ORCID Profile
0000-0002-5379-6618
Current Organisation
University of Leeds School of Medicine
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2021
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 04-2022
DOI: 10.1016/J.EURURO.2021.12.007
Abstract: There is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate criteria for recruitment, monitoring, and reclassification in active surveillance (AS) protocols for localised prostate cancer (PCa). To perform a qualitative systematic review (SR) to issue recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and repeat biopsy strategy. A protocol-driven, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-adhering SR incorporating AS protocols published from January 1990 to October 2020 was performed. The main outcomes were criteria for inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, monitoring, reclassification, and repeat biopsy strategies (per protocol and/or triggered). Clinical effectiveness data were not assessed. Of the 17 011 articles identified, 333 studies incorporating 375 AS protocols, recruiting 264 852 patients, were included. Only a minority of protocols included the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for recruitment (n = 17), follow-up (n = 47), and reclassification (n = 26). More than 50% of protocols included patients with intermediate or high-risk disease, whilst 44.1% of protocols excluded low-risk patients with more than three positive cores, and 39% of protocols excluded patients with core involvement (CI) >50% per core. Of the protocols, ≥80% mandated a confirmatory transrectal ultrasound biopsy 72% (n = 189) of protocols mandated per-protocol repeat biopsies, with 20% performing this annually and 25% every 2 yr. Only 27 protocols (10.3%) mandated triggered biopsies, with 74% of these protocols defining progression or changes on MRI as triggers for repeat biopsy. For AS protocols in which the use of MRI is not mandatory or absent, we recommend the following: (1) AS can be considered in patients with low-volume International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 (three or fewer positive cores and cancer involvement ≤50% CI per core) or another single element of intermediate-risk disease, and patients with ISUP 3 should be excluded (2) per-protocol confirmatory prostate biopsies should be performed within 2 yr, and per-protocol surveillance repeat biopsies should be performed at least once every 3 yr for the first 10 yr and (3) for patients with low-volume, low-risk disease at recruitment, if repeat systematic biopsies reveal more than three positive cores or maximum CI >50% per core, they should be monitored closely for evidence of adverse features (eg, upgrading) patients with ISUP 2 disease with increased core positivity and/or CI to similar thresholds should be reclassified. We examined the literature to issue new recommendations on active surveillance (AS) for managing localised prostate cancer. The recommendations include setting criteria for including men with more aggressive disease (intermediate-risk disease), setting thresholds for close monitoring of men with low-risk but more extensive disease, and determining when to perform repeat biopsies (within 2 yr and 3 yearly thereafter).
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2021
DOI: 10.1016/J.EUO.2020.12.008
Abstract: The clinical effectiveness of focal therapy (FT) for localised prostate cancer (PCa) remains controversial. To analyse the evidence base for primary FT for localised PCa via a systematic review (SR) to formulate clinical practice recommendations. A protocol-driven, PRISMA-adhering SR comparing primary FT (sub-total, focal, hemi-gland, or partial ablation) versus standard options (active surveillance [AS], radical prostatectomy [RP], or external beam radiotherapy [EBRT]) was undertaken. Only comparative studies with ≥50 patients per arm were included. Primary outcomes included oncological, functional, and quality-of-life outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding assessments were undertaken. Eligible SRs were reviewed and appraised (AMSTAR) and ongoing prospective comparative studies were summarised. Out of 1119 articles identified, four primary studies (1 randomised controlled trial [RCT] and 3 retrospective studies) recruiting 3961 patients and ten eligible SRs were identified. Only qualitative synthesis was possible owing to clinical heterogeneity. Overall, RoB and confounding were moderate to high. An RCT comparing vascular-targeted focal photodynamic therapy (PDT) with AS found a significantly lower rate of treatment failure at 2 yr with PDT. There were no differences in functional outcomes, although PDT was associated with worse transient adverse events. However, the external validity of the study was contentious. A retrospective study comparing focal HIFU with robotic RP found no significant differences in treatment failure at 3 yr, with focal HIFU having better continence and erectile function recovery. Two retrospective cohort studies using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results data compared focal laser ablation (FLA) against RP and EBRT, reporting significantly worse oncological outcomes for FLA. The overall data quality and applicability of the primary studies were limited because of clinical heterogeneity, RoB and confounding, lack of long-term data, inappropriate outcome measures, and poor external validity. Virtually all the SRs identified concluded that there was insufficient high-certainty evidence to make definitive conclusions regarding the clinical effectiveness of FT, with the majority of SRs judged to have a low or critically low confidence rating. Eight ongoing prospective comparative studies were identified. Ways of improving the evidence base are discussed. The certainty of the evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness of FT as a primary treatment for localised PCa was low, with significant uncertainties. Until higher-certainty evidence emerges from robust prospective comparative studies measuring clinically meaningful outcomes at long-term time points, FT should ideally be performed within clinical trials or well-designed prospective cohort studies. We examined the literature to determine the effectiveness of prostate-targeted treatment compared with standard treatments for untreated localised prostate cancer. There was no strong evidence showing that focal treatment compares favourably with standard treatments consequently, focal treatment is not recommended for routine standard practice.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2019
DOI: 10.1016/J.EURURO.2019.09.020
Abstract: There is uncertainty in deferred active treatment (DAT) programmes, regarding patient selection, follow-up and monitoring, reclassification, and which outcome measures should be prioritised. To develop consensus statements for all domains of DAT. A protocol-driven, three phase study was undertaken by the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Association of Urology Section of Urological Research (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel in conjunction with partner organisations, including the following: (1) a systematic review to describe heterogeneity across all domains (2) a two-round Delphi survey involving a large, international panel of stakeholders, including healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients and (3) a consensus group meeting attended by stakeholder group representatives. Robust methods regarding what constituted the consensus were strictly followed. A total of 109 HCPs and 16 patients completed both survey rounds. Of 129 statements in the survey, consensus was achieved in 66 (51%) the rest of the statements were discussed and voted on in the consensus meeting by 32 HCPs and three patients, where consensus was achieved in additional 27 statements (43%). Overall, 93 statements (72%) achieved consensus in the project. Some uncertainties remained regarding clinically important thresholds for disease extent on biopsy in low-risk disease, and the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in determining disease stage and aggressiveness as a criterion for inclusion and exclusion. Consensus statements and the findings are expected to guide and inform routine clinical practice and research, until higher levels of evidence emerge through prospective comparative studies and clinical trials. We undertook a project aimed at standardising the elements of practice in active surveillance programmes for early localised prostate cancer because currently there is great variation and uncertainty regarding how best to conduct them. The project involved large numbers of healthcare practitioners and patients using a survey and face-to-face meeting, in order to achieve agreement (ie, consensus) regarding best practice, which will provide guidance to clinicians and researchers.
Publisher: IOP Publishing
Date: 21-11-2017
Abstract: There is increasing interest in MR-only radiotherapy planning since it provides superb soft-tissue contrast without the registration uncertainties inherent in a CT-MR registration. However, MR images cannot readily provide the electron density information necessary for radiotherapy dose calculation. An algorithm which generates synthetic CTs for dose calculations from MR images of the prostate using an atlas of 3 T MR images has been previously reported by two of the authors. This paper aimed to evaluate this algorithm using MR data acquired at a different field strength and a different centre to the algorithm atlas. Twenty-one prostate patients received planning 1.5 T MR and CT scans with routine immobilisation devices on a flat-top couch set-up using external lasers. The MR receive coils were supported by a coil bridge. Synthetic CTs were generated from the planning MR images with ([Formula: see text]) and without (sCT) a one voxel body contour expansion included in the algorithm. This was to test whether this expansion was required for 1.5 T images. Both synthetic CTs were rigidly registered to the planning CT (pCT). A 6 MV volumetric modulated arc therapy plan was created on the pCT and recalculated on the sCT and [Formula: see text]. The synthetic CTs' dose distributions were compared to the dose distribution calculated on the pCT. The percentage dose difference at isocentre without the body contour expansion (sCT-pCT) was [Formula: see text] and with ([Formula: see text]-pCT) was [Formula: see text] (mean ± one standard deviation). The [Formula: see text] result was within one standard deviation of zero and agreed with the result reported previously using 3 T MR data. The sCT dose difference only agreed within two standard deviations. The mean ± one standard deviation gamma pass rate was [Formula: see text] for the sCT and [Formula: see text] for the [Formula: see text] (with [Formula: see text] global dose difference and [Formula: see text] distance to agreement gamma criteria). The one voxel body contour expansion improves the synthetic CT accuracy for MR images acquired at 1.5 T but requires the MR voxel size to be similar to the atlas MR voxel size. This study suggests that the atlas-based algorithm can be generalised to MR data acquired using a different field strength at a different centre.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 04-2019
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2020
DOI: 10.1016/J.EURURO.2019.09.035
Abstract: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. 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. Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. 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). 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. These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach. This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder 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.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Ann Henry.