Online Tools to Decrease Out-of-Pocket Prescription Costs for Patients: A Practical Guide for Urologists.

INTRODUCTION: Patients who seek urologic care have recently reported a high degree of financial toxicity from prescription medications, including management for nephrolithiasis, urinary incontinence, and urological oncology. Estimating out-of-pocket costs can be challenging for urologists in the US because of variable insurance coverage, local pharmacy distributions, and complicated prescription pricing schemes. This article discusses resources that urologists can adopt into their practice and share with patients to help lower out-of-pocket spending for prescription medications. METHODS: We identify 4 online tools that are designed to direct patients toward more affordable prescription medication options: the Medicare Part D Plan Finder, GoodRx, Amazon, and the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company. A brief historical overview and summary for patients and clinicians are provided for each online resource. A patient-centered framework is provided to help navigate these 4 available tools in clinic. RESULTS: Among the 4 tools we identify, there are multiples tradeoffs to consider as financial savings and features can vary. First, patients insured by Medicare should explore the Part D Plan Finder each year to compare drug plans. Second, patients who need to urgently refill a prescription at a local pharmacy should visit GoodRx. Third, patients who are prescribed recurrent generic prescriptions for chronic conditions can utilize the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company. Finally, patients who are prescribed 3 or more chronic medications can benefit from subscribing to Amazon RxPass. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription medications for urologic conditions can be expensive. This article includes 4 online resources that can help patients access medications at their most affordable costs. Urologists can provide this framework to their patients to help support lowering out-of-pocket drug costs.

What is cancer? A focus on Grade Group 1 prostate cancer.

Since the widespread adoption of prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer, the prevalence of Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer has risen. Historically, these patients were subjected to overtreatment of this otherwise indolent disease process, leading to significant quality-of-life detriments. Active surveillance as a primary management strategy has allowed for a focus on early detection while minimising morbidity from unnecessary intervention. Here we provide a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of GG1 prostatic adenocarcinoma, including its histological features, genomic differentiators, clinical progression, and implications for treatment guidelines, all supporting the movement to reclassify GG1 disease as a non-cancerous entity.

Functional Outcomes After Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment.

Importance: Adverse outcomes associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer remain unclear. Objective: To compare rates of adverse functional outcomes between specific treatments for localized prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: An observational cohort study using data from 5 US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program registries. Participants were treated for localized prostate cancer between 2011 and 2012. At baseline, 1877 had favorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT1-cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/mL, and grade group 1-2) and 568 had unfavorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT2cN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level of 20-50 ng/mL, or grade group 3-5). Follow-up data were collected by questionnaire through February 1, 2022. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (n = 1043), external beam radiotherapy (n = 359), brachytherapy (n = 96), or active surveillance (n = 379) for favorable-prognosis disease and radical prostatectomy (n = 362) or external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 206) for unfavorable-prognosis disease. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were patient-reported sexual, urinary, bowel, and hormone function measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (range, 0-100; 100 = best). Associations of specific therapies with each outcome were estimated and compared at 10 years after treatment, adjusting for corresponding baseline scores, and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important differences were 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritation, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormone function. Results: A total of 2445 patients with localized prostate cancer (median age, 64 years; 14% Black, 8% Hispanic) were included and followed up for a median of 9.5 years. Among 1877 patients with favorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -12.1 [95% CI, -16.2 to -8.0]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -7.2 [95% CI, -12.3 to -2.0]), compared with active surveillance. Among 568 patients with unfavorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -26.6 [95% CI, -35.0 to -18.2]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -1.4 [95% CI, -11.1 to 8.3), compared with external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy. Among patients with unfavorable prognosis, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.2 to -0.7]) and hormone (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.5 to -0.3]) function compared with radical prostatectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients treated for localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence but not worse sexual function at 10-year follow-up compared with radiotherapy or surveillance among people with more favorable prognosis and compared with radiotherapy for those with unfavorable prognosis. Among men with unfavorable-prognosis disease, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel and hormone function at 10-year follow-up compared with radical prostatectomy.

Urologist-level variation in the management of T1a renal cell carcinoma: A population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Lack of strict indications in current guidelines have led to significant variation in management patterns of small renal masses. The impact of the urologist on the management approach for patients with small renal masses has not been explored previously. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, patients aged ≥66 years diagnosed with small renal masses from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2013 were identified and assigned to primary urologists. Mixed-effects logistic models were used to evaluate factors associated with different management approaches, estimate urologist-level probabilities of each approach, assess management variation, and determine urologist impact on choice of approach. RESULTS: A total of 12,402 patients with 2,794 corresponding primary urologists were included in the study. At the individual urologist level, the estimated case-adjusted probability of different approaches varied markedly: nonsurgical management (mean, 12.8%; range, 4.9%-36.1%); thermal ablation (mean, 10.8%; range, 2.4%-66.3%); partial nephrectomy (mean, 30.1%; range, 10.1%-66.6%); and radical nephrectomy (mean, 40.4%; range, 17.7%-71.6%). Compared to patient and tumor characteristics, the primary urologist was a more influential measured factor, accounting for 13.6% (vs. 12.9%), 33.8% (vs. 2.1%), 15.1% (vs. 8.4%), and 13.5% (vs. 4.0%) of the variation in management choice for nonsurgical management, thermal ablation, partial nephrectomy, and radical nephrectomy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation exists in the management of small renal masses and appears to be driven primarily by urologist preference and practice patterns. Our findings emphasize the need for unified guidance regarding management of these masses to reduce unwarranted variation in care.

Utilizing RENAL nephrometry in pediatric patients undergoing nephron-sparing surgery for renal tumors: A single-institutional cohort.

INTRODUCTION: RENAL Nephrometry is a complexity score validated in adults with renal tumors and describes the likelihood of complication after partial nephrectomy (PN). Utilization in pediatrics has been limited. Thus, our goal is to quantify inter-rater agreement as well as determine how scores correlate with outcomes. We hypothesize that the RENAL Nephrometry Score is reproducible in children with renal tumors and is related to perioperative and post-operative complications. METHODS: All pediatric patients who underwent PN for a renal mass from 2006 to 2019 were identified. Patient data, operative details, and outcomes were aggregated. Pre-operative CT/MR imaging was anonymized and scored by 2 pediatric radiologists and 2 pediatric urologists using RENAL Nephrometry metrics. Statistical analysis utilized Fleiss' kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Comparative analyses were performed based on Nephrometry Score <9 and ≥ 9. RESULTS: 28 patients undergoing 33 PN were identified. Median age at surgery was 3.2 years (IQR 1.8-4.0). There is moderate-good agreement across scorers on the domains of RENAL Nephrometry Score, with the lowest agreement noted for anterior vs posterior tumors. Comparing patients with scores <9 and ≥ 9, there was increased operative time (357 vs 267 min, p = 0.003) and LOS for those with a higher score, but no difference in the incidence of 30-day complications. CONCLUSION: RENAL Nephrometry Score is an easily reproducible complexity score for renal tumors in pediatric patients. Higher scores are associated with increased length of stay and estimated blood loss but not complications. Reporting of nephrometry scores in future publications on pediatric renal tumors should become standard in the literature.

Estimating the Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on the Out-of-Pocket Costs for Medicare Beneficiaries With Advanced Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Combination systemic therapy for advanced prostate cancer has reduced mortality, but high out-of-pocket costs impose financial barriers for patients. The Inflation Reduction Act's $2,000 out-of-pocket spending cap for Medicare's prescription drug benefit (Part D) can potentially lower out-of-pocket spending for beneficiaries starting in 2025. This study aims to compare out-of-pocket spending for commonly prescribed regimens for advanced prostate cancer before and after implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act. METHODS: Medication regimens constructed to treat metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer consisted of baseline androgen deprivation therapy with traditional chemotherapy, androgen receptor inhibitors, and androgen biosynthesis inhibitors. Using 2023 Medicare Part B prices and the Medicare Part D plan finder, we estimated annual out-of-pocket costs under current law and under the Inflation Reduction Act's redesigned standard Part D benefit. RESULTS: Under current law, out-of-pocket costs for Part D drugs ranged from $464 to $11,336 per year. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, annual out-of-pocket costs for 2 regimens remained unchanged: androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel and androgen deprivation therapy with abiraterone and prednisone. However, out-of-pocket costs for regimens using branded novel hormonal therapy were significantly lower under the 2025 law with potential savings estimated to be $9,336 (79.2%) for apalutamide, $9,036 (78.7%) for enzalutamide, and $8,480 (76.5%) for docetaxel and darolutamide. CONCLUSIONS: The $2,000 spending cap introduced by the Inflation Reduction Act may significantly decrease out-of-pocket costs and reduce financial toxicity associated with advanced prostate cancer treatment, impacting an estimated 25,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

Projected Savings for Generic Oncology Drugs Purchased via Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company Versus in Medicare.

PURPOSE: Self-administered oncology drugs contribute disproportionately to Medicare Part D spending; prices often remain high even after generic entry. Outlets for low-cost drugs such as Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) offer opportunities for decreased Medicare, Part D, and beneficiary spending. We estimate potential savings if Part D plans obtained prices such as those offered under the MCCPDC for seven generic oncology drugs. METHODS: Using the 2020 Medicare Part D Spending dashboard, Q3-2022 Part D formulary prices, and Q3-2022 MCCPDC prices for seven self-administered generic oncology drugs, we estimated Medicare savings by replacing Q3-2022 Part D unit costs with costs under the MCCPDC plan. RESULTS: We estimate potential savings of $661.8 million (M) US dollars (USD; 78.8%) for the seven oncology drugs studied. Total savings ranged from $228.1M USD (56.1%) to $2,154.5M USD (92.4%) compared with 25th and 75th percentiles of Part D plan unit prices. The median savings replacing Part D plan prices were abiraterone $338.0M USD, anastrozole $1.2M USD, imatinib 100 mg $15.6M USD, imatinib 400 mg $212.0M USD, letrozole $1.9M USD, methotrexate $26.7M USD, raloxifene $63.8M USD, and tamoxifen $2.6M USD. All 30-day prescription drug prices offered by MCCPDC generated cost savings except for three drugs offered at the 25th percentile Part D formulary pricing: anastrozole, letrozole, and tamoxifen. CONCLUSION: Replacing current Part D median formulary prices with MCCPDC pricing could yield significant savings for seven generic oncology drugs. Individual beneficiaries could save nearly $25,200 USD per year for abiraterone or between $17,500 USD and $20,500 USD for imatinib. Notably, Part D cash-pay prices for abiraterone and imatinib under the catastrophic phase of coverage were still more expensive than baseline MCCPDC prices.

Financial toxicity in prostate cancer survivors: A national cross-sectional assessment of subjective financial burden.

BACKGROUND: In prostate cancer (CaP) survivorship, subjective financial burden (SFB), an aspect of financial toxicity, has not been studied using a national sample. Our goal was to explore and identify factors associated with patient-reported SFB in CaP survivors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study of 264 adult individuals with a history of CaP that completed the AHRQ - Medical Expenditures Panel Survey - Household Component and Cancer Self-Administered Questionnaire Supplement in 2016 or 2017. Primary outcomes were the presence of cancer-related SFB and the severity of this burden. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression and logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with the severity of SFB and different domains of burden. RESULTS: Most participants were non-Hispanic white, had 3 or more comorbidities and had a median age of 72 years. 62.1% of survivors indicated SFB associated with their CaP care and long-term effects. 49.2% of CaP survivors indicated coping SFB, 27.7% psychological, and 29.2% material. Older (OR: 0.95, 95%CI 0.92-0.98) was associated with less SFB. Low-income level (OR: 2.1, 95%CI 1.01-4.36) was associated with higher SFB. Hispanic survivors (OR: 2.8 95%CI 1.1-7.4) indicated more psychologic SFB. Presence of a caregiver was noted as a predictor of material (OR 2.6, 95%CI 1.45-4.49) and psychological (OR: 2.2, 95%CI 1.13-3.91) SFB. CONCLUSIONS: Many CaP survivors experience SFB and associated factors differ in domain of financial burden. This provides evidence and groundwork for understanding financial burden and improving the quality of counseling and care for this population.

Longitudinal Changes in Quality of Life After Ureteroscopy for Nephrolithiasis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess alterations in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with nephrolithiasis, given the limited prospective data on patient reported outcomes following surgical intervention with ureteroscopy. METHODS: Adults with either a renal or ureteral calculus who underwent ureteroscopy (URS) were recruited prospectively from 2017-2020. Participants completed the PROMIS-29 profile which measures the dimensions of physical function, fatigue, pain interference, depressive symptoms, anxiety, ability to participate in social roles and activities, and sleep disturbance at enrollment, 1-, 6-, and 12-months. Scores are reported as T-scores (normalized to US-population) and were compared at each time point against the mean for the US-population (50) using one-sample Welch's t'test and between each pairwise time point comparison using a Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: At enrollment, a total of 69 participants completed the PROMIS-29 survey. As compared to the US-population mean, participants at enrollment had significantly different scores in physical function, fatigue, pain interference, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and sleep disturbance (all P<.05), but not ability to participate in social roles and activities. In pairwise comparisons, improvement was only observed from enrollment to 1-month in pain interference (P<.01) and fatigue (P = .03). However, there was improvement at a longer interval from enrollment to 12-months in all dimensions (pairwise comparisons, all P<.05) except depressive symptoms. CONCLUSION: The PROMIS-29 profile is responsive to changes in HRQOL for patients with nephrolithiasis undergoing URS, with improvement of PROMIS scores up to 12-months. This information can be utilized for patient counseling to guide expectations during the recovery period.

Race/Ethnicity and Insurance's Impact on Delays to Kidney Stone Surgery Scheduling.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between ethnicity/insurance status and time to kidney stone surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed all patients with evaluation of nephrolithiasis in the emergency room (ED), followed by definitive stone surgery (ureteroscopy/percutaneous nephrolithotomy/ESWL) at our major academic health system consisting of 3 hospitals in a dense, urban center. RESULTS: A total of 682 patients were included. A total of 2.8% (n = 19) were uninsured, 19.3% (n = 132) were enrolled in Medicaid, 23.3% (n = 159) were enrolled in Medicare and 54.5% (n = 372) had commercial insurance. Uninsured patients had a short median time to surgery of only 21 days (IQR 6-49), while Medicare patients had a longer time at 39 days, (IQR 17-64), although these were not significantly different (P =.12). Black race was associated with a higher percentage of uninsured and Medicaid patients (P ≤.001). There was no difference in clinical or patient reported characteristics between the insurance groups (all P >.05) 6.9%, 17.7%, 26.7%, and 48.6% of patients self-identified as Hispanic, Other, Black, and White, respectively. Hispanic patients had the shortest median time to surgery of 28 days (IQR 10-48), while Black patients the longest with a median of 38.5 days (18-72) (P =.007). Clinical variables at presentation including nausea/vomiting, hydronephrosis and sepsis were not statistically significant between the patient groups (all P >.05). CONCLUSION: Our study illustrates persistent delays in surgery scheduling for Black patients regardless of insurance status. This should inform practice patterns for urology providers, highlighting our need to enact institutional safety nets to promote expedient follow up for a vulnerable population.

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.

Minimizing opioid consumption following robotic surgery.

The American opioid epidemic has led to one of the worse public health crises in recent history, and emerging evidence has highlighted the role of healthcare professionals in exposing patients and communities to potent opioid drugs. Surgeons, in treating postoperative pain, are at the forefront of this epidemic. In Urology, investigators are beginning to establish how patients handle and consume opioids following common urologic procedures in an effort to limit excess prescribing. However, there is a paucity of data to define acceptable amounts of opioid medications to adequately treat postoperative pain after urologic surgery. Many common urologic procedures are now routinely performed with robotic technology. Robotic, minimally-invasive approaches decrease incision size and accelerate postoperative recovery, thereby presenting a unique opportunity to curb excessive opioid prescribing in the postoperative patient. Herein, we explore the roots of the current crisis, outline current literature guiding pain control after surgery, and review the current, though sparse, literature that may guide urologists in decreasing opioid use after robotic surgery.

Contemporary National Trends and Variations of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Patients Undergoing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies showed suboptimal adherence to clinical practice guidelines for pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during radical prostatectomy (RP). Robot-assisted RP (RARP) has become the predominant surgical management for localized prostate cancer in the United States but contemporary national data on PLND adherence during RARP are still lacking. METHODS: RARPs for clinically localized (cT1-2N0M0) intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2016 in National Cancer Database were identified. Outcome of interest was PLND and multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify whether patient demographics and facility characteristics were associated with the outcome. RESULTS: We included 115,355 patients in the final cohort (intermediate-risk = 86,314, high-risk = 29,041). From 2010 to 2016, there was an increasing trend of PLND in the overall, intermediate-risk, and high-risk cohorts. In 2016, PLND was performed in 79.7% of the intermediate-risk and 93.5% of the high-risk patients. Multivariable logistic regressions showed Hispanic race/ethnicity (vs. white) (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90, P = .010), lowest socioeconomic status (vs. highest) (OR = 0.85, P < .001), rural area (vs. metro area) (OR=0.61, P < .001), and community facility (vs. academic) (OR = 0.56, P < .001) were some of the factors associated with lower PLND rate. Variations of PLND rate among reporting facility's locations were also identified. CONCLUSION: Contemporary national data showed significantly increased PLND rate in patients who underwent RARP for intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer in recent years. However, there were still some variations in PLND rate among different patient populations and facilities. Continued efforts need to be made to further increase PLND rate and narrow or eliminate disparities we identified.

Second opinion pathologic review in the management of prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION Inter-institutional re-review of prostate needle biopsy (PNBx) material is required at many institutions before definitive treatment, but adds time and cost and may not significantly alter urologic management. We aim to determine the utility of universal PNBx re-review on influencing the decision to recommend definitive local therapy for patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2017-2020, 590 prostate biopsy specimens from outside institutions were re-reviewed at our center for patients considering prostatectomy. Clinical and pathologic characteristics from initial and secondary review were analyzed. Potential for change in treatment candidacy (CTC) was determined by re-diagnosis to non-malignant tissue or change in candidacy for active surveillance (AS) versus definitive treatment (i.e. prostatectomy or radiation therapy). Thus, the following scenarios were considered CTC: downgrading to non-malignant tissue, downgrading ISUP Grade Group (GG) ≥ 2 to GG1, and upgrading GG1 to GG ≥ 2. Any changes between GG2 to GG5 were not considered CTC, as definitive treatment would be offered to all groups. RESULTS: Overall, 55 patients (9.3%) had potential for CTC based on secondary review, all of whom had initial pathologic GG (iGG) ≤ 2. Of the 152 patients with iGG1, 8 were downgraded to no malignancy and 41 were upgraded to GG2 or GG3. Of the 185 patients with iGG2, 6 were downgraded to GG1. No patients with iGG ≥ 3 qualified for a CTC. Features associated with CTC included iGG, number of positive cores, and highest core percentage. Upon multivariable analysis, only iGG1 diagnosis was predictive of CTC (OR 23.66, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Second review may be helpful in determining need for definitive treatment in patients with GG1 and GG2 prostate cancer, i.e. those considering AS. This process appears unnecessary in GG3+ patients, as management for patients considering surgery would not change. This may allow for judicious redirection of hospital resources.

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.

A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Pain Intensity and Interference After Ureteroscopy for Nephrolithiasis Without Postoperative Opioids.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the degree and time to resolution of pain in the postoperative period, we captured patient-reported pain intensity and interference prospectively in patients following ureteroscopy for nephrolithiasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults undergoing ureteroscopy for renal/ureteral stones from 11/2018 to 1/2020 were eligible for inclusion. All received nonopioid postoperative pain control. Patients prospectively completed Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Pain Intensity and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Pain Interference instruments preoperatively on postoperative day (POD) 0 and via email on POD 1, 7, and 14. Scores are reported as T-scores (normalized to US population, mean = 50) with changes of 5 (0.5 standard deviation) considered clinically significant. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients completed enrollment at POD 0 (POD 1 = 74, POD 7 = 61, POD 14 = 47). Compared to US means, intensity and interference were significantly different at all time point comparisons (Wilcoxon rank test; all P <.001) except intensity at POD 7 (P = .09) and interference at POD 14 (P = .12). For both, there was a significant difference at each time comparison (repeated measures ANOVA; all P <.05). Increasing age was predictive of lower intensity (Confidence Interval (CI): -0.31 to -0.04; P = .012) and interference (CI: -0.36 to -0.06; P =.01) at POD 1. The presence of a postoperative stent was predictive of higher intensity (CI: 0.68-10.81; P = .03) and interference (CI: 0.61-12.96; P = .03) at POD 7. Increasing age remained a predictor of lower interference at POD 1 on multivariable analysis (CI: -0.46 to -0.01; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Pain intensity and interference are elevated immediately, but intensity normalizes by POD 7, while interference remains elevated until POD 14. Age and indwelling ureteral stent influence both intensity and interference.

Assessing Contemporary Trends in Female Speakership within Urologic Oncology.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate multidisciplinary female representation at urologic oncology conferences, we reviewed speakership trends at contemporary Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO) and American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Symposium (GU-ASCO) annual meetings. METHODS: Meeting programs from SUO and GU-ASCO from 2015 to 2019 were analyzed. Biographical information was determined by querying institutional websites and social/professional media platforms. Statistical analyses were performed to assess for differences and relationships between male and female authorship based on gender, specialty, professional, and educational factors. RESULTS: We identified 1102 speakers at genitourinary oncology conferences. Overall, 222 (20%) were female. There was no significant difference between female speakership rates at SUO and GU-ASCO. The overall proportion of female speakers increased over time, but not when analyzing each individual subspecialty conference separately. Several professional and educational differences were noted between genders. Female speakers were more likely to be medical oncologists (P <.001), have more recent years of graduation (2001 vs 1996, P <.001), hold an additional advanced degree (OR 2.09, P = .005), and speak in sessions where other women served as chair (OR 1.42, P = .044). Conversely, female speakers had lower odds of delivering a plenary or keynote address (OR 0.28, P = .015). CONCLUSION: We identified a significantly positive trend towards increased female representation within contemporary genitourinary conferences over time; these trends did not remain significant when analyzing each meeting separately. Several important disparities between men and women speakers were identified. Our data suggests that inclusion of women in planning committees may help reduce gender bias and promote diversity within urologic oncology.

Surgical Delay and Pathological Outcomes for Clinically Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Importance: There is a lack of data evaluating the association of surgical delay time (SDT) with outcomes in patients with localized, high-risk prostate cancer. Objective: To investigate the association of SDT of radical prostatectomy and final pathological and survival outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the US National Cancer Database (NCDB) and identified all patients with clinically localized (cT1-2cN0cM0) high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2006 and 2016 who underwent radical prostatectomy. Data analyses were performed from April 1 to April 12, 2020. Exposures: SDT was defined as the number of days between the initial cancer diagnosis and radical prostatectomy. SDT was categorized into 5 groups: 31 to 60, 61 to 90, 91 to 120, 121 to 150, and 151 to 180 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were predetermined as adverse pathological outcomes after radical prostatectomy, including pT3-T4 disease, pN-positive disease, and positive surgical margin. The adverse pathological score (APS) was defined as an accumulated score of the 3 outcomes (0-3). An APS of 2 or higher was considered a separate outcome to capture cases with more aggressive pathological features. The secondary outcome was overall survival. Results: Of the 32 184 patients included in the study, the median (interquartile range) age was 64 (59-68) years, and 25 548 (79.4%) were non-Hispanic White. Compared with an SDT of 31 to 60 days, longer SDTs were not associated with higher risks of having any adverse pathological outcomes (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.80-1.12; P = .53), pT3-T4 disease (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83-1.17; P = .87), pN-positive disease (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.59-1.06; P = .12), positive surgical margin (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74-1.05; P = .17), or APS greater than or equal to 2 (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.05; P = .17). Longer SDT was also not associated with worse overall survival (for SDT of 151-180 days, hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79-1.59, P = .53). Subgroup analyses performed for patients with very high-risk disease (primary Gleason score 5) and sensitivity analyses with SDT considered as a continuous variable yielded similar results. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy within 180 days of diagnosis for high-risk prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer could be safely delayed up to 6 months after diagnosis.