METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of published articles in Cochrane Library, Pubmed, and Science-Direct to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing IAC alone or combined with IVC versus IVC/BCG alone in NMIBC. The protocol of preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) was applied to this study.
RESULTS: Four RCTs and 4 cohort observational studies were eligible in this study and 5 studies were included in meta-analysis. The risk ratio of tumor recurrence was reduced by 35% (RR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.49-0.87; p = 0.004) in IAC plus IVC, while recurrence-free survival (RFS) was prolonged by 45% (HR: 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44-0.69; p < 0.001). The risk of tumor progression was reduced by 45% (RR = 0.55; 95% CI 0.41-0.75; p = 0.002) and tumor progression-free survival (PFS) was also prolonged by 53% (HR: 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.65; p<0.001). Some RCT's had high or unclear risk of bias, meanwhile 4 included cohort studies had overall low risk of bias, therefore the pooled results need to be interpreted cautiously. Subgroup analysis revealed that the heterogeneity outcome of tumour recurrence might be attributed to the difference in NMIBC stages and grades.
CONCLUSIONS: The IAC alone or combined with IVC following bladder tumor resection may lower the risk of tumor recurrence and progression. These findings highlight the importance of further multi institutional randomized controlled trials with bigger sample size using a standardized IAC protocol to validate the current results.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Available evidence was evaluated using a step-wise process that included systematic literature reviews, policymaker and stakeholder interviews, a study to assess dengue contingency planning and outbreak management in 10 countries, and a retrospective logistic regression analysis to identify alarm signals for an outbreak warning system using datasets from five dengue endemic countries. Best practices for managing a dengue outbreak are provided for key elements of a dengue contingency plan including timely contingency planning, the importance of a detailed, context-specific dengue contingency plan that clearly distinguishes between routine and outbreak interventions, surveillance systems for outbreak preparedness, outbreak definitions, alert algorithms, managerial capacity, vector control capacity, and clinical management of large caseloads. Additionally, a computer-assisted early warning system, which enables countries to identify and respond to context-specific variables that predict forthcoming dengue outbreaks, has been developed.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Most countries do not have comprehensive, detailed contingency plans for dengue outbreaks. Countries tend to rely on intensified vector control as their outbreak response, with minimal focus on integrated management of clinical care, epidemiological, laboratory and vector surveillance, and risk communication. The Technical Handbook for Surveillance, Dengue Outbreak Prediction/ Detection and Outbreak Response seeks to provide countries with evidence-based best practices to justify the declaration of an outbreak and the mobilization of the resources required to implement an effective dengue contingency plan.
METHODS: The Asia Pacific Society of Sexual Medicine (APSSM) panel of experts reviewed contemporary evidence regarding penile reconstructive and prosthetic surgery with an emphasis on key issues relevant to the Asia-Pacific (AP) region and developed a consensus statement and set of clinical practice recommendations on behalf of the APSSM. The Medline and EMBASE databases were searched using the following terms: "penile prosthesis implant," "Peyronie's disease," "penile lengthening," "penile augmentation," "penile enlargement," "buried penis," "penile disorders," "penile trauma," "transgender," and "penile reconstruction" between January 2001 and June 2022. A modified Delphi method was undertaken, and the panel evaluated, agreed, and provided consensus statements on clinically relevant penile reconstructive and prosthetic surgery, namely (1) penile prosthesis implantation, (2) Peyronie's disease, (3) penile trauma, (4) gender-affirming (phalloplasty) surgery, and (5) penile esthetic (length and/or girth enlargement) surgery.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were specific statements and clinical recommendations according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and if clinical evidence is lacking, a consensus agreement is adopted. The panel provided statements on clinical aspects of surgical management in penile reconstructive and prosthetic surgery.
RESULTS: There is a variation in surgical algorithms in patients based on sociocultural characteristics and the availability of local resources. Performing preoperative counseling and obtaining adequate informed consent are paramount and should be conducted to discuss various treatment options, including the pros and cons of each surgical intervention. Patients should be provided with information regarding potential complications related to surgery, and strict adherence to safe surgical principles, preoperative optimization of medical comorbidities and stringent postoperative care are important to improve patient satisfaction rates. For complex patients, surgical intervention should ideally be referred and performed by expert high-volume surgeons to maximize clinical outcomes.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Due to the uneven distribution of surgical access and expertise across the AP region, development of relevant comprehensive surgical protocols and regular training programs is desirable.
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This consensus statement covers comprehensive penile reconstructive and prosthetic surgery topics and is endorsed by the APSSM. The variations in surgical algorithms and lack of sufficient high-level evidence in these areas could be stated as a limitation.
CONCLUSION: This APSSM consensus statement provides clinical recommendations on the surgical management of various penile reconstructive and prosthetic surgeries. The APSSM advocates for surgeons in AP to individualize surgical options based on patient condition(s) and needs, surgeon expertise, and local resources.
METHOD: A paper-based survey was used to identify clinical practice patterns and obtain consensus among the panelists. The survey included the demographics of the panelists, the use of clinical guidelines, and clinical practice patterns in the management of advanced PC in SEA.
RESULTS: Most panelists (81%) voted prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as the most effective test for early PC diagnosis and risk stratification. Nearly 44% of panelists agreed that prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography-computed tomography imaging for PC diagnostic and staging information aids local and systemic therapy decisions. The majority of the panel preferred abiraterone acetate (67%) or docetaxel (44%) as first-line therapy for symptomatic mCRPC patients. Abiraterone acetate (50%) is preferred over docetaxel as a first-line treatment in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer patients with high-volume disease. However, the panel did not support the use of abiraterone acetate in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) patients. Apalutamide (75%) is the preferred treatment option for patients with nmCRPC. The cost and availability of modern treatments and technologies are important factors influencing therapeutic decisions. All panelists supported the use of generic versions of approved therapies.
CONCLUSION: The survey results reflect real-world management of advanced PC in a SEA country. These findings could be used to guide local clinical practices and highlight the financial challenges of modern healthcare.
METHODS: The 4-h our virtual meeting in October 2020 brought together 26 experts from 14 APAC countries to discuss APCCC 2019 recommendations. Presentations were prerecorded and viewed prior to the meeting. A postmeeting survey gathered views on current practice.
RESULTS: The meeting and survey highlighted several developments since APAC APCCC 2018. Increased access and use in the region of PSMA PET/CT imaging is providing additional diagnostic and staging information for advanced prostate cancer and influencing local and systemic therapy choices. Awareness of oligometastatic disease, although not clearly defined, is increasing. Novel androgen receptor pathway antagonists are expanding treatment options. Cost and access to contemporary treatments and technologies continue to be a significant factor influencing therapeutic decisions in the region. With treatment options increasing, multidisciplinary treatment planning, shared decision making, and informed choice remain critical. A discussion on the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted challenges for diagnosis, treatment, and clinical trials and new service delivery models that will continue beyond the pandemic.
CONCLUSION: APAC-specific prostate cancer research and data are important to ensure that treatment guidelines and recommendations reflect local populations and resources. Facilitated approaches to collaboration across the region such as that achieved through APAC APCCC meetings continue to be a valuable mechanism to ensure the relevance of consensus guidelines within the region.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in Scopus, PubMed, Ovid, Embase, and Cochrane databases. This SRMA included randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting the pre- and postoperative levels of SDF and seminal OS in infertile men with clinical varicocele that underwent VR. Subgroup analyses included techniques of VR and SDF testing. The effect size was expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD).
RESULTS: Out of 1,632 abstracts assessed for eligibility, 29 studies with 1,491 infertile men were included. The analysis showed a significant reduction in SDF after VR, compared to preoperative values (SMD -1.125, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.410, -0.840; p<0.0001) with high inter-study heterogeneity (I²=90.965%). Reduction in SDF was evident with microsurgical technique and non-microsurgical inguinal approaches (SMD -1.014, 95% CI -1.263, -0.765; p<0.0001, and SMD -1.495, 95% CI -2.116, -0.873; p<0.0001), respectively. Reduction in SDF was significant irrespective of testing was done by sperm chromatin dispersion (SMD -2.197, 95% CI -3.187, -1.207; p<0.0001), sperm chromatin structure assay (SMD -0.857, 95% CI -1.156, -0.559; p<0.0001) or TUNEL (SMD -1.599, 95% CI -2.478, -0.719; p<0.0001). A significant decrease in seminal MDA levels was observed following VR (SMD -2.450, 95% CI -3.903 to -0.997, p=0.001) with high inter-study heterogeneity (I²=93.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: Using pre- and post-intervention data, this SRMA indicates a significant reduction in SDF and seminal MDA levels in infertile men with clinical varicocele treated with VR. These findings may have important implications for the future management of this selected group of infertile patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinicians managing male infertility were invited to complete an online survey on practices related to SDF diagnostic and treatment approaches. Their responses related to the technical aspects of SDF testing, current professional society guidelines, and the literature were used to generate expert recommendations via the Delphi method. Finally, challenges related to SDF that the clinicians encounter in their daily practice were captured.
RESULTS: The survey was completed by 436 reproductive clinicians. Overall, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase deoxyuridine triphosphate Nick-End Labeling (TUNEL) is the most commonly used assay chosen by 28.6%, followed by the sperm chromatin structure assay (24.1%), and the sperm chromatin dispersion (19.1%). The choice of the assay was largely influenced by availability (70% of respondents). A threshold of 30% was the most selected cut-off value for elevated SDF by 33.7% of clinicians. Of respondents, 53.6% recommend SDF testing after 3 to 5 days of abstinence. Although 75.3% believe SDF testing can provide an explanation for many unknown causes of infertility, the main limiting factors selected by respondents are a lack of professional society guideline recommendations (62.7%) and an absence of globally accepted references for SDF interpretation (50.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest global survey on the technical aspects of SDF testing as well as the barriers encountered by clinicians. Unified global recommendations regarding clinician implementation and standard laboratory interpretation of SDF testing are crucial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We present a detailed step-by-step protocol for performing and interpretating PVSA testing, along with recommendations for proficiency testing, competency assessment for performing PVSA, and clinical and laboratory scenarios. Moreover, we conducted an analysis of 1,114 PVSA performed at the Cleveland Clinic's Andrology Laboratory and an online survey to understand clinician responses to the PVSA results in various countries.
RESULTS: Results from our clinical experience showed that 92.1% of patients passed PVSA, with 7.9% being further tested. A total of 78 experts from 19 countries participated in the survey, and the majority reported to use time from vasectomy rather than the number of ejaculations as criterion to request PVSA. A high percentage of responders reported permitting unprotected intercourse only if PVSA samples show azoospermia while, in the presence of few non-motile sperm, the majority of responders suggested using alternative contraception, followed by another PVSA. In the presence of motile sperm, the majority of participants asked for further PVSA testing. Repeat vasectomy was mainly recommended if motile sperm were observed after multiple PVSA's. A large percentage reported to recommend a second PVSA due to the possibility of legal actions.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlighted varying clinical practices around the globe, with controversy over the significance of non-motile sperm in the PVSA sample. Our data suggest that less stringent AUA guidelines would help improve test compliance. A large longitudinal multi-center study would clarify various doubts related to timing and interpretation of PVSA and would also help us to understand, and perhaps predict, recanalization and the potential for future failure of a vasectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinicians managing male infertility were invited to take part in a global online survey on SDF clinical practices. This was conducted following the CHERRIES checklist criteria. The responses were compared to professional society guideline recommendations related to SDF and the appropriate available evidence. Expert recommendations on indications for SDF testing were then formulated, and the Delphi method was used to reach consensus.
RESULTS: The survey was completed by 436 experts from 55 countries. Almost 75% of respondents test for SDF in all or some men with unexplained or idiopathic infertility, 39% order it routinely in the work-up of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), and 62.2% investigate SDF in smokers. While 47% of reproductive urologists test SDF to support the decision for varicocele repair surgery when conventional semen parameters are normal, significantly fewer general urologists (23%; p=0.008) do the same. Nearly 70% would assess SDF before assisted reproductive technologies (ART), either always or for certain conditions. Recurrent ART failure is a common indication for SDF testing. Very few society recommendations were found regarding SDF testing.
CONCLUSIONS: This article presents the largest global survey on the indications for SDF testing in infertile men, and demonstrates diverse practices. Furthermore, it highlights the paucity of professional society guideline recommendations. Expert recommendations are proposed to help guide clinicians.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online global survey on clinical practices related to SDF was disseminated to reproductive clinicians, according to the CHERRIES checklist criteria. Management protocols for various conditions associated with SDF were captured and compared to the relevant recommendations in professional society guidelines and the appropriate available evidence. Expert recommendations and consensus on the management of infertile men with elevated SDF were then formulated and adapted using the Delphi method.
RESULTS: A total of 436 experts from 55 different countries submitted responses. As an initial approach, 79.1% of reproductive experts recommend lifestyle modifications for infertile men with elevated SDF, and 76.9% prescribe empiric antioxidants. Regarding antioxidant duration, 39.3% recommend 4-6 months and 38.1% recommend 3 months. For men with unexplained or idiopathic infertility, and couples experiencing recurrent miscarriages associated with elevated SDF, most respondents refer to ART 6 months after failure of conservative and empiric medical management. Infertile men with clinical varicocele, normal conventional semen parameters, and elevated SDF are offered varicocele repair immediately after diagnosis by 31.4%, and after failure of antioxidants and conservative measures by 40.9%. Sperm selection techniques and testicular sperm extraction are also management options for couples undergoing ART. For most questions, heterogenous practices were demonstrated.
CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents the results of a large global survey on the management of infertile men with elevated SDF and reveals a lack of consensus among clinicians. Furthermore, it demonstrates the scarcity of professional society guidelines in this regard and attempts to highlight the relevant evidence. Expert recommendations are proposed to help guide clinicians.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA-P and MOOSE guidelines. A systematic search was performed in Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases. Eligible studies were selected according to the PICOS model (Population: infertile male patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: varicocele repair; Comparison: intra-person before-after varicocele repair; Outcome: conventional semen parameters; Study type: randomized controlled trials [RCTs], observational and case-control studies).
RESULTS: Out of 1,632 screened abstracts, 351 articles (23 RCTs, 292 observational, and 36 case-control studies) were included in the quantitative analysis. The before-and-after analysis showed significant improvements in all semen parameters after varicocele repair (except sperm vitality); semen volume: standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.203, 95% CI: 0.129-0.278; p<0.001; I²=83.62%, Egger's p=0.3329; sperm concentration: SMD 1.590, 95% CI: 1.474-1.706; p<0.001; I²=97.86%, Egger's p<0.0001; total sperm count: SMD 1.824, 95% CI: 1.526-2.121; p<0.001; I²=97.88%, Egger's p=0.0063; total motile sperm count: SMD 1.643, 95% CI: 1.318-1.968; p<0.001; I²=98.65%, Egger's p=0.0003; progressive sperm motility: SMD 1.845, 95% CI: 1.537%-2.153%; p<0.001; I²=98.97%, Egger's p<0.0001; total sperm motility: SMD 1.613, 95% CI 1.467%-1.759%; p<0.001; l2=97.98%, Egger's p<0.001; sperm morphology: SMD 1.066, 95% CI 0.992%-1.211%; p<0.001; I²=97.87%, Egger's p=0.1864.
CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis is the largest to date using paired analysis on varicocele patients. In the current meta-analysis, almost all conventional semen parameters improved significantly following varicocele repair in infertile patients with clinical varicocele.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available.
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men.