What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Very few comparative studies to date evaluate the results of treatment options for prostate cancer using the most sensitive measurement tools. PSA has been identified as the most sensitive tool for measuring treatment effectiveness. To date, comprehensive unbiased reviews of all the current literature are limited for prostate cancer. This is the first large scale comprehensive review of the literature comparing risk stratified patients by treatment option and with long‐term follow‐up. The results of the studies are weighted, respecting the impact of larger studies on overall results. The study identified a lack of uniformity in reporting results amongst institutions and centres. A large number of studies have been conducted on the primary therapy of prostate cancer but very few randomized controlled trials have been conducted. The comparison of outcomes from individual studies involving surgery (radical prostatectomy or robotic radical prostatectomy), external beam radiation (EBRT) (conformal, intensity modulated radiotherapy, protons), brachytherapy, cryotherapy or high intensity focused ultrasound remains problematic due to the non‐uniformity of reporting results and the use of varied disease outcome endpoints. Technical advances in these treatments have also made long‐term comparisons difficult. The Prostate Cancer Results Study Group was formed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments. This international group conducted a comprehensive literature review to identify all studies involving treatment of localized prostate cancer published during 2000–2010. Over 18 000 papers were identified and a further selection was made based on the following key criteria: minimum/median follow‐up of 5 years; stratification into low‐, intermediate‐ and high‐risk groups; clinical and pathological staging; accepted standard definitions for prostate‐specific antigen failure; minimum patient number of 100 in each risk group (50 for high‐risk group). A statistical analysis (standard deviational ellipse) of the study outcomes suggested that, in terms of biochemical‐free progression, brachytherapy provides superior outcome in patients with low‐risk disease. For intermediate‐risk disease, the combination of EBRT and brachytherapy appears equivalent to brachytherapy alone. For high‐risk patients, combination therapies involving EBRT and brachytherapy plus or minus androgen deprivation therapy appear superior to more localized treatments such as seed implant alone, surgery alone or EBRT. It is anticipated that the study will assist physicians and patients in selecting treatment for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

Background: Cholangiocarcinoma (CC) is increasing in incidence, but its pathogenesis remains poorly understood. Chronic inflammation of the bile duct and cholestasis are major risk factors, but most cases in the West are sporadic. Genetic polymorphisms in biliary transporter proteins have been implicated in benign biliary disease and, in the case of progressive familial cholestasis, have been associated with childhood onset of CC. In the current study, five biologically plausible candidate genes were investigated: ABCB11 (BSEP), ABCB4 (MDR3), ABCC2 (MRP2), ATP8B1 (FIC1) and NR1H4 (FXR). Methods: DNA was collected from 172 Caucasian individuals with confirmed CC. A control cohort of healthy Caucasians was formed. Seventy-three SNPs were selected using the HapMap database to capture genetic variation around the five candidate loci. Genotyping was undertaken with a competitive PCR-based system. Confirmation of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and Cochran-Armitage trend testing were performed using PLINK. Haplotype frequencies were compared using haplo.stats. Results: All 73 SNPs were in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Four SNPs in ABCB11 were associated with altered susceptibility to CC, including the V444A polymorphism, but these associations did not retain statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple testing. Haplotype analysis of the genotyped SNPs in ATP8B1 identified significant differences in frequencies between cases and controls (global p value of 0.005). Conclusion: Haplotypes in ATP8B1 demonstrated a significant difference between CC and control groups. There was a trend towards significant association of V444A with CC. Given the biological plausibility of polymorphisms in ABCB11 and ATP8B1 as risk modifiers for CC, further study in a validation cohort is required.

Introduction Surgical site infections are associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients. The Getting It Right First Time surgical site infection programme set up a national survey to review surgical site infection rates in surgical units in England. The objectives were for frontline clinicians to assess the rates of infection following selected procedures, to examine the risk of significant complications and to review current practice in the prevention of surgical site infection. Methods A national survey was launched in April 2017 to assess surgical site infections within 13 specialties: breast surgery, cardiothoracic surgery, cranial neurosurgery, ear, nose and throat surgery, general surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology, ophthalmology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthopaedic surgery, paediatric surgery, spinal surgery, urology and vascular surgery. All participating trusts prospectively identified and collected supporting information on surgical site infections diagnosed within the six-month study period. Results Data were received from 95 NHS trusts. A total of 1807 surgical site infection cases were reported. There were variations in rates reported by trusts across specialties and procedures. Reoperations were reported in 36.2% of all identified cases, and surgical site infections are associated with a delayed discharge rate of 34.1% in our survey. Conclusion The Getting It Right First Time surgical site infection programme has introduced a different approach to infection surveillance in England. Results of the survey has demonstrated variation in surgical site infection rates among surgical units, raised the importance in addressing these issues for better patient outcomes and to reduce the financial burden on the NHS. Much work remains to be done to improve surgical site infection surveillance across surgical units and trusts in England.

No abstract