Ranking Important Factors for Using Postoperative Chemotherapy in Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: Conjoint Analysis Results From the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC).

PURPOSE: National and international guidelines recommend the use of 1 dose of intravesical chemotherapy immediately following surgery for nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer, which is performed infrequently on a population level. We sought to understand the importance of potential environmental and clinical dimensions involved in the decision to offer this therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Urologists from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) rated 8 distinct clinical vignettes involving patients with nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. A ratings-based conjoint analysis method was used to evaluate the clinical vignette responses. Each vignette included 4 clinical dimensions and 2 environmental dimensions, with each dimension consisting of 2 possible attributes. The relative importance of each attribute was derived from the regression model and ranked in order. RESULTS: A total of 58 urologists answered the clinical vignettes which represents >75% of MUSIC sites. The median age of urologists was 53, most were male, and median years in practice was 20 years post residency. An environmental attribute, having a recovery room protocol for instilling and disposing of the chemotherapy, ranked as the most influential attribute for giving postoperative chemotherapy (utility=8.6). The clinical attribute yielding the strongest preference for giving chemotherapy was tumor grade (utility=4.9). These preferences varied by different subgroups of urologists, particularly regarding the type of practice a urologist was in. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that urologists have clear preferences for when they offer postoperative immediate chemotherapy. Factors beyond just clinical variables play a role in this decision making process such as the structure of the recovery room.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Urological Care Delivery in the United States.

PURPOSE: We examined changes in urological care delivery due to COVID-19 in the U.S. based on patient, practice, and local/regional demographic and pandemic response features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed real-world data from the American Urological Association Quality (AQUA) Registry collected from electronic health record systems. Data represented 157 outpatient urological practices and 3,165 providers across 48 U.S. states and territories, including 3,297,721 unique patients, 12,488,831 total outpatient visits and 2,194,456 procedures. The primary outcome measure was the number of outpatient visits and procedures performed (inpatient or outpatient) per practice per week, measured from January 2019 to February 2021. RESULTS: We found large (>50%) declines in outpatient visits from March 2020 to April 2020 across patient demographic groups and states, regardless of timing of state stay-at-home orders. Nonurgent outpatient visits decreased more across various nonurgent procedures (49%-59%) than for procedures performed for potentially urgent diagnoses (38%-52%); surgical procedures for nonurgent conditions also decreased more (43%-79%) than those for potentially urgent conditions (43%-53%). African American patients had similar decreases in outpatient visits compared with Asians and Caucasians, but also slower recoveries back to baseline. Medicare-insured patients had the steepest declines (55%), while those on Medicaid and government insurance had the lowest percentage of recovery to baseline (73% and 69%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world evidence on the decline in urological care across demographic groups and practice settings, and demonstrates a differential impact on the utilization of urological health services by demographics and procedure type.

Patient Satisfaction with Telephone Versus Video-Televisits: A Cross-Sectional Survey of an Urban, Multiethnic Population.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences between telephone and video-televisits and identify whether visit modality is associated with satisfaction in an urban, academic general urology practice. METHODS: A cross sectional analysis of patients who completed a televisit at our urology practice (summer 2020) was performed. A Likert-based satisfaction telephone survey was offered to patients within 7 days of their televisit. Patient demographics, televisit modality (telephone vs video), and outcomes of the visit (eg follow-up visit scheduled, orders placed) were retrospectively abstracted from each chart and compared between the telephone and video cohorts. Multivariate regression analysis was used to evaluate variables associated with satisfaction while controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: A total of 269 patients were analyzed. 73% (196/269) completed a telephone televisit. Compared to the video cohort, the telephone cohort was slightly older (mean 58.8 years vs. 54.2 years, P = .03). There were no significant differences in the frequency of orders placed for medication changes, labs, imaging, or for in-person follow-up visits within 30 days between cohorts. Survey results showed overall 84.7% patients were satisfied, and there was no significant difference between the telephone and video cohorts. Visit type was not associated with satisfaction on multivariable analyses, while use of an interpreter [OR:8.13 (1.00-65.94); P = .05], labs ordered [OR:2.74 (1.12-6.70); P = .03] and female patient gender [OR:2.28 (1.03-5.03); P = .04] were significantly associated with satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Overall, most patients were satisfied with their televisit. Additionally, telephone- and video-televisits were similar regarding patient opinions, patient characteristics, and visit outcome. Efforts to increase access and coverage of telehealth, particularly telephone-televisits, should continue past the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 and the impact on urology service provision at Capital & Coast District Health Board.

AIM: To determine the impact on the Capital & Coast District Health Board (CCDHB) urology service of the implementation of nationwide healthcare restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This is an observational retrospective study over a 21 working day period during the implementation of National Hospital Response Framework Alert (NHRFA) level 2. We obtained patient data during this period and a corresponding control period prior to the pandemic. The data was focussed on the volume of operating theatre cases, outpatient consultations, procedural clinic appointments and the estimated avoided outpatient travel. RESULTS: Total urology admissions decreased by 27% during the 21-day NHRFA level 2 period. However, acute surgical procedures increased by 30% whereas elective surgical procedures decreased by 32%. Outpatient consultations overall decreased by 32% during NHRFA level 2 despite virtual phone consultations increasing by 274%. Procedural clinic appointments decreased by 85%. The virtual platform also saved each patient an estimated 22.7km of average travel. CONCLUSION: The data demonstrate the effects of restrictions in response to a crisis and set a precedent for future management in such scenarios. The data also show how service efficiency can be optimised while providing an environmentally friendly alternative for routine clinical practice.

Evaluating Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Amongst Practicing Urologists: Analysis of the 2018 American Urological Association Census.

OBJECTIVE: To describe factors associated with Quality improvement and patient safety (QIPS) participation using 2018 American Urological Association Census data. QIPS have become increasingly important in medicine. However, studies about QIPS in urology suggest low levels of participation, with little known about factors predicting non-participation. METHODS: Results from 2339 census respondents were weighted to estimate 12,660 practicing urologists in the United States. Our primary outcome was participation in QIPS. Predictor variables included demographics, practice setting, rurality, fellowship training, QIPS domains in practice, years in practice, and non-clinical/clinical workload. RESULTS: QIPS participants and non-participants significantly differed in distributions of age (P = .0299), gender (P = .0013), practice setting (P <.0001), employment (employee vs partner vs owner vs combination; P <.0001), and fellowship training (P <.0001). QIPS participants reported fewer years in practice (21.3 vs 25.9, P = .018) and higher clinical (45.2 vs 39.2, P = .022) and non-clinical (8.76 vs 5.28, P = .002) work hours per week. Non-participation was associated with male gender (OR = 2.68, 95% CI 1.03-6.95) and Asian race (OR = 2.59, 95% CI 1.27-5.29) for quality programs and private practice settings (ORs = 8.72-27.8) for patient safety initiatives. CONCLUSION: QIPS was associated with academic settings. Interventions to increase rates of quality and safety participation should target individual and system-level factors, respectively. Future work should discern barriers to QIPS engagement and its clinical benefits.

Patient perspective on telemedicine replacing physical consultations in urology during the COVID-19 lockdown in Denmark.

OBJECTIVE: In March-April 2020, during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic lockdown in Denmark, the Danish Health Authorities recommended that, where possible, face-to-face patient-physician consultations be replaced by telephone consultations. The aim of this study was to obtain patients' evaluation of their telemedicine experience. METHODS: Patients who were candidates for telemedicine consultations were recruited based on their urological ailment, necessity for follow-up and comorbidity. New referrals including patients with suspicion of cancer were not candidates for telemedicine. In total, 548 patients had their appointment altered during the period from 13 March to 30 April 2020. Postal questionnaires were sent to 548 patients and 300 (54.7%) replied. RESULTS: In total, 280 patient answered, 224 (80%) men and 56 (20%) women, mean age 69 years (range 18-91) of whom 180 (64.3%) had a benign and 100 (35.7%) a malignant diagnosis. Twenty (6.7%) respondents did not remember their telephone consultation and were therefore excluded. Telephone consultation satisfaction was reported by 230 (85.0%) patients, but they would not prefer video consultations over telephone consultations, and only 102 (36.4%) would prefer telephone consultations in the future. Patients' age, sex and distance to the hospital did not seem to be associated with telephone consultation satisfaction (age p = 0.17; sex p = 0.99; distance p = 0.27, respectively). In total, 226 (80.7%) were medically assessed as being at risk for COVID, but 74 (26.4%) subjectively evaluated themselves as being at risk. CONCLUSIONS: In general (85.0%), urological patients were satisfied with telephone consultations.

Gender Representation in American Urological Association Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To study patterns and factors associated with female representation in the American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines. METHODS: We gathered publicly available information about the panelists, including the AUA section, practice setting, academic rank, fellowship training, years in practice, and H-index. The factors associated with the proportion of female panelists and trends were investigated. We also examined the proportion of female panelists in the European Association of Urology (EAU) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) urology guidelines. RESULTS: There were 483 non-unique panelists in AUA guidelines, and 17% are female. Non-urologist female panelists in AUA guidelines represented a higher proportion than female urologists (30% vs 13%, P<0.0001). Compared with male panelists, females had lower H-indices (median 23 vs 35, P<0.001), and fewer were fellowship-trained (77.2% vs 86.8%; P=0.042). On multivariate analysis, non-urologists and panelists with lower H-indices were more likely to be female but there was no association between guideline specialties, academic ranking, geographic section, years in practice, and fellowship training with increased female authorship. Overtime, the proportion of female participation in guidelines remained stable. In the EAU and NCCN guideline panels, 12.2% and 10.7% were female, respectively. CONCLUSION: Female representation among major urologic guidelines members is low and unchanged overtime. Female urologist participation was proportional to their representation in the urology workforce. Being a non-urologist and lower H-indices were associated with female membership in guideline panels.

Evaluation of uro-oncological surgical treatment during the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic in a Brazilian tertiary oncology institution, the new world epicenter

ABSTRACT Introduction: The rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has dramatic effects on individuals and health care systems. In our institute, a tertiary oncologic public hospital with high surgical volume, we prioritize maintaining cancer treatment as well as possible. The aim of this study is to evaluate if uro-oncological surgeries at pandemic are safe. Materials and Methods: We evaluated patients who underwent uro-oncological procedures. Epidemiological data, information on COVID-19 infection related to surgery and clinical characteristics of non-survival operative patients with COVID-19 infections were analyzed. Results: From 213 patients analyzed, Covid-19 symptoms were noticed in 8 patients at preoperative process or at hospital admission postponing operation; 161 patients were submitted to elective surgery and 44 to emergency surgery. From patients submitted to elective surgeries, we had 1 patient with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 (0,6%), with mild symptoms and quick discharge. From the urgencies group, we had 6(13%) patients tested positive; 5 were taken to ICU with 4 deaths. Conclusion: Elective uro-oncological procedures at the COVID-19 epidemic period in a COVID-19-free Institute are safe, and patients who need urgent procedures, with a long period of hospitalization, need special care to avoid COVID-19 infection and its outcomes.

Situación actual de la mujer en Urología en Colombia / Current situation of women in Urology in Colombia

INTRODUCCIÓN Y OBJETIVOS: Existe la creencia de que la urología es una especialidad de hombres. Según la American-Urology-Association, en 2013 las mujeres representaban el 7,7% de los urólogos en EE.UU. Actualmente, de 678 urólogos adscritos a la Sociedad Colombiana de Urología, 61 son mujeres (9%), y de 102 residentes, 41 (40%), son mujeres. El objetivo de este estudio es demostrar las tendencias de trabajo de las urólogas, las tendencias a futuro de las residentes, e identificar si los pacientes tienen preferencias en cuanto a la atención según el género de(la) urólogo(a). MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio de corte observacional descriptivo con encuestas anónimas realizadas a urólogas, residentes y pacientes. Las preguntas evaluaban las características demográficas de los encuestados; las preguntas a urólogas evaluaban sus tendencias de trabajo, las de las residentes sus planes a futuro como urólogas, y las de los pacientes su deseo de ser valorados en consulta y operados por un urólogo o una uróloga. RESULTADOS: Cincuenta y tres urólogas respondieron la encuesta. El promedio de edad fue 37 años, la mayoría (54%) trabajan en Bogotá. Dieciocho (34%) se han subespecializado, la mayoría en andrología (16%), endourología (16%) y urología pediátrica (16%). La mayoría (73,6%) operan entre 5-20 horas semanales, y las principales cirugías que realizan son colocación de cinta libre de tensión, resección transuretral de próstata, y varicocelectomía. Dieciocho (34%) refieren acoso laboral por el hecho de ser mujer. Treinta y seis de 41 residentes respondieron la encuesta. El promedio de edad era 28 años. El promedio de publicaciones académicas era de 3 (0-12). Ochenta por ciento desean realizar una subespecialización en el futuro, de las cuales 24% lo harían en endourología,17,2% en pediatría o uroginecología, y 10,3% en oncología. Cuarenta y un por ciento refieren acoso laboral por el hecho de ser mujer. Ciento ochenta y ocho pacientes respondieron la encuesta, siendo 96 hombres y 87 mujeres, de los cuales, 44,1% prefieren ser atendidos en consulta por una uróloga, y 49,2% prefieren ser operados por un urólogo. CONCLUSIONES: El número de mujeres urólogas ha aumentado exponcialmente en los últimos años, al igual que el porcentaje de mujeres en la residencia. Las residentes desean subespecializarse en diversos campos de la urología. Los pacientes prefieren ser atendidos en consulta por una uróloga, pero ser operados por un urólogo aunque las mujeres siguen prefiriendo ser operadas por una mujer

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: There are 61 (9%) female urologist enrolled at Sociedad Colombiana de Urología. 41 (40%) of urology residentes in Colombia are women. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the work tendencies of female urologist, female residents and patient’s preferences regarding the gender of their urologist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Descriptive observational sectional study with anonymous surveys carried out to practicing female urologists, female residents, and patients. The questions evaluated the demographic characteristics of the surveyed individuals; the questions for female urologists evaluated their work tendencies; for the residents we evaluated their plans as urologists; and the patients were asked about their preferences to be evaluated in medical consultation and to have a surgery performed by either a male or female urologist. RESULTS: The survey was answered by 53 female urologists. The average age was 37 years, the majority (54%) worked in Bogotá. 34% have subspecialized, the majority in andrology (16%) endourology (16%) and pediatric urology (16%). Most of them (73.6%) perform surgery between 5-20 hours weekly, and the most performed surgery was varicocelectomy. 34% referred to have been harassed in their work environment based on their gender. Thirty-six female residents answered the survey. The average age was 28 years. The average number of academic publications was 3. 80% wish to achieve a sub-specialization, of which 24% would do it in endourology. 41% referred to have been harassed. 188 patients answered the survey, 96 men and 87 women; 44.1% preferred to be attended in medical consultation by a female urologist, and 49.2% preferred to be operated by a male urologist. CONCLUSIONS: The number of female urologists has exponentially increased, just as the percentage of female residents. Female residents wish to subspecialize in diverse areas. Patients prefer to be attended by a female urologist in medical consultation but prefer to have surgery performed by a male urologist

Effect of SARS and COVID-19 outbreaks on urology practice and training.

INTRODUCTION: The objective was to investigate the changes in urology practice during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with a perspective from our experience with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003. METHODS: Institutional data from all urology centres in the Hong Kong public sector during the COVID-19 pandemic (1 Feb 2020-31 Mar 2020) and a non-COVID-19 control period (1 Feb 2019-31 Mar 2019) were acquired. An online anonymous questionnaire was used to gauge the impact of COVID-19 on resident training. The clinical output of tertiary centres was compared with data from the SARS period. RESULTS: The numbers of operating sessions, clinic attendance, cystoscopy sessions, prostate biopsy, and shockwave lithotripsy sessions were reduced by 40.5%, 28.5%, 49.6%, 44.8%, and 38.5%, respectively, across all the centres reviewed. The mean numbers of operating sessions before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were 85.1±30.3 and 50.6±25.7, respectively (P=0.005). All centres gave priority to cancer-related surgeries. Benign prostatic hyperplasia-related surgery (39.1%) and ureteric stone surgery (25.5%) were the most commonly delayed surgeries. The degree of reduction in urology services was less than that during SARS (47.2%, 55.3%, and 70.5% for operating sessions, cystoscopy, and biopsy, respectively). The mean numbers of operations performed by residents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were 75.4±48.0 and 34.9±17.2, respectively (P=0.002). CONCLUSION: A comprehensive review of urology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed changes in every aspect of practice.

How uro-oncology has been affected by COVID-19 emergency? Data from Piedmont/Valle d'Aosta Oncological Network, Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically hit all Europe and Northern Italy in particular. The reallocation of medical resources has caused a sharp reduction in the activity of many medical disciplines, including urology. The restricted availability of resources is expected to cause a delay in the treatment of urological cancers and to negatively influence the clinical history of many cancer patients. In this study, we describe COVID-19 impact on uro-oncological management in Piedmont/Valle d'Aosta, estimating its future impact. METHODS: We performed an online survey in 12 urological centers, belonging to the Oncological Network of Piedmont/Valle d'Aosta, to estimate the impact of COVID-19 emergency on their practice. On this basis, we then estimated the medical working capacity needed to absorb all postponed uro-oncological procedures. RESULTS: Most centers (77%) declared to be "much"/"very much" affected by COVID-19 emergency. If uro-oncological consultations for newly diagnosed cancers were often maintained, follow-up consultations were more than halved or even suspended in around two out of three centers. In-office and day-hospital procedures were generally only mildly reduced, whereas major uro-oncological procedures were more than halved or even suspended in 60% of centers. To clear waiting list backlog, the urological working capacity should dramatically increase in the next months; delays greater than 1 month are expected for more than 50% of uro-oncological procedures. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 emergency has dramatically slowed down uro-oncological activity in Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta. Ideally, uro-oncological patients should be referred to COVID-19-free tertiary urological centers to ensure a timely management.

Widely Variable Parental Leave Practices for Urology Residency Programs in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To query a cohort of program directors to better understand the contemporary landscape of parental leave for urology trainees. The American Board of Urology mandates that a resident must work 46 weeks annually in order to not extend residency. We hypothesize that formal parental leave policies may vary by institution and may not be easily accessible. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 22 question survey designed to assess parental leave policies was distributed to 144 American College of Graduate Medical Education accredited Urology residency program directors in the United States via e-mail. Results were collected anonymously. RESULTS: A total of 65 program directors completed the survey for a response rate of 43%. The median age of program directors was 49 and 78% were male. Only 12% reported no formal maternity leave policy, while 21% reported no formal paternity leave policy. Maternity leave duration varied greatly with 6 (49%) and 12 weeks (27%) as the most common duration, while paternity leave was most commonly reported as 2 (39%), 6 (18%) and 12 weeks (19%) in length. Most parental leave policies were available via an institutional website (81%), with only 39% available on a public website. While most leave policies covered compensation, few addressed call expectations or procedural safety precautions. CONCLUSION: Parental leave policies across Urology training programs in the United States are variable, and may not cover critical components of pregnancy or leave. An opportunity exists to create a comprehensive, standardized parental leave policy.

Patient Satisfaction With Telemedicine Appointments in an Academic Andrology-focused Urology Practice During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient satisfaction with telemedicine appointments as an alternative to in-person appointments at an Andrology-focused academic urology practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: Between March and June 2020, all appointments at the practice of a single Andrology-focused academic urologist were conducted by telephone. Consecutive patients were contacted by telephone following their appointment to complete a telephone questionnaire. Baseline demographic information was obtained, and perceptions regarding telephone appointments were assessed using a Likert scale. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients completed the telephone questionnaire. Median age was 48.5 years (interquartile range 37.3-62.8 years) with 55 of 96 (57.3%) of the appointments Andrology-focused. Mean distance of residence from the hospital was 8.4 km (interquartile range 4.7-25.2 km). Only 9 of 96 (9.3%) of the patients felt that the telephone format did not adequately address their needs. However, 26 of 96 (27.1%) of patients said they would prefer an in-person appointment. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, gender, presenting complaint, type of appointment, education level, and employment status, no factors were associated with feeling that the telephone appointment adequately addressed needs or preference for an in-person appointment in the future. CONCLUSION: Patients were generally satisfied with telephone appointments as an alternative to in-person appointments during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Nonetheless, a substantial portion of patients said they would prefer in-person appointments in the future.

Geographic Distribution of Away Rotations Impacts the Urology Match Process in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the geographic impact of away rotations on regional interview invitations and matching. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Urology applicants who participated in the 2019-2020 cycle were invited to complete a survey postmatch. Questions covered demographics, scholastic achievements, number and region of away rotations, number and locations of interview invitations, and matching results. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t tests were used for continuous variables. Chi-square and fisher exact tests were used for categorical variables. RESULTS: Of 349 applicants, 88 (25.2%) completed the survey. Geographic location was a top consideration for away rotation selection; 86% placed it in their top 3 with 40% selecting it as number 1. Furthermore, 36.4% "agreed" and 37.5% "strongly agreed" that geographic distribution of home and away rotations impacted their interview invitations. On ANOVA analysis, the ratio of regional to total interview invitations was higher among applicants completing a rotation (either home or away) in a specific AUA section (P < .01). However, completing more away rotations (≥3 vs 0-2) did not increase the ratio of interview invitations to total applications (P = .49), and rotation location was not associated with matching in that region (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Geography is a key driver in away rotation selection among applicants and may increase the proportion of regional interview invitations. However, match results were not associated with geography of away rotations. With unprecedented changes coming to the urology residency match cycle, these findings suggest that loss of away rotations may have limited impact on interview invitations or match result.

The Impact of Physician Productivity Models on Access to Subspecialty Care: A White Paper From the Society for the Study of Male Reproduction and the Society for Male Reproduction and Urology.

Male infertility is a common disease. Male infertility is also a core competency of urology training and clinical practice. In this white paper from the Society for the Study of Male Reproduction and the Society for Male Reproduction and Urology, we identify and define different physician productivity plans. We then describe the advantages and disadvantages of various physician productivity measurement systems for male infertility practices. We close with recommendations for measuring productivity that we hope urologists and administrators can use when creating productivity plans for male infertility practices.

Refocusing cancer multidisciplinary team meetings in the United Kingdom: comparing urology with other specialties.

INTRODUCTION: Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings have been the gold standard of cancer care in the UK since the 1990s. We aimed to identify the views of urology cancer MDT members in the UK on improving the functioning of meetings and compare them with those of other specialties to manage the increasing demand on healthcare resources and enhance the care of complex cancer cases. METHODS: We analysed data from 2 national surveys distributed by Cancer Research UK focusing on the views of 2,294 and 1,258 MDT members about cancer MDT meetings. FINDINGS: Most breast, colorectal, lung and urology cancer MDT members felt meetings could be improved in the following areas: time for meeting preparation in job plans, streamlining of patients, auditing meeting decisions and prioritising complex cases. Most urology respondents (87%) agreed some patients could be managed outside a full MDT discussion, but this was lower for other specialties (lung 78%, breast 75%, colorectal 64%). CONCLUSIONS: To facilitate decisions on which patients require discussion in an MDT meeting, factors adding to case complexity across all tumour types were identified, including rare tumour type, cognitive impairment and previous treatment failure. This study confirms that urology MDT members are supportive of changing from reviewing all new cancer diagnoses to discussing complex cases but managing others with a more protocolised pathway. The mechanisms for how to do this and how to ensure the safety of patients require further clarification.

Defining the Current Landscape of Women in Urology: An Analysis of Female Applicants, Residents, and Faculty at AUA-Accredited Residency Programs.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the current landscape of women in academic Urology and determine if there is a correlation between female applicant matches and the proportion of female faculty/residents at their home institution or matched program. METHODS: We obtained 2020 American Urological Association (AUA) Match applicant demographics through social media platforms and program inquiries. The gender of full-time faculty and residents at AUA accredited programs was obtained from program websites. Correlations between proportions of female matched applicants and female faculty and residents were analyzed using linear regression models. RESULTS: A total of 353 residency slots at all 142 non-military programs were filled in the 2020 AUA Match, with 105 filled by women (30%). Of all applicants, 221 of 286 (77%) males and 105 of 122 (86%) females matched. Regarding institutions with urology residencies, women made up 27% of residents and 16% of full-time faculty. A total of 23 (17%) did not have any female faculty and 8 (6%) had no female residents. We found a positive correlation between the proportion of female residents and female faculty (r2 = 0.12, P <.0001). There was no significant correlation between the proportion of female matched applicants and female faculty or female residents at their matched programs or home institutions. CONCLUSION: The proportion of female residents within a urology program is positively correlated with the number of female faculty in the department, although further studies are needed to examine contributing factors. The current distribution of female applicants may demonstrate further narrowing of the gender gap within residency programs.