Faculty Bibliography

In this editorial, we discuss the relationship between meat consumption and many major urological conditions (eg, prostate cancer, kidney stones, urinary tract infections) and how dietary choices could simultaneously benefit genitourinary health and the environment, which in turn will have downstream impacts on public health.

BACKGROUND:Female reproductive organ-sparing (ROS) and nerve-sparing radical cystectomy (RC) techniques have been shown to be oncologically safe and to improve sexual function outcomes among select patients with organ-confined disease. We sought to characterize practice patterns regarding female ROS and nerve-sparing RC among US urologists. PATIENTS AND METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional survey of members of the Society of Urologic Oncology to assess provider-reported frequency of ROS and nerve-sparing RC in premenopausal and postmenopausal patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer that failed intravesical therapy or clinically localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer. RESULTS:Among 101 urologists, 80 (79.2%) reported that they routinely resect the uterus/cervix, 68 (67.3%) the neurovascular bundle, 49 (48.5%) the ovaries, and 19 (18.8%) a portion of the vagina when performing RC in premenopausal patients with organ-confined disease. When asked about changes to approach in postmenopausal patients, 71 participants (70.3%) reported that they were less likely to spare the uterus/cervix, 44 (43.6%) were less likely to spare the neurovascular bundle, 70 (69.3%) were less likely to spare the ovaries, and 23 (22.8%) were less likely to spare a portion of the vagina. CONCLUSION:We identified significant gaps in adoption of female ROS and nerve-sparing RC techniques for patients with organ-confined disease, despite evidence that ROS and nerve-sparing techniques are oncologically safe and can optimize functional outcomes in select patients. Future efforts should improve provider training in and education about ROS and nerve-sparing RC to improve postoperative outcomes among female patients.

BACKGROUND:Prostate cancer (PCa) and its treatments can have a significant negative impact on the sexual health of survivors and couples, but few studies have specifically examined the impact of PCa-related sexual dysfunction on female partners of survivors. AIM:Our objective was to perform a qualitative study to comprehensively characterize female partners' perceptions of the implications of PCa on their sex lives, as well as partners' sexual health concerns and unmet needs. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews about sexual health and unmet needs with female partners of PCa survivors recruited from multiple clinical locations and support groups for PCa caregivers from September 2021 to March 2022. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and independently coded. Participants were recruited until thematic saturation was achieved. OUTCOMES:Outcomes of this study were female partner sexual health concerns and unmet needs. RESULTS:Among 12 participants, the median age was 65 (range 53 to 81) years, 9 were White, the median time since their partner's PCa diagnosis was 2.25 years (range 11 months to 20 years), and a majority reported that their partner had undergone radical prostatectomy, radiation, and/or hormonal therapy. Major emergent themes pertained to the significant impact of age- and PCa-related sexual dysfunction on female sexual quality of life, the dyadic nature of sexual dysfunction and recovery, the role of the partner in coping with and adjusting to sexual dysfunction, difficulties communicating about sexual dysfunction in an intimate relationship, a lack of physician-led sexual health counseling and support, and the benefit of peer interactions and proactive information seeking in addressing unmet sexual health needs. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:Future efforts should continue to explore the impact of PCa on partner sexual health and address unmet needs through sexual health education and support. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS:In this study, we identified female partners' sexual health concerns both related to and independent of PCa survivor sexual health. Limitations include exclusion of male partners of survivors and potential responder bias, as partners who agreed to participate may have experienced more sexual health concerns. CONCLUSION:We found that female partners experience PCa-related sexual dysfunction as a couple's disease, grief due to age- and PCa-related sexual losses, and a lack of physician-led sexual health counseling and information. Our results highlight the importance of including partners of PCa survivors in the sexual recovery process and of developing sexual care programs to address partners' unmet sexual health needs.

BACKGROUND:The prevalence of sleep disturbances among prostate cancer (PCa) survivors, and extent of urologist involvement in sleep care are not well-studied. METHODS:PCa survivors (n = 167) and urologists (n = 145) were surveyed about sleep disturbances and survivorship care practices. RESULTS:Most PCa survivors had sleep disturbances, including 50.9% with poor sleep quality, 18.0% with clinical/severe insomnia, and 36.5% at high-risk for sleep apnea. Few urologists routinely screened for sleep disturbances, as recommended in national cancer survivorship guidelines. CONCLUSIONS:Optimal PCa survivorship care should incorporate screening for sleep disturbances, addressing comorbid factors affecting sleep and referring to sleep medicine when appropriate.

BACKGROUND:Prostate cancer (PCa) and its treatment can have significant and pervasive sexual side effects for patients and their partners; however, partner needs are not well understood, and most resources do not incorporate partner priorities. AIM/OBJECTIVE:Our objective was to perform a qualitative study to identify unmet sexual needs of patients and female partners after PCa diagnosis. METHODS:We conducted a qualitative study of posts to the Inspire Us TOO Prostate Cancer Online Support and Discussion Community. Overall, 6,193 posts were identified in the Sexual Health & Intimacy forum of the community, of which 661 posts were from female authors. A random sample of 10% (n = 66) of posts from female partners and an equal number of randomly selected posts from male patients were analyzed. OUTCOMES/RESULTS:We assessed sexual health themes among patients and female partners. RESULTS:Multiple themes emerged that were unique to female partners of PCa survivors. These included expanding the sexual repertoire, feeling invisible, contextualizing sexual intimacy within the broader picture of survival, and addressing relationship concerns. Patients and their partners also shared common sexual health themes, including coming to terms with changes in sexual function and frustration with clinicians. Both patients and their partners use online health communities to get support and share their experiences with sexual recovery and use of sexual aids. Psychosocial treatments were infrequently mentioned, and may be particularly helpful to address partner concerns. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:A common concern for couples was not receiving sufficient information from healthcare providers regarding sexual side effects from PCa and its treatment. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS/UNASSIGNED:Strengths of the study include leveraging a unique data source to address an understudied topic of sexual health concerns among partners after PCa diagnosis. However, members of an online community may not be representative of all couples facing PCa. Also, this analysis is limited to female partners of patients with PCa, and further study is underway to examine the sexual health needs among gay and bisexual couples. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Both patients and female partners have many unmet sexual health needs during PCa survivorship, and designing interventions to incorporate partner perspectives may improve the management of sexual side effects of PCa for couples.

BACKGROUND:Plant-based diets are increasingly popular and have many well-established benefits for health and environmental sustainability. Our objective was to perform a systematic review of plant-based diets and prostate cancer. METHODS:We performed a systematic database and citation search in February 2022. Studies were included if they reported primary data on plant-based dietary patterns (i.e., vegan, vegetarian, plant-based) and incidence among at-risk men for prostate cancer, or oncologic, general health/nutrition, or quality of life outcomes among patients with prostate cancer or caregivers. RESULTS:A total of 32 publications were eligible for the qualitative synthesis, representing 5 interventional and 11 observational studies. Interventional studies primarily focused on lifestyle modification including plant-based diets for men on active surveillance for localized prostate cancer or with biochemical recurrence after treatment, showing improvements in short-term oncologic outcomes alongside improvements in general health and nutrition. Observational studies primarily focused on prostate cancer risk, showing either protective or null associations for plant-based dietary patterns. Studies of the vegan diet consistently showed favorable associations with risk and/or outcomes. Gaps in the current literature include impact for long-term disease-specific outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Interventional studies showed generally favorable results of lifestyle modifications incorporating a plant-based diet with prostate cancer outcomes as well as improvements in nutrition and general health. Observational studies demonstrated either a lower risk of prostate cancer or no significant difference. These results are encouraging in light of the many benefits of plant-based diets for overall health, as well as environmental sustainability and animal welfare.

Introduction: Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment have a significant impact on sexual function and quality of life. Although prostate cancer is often called a "couples disease," there is limited research on the needs of partners who are affected by the patient's sexual dysfunction.
Objective(s): The objective of our study was to compare the sexual health concerns and unmet needs of patients with prostate cancer and partners using real-world data from an online prostate cancer community.
Method(s): We performed a mixed-methods analysis of data from the Inspire UsTOO Prostate Cancer Online Support & Discussion Community. This online health community about prostate cancer has more than 30,000 members, including both patients and partners. Through a data use agreement, we obtained anonymized text from public postings to the Sexual Health & Intimacy Forum on this community. Quantitative and qualitative data were examined from a random sample of 10% of the posts by women about sexual health (n=66), and were compared to an equal number of randomly selected posts by men.
Result(s): Among 6193 posts about sexual health and intimacy in prostate cancer, 661 (11%) were by female contributors. Of posts with cancer treatment details, surgery was the most common treatment discussed followed by hormonal therapy. Erectile dysfunction was the most common sexual complaint for both men and women. Posts by women were most likely to discuss problems with communication, relationship conflict, their partner's loss of libido, and the importance of intimacy. Common themes of the posts included coping with a "new normal" in their relationship, lack of access to and expense of erectile aids, and insufficient information and support from clinicians surrounding sexual recovery. A greater proportion of female posts conveyed emotion compared to male posts. The most common positive emotions were satisfaction and hope; while the most common negative emotions were frustration and loss of familiar sexual interaction. Although many posts discussed a variety of medical and surgical therapies for sexual recovery, very few discussed counseling or other psychosocial treatments.
Conclusion(s): Patients with prostate cancer and their partners experience a wide range of sexual health issues related to prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Online communities are widely used to give and receive peer-to-peer advice and support during sexual recovery. These findings highlight an unmet need for more extensive education and support surrounding sexual health for couples during the prostate cancer journey. Disclosure: No
Copyright

PURPOSE:Muscle invasive bladder cancer surgical management has been historically a radical cystoprostatectomy in males and an anterior exenteration in females. Uterine, ovarian, and vaginal preservation are utilized, but raise concerns regarding risk to oncologic control, especially in variant histopathology or advanced stage. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A retrospective single institutional analysis identified radical cystectomies performed in women, including those with variant histology, which were defined as reproductive organ sparing (uterine, vaginal, and ovary sparing) or nonorgan sparing. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for recurrence-free survival (RFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced disease. RESULTS:From 2000 to 2020, 289 women were identified, 188 underwent reproductive organ-sparing cystectomy. No statistical differences were noted for clinical parameters or presence of variant histology for organ-sparing (ROS) and nonorgan-sparing (non-ROS). Positive margin rates did not differ for ROS and non-ROS; 4.3% vs. 7.9%, P = .19, respectively. Median RFS was not statistically significantly different for ROS vs. non-ROS (26.1 vs. 15.3 months) P = .937 hazard ratio (HR) 1.024. CSS was not statistically different for ROS vs. non-ROS (36.3 vs. 28.6 months), P = .755 HR 0.9. OS was not statistically different for ROS vs. non-ROS (25.8 vs. 23.8 months), P = .5 HR = 1.178. Variant histology did not change survival (HR 1.1, P = .643). CONCLUSION:In this analysis, ROS in women with advanced disease did not increase positive margin rates or decrease RFS, CSS, or OS compared to non-ROS. Variant histology did not decrease survival odds. Based on preoperative assessment and intraoperative findings, ROS in patients with variant histology and advanced disease should be considered.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Procedure-specific guidelines for postsurgical opioid use can decrease overprescribing and facilitate opioid stewardship. Initial recommendations were based on feasibility data from limited pilot studies. This study aims to refine opioid prescribing recommendations for endourological and minimally invasive urological procedures by integrating emerging clinical evidence with a panel consensus. METHODS:A multistakeholder panel was convened with broad subspecialty expertise. Primary literature on opioid prescribing after 16 urological procedures was systematically assessed. Using a modified Delphi technique, the panel reviewed and revised procedure-specific recommendations and opioid stewardship strategies based on additional evidence. All recommendations were developed for opioid-naïve adult patients after uncomplicated procedures. RESULTS:Seven relevant studies on postsurgical opioid prescribing were identified: four studies on ureteroscopy, two studies on robotic prostatectomy including a combined study on robotic nephrectomy, and one study on transurethral prostate surgery. The panel affirmed prescribing ranges to allow tailoring quantities to anticipated need. The panel noted that zero opioid tablets would be potentially appropriate for all procedures. Following evidence review, the panel reduced the maximum recommended quantities for 11 of the 16 procedures; the other 5 procedures were unchanged. Opioids were no longer recommended following diagnostic endoscopy and transurethral resection procedures. Finally, data on prescribing decisions supported expanded stewardship strategies for first-time prescribing and ongoing quality improvement. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Reductions in initial opioid prescribing recommendations are supported by evidence for most endourological and minimally invasive urological procedures. Shared decision-making prior to prescribing and periodic reevaluation of individual prescribing patterns are strongly recommended to strengthen opioid stewardship.