[Attending physicians in urology working at university centers or non-university centers-what are the differences? : Results of a web-based cross-sectional study at German hospitals]. / Urologische Oberärztinnen und Oberärzte an universitären oder nicht-universitären Kliniken ­ welche Unterschiede gibt es? : Ergebnisse einer webbasierten Querschnittstudie an deutschen Kliniken.

BACKGROUND: Attending physicians (AP) in urology represent a very heterogeneous group covering various clinical priorities and career objectives. To date, there are no reliable data on professional, personal and position-linked aspects of AP in urology working in university centers (univ-AP) opposed to those working in non-university centers (n-univ-AP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The objective of this study was to analyze individual professional perspectives, professional and personal settings, specific job-related activities and individual professional goals of univ-AP opposed to n­univ-AP. Thus, a web-based survey containing 55 items was designed to perform a cross-sectional study that was then forwarded using a link which was sent via a mailing list of the German Society of Urology. The survey was available for completion by AP at German urological centers from February to April 2019. Group-specific differences were evaluated using bootstrap-adjusted multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of the 192 evaluable surveys, 61 (31.8%) and 131 (68.2%) were part of the univ-AP and n­univ-AP study group, respectively. Participating n­univ-AP compared to univ-AP held the position of AP (p = 0.022) significantly longer and were on call significantly more frequently (p < 0.001). AP in urology (self)-assessed themselves as autonomously confident in performing robotic, laparoscopic, open, endo-urologic, and plastic-reconstructive surgery in 12.4%, 25%, 59.6%, 92.1%, and 25.7%, respectively, with no significant differences between the two groups among all above mentioned surgical subdomains based on multivariate analysis. AP in urology were (very) content in 92% concerning the choice of their discipline, in 73.9% concerning their actual working circumstances, and in 60.2% concerning their level of surgical expertise. Only 27.1% and 19.9% were (very) content with the amount of available time for their personal professional development and for private affairs, respectively. As opposed to n­univ-AP, univ-AP would choose a career in clinical centers once again significantly more frequently (OR 2.87; p(BS) = 0.041), but assess the position of AP as their definitive career goal significantly less frequently (OR 0.42; p(BS) = 0.40). Univ-AP state significantly more frequently that they were running for the position of head of department or full professor (OR 5.64; p(BS) = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this first survey study world-wide on AP in urology divided according to their academic background, similarities and variances were analyzed, baring the potential to further improve identification of AP for a career in clinical centers.

[Anamnesis, Pathological Assessment, Therapeutic Features and Course of Disease: Retrospective Study on Clinical-Based Factors for Prediction of Cancer-Specific Survival of 378 Patients with Stage pT1 Urothelial Bladder Carcinoma]. / Anamnese, pathologische Originalbefunde, Therapie bezogene Parameter und Krankheitsverlauf: retrospektive Analyse von klinisch basierten Faktoren für die Prognose des tumorspezifischen Überlebens von 378 Patienten mit pT1-Harnblasenkarzinom.

BACKGROUND: Urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UBC) at stage pT1 is a heterogenous disease. Established criteria for prognosis prediction are not suitable for every patient. Choosing the right therapeutic strategy for the individual patient thus remains a challenge. The aim of the present study was to identify clinical parameters regarding cancer-specific survival (CSS) in patients with pT1 UBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of clinical parameters of all patients with a pT1 UBC between 1989 and 2012 from a single centre was performed. Treatment consisted of transurethral resection, second resection followed by initially bladder sparing treatment. Anamnestic data, histopathological reports and clinical course were assessed with CSS being defined as primary endpoint. Kaplan-Meier analysis, uni- and multivariate analysis were performed using SPSS (Version 22, IBM). RESULTS: 378 patients (78% male, median age 72 years) were included, median follow-up was 35 months. Pathological stage pT1G3 (66 vs. 91%, p<0.001), lack of instillation therapy (66 vs. 83%, p<0.001), presence of a second malignoma (41 vs. 77%, p=0,004), diagnosis after 2000 (75 vs. 76%, p=0,018) and tumour progress (42 vs. 85%, p<0.001) were associated with a worse CSS in univariate and Kaplan-Meier analysis. Multivariate analysis revealed the presence of a second malignoma (HR 2.267; CI 95% 1.143-4.497, p=0.019), pathological stage pT1G3 at initial diagnosis (HR 4.567; CI 95% 2.040-10.22, p<0.001) and tumour progress (HR 3.742; CI 95% 1.544-9.069, p=0.003) as independent negative predictors of CSS. Instillation therapy was a prognostic factor for improved CSS (HR 0.368; CI 95% 0.212-0.638, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The present study identified the presence of a second malignoma, pathological stage pT1G3 and tumour progress as negative predictive factors for CSS. Maintenance instillation therapy after reresection was associated with an improved CSS.