Patient Perceptions of Standardized Risk Language Used in American College of Radiology Prostate MRI PIRADS Scores.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate MRI reports utilize standardized language to describe risk of clinically significant prostate cancer(csPCa) from "equivocal"(PI-RADS 3), "likely"(PI-RADS 4), to "highly-likely"(PI-RADS 5). These terms correspond to risks of 11%, 37%, and 70% according to AUA guidelines, respectively. We assessed how men perceive risk associated with standardized PI-RADS language. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a crowdsourced survey of 1,204 men matching a US prostate cancer demographic. We queried participants' risk perception associated with standardized PI-RADS language across increasing contexts: words-only, PI-RADS-sentence, full-report, and full-report-with-numeric-estimate. Median perceived risk (IQR) and absolute under/overestimation compared with AUA standards were reported. Multivariable linear mixed effects analysis identified factors associated with accuracy of risk perception. RESULTS: Median perceived risks of csPCa (IQR) for the word-only context were "equivocal" 50%(50-74), "likely" 75%(68-85), and "highly-likely" 87%(78-92), corresponding to +39%, +38%, +17% overestimation, respectively. Median perceived risks for the PI-RADS-sentence context were 50%(50-50), 75%(68-81), and 90%(80-94) for PI-RADS 3,4,and 5, corresponding to +39%, +38%, +20% overestimation, respectively. Median perceived risks for the full-report context were 50%(35-70), 72%(50-80), and 84%(54-91) for PI-RADS 3,4,and 5, corresponding to +39%, +35%, +14% overestimation, respectively. For the full-report-with-numeric-estimate context describing a PI-RADS 4 lesion, median perceived risk was 70%(50-80), corresponding to +33% overestimation. Including numeric estimates increased correct perception of risk from 3% to 11% (p<0.001), driven by men with higher numeracy (OR1.24,p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Men overestimate risk of csPCa associated with standardized PI-RADS language regardless of context, especially for PI-RADS 3 and 4 lesions. Changes to PI-RADS language or data sharing policies for imaging reports should be considered.

Genetic Factors Associated with Prostate Cancer Conversion from Active Surveillance to Treatment.

Men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PC) are increasingly electing active surveillance (AS) as their initial management strategy. While this may reduce the side effects of treatment for prostate cancer, many men on AS eventually convert to active treatment. PC is one of the most heritable cancers, and genetic factors that predispose to aggressive tumors may help distinguish men who are more likely to discontinue AS. To investigate this, we undertook a multi-institutional genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 5,222 PC patients and 1,139 other patients from replication cohorts, all of whom initially elected AS and were followed over time for the potential outcome of conversion from AS to active treatment. In the GWAS we detected 18 variants associated with conversion, 15 of which were not previously associated with PC risk. With a transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS), we found two genes associated with conversion (MAST3, p = 6.9×10-7 and GAB2, p = 2.0×10-6). Moreover, increasing values of a previously validated 269-variant genetic risk score (GRS) for PC was positively associated with conversion (e.g., comparing the highest to the two middle deciles gave a hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]= 0.94-1.36); whereas, decreasing values of a 36-variant GRS for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were positively associated with conversion (e.g., comparing the lowest to the two middle deciles gave a HR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04-1.50). These results suggest that germline genetics may help inform and individualize the decision of AS-or the intensity of monitoring on AS-versus treatment for the initial management of patients with low-risk PC.

Minimal Inpatient Narcotic Requirement and Immediate Complication Profile Supports Same Day Discharge Following Artificial Urinary Sphincter Insertion.

INTRODUCTION: With more than 3,500 artificial urinary sphincters placed annually in the United States a significant cost burden is associated with overnight observation following surgery. We sought to determine whether inpatient management after artificial urinary sphincter insertion, our current local standard of care, is necessary with regards to inpatient narcotic requirements and immediate postoperative complications. METHODS: This was an institutional review board approved, retrospective review of artificial urinary sphincter insertions identified by CPT code 53445 between June 2013 and September 2017. Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, postoperative narcotic use and immediate postoperative complications. RESULTS: We identified 163 men who underwent artificial urinary sphincter insertion for analysis. The cohort had a mean age of 69.8 ± 8.5 years, body mass index of 28.9 ± 5.1 kg/m2 and preoperative pad per day use of 5.8 ± 3.5. Of all patients identified 25 (15%) were using chronic narcotic pain medication preoperatively and 51 (31%) had a diagnosis of diabetes (mean A1c 7.0 ± 1.5%). All but 1 (99%) patients were discharged on the first postoperative day and 1 left on the second postoperative day. Two (1.2%) patients experienced immediate postoperative complication, and 8 (6%) patients failed a voiding trial on postoperative day 1. The 154 (94%) patients who required orally administrated narcotic pain medication after leaving the postanesthesia care unit used a median of 31.0 ± 22.9 morphine milligram equivalents. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate postoperative and peridischarge complication rates are around 1% after artificial urinary sphincter insertion, and narcotic requirements following postanesthesia care unit stay are minimal. Outpatient artificial urinary sphincter insertion is likely to be safe, effective and beneficial with regards to patient experience and total costs.

The Harms of Hematuria Evaluation: Modeling the Risk-Benefit of Using Split Bolus Computerized Tomography Urography to Reduce Radiation Exposure in a Theoretical Cohort.

PURPOSE: Computerized tomography urography is used to evaluate patients with gross or microscopic hematuria. Computerized tomography urography is a high radiation dose scan and, thus, it confers a higher risk of secondary malignancy. A computerized tomography urography split bolus protocol reduces radiation exposure but it may reduce sensitivity. In this study we used a theoretical cohort of patients with hematuria in which to model the risk of missing malignancies against the benefit of averting secondary malignancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We calculated the prevalence of renal cell carcinoma and upper tract urothelial carcinoma in patients with hematuria by pooled analysis of cohort studies, which in conjunction with split bolus sensitivity allows for the estimation of missed malignancies. The number of prevented secondary malignancies was calculated from lifetime attributable risk estimates. Sensitivity analyses were run to determine the minimum sensitivity required for a net population benefit. RESULTS: Estimates of split bolus computerized tomography urography sensitivity ranged from 80% to 100% (mean 95.2%). At the low estimate of 80% sensitivity split bolus computerized tomography urography was beneficial in men and women with microscopic hematuria at ages less than 50 and less than 60 years, respectively. An increase in sensitivity to 90% improved the benefit 1 decade in each gender, representing 68.8% of patients with microscopic hematuria. The overall population of patients with microscopic hematuria benefited from split bolus computerized tomography urography at 91.1% sensitivity. However, in patients with gross hematuria the threshold for an overall population benefit was high at 98.4% sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to ionizing radiation risks causing secondary malignancy. These data indicate that split bolus computerized tomography urography may be performed safely in 70% of the population of patients with microscopic hematuria. However, it is not currently advisable in patients with gross hematuria or in other patients at high risk.