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.

Senior medical student opinions regarding the ideal urology interview day.

INTRODUCTION: Applicant interviews for urology residency positions are a stressful and costly process for students, faculty, and staff. We conducted a prospective survey to better determine what urology applicants perceive as an ideal interview process to gain sufficient knowledge about a training program. METHODS: A questionnaire was anonymously completed by all urology residency applicants interviewing at the Medical College of Wisconsin from 2007 to 2013. Questionnaire subject headings included "ideal interview format," "factors contributing to understanding the residency program," and "factors contributing to final rank list order." RESULTS: Questionnaires were distributed to and completed by 221 senior medical students applying for a urology residency position. Most respondents (>80%) reported they would prefer to partake in 5 to 7 faculty interviews in an office setting with the total interview process spanning half to three-fourths of the workday. Spending time with current residents was considered the most valuable tool to acquire knowledge about a residency program. The most important criteria when ranking a program were resident satisfaction, resident operative experience, and perceived strength of faculty. CONCLUSIONS: Academic urology programs may wish to consider applicant ideals when organizing residency interviews. Interaction with current residents appears to be the most valuable resource allowing applicants to garner knowledge about a urology training program.