Telemedicine Adoption in an NCI-Designated Cancer Center During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Report on Patient Experience of Care.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer require timely access to care so that healthcare providers can prepare an optimal treatment plan with significant implications for quality of life and mortality. The COVID-19 pandemic spurred rapid adoption of telemedicine in oncology, but study of patient experience of care with telemedicine in this population has been limited. We assessed overall patient experience of care with telemedicine at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center during the COVID-19 pandemic and examined changes in patient experience over time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of outpatient oncology patients who received treatment at Moffitt Cancer Center. Press Ganey surveys were used to assess patient experience. Data from patients with appointments between April 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, were analyzed. Patient experience was compared between telemedicine and in-person visits, and patient experience with telemedicine over time was described. RESULTS: A total of 33,318 patients reported Press Ganey data for in-person visits, and 5,950 reported Press Ganey data for telemedicine visits. Relative to patients with in-person visits, more patients with telemedicine visits gave higher satisfaction ratings for access (62.5% vs 75.8%, respectively) and care provider concern (84.2% vs 90.7%, respectively) (P<.001). When adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, insurance, and clinic type, telemedicine visits consistently outperformed in-person visits over time regarding access and care provider concern (P<.001). There were no significant changes over time in satisfaction with telemedicine visits regarding access, care provider concern, telemedicine technology, or overall assessment (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a large oncology dataset showed that telemedicine resulted in better patient experience of care in terms of access and care provider concern compared with in-person visits. Patient experience of care with telemedicine visits did not change over time, suggesting that implementing telemedicine was effective.

Cost Effectiveness of Treatment Sequences in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The treatment landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has significantly evolved in recent years. Without direct comparator trials, factors such as cost effectiveness (CE) are important to guide decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To assess the CE of guideline-recommended approved first- and second-line treatment regimens. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A comprehensive Markov model was developed to analyze the CE of the five current National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended first-line therapies with appropriate second-line therapy for patient cohorts with International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium favorable and intermediate/poor risk. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and total accumulated costs were estimated using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In patients with favorable risk, pembrolizumab + lenvatinib followed by cabozantinib added $32 935 in costs and yielded 0.28 QALYs, resulting in an incremental CE ratio (ICER) of $117 625 per QALY in comparison to pembrolizumab + axitinib followed by cabozantinib. In patients with intermediate/poor risk, nivolumab + ipilimumab followed by cabozantinib added $2252 in costs and yielded 0.60 QALYs compared to cabozantinib followed by nivolumab, yielding an ICER of $4184. Limitations include differences in median follow-up duration between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab + lenvatinib followed by cabozantinib, and pembrolizumab + axitinib followed by cabozantinib were cost-effective treatment sequences for patients with favorable-risk mRCC. Nivolumab +ipilimumab followed by cabozantinib was the most cost-effective treatment sequence for patients with intermediate-/poor-risk mRCC, dominating all preferred treatments. PATIENT SUMMARY: Because new treatments for kidney cancer have not been compared head to head, comparison of their cost and efficacy can help in making decisions about the best treatments to use first. Our model showed that patients with a favorable risk profile are most likely to benefit from pembrolizumab and lenvatinib or axitinib followed by cabozantinib, while patients with an intermediate or poor risk profile will probably benefit most from nivolumab and ipilimumab followed by cabozantinib.

Estimated Indirect Cost Savings of Using Telehealth Among Nonelderly Patients With Cancer.

Importance: Patients with cancer typically have greater financial hardships and time costs than individuals without cancer. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this, while posing substantial challenges to delivering cancer care and resulting in important changes in care-delivery models, including the rapid adoption of telehealth. Objective: To estimate patient travel, time, and cost savings associated with telehealth for cancer care delivery. Design, Setting, and Participants: An economic evaluation of cost savings from completed telehealth visits from April 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, in a single-institution National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. All patients aged 18 to 65 years who completed telehealth visits within the designated time frame and had a Florida mailing address documented in their electronic medical record were included in the study cohort. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to June 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was estimated patient cost savings from telehealth, which included 2 components: costs of travel (defined as roundtrip distance saved from car travel) and potential loss of productivity due to the medical visit (defined as loss of income from roundtrip travel plus loss of income from in-person clinic visits). Two different models with a combination of 2 different mileage rates ($0.56 and $0.82 per mile) and census tract-level median hourly wages were used. Results: The study included 25 496 telehealth visits with 11 688 patients. There were 4525 (3795 patients) new or established visits and 20 971 (10 049 patients) follow-up visits. Median (IQR) age was 55.0 (46.0-61.0) years among the telehealth visits, with 15 663 visits (61.4%) by women and 18 360 visits (72.0%) by Hispanic non-White patients. According to cost models, the estimated mean (SD) total cost savings ranged from $147.4 ($120.1) at $0.56/mile to $186.1 ($156.9) at $0.82/mile. For new or established visits, the mean (SD) total cost savings per visit ranged from $176.6 ($136.3) at $0.56/mile to $222.8 ($177.4) at $0.82/mile, and for follow-up visits, the mean (SD) total cost savings per visit was $141.1 ($115.3) at $0.56/mile to $178.1 ($150.9) at $0.82/mile. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, telehealth was associated with savings in patients time and travel costs, which may reduce the financial toxicity of cancer care. Expansion of telehealth oncology services may be an effective strategy to reduce the financial burden among patients with cancer.

Estimated Carbon Emissions Savings With Shifts From In-Person Visits to Telemedicine for Patients With Cancer.

Importance: While the health care community advocates broadly for climate change policy, medical professionals can look within care practices to assess their contribution to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and provide solutions wherever possible. Telemedicine can help in mitigating climate change by providing care from a distance. Objective: To assess the carbon savings achieved from telemedicine visits. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of telemedicine visits was conducted at a single-institution National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer center. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and above, completed telemedicine visits from April 1, 2020, to June 20, 2021, and had a Florida mailing address documented in their electronic medical record. Groups were divided between those within driving time of 60 minutes (1-way) to the cancer center vs those living beyond 60 minutes of drive time. Data were analyzed between April 2020 and June 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Carbon emission savings from telemedicine, measured in total and average per-visit savings. Results: A total 49 329 telemedicine visits with 23 228 patients were conducted from April 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. A total 21 489 visits were for patients with driving time of 60 minutes or less (median [IQR] age, 62.0 [52.0-71.0] years; 12 334 [57.4%] female; 1685 [7.8%] Black, 1500 [7.0%] Hispanic, 16 010 [74.5%] non-Hispanic White), while 27 840 visits were for patients with driving time greater than 60 minutes (median [IQR] age, 67.0 [57.0-74.0] years; 14 372 [51.6%] female; 1056 [3.8%] Black, 1364 [5.0%] Hispanic, 22 457 [80.7%] non-Hispanic White). For patients living within a driving time of 60 minutes from the cancer center, 424 471 kg CO2 emissions were saved (mean [SD] emissions savings, 19.8 [9.4] kg CO2 per visit) due to telemedicine-equivalent to 91.5 passenger vehicles driven for 1 year. For patients whose driving distance was greater than 60 minutes, 2 744 248 kg CO2 emissions were saved (mean emissions savings, 98.6 [54.8] kg CO2 per visit)-equivalent to 591 passenger vehicles driven for 1 year. Conclusions and Relevance: Using a large data set, this cross-sectional analysis highlighted the carbon emissions savings due to telemedicine in oncology. This has important implications in reducing health care-related carbon footprint.

Health Care Providers' and Professionals' Experiences With Telehealth Oncology Implementation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid implementation of telehealth for cancer care during COVID-19 required innovative and adaptive solutions among oncology health care providers and professionals (HPPs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this qualitative study was to explore oncology HPPs' experiences with telehealth implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This study was conducted at Moffitt Cancer Center (Moffitt), an NCI (National Cancer Institute)-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Prior to COVID-19, Moffitt piloted telehealth visits on a limited basis. After COVID-19, Moffitt rapidly expanded telehealth visits. Telehealth visits included real-time videoconferencing between HPPs and patients and virtual check-ins (ie, brief communication with an HPP by telephone only). We conducted semistructured interviews with 40 oncology HPPs who implemented telehealth during COVID-19. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed for themes using Dedoose software (version 4.12). RESULTS: Approximately half of the 40 participants were physicians (n=22, 55%), and one-quarter of the participants were advanced practice providers (n=10, 25%). Other participants included social workers (n=3, 8%), psychologists (n=2, 5%), dieticians (n=2, 5%), and a pharmacist (n=1, 3%). Five key themes were identified: (1) establishing and maintaining patient-HPP relationships, (2) coordinating care with other HPPs and informal caregivers, (3) adapting in-person assessments for telehealth, (4) developing workflows and allocating resources, and (5) future recommendations. Participants described innovative strategies for implementing telehealth, such as coordinating interdisciplinary visits with multiple HPPs and inviting informal caregivers (eg, spouse) to participate in telehealth visits. Health care workers discussed key challenges, such as workflow integration, lack of physical exam and biometric data, and overcoming the digital divide (eg, telehealth accessibility among patients with communication-related disabilities). Participants recommended policy advocacy to support telehealth (eg, medical licensure policies) and monitoring how telehealth affects patient outcomes and health care delivery. CONCLUSIONS: To support telehealth growth, implementation strategies are needed to ensure that HPPs and patients have the tools necessary to effectively engage in telehealth. At the same time, cancer care organizations will need to engage in advocacy to ensure that policies are supportive of oncology telehealth and develop systems to monitor the impact of telehealth on patient outcomes, health care quality, costs, and equity.

Urinary leak following partial nephrectomy: a contemporary review of 975 cases.

INTRODUCTION: To describe the incidence, contemporary management, risk factors and outcomes of urinary leak following open and robotic partial nephrectomy at a tertiary care, comprehensive cancer center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed 975 patients who underwent partial nephrectomy at Moffitt Cancer Center from January 2009 to May 2017. Patient demographic, perioperative and follow up data was recorded and compared stratified for postoperative urine leak. Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon sum-rank testing were performed for categorical and continuous variables as indicated. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 975 (2.3%) patients experienced a urine leak after partial nephrectomy. Median nephrometry score for urine leak patients was 8 (SD +/- 1.3). Median postoperative days to detection was 3.5 and most leaks were discovered due to high drain output. Operative factors associated with urinary leak included open surgery, estimated blood loss, and not using a sliding-clip renorrhaphy (p < 0.05). Ten (44%) were managed conservatively, 9 (39%) patients required ureteral stent placement, 3 (13%) needed a percutaneous nephrostomy tube, one patient (4%) required percutaneous drainage for urinoma (4%). One patient ultimately failed conservative management and required nephrectomy 45 days after the original surgery. Mean time to stent and drain removal was 40 +/- 17 and 24 +/- 7 days, respectively. Five patients with symptomatic leaks were readmitted with a mean length of stay of 3.2 +/- 1.8 days. CONCLUSIONS: The overall incidence of urinary leak after partial nephrectomy remains low regardless of surgical approach. Perioperative characteristics such as tumor complexity and high blood loss, in addition to open surgery and not using a sliding-clip bolstered renorrhaphy are associated with urine leak.

Improved Outcomes of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocol for Radical Cystectomy with Addition of a Multidisciplinary Care Process in a US Comprehensive Cancer Care Center.

INTRODUCTION: Although enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) components include both anesthesia and surgical care processes, it is unclear whether a multidisciplinary approach to implementing ERAS care processes improves clinical outcomes. The addition of multidisciplinary care with anesthesiology-related components to an existing ERAS protocol for radical cystectomy at a US comprehensive cancer center provided an opportunity to compare short- and long-term outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively compared the outcomes of 116 consecutive patients who underwent cystectomy after implementation of a multidisciplinary ERAS protocol with those of a historical control group of 143 consecutive patients who had been treated with a surgical ERAS protocol. Length of stay, return of bowel function, rate of blood transfusion, nausea, pain, and readmission rates were examined. RESULTS: Implementation of a multidisciplinary ERAS protocol was associated with better postsurgical symptom control, as indicated by lower rates of patient-reported nausea (P < .05). Multivariate Poisson regression analysis showed a decrease in estimated intraoperative transfusions (P ≤ .001) after adjusting for the effects of potential confounding variables. There were no statistically significant differences noted in length of stay, return of bowel function, 30- and 90-day complications, or readmissions. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to investigate the effects of adding anesthesia ERAS components to an existing surgical ERAS protocol for radical cystectomy. We found that with the addition of anesthesia-related interventions, there was a decrease in transfusions and nausea.

Patterns of Regional Lymphadenectomy for Clinically Node-negative Patients With Penile Carcinoma: Analysis From the National Cancer Database From 1998 to 2012.

PURPOSE: Evidence supports upfront regional lymphadenectomy (rND) when primary penile tumors exhibit high-risk features and negative inguinal adenopathy (cN0). We sought to analyze trends in the utilization of early rND as well as assess factors associated with its use and survival outcomes using a nationwide cancer registry database. PATIENT AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with clinically nonmetastatic penile carcinoma and available nodal status who underwent rND from 1998 to 2012. Temporal trends in the utilization of early rND for those with cN0 disease were analyzed, and a multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify predictors for receiving rND. Survival analysis based on rND status was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard regression. RESULTS: From 1919 patients with available clinicopathologic variables, performance of early rND was documented in 377 (19.6%) patients with an increase in utilization over time (P = .001). The increase was driven by academic and comprehensive cancer programs compared with community programs (P < .001). Positive predictors were treatment facility, clinical tumor stage, and grade (all P < .05). African American patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.86; P = .01) and those aged > 75 years (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.26-0.68; P < .001) were significantly less likely to receive rND. Early rND was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87; P = .003). CONCLUSION: There was increased use of early lymphadenectomy for patients with cN0 penile cancer driven by comprehensive and academic cancer programs. The study demonstrated demographic and socioeconomic differences that can help identify barriers to care for patients with penile cancer in the United States.

Change in Management Based on Pathologic Second Opinion Among Bladder Cancer Patients Presenting to a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Implications for Clinical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence and degree of change from a pathologic second opinion of bladder biopsies at a Comprehensive Cancer Center that were initially performed at referring community hospitals. The secondary objective was to determine the impact the potential changes would have on a patient's treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dedicated genitourinary pathologists reviewed 1191 transurethral biopsies of the bladder and/or prostatic urethra from 2008 to 2013. Major and minor treatment changes were defined as altering recommendations for cystectomy, systemic chemotherapy, or primary cancer diagnosis, and alterations in intravesical regimens, respectively. RESULTS: There were 326/1191 patients (27.4%) with a pathologic change on second opinion: grade (62/1191, 5.2%), stage (115/1191, 9.7%), muscle in the specimen (29/1191, 2.4%), presence or absence of carcinoma in situ (34/1191, 2.9%). Outside pathology did not address the presence or absence of lymphovascular invasion in 620/759 (81.7%) of invasive cases (≥cT1), of which 35/620 (5.6%) had lymphovascular invasion. There were 212 mixed, variant, or nonurothelial histologies detected in 199/1191 (16.7%) patients, with 114/212 (53.7%) resulting in reclassification by our pathologists. Potential treatment alterations accounted for 182/1191 (15.3%) of cases, with 141/1191 (11.8%) imparting major changes. There were 82/1191 (6.8%) changes in recommendation for a radical cystectomy, 38/1191 (3.2%) had a complete change in primary tumor type, and 21/1191 (1.8%) for change in chemotherapy regimen. CONCLUSION: The amount and degree of pathologic changes and its potential impact on treatment emphasize the importance of bladder cancer patients having their histology reviewed by genitourinary-dedicated pathologists. In our cohort, 15.3% of patients could see a treatment alteration, with 11.8% being a major change.

Randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the safety of one-year administration of green tea catechins.

PURPOSE: Although preclinical, epidemiological and prior clinical trial data suggest that green tea catechins (GTCs) may reduce prostate cancer (PCa) risk, several preclinical studies and case reports have reported liver toxicities and acute gastrointestinal bleeding. Based on these observations, regulatory bodies have required stringent inclusion criteria with frequent, excessive toxicity monitoring and early stopping rules in clinical trials. These requirements have impeded recruitment and retention of subjects in chemoprevention trials and subsequent progress in agent development efforts. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We conducted a placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial of Polyphenon E® (PolyE®), a proprietary mixture of decaffeinated GTCs, containing 400 mg (-)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) per day, in 97 men with high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and/or atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP). PolyE® containing 200 mg EGCG was administered with food, BID. A secondary study endpoint in this trial was a comparison of the overall one-year treatment related adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse event on the two study arms. Monthly assessments of toxicity (CTCAE 4.0), concomitant medications and organ function, including hepatic panel, PT/PTT and LDH, were performed. RESULTS: Daily intake of a standardized, decaffeinated, catechin mixture containing 200 mg EGCG BID taken with food for 1 year accumulated in plasma and was well tolerated and did not produce treatment related adverse effects in men with baseline HGPIN or ASAP. CONCLUSION: The current data provides evidence of safety of decaffeinated, catechin mixture containing 200 mg EGCG BID to be further tested for prostate cancer prevention or other indications.

Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Green Tea Catechins for Prostate Cancer Prevention.

Preclinical, epidemiologic, and prior clinical trial data suggest that green tea catechins (GTC) may reduce prostate cancer risk. We conducted a placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial of Polyphenon E (PolyE), a proprietary mixture of GTCs, containing 400 mg (-)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) per day, in 97 men with high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and/or atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP). The primary study endpoint was a comparison of the cumulative one-year prostate cancer rates on the two study arms. No differences in the number of prostate cancer cases were observed: 5 of 49 (PolyE) versus 9 of 48 (placebo), P = 0.25. A secondary endpoint comparing the cumulative rate of prostate cancer plus ASAP among men with HGPIN without ASAP at baseline, revealed a decrease in this composite endpoint: 3 of 26 (PolyE) versus 10 of 25 (placebo), P < 0.024. This finding was driven by a decrease in ASAP diagnoses on the Poly E (0/26) compared with the placebo arm (5/25). A decrease in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was observed on the PolyE arm [-0.87 ng/mL; 95% confidence intervals (CI), -1.66 to -0.09]. Adverse events related to the study agent did not significantly differ between the two study groups. Daily intake of a standardized, decaffeinated catechin mixture containing 400 mg EGCG per day for 1 year accumulated in plasma and was well tolerated but did not reduce the likelihood of prostate cancer in men with baseline HGPIN or ASAP.

Lipiodol as a fiducial marker for image-guided radiation therapy for bladder cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate Lipiodol as a liquid, radio-opaque fiducial marker for image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) for bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2011 and 2012, 5 clinical T2a-T3b N0 M0 stage II-III bladder cancer patients were treated with maximal transurethral resection of a bladder tumor (TURBT) and image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) to 64.8 Gy in 36 fractions ± concurrent weekly cisplatin-based or gemcitabine chemotherapy. Ten to 15mL Lipiodol, using 0.5mL per injection, was injected into bladder submucosa circumferentially around the entire periphery of the tumor bed immediately following maximal TURBT. The authors looked at inter-observer variability regarding the size and location of the tumor bed (CTVboost) on computed tomography scans with versus without Lipiodol. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 18 months. Lipiodol was visible on every orthogonal two-dimensional kV portal image throughout the entire, 7-week course of IGRT. There was a trend towards improved inter-observer agreement on the CTVboost with Lipiodol (p = 0.06). In 2 of 5 patients, the tumor bed based upon Lipiodol extended outside a planning target volume that would have been treated with a radiation boost based upon a cystoscopy report and an enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan for staging. There was no toxicity attributable to Lipiodol. CONCLUSIONS: Lipiodol constitutes a safe and effective fiducial marker that an urologist can use to demarcate a tumor bed immediately following maximal TURBT. Lipiodol decreases inter-observer variability in the definition of the extent and location of a tumor bed on a treatment planning CT scan for a radiation boost.

Lipiodol as a Fiducial Marker for Image-Guided Radiation Therapy for Bladder Cancer

Purpose To evaluate Lipiodol as a liquid, radio-opaque fiducial marker for image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) for bladder cancer.Materials and Methods Between 2011 and 2012, 5 clinical T2a-T3b N0 M0 stage II-III bladder cancer patients were treated with maximal transurethral resection of a bladder tumor (TURBT) and image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) to 64.8 Gy in 36 fractions ± concurrent weekly cisplatin-based or gemcitabine chemotherapy. Ten to 15mL Lipiodol, using 0.5mL per injection, was injected into bladder submucosa circumferentially around the entire periphery of the tumor bed immediately following maximal TURBT. The authors looked at inter-observer variability regarding the size and location of the tumor bed (CTVboost) on computed tomography scans with versus without Lipiodol.Results Median follow-up was 18 months. Lipiodol was visible on every orthogonal two-dimensional kV portal image throughout the entire, 7-week course of IGRT. There was a trend towards improved inter-observer agreement on the CTVboost with Lipiodol (p = 0.06). In 2 of 5 patients, the tumor bed based upon Lipiodol extended outside a planning target volume that would have been treated with a radiation boost based upon a cystoscopy report and an enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan for staging. There was no toxicity attributable to Lipiodol.Conclusions Lipiodol constitutes a safe and effective fiducial marker that an urologist can use to demarcate a tumor bed immediately following maximal TURBT. Lipiodol decreases inter-observer variability in the definition of the extent and location of a tumor bed on a treatment planning CT scan for a radiation boost.

Intravesical lipiodol injection technique for image-guided radiation therapy for bladder cancer.

INTRODUCTION: To describe the technique of injecting Lipiodol in the submucosa of the urinary bladder wall as a novel modality to improve localization of muscle-invasive bladder tumors before image-guided radiation therapy. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Eight patients underwent submucosal Lipiodol injections at transurethral bladder tumor reresection. A rigid cystoscope with a working port was used to inject Lipiodol into bladder submucosa circumferentially around the tumor bed (2-3 mm from margin of resection). Approximately 20-30 injections were used to demarcate the tumor bed for external beam radiation therapy, which was used as part of a bladder-sparing approach. All patients were diagnosed with clinically localized, high-grade, muscle-invasive carcinoma and were deemed nonsurgical candidates or were unwilling to undergo radical cystectomy. Five of the 8 patients received radiation at our institution. Lipiodol injections (95%) were visible on treatment planning computed tomographic scans and kilovoltage portal images throughout the 7-week course of image-guided radiation therapy. In 2 of 5 patients, the tumor bed based on Lipiodol extended outside a planning target volume that would have been treated with radiation therapy based on cystoscopy reports and computed tomographic scans without Lipiodol. There were no adverse events or treatment-related toxicities secondary to Lipiodol injection. CONCLUSION: Intravesical Lipiodol injection is an easy-to-perform technique that is safe and effective. Lipiodol serves as a fiducial marker that improves tumor bed localization for radiation therapy, thereby reducing the likelihood of missing the tumor.

Advancements in the management of urologic chronic pelvic pain: what is new and what do we know?

Prostatitis is one of the most common urologic diagnoses in men of all ages. The etiology of this problem remains poorly understood. No uniform solitary treatment is known for chronic prostatitis. As a result, a multimodal approach is most likely to demonstrate benefit for this disease. Various treatment modalities have included the use of both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments. In addition, multiple interventional techniques including the injection of botulinum toxin, transurethral needle ablation of the prostate, microwave thermotherapy, neuromodulation, and, most recently, extracorporeal shockwave therapy have been utilized with varying degrees of benefit.