Safe Provision of Systemic Anti-Cancer Treatment for Urological Cancer Patients During COVID-19: A Tertiary Centre Experience in the First Wave of COVID-19

Background Safe provision of systemic anti-cancer treatment (SACT) during the COVID-19 pandemic remains an ongoing concern amongst clinicians. Methods Retrospective analysis on uro-oncology patients who continued or started SACT between 1st March and 31st May 2020 during the pandemic (with 2019 as a comparator). Results 441 patients received SACT in 2020 (292 prostate, 101 renal, 38 urothelial, 10 testicular) compared to 518 patients in 2019 (340 prostate, 121 renal, 42 urothelial, 15 testicular). In 2020, there were 75.00% fewer patients with stage 3 cancers receiving SACT (p<0.0001) and 94.44% fewer patients receiving radical treatment (p=0.0019). The number of patients started on a new line of SACT was similar between both years (118 in 2019 vs 102 in 2020; p=N.S) but with 53.45% fewer patients started on chemotherapy in 2020 (p=0.00067). Overall, 5 patients tested positive for COVID-19 (one asymptomatic, two moderate pneumonitis, one severe pneumonitis). Compared to 2019, 30-day mortality was similar (1.69% in 2019 vs 0.98% in 2020; p=N.S) whereas the 6-month mortality was lower (9.32% in 2019 vs 1.96% in 2020; p=0.023) in 2020. Conclusion This single-centre study demonstrated that uro-oncology patients can safely receive SACT during COVID-19 pandemic with a low incidence of infection and mortality.

Who operates on the children?

An unexpectedly high burden of elective paediatric surgery is being performed by the Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) surgeons in Moshi, Tanzania. We believe this brief survey demonstrates the capacity for elective paediatric surgery in the sub-Saharan setting, comparable to the elective operative numbers of an equivalent tertiary centre in Liverpool, UK.

A single centre service evaluation of the pre-biopsy mpMRI pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis

Aim: To study the efficacy and impact of the local pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis. Methods: In this tertiary centre, 570 patients had prostate mpMRI across a 6-month period in 2019. A total of 511 patients met inclusion criteria for retrospective analysis. MRI reporting used the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1. These were assessed alongside histological outcomes and diagnostic times. PI-RADS ⩾ 3 were recommended for biopsy consideration. Gleason scoring ⩾ 3 + 4 and 3 + 3 were used to define clinically and non-clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa and nsPCa), respectively. Results: Overall prostate cancer prevalence was 40% (204/511, csPCa in 31.1%) with an overall biopsy avoidance of 32.1% (164/511). Around 69.7% (356/511) scored PI-RADS ⩾ 3 and 30.3% (155/511) scored PI-RADS 1–2. About 22.6% (35/155) of PI-RADS 1–2 patients proceeded to biopsy, demonstrating a negative predictive value of 91.43% for csPCa. For PI-RADS ⩾ 3 patients, 63.4% (197/312) of those biopsied had cancer (Gleason ⩾ 3 + 3), with 50% (156/312) demonstrating csPCa. Around 76.7% (102/133) of PI-RADS 5, 35.3% (48/136) of PI-RADS 4, 14.0% (6/43) of PI-RADS 3 and 8.6% (3/35) of PI-RADS 1–2 scores demonstrated csPCa. Overall median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density was 0.15 ng/mL2 (IQR: 0.10–0.27/mL2). PSA density were significantly different across PI-RADS cohorts ( H = 118.8, p < 0.0001) and across all three biopsy outcomes ( H = 99.72, p < 0.0001). Only 34.3% (119/347) of biopsied patients met the NHS 28-day standard. MRI acquisition and reporting met the 14-day local standard in 96.1% (491/511). The biopsy was the most delayed component with a median of 20 days (IQR: 8–43). Conclusion: Pre-biopsy mpMRI with PI-RADS scoring safely avoided biopsy in almost one-third (32.1%) of patients. The use of PSA-density in risk stratifying PI-RADS 3 lesions has informed local practice in the period 2020–2021, with implementation of a PSA-density threshold of 0.12 ng/mL2. Biopsy scheduling issues and anaesthetic requirements need to be overcome to improve diagnostic waiting times. Level of evidence: 2

Radiographic vs. MRI vs. arthroscopic assessment and grading of knee osteoarthritis - are we using appropriate imaging?

Purpose Radiographs and MRI scans are commonly used imaging techniques in the assessment of knee osteoarthritis. However, it currently remains uncertain how good a representation of the actual condition of the knee joint these investigations provide. By comparing them against arthroscopic findings the aim of our study was to conclude how accurate these imaging techniques are at grading knee osteoarthritis. Methods This was a retrospective study looking at knee arthroscopies performed at a tertiary centre over a 5 year period. The Outerbridge grade given at arthroscopy was correlated with pre-operative radiograph and MRI scores, so as to assess the reliability of these imaging techniques at predicting the actual severity of knee osteoarthritis seen. Results Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grading of radiographs was moderately correlated with Outerbridge grades from arthroscopy for the medial compartment of the knee (Spearman’s rho (SR) 0.483, p < 0.001), with a milder correlation in the lateral compartment (SR 0.218, p = 0.003). MRI reporting of knee osteoarthritis was moderately correlated with Outerbridge grades in the medial compartment (SR 0.451, p < 0.001), mildly correlated for both the lateral (SR 0.299, p < 0.001) and patellofemoral joint compartments (SR 0.142, p = 0.054). KL and MRI grading was moderately correlated for the medial compartment (SR 0.475, p < 0.001) and mildly correlated for the lateral compartment (SR 0.277, p < 0.001). Conclusion The ability of radiographs to represent the actual condition of knee osteoarthritis is underestimated. KL grading especially best represents the disease seen in the medial compartment of the knee joint, with a moderate correlation to Outerbridge scores given on arthroscopic assessment. We suggest that whilst MRI is a useful tool in the investigation of knee symptoms, it is often unnecessarily used in patients with OA, when in fact, radiographs alone would be sufficient. Evidence level III