Quantifying the "Assistant Effect" in Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP): Measures of Technical Performance.

PURPOSE: Surgeons are reliant on the bedside assistant during robotic surgeries. Using a modified global rating scale (GRS), we aim to assess the association between an assistant's technical skill on surgeon performance in Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: Prospective, intraoperative video from RARP cases at three centers were collected. Baseline demographic and RARP-experience data were collected from participating surgeons and trainees. The dissection of the prostatic pedicle and neurovascular bundle step (NVB) was analyzed. Expert analysts scored the console surgeon performance using the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS), and the bedside assistant performance using a modified Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (aOSATS). The primary outcome is the association between console surgeon performance, as measured by GEARS, and assistant skill, as measured by aOSATS. Spearman's rho correlations were used to test the relationship between assistant and surgeon technical performance, and a multivariable linear regression model was created to test this association while controlling for patient factors. RESULTS: 92 RARP cases were available for the analysis, comprising 14 console surgeons and 22 different bedside assistants. In only 5 (5.4%) cases, the neurovascular bundle step was completed by a trainee, and in 13 (14.1%) of cases, a staff-level surgeon acted as the bedside assistant. aOSATS score was significantly associated with robotic console experience (P = 0.011), and prior laparoscopic experience (P < 0.001). Assistant aOSATS score showed a weak but significant correlation with surgeon GEARS score during the neurovascular bundle step (spearman's rho = 0.248, P = 0.028). On linear regression, aOSATS remained a significant predictor of console surgeon performance (P = 0.016), after controlling for patient age and BMI, prostate volume, tumor stage, and presence of nerve-sparing. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to assess the association between assistant technical skill and surgeon performance in RARP. Additionally, we have provided validity evidence for a modified OSATS global rating scale for training and assessing bedside assistant performance.

Androgen deprivation therapy: indications, methods of utilization, side effects and their management.

Our objective is to provide an up-to-date summary of current literature on the indications for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), ways in which ADT is used, and the main side effects associated with its use. MEDLINE (Pubmed) was searched for relevant papers published from database inception to May 1, 2019 for studies evaluating the use of ADT and its associated adverse events. ADT is a mainstay in the treatment of prostate cancer and is used throughout the disease course. While predominantly used in the metastatic setting, ADT has a role in the treatment of localized disease and in the management of recurrent cancer. Intermittent ADT has an application for a certain subset of men with recurrent and metastatic disease who have significant side effects. Associated side effects of ADT are wide ranging and include osteoporosis with an associated increased fracture risk, elevated rates of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular risk, sexual dysfunction and hot flashes. As ADT has a variety of associated side effects, care for men receiving ADT is best managed in a multidisciplinary setting with active participation between the treating physician (urologist, radiation oncologist) and their primary care physician.

Improving prostate cancer care collaboratively - a multidisciplinary, formal, consensus-based approach.

INTRODUCTION: There are numerous standard treatment options for men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. Multidisciplinary consultation before decision-making is a consensus- and quality-based objective in Ontario. With the goals of working together more collaboratively and to provide higher quality information for patients at the time of decision-making, a prostate cancer community partnership consensus (PCPC) panel was formed among six partnering centers in the Greater Toronto Area. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five iterative meetings were held among 40 prostate cancer specialists (32 urologists and 8 radiation oncologists) who participate in multidisciplinary clinics. The meetings defined the goals of the partnership as well as the topics and questions the group would address together. Answers to these questions were developed by formal consensus: >= 75% of participants had to agree with wording based on secret ballots to achieve consensus. RESULTS: All six groups wanted to participate to improve patient care/decision-making. Forty-one questions addressing 30 issues were derived from the literature and the group's collective experience. These issues were cross-tabbed against five management options: active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, low dose rate brachytherapy, high dose rate brachytherapy boost and external beam radiation. Answers common to all modalities were coalesced. Eighty-six issues were subjected to formal consensus. After three rounds of secret ballots, consensus was achieved for the answers to all issues. CONCLUSIONS: A formal consensus-based partnership between urology and radiation oncology to support newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients was feasible and resulted in a patient information guide which may improve decision-making.

A pilot randomized trial of conventional versus advanced pelvic floor exercises to treat urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Radical prostatectomy is the most common and effective treatment for localized prostate cancer. Unfortunately, radical prostatectomy is associated with urinary incontinence and has a significant negative impact on quality of life. Pelvic floor exercises are the most common non-invasive management strategy for urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy; however, studies provide inconsistent findings regarding their efficacy. One potential reason for sub-optimal efficacy of these interventions is the under-utilization of regional muscles that normally co-activate with the pelvic floor, such as the transverse abdominis, rectus abdominis, and the diaphragm. Two novel approaches to improve urinary continence recovery are 'Pfilates' and 'Hypopressives' that combine traditional pelvic floor exercises with the activation of additional supportive muscles. Our study will compare an advanced pelvic floor exercise training program that includes Pfilates and Hypopressives, to a conventional pelvic floor exercises regimen for the treatment of post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a pilot, randomized controlled trial of advanced pelvic floor muscle training versus conventional pelvic floor exercises for men with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eighty-eight men who will be undergoing radical prostatectomy at hospitals in Toronto, Canada will be recruited. Eligible participants must not have undergone androgen deprivation therapy and/or radiation therapy. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive 26 weeks of the advanced or conventional pelvic floor exercise programs. Each program will be progressive and have comparable exercise volume. The primary outcomes are related to feasibility for a large, adequately powered randomized controlled trial to determine efficacy for the treatment of urinary incontinence. Feasibility will be assessed via recruitment success, participant retention, outcome capture, intervention adherence, and prevalence of adverse events. Secondary outcomes of intervention efficacy include measures of pelvic floor strength, urinary incontinence, erectile function, and quality of life. Secondary outcome measures will be collected prior to surgery (baseline), and at 2, 6, 12, 26-weeks post-operatively. DISCUSSION: Pfilates and Hypopressives are novel approaches to optimizing urinary function after radical prostatectomy. This trial will provide the foundation of data for future, large-scale trials to definitively describe the effect of these advanced pelvic floor exercise modalities compared to conventional pelvic floor exercise regimes for men with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicalstrials.gov Identifier: NCT02233608.

What is significant hematuria for the primary care physician?

Hematuria is a common finding in primary care practice. Causes of significant hematuria include urinary tract infection, urolithiasis, malignancies, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and nephropathies. Hematuria is identified by taking a patient history and by performing a routine urine dipstick test. If a patient has a history of gross hematuria and/or a positive urine dipstick test, he or she should then have a microscopic urinalysis. The primary care physician can order ancillary tests such as laboratory tests to assess renal function, and possible imaging tests such as ultrasound, computed tomography urography, or magnetic resonance urography. The patient may be referred to a nephrologist or urologist for further assessment if required. Cystoscopy may be considered. Even if the patient has a negative work up, guidelines recommend that primary care physicians follow the patient semi-annually for 3 years.

Supply the demand: Assessment of the feasibility of local nonurologists in relieving the burden of chronic indwelling catheters in a low-income country.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the high prevalence rates of urinary retention in sub-Saharan Africa, regional deficiencies in urological care have culminated in inadequate medical management and a backlog of urology cases. Our study examined the efficacy and safety of a surgical camp enlisting local non-urologists performing simple open prostatectomy on the rate of chronic catheter usage secondary to urinary retention. METHODS: We reported on a prospective case series of patients with chronic indwelling catheters who underwent open simple prostatectomy during a one-week urology camp in the Machinga District of Malawi. All operations were performed by a locally trained general surgeon and a clinical officer. RESULTS: Twenty-three (47.9%) of 48 male patients with urinary retention assessed for eligibility for open simple prostatectomy were deemed eligible and underwent the procedure. Of the patients who underwent an open simple prostatectomy, histopathological findings demonstrated benign prostatic hyperplasia in 19 patients (82.6%), while six patients (26.1%) had coincidental malignancy. At postoperative followup, the entire cohort was catheter-free and reported regular sexual activity and the ability to return to work, while 87.0% noted improvements in social integration and 34.8% cited higher self-esteem. Two patients required treatment for infection and one patient experienced fascial dehiscence. Two months following prostatectomy, all patients were catheter-free and able to void independently. CONCLUSIONS: Local surgical practitioners without formal urology training can successfully perform open simple prostatectomy to relieve patients of chronic indwelling catheters and assist in addressing the disease burden in a low-resource setting.

Supply the demand: Assessment of the feasibility of local non-urologists in relieving the burden of chronic indwelling catheters in a low-income country.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the high prevalence rates of urinary retention in sub-Saharan Africa, regional deficiencies in urological care have culminated in inadequate medical management, and a backlog of urology cases. Our study examined the efficacy and safety of a surgical camp enlisting local non-urologists performing simple open prostatectomy on the rate of chronic catheter usage secondary to urinary retention. METHODS: We reported on a prospective case series of patients with chronic indwelling catheters who underwent open simple prostatectomy during a one-week urology camp in the Machinga District of Malawi. All operations were performed by a locally trained general surgeon and a clinical officer. RESULTS: Twenty-three (47.9%) of 48 male patients with urinary retention assessed for eligibility for open simple prostatectomy were deemed eligible and underwent the procedure. Of the patients who underwent an open simple prostatectomy, histopathological findings demonstrated benign prostatic hyperplasia in 19 patients (82.6%), while six patients (26.1%) had coincidental malignancy. At postoperative followup, the entire cohort was catheter-free and reported regular sexual activity and the ability to return to work, while 87.0% noted improvements in social integration and 34.8% cited higher self-esteem. Two patients required treatment for infection and one patient experienced fascial dehiscence. Two months following prostatectomy, all patients were catheter-free and able to void independently. CONCLUSIONS: Local surgical practitioners without formal urology training can successfully perform open simple prostatectomy to relieve patients of chronic indwelling catheters and assist in addressing the disease burden in a low-resource setting.

The burden of urological disease in Zomba, Malawi: A needs assessment in a sub-Saharan tertiary care center.

INTRODUCTION: A large part of the developing world continues to lack access to surgical care. Urology remains one of the least represented surgical subspecialties in global health. To begin understanding the burden of urological illness in sub-Saharan Africa, we sought to characterize all patients presenting to a tertiary care hospital in Malawi with a urological diagnosis or related complaint in the past year. METHODS: Retrospective review of the surgical clinic and surgical theater record books at Zomba Central Hospital (ZCH) was performed over a one-year time span. Patients presenting with urological diagnoses or undergoing a urological procedure under local or general anesthetic in the operating theater were identified and entered into a database. RESULTS: We reviewed 440 clinical patients. The most common clinical presentations were for urinary retention (34.7%) and lower urinary tract symptoms (15.5%). A total of 182 surgical cases were reviewed. The most common diagnoses for surgical patients were urethral stricture disease (22%), bladder masses (17%), and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) symptoms (14.8%). Urethral stricture-related procedures, including direct visual internal urethrotomy and urethral dilatation, were the most common (14.2% and 7.7%, respectively). BPH-related procedures, including simple prostatectomy and transurethral resection of the prostate were the second most common (6.7% and 8.2%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Urethral stricture disease, BPH, and urinary retention represent the clinical diagnoses with the highest burden of visits. Despite these numbers, few definitive procedures are performed annually. Further focus on urological training in sub-Saharan Africa should focus on these conditions and their surgical management.

Pfilates and Hypopressives for the Treatment of Urinary Incontinence After Radical Prostatectomy: Results of a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI) is an important side effect of radical prostatectomy (RP). Coactivation of surrounding muscles via novel techniques for pelvic floor rehabilitation known as Pfilates and Hypopressives has not been compared to pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFMXs) for UI. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and efficacy of isolated PFMXs with and without the addition of Pfilates and Hypopressives on UI recovery following RP. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Participants were recruited from a community and tertiary cancer center in Toronto, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 226 patients undergoing RP were assessed for eligibility. One hundred twenty-two patients were eligible and 50 consented to participate; 37 participants completed the trial. METHODS: Participants were randomized to either isolated PFMX (control) or PFMX plus Pfilates and Hypopressives (advanced pelvic floor exercises; APFX) groups. PFMX participants (n = 25) received instructions for isolated pelvic floor contractions starting with 30 contractions per day during weeks 1 to 2 up to 180 per day for weeks 7 to 26. The APFX group (n = 25) received a comparable volume of exercises. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Feasibility was assessed by rates of recruitment, adverse events, and study-arm compliance. Information about UI and quality of life was collected 1 week before surgery and at 2, 6, 12, and 26 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: The recruitment rate was 41%, adherence to the PFMXs and APFXs was >70%, and there were no reported adverse events. Between-group differences were observed in the frequency of self-reported 24-hour urinary leakage (rate ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2-0.98) and during waking hours (rate ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.91) at 26 weeks after surgery favoring APFX. CONCLUSIONS: Pfilates and Hypopressives are feasible in men undergoing RP, and preliminary data suggest a potential benefit in aiding recovery of urinary control. Larger studies with longer follow-up are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Next-generation prostate cancer risk calculator for primary care physicians.

INTRODUCTION: Current prostate cancer risk calculators are limited in impact because only a probability of having prostate cancer is provided. We developed the next generation of prostate cancer risk calculator that incorporates life expectancy in order to better evaluate prostate cancer risk in context to a patient's age and comorbidity. METHODS: We combined two cohorts to develop the new risk calculator. The first was 5638 subjects who all underwent a prostate biopsy for prostate cancer detection. The second was 979 men diagnosed with prostate cancer with long-term survival data. Two regression models were used to create multivariable nomograms and an online prostate cancer risk calculator was developed. RESULTS: Of the 5638 patients who underwent a prostate biopsy, 629 (11%) were diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer (Gleason Score 7[4+3] or more). Of the 979 patients who underwent treatment for prostate cancer, the 10-year overall survival (OS) was 49.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 46.6-52.9). The first multivariable nomogram for cancer risk had a concordance index of 0.74 (95% CI 0.72, 0.76), and the second nomogram to predict survival had a concordance index of 0.71 (95% CI 0.69-0.72). The next-generation prostate cancer risk calculator was developed online and is available at: http://riskcalc.org/ProstateCA_Screen_Tool. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed the next-generation prostate cancer risk calculator that incorporates a patient's life expectancy based on age and comorbidity. This approach will better evaluate prostate cancer risk. Future studies examining other populations will be needed for validation.

Prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer screening: A national survey of Canadian primary care physicians' opinions and practices.

INTRODUCTION: In 2014, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) recommended against routine prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test. We surveyed Canadian primary care physicians (PCPs) to understand their opinions and attitudes towards prostate cancer screening in 2016. METHODS: Twenty PCPs piloted the survey to assess its accessibility. We distributed a flyer to 19 633 PCPs as an insert in a large mailed package inviting them to attend a national meeting, and later promoted the survey at the meeting. Multinomial logistic regression models examined factors associated with agreement of key guideline statements and the overall benefit of PSA screening. RESULTS: A total of 1254 PCPs responded (rate of 6.4%); 54.7% of physicians aware of the CTFPHC recommendations report screening less often as a result. Overall, 55.6% of PCPs feel that the risks of PSA screening outweigh the benefits. On multivariable analysis, physicians who did not read the guidelines, did not have an academic appointment, or were in practice for over 20 years were significantly more likely to disagree with the statement that men 55-69 years old should not be screened for prostate cancer with PSA. CONCLUSIONS: Our national survey found that the prostate cancer screening practices of Canadian PCPs varies widely across physician demographic groups, with almost equal numbers for or against. This has significant ethical, medical, and legal implications. The poor response rate to highly incentivized survey request may suggest a reluctance or general apathy towards this subject because of the Task Force recommendations. Future efforts should provide physicians with objective guidance around PSA screening, incorporating input from all stakeholders, including PCPs, urologists, and patients.

Prospective multi-institutional study evaluating the performance of prostate cancer risk calculators.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer risk calculators incorporate many factors to evaluate an individual's risk for prostate cancer. We validated two common North American-based, prostate cancer risk calculators. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multi-institutional study of 2,130 patients who underwent a prostate biopsy for prostate cancer detection from five centers. We evaluated the performance of the Sunnybrook nomogram-based prostate cancer risk calculator (SRC) and the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) -based risk calculator (PRC) to predict the presence of any cancer and high-grade cancer. We examined discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis techniques to evaluate the prediction models. RESULTS: Of the 2,130 patients, 867 men (40.7%) were found to have cancer, and 1,263 (59.3%) did not have cancer. Of the patients with cancer, 403 (46.5%) had a Gleason score of 7 or more. The area under the [concentration-time] curve (AUC) for the SRC was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.69); the AUC for the PRC was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.64). The AUC was higher for predicting aggressive disease from the SRC (0.72; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.75) compared with that from the PRC (0.67; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.70). Decision curve analyses showed that the SRC performed better than the PRC for risk thresholds of more than 30% for any cancer and more than 15% for aggressive cancer. CONCLUSION: The SRC performed better than the PRC, but neither one added clinical benefit for risk thresholds of less than 30%. Further research is needed to improve the AUCs of the risk calculators, particularly for higher-grade cancer.