Prostate biopsy volume predicts final tumor volume.

AIM: To assess the ability of prostate biopsy volume to effectively predict actual tumor volume, and whether increasing the number of prostate biopsy cores improves the ability to forecast actual tumor volume. METHODS: 765 patients who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy (2009-2010) were identified. Of these, 663 had complete demographics, biopsy, and final pathology data available. The number ofbiopsy samples, biopsy tumor volume, and actual tumor volume were calculated from pathology reports. RESULTS: Data from 663 radical prostatectomy specimens indicated a positive linearrelationship between biopsy tumor volume and actual tumor volume (R=0.524, P< 0.0001). The number ofbiopsy samples collected (i.e., < or =6, 7-8, 9-10, 11-12, 13-14, or > or =15) did not affect the ability of biopsy tumor volume to predict final tumor volume. CONCLUSIONS: The routine collection of biopsy tumor volume may prove useful in predicting actual tumor volume and the construction of more effective preoperative nomograms.

Contemporary perceptions of human papillomavirus and penile cancer: Perspectives from a national survey.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess the contemporary knowledge of human papillomavirus (HPV) and its association with penile cancer in a nationwide cohort from the U.S. METHODS: We used the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS), a cross-sectional telephone survey performed in the U.S. initiated by the National Cancer Institute. The most recent iteration, HINTS 4 Cycle 4, was conducted in mail format between August 19 and November 17, 2014. Primary endpoints included knowledge of HPV and its causal relationship to penile cancer. Baseline characteristics included sex, age, education, race and ethnicity, income, residency, personal or family history of cancer, health insurance status, and internet use. Multivariable logistic regression assessed predictors of HPV and penile cancer knowledge. RESULTS: An unweighted sample of 3376 respondents was extracted from the HINTS 4, Cycle 4. Whereas 64.4% of respondents had heard of HPV, only 29.5% of these were aware that it could cause penile cancer. Men were significantly less likely to have heard of HPV than women (odds ratio [OR] 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.43). Older age; African-American, Asian, and "other race"; being married; from a lower education bracket; having a personal cancer history; and those without internet access were significantly less likely to have heard of HPV. None of our examined variables were independent predictors for the knowledge of the association of penile cancer and HPV. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of a large, nationally representative survey demonstrates that the majority of the American public is familiar with HPV, but lack a meaningful understanding between this virus and penile cancer. Primary care providers and specialists should be encouraged to intensify counselling about this significant association as a primary preventive measure of this potentially fatal disease.

Industry Payments to Urologists in 2014: an Analysis of the Open Payments Program.

INTRODUCTION: Physician-industry relationships are common in the U.S. and a source of considerable public scrutiny. The Open Payments program is a public database of all physician-industry financial interactions in the U.S. administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. In this study we describe payments received by urologists for research and nonresearch purposes. METHODS: The number and value of payments to urologists were determined using Open Payments program data. The nature of each payment and identity of industry partners were analyzed. Descriptive statistics were calculated separately for research and nonresearch payment data. The total number of practicing physicians per specialty was obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges Physician Specialty Data Book for 2014. RESULTS: In 2014, 8,620 urologists had nonresearch financial relationships with industry for a total value of $32.4 million, with 2,698 urologists receiving more than $1,000 in total nonresearch payments. Urologists as a whole had the 8th highest total value received of all specialties. A total of $22.4 million was spent by industry for urology directed research funding, representing a small proportion of the more than $3 billion spent by industry on medical research in 2014. The majority (93.1%) of urology directed research funding was provided to nonteaching institutions. CONCLUSIONS: The Open Payments program database is an important public database of financial transactions between industry and physicians. A large proportion of urologists received nonresearch related transfers of value from industry sources. Industry supported research funding is primarily awarded to nonteaching institutions.