Financial decision analysis based on "willingness to pay" for surgical sperm retrieval approaches among men with non-obstructive azoospermia in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the most financially optimal surgical approach for testicular sperm retrieval for men with non-obstructive azoospermia. DESIGN: A decision tree was created examining five potential surgical approaches for men with non-obstructive azoospermia pursuing one cycle of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. An expected financial net loss was determined for each surgical option based on couples' willingness to pay for one cycle of intracytoplasmic sperm injection resulting in pregnancy. The branch with the lowest expected net loss was defined as the most optimal financial decision (minimizing loss to a couple). Fresh testicular sperm extraction implied testicular sperm extraction was performed in conjunction with programmed ovulation induction. Frozen testicular sperm extraction implied testicular sperm extraction was performed initially, and ovulation induction/intracytoplasmic sperm injection was canceled if sperm retrieval failed.  The surgical options included fresh conventional testicular sperm extraction, with and without "back-up" sperm cryopreservation, fresh microsurgical testicular sperm extraction, with and without "back-up" sperm cryopreservation, and frozen microsurgical testicular sperm extraction. Success was defined as pregnancy after one intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Probabilities of successful sperm retrieval with conventional testicular sperm extraction/microsurgical testicular sperm extraction, post-thaw sperm cellular loss following frozen microsurgical testicular sperm extraction, ovulation induction/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle out-of-pocket costs, intracytoplasmic sperm injection pregnancy rates for men with non-obstructive azoospermia, standard conventional testicular sperm extraction cost and average willingness to pay for intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle were gathered from the systematic literature review. Costs were in USD and adjusted to inflation (as of April 2020). Two-way sensitivity analysis was performed on varying couples' willingness to pay for one cycle of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and varying microsurgical testicular sperm extraction out-of-pocket costs. RESULTS: According to our decision tree analysis (assuming minimum microsurgical testicular sperm extraction cost of $1,000 and willingness to pay of $8,000), the expected net loss for each branch was as follows: -$17,545 for fresh conventional testicular sperm extraction, -$17,523 for fresh microsurgical testicular sperm extraction, -$9,624 for frozen microsurgical testicular sperm extraction, -$17,991 for fresh conventional testicular sperm extraction with "backup", and -$18,210 for fresh microsurgical testicular sperm extraction with "backup". Two-way sensitivity analysis with a variable willingness to pay values and microsurgical testicular sperm extraction and in-vitro fertilization costs confirmed that frozen microsurgical testicular sperm extraction consistently presented the lowest net loss compared to other options. Interestingly, when directly comparing fresh microsurgical testicular sperm extraction and conventional testicular sperm extraction with "back-up", scenarios with decreasing willingness to pay and lower microsurgical testicular sperm extraction costs demonstrated fresh conventional testicular sperm extraction with "back-up" as more optimal than fresh microsurgical testicular sperm extraction with "back-up". CONCLUSIONS: For those couples who must pay out of pocket, our study suggests that frozen microsurgical testicular sperm extraction is the most financially optimal decision for the surgical management of non-obstructive azoospermia, regardless of microsurgical testicular sperm extraction cost and the couple's willingness to pay.

Evaluating the quality of reported outcomes for microsurgical TESE in men with non-obstructive azoospermia: A methodological analysis.

BACKGROUND: Publications of microsurgical testicular sperm extraction (mTESE) techniques and outcomes are heterogeneous, which may limit creation of best surgical practices. OBJECTIVE: To study the quality and heterogeneity of published mTESE outcomes via a methodological analysis. MATERIALS/METHODS: A systematic methodological analysis of all published literature on the use of mTESE in men with non-obstructive azoospermia from 1999 to the July 2020 was performed. PubMed and MEDLINE searches were performed using the search terms "microdissection TESE OR microsurgical TESE." Publications were evaluated on their reporting of pre-operative factors, intraoperative techniques, surgical and clinical outcomes, and adverse events. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies met inclusion criteria. Surgical technique and sperm retrieval rates were the most reported criteria. Reporting on the presence of an embryologist intraoperatively was observed in approximately 30% of articles, while other procedural details including method of sperm quantification, quantity retrieved, and number of cryopreserved vials were observed in fewer than 10% of articles. Clinical outcomes, including pregnancy rates and live birth rates, were reported in fewer than 40% of the articles. Fetal outcomes including fetal and neonatal anomalies were rarely reported. Fetal growth restriction, preterm delivery, small or large for gestational age, and NICU admissions were never reported. CONCLUSION: There are inconsistencies in reporting quality of mTESE outcomes, specifically a lack of information on the quantity and quality of sperm retrieved, the role of embryology intraoperatively, and clinical outcomes, such as live birth rate and fetal anomalies. These gaps may guide development of standardized reporting guidelines to better assess and compare clinical outcomes across institutions and maintain focus on couples-centric fertility outcomes in future mTESE studies.

No-Shows in Adult Urology Outpatient Clinics: Economic and Operational Implications.

INTRODUCTION: We analyzed trends and explored implications of no-show rates in adult urology from provider related characteristics at an academic program. METHODS: No-show rates were determined from electronic health records of appointments in adult urology at Duke University Medical Center and affiliated clinics between January 2014 and December 2016. t-Test, Wilcoxon rank sum and ANOVA were employed. RESULTS: Of 72,571 total appointments 13,219 (18.2%) were no-shows. The no-show rates per provider related characteristic were provider type (physician 22.1% vs advanced primary provider 34.0%), visit category (new 26.9% vs return 25.6% vs procedure 17.5%), faculty status (assistant 22.9% vs associate 21.9% vs professor 21.4%) and specialty (oncology 26.7% vs reconstructive 22.9% vs stones 25.4%). Average lead times of advanced primary practitioners and physicians were 47 and 62 days, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in mean no-show rates by provider type (p <0.01) and new patient by provider type (p <0.01). However, there was no statistical difference in mean rates by specialty, faculty status, provider bump history, provider based visit types and average lead time. The potential loss in revenue from outpatient no-shows is at least $429,810 annually. CONCLUSIONS: Provider type and new patient visits by provider type have statistically different no-show rates. Missed appointments are costly and affect clinical efficiency, access to care and potentially patient outcomes. Given the shift toward value based care and future workforce changes, further investigations are needed to determine interventions to help reduce no-show rates. Models to predict and adjust clinics should be developed and deployed.

Over half of contemporary clinical Gleason 8 on prostate biopsy are downgraded at radical prostatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Contemporary clinical guidelines utilize the highest Gleason sum (HGS) in any one core on prostate biopsy to determine prostate cancer treatment. Here, we present a large discrepancy between prostate cancer risk stratified as high risk on biopsy and their pathology after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 1424 men who underwent either open or robotic-assisted prostatectomy between 2004 and 2015. We analyzed 148 men who were diagnosed with HGS 8 on prostate biopsy. Biopsy and prostatectomy pathology were compared in aggregate and over 1 year time intervals. Chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, Student's t-test, and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 61.5% (91/148) of clinical HGS 8 diagnoses were downgraded on prostatectomy, with 58.8% (87/148) downgraded to Gleason 7 (Gleason 4 + 3 n = 59; Gleason 3 + 4 n = 28). Factors associated with downgrading include lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at biopsy (median 6.8 ng/mL versus 9.1 ng/mL, p < 0.001), number of Gleason 8 biopsy cores (median 1 versus 2, p < 0.02), presence of Gleason pattern 3 on biopsy cores (67.9% versus 44.8%, p < 0.03), pT2 staging (72.4% versus 55.1%, p < 0.04), positive margins (53.9% versus 69.1%, p < 0.04), extracapsular extension (53.4% versus 74.1%, p < 0.02), and smaller percent tumor (median 10% versus 15%, p < 0.004). CONCLUSION: The large percentage of pathology downgrading of biopsy-diagnosed HGS 8 suggests suboptimal risk-stratification that may lead to suboptimal treatment strategies and much patient distress. Our study adds great urgency to the efforts refining prostate cancer clinical assessment.

HIF-1 Alpha Regulates the Response of Primary Sarcomas to Radiation Therapy through a Cell Autonomous Mechanism.

Hypoxia is a major cause of radiation resistance, which may predispose to local recurrence after radiation therapy. While hypoxia increases tumor cell survival after radiation exposure because there is less oxygen to oxidize damaged DNA, it remains unclear whether signaling pathways triggered by hypoxia contribute to radiation resistance. For example, intratumoral hypoxia can increase hypoxia inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1α), which may regulate pathways that contribute to radiation sensitization or radiation resistance. To clarify the role of HIF-1α in regulating tumor response to radiation, we generated a novel genetically engineered mouse model of soft tissue sarcoma with an intact or deleted HIF-1α. Deletion of HIF-1α sensitized primary sarcomas to radiation exposure in vivo. Moreover, cell lines derived from primary sarcomas lacking HIF-1α, or in which HIF-1α was knocked down, had decreased clonogenic survival in vitro, demonstrating that HIF-1α can promote radiation resistance in a cell autonomous manner. In HIF-1α-intact and -deleted sarcoma cells, radiation-induced reactive oxygen species, DNA damage repair and activation of autophagy were similar. However, sarcoma cells lacking HIF-1α had impaired mitochondrial biogenesis and metabolic response after irradiation, which might contribute to radiation resistance. These results show that HIF-1α promotes radiation resistance in a cell autonomous manner.