Leaders in Urologic Education and Their Relationship to Industry: An Analysis of Sunshine Act Open Payments From 2014-2016.

OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in the financial relationship between biomedical companies and leaders in urologic education during the first 3 full calendar years since implementation of the Sunshine Act. METHODS: All accredited American Urological Association (AUA) residency programs were identified using the AUA website. Urology program directors and department chairs of the affiliated institutions were identified using residency program or urology department websites. Urology journal editors who practice in the United States were identified using the SCImago Journal & Country Rank website. All identified individuals were categorized by urologic subspecialty and AUA region based on information stated on their corresponding websites. Payment data for each individual from 2014 to 2016 was accessed using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments website, and statistical analyses were performed to elucidate trends based on leadership position, urologic specialty, AUA region, payment type, and overall payments over time. RESULTS: Out of the 239 urologists identified, 85%, 78%, and 91% received some sort of payment in 2014, 2015, and 2016, respectively. Department chairs accepted payments more readily than program directors and journal editors in all years. Average total payments for all urologists increased yearly, with mean general payments trending down and mean research payments trending up. CONCLUSION: The Sunshine Act was passed in part to promote transparency of the physician-industry relationship. Though the proportion of urologic leaders accepting payments between 2014 and 2016 did not change significantly, increased public scrutiny could have contributed to the decrease in yearly general payments and the increase in yearly research payments.

Benign fibrous pseudotumor resulting in orchiectomy despite intraoperative frozen section.

Fibrous pseudotumors are rare benign lesions that originate within the paratesticular tissues. Local excision is the preferred method of treatment of these tumors over radical orchiectomy, however a definitive diagnosis must be made beforehand given the similarity of these tumors to malignant entities. We present a case of fibrous pseudotumor of the tunica vaginalis and cauda epididymis. A diagnosis of fibrous pseudotumor could not be established despite the use of intraoperative frozen section, therefore necessitating radical orchiectomy.

Impact of the 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force statement on prostate-specific antigen screening: analysis of urologic and primary care practices.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the effect of the 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recommendation statement on primary care referral patterns and urologists' decision making. METHODS: Men referred to our institution for newly elevated PSA level from June 2011 to June 2013 were identified. Patients with a prior history of prostate cancer or biopsy were excluded. Clinical and management parameters were compared between those presenting in the year before vs the year after the USPSTF statement. Factors predictive of receiving a prostate biopsy were identified using multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 201 men were identified in the pre-USPSTF period and 212 men, thereafter. The groups were comparable in age, race, prostate cancer family history, PSA values, and digital rectal examination findings. At the initial evaluation, patients presenting after the statement were more likely to undergo PCA3 testing (27% vs 11%; P <.01) and repeat PSA testing (82% vs 72%; P = .02) and less likely to undergo immediate biopsy (16% vs 24%; P = .03). The proportion of patients ultimately receiving a biopsy was equivalent. The groups were similar in the percentage of positive biopsies, Gleason distribution, and D'Amico risk. African American race and family history were predictors for receiving a biopsy in the post-USPSTF group but not in the pre-USPSTF group. CONCLUSION: The 2012 USPSTF recommendation statement has not affected the number or clinical characteristics of patients referred to a tertiary center for elevated PSA level. After recommendation, urologists ordered significantly more PCA3 and repeat PSA tests and recommended fewer biopsies at the initial visit. The fraction of patients ultimately receiving a biopsy remained the same.