Effect of United States Medical Licensing Examination Score Cutoffs on Recruitment of Underrepresented Applicants in the Urology Match.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how the use of United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) score cutoffs during the screening process of the Urology Residency Match Program may affect recruitment of applicants who are underrepresented in medicine (URM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Deidentified data from the Association of American Medical Colleges' (AAMC) Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) system was reviewed, representing all applicants to our institution's urology residency program from 2018 to 2022. We analyzed self-reported demographic variables including race/ethnicity, age, sex/gender, as well as USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 scores. Chi-square tests and ANOVA were used to determine the association between race/ethnicity and other sociodemographic factors and academic metrics. Applicants were stratified according to USMLE Step 1 cutoff scores and the distribution of applicants by race/ethnicity was assessed using a Gaussian nonlinear regression fit. RESULTS: A total of 1258 applicants submitted applications to our program during the 5-year period, including 872 males (69.3%) and 386 females (30.7%). Most applicants were White (43.5%), followed by Asian (28.3%), Hispanic/Latino (11.7%), and Black (7.0%). There was an association between race/ethnicity and USMLE scores. Median USMLE Step 1 scores for White, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and Black applicants were 242, 242, 237, and 232, respectively (P < .001). As cutoff score increases, percentage of URM applicants decreases. CONCLUSION: The use of cutoffs based on USMLE scores disproportionately affects URM applicants. Transitioning from numeric scores to pass/fail may enhance holistic review processes and increase the representation of URM applicants offered interviews at urology residency programs.

Metastasis-Directed Therapy for Oligometastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: An Alternative to ADT?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The standard treatment of patients with metastatic prostate cancer is systemic treatment with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). The spectrum-based model of metastatic disease includes the presence of an oligometastatic state, an intermediary between localized and widespread metastatic disease, in which radical local treatment might improve systemic control. Our purpose is to review the literature on metastasis-directed therapy in the treatment of oligometastatic prostate cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Several prospective clinical trials have reported improvements in ADT-free survival and progression-free survival with metastasis-directed therapy of oligometastatic prostate cancer. Retrospective studies have found improvements in oncologic outcomes for patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer undergoing metastasis-directed therapy, and several recent prospective clinical trials have confirmed these results. Advancements in imaging as well as an understanding of the genomics of oligometastatic prostate cancer may allow for better patient selection for metastasis-directed therapy and the potential for cure in selected patients.

Factors Associated With Palliative Intervention Utilization for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Several guidelines have adopted early integration of palliative intervention (PI) into oncologic care to improve quality of life among patients with advanced malignancies. However, PI utilization patterns and factors associated with its use in metastatic renal cell carcinoma are poorly understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we abstracted patients diagnosed with Stage IV RCC from 2004 to 2014 and evaluated the utilization of PI within this cohort. Socioeconomic and clinical factors were compared for patients receiving and not receiving PI for metastatic RCC. Multivariable logistic regression (MLR) models identified factors that were associated with receipt of PI within overall cohort and treatment-based cohorts. RESULTS: We identified 42,014 patients with Stage IV RCC, of which 7,912 patients received PI. From 2004 to 2014, the use of PI minimally increased from 17% to 20% for Stage IV RCC. MLR analysis demonstrated that increased comorbidities, insurance status, higher education status, facility location, care at a comprehensive cancer program or integrated network, sarcomatoid histology, and treatment type significantly increased the likelihood of PI use. Various socioeconomic, clinical, and geographical factors that are associated with use of PI-based on the treatment received for Stage IV RCC. CONCLUSIONS: While PI utilization has minimally increased for Stage IV RCC, there are several geographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors that predict its use among patients with Stage IV RCC in a treatment-specific manner. Taken together, this suggests the need for earlier initiation of PI in a more equitable and systematic fashion among patients with metastatic RCC.