Current Perceptions, Practice Patterns, and Barriers to Adoption of Transperineal Prostate Biopsy under local anesthesia.

OBJECTIVES: To assess perceptions, practice patterns, and barriers to adoption of Transperineal prostate biopsy (TPBx) under local anesthesia. METHODS: Providers from Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) and Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative (PURC) were administered an online survey to assess beliefs and educational needs regarding TPBx. Providers were divided into those who performed or did not perform TPBx. The MUSIC and PURC registry were queried to assess TPBx utilization. Descriptive analytics and bivariate analysis determined associations between provider/practice demographics and attitudes. RESULTS: Since 2019, TPBx adoption has increased more than 2-fold to 7.0% and 16% across MUSIC and PURC practices, respectively. Of 350 urologists invited to participate in a survey, a total of 91 complete responses were obtained with 21 respondents (23%) reported performing TPBx. Participants estimated the learning curve was <10 procedure for TPBx performers and non-performers. No significant association was observed between learning curve and provider age/practice setting. The major perceived benefits of TPBx were decreased risk of sepsis, improved cancer detection rate and antibiotic stewardship. The most commonly cited challenges to implementation included access to equipment and patient experience. Urologists performing TPBx reported learning curve as an additional barrier, while those not performing TPBx reported duration of procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Access to equipment and patient experience concerns remain substantial barriers to adoption of TPBx. Dissemination of techniques utilizing existing equipment and optimization of local anesthetic protocols for TPBx may help facilitate the continued adoption of TPBx.

Vesicocutaneous fistula at site of closed suprapubic tube tract as the first presenting sign of giant bladder stone.

Bladder stones represent approximately 5% of all cases of urolithiasis and are typically identified and managed long before causing irreversible renal injury. We present a case of a man in his 40s with a prior history of a gunshot wound to the abdomen who presented with leakage from a previously healed suprapubic tube tract and was found to have a giant bladder stone with a resulting renal injury. He subsequently underwent a combined open cystolithotomy and vesicocutaneous fistulotomy during his hospitalisation, which helped to improve his renal function. In addition to there being few reported cases of bladder stones >10 cm, this represents the first report in the literature of an associated decompressive 'pop-off' mechanism through a fistulised tract.

Model risk scores may underestimate rate of biochemical recurrence in African American men with localized prostate cancer: a cohort analysis of over 3000 men.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to determine if there is a difference in prostate cancer nomogram-adjusted risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) and/or adverse pathology (AP) between African American (AAM) and Caucasian men (CM) undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of men undergoing RP in the Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative between 2015 and 2021. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to compare the rate of BCR after RP, and logistic regression models were used to compare rates of AP after RP between CM and AAM, adjusting for the CAPRA, CAPRA-S, and MSKCC pre- and post-operative nomogram scores. RESULTS: Rates of BCR and AP after RP were analyzed from 3190 and 5029 men meeting inclusion criteria, respectively. The 2-year BCR-free survival was lower in AAM (72.5%) compared to CM (79.0%), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.38 (95% CI 1.16-1.63, p < 0.001). The rate of BCR was significantly greater in AAM compared to CM after adjustment for MSKCC pre-op (HR 1.29; 95% CI 1.08-1.53; p = 0.004), and post-op nomograms (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.05-1.49; p < 0.001). There was a trend toward higher BCR rates among AAM after adjustment for CAPRA (HR 1.13; 95% CI 0.95-1.35; p = 0.17) and CAPRA-S nomograms (HR 1.11; 95% 0.93-1.32; p = 0.25), which did not reach statistical significance. The rate of AP was significantly greater in AAM compared to CM after adjusting for CAPRA (OR 1.28; 95% CI 1.10-1.50; p = 0.001) and MSKCC nomograms (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.06-1.43; p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: This analysis of a large multicenter cohort provides further evidence that AAM may have higher rates of BCR and AP after RP than is predicted by CAPRA and MSKCC nomograms. Accordingly, AAM may benefit with closer post-operative surveillance and may be more likely to require salvage therapies.

Multiparametric MRI is not sufficient for prostate cancer staging: A single institutional experience validated by a multi-institutional regional collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has been increasingly utilized in prostate cancer (CaP) diagnosis and staging. While Level 1 data supports MRI utility in CaP diagnosis, there is less data on staging utility. We sought to evaluate the real-world accuracy of mpMRI in staging localized CaP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) for CaP in 2021 at our institution were identified. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of mpMRI in predicting pT2N0 organ confined disease , extracapsular extension , seminal vesicle invasion , lymph node involvement, and bladder neck invasion were evaluated. Associations between MRI accuracy and AUA risk stratification (AUA RS), MRI institution (MRI-I), MRI strength (1.5 vs. 3T) (MRI-S), and MRI timing (MRI-T) were assessed. These analyses were repeated using Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative (PURC) data. RESULTS: Institutional and community mpMRI CaP staging data demonstrated poor sensitivity (2.9%-49.2%% vs. 16.8%-24.4%), positive predictive value (40%-100% vs. 35.8%-68.2%), and negative predictive value (56.3%-94.3% vs. 68.4%-96.2%) in predicting surgical pathologic features - in contrast, specificity (89.1%-100% vs. 93.9%-98.6%) was adequate. mpMRI accuracy for extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node involvement was significantly (p < 0.001) associated with AUA RS. There was no association between mpMRI accuracy and MRI-I, MRI-S, and MRI-T. CONCLUSION: Despite enthusiasm for its use, in a real-world setting, mpMRI appears to be a poor staging study for localized CaP and is unreliable as the sole means of staging patients prior to prostatectomy. mpMRI should be used cautiously as a staging tool for CaP, and should be interpreted considering individual patient risk strata.

Protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial assessing transperineal prostate biopsy to reduce infectiouscomplications.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately one million prostate biopsies are performed annually in the USA, and most are performed using a transrectal approach under local anaesthesia. The risk of postbiopsy infection is increasing due to increasing antibiotic resistance of rectal flora. Single-centre studies suggest that a clean, percutaneous transperineal approach to prostate biopsy may have a lower risk of infection. To date, there is no high-level evidence comparing transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy. We hypothesise that transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy under local anaesthesia has a significantly lower risk of infection, similar pain/discomfort levels and comparable detection of non-low-grade prostate cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a multicentre, prospective randomised clinical trial to compare transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy for elevated prostate-specific antigen in the first biopsy, prior negative biopsy and active surveillance biopsy setting. Prostate MRI will be performed prior to biopsy, and targeted biopsy will be conducted for suspicious MRI lesions in addition to systematic biopsy (12 cores). Approximately 1700 men will be recruited and randomised in a 1:1 ratio to transperineal versus transrectal biopsy. A streamlined design to collect data and to determine trial eligibility along with the two-stage consent process will be used to facilitate subject recruitment and retention. The primary outcome is postbiopsy infection, and secondary outcomes include other adverse events (bleeding, urinary retention), pain/discomfort/anxiety and critically, detection of non-low-grade (grade group ≥2) prostate cancer. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Review Board of the Biomedical Research Alliance of New York approved the research protocol (protocol number #18-02-365, approved 20 April 2020). The results of the trial will be presented at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04815876.

Non-infectious complications following transrectal prostate needle biopsy - Outcomes from over 8000 procedures.

Background: Prostate needle biopsy (PNB) remains the referent standard for diagnosing prostate cancer. Contemporary data highlight an increase in PNB-related infections particularly when performed transrectally. Non-infectious complications, however, may similarly contribute to biopsy-related morbidity. We review the incidence and predictors of non-infectious complications following transrectal PNB in a large statewide quality registry. Methods: Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsies performed between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The incidence and distribution of non-infectious complications were annotated. Clinical, demographic, and biopsy variables of interest were evaluated by logistic regression for potential association with specific types of non-infectious complications. Results: Of 8,102 biopsies, 277 (3.4%) biopsies had reported post-procedure complications including 199 (2.5%) non-infectious and 78 (0.9%) infectious. Among the non-infectious complications, the most common events included urinary or rectal bleeding (74; 0.9%), urinary retention (70, 0.9%), vasovagal syncope (13, 0.2%), and severe post-operative pain (10, 0.1%). Approximately 56% of these non-infectious complications required an Emergency Department visit (111/199) and 27% (54/199) hospital admission for monitoring. Increasing transrectal ultrasound prostate volume was associated with post-procedure urinary retention (Odds ratio (OR) 1.07, 1.02-1.11, p = 0.002). No specific variables noted association with post-biopsy bleeding. Conclusion: Non-infectious complications occurred 2.5 times more often than infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound prostate needle biopsies. Larger prostate size was associated with a greater risk of post-procedure urinary retention. These data originating from experience from over 100 urologists across different health systems provide an important framework in counseling patients regarding expectations following transrectal prostate biopsy.

Utility of PSA density in patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions across a large multi-institutional collaborative.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate MRI detecting PI-RADs = 3 lesions has low diagnostic utility for prostate malignancy. Use of PSA density has been suggested to further risk-stratify these men, to potentially avoid biopsies in favor of monitoring. We evaluate the ability of PSA density (PSAd) to risk-stratify PIRADs 3 lesions across patients who underwent a prostate biopsy in a large multi-institutional collaborative. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pennsylvania Urology Regional Collaborative (PURC) is a voluntary quality improvement collaborative of 11 academic and community urology practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients in the PURC database that had a prostate MRI with PI-RADs 3 lesions only. PSA just before the MRI and prostate size reported on MRI were used to calculate the PSA. Clinicopathologic data were evaluated. Univariable analysis using Chi-Square and Kruskal Wallis tests and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify predictors of any PCa, and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as ≥ Grade Group 2 (GG2.) RESULTS: Between May 2015 and March 2021, 349 patients with PIRADs 3 lesions only were identified and comprised the cohort of interest. Median PSA was 5.0 with a prostate volume of 58cc and a median PSA density of 0.11, 10.6% of the cohort was African American with 81.4% being Caucasian. Significant prostate cancer was detected in 70/349 (20.0%) men. Smaller prostate volume, abnormal DRE, and higher PSAd were significantly associated with clinically significant prostate cancer on univariable analysis. In men with PSAd <0.15, 31/228 (13.6%) harbored csPCa. Multivariable analysis confirmed that men with PSAd >0.15 were more likely to harbor clinically significant prostate cancer (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Across a large regional collaborative, patients with PIRADs 3 lesions on mpMRI were noted to have clinically significant cancer in 20% of biopsies. Using a PSA density cut-off of 0.15 may result in missing clinically significant prostate cancer in 13.6%. This information is useful for prebiopsy risk stratification and counseling.

Perspectives on the Role of Biopsy for Management of T1 Renal Masses: Survey Results From Two Regional Quality Improvement Collaboratives.

OBJECTIVE: To understand perspectives on renal mass biopsy, a survey was distributed to urologists in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative and Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative. Renal mass biopsy (RMB) may reduce treatment of benign renal neoplasms; however, utilization varies widely. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative and Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative are two quality improvement collaboratives that include a "real-world" collection of urologists from academic- and community-based settings. A 12-item survey assessing current RMB utilization, patient- and tumor-specific factors, adverse events, impact on management, and simulated patient scenarios was distributed. Responses are reported using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Many responders (n = 54) indicated using RMB in less than 25% of cT1a (59%) and cT1b (85%) tumors. The most important patient-specific factors on the decision to recommend RMB were possible metastasis to the kidney (94%), patient comorbidity as a risk factor for active treatment (89%), and patient age (81%). The most important tumor-specific factors were the presence of bilateral tumors (81%), tumor size (70%) and perceived potential of performing nephron-sparing surgery (67%). Ten responders (19%) noted barriers to RMB in their practice, 23 (43%) recalled experiences with complications or poor outcomes, and 43 (80%) reported experiences where the results of RMB altered management. When presented with simulated patients, few urologists (9%-20%) recommended RMB in younger patients with any sized mass. Recommendations varied based on patient age, comorbidity, and tumor size. CONCLUSION: Understanding perspectives on RMB usage is essential prior to implementing quality improvement efforts. Most urologists participating in two statewide collaboratives infrequently recommend RMB. Optimizing RMB utilization may help reduce unnecessary treatments.

Assessment of Prostate Cancer Treatment Among Black and White Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, racial/ethnic minority communities disproportionately experienced poor outcomes; however, the association of the pandemic with prostate cancer (PCa) care is unknown. Objective: To assess the association between race and PCa care delivery for Black and White patients during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, regional, collaborative, retrospective cohort study compared prostatectomy rates between Black and White patients with untreated nonmetastatic PCa during the COVID-19 pandemic (269 patients from March 16 to May 15, 2020) and prior (378 patients from March 11 to May 10, 2019). Main Outcomes and Measures: Prostatectomy rates. Results: Of the 647 men with nonmetastatic PCa, 172 (26.6%) were non-Hispanic Black men, and 475 (73.4%) were non-Hispanic White men. Black men were significantly less likely to undergo prostatectomy during the pandemic compared with White patients (1 of 76 [1.3%] vs 50 of 193 [25.9%]; P < .001), despite similar COVID-19 risk factors, biopsy Gleason grade groups, and comparable prostatectomy rates prior to the pandemic (17 of 96 [17.7%] vs 54 of 282 [19.1%]; P = .75). Black men had higher median prostate-specific antigen levels prior to biopsy (8.8 ng/mL [interquartile range, 5.3-15.2 ng/mL] vs 7.2 ng/mL [interquartile range, 5.1-11.1 ng/mL]; P = .04). A linear combination of regression coefficients with an interaction term for year demonstrated an odds ratio for likelihood of surgery of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.01-0.35; P = .002) for Black patients and 1.41 (95% CI, 0.81-2.44; P = .23) for White patients during the pandemic compared with prior to the pandemic. Changes in surgical volume varied by site (from a 33% increase to complete shutdown), with sites that experienced the largest reduction in cancer surgery caring for a greater proportion of Black patients. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large multi-institutional regional collaborative cohort study, the odds of PCa surgery were lower among Black patients compared with White patients during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although localized PCa does not require immediate treatment, the lessons from this study suggest systemic inequities within health care and are likely applicable across medical specialties. Public health efforts are needed to fully recognize the unintended consequence of diversion of cancer resources to the COVID-19 pandemic to develop balanced mitigation strategies as viral rates continue to fluctuate.

The past, present, and future of urological quality improvement collaboratives.

Surgical quality improvement collaboratives (QIC) have been established across the nation in numerous specialties. These QICs have shown efficacy in improving the quality, safety and value of care delivered to patients with a wide range of medical conditions. In recent years, urological QICs have emerged, including regional collaboratives such as the Michigan Urological Surgical Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) and Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative (PURC), as well as the national American Urological Association Quality Registry Program (AQUA). These urological collaboratives, developed with an initial focus on prostate cancer, have demonstrated an ability to accurately measure prostate cancer outcomes, compare these outcomes among providers and institutions, and enact change among both patients and providers to optimize outcomes for men with prostate cancer. Physician-led regional collaboratives may be uniquely positioned to respond quickly to the rapidly-evolving healthcare landscape and enact practice and provider-level changes when appropriate. This review describes the historical background, current structure and function, and potential future directions of these urologic QICs.

Preventing Prostate Biopsy Complications: to Augment or to Swab?

OBJECTIVE: To use data from a large, prospectively- acquired regional collaborative database to compare the risk of infectious complications associated with three American Urologic Association- recommended antibiotic prophylaxis pathways, including culture-directed or augmented antibiotics, following prostate biopsy. METHODS: Data on prostate biopsies and outcomes were collected from the Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative, a regional quality collaborative working to improve the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. Patients were categorized as receiving one of three prophylaxis pathways: culture-directed, augmented, or provider-discretion. Infectious complications included fever, urinary tract infections or sepsis within one month of biopsy. Odds ratios of infectious complication by pathway were determined, and univariate and multivariate analyses of patient and biopsy characteristics were performed. RESULTS: 11,940 biopsies were included, 120 of which resulted in infectious outcomes. Of the total biopsies, 3246 used "culture-directed", 1446 used "augmented" and 7207 used "provider-discretion" prophylaxis. Compared to provider-discretion, the culture-directed pathway had 84% less chance of any infectious outcome (OR= 0.159, 95% CI = [0.074, 0.344], P < 0.001). There was no difference in infectious complications between augmented and provider-discretion pathways. CONCLUSIONS: The culture-directed pathway for transrectal prostate biopsy resulted in significantly fewer infectious complications compared to other prophylaxis strategies. Tailoring antibiotics addresses antibiotic-resistant bacteria and reduces future risk of resistance. These findings make a strong case for incorporating culture-directed antibiotic prophylaxis into clinical practice guidelines to reduce infection following prostate biopsies.

Prescribing Trends in Post-operative Pain Management After Urologic Surgery: A Quality Care Investigation for Healthcare Providers.

OBJECTIVE: To assess prescribing and refilling trends of narcotics in postoperative urology patients at our institution. Although the opioid epidemic remains a public health threat, no series has assessed prescribing patterns across urologic surgery disciplines following discharge. METHODS: All urologic surgeries were retrospectively reviewed from May 2017-April 2018. Demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative pain management strategies were analyzed. Narcotics usage following surgery were reported in total morphine equivalents (TME). Opioid refill rate was characterized by medical specialty and stratified by urologic discipline. RESULTS: 817 cases were reviewed. Mean age and TME at discharge was 57±15.6 years and 35.43±19.5 mg, respectively. 13.6% (mean age 55±15.9) received a narcotic refill following discharge (mean TME/refill 37.7±28.9 mg). A higher proportion of patients with a pre-operative opioid prescription received a refill compared to opioid naïve patients (38.2% vs 21.6%, P < .01). Refill rate did not differ between urologic subspecialties (P = .3). Urologists were only responsible for 20.4% of all refills filled, despite all patients continuing follow-up with their surgeon. Procedures with the highest rates of post-operative refills were in oncology, male reconstruction/trauma and endourology. Patients with a history of chronic pain (OR 1.9, CI 1.1-3.3) preoperative narcotic prescription (OR 1.6, CI 1.0-2.6), and higher ASA score (OR 1.8, CI 1.6-2.8) were more likely to obtain a postoperative opioid prescription refill. CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 in 7 postoperative urology patients receive a postoperative narcotics refill; however, nearly two-thirds receive refills exclusively from non-urologic providers. Attempts to avoid overprescribing of postoperative narcotics need to account for both surgeon and nonsurgeon sources of opioid refills.

Impact of COVID-19 on Initial Management and Evaluation of Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic starkly affected all aspects of health care, forcing many to divert resources towards emergent patient needs while decreasing emphasis on routine cancer care. We compared prostate cancer care before and during the pandemic in a multi-institutional cohort. METHODS: A prospective regional collaborative was queried to assess practice pattern variations relative to the initial COVID-19 lockdown (March 16 to May 15, 2020). The preceding 10 months were selected for comparison. The impact of the lockdown was evaluated on the basis of 1) weekly trends in biopsy and radical prostatectomy volumes, 2) comparisons between those undergoing prostate biopsy, and 3) clinicopathological characteristics within radical prostatectomy patients. Categorical variables were compared using Fisher's exact and Pearson's chi-square tests, and Wilcoxon rank sum test to evaluate continuous covariates. RESULTS: Overall, there was a 55% and 39% decline in biopsy and prostatectomy volumes, respectively. During the pandemic, biopsy patients were younger with fewer COVID-19 severity risk factors (17.0% vs 9.7% no risk factors, p=0.023) and prostatectomy patients had higher grade group (GG; 45.6% >GG 4 vs 28%, p=0.01). Large variation in the change in procedural volume was noted across practice sites. CONCLUSION: In a multi-institutional assessment of surgical and diagnostic delay for prostate cancer, we found a non-uniform decline in procedural volume across sites. Future analyses within this cohort are needed to further discern the effects of care delays related to COVID-19.

Concordance of confirmatory prostate biopsy in active surveillance with national guidelines: An analysis from the multi-institutional PURC cohort.

PURPOSE: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend confirmatory biopsy within 12 months of active surveillance (AS) enrollment. With <10 cores on initial biopsy, re-biopsy should occur within 6 months. Our objective was to determine if patients on AS within practices in the Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative (PURC) receive guideline concordant confirmatory biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within PURC, a prospective collaborative of diverse urology practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, we identified men enrolled in AS after first biopsy, analyzing time to re-biopsy and factors associated with various intervals of re-biopsy. RESULTS: In total, 1,047 patients were enrolled in AS for a minimum of 12 months after initial biopsy. Four hundred seventy-seven (45%) underwent second biopsy at 1 of the 9 PURC practices. The number of patients undergoing re-biopsy within 6 months, 6 to 12 months, 12 to 18 months, and >18 months was 71 (14%), 218 (45.7%), 134 (28%), and 54 (11%), respectively. Sixty percent underwent confirmatory biopsy within 12 months. On multivariate analysis, re-biopsy interval was associated with number of positive cores, perineural invasion, and practice ID (all P < 0.05). Adjusted multivariable regression did not identify factors predictive of re-biopsy interval. CONCLUSION: Of patients who underwent confirmatory biopsy at PURC practices, 60.5% were within 12 months per NCCN guidelines. This suggests area for improvement in guideline adherence after enrollment in AS. All practices that offer AS should periodically perform similar analyses to monitor their performance. In an era of value-based care, adherence to guideline based active surveillance practices may eventually comprise national quality metrics affecting provider reimbursement.

Stakeholder Perspective on Opioid Stewardship After Prostatectomy: Evaluating Barriers and Facilitators From the Pennsylvania Urology Regional Collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate existing practice patterns and potential barriers to implementing opioid stewardship protocols after robot-assisted prostatectomies among providers in the Pennsylvania Urology Regional Collaborative. METHODS: The Pennsylvania Urology Regional Collaborative (PURC) is a voluntary quality improvement initiative of 11 academic and community urology practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey representing 97 urologists. PURC distributed a web-based survey of 24 questions, with 74 respondents, including 56 attendings, 11 residents, and 7 advanced practice providers. RESULTS: More pills were prescribed if there was a default number of pills from the electronic health record (median 30) then if the number of pills was manually placed (P = .01). Only 8% discussed how to dispose of opioids with their patients, and less than a third of respondents discussed postoperative pain expectations or risks of opioid use. Patient level risk factors were often not reviewed, as 42% did not ask about previous opioid exposure. CONCLUSION: This study revealed extensive knowledge disparities among providers about opioid stewardship and significant gaps in the evidence-to-practice continuum of care. In the next year, PURC will be implementing targeted interventions to augment provider education, establish clear pathways for opioid disposal, improve utilization of known resources and implement opioid reduction protocols in all participating sites.

Active Surveillance as Initial Management of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer: Data from the PURC.

PURPOSE: We describe contemporary active surveillance utilization and variation in a regional prostate cancer collaborative. We identified demographic and disease specific factors associated with active surveillance in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from the PURC (Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative), a cooperative effort of urology practices in southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We determined the rates of active surveillance among men with newly diagnosed NCCN® (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) very low, low or intermediate prostate cancer and compared the rates among participating practices and providers. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to identify factors associated with active surveillance utilization. RESULTS: A total of 1,880 men met inclusion criteria. Of the men with NCCN very low or low risk prostate cancer 57.4% underwent active surveillance as the initial management strategy. Increasing age was significantly associated with active surveillance (p <0.001) while adverse clinicopathological variables were associated with decreased active surveillance use. Substantial variation in active surveillance utilization was observed among practices and providers. CONCLUSIONS: More than 50% of men with low risk disease in the PURC collaborative were treated with active surveillance. However, substantial variation in active surveillance rates were observed among practices and providers in academic and community settings. Advanced age and favorable clinicopathological factors were strongly associated with active surveillance. Analysis of regional collaboratives such as the PURC may allow for the development of strategies to better standardize treatment in men with prostate cancer and offer active surveillance in a more uniform and systematic fashion.

Focal ablation therapy for renal cancer in the era of active surveillance and minimally invasive partial nephrectomy.

Partial nephrectomy is the optimal surgical approach in the management of small renal masses (SRMs). Focal ablation therapy has an established role in the modern management of SRMs, especially in elderly patients and those with comorbidities. Percutaneous ablation avoids general anaesthesia and laparoscopic ablation can avoid excessive dissection; hence, these techniques can be suitable for patients who are not ideal surgical candidates. Several ablation modalities exist, of which radiofrequency ablation and cryoablation are most widely applied and for which safety and oncological efficacy approach equivalency to partial nephrectomy. Data supporting efficacy and safety of ablation techniques continue to mature, but they originate in institutional case series that are confounded by cohort heterogeneity, selection bias, and lack of long-term follow-up periods. Image guidance and surveillance protocols after ablation vary and no consensus has been established. The importance of SRM biopsy, its optimal timing, the type of biopsy used, and its role in treatment selection continue to be debated. As safety data for active surveillance and experience with minimally invasive partial nephrectomy are expanding, the role of focal ablation therapy in the treatment of patients with SRMs requires continued evaluation.

Perioperative Outcomes Following Partial Nephrectomy Performed on Patients Remaining on Antiplatelet Therapy.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the risk of bleeding complications in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy in whom perioperative antiplatelet therapy was continued, as antiplatelet therapy is increasingly used and hemorrhage is a significant concern in partial nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this 2-center retrospective analysis 1,097 patients underwent partial nephrectomy between 2000 and 2014. The cohort was split into 3 groups of perioperative continuation of antiplatelet therapy (group 1-67), antiplatelet therapy stopped preoperatively (group 2-254) and no chronic antiplatelet therapy (group 3-776). Bleeding complications were defined as any transfusion, or any hospital readmission or secondary procedure performed for hemorrhage. Multivariable analysis was performed to elucidate independent risk factors for bleeding complications. RESULTS: Patients in group 1 were older (median age 66 years vs 64 and 57 years in groups 2/3, p <0.0001), and had greater comorbidity (median ASA classification score 3 vs 2 and 2, p <0.0001). Group 1 had a higher rate of bleeding complications (20.9% vs 7.1% and 6.4%, p <0.0001) and transfusions (16.4% vs 5.9% and 5.4%, p=0.002). Multivariable analysis revealed continued antiplatelet therapy was an independent predictor of bleeding complications (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.06-4.51, p=0.03). These findings appear attributable to intraoperative clopidogrel use. On multivariable analysis the use of aspirin alone was not associated with bleeding complications (OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.72-3.75, p=0.24). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of bleeding complications due to antiplatelet therapy use at partial nephrectomy may be due to clopidogrel. The need to continue perioperative aspirin alone does not appear to be a contraindication to the safe performance of partial nephrectomy.