Rob Jones

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.

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 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.

Health surveys in the workplace are an important part of epidemiology, needs assessment and health promotion. Since the workplace is changing rapidly with the use of computer networks, we examined the feasibility, validity and cost of health surveys using e-mail and the World Wide Web (WWW). Five hundred systematically sampled university staff in a convenience sample of 10 English universities were surveyed using either e-mail alone, e-mail plus a WWW form or postal questionnaire. Response rates, speed of response, validity and costs were examined. The postal survey obtained the best response rate: 72% as compared with 34% for e-mail alone and 19% for the WWW, but it was also the most expensive at 92p per reply, with 35p for e-mail, and 41p for the WWW. Most of the electronic responses were made within five days. In 1997, the increased response rate justified the higher cost of postal questionnaires. e-mail and WWW surveys are easy, quick and inexpensive to administer, and despite low response rates may be useful for pilot studies. The rapid changes in the spread and use of information technology means we have to keep reassessing the methods we use for health surveys in the workplace.

BACKGROUND: Denosumab offers an alternative, or additional, treatment for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with bone metastases from solid tumours. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of denosumab, within its licensed indication, for the prevention of SREs in patients with bone metastases from solid tumours. DATA SOURCES: Databases searched were MEDLINE (1948 to April 2011), EMBASE (1980 to March 2011), The Cochrane Library (all sections; Issue 1, 2011) and Web of Science with Conference Proceedings (1970 to May 2011). REVIEW METHODS: Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing denosumab, bisphosphonates (BPs) or best supportive care (BSC) in patients with bone metastases were included. Systematic reviews and observational studies were used for safety and quality-of-life assessments. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Studies suitable for meta-analysis were synthesised using network meta-analysis (NMA). A systematic review was conducted for cost, quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness studies. The results of this informed the cost-utility modelling. This principally estimated the cost-effectiveness of denosumab relative to zoledronic acid for when BPs are currently recommended and relative to BSC when BPs are not recommended or are contraindicated. RESULTS: A literature search identified 39 studies (eight suitable for NMA). Denosumab was effective in delaying time to first SRE and reducing the risk of multiple SREs compared with zoledronic acid. Generally speaking, denosumab was similar to zoledronic acid for quality of life, pain, overall survival and safety. The NMA demonstrated that denosumab was more effective in delaying SREs than placebo, but was limited by numerous uncertainties. Cost-utility modelling results for denosumab relative to zoledronic acid were driven by the availability of the patient access scheme (PAS) for denosumab. Without this, denosumab was not estimated to be cost-effective compared with zoledronic acid. With it, the cost-effectiveness ranged between dominance for breast and prostate cancer, to between £5400 and £15,300 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for other solid tumours (OSTs) including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and £12,700 per QALY for NSCLC. Owing to small patient gains estimated, the cost-effectiveness of denosumab was very sensitive to the zoledronic acid price. Denosumab was not estimated to be cost-effective compared with BSC. LIMITATIONS: Only subgroup data were available for denosumab for NSCLC, and OSTs excluding NSCLC. The NMA was subject to numerous uncertainties. Owing to small patient gains estimated, the cost-effectiveness of denosumab was very sensitive to the zoledronic acid price. CONCLUSION: Denosumab, compared with zoledronic acid and placebo, is effective in delaying SREs, but is similar with regard to quality of life and pain. Cost-effectiveness showed that without the PAS denosumab was not estimated to be cost-effective relative to either zoledronic acid or BSC. With the PAS, denosumab was estimated to be cost-effective relative to zoledronic acid but not BSC. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42011001418. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.