Prostate cancer risk stratification using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion vs systematic prostate biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Image-guided approaches improve the diagnostic yield of prostate biopsy and frequently modify estimates of clinical risk. To better understand the impact of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy (MRF-TB) on risk assessment, we compared the distribution of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk groupings, as calculated from MRF-TB vs systematic biopsy alone. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 713 patients who underwent MRF-TB from January 2017 to July 2021. The primary study objective was to compare the distribution of National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk groupings obtained using MRF-TB (systematic + targeted) vs systematic biopsy. RESULTS: Systematic biopsy alone classified 10% of samples as very low risk and 18.7% of samples as low risk, while MRF-TB classified 10.5% of samples as very low risk and 16.1% of samples as low risk. Among patients with benign findings, low-risk disease, and favorable/intermediate-risk disease on systematic biopsy alone, 4.6% of biopsies were reclassified as high risk or very high risk on MRF-TB. Of 207 patients choosing active surveillance, 64 (31%), 91 (44%), 42 (20.2%), and 10 (4.8%) patients were classified as having very low-risk, low-risk, and favorable/intermediate-risk and unfavorable/intermediate-risk criteria, respectively. When using systematic biopsy alone, 204 patients (28.7%) were classified as having either very low-risk and low-risk disease per NCCN guidelines, while 190 men (26.6%) received this classification when using MRF-TB. CONCLUSION: The addition of MRF-TB to systematic biopsy may change eligibility for active surveillance in only a small proportion of patients with prostate cancer. Our findings support the need for routine use of quantitative risk assessment over risk groupings to promote more nuanced decision making for localized cancer.

Telehealth Availability for Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth was an important strategy for maintaining continuity of cancer care during the coronavirus pandemic and has continued to play a role in outpatient care; however, it is unknown whether services are equally available across cancer hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with common cancers to contextualize the impact of access barriers to technology on overall access to health care. METHODS: We conducted a national cross-sectional secret shopper study from June to November 2020 to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with colorectal, breast, and skin (melanoma) cancer. We examined facility-level factors to determine predictors of telehealth availability. RESULTS: Of the 312 investigated facilities, 97.1% (n=303) provided telehealth services for at least 1 cancer site. Telehealth was less available to new compared to established patients (n=226, 72% vs n=301, 97.1%). The surveyed cancer hospitals more commonly offered telehealth visits for breast cancer care (n=266, 85%) and provided lower access to telehealth for skin (melanoma) cancer care (n=231, 74%). Most hospitals (n=163, 52%) offered telehealth for all 3 cancer types. Telehealth availability was weakly correlated across cancer types within a given facility for new (r=0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.23) and established (r=0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.21) patients. Telehealth was more commonly available for new patients at National Cancer Institute-designated facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, and major teaching sites, with high total admissions and below-average timeliness of care. Telehealth availability for established patients was highest at Academic Comprehensive Cancer Programs, nongovernment and nonprofit facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, Accountable Care Organizations, and facilities with a high number of total admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increase in telehealth services for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic, we identified differences in access across cancer hospitals, which may relate to measures of clinical volume, affiliation, and infrastructure.

Online Crowdfunding for Urologic Cancer Care.

Background: we aimed to characterize the financial needs expressed through online crowdfunding for urologic cancers. Methods: the data used in this study came from the online crowdfunding platform GoFundMe.com. Using an automated software method, we extracted data for campaigns related to urologic cancers. Subsequently, four independent investigators reviewed all extracted data on prostate, bladder, kidney and testicular cancer. We analyzed campaigns' basic characteristics, goals, fundraising, type of treatment and factors associated with successful campaigns. Results: in total, we identified 2126 individual campaigns, which were related to direct treatment costs (34%), living expenses (17%) or both (48%). Median fundraising amounts were greatest for testicular cancer. Campaigns for both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) (median $11,000) or CAM alone (median $8527) achieved higher fundraising totals compared with those for conventional treatments alone (median $5362) (p < 0.01). The number of social media shares was independently associated with campaign success and highest quartile of fundraising. Conclusions: using an automated web-based approach, we identified and characterized online crowdfunding for urologic cancer care. These findings indicated a diverse range of patient needs related to urologic care and factors related to campaigns' success.

Genitourinary resection at the time of cytoreductive surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis is not associated with increased morbidity or worsened oncologic outcomes: a case-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has gained acceptance in the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis with reported morbidity and mortality rates of 27-56 and 0-11 %, respectively. The safety and oncologic outcome of genitourinary repair at the time of CRS and HIPEC remains unclear. METHODS: We identified 170 patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC at our institution between July 2007 and August 2011 with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Thirty-four (20 %) underwent concomitant urologic reconstruction at the time of CRS-HIPEC and were matched by disease burden (intraoperative peritoneal cancer index [PCI]) and extent of surgery (ΔPCI) with a cohort of 38 (22.3 %) subjects without genitourinary involvement. The primary end points considered for this analysis included the development of major surgical (Clavien-Dindo Class III-V) complications and overall survival. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 9.4 months. The most commonly performed urologic interventions included partial cystectomy with primary repair in 23 (65.7 %) and segmental ureteral resection and repair in 11 (31.4 %). Patients with genitourinary reconstruction had more total organ involvement (6.5 vs. 4.3, p < 0.001) and more commonly underwent enteric anastomoses (82.4 vs. 57.9 %, p = 0.025). No significant differences were observed with regard to major morbidity, need for transfusion, operative time, intensive care unit admission, or length of stay. Among patients with appendiceal or colonic tumors (n = 46), overall survival was similar between genitourinary reconstruction and matched cohorts: 22.5 versus 15.1 months, respectively (p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: Genitourinary reconstruction at the time of CRS-HIPEC occurs more commonly in patients with extensive disease burden undergoing radical debulking, yet does not adversely influence surgical morbidity or survival.