Criteria and indicators to evaluate quality of care in genitourinary tumour boards

PURPOSE

Genitourinary (GU) multidisciplinary tumour boards (GUMTBs) are key components of patient care, as they might lead to changes in treatment plan, improved survival, and increased adherence to guidelines. However, there are no guidelines on how GUMTBs should operate or how to assess their quality of performance.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify criteria and indicators to evaluate quality in GUMTBs. A scientific committee-comprising 12 GU cancer specialists from seven disciplines-proposed a list of criteria and developed indicators, evaluated in two rounds of Delphi method. Appropriateness and utility of indicators were scored using a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as at least two-thirds of Delphi respondents selecting a score sub-category that encompassed the median score of the group.

RESULTS

Forty-five criteria were selected to evaluate the quality of GUMTBs covering five dimensions: organisation, personnel, protocol and documentation, resources, and interaction with patients. Then, 33 indicators were developed and evaluated in the first round of Delphi, leading to a selection of 26 indicators in two dimensions: function, governance and resources, and GUMTB sessions. In the second round, consensus was reached on the appropriateness of all 26 indicators and on the utility of 24 of them. Index cards for criteria and indicators were developed to be used in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Criteria and indicators were developed to evaluate the quality of GUMTBs, aiming to serve as a guide to improve quality of care and health outcomes in patients with GU cancer.

Seizures and Neuropsychiatric Toxicity in Patients with Non-Metastatic CRPC Treated with New Antiandrogens: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Recently, enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide have shown benefits in metastasis-free survival in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) patients compared to placebo. Previous evidence about the safety profile of these new androgens is limited. This meta-analysis studies seizure and neuropsychiatric effects of new anti-androgens compared to placebo in nmCRPC patients.

METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed until 1 March 2020 by 2 independent researchers using a pre-specified search strategy. Placebo-compared randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of nmCRPC patients treated with new anti-androgens providing data on neuropsychiatric events and seizures were included. Variables were seizure, headache, mental impairment, and dizziness. Pooled risk ratios (RR) were calculated using the Mantel-Hansel random effects model and Review Manager v5.3 software.

RESULTS

After systematic review, 3 eligible RCTs were selected that included 4,104 patients; 2,687 comprised the treatment group and 1,417 the control group. No significant increase in RR for seizures was registered with the new anti-androgens compared to placebo (RR 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-9.61). However, 2 trials excluded patients with risk factors or a history of seizures. There was also no significant increase RR for grade ≥3 seizures (RR 2.50; 95% CI 0.12-52.02). RR for suffering dizziness (any grade) was 1.57 (95% CI 1.07-2.32) with the new anti-androgens, but no significant differences were found in the other study regarding neuropsychiatric events or grade ≥3 events.

CONCLUSIONS

New anti-androgens (i.e., enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide) are acceptably safe in terms of seizures and neuropsychiatric toxicity compared to placebo in patients with nmCRPC.