Single-cell analysis of localized prostate cancer patients links high Gleason score with an immunosuppressive profile.

BACKGROUND: Evading immune surveillance is a hallmark for the development of multiple cancer types. Whether immune evasion contributes to the pathogenesis of high-grade prostate cancer (HGPCa) remains an area of active inquiry. METHODS: Through single-cell RNA sequencing and multicolor flow cytometry of freshly isolated prostatectomy specimens and matched peripheral blood, we aimed to characterize the tumor immune microenvironment (TME) of localized prostate cancer (PCa), including HGPCa and low-grade prostate cancer (LGPCa). RESULTS: HGPCa are highly infiltrated by exhausted CD8+ T cells, myeloid cells, and regulatory T cells (TRegs). These HGPCa-infiltrating CD8+ T cells expressed high levels of exhaustion markers including TIM3, TOX, TCF7, PD-1, CTLA4, TIGIT, and CXCL13. By contrast, a high ratio of activated CD8+  effector T cells relative to TRegs and myeloid cells infiltrate the TME of LGPCa. HGPCa CD8+  tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) expressed more androgen receptor and prostate-specific membran antigen yet less prostate-specific antigen than the LGPCa CD8+  TILs. The PCa TME was infiltrated by macrophages but these did not clearly cluster by M1 and M2 markers. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals a suppressive TME with high levels of CD8+ T cell exhaustion in localized PCa, a finding enriched in HGPCa relative to LGPCa. These studies suggest a possible link between the clinical-pathologic risk of PCa and the associated TME. Our results have implications for our understanding of the immunologic mechanisms of PCa pathogenesis and the implementation of immunotherapy for localized PCa.

Interaction between race and prostate cancer treatment benefit in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated that Black men may undergo definitive prostate cancer (CaP) treatment less often than men of other races, but it is unclear whether they are avoiding overtreatment of low-risk disease or experiencing a reduction in appropriate care. The authors' aim was to assess the role of race as it relates to treatment benefit in access to CaP treatment in a single-payer population. METHODS: The authors used the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse to perform a retrospective cohort study of veterans diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk CaP between 2011 and 2017. RESULTS: The authors identified 35,427 men with incident low- or intermediate-risk CaP. When they controlled for covariates, Black men had 1.05 times the odds of receiving treatment in comparison with non-Black men (P < .001), and high-treatment-benefit men had 1.4 times the odds of receiving treatment in comparison with those in the low-treatment-benefit group (P < .001). The interaction of race and treatment benefit was significant, with Black men in the high-treatment-benefit category less likely to receive treatment than non-Black men in the same treatment category (odds ratio, 0.89; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although race does appear to influence the receipt of definitive treatment in the VHA, this relationship varies in the context of the patient's treatment benefit, with Black men receiving less definitive treatment in high-benefit situations. The influence of patient race at high treatment benefit levels invites further investigation into the driving forces behind this persistent disparity in this consequential group.

COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients with active cancer: Experiences from a major New York City health care system.

BACKGROUND: The authors sought to study the risk factors associated with severe outcomes in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with cancer. METHODS: The authors queried the New York University Langone Medical Center's records for hospitalized patients who were polymerase chain reaction-positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) and performed chart reviews on patients with cancer diagnoses to identify patients with active cancer and patients with a history of cancer. Descriptive statistics were calculated and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine associations between clinical, demographic, and laboratory characteristics with outcomes, including death and admission to the intensive care unit. RESULTS: A total of 4184 hospitalized SARS CoV-2+ patients, including 233 with active cancer, were identified. Patients with active cancer were more likely to die than those with a history of cancer and those without any cancer history (34.3% vs 27.6% vs 20%, respectively; P < .01). In multivariable regression among all patients, active cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.89; CI, 1.34-2.67; P < .01), older age (OR, 1.06; CI, 1.05-1.06; P < .01), male sex (OR for female vs male, 0.70; CI, 0.58-0.84; P < .01), diabetes (OR, 1.26; CI, 1.04-1.53; P = .02), morbidly obese body mass index (OR, 1.87; CI, 1.24-2.81; P < .01), and elevated D-dimer (OR, 6.41 for value >2300; CI, 4.75-8.66; P < .01) were associated with increased mortality. Recent cancer-directed medical therapy was not associated with death in multivariable analysis. Among patients with active cancer, those with a hematologic malignancy had the highest mortality rate in comparison with other cancer types (47.83% vs 28.66%; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The authors found that patients with an active cancer diagnosis were more likely to die from COVID-19. Those with hematologic malignancies were at the highest risk of death. Patients receiving cancer-directed therapy within 3 months before hospitalization had no overall increased risk of death. LAY SUMMARY: Our investigators found that hospitalized patients with active cancer were more likely to die from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) than those with a history of cancer and those without any cancer history. Patients with hematologic cancers were the most likely among patients with cancer to die from COVID-19. Patients who received cancer therapy within 3 months before hospitalization did not have an increased risk of death.

Tobacco Screening and Treatment during Outpatient Urology Office Visits in the United States.

PURPOSE: Tobacco use is a causative or exacerbating risk factor for benign and malignant urological disease. However, it is not well known how often urologists screen for tobacco use and provide tobacco cessation treatment at the population level. We sought to evaluate how often urologists see patients for tobacco-related diagnoses in the outpatient setting and how often these visits include tobacco use screening and treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey public use files for the years 2014-2016 to identify all outpatient urology visits with adults 18 years old or older. Clinic visit reasons were categorized according to diagnoses associated with the encounter: all urological diagnoses, a tobacco-related urological condition or a urological cancer. Our primary outcome was the percentage of visits during which tobacco screening was reported. Secondary outcomes included reported delivery of cessation counseling and provision of cessation pharmacotherapy. RESULTS: We identified 4,625 unique urological outpatient encounters, representing a population-weighted estimate of 63.9 million visits over 3 years. Approximately a third of all urology visits were for a tobacco-related urological diagnosis and 15% were for urological cancers. An estimated 1.1 million visits over 3 years were with patients who identified as current tobacco users. Of all visits, 70% included tobacco screening. However, only 7% of visits with current smokers included counseling and only 3% of patients were prescribed medications. No differences in screening and treatment were observed between visit types. CONCLUSIONS: Urologists regularly see patients for tobacco-related conditions and frequently, although not universally, screen patients for tobacco. However, urologists rarely offer counseling or cessation treatment. These findings may represent missed opportunities to decrease the morbidity associated with tobacco use.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Urological Care Delivery in the United States.

PURPOSE: We examined changes in urological care delivery due to COVID-19 in the U.S. based on patient, practice, and local/regional demographic and pandemic response features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed real-world data from the American Urological Association Quality (AQUA) Registry collected from electronic health record systems. Data represented 157 outpatient urological practices and 3,165 providers across 48 U.S. states and territories, including 3,297,721 unique patients, 12,488,831 total outpatient visits and 2,194,456 procedures. The primary outcome measure was the number of outpatient visits and procedures performed (inpatient or outpatient) per practice per week, measured from January 2019 to February 2021. RESULTS: We found large (>50%) declines in outpatient visits from March 2020 to April 2020 across patient demographic groups and states, regardless of timing of state stay-at-home orders. Nonurgent outpatient visits decreased more across various nonurgent procedures (49%-59%) than for procedures performed for potentially urgent diagnoses (38%-52%); surgical procedures for nonurgent conditions also decreased more (43%-79%) than those for potentially urgent conditions (43%-53%). African American patients had similar decreases in outpatient visits compared with Asians and Caucasians, but also slower recoveries back to baseline. Medicare-insured patients had the steepest declines (55%), while those on Medicaid and government insurance had the lowest percentage of recovery to baseline (73% and 69%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world evidence on the decline in urological care across demographic groups and practice settings, and demonstrates a differential impact on the utilization of urological health services by demographics and procedure type.

Development of Treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer in Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance: U.S. Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence Public Workshop.

PURPOSE: The following is a summary of discussion at a United States FDA (Food and Drug Administration) public workshop reviewing potential trial designs and end points to develop therapies to treat localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The workshop focused on the challenge that drug and device development to treat localized prostate cancer has been limited by the large trial sizes and lengthy timelines required to demonstrate an improvement in overall or metastasis-free survival and by the lack of agreed on alternative end points. Additionally, evolving treatment paradigms in the management of localized prostate cancer include the widespread use of active surveillance of patients with low and some intermediate risk prostate cancer, and the availability of advances in imaging and genomics. RESULTS: The workshop addressed issues related to trial design in this setting. Attendees discussed several potential novel end points such as a delay of morbidity due to radiation or prostatectomy and pathological end points such as Gleason Grade Group upgrade. CONCLUSIONS: The workshop provided an open forum for multiple stakeholder engagement to advance the development of effective treatment options for men with localized prostate cancer.

Geographic-Level Association of Contemporary Changes in Localized and Metastatic Prostate Cancer Incidence in the Era of Decreasing PSA Screening.

Decreased prostate-specific antigen screening since 2008 has generated much concern, including report of recent increase in metastatic prostate cancer incidence among older men. Although increased metastatic disease was temporally proceeded by decreased screening and decreased localized prostate cancer at diagnosis, it is unclear whether the 2 trends are geographically connected. We therefore used the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to assess geographic-specific associations between changes in localized (2008-2011) and later changes in metastatic prostate cancer incidence (2012-2015). We examined trends from 200 health-care service areas (HSAs) within SEER 18 registries. While on average for each HSA, localized incidence decreased by 27.4 and metastatic incidence increased by 2.3 per 100 000 men per year, individual HSA-level changes in localized incidence did not correlate with later changes in metastatic disease. Decreased detection of localized disease may not fully explain the recent increase in metastatic disease at diagnosis.

External Validation of the Prostate Cancer Specific Comorbidity Index: A Claims Based Tool for the Prediction of Life Expectancy in Men with Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Accurate assessment of life expectancy is critical to treatment decision making in men with prostate cancer. We sought to externally validate the PCCI (Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index) to predict long-term mortality in men with prostate cancer and make it operational using claims data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an observational study of 181,009 men with prostate cancer in the Veterans Affairs Health System who were diagnosed from 2000 to 2013. Overall mortality across the PCCI scores was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analysis. Discrimination and calibration were measured using the C-index and the mean prediction error, respectively. RESULTS: Among men with a PCCI score of 0, 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-9 and 10 or greater the 10-year overall mortality rate was 15%, 26%, 36%, 41%, 52% and 69%, respectively. Multivariable Cox analysis showed an increasing hazard of mortality with higher PCCI scores, including 1.22 (95% CI 1.18-1.27), 1.69 (95% CI 1.61-1.76), 2.08 (95% CI 2.00-2.17), 2.88 (95% CI 2.76-3.00) and 4.50 (95% CI 4.32-4.69) for a score of 1 to 2, 3 to 4, 5 to 6, 7 to 9 and 10 or greater, respectively. The C-index to predict overall mortality was 0.773. The mean absolute error to predict 10-year overall mortality was 0.032. Of the men with clinically localized disease, Gleason 6 or less with less than 10-year life expectancy and Gleason 7 or less with life expectancy less than 5 years as defined by the PCCI 3,999 of 12,185 (33%) and 1,038 of 3,930 (26%), respectively, underwent definitive local treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The PCCI is a claims based, externally validated tool to predict mortality in men with prostate cancer. Integrating the PCCI into clinical pathways may improve prostate cancer management through more accurate assessment of life expectancy.

Characterising potential bone scan overuse amongst men treated with radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise bone scan use, and potential overuse, after radical prostatectomy (RP) using data from a large, national integrated delivery system. Overuse of imaging is well documented in the setting of newly diagnosed prostate cancer, but whether overuse persists after RP remains unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 12 269 patients with prostate cancer treated with RP between 2005 and 2008 using the Veterans Administration Central Cancer Registry. We used administrative and laboratory data to examine rates of bone scan use, including preceding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, and receipt of adjuvant or salvage therapy. We then performed multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with post-RP bone scan use. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 6.8 years, one in five men (22%) underwent a post-RP bone scan at a median PSA level of 0.2 ng/mL. Half of bone scans (48%) were obtained in men who did not receive further treatment with androgen-deprivation or radiation therapy. After adjustment, post-RP bone scan was associated with a prior bone scan (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32-1.84), positive surgical margin (aOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.40-2.01), preoperative PSA level (aOR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03), as well as Hispanic ethnicity, Black race, and increasing D'Amico risk category, but not with age or comorbidity. CONCLUSION: We found a substantial rate of bone scan utilisation after RP. The majority were performed for PSA levels of <1 ng/mL where the likelihood of a positive test is low. More judicious use of imaging appears warranted in the post-RP setting.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part II: Recommended Approaches and Details of Specific Care Options.

PURPOSE: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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/). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part I: Risk Stratification, Shared Decision Making, and Care Options.

PURPOSE: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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/). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

The Research Implications of Prostate Specific Antigen Registry Errors: Data from the Veterans Health Administration.

PURPOSE: We sought to characterize the effects of prostate specific antigen registry errors on clinical research by comparing cohorts based on cancer registry prostate specific antigen values with those based directly on results in the electronic health record. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We defined sample cohorts of men with prostate cancer using data from the Veterans Health Administration, including those with a prostate specific antigen value less than 4.0, 4.0 to 10.0, 10.0 to 20.0 and 20.0 to 98.0 ng/ml, respectively. We compared the composition of each cohort and overall patient survival when using prostate specific antigen values from the Veteran Affairs Central Cancer Registry vs the gold standard electronic health record laboratory file results. RESULTS: There was limited agreement among cohorts when defined by cancer registry prostate specific antigen values vs the laboratory file of the electronic health record. The least agreement of 58% was seen in patients with prostate specific antigen less than 4.0 ng/ml and greatest agreement of 89% was noted among patients with prostate specific antigen between 4.0 and 10.0 ng/ml. In each cohort patients assigned to a cohort based only on the cancer registry prostate specific antigen value had significantly different overall survival when compared with patients assigned based on registry and laboratory file prostate specific antigen values. CONCLUSIONS: Cohorts based exclusively on cancer registry prostate specific antigen values may have high rates of misclassification that can introduce concerning differences in key characteristics and result in measurable differences in clinical outcomes.

The implications of baseline bone-health assessment at initiation of androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To assess bone-density testing (BDT) use amongst prostate cancer survivors receiving androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and downstream implications for osteoporosis and fracture diagnoses, as well as pharmacological osteoporosis treatment in a national integrated delivery system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 17 017 men with prostate cancer who received any ADT between 2005 and 2014 using the Veterans Health Administration cancer registry and administrative data. We identified claims for BDT within a 3-year period of ADT initiation. We then used multivariable regression to examine the association between BDT use and incident osteoporosis, fracture, and use of pharmacological treatment. RESULTS: We found that a minority of patients received BDT (n = 2 502, 15%); however, the rate of testing increased to >20% by the end of the study period. Men receiving BDT were older at diagnosis and had higher-risk prostate cancer (both P < 0.001). Osteoporosis and fracture diagnoses, use of vitamin D ± calcium, and bisphosphonates were all more common in men who received BDT. After adjustment, BDT, and to a lesser degree ≥2 years of ADT, were both independently associated with incident osteoporosis, fracture, and osteoporosis treatment. CONCLUSIONS: BDT is rare amongst patients with prostate cancer treated with ADT in this integrated delivery system. However, BDT was associated with substantially increased treatment of osteoporosis indicating an underappreciated burden of osteoporosis amongst prostate cancer survivors initiating ADT. Optimising BDT use and osteoporosis management in this at-risk population appears warranted.

Variation in National Opioid Prescribing Patterns Following Surgery for Kidney Stones.

Background: Opioid misuse is a significant public health problem. As initial exposures to opioids are frequently encountered through the management of postoperative pain, we examined patterns of opioid prescribing following surgical treatment for nephrolithiasis. Methods: We identified patients with nephrolithiasis in the national Women Veterans Cohort Study (WVCS) who were treated surgically by diagnosis and procedure codes. Using standard conversion factors, we calculated the morphine milligram equivalent (MME) dose prescribed. We used descriptive statistics to characterize opioid prescription across management strategy and multivariable regression to examine clinical and demographic characteristics associated with dispensed dose. Results: We identified 22,609 patients diagnosed with kidney stones during 1999-2014, 1,976 of whom were treated surgically and 1,582 (80.1%) of whom received an opioid prescription. The median age was 39 years, and 1,366 (90%) were male; 1,314 (86.3%) were treated with ureteroscopy, 172 (11.3%) with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, and 36 (2.4%) with percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The median number of days supplied per opioid prescription (interquartile range) was 10 (5-14), and patients were dispensed a median of 180 (140-300) MME. A total of 6.4% of patients received ≥50 MME/d. On multivariable analysis, comorbid diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was associated with higher total dispensed dose, whereas surgery type was not. Conclusions: We observed substantial variation in opioid prescribing following surgical treatment of nephrolithiasis. Although type of surgical intervention did not impact opioid dosing, patients with a diagnosis of PTSD were more likely to receive higher doses. This work can inform efforts to improve the safety and efficacy of postoperative opioid prescribing.

How Active is Active Surveillance? Intensity of Followup during Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in the United States.

PURPOSE: While major prostate cancer active surveillance programs recommend repeat testing such as prostate specific antigen and prostate biopsy, to our knowledge compliance with such testing is unknown. We determined whether men in the community receive the same intensity of active surveillance testing as in prospective active surveillance protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of men 66 years old or older in the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare database. These men were diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2001 to 2009, did not receive curative therapy in the year after diagnosis and underwent 1 or more post-diagnosis prostate biopsies. We used multivariable adjusted Poisson regression to determine the association of the frequency of active surveillance testing with patient demographics and clinical features. In 1,349 men with 5 years of followup we determined the proportion who underwent testing as intense as that recommended by the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and PRIAS (Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance) programs, including 14 or more PSA tests and 2 or more biopsies, and The Johns Hopkins program, including 10 or more prostate specific antigen tests and 4 or more biopsies. RESULTS: Among 5,192 patients undergoing active surveillance greater than 80% had 1 or more prostate specific antigen tests per year but fewer than 13% underwent biopsy beyond the first 2 years. Magnetic resonance imaging was rarely done during the study period. On multivariable analysis recent diagnosis and higher income were associated with a higher frequency of surveillance biopsy while older age and greater comorbidity were associated with fewer biopsies. African American men underwent fewer prostate specific antigen tests but a similar number of biopsies. During 5 years of active surveillance only 11.1% and 5.0% of patients met the testing standards of the Sunnybrook/PRIAS and The Johns Hopkins programs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the community few elderly men receive the intensity of active surveillance testing recommended in major prospective active surveillance programs.

Institutional characteristics associated with receipt of emergency care for obstructive pyelonephritis at community hospitals.

PURPOSE: Delivering the recommended care is an important quality measure that has been insufficiently studied in urology. Obstructive pyelonephritis is a suitable case study for this focus because many patients do not receive such care, although guidelines advocate decompression. We determined the influence of hospital factors, particularly familiarity with urolithiasis, on the likelihood of decompression in such patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the NIS from 2002 to 2011 to retrospectively identify patients admitted to community hospitals with severe infection and ureteral calculi. Hospital familiarity with nephrolithiasis was estimated by calculating hospital stone volume (divided into quartiles) and hospital treatment intensity (the decompression rate in patients with ureteral calculi and no infection). After calculating national estimates we performed logistic regression to determine the association between the receipt of decompression and hospital stone volume, controlling for treatment intensity and other covariates thought to be associated with receiving recommended care. RESULTS: Of an estimated 107,848 patients with obstructive pyelonephritis 27.4% failed to undergo decompression. Discrepancies were greatest between hospitals with the highest and lowest stone volumes (76% vs 25%, OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.94-3.96, p <0.01) as well as high and low treatment intensity (78% vs 37%, p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: High hospital stone volume and treatment intensity were associated with an increased likelihood of receiving decompression. Such findings might be useful to identify hospitals and regions where access to quality urological care should be augmented.

The Effect of the Diffusion of the Surgical Robot on the Hospital-level Utilization of Partial Nephrectomy.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid diffusion of the surgical robot has been controversial because of the technology's high costs and its disputed marginal benefit. Some, however, have suggested that adoption of the robot may have improved care for patients with renal malignancy by facilitating partial nephrectomy, an underutilized, technically challenging procedure believed to be less morbid than radical nephrectomy. We sought to determine whether institutional acquisition of the robot was associated with increased utilization of partial nephrectomy. METHODS: We used all payer data from 7 states to identify 21,569 nephrectomies. These patient-level records were aggregated to the hospital-level then merged with the American Hospital Association Annual Survey and publicly available data on timing of robot acquisition. We used a multivariable difference-in-difference model to assess at the hospital-level whether robot acquisition was associated with an increase in the proportion of partial nephrectomy, adjusting for hospital nephrectomy volume, year of surgery, and several additional hospital-level factors. RESULTS: In the multivariable-adjusted differences-in-differences model, hospitals acquiring a robot between 2001 and 2004 performed a greater proportion of partial nephrectomy in both 2005 (29.9% increase) and 2008 (34.9% increase). Hospitals acquiring a robot between 2005 and 2008 also demonstrated a greater proportion of partial nephrectomy in 2008 (15.5% increase). In addition, hospital nephrectomy volume and urban location were also significantly associated with increased proportion of partial nephrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital acquisition of the surgical robot is associated with greater proportion of partial nephrectomy, an underutilized, guideline-encouraged procedure. This is one of the few studies to suggest robot acquisition is associated with improvement in quality of patient care.

Twitter response to the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against screening with prostate-specific antigen.

OBJECTIVE: To examine public and media response to the draft (October 2011) and finalised (May 2012) recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing via Twitter, a popular social network with over 200 million active users. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a mixed-methods design to analyse posts on Twitter, known as 'tweets'. Using the search term 'prostate cancer', we archived tweets in the 24-h periods following the release of both the draft and the finalised USPSTF recommendations. We recorded tweet rate per h and developed a coding system to assess the type of user and sentiment expressed in tweets and linked articles. RESULTS: After the draft and finalised USPSTF recommendations were released, 2042 and 5357 tweets focused on the USPSTF report, respectively. The tweet rate nearly doubled within 2 h of both announcements. Fewer than 10% of tweets expressed an opinion about screening, and the majority of these were pro-screening during both periods. By contrast, anti-screening articles were tweeted more frequently in both the draft and finalised study periods. Between the draft and the finalised recommendations, the proportion of anti-screening tweets and anti-screening article links increased (P = 0.03 and P < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There was increased Twitter activity surrounding the USPSTF draft and finalised recommendations. The percentage of anti-screening tweets and articles appeared to increase, perhaps due to the interval public comment period. Despite this, most tweets did not express an opinion, suggesting a missed opportunity in this important arena for advocacy.

Regional variations in US cancer imaging data: a warning for imaging overuse.

Danil V Makarov speaks to Gemma Westcott, Commissioning Editor: Danil V Makarov is an Assistant Professor and Director of Surgical Research in the Department of Urology at NYU Langone Medical Center (NY, USA). In addition, he is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Population Health. His clinical areas of expertise include prostate cancer, benign prostatic hyperplasia, erectile dysfunction, kidney cancer, urinary tract infections, genitourinary neoplasm, elevated prostate-specific antigen and testicular cancer. In addition, his research interests are in the areas of prostate cancer, health policy and quality of care. An alumnus of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (MD, USA), he completed his residency in urology at Johns Hopkins Hospital and a research fellowship at Yale University School of Medicine (CT, USA).

The cost implications of prostate cancer screening in the Medicare population.

BACKGROUND: Recent debate about prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based testing for prostate cancer screening among older men has rarely considered the cost of screening. METHODS: A population-based cohort of male Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years, who had never been diagnosed with prostate cancer at the end of 2006 (n = 94,652), was assembled, and they were followed for 3 years to assess the cost of PSA screening and downstream procedures (biopsy, pathologic analysis, and hospitalization due to biopsy complications) at both the national and the hospital referral region (HRR) level. RESULTS: Approximately 51.2% of men received PSA screening tests during the 3-year period, with 2.9% undergoing biopsy. The annual expenditures on prostate cancer screening by the national fee-for-service Medicare program were $447 million in 2009 US dollars. The mean annual screening cost at the HRR level ranged from $17 to $62 per beneficiary. Downstream biopsy-related procedures accounted for 72% of the overall screening costs and varied significantly across regions. Compared with men residing in HRRs that were in the lowest quartile for screening expenditures, men living in the highest HRR quartile were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer of any stage (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-1.35) and localized cancer (IRR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.15-1.47). The IRR for regional/metastasized cancer was also elevated, although not statistically significant (IRR = 1.31, 95% CI = 0.81-2.11). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare prostate cancer screening-related expenditures are substantial, vary considerably across regions, and are positively associated with rates of cancer diagnosis.