Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has profoundly impacted residency training and education. To date, there has not been any broad assessment of urological surgery residency changes and concerns during ...the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Society of Academic Urologists distributed a questionnaire to urology residency program directors on March 30, 2020 exploring residency program changes related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive statistics are presented. A qualitative analysis of free response questions was undertaken. A post hoc analysis of differences related to local COVID-19 incidence is described.
The survey was distributed to 144 residency programs with 65 responses for a 45% response rate. Reserve staffing had started in 80% of programs. Patient contact time had decreased significantly from 4.7 to 2.1 days per week (p <0.001). Redeployment was reported by 26% of programs. Sixty percent of programs reported concern that residents will not meet case minimums due to COVID-19. Wellness activities centered on increased communication. All programs had begun to use videoconferencing and the majority planned to continue. Programs in states with a higher incidence of COVID-19 were more likely to report resident redeployment (48% vs 11%, p=0.002) and exposure to COVID-19 positive patients (70% vs 40%, p=0.03), and were less likely to report concerns regarding exposure (78% vs 97%, p=0.02) and personal protective equipment availability (62% vs 89%, p=0.02).
As of April 1, 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic had resulted in significant changes in urology residency programs. These findings inform a rapidly changing landscape and aid in the development of best practices.
This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The ...summary presented represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity.
The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/).
The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer.
This guideline attempts to improve a clinician’s ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.
This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The ...summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity. Please refer to Part I for discussion of specific care options and outcome expectations and management.
The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/).
The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer.
This guideline attempts to improve a clinician’s ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.
Objective. To assess the influence of patient preferences and urologist recommendations in treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate cancer. Methods. We enrolled 257 men with clinically ...localized prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen <20; Gleason score 6 or 7) seen by urologists (primarily residents and fellows) in 4 Veterans Affairs medical centers. We measured patients’ baseline preferences prior to their urology appointments, including initial treatment preference, cancer-related anxiety, and interest in sex. In longitudinal follow-up, we determined which treatment patients received. We used hierarchical logistic regression to determine the factors that predicted treatment received (active treatment v. active surveillance) and urologist recommendations. We also conducted a directed content analysis of recorded clinical encounters to determine if urologists discussed patients’ interest in sex. Results. Patients’ initial treatment preferences did not predict receipt of active treatment versus surveillance, Δχ2(4) = 3.67, P = 0.45. Instead, receipt of active treatment was predicted primarily by urologists’ recommendations, Δχ2(2) = 32.81, P < 0.001. Urologists’ recommendations, in turn, were influenced heavily by medical factors (age and Gleason score) but were unrelated to patient preferences, Δχ2(6) = 0, P = 1. Urologists rarely discussed patients’ interest in sex (<15% of appointments). Conclusions. Patients’ treatment decisions were based largely on urologists’ recommendations, which, in turn, were based on medical factors (age and Gleason score) and not on patients’ personal views of the relative pros and cons of treatment alternatives.
The Fate of the Unmatched Urology Applicant Takele, Rebecca; Patel, Nishant D.; Greene, Kirsten L. ...
Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.),
January 2023, 2023-01-00, 20230101, Letnik:
171
Journal Article
Recenzirano
To determine the outcomes and eventual career paths for unmatched applicants by evaluating a historical cohort of unmatched applicants in the Urology Match.
The 2008-2014 AUA Match lists were ...obtained from the Society of Academic Urologists and 730 unique applicants were identified with at least one unmatched result. Additional information such as preliminary training and eventual specialty choice were obtained from publicly available sources. Comparative analysis with univariable and multivariable analysis was performed between eventual urologists and those who chose alternative career paths.
Overall, 43.5% (318/730) of unmatched urology applicants subsequently continued their interest in Urology and 77.4% (246/317) of initially unsuccessful applicants eventually became urologists. Males (80.9%, P = .01), Doctor of Osteopathy (DO) degree (62.5%, P = <.001), and those undergoing a research year compared to a preliminary surgery year (85.2% vs 72.0% respectively, P = .047) had an increased likelihood of successfully becoming a urologist. The most common alternative specialty choices were Internal Medicine (13.8%), General Surgery (12.9%) and Anesthesiology (11.9%).
Urology is a competitive surgical sub-specialty. Surprisingly, approximately 3 in 4 unmatched urology applicants who continue their interest in urology will eventually obtain a residency position. However, only 33.7% of initially unmatched students ultimately became urologists. Unmatched applicants have several viable pathways to obtain a urological residency position. Male gender, a DO degree, and a research year are associated with successfully obtaining a urology residency position.
To compare continence outcomes in post-prostatectomy patients undergoing supervised in-person versus online pelvic floor muscle training and pelvic floor education (iPMFT vs oPFMT/PFE). Despite the ...proven benefit of in-person PFMT for urinary incontinence (UI) following prostatectomy, numerous barriers impede access. We developed a comprehensive online program to deliver oPFMT/PFE.
We performed a retrospective review of patients receiving iPFMT versus oPFMT/PFE with minimum 12-month follow-up. Outcomes were assessed at 3 weeks, 3-, 6-, and 12 months following robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy using validated ICIQ-MLUTS and IIQ-7 questionnaires and additional items (daily pad use PPD and satisfaction). The primary study outcome was ICIQ-MLUTS SUI domain score (SDS). Secondary outcomes were PPD, PPD cure (0 PPD at 12 months), SUI cure (12-month SDS=baseline score), and QOL score (IIQ-7 Sum).
Analysis included 41 men. Though men enrolled in oPFMT/PFE demonstrated lower SUI domain scores than iPFMT at most time points (3wk P <.01, 3 mo P = .04, 6 mo P = .15, 12 mo P = .04), the rate of improvement from 3 weeks to other time points was similar between groups (P = NS at all time points). SDS Cure was no different for oPFMT/PFE (75%, 15/20) compared to iPFMT (60%, 12/20, P = .3). PPD and IIQ-7 were also similar at all time points and demonstrated a similar rate of decrease over time through 12 months.
Significant and similar improvements in UI and QOL are seen both in men completing iPFMT or oPFMT/PFE programs. Our novel online program provides another option to improve PFMT/PFE access in men undergoing RALP.
Active surveillance (AS) is an option for the initial management of early-stage prostate cancer. Current risk stratification schema identify patients with low-risk disease who are presumed to be most ...suitable for AS. However, some men with higher risk disease also elect AS; outcomes for such men have not been widely reported.
Men managed with AS at University of California, San Francisco, were classified as low- or intermediate-risk based on serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason grade, extent of biopsy involvement, and T stage. Clinical and demographic characteristics, and progression in terms of Gleason score, PSA kinetics, and active treatment were compared between men with low- and intermediate-risk tumors.
Compared to men with low-risk tumors, those with intermediate-risk tumors were older (mean, 64.9 v 62.3 years) with higher mean PSA values (10.9 v 5.1 ng/mL), and more tumor involvement (mean, 20.4% v 15.3% positive biopsy cores; all P < .01). Within 4 years of the first positive biopsy, the clinical risk group did not differ in terms of the proportions experiencing progression-free survival, (low 54% v intermediate 61%; log-rank P = .22) or the proportions who underwent active treatment (low 30% v intermediate 35%; log-rank P = .88). Among men undergoing surgery, none were node positive and none had biochemical recurrence within 3 years.
Selected men with intermediate-risk features be appropriate candidates for AS, and are not necessarily more likely to progress. AS for these men may provide an opportunity to further reduce overtreatment of disease that is unlikely to progress to advanced cancer.
Active surveillance is now considered a viable treatment option for men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, little is known regarding changes in Gleason grade on serial biopsies over an extended ...period of time.
Men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1998 and 2009 who elected active surveillance as initial treatment, with 6 or more months of follow-up and a minimum of six cores at biopsy, were included in analysis. Upgrading and downgrading were defined as an increase or decrease in primary or secondary Gleason score. Means and frequency tables were used to describe patient characteristics, and treatment-free survival rates were determined by life-table product limit estimates.
Three hundred seventy-seven men met inclusion criteria. Mean age at diagnosis was 61.9 years. Fifty-three percent of men had prostate-specific antigen of 6 ng/mL or less, and 94% had Gleason score of 6 or less. A majority of men were cT1 (62%), had less than 33% of biopsy cores involved (80%), and were low risk (77%) at diagnosis. Median number of cores taken at diagnostic biopsy was 13, mean time to follow-up was 18.5 months, and 29% of men had three or more repeat biopsies. Overall, 34% (129 men) were found to have an increase in Gleason grade. The majority of men who experienced an upgrade (81%) did so by their second repeat biopsy.
A proportion of men experience an upgrade in Gleason score while undergoing active surveillance. Men who experience early upgrading likely represent initial sampling error, whereas later upgrading may reflect tumor dedifferentiation.
PDF
