Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

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.

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.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:The first case of the new coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2), was identified in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Since then, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was reclassified as a pandemic, and health systems around the world have faced an unprecedented challenge. OBJECTIVE:To summarize guidelines and recommendations on the urology standard of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION/METHODS:Guidelines and recommendations published between November 2019 and April 17, 2020 were retrieved using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. This was supplemented by searching the web pages of international urology societies. Our inclusion criteria were guidelines, recommendations, or best practice statements by international urology organizations and reference centers about urological care in different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Of 366 titles identified, 15 guidelines met our criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS/RESULTS:Of the 15 guidelines, 14 addressed emergency situations and 12 reported on assessment of elective uro-oncology procedures. There was consensus on postponing radical prostatectomy except for high-risk prostate cancer, and delaying treatment for low-grade bladder cancer, small renal masses up to T2, and stage I seminoma. According to nine guidelines that addressed endourology, obstructed or infected kidneys should be decompressed, whereas nonobstructing stones and stent removal should be rescheduled. Five guidelines/recommendations discussed laparoscopic and robotic surgery, while the remaining recommendations focused on outpatient procedures and consultations. All recommendations represented expert opinions, with three specifically endorsed by professional societies. Only the European Association of Urology guidelines provided evidence-based levels of evidence (mostly level 3 evidence). CONCLUSIONS:To make informed decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic, there are multiple national and international guidelines and recommendations for urologists to prioritize the provision of care. Differences among the guidelines were minimal. PATIENT SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:We performed a systematic review of published recommendations on urological practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which provide guidance on prioritizing the timing for different types of urological care.

BACKGROUND:The World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The impact of COVID-19 on urological services in different geographical areas is unknown. OBJECTIVE:To investigate the global impact of COVID-19 on urological providers and the provision of urological patient care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted from March 30, 2020 to April 7, 2020. A 55-item questionnaire was developed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of urological services. Target respondents were practising urologists, urology trainees, and urology nurses/advanced practice providers. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcome was the degree of reduction in urological services, which was further stratified by the geographical location, degree of outbreak, and nature and urgency of urological conditions. The secondary outcome was the duration of delay in urological services. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:A total of 1004 participants responded to our survey, and they were mostly based in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Worldwide, 41% of the respondents reported that their hospital staff members had been diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, 27% reported personnel shortage, and 26% had to be deployed to take care of COVID-19 patients. Globally, only 33% of the respondents felt that they were given adequate personal protective equipment, and many providers expressed fear of going to work (47%). It was of concerning that 13% of the respondents were advised not to wear a surgical face mask for the fear of scaring their patients, and 21% of the respondents were advised not to discuss COVID-19 issues or concerns on media. COVID-19 had a global impact on the cut-down of urological services, including outpatient clinic appointments, outpatient investigations and procedures, and urological surgeries. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak. On average, 28% of outpatient clinics, 30% of outpatient investigations and procedures, and 31% of urological surgeries had a delay of >8 wk. Urological services for benign conditions were more affected than those for malignant conditions. Finally, 47% of the respondents believed that the accumulated workload could be dealt with in a timely manner after the COVID-19 outbreak, but 50% thought the postponement of urological services would affect the treatment and survival outcomes of their patients. One of the limitations of this study is that Africa, Australia, and New Zealand were under-represented. CONCLUSIONS:COVID-19 had a profound global impact on urological care and urology providers. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak and was greater for benign than for malignant conditions. One-fourth of urological providers were deployed to assist with COVID-19 care. Many providers reported insufficient personal protective equipment and support from hospital administration. PATIENT SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has led to significant delay in outpatient care and surgery in urology, particularly in regions with the most COVID-19 cases. A considerable proportion of urology health care professionals have been deployed to assist in COVID-19 care, despite the perception of insufficient training and protective equipment.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To compare both the concordance between the 4Kscore® and SelectMDx® for informing decision to perform prostate biopsy (PB) and the performance of these tests for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Several biomarkers were developed to inform decisions whether to perform a PB based on the probability of detecting csPCa. There is a paucity of studies directly comparing them METHODS: Between 11/2018 and 4/2019, all new referrals with the diagnosis of elevated PSA were advised to undergo 4Kscore® and SelectMDx® in order to guide the selection of candidates for PB. Men were advised to undergo PB if the reported biomarker risk for detecting csPCA was ≥7.5%, or if they presented a PI-RADS ≥1 MRI. Cohen's Kappa was used to assess the concordance between the binary 4Kscore® and SelectMDx® results using externally validated cutoffs of 7.5% and 12%. Receiver operating characteristics curve and area under the curve (AUC) assessed the performance of each biomarker for predicting csPCa. RESULTS:Of 128 consecutive patients referred, 114 (89.1%) underwent 4Kscore® and SelectMDx®, The kappa coefficient between the biomarkers using the 7.5% cutoff was 0.184 (poor concordance) and 0.22 using the 12% cutoff. The two biomarkers yielded discordant guidance whether to proceed with PB in 46% and 38% of cases, respectively. csPCa was found in 22 of the 50 patients who underwent PB (44%). The AUC for 4Kscore® and SelectMDx® was 0.830 (95%CI: 0.710 - 0.949) and 0.672 (95%CI: 0.517 - 0.828) (p=0.036), respectively. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The discordance observed between the 4Kscore® and SelectMDx® is disconcerting. The 4Kscore® when combined with MRI was superior to the SelectMDx® for detecting csPCa. Prospective comparative studies must be performed to optimize implementation of biomarkers for selecting candidates for PB.