The Impact of Polymerase Chain Reaction Urine Testing on Clinical Decision-Making in the Management of Complex Urinary Tract Infections.

While urinary polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing is effective in organism identification in patients with complex urinary tract infections (cUTI), limited data exists on the clinical usefulness of this test. We serially surveyed physicians treating symptomatic patients with cUTI both at presentation and after PCR, and urine culture (UC) results were available to ascertain how the test results modified the therapy. A total of 96 unique surveys completed by 21 providers were included in the data analysis. The mean age for female and male patients was 69.4 ± 15.5 and 71.6 ± 12.7 years, respectively. The test positivity and line-item concordance for UC and PCR were consistent with prior reports. The PCR results modified or confirmed treatment in 59/96 (61.5%) and 25/96 (26.0%) of the cases, respectively, with 12/29 (41.4%) and 47/67 (70.1%) having negative and positive PCR results, respectively, resulting in treatment change (difference 28.7%, p < 0.01). Of these, 55/59 (57.3%) were alterations in the antibiotic regimen. PCR use to modify treatment was similar across providers and not statistically different when stratified by patient age, gender, or prior empiric therapy. In 31/59 (52.5%) of the cases, the PCR results modified the treatment where UC would not; conversely, UC would have modified the treatment in 3/37 (8.1%) of the cases where PCR did not (difference 44.4%, p < 0.01). We find that PCR test results are used by clinicians in managing cUTI, and use of this test provides an opportunity to improve antibiotic stewardship in this difficult-to-treat subset of patients.

Comparison of Polymerase Chain Reaction and Urine Culture in the Evaluation of Patients with Complex Urinary Tract Infections.

To compare organism identification using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and urine culture (UC) in patients with complex urinary tract infections (cUTIs), we reviewed the results of 3395 patients seen during 2022 with cUTI who underwent concomitant PCR and UC testing. We compared the overall positivity rates as well as the ability of each test to identify fastidious organisms (FOs) and the presence of polymicrobial infections (PMOs) and conducted concordance analysis between the tests. PCR detected 36.4% more organisms than UC and was 20 and nearly 36 times more likely to detect PMOs and FOs, respectively. PCR identified 90.6% of organisms found in UC, whereas UC identified 40.7% of organisms found in PCR testing. We found that 62.4% of organisms found in PCR were not found in urine culture, while UC found 9.4% of organisms not identified in polymerase chain reaction. All these differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Although we found that PCR was superior to UC in overall pathogen detection, and detection of both PMOs and FOs, both identified potentially pathogenic organisms not found in the corresponding test. Our data strongly suggest that the evaluation of patients with cUTI is best accomplished using PCR in conjunction with UC.

Primary Extranodal Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma of the Prostate: A Case Report.

We report a case of primary diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the prostate in a 54-year-old Caucasian male who presented with urinary retention and benign prostatic hyperplasia. We discuss the rare presentation of this disease and its clinicopathologic features and review the literature for up-to-date information on the diagnosis and clinical management. Despite the low incidence of lymphoma involving the prostate gland, it should always be considered as part of the differential diagnosis in cases of prostate gland enlargement with urinary tract obstructive symptoms resistant to medical therapy. Treatment modalities for this rare disease are also discussed.

A new model using number of needles and androgen deprivation to predict chronic urinary toxicity for high or low dose rate prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: Prostate brachytherapy is an established treatment modality in early stage prostate cancer. We retrospectively reviewed our experience with low dose rate (LDR) and high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy as a single treatment modality for early prostate cancer with emphasis on chronic toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From June 1996 to August 2003, 253 patients with stage II prostate cancer, prostate specific antigen less than 12 and Gleason score less than 7 were treated with brachytherapy alone at our institution. A total of 92 patients underwent HDR brachytherapy with 192Ir, while 161 underwent LDR brachytherapy with 103Pd. HDR minimum prostate dose was 38 Gy, delivered in 4 fractions with a single implant during 36 hours. For HDR we used real-time dynamic 3-dimensional ultrasound base dosimetry. For 103Pd seed implants the dose was 120 Gy using selective peripheral weighted dose distribution. Treatment was given based on patient preference after pretreatment transrectal ultrasound. Toxicity was scored using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria 2.0. Median followup in all 253 cases was 2.9 years. RESULTS: In all patients the rate of 3-year urinary toxicity grade 2 or greater and grade 3 or greater was 26% and 6.9%, which was not significantly different between HDR and LDR (p = 0.3 and 0.4, respectively). However, grade 1 urogenital toxicity was lower for HDR (p = 0.002). The 3-year grade 2 rectal toxicity rate was 0.8% with no grade 3 or greater events, which was and similar in the HDR and LDR groups (1% and 0.6%, respectively). No cancer related deaths occurred and 4-year overall survival was 99% for HDR and 96.4% for LDR (p = 0.4). The 3-year American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology biochemical control rate was 90% for LDR and 93% for HDR. Cox multivariate analysis for grade 2 or greater urinary toxicity was significant for the use of 14 or greater needles (HR 6.1, p = 0.02) and hormonal therapy (HR 2.2, p = 0.02). In the absence of risk factors the 4-year grade 2 or greater urinary toxicity rate was 7% vs 65% if the 2 risk factors were present (p <0.001). Impotence crude rates were 18.3% for HDR and 41.3% for LDR (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: HDR and LDR chronic urinary toxicity grade 2 or greater rates were equivalent. However, grade 1 was lower for HDR. The impotence rate was decrease by half with HDR. Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and 14 or greater needles were significantly associated with increased chronic urinary toxicity on multivariate analysis.

High dose rate brachytherapy as prostate cancer monotherapy reduces toxicity compared to low dose rate palladium seeds.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the potential for differing acute and chronic toxicities between 2 monotherapy methods of image guided conformal brachytherapy, high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy alone and low dose rate (LDR) permanent palladium seeds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 149 patients with biopsy proven, early stage prostate cancer were consecutively treated with interstitial brachytherapy as the sole method of treatment at William Beaumont Hospital between 1999 and 2001. Of the 149, 65 patients were treated with HDR using 192 iridium (192Ir), and 84 patients were treated with LDR using 103 palladium (103Pd). The majority of patients had clinical stage II, T1c or T2a disease, pretreatment prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml and Gleason score 6 or less. Neoadjuvant hormones were used in 36% of patients for gland volume optimization. All treatments were performed transperineally with trans-rectal ultrasound guidance and fluoroscopy for verification of needle/seed positions. The HDR dose was 38 Gy delivered in 4 fractions, 2 times daily during 2 days. The LDR dose was 120 Gy. Acute and chronic toxicities were scored according to the Common Toxicity Criteria scale, version 2.0. RESULTS: Median followup for all patients was 35 months. The 2 treatment groups were well-balanced with respect to age, clinical stage, prostate specific antigen, Gleason score, use of neoadjuvant hormones, pretreatment genitourinary symptoms, implanted gland volume and length of followup. Biochemical control (American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition) was 97% and 98% for LDR and HDR, respectively. HDR brachytherapy alone was associated with decreased acute rates of grade 1 to 3 dysuria (67% versus 36%, p <0.001), urinary frequency/urgency (92% versus 54%, p <0.001) and rectal pain (20% versus 6%, p = 0.017). These differences remained significant when patients who received prior hormonal therapy were excluded from analysis. Selected chronic toxicities were also decreased with HDR, including long-term urinary frequency and urgency, 32% (HDR) vs 56% (103Pd), p = 0.004. There were no differences in the rates of chronic dysuria, urinary incontinence, retention or hematuria. Urethral stricture rates were 8% in the HDR alone group vs 3% for 103 Pd (p = 0.177). The 3-year actuarial impotence rate was 45% for the LDR group and only 16% for HDR. The majority of complications were grade 1. No grade 4 toxicities were encountered in either group. HDR decreased treatment cost by 19%. CONCLUSIONS: While HDR (192 iridium) and LDR (103Pd) monotherapy maintained the same biochemical control, the use of HDR brachytherapy as monotherapy was associated with decreased rates of acute urinary frequency, urgency, dysuria and rectal pain compared to LDR. Chronic urinary frequency, urgency and grade 2 rectal toxicities were also decreased with HDR. A dramatic decrease (66%) was noted in the rate of sexual impotency with HDR. In addition, patients treated with HDR did not remain radioactive after treatment. There was a decrease in cost from not purchasing seeds per patient. HDR monotherapy as prostate cancer treatment resulted in the same biochemical control with much lower toxicity. It is an accepted, convenient, cost-effective method of prostate brachytherapy for patients with favorable risk prostate cancer.