IMPROVER (Involving Men with Prostate Cancer in Engaged Research): Assessing Patient Experience With Testing, Diagnosis, And Surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Our understanding of patient experiences with prostate cancer testing for diagnosis and surveillance is limited. The aim of this study was to collaborate with patients and clinicians to understand their lived experience and unmet needs around the early detection, diagnosis and monitoring (active surveillance) of prostate cancer. METHODS: Two focus groups were held with patients (n = 20) and healthcare professionals (n = 16), to identify the main challenges in prostate cancer detection, diagnosis, and monitoring. This information formed the basis of an online questionnaire for broader dissemination. RESULTS: A total of 1138 analyzable responses were obtained from people tested for prostate cancer (69% tested positive) in Europe and the US. Only 29 healthcare professionals completed the survey. Almost one-third of people reported knowing very little/nothing about prostate cancer prior to testing. Prior disease awareness was significantly higher in those who tested negative (P < .0001). Most respondents (n = 857; 75%) felt informed about the steps involved in testing. Receiving written information was a key factor; 91% of those who felt uninformed were not given any written information. Overall, most people felt "satisfied" with the typical prostate cancer tests: PSA, DRE, mpMRI, and biopsy. However, dissatisfaction for prostate biopsy (12%) was almost double that of other tests (P < .0001). Most patients understood why each test was done, and felt that their results and next steps were clearly explained to them; though PSA scored lowest in all of these fields. Apart from PSA, test satisfaction was lower when used repeatedly for surveillance, compared to once-off detection/diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Greater public awareness and education around prostate cancer, as well as clear and accessible written information for patients at the beginning of their cancer journey is needed. Further research is needed into alternative, less invasive tests, particularly when used repeatedly in the surveillance population.

Nephrectomy for xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis-a not-so-simple solution.

BACKGROUND: Xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis (XGP) is a rare chronic inflammatory condition of the kidney, associated with high patient morbidity, often requiring targeted antibiotic therapy and surgical removal of the affected kidney. AIM: We report the outcomes of patients undergoing nephrectomy for XGP in our institution over a 12-year period. METHODS: Following ethical approval, a retrospective review of histological samples of renal tissue demonstrating features of XGP from June 2010 to 2022 was conducted. Laboratory, imaging, and clinical data of included participants were collected. RESULTS: Eleven patients were included (8 women, 3 men), mean age of 58.1 (35-81). Recurrent urinary tract infection was the most common clinical presentation (55%, n = 6). Other presentations included flank pain (36%, n = 4), collection/ abscess (45%, n = 5), and nephro-cutaneous fistulae (9%, n = 1). The majority of patients had bacteriuria (91%, n = 10), and Escherichia coli was the most common bacteria isolated (55%, n = 6). Antibiotic resistance was seen in 60% of positive urine samples (n = 6). An open nephrectomy was performed in all but one case (91%, n = 10). A postoperative complication occurred in 73% (n = 8), with 50% (n = 4) of complications Clavien Dindo grade 3 or higher, including one patient mortality. CONCLUSIONS: XGP is a difficult and complex condition to treat. All patients in this series presented with infection or associated sequelae thereof. Complex XGP cases therefore often require open nephrectomy and have high rates of postoperative complications. Careful consideration of antibiotic and operative intervention is therefore essential to ensure the best outcome for these patients.

Management of Urological Malignancy in Heart and Lung Transplant Recipients: An Irish National Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Following the first hearttransplantin Ireland in 1985, there have been almost 700 deceased donor heart and lung transplants carried out in Ireland at a single institution. In this retrospective study, our aim was to assess the incidence and management of urological malignancies arising in this national cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our retrospective analysis included all heart and lung transplant recipients identified as having a urological malignancy. Primary outcome variables included incidence, management, and clinical outcomes following cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 28 patients (4.1%) had radiologically or histologically confirmed urological malignancies. Fourteen patientswere diagnosedwith prostate cancer, with 13 who underwent radical treatment. Eight renal cell carcinomas were diagnosed in heart transplant recipients, with 5 who underwent nephrectomies. Two bladder cancers and 1 uppertract urothelial carcinoma were diagnosed and managed with endoscopic resection, radiotherapy, and nephroureterectomy, respectively. Two patients were diagnosed with penile squamous cell carcinoma and managed with radical surgery and lymph node dissection/sampling, with 1 patient receiving adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Urological malignancies are not common in heart and lung transplant recipients; however, standard management options can be safely used, including radical surgery. Prospective monitoring of these patients and potential considerations for screening should be maintained.

Establishing a global quality of care benchmark report.

BACKGROUND: The Movember funded TrueNTH Global Registry (TNGR) aims to improve care by collecting and analysing a consistent dataset to identify variation in disease management, benchmark care delivery in accordance with best practice guidelines and provide this information to those in a position to enact change. We discuss considerations of designing and implementing a quality of care report for TNGR. METHODS: Eleven working group sessions were held prior to and as reports were being built with representation from clinicians, data managers and investigators contributing to TNGR. The aim of the meetings was to understand current data display approaches, share literature review findings and ideas for innovative approaches. Preferred displays were evaluated with two surveys (survey 1: 5 clinicians and 5 non-clinicians, 83% response rate; survey 2: 17 clinicians and 18 non-clinicians, 93% response rate). RESULTS: Consensus on dashboard design and three data-display preferences were achieved. The dashboard comprised two performance summary charts; one summarising site's relative quality indicator (QI) performance and another to summarise data quality. Binary outcome QIs were presented as funnel plots. Patient-reported outcome measures of function score and the extent to which men were bothered by their symptoms were presented in bubble plots. Time series graphs were seen as providing important information to supplement funnel and bubble plots. R Markdown was selected as the software program principally because of its excellent analytic and graph display capacity, open source licensing model and the large global community sharing program code enhancements. CONCLUSIONS: International collaboration in creating and maintaining clinical quality registries has allowed benchmarking of process and outcome measures on a large scale. A registry report system was developed with stakeholder engagement to produce dynamic reports that provide user-specific feedback to 132 participating sites across 13 countries.

A risk calculator to inform the need for a prostate biopsy: a rapid access clinic cohort.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) represents a significant healthcare problem. The critical clinical question is the need for a biopsy. Accurate risk stratification of patients before a biopsy can allow for individualised risk stratification thus improving clinical decision making. This study aims to build a risk calculator to inform the need for a prostate biopsy. METHODS: Using the clinical information of 4801 patients an Irish Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (IPRC) for diagnosis of PCa and high grade (Gleason ≥7) was created using a binary regression model including age, digital rectal examination, family history of PCa, negative prior biopsy and Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level as risk factors. The discrimination ability of the risk calculator is internally validated using cross validation to reduce overfitting, and its performance compared with PSA and the American risk calculator (PCPT), Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) and European risk calculator (ERSPC) using various performance outcome summaries. In a subgroup of 2970 patients, prostate volume was included. Separate risk calculators including the prostate volume (IPRCv) for the diagnosis of PCa (and high-grade PCa) was created. RESULTS: IPRC area under the curve (AUC) for the prediction of PCa and high-grade PCa was 0.6741 (95% CI, 0.6591 to 0.6890) and 0.7214 (95% CI, 0.7018 to 0.7409) respectively. This significantly outperforms the predictive ability of cancer detection for PSA (0.5948), PCPT (0.6304), PBCG (0.6528) and ERSPC (0.6502) risk calculators; and also, for detecting high-grade cancer for PSA (0.6623) and PCPT (0.6804) but there was no significant improvement for PBCG (0.7185) and ERSPC (0.7140). The inclusion of prostate volume into the risk calculator significantly improved the AUC for cancer detection (AUC = 0.7298; 95% CI, 0.7119 to 0.7478), but not for high-grade cancer (AUC = 0.7256; 95% CI, 0.7017 to 0.7495). The risk calculator also demonstrated an increased net benefit on decision curve analysis. CONCLUSION: The risk calculator developed has advantages over prior risk stratification of prostate cancer patients before the biopsy. It will reduce the number of men requiring a biopsy and their exposure to its side effects. The interactive tools developed are beneficial to translate the risk calculator into practice and allows for clarity in the clinical recommendations.

Admission of patients with acute urinary retention leads to a definitive management decision.

BACKGROUND: Acute urinary retention (AUR) is a common urologic emergency. However, its management is not standardized due to lack of clinical guidelines. AIMS: We retrospectively reviewed the treatment of all male patients admitted to our institution with AUR over 12 months. METHODS: Data was obtained from the HIPE (Hospital Inpatient Enquiry) data system, each patient's electronic discharge summary and from patient medical records. RESULTS: There were 130 AUR admissions during the period. About 74 admissions were due to benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). Of these, 45.9% (n = 34) passed their trial without catheter (TWOC). The remainder (n = 40) failed their TWOC necessitating recatheterization and consideration for transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) or re-TWOC. An indwelling urinary catheter (IDC) was inserted for 27.5% (n = 11) of patients with a failed TWOC secondary to comorbidities. This group had a mean age of 78 years (range 68-96 years). Of those who failed their TWOC, 32.5% (n = 13) had a TURP on index admission. Of the remaining 16 patients with failed TWOC, 75% (n = 12) were discharged with an IDC and readmitted for an elective TURP with a median waiting time of 55 days (range 17-138 days). 18.75% (n = 3) passed a re-TWOC and thus offset the need to have any surgical intervention and 6.25% (n = 1) proceeded to a radical retropubic prostatectomy for biopsy proven prostate adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSION: Admission of patients with acute urinary retention leads to a definitive management decision and reduced prolonged catheterization.

The sentinel stent? A systematic review of the role of prophylactic ureteric stenting prior to colorectal resections.

PURPOSE: 'Prophylactic' ureteric stents potentially reduce rates, and facilitate intraoperative recognition, of iatrogenic ureteric injury (IUI) during colorectal resections. A lack of consensus surrounds the risk-benefit equation of this practice, and we aimed to assess the evidence base. METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched using terms 'ureteric/ureteral/JJ/Double J stent' or 'ureteric/ureteral catheter' and 'colorectal/prophylactic/resection/diverticular disease/diverticulitis/iatrogenic injury'. Primary outcomes were rates of ureteric injuries and their intraoperative identification. Secondary outcomes included stent complication rates. RESULTS: We identified 987 publications; 22 papers met the inclusion criteria. No randomised controlled trials were found. The total number of patients pooled for evaluation was 869,603 (102,370 with ureteric stents/catheters, 767,233 controls). The most frequent indications for prophylactic stents were diverticular disease (45.38%), neoplasia (33.45%) and inflammatory bowel disease (9.37%). Pooled results saw IUI in 1521/102,370 (1.49%) with, and in 1333/767,233 (0.17%) without, prophylactic ureteric stents. Intraoperative recognition of IUIs occurred in 10/16 injuries (62.5%) with prophylactic stents, versus 9/17 (52.94%) without stents (p = 0.579). The most serious complications of prophylactic stent use were ureteric injury (2/1716, 0.12%) and transient ureteric obstruction following stent removal (13/666, 1.95%). CONCLUSIONS: Placement of prophylactic ureteric stents has a low complication rate. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that stents decrease ureteric injury or increase intraoperative detection of IUIs. Apparently higher rates of IUI in stented patients likely reflect use in higher risk resections. A prospective registry with harmonised data collection points and stratification of intraoperative risk is needed.