Faculty Bibliography

Dissemination of misinformation through social media is a major societal issue. Bladder cancer is the second most common urological cancer in the world, but there are limited data on the quality of bladder cancer information on social networks. Our objective was to characterize the quality of information and presence of misinformation about bladder cancer on YouTube, the most commonly used social media platform. We reviewed the first 150 YouTube videos about "bladder cancer" using two validated instruments for consumer health information and assessed the videos for the presence of misinformation. The videos had a median of 2288 views (range, 14-511 342), but the overall quality of information was moderate to poor in 67%, based on scores of 1-3 out of 5 on the validated DISCERN instrument. A moderate to high amount of misinformation was present in 21% of videos and reached 1 289 314 viewers. Commercial bias was apparent in 17% of videos, which reached 324 287 viewers. From a networking perspective, comments sections in the videos were sometimes used to request medical advice (20%), provide medical advice to others (9%), or give support (19%). In conclusion, YouTube is a widely used source of information and advice about bladder cancer, but much of the content is of poor quality. PATIENT SUMMARY: A large quantity of content about bladder cancer is available on YouTube. Unfortunately, much of the content is of moderate to poor quality and presents a risk of exposure to misinformation.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To perform a global survey assessing the role of and the attitudes towards media platforms amongst training Urologists METHODS: We distributed a 21-item online survey on social medial (SoMe) and other media platforms to current Urology trainees by email via individual institutions and multiple Urological associations. The survey acquired data including baseline characteristics, the role of and attitudes towards SoMe and other media platforms in training and assessed the prevalence of Social Media Disorder (SMD) based on the validated 9-item Social Media Disorder Scale. Stata IC was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS:Three hundred and seventy-two urology trainees in 6 continents participated in the survey. Overall, 99.4% used SoMe and 27.3% listened to healthcare-focused podcasts. Most trainees (85.5%) are using guideline apps for education purposes, with the top 3 most utilized apps being the EAU, AUA, and UpToDate applications. There was mixed sentiment regarding the impact of SoMe on the patient-physician relationship, wherein most felt it challenges the doctor's authority (56.7%) but also empowers the patient (62.7%) and encourages shared-care (57.3%). Unfortunately, 11.3% of urology trainees met criteria for SMD while 65.4% had not reviewed professional guidelines on appropriate SoMe use. CONCLUSIONS:Despite practically all urology trainees using SoMe and guideline applications, the majority of trainees have not reviewed or have been educated on professional guidelines for SoMe usage. There is a small but significant number of trainees who are at risk for social media disorder which may be contributing to higher rates of physician burnout amongst urologists.

BACKGROUND:Men have a higher risk of death from COVID-19 than women and androgens facilitate entrance of the SARS-CoV-2 virus into respiratory epithelial cells. Thus, androgen deprivation therapy may reduce infection rates and improve outcomes for COVID-19. In the spring of 2020, Sweden was highly affected by COVID-19. The aim was to estimate the impact of androgen deprivation therapy on mortality from COVID-19 in men with prevalent prostate cancer by comparing all-cause mortality in the spring of 2020 to that in previous years. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Using the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden all men with prostate cancer on March 1 each year in 2015-2020 were followed until June 30 the same year. Exposure to androgen deprivation therapy was ascertained from filled prescriptions for bicalutamide monotherapy, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRH), or bilateral orchidectomy. RESULTS:A total of 9,822 men died in March-June in the years 2015-2020, of whom 5,034 men were on androgen deprivation therapy. There was an excess mortality in 2020 vs previous years in all men. The crude relative mortality rate ratio for 2020 vs 2015-2019 was 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.04) in men on GnRH, and 0.90 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.05) in men on bicalutamide monotherapy. After multivariable adjustment these ratios were attenuated to 1.00 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.12) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.12), respectively. When restricting the analysis to the regions with the highest incidence of COVID-19 or to the time period between 2 April to 10 June when mortality in 2020 was increased >30% compared to previous years, the results were similar to the main analysis. CONCLUSIONS:In this large national population-based cohort of men with prevalent prostate cancer, there was no clear evidence in support for an effect of androgen deprivation therapy on COVID-19 mortality.

INTRODUCTION:Telemedicine provides remote clinical support through technology tools. It can facilitate medical care delivery while reducing unnecessary office visits. The COVID-19 outbreak has caused an abrupt change in our daily urological practice, where teleconsultations play a crucial role. OBJECTIVE:To provide practical recommendations for the effective use of technological tools in telemedicine. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A literature search was conducted on Medline until April 2020. We selected the most relevant articles related to «telemedicine» and «smart working» that could provide valuable information. RESULTS:Telemedicine refers to the use of electronic information and telecommunication tools to provide remote clinical health care support. Smart working is a working approach that uses new or existing technologies to improve performance. Telemedicine is becoming a useful and fundamental tool during the COVID-19 pandemic and will be even more in the future. It is time for us to officially give telemedicine the place it deserves in clinical practice, and it is our responsibility to adapt and familiarize with all the tools and possible strategies for its optimal implementation. We must guarantee that the quality of care received by patients and perceived by them and their families is of the highest standard. CONCLUSIONS:Telemedicine facilitates remote specialized urological clinical support and solves problems caused by limited patient mobility or transfer, reduces unnecessary visits to clinics and is useful to reduce the risk of COVID-19 viral transmission.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Telemedicine provides remote clinical support using technological tools. It may facilitate health care delivery while reducing unnecessary visits to the clinic. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has caused an abrupt change in our daily urological practice, converting many of us to be reliant on telehealth. OBJECTIVE:To provide practical recommendations for effective use of technological tools in telemedicine. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION/METHODS:A Medline-based and gray literature search was conducted through April 2020. We selected the most relevant articles related to "telemedicine" and "smart working" that could provide important information. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS/RESULTS:Telemedicine refers to the use of electronic information and telecommunications tools to provide remote clinical health care support. Smart working is a model of work that uses new or existing technologies to improve performance. Telemedicine is becoming a useful invaluable tool during and even beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. It is time for us to formalize the place of telemedicine in routine urological practice, and it is our responsibility to adapt and learn about all the tools and possible strategies for their optimal implementation during the pandemic to ensure that the quality of care received by patients and the outcomes of patients and their families are of the highest standard. CONCLUSIONS:Telemedicine facilitates specialized urological clinical support at a distance, solves problems of limitations in mobility, reduces unnecessary visits to clinics, and is useful for reducing the risk of viral transmission in the current COVID-19 outbreak. Furthermore, both personal and societal considerations may favor continued use of telemedicine, even beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENT SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:Telemedicine in urology offers specialized remote clinical support to patients, similar to face-to-face visits. It is very useful for reducing unnecessary visits to the clinic, as well as reducing the risk of contagion in the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

BACKGROUND:Prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, urology was one of the specialties with the lowest rates of telemedicine and videoconferencing use. Common barriers to the implementation of telemedicine included a lack of technological literacy, concerns with reimbursement, and resistance to changes in the workplace. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic declared in March 2020, the delivery of urological services globally has quickly shifted to telemedicine to account for the mass clinical, procedural, and operative cancellations, inadequate personal protective equipment, and shortage of personnel. OBJECTIVE:To investigate current telemedicine usage by urologists, urologist perceptions on the necessity of in-person clinic appointments, the usability of telemedicine, and the current barriers to its implementation. METHODS:We performed a global, cross-sectional web-based survey to investigate the use of telemedicine before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Urologists' perceived usability of telemedicine was assessed using a modified Delphi approach to create questions based on a modified version of the validated Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). For the purposes of this study, telemedicine was defined as video calls only. RESULTS:A total of 620 urologists from 58 different countries and 6 continents participated in the survey. Prior to COVID-19, 15.8% of urologists surveyed were using telemedicine in their clinical practices; during the pandemic, that proportion increased to 46.1%. Of the urologists without telemedicine experience, interest in usage of telemedicine increased from 43.7 to 80.8% during COVID-19. Among urologists that used telemedicine during the pandemic, 80.9% were interested in continuing to use it in their practice. The three most commonly used platforms were Zoom, Doxy.me, and Epic and the top three barriers to implementing telemedicine were patient lack of technological comprehension, patient lack of access to required technology, and reimbursement concerns. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first study to quantify the use, usability, and pervading interest in telemedicine amongst urologists during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the face of this pandemic, urologists' usage of telemedicine nearly tripled, demonstrating their ability to adopt and adapt telemedicine into their practices, but barriers involving the technology itself are still preventing many from utilizing it despite increasing interest.

OBJECTIVE:To understand how to potentially improve inappropriate prostate cancer imaging rates we used National Comprehensive Cancer Network's (NCCN) guidelines to design and implement a Clinical Reminder Order Check (CROC) that alerts ordering providers of potentially inappropriate imaging orders in real-time based on patient features of men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS:We implemented the CROC at VA New York Harbor Healthcare System (VANYHHS) from April 2, 2015 to November 15, 2017. We then used VA administrative claims from the VA's Corporate Data Warehouse to analyze imaging rates among men with low-risk prostate cancer at VHANYHHS before and after CROC implementation. We also collected and cataloged provider responses in response to overriding the CROC in qualitative analysis. RESULTS:57% (117/205) of Veterans before CROC installation and 73% (61/83) of Veterans post-intervention with low-risk prostate cancer received guideline-concordant care. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:While the decrease in inappropriate imaging during our study window was almost certainly due to many factors, a CPRS-based CROC intervention is likely associated with at least moderate improvement in guideline-concordant imaging practices for Veterans with low-risk prostate cancer.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated rapid changes in medical practice. Many of these changes may add value to care, creating opportunities going forward. OBJECTIVE:To provide an evidence-informed, expert-derived review of genitourinary cancer care moving forward following the initial COVID-19 pandemic. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION/METHODS:A collaborative narrative review was conducted using literature published through May 2020 (PubMed), which comprised three main topics: reduced in-person interactions arguing for increasing virtual and image-based care, optimisation of the delivery of care, and the effect of COVID-19 in health care facilities on decision-making by patients and their families. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS/RESULTS:Patterns of care will evolve following the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemedicine, virtual care, and telemonitoring will increase and could offer broader access to multidisciplinary expertise without increasing costs. Comprehensive and integrative telehealth solutions will be necessary, and should consider patients' mental health and access differences due to socioeconomic status. Investigations and treatments will need to maximise efficiency and minimise health care interactions. Solutions such as one stop clinics, day case surgery, hypofractionated radiotherapy, and oral or less frequent drug dosing will be preferred. The pandemic necessitated a triage of those patients whose treatment should be expedited, delayed, or avoided, and may persist with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in circulation. Patients whose demographic characteristics are at the highest risk of complications from COVID-19 may re-evaluate the benefit of intervention for less aggressive cancers. Clinical research will need to accommodate virtual care and trial participation. Research dissemination and medical education will increasingly utilise virtual platforms, limiting in-person professional engagement; ensure data dissemination; and aim to enhance patient engagement. CONCLUSIONS:The COVID-19 pandemic will have lasting effects on the delivery of health care. These changes offer opportunities to improve access, delivery, and the value of care for patients with genitourinary cancers but raise concerns that physicians and health administrators must consider in order to ensure equitable access to care. PATIENT SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically changed the care provided to many patients with genitourinary cancers. This has necessitated a transition to telemedicine, changes in threshold or delays in many treatments, and an opportunity to reimagine patient care to maintain safety and improve value moving forward.

BACKGROUND:Germline testing is recommended for all men with metastatic prostate cancer (PCa), and for some with localized PCa meeting specific histologic or family history criteria. Germline genetic evaluation has important implications for PCa prognosis and management, as well as implications for family members and cancer screening. Despite the importance of germline evaluation, its utilization in urologic practice is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We conducted a 32-item survey of U.S. urologists to examine knowledge of germline testing guidelines and practice patterns. It was shared through email to 6 American Urological Association sections, the Veterans Affairs Urology Mailgroup, and social media. RESULTS:Among 132 total respondents from diverse practice settings across the U.S., 12% perform germline testing, 44% refer to a genetic counselor, 11% do both, and 33% do not test/refer. Only 4% had formal education in genetics. While 98% ask about PCa family history, only 76% and 52% ask about breast and ovarian cancer. When presented with hypothetical case scenarios where germline testing is indicated, many respondents indicated they would not offer genetic counseling or testing. Younger age (p = 0,03), academic practice (p = 0.04), and specializing in PCa/oncology (p = 0.007) were significantly associated with performing or referring for germline testing. Specializing in PCa/oncology was significantly associated with recommending germline testing for all case scenarios involving metastatic PCa (p = 0.0009) CONCLUSION: Our results suggest significant gaps in knowledge of germline testing and alignment of practice with national guidelines among urologists. Germline testing education and facilitation of genetic evaluation in urologic practice is warranted.