Contemporary patterns of local ablative therapies for prostate cancer at United States cancer centers: results from a national registry.

PURPOSE: To describe the national-level patterns of care for local ablative therapy among men with PCa and identify patient- and hospital-level factors associated with the receipt of these techniques. METHODS: We retrospectively interrogated the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for men with clinically localized PCa between 2010 and 2017. The main outcome was receipt of local tumor ablation with either cryo- or laser-ablation, and "other method of local tumor destruction including high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU)". Patient level, hospital level, and demographic variables were collected. Mixed effect logistic regression models were fitted to identify separately patient- and hospital-level predictors of receipt of local ablative therapy. RESULTS: Overall, 11,278 patients received ablative therapy, of whom 78.8% had cryotherapy, 15.6% had laser, and 5.7% had another method including HIFU. At the patient level, men with intermediate-risk PCa were more likely to be treated with local ablative therapy (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00-1.11; p = 0.05), as were men with Charlson Comorbidity Index > 1 (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.29-1.43; p < 0.01), men between 71 and 80 years (OR 3.70; 95% CI 3.43-3.99; p < 0.01), men with Medicare insurance (OR 1.38; 95% 1.31-1.46; p < 0.01), and an income < $47,999 (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.06-1.21; p < 0.01). At the hospital-level, local ablative therapy was less likely to be performed in academic/research facilities (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.32-0.64; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Local ablative therapy for PCa treatment is more commonly offered among older and comorbid patients. Future studies should investigate the uptake of these technologies in non-hospital-based settings and in light of recent changes in insurance coverage.

Assessment of Stone Complexity for PCNL: A Systematic Review of the Literature, How Best Can We Record Stone Complexity in PCNL?

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to systematically review the literature reporting tools for scoring stone complexity and the stratification of outcomes by stone complexity. In doing so, we aim to determine whether the evidence favors uniform adoption of any one scoring system. METHODS: PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched for relevant studies from 2004 to 2014. Reports selected according to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria were appraised in terms of methodologic quality and their findings summarized in structured tables. RESULTS: After review, 15 studies were considered suitable for inclusion. Four distinct scoring systems were identified and a further five studies that aimed to validate aspects of those scoring systems. Six studies reported the stratification of outcomes by stone complexity, without specifically defining a scoring system. All studies reported some correlation between stone complexity and stone clearance. Correlation with complications was less clearly established, where investigated. CONCLUSIONS: This review does not allow us to firmly recommend one scoring system over the other. However, the quality of evidence supporting validation of the Guy's Stone Score is marginally superior, according to the criteria applied in this study. Further evaluation of the interobserver reliability of this scoring system is required.