Comparing Patient-reported Functional Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy in Historical and Contemporary Practice.

PURPOSE: Modifications to surgical technique, particularly the widespread adoption of robotic surgery, have been proposed to improve functional recovery after prostate cancer surgery. However, rigorous comparison of men in historical vs contemporary practice to evaluate the cumulative effect of these changes on urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy is lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared prospectively collected patient-reported urinary and sexual function from historical (PROSTQA [Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Satisfaction With Treatment Quality Assessment study], n=235) and contemporary (MUSIC-PRO [Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative Patient Reported Outcome] registry, n=1,215) cohorts at the University of Michigan to understand whether modern techniques have resulted in functional improvements for men undergoing prostate cancer surgery. RESULTS: We found significant differences in baseline function, with better urinary (median [IQR]; 100 [93.8-100] vs 93.8 [85.5-100], P < .001) and sexual scores (median [IQR]; 83.3 [66.7-100] vs 74.4 [44.2-87.5], P < .001) prior to treatment in PROSTQA compared to MUSIC-PRO patients, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the pattern of urinary incontinence recovery after surgery from 6-24 months between groups (P = .14). However, men in the contemporary MUSIC-PRO group did have significantly better recovery of sexual function compared to men in the historical PROSTQA group (P < .0001). Further, we found that contemporary practice consists of men with more unfavorable demographic and clinical characteristics compared to historical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that the widespread alterations in prostate cancer surgery over the past 2 decades have yielded improvements in sexual, but not urinary, function recovery.

Utilization of a Virtual Tumor Board for the Care of Patients With Renal Masses: Experience From a Quality Improvement Collaborative.

INTRODUCTION: Multidisciplinary tumor board meetings are useful sources of insight and collaboration when establishing treatment approaches for oncologic cases. However, such meetings can be time intensive and inconvenient. We implemented a virtual tumor board within the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative to discuss and improve the management of complicated renal masses. METHODS: Urologists were invited to discuss decision-making for renal masses through voluntary engagement. Communication was performed exclusively through email. Case details were collected and responses were tabulated. All participants were surveyed about their perceptions of the virtual tumor board. RESULTS: Fifty renal mass cases were reviewed in a virtual tumor board that included 53 urologists. Patients ranged from 20-90 years old and 94% had localized renal mass. The cases generated 355 messages, ranging from 2-16 (median 7) per case; 144 responses (40.6%) were sent via smartphone. All urologists (100%) who submitted to the virtual tumor board had their questions answered. The virtual tumor board provided suggestions to those with no stated treatment plan in 42% of cases, confirmed the physician's initial approach to their case in 36%, and offered alternative approaches in 16% of cases. Eighty-three percent of survey respondents felt the experience was "Beneficial" or "Very Beneficial," and 93% stated increased confidence in their case management. CONCLUSIONS: Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative's initial experience with a virtual tumor board showed good engagement. The format reduced barriers to multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary discussions and improved the quality of care for selected patients with complex renal masses.

Delayed urologic cancer care in the COVID-19 pandemic: Patients' experiences.

OBJECTIVE: To understand experiences of patients with genitourinary cancer who experienced delayed cancer care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study with an explanatory sequential design. Qualitative findings are reported here. Patients with muscle invasive bladder, advanced prostate or kidney cancer were eligible. Participants were selected for interviews if they self-reported low (0-3/10) or high (6-10/10) levels of distress on a previous survey. Participants were interviewed about their experiences. Interviews were transcribed, coded and categorised using thematic data analysis methodology. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were interviewed. Seven had prostate cancer, six bladder cancer and five kidney cancer. Six themes were derived from the interviews: (1) arriving at cancer diagnosis was hard enough, (2) response to treatment delay, (3) labelling cancer surgery as elective, (4) fear of COVID-19 infection, (5) quality of patient-provider relationship and communication and (6) what could have been done differently. CONCLUSION: These findings offer insight into the concerns of patients with genitourinary cancers who experienced treatment delays due to COVID-19. This information can be applied to support patients with cancers more broadly, should treatment delays occur in the future.

Factors Associated with Decision Aid Use in Localized Prostate Cancer.

Purpose: Decision aids have been found to improve patients' knowledge of treatments and decrease decisional regrets. Despite these benefits, there is not widespread use of decision aids for newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa). This analysis investigates factors that impact men's choice to use a decision aid for newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of a PCa registry from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC). We included data from men with newly diagnosed, clinically localized PCa seen from 2018-21 at practices offering a PCa decision aid (Personal Patient Profile-Prostate; P3P). The primary outcome was men's registration to use P3P. We fit a multilevel logistic regression model with patient-level factors and included urologist specific random intercepts. We estimated the intra-class correlation (ICC) and predicted the probability of P3P registration among urologists. Results: A total of 2629 men were seen at practices that participated in P3P and 1174 (45%) registered to use P3P. Forty-one percent of the total variance of P3P registration was attributed to clustering of men under a specific urologist's care. In contrast, only 1.5% of the variance of P3P registration was explained by patient factors. Our model did not include data on socioeconomic, literacy or psychosocial factors, which limits the interpretation of the results. Conclusions: These results suggest that urologists' effect far outweighs patient factors in a man's decision to enroll in P3P. Strategies that encourage providers to increase decision aid adoption in their practices are warranted.

Development and Validation of Dynamic Multivariate Prediction Models of Sexual Function Recovery in Patients with Prostate Cancer Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy: Results from the MUSIC Statewide Collaborative.

Background: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the most common definitive treatment for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and is frequently complicated by erectile dysfunction. Objective: To develop and validate models to predict 12- and 24-month post-RP sexual function. Design setting and participants: Using Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry data from 2016 to 2021, we developed dynamic, multivariate, random-forest models to predict sexual function recovery following RP. Model factors (established a priori) included baseline patient characteristics and repeated assessments of sexual satisfaction, and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26 (EPIC-26) overall scores and sexual domain questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We evaluated three outcomes related to sexual function: (1) the EPIC-26 sexual domain score (range 0-100); (2) the EPIC-26 sexual domain score dichotomized at ≥73 for "good" function; and (3) a dichotomized variable for erection quality at 12 and 24 months after RP. A gradient-boosting decision tree was used for the prediction models, which combines many decision trees into a single model. We evaluated the performance of our model using the root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) for the EPIC-26 score as a continuous variable, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the dichotomized EPIC-26 sexual domain score (SDS) and erection quality. All analyses were conducted using R v3.6.3. Results and limitations: We identified 3983 patients at 12 months and 2494 patients at 24 months who were randomized to the derivation cohort at 12 and 24 months, respectively. Using baseline information only, our model predicted the 12-month EPIC-26 SDS with RMSE of 24 and MAE of 20. The AUC for predicting EPIC-26 SDS ≥73 (a previously published threshold) was 0.82. Our model predicted 24-month EPIC-26 SDS with RMSE of 26 and MAE of 21, and AUC for SDS ≥73 of 0.81. Inclusion of post-RP data improved the AUC to 0.91 and 0.94 at 12 and 24 months, respectively. A web tool has also been developed and is available at https://ml4lhs.shinyapps.io/askmusic_prostate_pro/. Conclusions: Our model provides a valid way to predict sexual function recovery at 12 and 24 months after RP. With this dynamic, multivariate (multiple outcomes) model, accurate predictions can be made for decision-making and during survivorship, which may reduce decision regret. Patient summary: Our prediction model allows patients considering prostate cancer surgery to understand their probability before and after surgery of recovering their erectile function and may reduce decision regret.

Urologic oncology patient perspectives during COVID-19 treatment delays.

PURPOSE: We sought to describe patient experiences during COVID-19 related delays in urologic cancer treatment. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study with an explanatory-sequential design. Survey findings are presented here. Patients from a Midwestern Cancer Center and the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network (BCAN) self-reported via survey their experience of treatment delay, patient-provider communication, and coping strategies. We quantified patient distress with an ordinal scale (0-10), based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (NCCN-DT). RESULTS: Forty-four patients with bladder, prostate, and kidney cancers consented to the survey. Most individuals were male (n = 29; 66%) and older than 61 years of age (n = 34; 77%). Median time since diagnosis was 6 months. Dominant reactions to treatment delay included fear that cancer would progress (n = 22; 50%) and relief at avoiding COVID-19 exposure (n = 19; 43%). Most patients reported feeling that their providers acknowledged their emotions (n = 31; 70%), yet 23 patients (52%) did not receive follow-up phone calls and only 24 (55%) felt continually supported by their providers. Patients' median distress level was 5/10 with 68% (n = 30) of patients reaching a clinically significant level of distress (≥ 4). Thematically grouped suggestions for providers included better communication, more personalized support, and better patient education. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, a high proportion of urologic cancer patients reached a clinically significant level of distress. While they felt concern from providers, they desired more engagement and personalized care.

The added influence of genomics and post-MRI confirmatory biopsy results to MRI results alone on medical decision making for men with favorable risk prostate cancer being considered for active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: We examined how the results of genomic classifier (GC) or post-magnetic resonance imaging confirmatory biopsy (pMRI-CBx) influenced management strategy for men with an MRI considering active surveillance (AS). METHODS: We reviewed the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry for men with favorable-risk prostate cancer. Among men with an MRI after the diagnostic biopsy (n = 1162) a subset also had GC (n = 126) or pMRI-CBx (n = 309). Results of MRI, GC, and pMRI-CBx were deemed reassuring (RA) or non-reassuring (Non-RA). We assess the association of the combination of test results obtained with the selection of AS. Proportions were compared with the Fisher's exact test. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit for an association of test results with the selection of AS. RESULTS: The results of pMRI-CBx tended to influence management decisions greater than that of GC, especially in situation where testing results were discordant with the MRI result. Fewer men with a RA MRI and non-RA pMRI-CBx where managed with AS compared with RA MRI alone (31% vs. 86%, p < 0.001). non-RA genomics did not seem to have the same influence on management as non-RA pMRI-CBx as a similar proportion of men with RA MRI and non-RA genomics were managed with AS compared with RA MRI alone (85% vs. 86%, p = 0.753). More men with non-RA MRI and RA pMRI-CBx were managed with AS compared with non-RA MRI alone (89% vs. 40%, p < 0.001). Alternatively, a similar proportion of men with non-RA MRI and RA genomics were managed with AS compared with non-RA MRI alone (42% vs. 40%, p > 0.999). In the multivariable models, pMRI-CBx results influenced the decision for AS versus treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer and an MRI, the additional information provided by pMRI-CBx influenced the decision of AS versus treatment, while the addition of GC results were less influential.

Assessing the Impact of Decision Aid Use on Post Prostatectomy Patient Reported Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether completing a decision aid, Personal Patient Profile - Prostate (P3P), prior to prostatectomy, affects self-reported bother from post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis included data from men with newly diagnosed clinically localized, very low to intermediate risk prostate cancer who elected for prostatectomy within the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative between 2018-2021. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between P3P use and bother from post prostatectomy erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26). RESULTS: Among the 3987 patients included, 7% used P3P (n = 266). Men who used P3P reported significantly less bother from erectile dysfunction at 6 months vs non-users (aOR 0.42 [95% CI 0.27-0.66]). At 12 months, the effect of P3P on bother from erectile dysfunction was not statistically significant (aOR 0.62 [95% CI 0.37-1.03]). Men who used P3P did not have a statistically significant difference in bother from urinary incontinence (3-month: aOR 0.56 [95% CI 0.30-1.06]; 6-month; aOR 0.79 [95% CI 0.31-1.97]). CONCLUSION: Within the stated limitations of this study, we find that use of a decision aid for localized prostate cancer was associated with decreased odds of men being bothered from sexual dysfunction but not urinary incontinence at 6 months post prostatectomy.

Patient- and Surgeon-Level Variation in Patient-Reported Sexual Function Outcomes Following Radical Prostatectomy Over 2 Years: Results From a Statewide Surgical Improvement Collaborative.

Importance: Of patient-reported outcomes for individuals undergoing radical prostatectomy, sexual function outcomes are among the most reported and the most detrimental to quality of life. Understanding variations at the patient and surgeon level may inform collaborative quality improvement. Objective: To describe patient- and surgeon-level sexual function outcomes for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) and to examine the correlation between surgeon case volume and sexual function outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a prospective cohort study using the MUSIC registry and patient-reported sexual function outcome data. Patient- and surgeon-level variation in sexual function outcomes were examined among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy from May 2014 to August 2019. Sexual function outcome data were collected using validated questionnaires, which were completed before surgery and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months' follow-up following surgery. All participants were male. Race and ethnicity data were self-reported and were included to examine potential variation in outcomes by race and/or ethnicity. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to March 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: There were 4 outcomes in this study, including the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) sexual function scores at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months' follow-up; patient-level sexual function recovery at 12- and 24-month follow-up; surgeon-level variation in sexual function outcomes at 12- and 24-month follow-up; and correlation between surgeon case volume and sexual function outcomes. Results: A total of 1426 male patients met inclusion criteria for this study. The median (IQR) age was 64 (58-68) years. A total of 115 participants (8%) were Black, 1197 (84%) were White, 25 (2%) were of another race or ethnicity (consolidated owing to low numbers), and 89 (6%) were of unknown race or ethnicity. Among patients undergoing bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy, mean (SD) EPIC-26 sexual function scores at 12- and 24-month follow-up (12 months, 39 [28]; 24 months, 63 [29]) did not return to baseline levels. There was wide variation in EPIC-26 sexual function scores at both 12-month follow-up (range, 23-69; P < .001) and 24-month follow-up (range, 27-64; P < .001). Similar variations were found in EPIC-26 sexual function scores and recovery of sexual function by surgeon. Recovery rates ranged from 0% to 40% of patients at 12-month follow-up (18 surgeons; P < .001) and 3% to 44% of patients at 24-month follow-up (12 surgeons; P < .001). Surgeon case volume and sexual function outcomes were not significantly correlated. On multivariable analysis, the following variables were associated with better recovery at 24-month follow-up: younger age (P < .001), lower baseline EPIC-26 sexual function score (P < .001), lower Gleason score (P = .05), and nonobesity (P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, there was significant patient- and surgeon-level variation in sexual function recovery over 2 years following radical prostatectomy. Variation in surgeon-level sexual function outcomes presents an opportunity and model for surgical collaborative quality improvement.

Delayed radical prostatectomy after a period of active surveillance is not associated with the use of secondary treatments compared with immediate prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the use of secondary treatments in men with grade group (GG) 1 PC following a period of active surveillance (AS) compared with men undergoing immediate radical prostatectomy (RP) to evaluate what is potentially lost in terms of cancer control, if a patient trials AS and transitions to treatment. METHODS: We reviewed the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry for men with GG1 PC undergoing RP from April 2012 to July 2018. Men were classified into groups based on time from diagnosis to RP: immediate (surgery within 1 year of diagnosis) and delayed RP (surgery >1 year after initiation of AS). Time to secondary treatment was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using the log-rank test. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was fit to assess the association between timing of RP and use of secondary treatments. A chi-squared test was used to assess the association between delayed RP and adverse pathology. RESULTS: We identified 1878 men that underwent an RP during the study period, of which 1489 (79%) underwent immediate RP and 389 (21%) underwent delayed RP. The incidence of adverse pathology was higher in men with delayed versus immediate RP (49% vs. 36%, p < 0.0001, respectively). However, we noted only a small absolute difference in the estimated 24-month secondary treatment-free probability between men with delayed versus immediate RP (93% and 96%, respectively). On multivariable analysis, delayed RP was associated with increased use of secondary treatments (hazard ratio = 1.94, 95% confidence interval = 1.23-3.06, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The use of secondary treatment after RP in men with GG1 PC undergoing immediate or delayed prostatectomy was rare. These data suggest that the burden of treatment is near equivalent in patients who progress to treatment on AS compared with those who underwent immediate RP.

Patient Preferences and Treatment Decisions for Prostate Cancer: Results From A Statewide Urological Quality Improvement Collaborative.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between influential factors and treatment decisions among men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: We identified men in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry diagnosed with localized PCa between 2018-2020 who completed Personal Patient Profile-Prostate. We analyzed the proportion of active surveillance (AS) between men who stated future bladder, bowel, and sexual problems (termed influential factors) had "a lot of influence" on their treatment decisions versus other responses. We also assessed the relationship between influential factors, confirmatory testing results and choice of AS. RESULTS: A total of 509 men completed Personal Patient Profile-Prostate. Treatment decisions aligned with influential factors for 88% of men with favorable risk and 49% with unfavorable risk PCa. A higher proportion of men who identified bladder, bowel and sexual concerns as having "a lot of influence" on their treatment decision chose AS, compared with men with other influential factors, although not statistically significant (44% vs 35%, P = .11). Similar results were also found when men were stratified based on PCa risk groups (favorable risk: 78% vs 67%; unfavorable risk: 17% vs 9%, respectively). Despite a small sample size, a higher proportion of men with non-reassuring confirmatory testing selected AS if influential factors had "a lot of influence" compared to "no influence" on their treatment decisions. CONCLUSION: Men's concerns for future bladder, bowel, and sexual function problems, as elicited by a decision aid, may help explain treatment selection that differs from traditional clinical recommendation.

Implementation of prostate cancer treatment decision aid in Michigan: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The American Urological Association White Paper on Implementation of Shared Decision Making (SDM) into Urological Practice suggested SDM represents the state of the art in counseling for patients who are faced with difficult or uncertain medical decisions. The Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) implemented a decision aid, Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P), in 2018 to help newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients make shared decisions with their clinicians. We conducted a qualitative study to assess statewide implementation of P3P throughout MUSIC. METHODS: We recruited urologists and staff from 17 MUSIC practices (8 implementation and 9 comparator practices) to understand how practices engaged patients on treatment discussions and to assess facilitators and barriers to implementing P3P. Interview guides were developed based on the Tailored Interventions for Chronic Disease (TICD) Framework. Interviews were transcribed for analysis and coded independently by two investigators in NVivo, PRO 12. Additionally, quantitative program data were integrated into thematic analyses. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 urologists and 11 staff from 16 practices. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts indicated three key themes including the following: (i) P3P is compatible as a SDM tool as over 80% of implementation urologists asked patients to complete the P3P questionnaire routinely and used P3P reports during treatment discussions; (ii) patient receptivity was demonstrated by 370 (50%) of newly diagnosed patients (n = 737) from 8 practices enrolled in P3P with 78% completion rate, which accounts for 39% of all newly diagnosed patients in these practices; and (iii) urologists' attitudes towards SDM varied. Over a third of urologists stated they did not rely on a decision aid. Comparator practices indicated habit, inertia, or concerns about clinic flow as reasons for not adopting P3P and some were unconvinced a decision aid is needed in their practice. CONCLUSION: Urologists and staff affiliated with MUSIC implementation sites indicated that P3P focuses the treatment discussion on items that are important to patients. Experiences of implementation practices indicate that once initiated, there were no negative effects on clinic flow and urologists indicated P3P saves time during patient counseling, as patients were better prepared for focused discussions. Lack of awareness, personal habits, and inertia are reasons for not implementing P3P among the comparator practices.

Evaluation of Patient- and Surgeon-Specific Variations in Patient-Reported Urinary Outcomes 3 Months After Radical Prostatectomy From a Statewide Improvement Collaborative.

Importance: Understanding variation in patient-reported outcomes following radical prostatectomy may inform efforts to reduce morbidity after this procedure. Objective: To describe patient-reported urinary outcomes following radical prostatectomy in the diverse practice settings of a statewide quality improvement program and to explore whether surgeon-specific variations in observed outcomes persist after accounting for patient-level factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective population-based cohort study included 4582 men in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative who underwent radical prostatectomy as primary management of localized prostate cancer between April 2014 and July 2018 and who agreed to complete validated questionnaires prior to surgery and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Data were analyzed from 2019 to June 2019. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient- and surgeon-level analyses of patient-reported urinary function 3 months after radical prostatectomy. Outcomes were measured using validated questionnaires with results standardized using previously published methods. Urinary function survey scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 100 with good function established as a score of 74 or higher. Results: For the 4582 men undergoing radical prostatectomy within the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative who agreed to complete surveys, mean (SD) age was 63.3 (7.1) years. Survey response rates varied: 3791 of 4582 (83%) responded at baseline, 3282 of 4137 (79%) at 3 months, 2975 of 3770 (79%) at 6 months, and 2213 of 2882 (77%) at 12 months. Mean (SD) urinary function scores were 88.5 (14.3) at baseline, 53.6 (27.5) at 3 months, 68.0 (25.1) at 6 months, and 73.7 (23.0) at 12 months. Regression analysis demonstrated that older age, lower baseline urinary function score, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 30 or higher, clinical stage T2 or higher, and lack of bilateral nerve-sparing surgery were associated with a lower probability of reporting good urinary function 3 months after surgery. When evaluating patients with good baseline function, the rate at which individual surgeons' patients reported good urinary function 3 months after surgery varied broadly (0% to 54.5%; P < .001). Patients receiving surgery from top-performing surgeons were more likely to report good 3-month function. This finding persisted after accounting for patient risk factors. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patient- and surgeon-level urinary outcomes following prostatectomy varied substantially. Documenting surgeon-specific variations after accounting for patient factors may facilitate identification of surgical factors associated with superior outcomes.

Impact of Early Confirmatory Tests on Upgrading and Conversion to Treatment in Prostate Cancer Patients on Active Surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of confirmatory tests on active surveillance (AS) biopsy disease reclassification and progression to treatment in men with favorable risk prostate cancer (FRPC). METHODS: We searched the MUSIC registry for men with FRPC managed with AS without or with a confirmatory test. Confirmatory tests included (1) repeat prostate biopsy, (2) genomic tests, (3) prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or (4) MRI followed by a post-MRI biopsy. Confirmatory test results were deemed reassuring (RA) or nonreassuring (nonRA) according to predefined criteria. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare surveillance biopsy disease reclassification-free survival and treatment-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 2,514 men with FRPC who were managed on AS, 1211 (48%) men obtained a confirmatory test. We noted differences in the 12-month unadjusted surveillance biopsy disease reclassification-free probability (68%, 83%, and 90%, P < .0001) and 24-month unadjusted treatment-free probability (55%, 81%, and 79%, P < .0001), for men with nonRA confirmatory tests, no confirmatory test, and RA confirmatory tests, respectively. Excluding patients with genomic confirmatory tests, men with RA confirmatory tests were associated with a lower hazard (hazard ratio [HR] 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.84, P = .005) and men with nonRA confirmatory tests had an increased hazard (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.22-3.19, P = .006) of surveillance disease reclassification compared with men without confirmatory tests in the multivariable model. CONCLUSION: These data suggest men with RA confirmatory tests have less surveillance biopsy reclassification and remain on AS longer than men with nonRA test results. Confirmatory tests may help risk stratify men considering active surveillance.

Limitations of abdominopelvic CT and multiparametric MR imaging for detection of lymph node metastases prior to radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: To investigate the performance of pre-surgery CT and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) to identify lymph node (LN) metastases in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC). Abdominopelvic CT and mpMRI are commonly used for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) staging. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the MUSIC registry identified patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RP) between 3/2012 and 7/2018. Patients were classified according to pre-surgery imaging modality. Primary outcomes were operating characteristics of CT and mpMRI for detection of pathologic LN involvement (pN1). RESULTS: A total of 10,250 patients underwent RP and 3924 patients (38.3%) underwent CT and/or mpMRI prior to surgery. Suspicion for LN involvement was identified on 2.3% CT and 1.9% mpMRI. Overall, 391 patients were pN1(3.8%), including 0.1% low-, 2.1% intermediate-, and 10.9% high-risk PCa patients. Of 235 pN1 patients that underwent CT prior, far more had negative (91.1%) than positive (8.9%) findings, yielding sensitivity: 8.9%, specificity: 98.3%, negative predictive value (NPV): 92.1%, and positive predictive value (PPV): 32.3% for CT with regard to LN metastases. Similarly, more patients with pN1 disease had negative mpMRI (81.0%) then suspicious or indeterminate MRI (19.0%), yielding sensitivity: 19.0%, specificity: 97.3%, NPV: 95.9%, and PPV: 26.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominopelvic CT and mpMRI have clear limitations in identifying LN metastases. Additional clinicopathologic features should be considered when making management decisions, as 2.1% and 10.9% with intermediate-and high-risk cancer had metastatic LNs. The majority of pN1 patients had a negative CT or a negative/indeterminate mpMRI prior to RP. Pelvic LN dissection should be performed in RP patients with intermediate- or high-risk PCa, independent of preoperative imaging results.

Delayed Urological Cancer Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Urologists' Experience.

INTRODUCTION: The arrival of coronavirus disrupted health care systems and forced delays in cancer treatment. We explored the experience of urologists who had to delay their patients' cancer care. METHODS: Urologists who treat prostate, bladder, and renal cancers, selected through purposive sampling, responded to a survey about cancer treatment delay. They were asked about their practice setting, decision making and interactions with patients, and they were asked to reflect on their personal experience. A 0 to 10 point scale, modeled on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network' Distress Thermometer (NCCN-DT), validated for cancer patients with cancer, was used to estimate physician distress. We used descriptive statistics to analyze survey results. RESULTS: Of the 64 participating urologists, 98% delayed surgical treatment; fewer delayed cases of advanced cancers (42% for ≥T3/T4 or Gleason ≥8 prostate cancers, 58% for muscle invasive bladder cancer, 61% for ≥T2 renal cancers). They reported feeling anxious (44%) and helpless (29%), and their median distress score was 5 (range 0-10). They relied on their own risk assessments (67%) and consulted colleagues (56%) and national guidelines (53%) when making treatment deferral decisions. They identified a number of concerns as they resumed surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a comparison to the NCCN-DT clinical cutoff distress level of 4, urologists experienced moderately high levels of distress as they delayed cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic and expressed concerns going forward. While the focus on patient care is paramount in a pandemic, it is important to recognize physician distress and develop practical and psychological strategies for distress mitigation.

Overtreatment and Underutilization of Watchful Waiting in Men With Limited Life Expectancy: An Analysis of the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To determine rates of watchful waiting (WW) vs treatment in prostate cancer (PCa) and limited life expectancy (LE) and assess determinants of management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with PCa between 2012 and 2018 with <10 years LE were identified from the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with management choice among NCCN low-risk PCa patients. Data from high-volume practices were analyzed to understand practice variation. RESULTS: Total 2393 patients were included. Overall, WW was performed in 8.1% compared to 23.3%, 25%, 11.2%, and 3.6% who underwent AS, radiation (XRT), prostatectomy (RP), and brachytherapy (BT), respectively. In men with NCCN low-risk disease (n = 358), WW was performed in 15.1%, compared to AS (69.3%), XRT (4.2%), RP (6.7%), and BT (2.5%). There was wide variation in management among practices in low-risk men; WW (6%-35%), AS (44%-81%), and definitive treatment (0%-30%). Older age was associated with less likelihood of undergoing AS vs WW (odds ratio [OR] 0.88, P < .001) or treatment vs WW (OR 0.83, P < .0001). Presence of ≥cT2 disease (OR 8.55, P = .014) and greater number of positive biopsy cores (OR 1.41, P = .014) was associated with greater likelihood of treatment vs WW and Charlson comorbidity score of 1 vs 0 (OR 0.23, P = .043) was associated with less likelihood of treatment vs WW. CONCLUSION: Wide practice level variation exists in management for patients with low- and favorable-risk PCa and <10-year LE. Utilization of WW is poor, suggesting overtreatment in men who will experience little benefit.