Multiparametric MRI is not sufficient for prostate cancer staging: A single institutional experience validated by a multi-institutional regional collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has been increasingly utilized in prostate cancer (CaP) diagnosis and staging. While Level 1 data supports MRI utility in CaP diagnosis, there is less data on staging utility. We sought to evaluate the real-world accuracy of mpMRI in staging localized CaP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) for CaP in 2021 at our institution were identified. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of mpMRI in predicting pT2N0 organ confined disease , extracapsular extension , seminal vesicle invasion , lymph node involvement, and bladder neck invasion were evaluated. Associations between MRI accuracy and AUA risk stratification (AUA RS), MRI institution (MRI-I), MRI strength (1.5 vs. 3T) (MRI-S), and MRI timing (MRI-T) were assessed. These analyses were repeated using Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative (PURC) data. RESULTS: Institutional and community mpMRI CaP staging data demonstrated poor sensitivity (2.9%-49.2%% vs. 16.8%-24.4%), positive predictive value (40%-100% vs. 35.8%-68.2%), and negative predictive value (56.3%-94.3% vs. 68.4%-96.2%) in predicting surgical pathologic features - in contrast, specificity (89.1%-100% vs. 93.9%-98.6%) was adequate. mpMRI accuracy for extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node involvement was significantly (p < 0.001) associated with AUA RS. There was no association between mpMRI accuracy and MRI-I, MRI-S, and MRI-T. CONCLUSION: Despite enthusiasm for its use, in a real-world setting, mpMRI appears to be a poor staging study for localized CaP and is unreliable as the sole means of staging patients prior to prostatectomy. mpMRI should be used cautiously as a staging tool for CaP, and should be interpreted considering individual patient risk strata.

Non-infectious complications following transrectal prostate needle biopsy - Outcomes from over 8000 procedures.

Background: Prostate needle biopsy (PNB) remains the referent standard for diagnosing prostate cancer. Contemporary data highlight an increase in PNB-related infections particularly when performed transrectally. Non-infectious complications, however, may similarly contribute to biopsy-related morbidity. We review the incidence and predictors of non-infectious complications following transrectal PNB in a large statewide quality registry. Methods: Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsies performed between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The incidence and distribution of non-infectious complications were annotated. Clinical, demographic, and biopsy variables of interest were evaluated by logistic regression for potential association with specific types of non-infectious complications. Results: Of 8,102 biopsies, 277 (3.4%) biopsies had reported post-procedure complications including 199 (2.5%) non-infectious and 78 (0.9%) infectious. Among the non-infectious complications, the most common events included urinary or rectal bleeding (74; 0.9%), urinary retention (70, 0.9%), vasovagal syncope (13, 0.2%), and severe post-operative pain (10, 0.1%). Approximately 56% of these non-infectious complications required an Emergency Department visit (111/199) and 27% (54/199) hospital admission for monitoring. Increasing transrectal ultrasound prostate volume was associated with post-procedure urinary retention (Odds ratio (OR) 1.07, 1.02-1.11, p = 0.002). No specific variables noted association with post-biopsy bleeding. Conclusion: Non-infectious complications occurred 2.5 times more often than infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound prostate needle biopsies. Larger prostate size was associated with a greater risk of post-procedure urinary retention. These data originating from experience from over 100 urologists across different health systems provide an important framework in counseling patients regarding expectations following transrectal prostate biopsy.

Perspectives on the Role of Biopsy for Management of T1 Renal Masses: Survey Results From Two Regional Quality Improvement Collaboratives.

OBJECTIVE: To understand perspectives on renal mass biopsy, a survey was distributed to urologists in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative and Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative. Renal mass biopsy (RMB) may reduce treatment of benign renal neoplasms; however, utilization varies widely. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative and Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative are two quality improvement collaboratives that include a "real-world" collection of urologists from academic- and community-based settings. A 12-item survey assessing current RMB utilization, patient- and tumor-specific factors, adverse events, impact on management, and simulated patient scenarios was distributed. Responses are reported using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Many responders (n = 54) indicated using RMB in less than 25% of cT1a (59%) and cT1b (85%) tumors. The most important patient-specific factors on the decision to recommend RMB were possible metastasis to the kidney (94%), patient comorbidity as a risk factor for active treatment (89%), and patient age (81%). The most important tumor-specific factors were the presence of bilateral tumors (81%), tumor size (70%) and perceived potential of performing nephron-sparing surgery (67%). Ten responders (19%) noted barriers to RMB in their practice, 23 (43%) recalled experiences with complications or poor outcomes, and 43 (80%) reported experiences where the results of RMB altered management. When presented with simulated patients, few urologists (9%-20%) recommended RMB in younger patients with any sized mass. Recommendations varied based on patient age, comorbidity, and tumor size. CONCLUSION: Understanding perspectives on RMB usage is essential prior to implementing quality improvement efforts. Most urologists participating in two statewide collaboratives infrequently recommend RMB. Optimizing RMB utilization may help reduce unnecessary treatments.

Concordance of confirmatory prostate biopsy in active surveillance with national guidelines: An analysis from the multi-institutional PURC cohort.

PURPOSE: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend confirmatory biopsy within 12 months of active surveillance (AS) enrollment. With <10 cores on initial biopsy, re-biopsy should occur within 6 months. Our objective was to determine if patients on AS within practices in the Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative (PURC) receive guideline concordant confirmatory biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within PURC, a prospective collaborative of diverse urology practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, we identified men enrolled in AS after first biopsy, analyzing time to re-biopsy and factors associated with various intervals of re-biopsy. RESULTS: In total, 1,047 patients were enrolled in AS for a minimum of 12 months after initial biopsy. Four hundred seventy-seven (45%) underwent second biopsy at 1 of the 9 PURC practices. The number of patients undergoing re-biopsy within 6 months, 6 to 12 months, 12 to 18 months, and >18 months was 71 (14%), 218 (45.7%), 134 (28%), and 54 (11%), respectively. Sixty percent underwent confirmatory biopsy within 12 months. On multivariate analysis, re-biopsy interval was associated with number of positive cores, perineural invasion, and practice ID (all P < 0.05). Adjusted multivariable regression did not identify factors predictive of re-biopsy interval. CONCLUSION: Of patients who underwent confirmatory biopsy at PURC practices, 60.5% were within 12 months per NCCN guidelines. This suggests area for improvement in guideline adherence after enrollment in AS. All practices that offer AS should periodically perform similar analyses to monitor their performance. In an era of value-based care, adherence to guideline based active surveillance practices may eventually comprise national quality metrics affecting provider reimbursement.

Stakeholder Perspective on Opioid Stewardship After Prostatectomy: Evaluating Barriers and Facilitators From the Pennsylvania Urology Regional Collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate existing practice patterns and potential barriers to implementing opioid stewardship protocols after robot-assisted prostatectomies among providers in the Pennsylvania Urology Regional Collaborative. METHODS: The Pennsylvania Urology Regional Collaborative (PURC) is a voluntary quality improvement initiative of 11 academic and community urology practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey representing 97 urologists. PURC distributed a web-based survey of 24 questions, with 74 respondents, including 56 attendings, 11 residents, and 7 advanced practice providers. RESULTS: More pills were prescribed if there was a default number of pills from the electronic health record (median 30) then if the number of pills was manually placed (P = .01). Only 8% discussed how to dispose of opioids with their patients, and less than a third of respondents discussed postoperative pain expectations or risks of opioid use. Patient level risk factors were often not reviewed, as 42% did not ask about previous opioid exposure. CONCLUSION: This study revealed extensive knowledge disparities among providers about opioid stewardship and significant gaps in the evidence-to-practice continuum of care. In the next year, PURC will be implementing targeted interventions to augment provider education, establish clear pathways for opioid disposal, improve utilization of known resources and implement opioid reduction protocols in all participating sites.

Active Surveillance as Initial Management of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer: Data from the PURC.

PURPOSE: We describe contemporary active surveillance utilization and variation in a regional prostate cancer collaborative. We identified demographic and disease specific factors associated with active surveillance in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from the PURC (Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative), a cooperative effort of urology practices in southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We determined the rates of active surveillance among men with newly diagnosed NCCN® (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) very low, low or intermediate prostate cancer and compared the rates among participating practices and providers. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to identify factors associated with active surveillance utilization. RESULTS: A total of 1,880 men met inclusion criteria. Of the men with NCCN very low or low risk prostate cancer 57.4% underwent active surveillance as the initial management strategy. Increasing age was significantly associated with active surveillance (p <0.001) while adverse clinicopathological variables were associated with decreased active surveillance use. Substantial variation in active surveillance utilization was observed among practices and providers. CONCLUSIONS: More than 50% of men with low risk disease in the PURC collaborative were treated with active surveillance. However, substantial variation in active surveillance rates were observed among practices and providers in academic and community settings. Advanced age and favorable clinicopathological factors were strongly associated with active surveillance. Analysis of regional collaboratives such as the PURC may allow for the development of strategies to better standardize treatment in men with prostate cancer and offer active surveillance in a more uniform and systematic fashion.

Impact of a standardized protocol and antibiotic-impregnated catheters on ventriculostomy infection rates in cerebrovascular patients.

BACKGROUND: Ventriculostomy infections create significant morbidity. To reduce infection rates, a standardized evidence-based catheter insertion protocol was implemented. A prospective observational study analyzed the effects of this protocol alone and with antibiotic-impregnated ventriculostomy catheters. OBJECTIVE: To compare infection rates after implementing a standardized protocol for ventriculostomy catheter insertion with and without the use of antibiotic-impregnated catheters. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2008, 1961 ventriculostomies and infections were documented. A ventriculostomy infection was defined as 2 positive CSF cultures from ventriculostomy catheters with a concurrent increase in cerebrospinal fluid white blood cell count. A baseline (preprotocol) infection rate was established (period 1). Infection rates were monitored after adoption of the standardized protocol (period 2), institution of antibiotic-impregnated catheter A (period 3), discontinuation of antibiotic-impregnated catheter A (period 4), and institution of antibiotic-impregnated catheter B (period 5). RESULTS: The baseline infection rate (period 1) was 6.7% (22/327 devices). Standardized protocol (period 2) implementation did not change the infection rate (8.2%; 23/281 devices). Introduction of catheter A (period 3) reduced infections to 1.0% (2/195 devices, P=.0005). Because of technical difficulties, this catheter was discontinued (period 4), resulting in an increase in infection rate (7.6%; 12/157 devices). Catheter B (period 5) significantly decreased infections to 0.9% (9 of 1001 devices, P=.0001). The Staphylococcus infection rate for periods 1, 2, and 4 was 6.1% (47/765) compared with 0.2% (1/577) during use of antibiotic-impregnated catheters (periods 3 and 5). CONCLUSION: The use of antibiotic-impregnated catheters resulted in a significant reduction of ventriculostomy infections and is recommended in the adult neurosurgical population.

Prospective identification of risk factors for wound infection after lower extremity oncologic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) are frequent causes of morbidity and mortality after orthopaedic oncologic procedures. This study was conducted to identify the surgical site infection rate following a lower extremity or pelvic procedure and assess the risk factors for acquiring SSI by direct observation of orthopaedic oncology patients' wounds at a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: One hundred ten consecutive patients were prospectively studied. The surveillance of surgical site infections was carried out by a surgeon-trained nurse from the Infectious Disease Service. Nineteen variables were analyzed as risk factors. RESULTS: The overall SSI rate was 13.6% (15 of 110). Excluding those patients with known preoperative infections, the SSI rate was 9.5% (10 of 105). Two statistically significant risk factors for surgical site infection in these patients emerged in the multivariate analysis: blood transfusion (P =.007) and obesity (P =.016). Procedure category was significant in univariate analysis only. Preoperative length of stay, length of procedure, prior adjuvant treatment (chemotherapy or radiotherapy), prior surgery, and use of an implant or allograft were not statistically significant risk factors for wound infection. Antibiotic usage patterns did not influence SSI rate. CONCLUSIONS: Blood transfusion and obesity should be considered individual risk factors for the development of wound infection in patients having orthopaedic oncologic procedures.