Disparities in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Progression: Predictors of Presentation to the Emergency Department in Urinary Retention.

PURPOSE: This retrospective cohort study evaluates the characteristics of patients who presented to the emergency department with acute urinary retention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Emergency Department Databases we conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who presented to emergency departments in Florida between 2005 and 2015. Male patients age 45 years or older who presented with diagnosis codes for acute urinary retention and lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia were considered. Information was collected on age, race/ethnicity, primary insurance and rural-urban commuting area codes. RESULTS: The mean age for males presenting with acute urinary retention was 72.2 years, which was 10.6 years older than those presenting for nonurological complaints (p <0.001). Multivariable analysis adjusted for measured confounders found all covariates to be significant. The risk of presenting to the emergency department for acute urinary retention from lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia increased with age, with the 75 to less than 85-year-old age group at the highest risk (OR 15.96, p <0.001). Other factors associated acute urinary retention included African American (OR 1.15, p <0.001) or Hispanic (OR 1.75, p <0.001) race, Medicare (OR 1.27, p <0.001) or private (OR 1.33, p <0.001) insurance, and urban rural-urban commuting area codes (OR 1.31, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Male patients who presented to the emergency department for acute urinary retention with benign prostatic hyperplasia were more likely to be older, of nonwhite race, have Medicare or private insurance, and live in more urban areas. These data suggest that African American and Hispanic patients may be untreated or under treated for benign prostatic hyperplasia in the outpatient setting, resulting in an increased risk of presentation to the emergency department with acute urinary retention.

Variability in prostate cancer detection among radiologists and urologists using MRI fusion biopsy.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of radiologist and urologist variability on detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsies. Patients and methods: The Prospective Loyola University MRI (PLUM) Prostate Biopsy Cohort (January 2015 to December 2020) was used to identify men receiving their first MRI and MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy for suspected PCa. Clinical, MRI and biopsy data were stratified by radiologist and urologist to evaluate variation in Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) grading, lesion number and cancer detection. Multivariable logistic regression (MVR) models and area under the curve (AUC) comparisons assessed the relative impact of individual radiologists and urologists. Results: A total of 865 patients (469 biopsy-naïve) were included across 5 urologists and 10 radiologists. Radiologists varied with grading 15.4% to 44.8% of patients with MRI lesions as PI-RADS 3. PCa detection varied significantly by radiologist, from 34.5% to 66.7% (p = 0.003) for PCa and 17.2% to 50% (p = 0.001) for csPCa. Urologists' PCa diagnosis rates varied between 29.2% and 55.8% (p = 0.013) and between 24.6% and 39.8% (p = 0.36) for csPCa. After adjustment for case-mix on MVR, a fourfold to fivefold difference in PCa detection was observed between the highest-performing and lowest-performing radiologist (OR 0.22, 95%CI 0.10-0.47, p < 0.001). MVR demonstrated improved AUC for any PCa and csPCa detection when controlling for radiologist variation (p = 0.017 and p = 0.038), but controlling for urologist was not significant (p = 0.22 and p = 0.086). Any PCa detection (OR 1.64, 95%CI 1.06-2.55, p = 0.03) and csPCa detection (OR 1.57, 95%CI 1.00-2.48, p = 0.05) improved over time (2018-2020 vs. 2015-2017). Conclusions: Variability among radiologists in PI-RADS grading is a key area for quality improvement significantly impacting the detection of PCa and csPCa. Variability for performance of MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsies exists by urologist but with less impact on overall detection of csPCa.

Does size matter? Comparing robotic versus open radical nephrectomy for very large renal masses.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated perioperative and mortality outcomes of robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy (RRN) vs. open radical nephrectomy (ORN) for very large renal cell carcinomas (RCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with non-metastatic RCC >10 cm in size (pT2b) were identified from the National Cancer Database (2010-2017). Mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression adjusting for patient, tumor, and facility characteristics were used to evaluate rates of positive margin, prolonged length of stay (LOS) (>75th percentile), 30-day readmission, and 30-day and 90-day mortality for RRN vs. ORN. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and adjusted Cox proportional hazard modeling. RESULTS: Of the 2,977 patients who underwent radical nephrectomy, 492 (16.5%) underwent RRN. Factors associated with RRN included male gender, metro or urban locations, academic facilities, Charlson-Deyo score >2, private or Medicaid insurance, and surgery in a later year (all P < 0.05). Tumors ≥15.1cm in size were associated with a higher rate of conversion to open surgery (P < 0.001). ORN was associated with increased median postoperative LOS (4d [interquartile range; IQR 3-6] vs. 3d, [IQR 2-4]; P < 0.01). RRN demonstrated no significant difference in the risk of positive margin, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, or 90-day mortality. RRN was associated with a decreased risk of prolonged LOS (OR 0.38; 95%CI [0.28-0.53]). There was no difference in long-term OS observed in patients treated with ORN vs. RRN. CONCLUSIONS: Very large, non-metastatic RCC can be safely and effectively treated with RRN. Rates of conversion to open were higher for tumors ≥15.1 cm. RRN has comparable long-term OS and improved LOS compared to ORN.

Synchronous Artificial Urinary Sphincter and Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation: Short-Term Outcomes from a Statewide Claims Database.

PURPOSE: The 2 most common adverse effects of radical prostatectomy are erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence which often require surgical management with penile prosthesis (PP) and artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation, respectively. There are conflicting reports regarding whether these procedures should be combined into 1 surgical setting or staged. We sought to evaluate the safety of performing these procedures in the same operative setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization (HCUP) State Inpatient Database (SID) and State Ambulatory Surgery Database (SASD) for the states of California (2007-2011) and Florida (2009-2014). ICD-9-CM diagnosis and CPT codes were used to identify adult males who underwent both PP and AUS implantation and outcomes regarding readmissions, emergency room (ER) presentations, and complications were reviewed. RESULTS: Patients undergoing synchronous PP-AUS implantation had significantly higher 90-day readmission rates (13.9% vs 7.2%, p <0.001), suffered higher rates of device complications (6.1% vs 3.4%, p=0.021), and were more likely to have minor complications (8.89% vs 2.35%, p <0.001) compared to nonsynchronous device placement. No differences in major complications or 90-day ER visits were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Synchronous PP and AUS implantation is feasible but may be associated with higher readmission rates, device complications and postoperative complications compared to a staged approach. This further validates findings from prior studies.

Renal Cell Carcinoma with Direct Extension into the Gonadal Vein, Uterus, Fallopian Tube, and Bilateral Ovaries: A Case Report.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with invasion into the renal vein is well described; however, invasion into the gonadal vein is a rare event with less than five cases reported in the literature. RCC occasionally presents with metastasis to the ovaries or the fallopian tubes, although this is also a rare occurrence. We present a case of locally advanced left RCC with direct extension into the ipsilateral gonadal vein with extension into the bilateral ovaries and uterus, which has not been previously described. Computed tomography (CT) in a 72-year-old female with a 35-pound weight loss indicated the presence of a 16-cm left renal mass with caudal tumor extension through the left gonadal vein and regional lymphadenopathy. There was no evidence of distant metastasis, and she underwent an open left radical nephrectomy. Intraoperatively, she was found to have direct extension of the tumor through the left gonadal vein into the uterus, bilateral ovaries, and the left fallopian tube. All visible disease was resected, and retroperitoneal and pelvic lymphadenectomy were performed. The patient had an uneventful hospital course. Pathology revealed clear cell RCC, Fuhrman grade 3. The final pathologic stage was pT4N1M1. The patient was ultimately noted to have pulmonary metastasis and was treated with immunotherapy with no evidence of disease progression.