriate. Meta-analyses were performed for RCT data in the effectiveness review. Consensus statements were developed from the uncertainties review. Consensus was defined as follows: (1) ≥70% scoring a statement 7-9 and ≤15% scoring the statement 1-3 (consensus agree), or (2) ≥70% scoring a statement 1-3 and ≤15% scoring the statement 7-9 (consensus disagree). A total of 10 RCTs were identified upon systematic review. ERBT had a shorter irrigation time (mean difference -7.24 h, 95% confidence interval [CI] -9.29 to -5.20, I We have provided the most comprehensive review of the evidence base to date using a meta-analysis where appropriate and applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and mobilised the international urology community to develop a consensus statement on ERBT using transparent and robust methods. The consensus statement will provide interim guidance for health care professionals who practice ERBT and inform researchers regarding ERBT-related studies in the future. En bloc resection of bladder tumour (ERBT) is a surgical technique aiming to resect a bladder tumour in one piece. We included an international panel of experts to agree on the best practice of ERBT, and this will provide guidance to clinicians and researchers in the future.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
There has been increasing interest in en bloc resection of bladder tumour (ERBT) as an oncologically noninferior alternative to transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) with fewer complications and better histology specimens. However, there is a lack of robust randomised controlled trial (RCT) data for making recommendations.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to develop a consensus statement to standardise various aspects of ERBT for clinical practice and to guide future research.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
We developed the consensus statement on ERBT using a modified Delphi method. First, two systematic reviews were performed to investigate the clinical effectiveness of ERBT versus TURBT (effectiveness review) and to identify areas of uncertainty in ERBT (uncertainties review). Next, 200 health care professionals (urologists, oncologists, and pathologists) with experience in ERBT were invited to complete a two-round Delphi survey. Finally, a 16-member consensus panel meeting was held to review, discuss, and re-vote on the statements as appropriate.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Meta-analyses were performed for RCT data in the effectiveness review. Consensus statements were developed from the uncertainties review. Consensus was defined as follows: (1) ≥70% scoring a statement 7-9 and ≤15% scoring the statement 1-3 (consensus agree), or (2) ≥70% scoring a statement 1-3 and ≤15% scoring the statement 7-9 (consensus disagree).
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
A total of 10 RCTs were identified upon systematic review. ERBT had a shorter irrigation time (mean difference -7.24 h, 95% confidence interval [CI] -9.29 to -5.20, I
CONCLUSIONS
We have provided the most comprehensive review of the evidence base to date using a meta-analysis where appropriate and applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and mobilised the international urology community to develop a consensus statement on ERBT using transparent and robust methods. The consensus statement will provide interim guidance for health care professionals who practice ERBT and inform researchers regarding ERBT-related studies in the future.
PATIENT SUMMARY
En bloc resection of bladder tumour (ERBT) is a surgical technique aiming to resect a bladder tumour in one piece. We included an international panel of experts to agree on the best practice of ERBT, and this will provide guidance to clinicians and researchers in the future.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32389447
pii: S0302-2838(20)30327-4
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.059
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Consensus Development Conference Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

546-569

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh (JY)

S.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.

Steven MacLennan (S)

Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.

Vinson Wai-Shun Chan (VW)

School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Jun Miki (J)

Department of Urology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Kashiwa Hospital, Kashiwa, Japan.

Hsiang-Ying Lee (HY)

Urology Department, Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Edmund Chiong (E)

Department of Urology, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore.

Lui-Shiong Lee (LS)

Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Sengkang General Hospital, Sengkang, Singapore; Department of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.

Yong Wei (Y)

Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.

Yuhong Yuan (Y)

Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

Chun-Pong Yu (CP)

Li Ping Medical Library, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.

Wing-Kie Chow (WK)

New Territories East Cluster Bladder Cancer Support Group, Hong Kong, China.

Darren Ming-Chun Poon (DM)

Department of Clinical Oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.

Ronald Chan (R)

Department of Anatomical and Cellular Pathology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.

Fernand Lai (F)

Department of Anatomical and Cellular Pathology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.

Chi-Fai Ng (CF)

S.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.

Alberto Breda (A)

Department of Urology, Fundacion Puigvert, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Mario Wolfgang Kramer (MW)

Department of Urology, University-Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.

Bernard Malavaud (B)

Department of Urology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer, Toulouse, France.

Hugh Mostafid (H)

Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey, UK.

Thomas Herrmann (T)

Department of Urology, Spital Thurgau AG, Frauenfeld, Switzerland; Department of Urology, Hanover Medical School (MHH), Hanover, Germany.

Marek Babjuk (M)

Department of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: marek.babjuk@fnmotol.cz.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH