Faculty Bibliography

The use of social media in the urologic community is common and increasing. Although the potential benefits of platforms like Twitter have been described in the literature, the use of social media in the clinical context of Urology has not been explored.In this case report, we describe how we used Twitter to share ideas about the clinical management of a complex urologic patient. By posting a clinical scenario, a timely discussion was generated with global participation and expert suggestions. This knowledge was applied to the surgical management of a patient with positive clinical outcomes.The ability of Twitter to facilitate rapid communication with a wide network of contributors makes it a potentially useful tool for clinical decision making. Care must be taken to ensure patient confidentiality and caution used appropriately when evaluating the sources and content of the clinical information shared.

OBJECTIVE:To understand the informational needs during active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer from the perspectives of patients and providers. METHODS:We conducted seven focus groups with 37 AS patients in two urban clinical settings, and 24 semi-structured interviews with a national sample of providers. Transcripts were analyzed using applied thematic analysis, and themes were organized using descriptive matrix analyses. RESULTS:We identified six themes related to informational needs during AS: 1) more information on prostate cancer (biopsy features, prognosis), 2) more information on active surveillance (difference from watchful waiting, testing protocol), 3) more information on alternative management options (complementary medicine, lifestyle modification), 4) greater variety of resources (multiple formats, targeting different audiences), 5) more social support and interaction, and 6) verified integrity of information (trusted, multidisciplinary and secure). CONCLUSIONS:Patients and providers described numerous drawbacks to existing prostate cancer resources and a variety of unmet needs including information on prognosis, AS testing protocols, and lifestyle modification. They also expressed a need for different types of resources, including interaction and unbiased information. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:These results are useful to inform the design of future resources for men undergoing AS.

The use of active surveillance (AS) is increasing for favorable-risk prostate cancer. However, there remain challenges in patient selection for AS, due to the limitations of current clinical staging. In addition, monitoring protocols relying on serial biopsies is invasive and presents risks such as infection. For these reasons, there is substantial interest in identifying markers that can be used to improve AS selection and monitoring. In this article, we review the evidence on serum, urine and tissue markers in AS.

BACKGROUND:An increasing proportion of prostate cancer is being managed conservatively. However, there are no randomized trials or consensus regarding the optimal follow-up strategy. OBJECTIVE:To compare life expectancy and quality of life between watchful waiting (WW) versus different strategies of active surveillance (AS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:A Markov model was created for US men starting at age 50, diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who chose conservative management by WW or AS using different testing protocols (prostate-specific antigen every 3-6 mo, biopsy every 1-5 yr, or magnetic resonance imaging based). Transition probabilities and utilities were obtained from the literature. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS/UNASSIGNED:Primary outcomes were life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Secondary outcomes include radical treatment, metastasis, and prostate cancer death. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:All AS strategies yielded more life years compared with WW. Lifetime risks of prostate cancer death and metastasis were, respectively, 5.42% and 6.40% with AS versus 8.72% and 10.30% with WW. AS yielded more QALYs than WW except in cohorts age >65 yr at diagnosis, or when treatment-related complications were long term. The preferred follow-up strategy was also sensitive to whether people value short-term over long-term benefits (time preference). Depending on the AS protocol, 30-41% underwent radical treatment within 10 yr. Extending the surveillance biopsy interval from 1 to 5 yr reduced life years slightly, with a 0.26 difference in QALYs. CONCLUSIONS:AS extends life more than WW, particularly for men with higher-risk features, but this is partly offset by the decrement in quality of life since many men eventually receive treatment. PATIENT SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:More intensive active surveillance protocols extend life more than watchful waiting, but this is partly offset by decrements in quality of life from subsequent treatment.

This article describes markers used for prostate biopsy decisions, including prostrate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA, the prostate health index, 4Kscore, PCA3, and ConfirmMDx. It also summarizes the use of nomograms combining multiple variables for prostate cancer detection.

Importance: Active surveillance is an important option to reduce prostate cancer overtreatment, but it remains underutilized in many countries. Models from the United States show that greater use of active surveillance is important for prostate cancer screening to be cost-effective. Objectives: To perform an up-to-date, nationwide, population-based study on use of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer in Sweden. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study in the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden from 2009 through 2014. The NPCR has data on 98% of prostate cancers diagnosed in Sweden and has comprehensive linkages to other nationwide databases. Overall, 32518 men with a median age of 67 years were diagnosed with favorable-risk prostate cancer, including 4693, 15403, and 17115 men with very-low-risk (subset of the low-risk group) (clinical stage, T1c; Gleason score,