Primary Care Physician and Urologist Perspectives on Optimizing Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We conducted a study to understand primary care physician (PCP) and urologist perspectives on determinants of active surveillance care delivery for men with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, semistructured, virtual interviews with a purposive sample of 19 PCPs and 15 urologists between June 2020 and March 2021. We used the behavioral theory-informed Theoretical Domains Framework to understand barriers to and facilitators of active surveillance care delivery. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded into framework domains and constructs by 3 independent coders. Participant recruitment continued until data saturation by group. RESULTS: Our study included 19 PCPs (9 female; 4 in community practices, 15 in academic medical centers) and 15 urologists (3 female; 5 in private practice, 3 in academic medical centers). The most commonly reported Theoretical Domains Framework domains affecting active surveillance care were (1) knowledge and (2) environmental context and resources. Although urologists were knowledgeable about active surveillance, PCPs mentioned limitations in their understanding of active surveillance (eg, what follow-up entails). Both groups noted the importance of an informed patient, especially how a patient's understanding of active surveillance facilitates their receipt of recommended follow-up. Physicians viewed patient loss to follow-up as a barrier, but identified a favorable organizational culture/climate (eg, good communication between physicians) as a facilitator. CONCLUSIONS: With patients increasingly involving their PCPs in their cancer care, our study presents factors both PCPs and urologists perceive (or identify) as affecting optimal active surveillance care delivery. We provide insights that can help inform multilevel supportive interventions for patients, physicians, and organizations to ensure the success of active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer.

Evaluation of non-research payments from pharmaceutical companies to urologists in Japan between 2016 and 2019.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the magnitude and trends in personal payments from pharmaceutical companies to urologists in Japan. METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined the personal payments made to urologists by the major pharmaceutical companies in Japan between 2016 and 2019. Descriptive analyses were performed on the payment data. All urologists board-certified by the Japanese Urological Association as of March 2022 were included in this study. Trends in personal payments were assessed using the population-averaged generalized estimating equations with panel data of per-physician personal payments. RESULTS: Among 7016 active board-certified urologists, 4962 (70.7%) accepted 53,070 payments totaling $36,424,239 for reimbursement of lecturing, writing, and consulting compensations from 66 pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. The median payments per urologist receiving payments were $1714 [interquartile range(IQR): $700-$4583] in payment amounts and 4.0 (IQR: 2.0-10.0) in the number of payments. Only 1%, 5%, 10%, and 25% of top-paid urologists accepted 36.2%, 64.8%, 75.8%, and 90.1% of overall payments respectively. The payments per urologist and the number of payment contracts had annually increased over this period by 4.1% (95% CI: 2.3%-6.0%, p < 0.001) and 2.4% (95% CI: 1.2%-3.7%, p < 0.001), but there was no significant change in the number of urologists receiving payments, with a relative average annual change of 0.7% (95% CI: -0.15%-1.6%, p = 0.10) between 2016 and 2019. CONCLUSION: Most urologists received personal payments for lecturing, consulting, and writing compensations from pharmaceutical companies in Japan. The payments from pharmaceutical companies had been increasing over the 4-year period. These payments were substantially concentrated on a small number of urologists.

A national questionnaire survey of Japanese urologists on treatment perspectives for elderly prostate cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study conducted a national questionnaire survey of Japanese urologists from a treatment perspective for older patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to 922 teaching hospitals of the Japanese Urological Association. Questionnaire items included years of urologist experience, gender, workplace, treatment equipment owned, daily specialty practice area, urological cancer specialty, treatment reference items for older adults, upper age limit for radical treatment, medication, and two hypothetical cases of Gleason grade group 2 prostate cancer with or without oligometastasis. RESULTS: In total, 1732 questionnaires were analyzed, with responses evenly distributed across all age groups. Workplaces included general hospitals (49.4%), university hospitals (40.3%), and cancer centers (4.2%). Performance status was the most frequently mentioned treatment-related item, followed by comorbidities and cognitive function. In addition, geriatric assessment was used by only 13.3% of respondents. No upper age limit was found for total prostatectomy, brachytherapy, and external beam radiation. Anti-androgens, androgen receptor-axis-targeted agents, chemotherapy, poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors, and immune-checkpoint inhibitors were selected by 6.8%, 35.6%, 47.3%, 89%, 62.8%, 24.7%, 41.9%, and 41.7% of the respondents, respectively. Response rates for administration of hormone therapy for hypothetical cases of Gleason grade group 2 prostate cancer with or without oligometastases were 96.8% and 61.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Less than 15% of urologists used geriatric assessments. Several responded that they would set age limits for highly invasive radical and systemic therapies.

From Diagnosis to Treatment: Comprehensive Care by Reproductive Urologists in Assisted Reproductive Technology.

Infertility is a global health concern, with male factors playing an especially large role. Unfortunately, however, the contributions made by reproductive urologists in managing male infertility under assisted reproductive technology (ART) often go undervalued. This narrative review highlights the important role played by reproductive urologists in diagnosing and treating male infertility as well as any barriers they face when providing services. This manuscript presents a comprehensive review of reproductive urologists' role in managing male infertility, outlining their expertise in diagnosing and managing male infertility as well as reversible causes and performing surgical techniques such as sperm retrieval. This manuscript investigates the barriers limiting urologist involvement such as limited availability, awareness among healthcare professionals, and financial constraints. This study highlights a decrease in male fertility due to lifestyle factors like sedentary behavior, obesity, and substance abuse. It stresses the significance of conducting an evaluation process involving both male and female partners to identify any underlying factors contributing to infertility and to identify patients who do not require any interventions beyond ART. We conclude that engaging urologists more effectively in infertility management is key to optimizing fertility outcomes among couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology treatments and requires greater education among healthcare providers regarding the role urologists and lifestyle factors that could have an effect on male fertility.

Exploring Variation in the Receipt of Recommended Active Surveillance for Men with Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer do not receive all the recommended testing. Reasons for variation in receipt are unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We combined prospective registry data from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, a collaborative of 46 academic and community urology practices across Michigan, with insurance claims from 2014 to 2018 for men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer. We defined receipt of recommended surveillance according to the collaborative's low-intensity criteria as: annual prostate specific antigen testing and either magnetic resonance imaging or prostate biopsy every 3 years. We assessed receipt of recommended surveillance among men with ≥36 months of followup (246). We conducted multilevel analyses to examine the influence of the urologist, urologist and primary care provider visits, and patient demographic and clinical factors on variation in receipt. RESULTS: During 3 years of active surveillance, just over half of men (56.5%) received all recommended surveillance testing (69.9% annual prostate specific antigen testing, 72.8% magnetic resonance imaging/biopsy). We found 19% of the variation in receipt was attributed to individual urologists. While increasing provider visits were not significantly associated with receipt, older men were less likely to receive magnetic resonance imaging/biopsy (≥75 vs <55 years, adjusted odds ratio 0.07; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer did not receive all recommended surveillance. While urologists substantially influenced receipt of recommended testing, exploring how to leverage patients and their visits with their primary care providers to positively influence receipt appears warranted.

Does the urologist keep a central place in the medical information delivered to patients?

INTRODUCTION: Although urologists play an essential role in informing patients, with the ever-increasing use of modern media, a wealth of information sources is now available. The aim of this study was to identify the different sources of information available to urology patients, assess the scale of use of the internet and social networks in this group, and establish the profile of patients for whom a high level of information is crucial. MATERIALS: A questionnaire was given to 500 patients consulting the urology department of a university hospital. RESULTS: Out of the 500 questionnaires, 372 were analysable; the average age of respondents was 62.9years; 73% were men; 66.9% said they used the internet; 57% had received an explanatory document such as an French Urology Association information leaflet, 32.5% had received information from the paramedical team, 28.2% from their regular doctor, 28.2% from health-related websites and 5.9% from the website developed by the French Urology Association. Although 80.3% of patients thought that information received from the urologist was satisfactory, 53.2% of patients would like to receive more information. We did not identify any factors allowing us to determine the typical profile of patients seeking more information. CONCLUSION: Urologists seem to retain their central role in informing patients, but almost half of patients were still seeking additional information after their urology consultation. The increasing use of the internet should encourage urologists to use these new media resources to optimise the information supplied to patients.

Real-World Practice Patterns Favor Minimally Invasive Methods over Ureteral Reconstruction in the Initial Treatment of Severe Blunt Ureteral Trauma: A National Trauma Data Bank Analysis.

PURPOSE: We utilized the National Trauma Data Bank® database to report practice patterns in managing blunt traumatic ureteral injuries and assess the consistency with current guidelines/literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2007 and 2016 all National Trauma Data Bank database patients with blunt traumatic ureteral injuries were identified using ICD-9 and Abbreviated Injury Scale codes. Penetrating trauma and missing data were excluded. Patients were unstable if Injury Severity Score was above 15 or systolic blood pressure was 90 mmHg or less. Abbreviated Injury Scale severity score 2 or less was a low severity ureteral injury. Treatment options were minimally invasive methods or ureteral reconstruction. Patients who underwent laparotomy for associated injuries were identified. Chi-square, Fisher exact or 2-tailed t-test was utilized to evaluate differences. Univariable logistic regression identified independent variables that favored a specific treatment. RESULTS: A total of 147 blunt traumatic ureteral injuries were used for analysis. Of the patients 98 (66.7%) were unstable and 51 (34.7%) had a high severity ureteral injury. Patients with low and high severity ureteral injuries were treated more frequently with minimally invasive methods over ureteral reconstruction. Laparotomy for associated injuries resulted in a higher frequency of ureteral reconstruction (15 of 55, 27.3%) vs laparotomy for ureteral reconstruction alone (9 of 55, 16.4%; p=0.0012). On univariable analysis patients who underwent exploratory laparotomy or underwent an associated injury repair that facilitated retroperitoneal exploration had significantly higher odds of receiving ureteral reconstruction over minimally invasive methods. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to guidelines, practice patterns favor treating severe blunt traumatic ureteral injuries with minimally invasive methods over ureteral reconstruction. Ureteral reconstruction is favored when patients undergo laparotomy for associated injuries.

Challenges in Urology during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global health threat. This disease has brought about huge changes in the priorities of medical and surgical procedures. This short review article summarizes several test methods for COVID-19 that are currently being used or under development. This paper also introduces the corresponding changes in the diagnosis and treatment of urological diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic. We further discuss the potential impacts of the pandemic on urology, including the outpatient setting, clinical work, teaching, and research.

Practice Patterns of Korean Urologists Regarding Positive Surgical Margins after Radical Prostatectomy: a Survey and Narrative Review.

BACKGROUND: There is no clear consensus on the optimal treatment with curative intent for patients with positive surgical margins (PSMs) following radical prostatectomy (RP). The aim of this study was to investigate the perceptions and treatment patterns of Korean urologists regarding the resection margin after RP. METHODS: A preliminary questionnaire was prepared by analyzing various studies on resection margins after RP. Eight experienced urologists finalized the 10-item questionnaire. In July 2019, the final questionnaire was delivered via e-mail to 105 urologists in Korea who specialize in urinary cancers. RESULTS: We received replies from 91 of the 105 urologists (86.7%) in our sample population. Among them, 41 respondents (45.1%) had performed more than 300 RPs and 22 (24.2%) had completed 500 or more RPs. In the question about whether they usually performed an additional biopsy beyond the main specimen, to get information about surgical margin invasion during surgery, the main opinion was that if no residual cancer was suspected, it was not performed (74.7%). For PSMs, the Gleason score of the positive site (49.5%) was judged to be a more important prognostic factor than the margin location (18.7%), multifocality (14.3%), or margin length (17.6%). In cases with PSMs after surgery, the prevailing opinion on follow-up was to measure and monitor prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels rather than to begin immediate treatment (68.1%). Many respondents said that they considered postoperative radiologic examinations when PSA was elevated (72.2%), rather than regularly (24.4%). When patients had PSMs without extracapsular extension (pT2R1) or a negative surgical margin with extracapsular extension (pT3aR0), the response 'does not make a difference in treatment policy' prevailed at 65.9%. Even in patients at high risk of PSMs on preoperative radiologic screening, 84.6% of the respondents said that they did not perform neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. Most respondents (75.8%) indicated that they avoided nerve-sparing RP in cases with a high risk of PSMs, but 25.7% said that they had tried nerve-sparing surgery. Additional analyses showed that urologists who had performed 300 or more prostatectomies tended to attempt more nerve-sparing procedures in patients with a high risk of PSMs than less experienced surgeons (36.6% vs. 14.0%; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: The most common response was to monitor PSA levels without recommending any additional treatment when PSMs were found after RP. Through this questionnaire, we found that the perceptions and treatment patterns of Korean urologists differed considerably according to RP resection margin status. Refined research and standard practice guidelines are needed.

Patient preference for urologist gender.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the factors associated with patients preferring the gender of their treating urologist in various clinical settings. METHODS: A total of 400 urology outpatients participated in a structured interview on the nature of their presenting complaint, perception of their complaint and the preference for the gender of their urologist in four specific scenarios of consultation, physical examination, office-based procedure and surgery. Patients who expressed a gender preference received follow-up telephone calls. RESULTS: A gender preference was expressed by 63 (15.8%), 108 (27.0%), 89 (22.3%) and 29 (7.3%) patients for the scenarios of consultation, physical examination, office-based procedure and surgery, respectively. Patients were more likely to have a preference if they were female or had a condition they considered embarrassing, with most preferences being for a gender-concordant urologist. Reasons included a previous negative experience and perceived gender-specific treatment styles. Patients who subsequently saw a doctor of the opposite gender to their preference were more likely to change their mind if their clinical interaction was positive. CONCLUSIONS: Female patients, those with a perceived embarrassing condition and patients undergoing examination or office-based procedures are more likely to have a gender preference for their urologist, with a subsequent positive experience leading to patients discarding pre-existing preferences. With improved understanding of how patient characteristics, perception of their condition and previous experiences can affect their choices in various clinical situations, urologists can better meet patient expectations and address barriers to healthcare in urology.

Residents and patients benefit from surgical simulation on a live porcine model, could we consider it as ethical?

INTRODUCTION: The objective was to evaluate, by self-questionnaire, the feeling of participants in surgical training sessions on a live porcine model. METHODS: A computerized questionnaire (GoogleForm ©) was sent to the members of the French Association of Urologists-in-Training (AFUF) (fellows and residents). Only questionnaires from Urologists-in-training who had participated in surgical training sessions were included. The sessions consisted of performing surgeries such as laparoscopic nephrectomies or laparoscopic cystectomies. RESULTS: Overall, 198 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 36.4% (72/198) of the participants were fellows and 63.6% (126/198) were residents. According to the participants, the main interest of sessions was to be able to train for emergency situations. A total of 79.8% (158/198) of the participants wanted surgical simulation to become compulsory. To their opinion, the main advantage of surgical simulation on a live porcine model was: technical progress in 87.4% (173/198) of cases. A total of 13.1% (26/198) of the participants found it was unethical to perform the first technical procedures on live animal models. A total of 65.7% (130/198) of the participants considered that there is currently no system of substitution. CONCLUSION: For the participants, surgical training on a live porcine model allows technical progress while training for serious emergency situations. Surgeons and patients could benefit from this risk-free mock surgical scenario. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Adherence and out-of-pocket costs among Medicare beneficiaries who are prescribed oral targeted therapies for advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone and enzalutamide are high-cost oral therapies that increasingly are used to treat patients with advanced prostate cancer; these agents carry the potential for significant financial consequences to patients. In the current study, the authors investigated coping and material measures of the financial hardship of these therapies among patients with Medicare Part D coverage. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective cohort study on a 20% sample of Medicare Part D enrollees who underwent treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide between July 2013 and June 2015. The authors described the variability in adherence rates and out-of-pocket payments among hospital referral regions in the first 6 months of therapy and determined whether adherence and out-of-pocket payments were associated with patient factors and the socioeconomic characteristics of where a patient was treated. RESULTS: There were 4153 patients who filled abiraterone or enzalutamide prescriptions through Medicare Part D in 228 hospital referral regions. The mean adherence rate was 75%. The median monthly out-of-pocket payment for abiraterone and enzalutamide was $706 (range, $0-$3505). After multilevel, multivariable adjustment for patient and regional factors, adherence was found to be lower in patients who were older (69% for patients aged ≥85 years vs 76% for patients aged <70 years; P < .01) and in those with low-income subsidies (69% in those with a subsidy vs 76% in those without a subsidy; P < .01). Both Hispanic ethnicity and living in a hospital referral region with a higher percentage of Hispanic beneficiaries were found to be independently associated with higher out-of-pocket payments for abiraterone and enzalutamide. CONCLUSIONS: There were substantial variations in the adherence rate and out-of-pocket payments among Medicare Part D beneficiaries who were prescribed abiraterone and enzalutamide. Sociodemographic patient and regional factors were found to be associated with both adherence and out-of-pocket payments.

Re-evaluation of birth trends and pregnancy complications among female urologists: Have we made any progress?

AIMS: Females are becoming surgeons at ever-increasing rates and doing so while many have or wish to have children. This study follows up on a 2007 effort to study the problems and conditions such women faced. We ask here if these challenges are different after a decade that included changes in working rules. METHODS: A survey was sent to all female American Board of Urology diplomates. Birth trends, pregnancy complications, infertility service requirements, and satisfaction were evaluated in respondents (n = 183) and compared to the previous survey of female urologists who completed residency before August 2007 as well as Center for Disease Control data. RESULTS: Seventy-six physicians completed the survey who were residents before 2007, while 107 replied who experienced residency after. The first group's average age was 50.2 and the second's 38.3. Overall, these women gave birth 6 to 7 years later than the US mean. Complications did not decrease, infertility occurred at similar levels, and both were higher than US norms. Length of maternity leave correlated with respondents' level of overall satisfaction. The most positive responses came from those with more than 8 weeks off (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Women practicing in urology gave birth later, had greater fertility issues, used assisted reproductive technology (ART) more and reported a higher level of at least one complication during pregnancy than American women overall. Changes in hours and awareness of this issue have not made giving birth a healthier event for these physicians. Further investigation into factors other than work hours is needed.

Survey of prostate biopsy practices among urologists in Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Prostate biopsy (PB) is one of the most commonly performed procedures by urologists in our practice. It is the confirmatory diagnosis of the most common malignancy in elderly men. Currently, there is no national guideline on PB in Nigeria; hence, practices vary among urologists and institutions. The sudy aim was to highlight the various PB practices among Nigerian urologists with a view to determining the gap between our practice and evidenced-based global practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional study which utilised self-administered questionnaires distributed among urologists who participated at the Nigerian Association of Urological Surgeons' (NAUS) Conference in Lagos in 2014. RESULTS: The total number of respondents was 102, distributed across 26 states and various levels of the hospital. All respondents stated that they always perform biopsy if prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was >10 ng/ml. Seventy-nine (77.5%) respondents routinely rely on PSA kinetics in taking a decision on PB. About four-fifth routinely discontinue aspirin before the biopsy. All respondents administer antibiotics with a preference for the parenteral route in 74.5%. Anaesthesia employed for PB included, regional by 52 respondents (50.9%), local by 39 respondents (38.2%), and general by 1 respondent (1.0%), respectively. Transrectal route was preferred by 96 (94.1%). Majority (74.6%) still practice digitally-guided biopsy, whereas 25.4% perform the transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. The number of cores commonly taken for systematic technique ranges from 6 to 18. About a quarter (25.5%) had personal or institutional publication (s) on PB. CONCLUSION: PB practice vary among Nigerian urologists. The variability depends on individual training, preference and available institutional facilities. We recommend that NAUS should provide a guideline for the practices of PB in Nigeria.

Interdisciplinary Comparison of PADUA and R.E.N.A.L. Scoring Systems for Prediction of Conversion to Nephrectomy in Patients with Renal Mass Scheduled for Nephron Sparing Surgery.

PURPOSE: We examined interdisciplinary variability using 2 established preoperative nephrometry scores to predict conversion to nephrectomy in patients with a renal mass who were scheduled for partial nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 229 consecutive candidates for partial nephrectomy were included in this study at a single institution between January 2013 and May 2017. Patient, tumor and treatment characteristics were assessed. The PADUA (preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical) score and the R.E.N.A.L. (radius, exophytic/endophytic, nearness of tumor to collecting system or sinus, anterior/posterior, location relative to polar lines) score were independently calculated by board certified radiologists and urological residents using computerized tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Statistical analyses were done with the κ statistic, ROC curves, and univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Partial nephrectomy was performed in 198 of the 229 cases (86.5%) while 31 (13.5%) were converted to nephrectomy. The prevalent tumor stage was pT1a, noted in 94 of the 229 cases (41.1%), and the predominant histological entity was clear cell carcinoma, found in 128 (55.9%). Radiologist and urologist interdisciplinary comparison of the PADUA and R.E.N.A.L. scores revealed a κ of 0.40 and 0.56, respectively. ROC curve analyses demonstrated a higher AUC predicting conversion to nephrectomy using the PADUA score by the urologist and the radiologist (0.79 and 0.782) compared to that of the R.E.N.A.L. score (0.731 and 0.766, respectively). Using a cutoff of 10 or greater the PADUA score determined by the urologist had 81% sensitivity and 71% specificity, and it was independently associated with conversion to nephrectomy (OR 10.98, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate higher prediction of conversion to nephrectomy when using the PADUA score compared to the R.E.N.A.L. score. Calculation of the PADUA and the R.E.N.A.L. score by physicians without specialized radiological training is feasible and might achieve comparable results to predict conversion to nephrectomy compared to the gold standard provided by board certified radiologists. This information is helpful if nephrometry scores are not regularly included in the radiology report.

Continuation rates of alpha-blockers mono-therapy in adult men, prescribed by urologists or general practitioners: a pharmacy-based study.

PURPOSE: α-Blockers are commonly used for the treatment of male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). The Dutch GP guideline on male LUTS contains an advice to discontinue treatment after 3-6 months of successful treatment. The guideline for urologists does not support this advice. It is unclear if these differences lead to other patterns of (dis)continuation of α-blockers. We aim to study continuation rates of α-blockers, prescribed by a urologist or a general practitioner (GP), and to predict discontinuation after 1 year. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective inception cohort study on prescription patterns of α-blockers among Dutch men between 2006 and 2014, using the IADB.nl pharmacy prescription database from the University of Groningen. We selected men aged 30 years or older with a first α-blocker prescription between 2006 and 2013, and analysed continuation of prescriptions. RESULTS: The database included 12,191 individual patients with at least one α-blocker prescriptions from a urologist (44.5%) or a GP (55.5%). The median treatment period for patients who started in the GPs office was 210 days, compared to 150 days for patients with a prescription from a urologist. Of all patients, 60.3% (GP prescriptions) and 66.1% (urologists' prescriptions) had discontinued treatment (Chi-square p < 0.001). Discontinuation rates were age dependent with higher rates in the youngest age groups. CONCLUSION: In this study, the discontinuation rate 1 year after the initiation of treatment was high. Although Dutch GP's and urologist's guidelines differ with respect to a discontinuation advice, we could not find clinically relevant difference in (temporary) discontinuation rates.

A Worldwide Survey on Peyronie's Disease Surgical Practice Patterns Among Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Despite published guidelines on Peyronie's disease (PD), there are limited data on actual surgical practice among surgeons. AIM: To evaluate the surgical practice patterns in PD among surgeons from different continents and members of various sexual medicine societies. METHODS: An anonymous survey on various pre-, intra-, and postoperative aspects of PD surgical care was distributed in printed format during International Society of Sexual Medicine meetings and as an online survey to International Society of Sexual Medicine members. OUTCOMES: 390 surgeons responded to the survey, with great variations in pre-, intra-, and postoperative strategies in PD surgical care. RESULTS: Most surgeons performed fewer than 10 penile plications and 10 graft surgeries per year. Modified Nesbit plication was the preferred option by most surgeons. Surgeons who received fellowship training were more likely to perform autologous than allograft surgery (odds ratio = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.13-2.82, P = .01). The use of penile color duplex ultrasound was inconsistently performed, with higher-volume surgeons (ie, >20 cases operated a year) more likely to use this diagnostic modality (odds ratio = 70.18, 95% CI = 20.99-234.6, P < .001). Most surgeons agreed that surgical intervention should be performed only after a 6-month history of stable penile curvature, although higher-volume surgeons were more inclined to perform surgery sooner (P = .08). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Although it is unknown whether variations in PD surgery significantly affect clinical outcome and patient satisfaction rate, this worldwide survey study has the potential to assist in the formation of a new practice guideline and serve as the basis for future prospective multinational studies. STRENGTH AND LIMITATIONS: This is one of the largest surveys on PD practice and, to our knowledge, the only survey conducted across various sexual medicine societies, with the inclusion of many high-volume and experienced PD surgeons. This also is the 1st study to comprehensively evaluate many key aspects in surgical practice patterns for PD. However, the categorization on the questionnaire used in this survey was not designed to allow for direct comparison given the possibility of some surgeons with dual society memberships, reporting biases, large CIs in outcomes, different patient demographics, and cultural acceptance. CONCLUSION: There is great variation in surgical practice patterns in PD management, including key differences among surgeons across different continents and sexual medicine societies. Chung E, Wang R, Ralph D, et al. A Worldwide Survey on Peyronie's Disease Surgical Practice Patterns Among Surgeons. J Sex Med 2018;15:568-575.

Interrater Reliability in Pediatric Urodynamic Tracings: A Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: Urodynamic studies are crucial to neuropathic bladder management and they often determine surgical intervention. However, current evidence indicates that interpretations show poor agreement across physicians. We sought to determine the interrater reliability of urodynamic interpretation in our practice. We hypothesized that there would be strong correlation among pediatric urologists of similar training in a single academic practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with neuropathic bladder who underwent urodynamics at our institution between 2014 and 2015. An anonymous electronic survey (phase I) was developed with 20 clinical scenarios, each containing a brief history, a single urodynamic tracing and an accompanying fluoroscopic image. Faculty members assessed each tracing by an online instrument developed using urodynamic reports and published literature. The primary outcome was statistical correlation across raters as measured by the Spearman correlation coefficient. In a followup study (phase II) we investigated the sources of variability in urodynamic interpretations. RESULTS: Six faculty members completed the study with a response rate of 100%. In comparing urodynamic interpretation across raters, the faculty demonstrated a weak to strong correlation (rs 0.39-0.61, p <0.001). A strong correlation was found for fluoroscopic and clinical decision making variables, while electromyography synergy and detrusor overactivity demonstrated weaker correlation across physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty interpretations of urodynamic tracings showed only moderate agreement despite a close working relationship and similar training at a single institution. Variability in interpretation can strongly impact patient treatment. Therefore, further work is needed to standardize the reporting and interpretation of urodynamic studies to optimize patient care.

Comprehensive Qualitative Assessment of Urethral Stricture Disease: Toward the Development of a Patient Centered Outcome Measure.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to report what patients considered to be the most important symptoms, functions and impacts of urethral stricture disease. Patient and physician perspectives were correlated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were involved at each step of patient reported outcome measure development. We performed 1) qualitative semistructured concept elicitation interviews, 2) cognitive interviews, 3) prioritization interviews and 4) item prioritization by patients in regard to bother. A total of 22 reconstructive urologists ranked the items in regard to making treatment decisions. RESULTS: Patient qualitative interviews were done until no new information was gained (16 interviews) to reach concept saturation. A total of 40 items were generated from interview data. Urinary items predominated over sexually related content (34 vs 6). A review of published patient reported outcome measures revealed 10 legacy items that were not derived from the qualitative interviews. Two iterative rounds of cognitive interviews were performed in a separate cohort of 5 and 4 patients, respectively, to assess patient comprehension. Item prioritization was done in a separate cohort of 20 patients. The final instrument for validation included 31 items, of which 27 were new and 4 were legacy items. For the top 15 ranked items there was 53% agreement between patients and physicians. Patients were most worried about inability to urinate and urinary dribbling. CONCLUSIONS: We found multiple patient generated concepts related to urinary and sexual impact, function and symptoms. Patients and clinicians had a low agreement rate regarding item importance.