Virtual "Matchmaking": Stakeholder Perspectives on the Future of the Urology Residency Match.

OBJECTIVE: To examine stakeholder perspectives regarding the lack of in-person externships and transition to a virtual urology residency interview format. The unprecedented disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic forced an abrupt pivot to a "virtual" Urology Match for the 2021 cycle. We aim for our study to inform ongoing deliberations on the future of the Urology Match. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following Urology Match day in February 2021, two surveys were distributed by the Society of Academic Urologists to all applicants and program directors (PDs) who participated in the 2021 Urology Match. RESULTS: Overall, 192 of 481 applicants (40%) and 63 of 160 PDs (39%) responded. Most applicants (67%) were satisfied with their match outcomes, although unmatched applicants were significantly more likely to be unsatisfied than matched applicants (98% vs 9%, P <.0001). Most PDs were equally (79%) or more satisfied (13%) with their match outcomes compared with prior years. Nearly all applicants (93%) and PDs (94%) recommended retaining an in-person externship option. Most applicants (61%) and PDs (71%) felt their outcomes would not have changed with in-person interviews. Applicants and PDs were evenly split as to whether interviews should be conducted in-person or virtually in the future. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of applicants and PDs recommended retaining in-person externships for future match cycles despite high costs. In contrast, there was ambivalence amongst both groups of stakeholders regarding the format of interviews for future match cycles. We recommend virtual interviews moving forward to help alleviate the financial burden placed on applicants and increase equity.

Prehabilitation Exercise Before Urologic Cancer Surgery: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review.

CONTEXT: The Consensus on Therapeutic Exercise Training (CONTENT) scale assesses the therapeutic validity of exercise programs. To date, prehabilitation exercise programs for heath optimization before urologic cancer surgeries have not been assessed for therapeutic validity or efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess prehabilitation exercise programs before urologic cancer surgery for therapeutic validity and efficacy, informing discussion of best practices for future intervention. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review was performed using Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases through June 2020. The review included prospective (randomized controlled and uncontrolled) trials where patients were enrolled in prehabilitation exercise programs before urologic cancer surgery. The primary outcomes of interest included therapeutic validity and efficacy (measures of cardiorespiratory fitness and postsurgical outcomes). Studies were evaluated for the risk of bias. A narrative synthesis was carried out given heterogeneity in populations, interventions, and outcomes across studies. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Ten unique studies and two associated post hoc analyses met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies demonstrated therapeutic validity. Eight demonstrated a high risk of bias. All demonstrated significant improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness. Four of five studies evaluating quality of life observed significant improvements. To date, zero trials have demonstrated reduction in postsurgical complications, mortality, length of stay, or readmission rates following prehabilitation exercise interventions. CONCLUSIONS: While prehabilitation exercise may result in improved cardiorespiratory fitness and quality of life, current studies have yet to demonstrate impact on surgical outcomes. When designing prehabilitation exercise programs for use before urologic cancer surgery, the therapeutic validity of the intervention should be considered. Future prehabilitation studies should employ standardized content rubrics to ensure therapeutic validity. Consensus is needed regarding the appropriate outcomes to adjudicate prehabilitation efficacy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we looked at the effectiveness and quality of prehabilitation exercise programs before urologic cancer surgery. We found that these programs effectively improve presurgical fitness, but may benefit from the use of structured methodology and outcome assessment to understand their potential to improve surgical outcomes.

Association of the hospital readmission reduction program with readmission and mortality outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

The Affordable Care Act established the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) to reduce payments to hospitals with excessive readmissions in an effort to link payment to the quality of hospital care. Prior studies demonstrating an association of HRRP implementation with increased mortality after heart failure discharges have prompted concern for potential unintended adverse consequences of the HRRP. We examined the impact of these policies on coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery outcomes using the Nationwide Readmissions Database and found that, in line with previously observed readmission trends for CABG, readmission rates continued to decline in the era of the HRRP, but that this did not come at the expense of increased mortality. These results suggest that inclusion of surgical procedures, such as CABG in the HRRP might be an effective cost-reducing measure that does not adversely affect quality of hospital care.

Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiation therapy for high-grade, clinically localized prostate cancer: Emulation of a target clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The comparative effectiveness of surgery and radiation therapy for high-grade, clinically localized prostate cancer remains a seminal, open question in urologic oncology, with no randomized controlled trials to inform management. We therefore emulated a hypothetical target clinical trial of radical prostatectomy (RP) versus external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for high-grade, clinically localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted observational analyses using the National Cancer Database from 2006-2015 to emulate a target clinical trial in men 55-69 years with cT1-3cN0cM0, PSA<20 ng/mL, Gleason 8 to 10 prostate adenocarcinoma treated with RP or 75 to 81 Gy EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy (EBRT+ADT). The associations of treatment type with overall survival (OS) were estimated using Cox regression with stabilized inverse probability weights (IPW). RESULTS: A total of 26,806 men formed the study cohort (RP: 23,990; EBRT+ADT: 2,816). Baseline characteristics were well-balanced after IPW-adjustment. Median follow-up was 48.4 (IQR 25.5-76.2) months. After IPW-reweighting, RP was associated with improved OS compared to EBRT+ADT (HR 0.54;95% CI 0.48-0.62; P<0.001), with 5- and 10-year OS of 93% vs 87%, and 76% vs 60%, respectively. RP was associated with improved OS across all categories of Gleason score, PSA, cT stage, age, and Charlson comorbidity index examined. In sensitivity analyses adjusting for biopsy tumor volume and a biopsy-specific Gleason score, RP remained associated with improved OS compared to EBRT+ADT (HR 0.62;95% CI 0.49-0.78; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In observational analyses designed to emulate a target clinical trial of men with high-grade, clinically localized prostate cancer, RP was associated with improved OS compared with EBRT+ADT.

Is There An Association Between Bundled Payments and "Cherry Picking" and "Lemon Dropping" in Orthopaedic Surgery? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The goal of bundled payments-lump monetary sums designed to cover the full set of services needed to provide care for a condition or medical event-is to provide a reimbursement structure that incentivizes improved value for patients. There is concern that such a payment mechanism may lead to patient screening and denying or providing orthopaedic care to patients based on the number and severity of comorbid conditions present associated with complications after surgery. Currently, however, there is no clear consensus about whether such an association exists. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this systematic review, we asked: (1) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the sociodemographic characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (2) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the comorbidities and/or case-complexity characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (3) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the recent use of healthcare resources characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? METHODS: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO before data collection (CRD42020189416). Our systematic review included scientific manuscripts published in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Econlit, Policyfile, and Google Scholar through March 2020. Of the 30 studies undergoing full-text review, 20 were excluded because they did not evaluate the outcome of interest (patient selection) (n = 8); were editorial, commentary, or review articles (n = 5); did not evaluate the appropriate intervention (introduction of a bundled payment program) (n = 4); or assessed the wrong patient population (not orthopaedic surgery patients) (n = 3). This led to 10 studies included in this systematic review. For each study, patient factors analyzed in the included studies were grouped into the following three categories: sociodemographics, comorbidities and/or case complexity, or recent use of healthcare resources characteristics. Next, each patient factor falling into one of these three categories was examined to evaluate for changes from before to after implementation of a bundled payment initiative. In most cases, studies utilized a difference-in-difference (DID) statistical technique to assess for changes. Determination of whether the bundled payment initiative required mandatory participation or not was also noted. Scientific quality using the Adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale had a median (range) score of 8 (7 to 8; highest possible score: 9), and the quality of the total body of evidence for each patient characteristic group was found to be low using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. We could not assess the likelihood of publication using funnel plots because of the variation of patient factors analyzed in each study and the heterogeneity of data precluded a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the nine included studies that reported on the sociodemographic characteristics of patients selected for care, seven showed no change with the implementation of bundled payments, and two demonstrated a difference. Most notably, the studies identified a decrease in the percentage of patients undergoing an orthopaedic operative intervention who were dual-eligible (range DID estimate -0.4% [95% CI -0.75% to -0.1%]; p < 0.05 to DID estimate -1.0% [95% CI -1.7% to -0.2%]; p = 0.01), which means they qualified for both Medicare and Medicaid insurance coverage. Of the 10 included studies that reported on comorbidities and case-complexity characteristics, six reported no change in such characteristics with the implementation of bundled payments, and four studies noted differences. Most notably, one study showed a decrease in the number of treated patients with disabilities (DID estimate -0.6% [95% CI -0.97% to -0.18%]; p < 0.05) compared with before bundled payment implementation, while another demonstrated a lower number of Elixhauser comorbidities for those treated as part of a bundled payment program (before: score of 0-1 in 63.6%, 2-3 in 27.9%, > 3 in 8.5% versus after: score of 0-1 in 50.1%, 2-3 in 38.7%, > 3 in 11.2%; p = 0.033). Of the three included studies that reported on the recent use of healthcare resources of patients, one study found no difference in the use of healthcare resources with the implementation of bundled payments, and two studies did find differences. Both studies found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at a skilled nursing facility (range DID estimate -0.50% [95% CI -1.0% to 0.0%]; p = 0.04 to DID estimate: -0.53% [95% CI -0.96% to -0.10%]; p = 0.01), while one of the studies also found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at an acute care hospital (DID estimate -0.8% [95% CI -1.6% to -0.1%]; p = 0.03) or as part of home healthcare (DID estimate -1.3% [95% CI -2.0% to -0.6%]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In six of 10 studies in which differences in patient characteristics were detected among those undergoing operative orthopaedic intervention once a bundled payment program was initiated, the effect was found to be minimal (approximately 1% or less). However, our findings still suggest some level of adverse patient selection, potentially worsening health inequities when considered on a large scale. It is also possible that our findings reflect better care, whereby the financial incentives lead to fewer patients with a high risk of complications undergoing surgical intervention and vice versa for patients with a low risk of complications postoperatively. However, this is a fine line, and it may also be that patients with a high risk of complications postoperatively are not being offered surgery enough, while patients at low risk of complications postoperatively are being offered surgery too frequently. Evaluation of the longer-term effect of these preliminary bundled payment programs on patient selection is warranted to determine whether adverse patient selection changes over time as health systems and orthopaedic surgeons become accustomed to such reimbursement models.

Management of Clinically Regional Node-Positive Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Clinically regional node-positive (cN+) urothelial carcinoma of the bladder requires a multi-modal management approach amidst growing recognition that it represents a spectrum of disease. Herein, we review the contemporary evidence for the natural history, evaluation, and management of clinically regional node-positive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, highlighting recent changes in lymph node staging. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite advances in techniques, cross-sectional imaging remains relatively insensitive for the detection of lymph node metastases. Recent changes to nodal staging that distinguish between cN1, cN2-3, and non-regional lymph node metastases reflect an increasing understanding that node-positive disease is heterogeneous and its management must be individualized according to nodal staging. Systemic therapy remains the initial management strategy, either alone or in conjunction with radiotherapy, with choice and sequencing of agents extrapolated from studies of metastatic disease. Consolidative radical cystectomy is an option for patients with disease response to upfront systemic therapy, and several series demonstrate a subset of patients with favorable oncologic outcomes. The comparative effectiveness of radiotherapy and radical cystectomy as local therapy remains an important evidence gap. Future studies that identify predictive biomarkers will help inform optimal choice of systemic therapy. The management of clinically regional node-positive disease requires a multimodal approach comprising both systemic and local therapy, tailored to the patient and to disease response. While choice of systemic therapy will be informed by ongoing studies in patients with metastatic disease, including the elucidation of predictive biomarkers, the comparative effectiveness of local therapies remains an important evidence gap.

Systematic Review of Time to Definitive Treatment for Intermediate Risk and High Risk Prostate Cancer: Are Delays Associated with Worse Outcomes?

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer is most commonly an indolent disease, especially when detected at a localized stage. Unlike other tumors that may benefit from timely receipt of definitive therapy, it is generally accepted that treatment delays for localized prostate cancer are acceptable, especially for low risk prostate cancer. Since treatment delay for intermediate risk and high risk disease is more controversial, we sought to determine if delays for these disease states negatively impacted oncological outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature with searches of Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to June 30, 2020. General study characteristics as well as study population and delay information were collected. The outcomes of interest extracted included biochemical recurrence, pathological features (positive surgical margins, upgrading, extracapsular extension, and other pathological features), cancer specific survival and overall survival. RESULTS: After identifying 1,793 unique references, 24 manuscripts met criteria for data extraction, 15 of which were published after 2013. Based on our review, delays up to 3 months are safe for all localized prostate cancer and are not associated with worse oncological outcomes. Some studies identified worse oncological outcomes as a result of delays beyond 6 to 9 months. However, these studies are counterbalanced by others finding no statistically significant association with delays up to 12 months. Studies that did find worse outcomes as a result of delays identified a higher risk of biochemical recurrence and worse pathological outcomes but not worse cancer specific or overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Definitive treatment for intermediate risk and high risk prostate cancer can be delayed up to 3 months without any oncological consequences. Some evidence suggests that there is a higher risk of biochemical recurrence and worse pathological outcomes associated with delays beyond 6 to 9 months. To date, there are no reports of worse cancer specific survival or overall survival as a result of delayed treatment for intermediate risk and high risk prostate cancer.

Value-Based Healthcare in Urology: A Collaborative Review.

CONTEXT: In response to growing concerns over rising costs and major variation in quality, improving value for patients has been proposed as a fundamentally new strategy for how healthcare should be delivered, measured, and remunerated. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature regarding the implementation and impact of value-based healthcare in urology. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review was performed to identify studies that described the implementation of one or more elements of value-based healthcare in urologic settings and in which the associated change in healthcare value had been measured. Twenty-two publications were selected for inclusion. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Reorganization of urologic care around medical conditions was associated with increased use of guidelines-compliant care for men with prostate cancer, and improved outcomes for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms. Measuring outcomes for every patient was associated with improved prostate cancer outcomes, while the measurement of costs using time-driven activity-based costing was associated with reduced resource utilization in a pediatric multidisciplinary clinic. Centralization of urologic cancer care in the UK, Denmark, and Canada was associated with overall improved outcomes, although systems integration in the USA yielded mixed results among urologic cancer patients. No studies have yet examined bundled payments for episodes of care, expanding the geographic reach for centers of excellence, or building enabling information technology platforms. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have critically assessed the actual or simulated implementation of value-based healthcare in urology, but the available literature suggests promising early results. In order to effectively redesign care, there is a need for further research to both evaluate the potential results of proposed value-based healthcare interventions and measure their effects where already implemented. PATIENT SUMMARY: While few studies have evaluated the implementation of value-based healthcare in urology, the available literature suggests promising early results.

Clinical applications of artificial intelligence in urologic oncology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to shed light on recent applications of artificial intelligence in urologic oncology. RECENT FINDINGS: Artificial intelligence algorithms harness the wealth of patient data to assist in diagnosing, staging, treating, and monitoring genitourinary malignancies. Successful applications of artificial intelligence in urologic oncology include interpreting diagnostic imaging, pathology, and genomic annotations. Many of these algorithms, however, lack external validity and can only provide predictions based on one type of dataset. SUMMARY: Future applications of artificial intelligence will need to incorporate several forms of data in order to truly make headway in urologic oncology. Researchers must actively ensure future artificial intelligence developments encompass the entire prospective patient population.