The role of planetary health in urologic oncology.

INTRODUCTION: Climate change and global warming are an omnipresent topic in our daily lives. Planetary health and oncology represent two critical domains within the broader spectrum of healthcare, each addressing distinct yet interconnected aspects of human well-being. We are encouraged to do our part in saving our planet. This should include the decisions we make in our professional life, especially in uro-oncology, as the healthcare sector significantly contributes to environmental pollution. AREAS COVERED: There are many aspects that can be addressed in the healthcare sector in general, as there are structural problems in terms of energy consumption, water waste, therapeutic techniques, transportation and drug manufacturing, as well as in uro-oncology specific areas. For example, the use of different surgical techniques, forms of anesthesia and the use of disposable or reusable instruments, each has a different impact on our environment. The literature search was carried out using PubMed, a medical database. EXPERT OPINION: We are used to making decisions based on the best outcome for patients without considering the impact that each decision can have on the environment. In the present article, we outline options and choices for a more climate-friendly approach in urologic oncology.

Patient-centered outcomes of telehealth for the care of rural-residing patients with urologic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients residing in rural areas with urologic cancers confront significant obstacles in obtaining oncologic care. In the Pacific Northwest, a sizeable portion of the population lives in a rural county. Telehealth offers a potential access solution. METHODS: Patients receiving urologic care through telehealth or an in-person appointment at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington, were surveyed to assess appointment-related satisfaction and travel costs. Patients' residences were classified as rural or urban based on their self-reported ZIP code. Median patient satisfaction scores and appointment-related travel costs were compared by rural versus urban residence within telehealth and in-person appointment groups using Wilcoxon signed-rank or χ2 testing. RESULTS: A total of 1091 patients seen for urologic cancer care between June 2019 and April 2022 were included, 28.7% of which resided in a rural county. Patients were mostly non-Hispanic White (75%) and covered by Medicare (58%). Among rural-residing patients, telehealth and in-person appointment groups had the same median satisfaction score (61; interquartile ratio, 58, 63). More rural-residing than urban-residing patients in the telehealth appointment groups strongly agreed that "Considering the cost and time commitment of my appointment, I would choose to meet with my provider in this setting in the future" (67% vs. 58%, p = .03). Rural-residing patients with in-person appointments carried a higher financial burden than those with telehealth appointments (medians, $80 vs. $0; p <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Appointment-related costs are high among rural-residing patients traveling for urologic oncologic care. Telehealth provides an affordable solution that does not compromise patient satisfaction.

Access to urologic cancer care for Medicaid-insured patients.

BACKGROUND: The expansion of state Medicaid programs associated with the Affordable Care Act has led to significant increases in insurance coverage for economically vulnerable patients, however barriers to accessing cancer care still exist. To develop strategies to improve healthcare access, we characterized access to new urologic cancer care for patients with Medicaid insurance in the United States. METHODS: Using a secret shopper approach, we contacted a representative sample of facilities designated for cancer care in United States. Trained volunteers posed as a family member seeking urologic cancer care using a simulated scenario of a parent with a new diagnosis of a localized kidney tumor. The primary study outcome was acceptance of Medicaid. In addition, we assessed facility characteristics associated with Medicaid acceptance relating to state Medicaid expansion status, Medicare reimbursement rates, and teaching hospital status using data from the Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital General Information data file, the American Hospital Directory, and the American Medical Association of Colleges Organizational Characteristics Database. RESULTS: We sampled a total of 389 facilities, of which 14.4% did not accept new Medicaid patients. Medicaid acceptance was higher in facilities located in states that elected to expand Medicaid through the ACA vs. non-expansion states (90.1% vs. 77.4% respectively, P < 0.001). Facilities accepting patients with Medicaid were located in states with higher mean Medicaid-to-Medicare fee indexes (0.70 for Medicaid-accepting vs. 0.65 for non-accepting facilities, P < 0.001). In addition, Medicaid acceptance was higher in teaching hospitals vs. non-teaching facilities (93.8% vs. 83.4% P = 0.02), and medical school affiliated facilities (89.2% vs. 79.7% P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: We identified access disparities for patients with Medicaid insurance seeking urologic cancer care at centers. These findings highlight opportunities to improve the quality and timeliness of cancer care.

The early impact of medicaid expansion on urologic malignancies in the United States.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of variable adoption of Medicaid Expansion (ME) of the Affordable Care Act among different states on urologic malignancies using a new variable that defines ME status of patient's residence in a nationwide cancer registry. BASIC PROCEDURES: The National Cancer Database was queried for urologic malignancies (bladder, prostate, kidney and testis) from 2011 to 2016, spanning the period surrounding the primary ME which took place in 2014. Trends in insurance status at time of diagnosis and effects on stage at presentation and survival after ME were evaluated using a difference-in-differences estimator and stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. MAIN FINDINGS: The percentage of patients with Medicaid coverage at the time of diagnosis increased significantly after adoption of ME in ME states across all urologic malignancies. Concurrently, there was a significant decrease in percentage of uninsured patients diagnosed with testis cancer, but not other urologic malignancies, in ME states. A change in the stage at presentation was not observed across all urologic malignancies for patients in ME states after adoption of ME. No difference in overall survival was noted among patients living in a ME state compared to non-ME states with adoption of ME in 2014. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: Despite increases in the proportion of patients with Medicaid coverage after 2014 in states that enrolled in ME, there was not an associated change in stage at presentation or survival for patients with genitourinary malignancy.

The Pursuit of Health Equity and Equality in Urologic Oncology: Where We Have Been and Where We Are Going.

CONTEXT: Advances in urologic oncology have improved early detection, treatment options, and health outcomes; however, racial/ethnic minorities continue to experience disparities in cancer incidence and survival. Research evaluating the optimal methods for closing these disparity gaps is under-reported. OBJECTIVE: To highlight critical disparities in equity and equality in urologic oncology and identify ways in which health care professionals can reduce these disparities among disproportionately affected groups through a health equity-focused framework. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature search was performed using EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed. Articles were included if they were published in English from 1980 to 2021 and addressed barriers and health care disparities in urologic cancer care in racial/ethnic minorities. The same search was conducted to look at barriers and disparities according to gender and to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex, or asexual (LGBTQIA) identity, and among immigrant populations. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Racial/ethnic minorities in the USA are less likely to be screened for urologic cancers, are less likely to have an early diagnosis of cancer, and have a higher mortality rate than their white counterparts. In addition, major European and North American clinical trials lack proper representation of diverse populations, leading to a knowledge gap regarding effective methods for addressing cancer health disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Continued medical advances have increased the efficacy of screening, diagnosis, and treatment of urologic cancers, but there remain significant well-documented disparities in the receipt of these advances among racial/ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQIA individuals, and immigrant populations. Multidisciplinary efforts are needed to address and ultimately eliminate these gaps. PATIENT SUMMARY: We analyzed several studies to understand current disparities in cancer screening, diagnosis, and health outcomes across under-represented populations. We found that under-represented populations have worse outcomes than their white counterparts diagnosed with cancer. We conclude that the best way to address these disparities is through a multidisciplinary approach that involves engagement at the individual, community, research, and institutional levels to provide the best care possible to each individual patient.

Impact of HER2 assessment by CISH in urothelial carcinoma: A retrospective single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, HER2 amplification has been evaluated as a potential prognostic biomarker and therapeutic target in urothelial carcinoma (UC). In this retrospective study, we aimed at exploring the prognostic role of HER2 amplification in UC, measured by chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH). METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the presence of HER2 amplification by using CISH in 31 UC patients followed at a single institution between 2018 and 2020. The primary objective was to assess the frequency of HER2 amplification and to compare clinical outcomes of HER2-amplified patients with non-amplified UCs. RESULTS: HER2 amplification was identified in 4 out of 31 patients (12.9 %). After a median follow-up of 28.1 months (95 % Confidence Intervals [CI] 11.2-45.1), median overall survival (OS) in the whole population was 10.9 months (95 % CI 3.5-22.1). Despite not reaching statistical significance, median OS was shorter in HER2-amplified patients (6.8 months, 95 % CI 3.9-9.7) compared to HER2-negative UCs (15.4 months, 95 % CI 7.5-23.3) (p = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by the small sample size, the results of our study suggest that HER2 amplifications by CISH could represent a prognostic factor for shorter survival in UC patients.

Global change of surgical and oncological clinical practice in urology during early COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: While the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic captures healthcare resources worldwide, data on the impact of prioritization strategies in urology during pandemic are absent. We aimed to quantitatively assess the global change in surgical and oncological clinical practice in the early COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this cross-sectional observational study, we designed a 12-item online survey on the global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical practice in urology. Demographic survey data, change of clinical practice, current performance of procedures, and current commencement of treatment for 5 conditions in medical urological oncology were evaluated. RESULTS: 235 urologists from 44 countries responded. Out of them, 93% indicated a change of clinical practice due to COVID-19. In a 4-tiered surgery down-escalation scheme, 44% reported to make first cancellations, 23% secondary cancellations, 20% last cancellations and 13% emergency cases only. Oncological surgeries had low cancellation rates (%): transurethral resection of bladder tumor (27%), radical cystectomy (21-24%), nephroureterectomy (21%), radical nephrectomy (18%), and radical orchiectomy (8%). (Neo)adjuvant/palliative treatment is currently not started by more than half of the urologists. COVID-19 high-risk-countries had higher total cancellation rates for non-oncological procedures (78% vs. 68%, p = 0.01) and were performing oncological treatment for metastatic diseases at a lower rate (35% vs. 48%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinical practice of 93% of urologists worldwide. The impact of implementing surgical prioritization protocols with moderate cancellation rates for oncological surgeries and delay or reduction in (neo)adjuvant/palliative treatment will have to be evaluated after the pandemic.

Medical oncology referral and systemic therapy of patients with advanced stage urothelial carcinoma.

Aim: To understand physician visit patterns among patients with stage IV (including nonmetastatic [M0] and metastatic [M1] disease) urothelial carcinoma (UC) and understand factors associated with a timely referral to a medical oncologist and systemic treatment. Patients & methods: Retrospective analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data. Results: First physician encounter was with a urologist (M0: 69%; M1: 53%) or primary care physician ([PCP]; M0: 19%, M1: 25%) for the majority of patients around UC diagnosis. After the index urologist encounter, most patients had a subsequent medical oncologist visit at a median of 52 days (M0: 69.5 days, M1: 33 days). In an adjusted model, older age, index PCP visit, higher comorbidities and M0 disease were negatively associated with a medical oncologist referral. Among those referred to a medical oncologist, older age, Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black race and not being married were negatively associated with subsequent chemotherapy receipt (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Many patients with advanced UC encounter multiple specialists during their disease course. Older patients or those with a first UC-related encounter with a PCP are less likely to be referred to medical oncology. Once referred to medical oncology, social determinants, including race and marital status, are relevant predictors of receiving chemotherapy.

COVID-19: Revue des lignes directrices et recommandations pour la prise en charge des cancers urologiques en contexte de pandémie / COVID-19: Review of guidelines and recommendations for the management of urological cancers in the context of a pandemic

CONTEXTE: Le présent document a été rédigé en réponse à une interpellation du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux (MSSS) dans le contexte de l'urgence sanitaire liée à la maladie à coronavirus (COVID-19) au Québec. L'objectif est de réaliser une recension sommaire des recommandations publiées afin d'appuyer les travaux du MSSS visant à se doter de directives provinciales en matière de prise en charge des patients atteints d'un cancer urologique, destinées aux décideurs publics et aux professionnels de la santé et des services sociaux. Vu la nature rapide de cette réponse, les présents travaux ne reposent pas sur un repérage exhaustif des données publiées et une évaluation de la qualité méthodologique des publications avec une méthode systématique ou sur un processus de consultation élaboré. Dans les circonstances d'une telle urgence de santé publique, l'INESSS reste à l'affût de toutes nouvelles publications susceptibles de lui faire modifier cette réponse rapide. PRÉSENTATION DE LA DEMANDE: Dans le présent contexte d'urgence sanitaire, une réorganisation significative des soins destinés aux patients atteints de cancer a été entreprise afin de protéger les patients des risques de contracter la COVID-19 et aussi de permettre une réallocation de certaines ressources à la prise en charge de la COVID-19. Le MSSS a entrepris des travaux dans le but d'orienter les équipes de soins sur ce qui devra être maintenu, délesté ou adapté dans un contexte où le système ne permettrait qu'un accès limité à certains services. Une recension sommaire des principales lignes directrices et prises de position par des associations, des sociétés savantes et des consensus d'experts en lien avec la priorisation des soins en contexte d'urgence sanitaire a été effectuée. Un comité d'experts québécois spécialisés en cancers urologiques (prostate, rein, glande surrénale, voies excrétrices supérieures, vessie, testicule, pénis et urètre) a par la suite été formé par le MSSS pour discuter des informations extraites de la littérature et formuler, par consensus, des recommandations en lien avec la priorisation des soins propre au contexte québécois. Le présent document expose la revue de la littérature réalisée dans le but d'appuyer les travaux du groupe d'experts. Les recommandation finales sont disponibles sur le site du MSSS au lien suivant : Priorisation des patients. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Question d'évaluation. Quels sont les principales lignes directrices et prises de position des associations, des sociétés savantes et des consensus d'experts en lien avec la priorisation des soins pour le traitement de cancers urologiques en contexte d'urgence sanitaire? Revue de littérature Repérage des publications : Littérature scientifique : La revue de la littérature scientifique (langue anglaise et française) a été réalisée entre le 27 mars et le 2 avril 2020 dans PubMed avec différentes combinaisons des mots-clés suivants : « COVID-19 ¼, « coronavirus ¼, « cancer ¼, « oncologie (oncology) ¼, « prise en charge du cancer (cancer management) ¼, « urologie (urology) ¼, « soins en cancérologie (cancer care) ¼, « options thérapeutiques (therapeutic options) ¼, « pratique clinique (clinical practice) ¼, « recommandation (recommendation) ¼, et « priorisation (prioritisation) ¼. Les listes de références des documents retenues ont été consultées afin de repérer d'autres publications admissibles. Les liens similar articles et cited by de l'interface PubMed ont été consultés pour chacune des publications scientifiques retenues ainsi que des revues narratives pertinentes. Littérature grise : Une recherche dans google a été faite avec les mots-clés mentionnés (langue française et anglaise). SOMMAIRE DES RÉSULTATS: Résultat de la recherche documentaire Prises de positions et lignes directrices des sociétés savantes, associations médicales, consensus ou opinions d'experts: Douze publications rapportant des prises de position et des lignes directrices relatives à la priorisation des soins en contexte d'urgence sanitaire ainsi que les alternatives thérapeutiques proposées concernant la prise en charge des cancers urologiques ont été retenues.

Lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: Will virtual patient management reshape uro-oncology in Germany?

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is challenging for physicians treating patients with genitourinary cancers as they are considered at high risk of severe events. The uro-oncology outpatient clinic at our academic institution was affected early by the outbreak owing to the widespread infection of healthcare personnel. Subsequently, we developed a strategy to ensure the patient's safety by efforts focused on strict quarantine observation, reduction of clinic visits and implementation of virtual patient management into the workflow. Furthermore, we analysed susceptibility to COVID-19 and its effects on patients with uro-oncological cancer treated with antitumoural agents. The goal is to warrant high-quality cancer care, despite being an academic centre on the front line of Germany's response to COVID-19.

[Venous thromboembolism and urological cancer: Epidemiology and therapeutically management]. / Maladie thromboembolique veineuse et cancers urologiques : épidémiologie et prise en charge thérapeutique.

INTRODUCTION: Active cancer is a risk factor in the occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE). This is the second cause of death for these patients. In onco-urology, some cancers are associated with an increased risk of VTE. The aim of this study was to propose a focus of epidemiology and VTE therapy management. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic analysis of the PubMed® database was performed through the PRISMA methodology using the followings keywords : "neoplasm", "venous thromboembolism", "prophylaxis", "pulmonary embolism", "urology". The original papers were included with a priority on: meta-analyzes, literature reviews, randomized controlled trials and good-level proof cohort studies. Only publications in English or French have been selected. RESULTS: The incidence of VTE was more important in case of renal carcinomas (3.5%/year). When surgery was proposed cystectomy was the riskiest procedure (2.6 to 11.6% VTE). Chemotherapy alone was an important risk factor increasing by a factor of six the occurrence of VTE. Hormonotherapy also increased this risk by induced hypogonadism. The curative treatment for VTE associated with cancers has to be performed through the injection of low molecular weight heparin. The implantation of a prophylactic treatment was not systematic among patients diagnosed with urological cancer. CONCLUSION: The understanding of mechanisms associated with the occurrence of VTE among these patients has enabled to improve patient management, especially those suffering from urological cancer. Undeniably, frequency of VTE is probably underestimated by urologists during clinical practice.

Lymphocyte count in peripheral blood is a sensitive tool in pretreatment assessment of patients with urological cancer.

Cancer, inflammation and immune surveillance recruit lymphocytes as common key cellular players. The aim of the study was to assess a utility of the absolute and relative lymphocyte counts (ALC and RLC) in peripheral blood of patients with urological cancer as sensitive tool in pretreatment assessment of patient, which correlates with postoperative outcome of the disease, and outlines the overall reactivity of the patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied correlation between lymphocyte count in peripheral blood of the patients with urological cancer (n = 789) and number of clinical parameters: cancer localization, stage of the disease, treatment outcome, complications. Mann - Whitney two-tailed test and logistic regression models were used. RESULTS: Lymphocyte counts (both absolute and relative) correlate with the cancer stage, and status of the disease, allowing differentiate patients with urological cancer, from healthy individuals, and from the cancer patients after radical surgery. In patients with kidney and bladder cancer, lymphocyte count allowed differentiate the stages of the disease. Lower rate of the reactivity of the patient to the cancer treatment is accurately predicted by the ALC and RLC: those in highest quartile for lymphocytes count have shorter postoperative recovery. Patients in lowest quartile demonstrated worst postoperative performance, including cases of early postoperative mortality due to weak somatic status. CONCLUSION: The study presents evidence that pretreatment lymphocyte count in the peripheral blood of patients with urological cancer is a sensitive marker of cancer stage, and the reactivity of the patient to the cancer treatment, which can be used in the pretreatment assessment of the patient.

Cost and cost-effectiveness studies in urologic oncology using large administrative databases.

OBJECTIVE: Urologic cancers are not only among the most common types of cancers, but also among the most expensive cancers to treat in the United States. This study aimed to review the use of CEAs and other cost analyses in urologic oncology using large databases to better understand the value of management strategies of these cancers. METHODS: A literature review on CEAs and other cost analyses in urologic oncology using large databases. RESULTS: The options for and costs of diagnosing, treating, and following patients with urologic cancers can be expected to rise in the coming years. There are numerous opportunities in each urologic cancer to use CEAs to both lower costs and provide high-quality services. Improved cancer care must balance the integration of novelty with ensuring reasonable costs to patients and the health care system. CONCLUSION: With the increasing focus cost containment, appreciating the value of competing strategies in caring for our patients is pivotal. Leveraging methods such as CEAs and harnessing large databases may help evaluate the merit of established or emerging strategies.

Imaging response assessment of immunotherapy in patients with renal cell and urothelial carcinoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent advances in anticancer immunotherapy have revolutionized the treatment of metastatic renal cell (RCC) and urothelial carcinoma. In this review, we discuss the mechanisms of action of these new therapeutic approaches, explicate the common adverse events, and highlight different imaging-based response criteria. RECENT FINDINGS: The recent introduction of immune-checkpoint inhibitors led to substantial advances in therapy of metastatic RCC and urothelial carcinoma. Because of the distinct effector mechanisms of these new substances, atypical response patterns such as transient enlargements of tumor lesions, appearance of new lesions after therapy, no measurable decrease in tumor size, or delayed responses are observed in medical imaging studies. This indicates that the established imaging-based response assessment according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines has shortcomings to comprehensively evaluate treatment effects. SUMMARY: While monitoring response to immunotherapy still relies on RECIST criteria, immune-related response criteria have been established to better address the imaging changes occurring under immunotherapy. Further studies with long-term follow-up are needed to properly identify and predict response after treatment beyond progression. Because of the expanding clinical use of immune checkpoint inhibitors, radiologists, urologist, and oncologists should be familiar with common imaging findings under this respective therapy.

Basic methods for the assessment of health-related quality of life in uro-oncological patients.

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of patients' expectations and quality of life in uro-oncology is considered an important outcome of treatment efficacy and satisfaction. Aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the most frequently adopted tools in uro-oncology to assess Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search until October 2015 was performed on MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PubMed combining the following terms: "quality of life," "health-related quality of life," "kidney cancer," "bladder cancer," "prostate cancer." Additional references were obtained from the reference list of full-text manuscripts. Data were synthesized using meta-analytic methods conformed to the PRISMA statement. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: HRQoL is a fundamental step in evaluating treatment outcome in patients with urological cancers. HRQoL is mostly measured through several questionnaires, which are generally categorized in generic questionnaires, exploring the patient's well-being en bloc; specific questionnaires, assessing each single domain of health status; and uro-oncological specific questionnaires, mainly characterized by a modular approach. Although different questionnaires have been proposed and validated, the standard method to be adopted in urology is far from the solution and further studies should investigate the strength and weakness of the different questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL questionnaires should become a standard method to evaluate medical/surgical outcomes in uro-oncology. Their implementation may significantly improve patients' satisfaction and help physicians in the decision-making process and possibly reduce health care costs.

Cancer management: the difficulties of a target-driven healthcare system.

This article gives a reflective overview on cancer management from a urological perspective. It is based on anecdotal evidence and observations of local practice, and highlights some of the inherent difficulties of delivering a robust service in a target-driven healthcare system. Cancer is a complex disease. It is crucial that stringent measures are used to ensure those affected by it receive care that is of the highest quality, delivered in a timely manner, and tailored to meet the individual's needs. In 2000, the Government's attempt to increase competition among healthcare providers in the delivery of care, and thereby healthcare quality and efficiency, resulted in a number of healthcare reforms being introduced in the UK. Central to these were the NHS Cancer Waiting Time standards, which were designed to fast-track care delivery in the management of cancer patients. The multidisciplinary teams play a pivotal role in this process and their contribution is imperative to achieving the desired outcomes. It is acknowledged that targets can be beneficial, but there are clear unintended consequences as well. Increases in urgent referrals result in significant screening demands and, consequently, newly diagnosed cancers. This, combined with factors such as patient choice and costs, put added pressure on NHS establishments and health professionals to deliver care within the target specifications.