RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the contribution of the SLOR to the likelihood of matching in urology residency by applying a novel scoring system and characterize utilization in the 2022 application cycle. METHODS: We conducted an investigation of all applicants to our urology residency program during the 2022 cycle. We developed a scoring system to assess SLOR strength across all templates. Match outcomes were verified with the Society of Academic Urologists listing. Statistical analysis was performed to assess for factors predictive of a successful match. RESULTS: Out of 386 total applicants, 239 (61.9%) had at least one SLOR in their application. SLOR utilization was more prevalent in MD applicants, in those with higher Step 2 scores, and in those who matched (p < 0.01). The majority of SLOR scores (66.5%) were above a 3.5/5 in our cohort. Step 1 score, number of research entries, and presence of a SLOR were predictive of successful match. However, a SLOR score of < 3 was strongly associated with not matching (OR 0.021, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a SLOR in our cohort overall was associated with a successful match. A poor SLOR score was highly deleterious to an applicant's chance of matching in urology. Our SLOR scoring system can be used across all letter templates and demonstrates that strength of SLOR can significantly impact an applicant's chance of matching.
RESUMEN
The treatment landscape for localized and regional prostate cancer includes active surveillance, radiation therapy (RT), and radical prostatectomy (RP). Population-based studies comparing RP to radiation reveal conflicting results due to methodological flaws. This systematic review and pooled analysis of studies aim to compare cause-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and toxicity outcomes, comparing RP to RT in the management of prostate cancer. This systematic review search included the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries according to the PRISMA statement with the inception of each database up to June 24, 2023. Randomized phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that compared RP to RT in prostate cancer were included. The forest plot for the Odds ratio (OR) was plotted using the Mantel-Haenszel method, and the Z test was used to assess significance. A fixed effects model was used for meta-analysis. The search yielded seven completed randomized clinical trials and four ongoing trials. The majority of complete trials had low to intermediate-risk patient populations. OR for OS was 1.00 with 95% CI, 0.71-1.41 (P-value: 0.98), CSS OR was 0.99 with 95% CI, 0.45-2.18 (P-value 0.11), OR for DFS was 1.26 with 95% CI, 0.89-1.78 (P-value 0.19) when comparing RP to RT. The rate of distant metastatic disease was 2.3% in the RP versus 2.9% in the RT at 10 years. The rate of second malignant neoplasms was 4.5% in the RP compared to 4.2% in the RT arm at 10 years. RP caused more urinary symptoms, with a predominance of the need for urinary pads and a higher incidence of sexual dysfunction, and RT caused a higher incidence of bowel symptoms, such as blood in stools and fecal incontinence. This study provides evidence that the treatment-related outcomes are similar in patients with low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer when comparing RP to RT. Multidisciplinary treatment approaches and factoring patients' values and preferences should form the cornerstone of the ideal treatment option for each patient with localized prostate cancer. Patients with prostate cancer have an equal chance of being cancer-free and alive at 10 years with either RP or RT. In terms of side effects, RP causes more urine leakage and loss of erections, whereas RT tends to cause more bowel side effects, such as blood in stools and fecal leakage.