Current Status and Future Direction to Address Disparities in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Prostate Cancer Care.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Disparities in prostate cancer care and outcomes have been well recognized for decades. The purpose of this review is to methodically highlight known racial disparities in the care of prostate cancer patients, and in doing so, recognize potential strategies for overcoming these disparities moving forward. RECENT FINDINGS: Over the past few years, there has been a growing recognition and push towards addressing disparities in cancer care. This has led to improvements in care delivery trends and a narrowing of racial outcome disparities, but as we highlight in the following review, there is more to be addressed before we can fully close the gap in prostate cancer care delivery. While disparities in prostate cancer care are well recognized in the literature, they are not insurmountable, and progress has been made in identifying areas for improvement and potential strategies for closing the care gap.

Intra-practice Urologist-level Variation in Targeted Fusion Biopsy Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent to which the urologist performing biopsy contributes to variation in prostate cancer detection during fusion-guided prostate biopsy. METHODS: All men in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) clinical registry who underwent fusion biopsy at Michigan Medicine from August 2017 to March 2019 were included. The primary outcomes were clinically significant cancer detection rate (defined as Gleason Grade ≥2) in targeted cores and clinically significant cancer detection on targeted cores stratified by PI-RADS score. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1133 fusion biopsies performed by 5 providers were included. When adjusting for patient age, PSA, race, family history, prostate volume, clinical stage, and PI-RADS score, there was no significant difference in targeted clinically significant cancer detection rates across providers (range = 38.5%-46.9%, adjusted P-value = .575). Clinically significant cancer detection rates ranged from 11.1% to 16.7% in PI-RADS 3 (unadjusted P = .838), from 24.6% to 43.4% in PI-RADS 4 (adjusted P = .003), and from 69.4% to 78.8% in PI-RADS 5 (adjusted P = .766) lesions. CONCLUSION: There was a statistically significant difference in clinically significant prostate cancer detection in PI-RADS 4 lesions across providers. These findings suggest that even among experienced providers, variation at the urologist level may contribute to differences in clinically significant cancer detection rates within PI-RADS 4 lesions. However, the relative impact of biopsy technique, radiologist interpretation, and MR acquisition protocol requires further study.

SIMPLifying Urology Residency Operative Assessments: A Pilot Study in Urology Training.

PURPOSE: The Society for Improving Medical Professional Learning (SIMPL) app is an innovative, convenient and validated smartphone-based tool to evaluate residents' operative performance. In this study, we describe the initial implementation of SIMPL in our program's pediatric urology rotation-the first among urology residencies-and provide preliminary data on its adoption by residents and faculty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Residents and faculty in our pediatric urology division submitted SIMPL evaluations following surgical cases from August 2019 to July 2020. Evaluations consisted of ratings in 3 domains: resident autonomy, resident operative performance and patient-related case complexity. An online survey was also used to gauge attitudes towards SIMPL, describe patterns of use and solicit feedback on areas for improvement. RESULTS: Eight residents and 6 faculty submitted 141 evaluations, with 76.6% of evaluated cases having both faculty and resident ratings. Verbal feedback was included in 94.2%. Faculty-resident agreement ranged from 68.6% to 75.2% (kappa=0.47 to 0.61). Faculty rated postgraduate year (PGY)-4 residents as more autonomous (p=0.040) and higher performing (p=0.028) than PGY-3 residents. All participants agreed that SIMPL was easy to use and compared favorably to existing avenues of feedback. Barriers to implementation included lack of reminders for evaluations and evaluation fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: The SIMPL application improved both frequency and quality of resident operative feedback. Among participants, SIMPL was preferred over the existing feedback system at our institution.

Robotic Surgery Training: Current Trends and Future Directions.

The use of robotic surgery in urology has grown exponentially in the past 2 decades, but robotic surgery training has lagged behind. Most graduating residents report a lack of comfort independently performing common robotic urologic surgeries, despite an abundance of available resources. There is a general consensus on the key components of a comprehensive robotics curriculum, and well-validated tools have been developed to assess trainee competency. However, no single curriculum has emerged as the gold standard on which individual programs can build their own robotics curricula.

Unplanned 30-Day Encounters After Ureterorenoscopy for Urolithiasis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify avoidable predictors of postureteroscopy (URS) unplanned encounters and to minimize 30-day encounters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed retrospective chart review and telephone surveys on patients who underwent URS for urolithiasis between January and June 2016. Univariate and multivariable analyses evaluated for potential predictors of unplanned encounters. RESULTS: Of 157 patients, there were 44 (28.0%) unplanned patient-initiated clinical phone calls, 23 (14.6%) emergency department (ED) visits, and 8 (5.1%) readmissions, with pain being the most common complaint during the encounters. Factors associated with a higher rate of phone calls include first-time stone procedure (36.6% vs 20.9%, p = 0.029), outpatient status (30.3% vs 0%, p = 0.021), intraoperative stent placement (31.2% vs 0%, p = 0.006), and stent removal at home (58.8% vs 28.8%, p = 0.014). Factors associated with increased rate of ED visits were first-time stone procedure (22.5% vs 8.1%, p = 0.011) and ureteral access sheath (UAS) usage (29.6% vs 11.8%, p = 0.018). Factors associated with a higher rate of readmissions were lower body mass index (23.9 vs 29.7, p = 0.013), bilateral procedure (20.0% vs 2.9%, p = 0.010), and UAS usage (14.8% vs 3.1%, p = 0.032). Stone burden, operative time, Charlson comorbidity index, and preoperative urinary tract infection were not significantly associated with postoperative encounters. CONCLUSIONS: Pain, first-time stone treatment, presence of a ureteral stent, outpatient status, bilateral procedures, and UAS usage were common reasons for postoperative encounters after URS. Appropriate perioperative patient education and counseling and adequate pain management may minimize these encounters and improve treatment quality and patient satisfaction.

Determination of the Role of Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate in Clinical Practice: Is Biopsy Still Necessary?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the negative predictive value (NPV) of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in routine clinical practice and to identify characteristics of patients for whom mpMRI fails to detect high-grade (Gleason score ≥7) disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our prospectively maintained database of consecutive men who received prostate mpMRI at our institution, interpreted by a clinical practice of academic radiologists. Between January 2012 and December 2015, 84 men without any magnetic resonance imaging suspicious regions according to prior institutional classification, or with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 1-2 lesions according to the PI-RADS system, underwent standard template transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. Using these biopsy results, we calculated the NPV of mpMRI for the detection of PCa and identified patient risk factors for having a Gleason score ≥7 PCa on biopsy. RESULTS: High-grade PCa (Gleason score ≥7) was found on TRUS biopsy in 10.3% of biopsy-naive patients (NPV=89.7%), 16.7% of patients with previous negative biopsy (NPV=83.3%), and 13.3% of patients on active surveillance (NPV=86.6%). On multivariate analysis, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPTRC) estimated risk for high-grade PCa (as a continuous variable) was a significant predictor for high-grade PCa on biopsy (odds ratio 1.01, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Men with negative mpMRIs interpreted in a routine clinical setting have a significant risk of harboring Gleason score ≥7 PCa on a standard 12-region template biopsy, independent of indication. Standard template TRUS prostate biopsy should still be recommended for patients with negative mpMRI, particularly those with elevated PCPTRC estimated risk of high-grade PCa.