Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Active surveillance (AS) for intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is controversial. Many AS programs are limited to grade group (GG) 1 (Gleason 6) and PSA<10 ng/ml. However, recent guidelines state that AS can be considered for limited GG2 (Gleason 3+4), despite limited data on outcomes. Our objective was to compare prostatectomy outcomes between subgroups of intermediate-risk versus low-risk PCa. METHODS:We performed an observational study in the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden, including 98% of PCa nationwide. From 2009-2012, 5087 men with low-risk (GG1, PSA<10, and ≤cT2) and intermediate-risk PCa (GG2 or PSA 10-20, or T2) underwent radical prostatectomy. We compared upgrading and upstaging between groups, based on the UCSF Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) scores and published AS criteria. Results were validated in an independent dataset of cases diagnosed 2013-2016. RESULTS:Men with GG1, PSA 10-15ng/ml and PSA density <0.15 had no significant difference in upgrading and adverse pathology compared to low-risk PCa. PSA>15 or GG2 were associated with a significantly greater risk of aggressive PCa. Men with low-risk CAPRA scores (0-2) and GG2 had almost a 3-fold increased risk of upgrading and 2-fold increased risk of adverse pathology compared to low-risk CAPRA GG1. CONCLUSIONS:Expanding the PSA threshold to 15 ng/ml for GG1 PCa would allow more men to choose AS and is unlikely to compromise outcomes, particularly if PSA density is low. By contrast, caution should be exercised in offering AS to men with PSA>15 or GG2.

YouTube is a social media platform with more than 1 billion users and >600000 videos about prostate cancer. Two small studies examined the quality of prostate cancer videos on YouTube, but did not use validated instruments, examine user interactions, or characterize the spread of misinformation. We performed the largest, most comprehensive examination of prostate cancer information on YouTube to date, including the first 150 videos on screening and treatment. We used the validated DISCERN quality criteria for consumer health information and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool, and compared results for user engagement. The videos in our sample had up to 1.3 million views (average 45223) and the overall quality of information was moderate. More videos described benefits (75%) than harms (53%), and only 50% promoted shared decision-making as recommended in current guidelines. Only 54% of the videos defined medical terms and few provided summaries or references. There was a significant negative correlation between scientific quality and viewer engagement (views/month p=0.004; thumbs up/views p=0.015). The comments section underneath some videos contained advertising and peer-to-peer medical advice. A total of 115 videos (77%) contained potentially misinformative and/or biased content within the video or comments section, with a total reach of >6 million viewers. PATIENT SUMMARY: Many popular YouTube videos about prostate cancer contained biased or poor-quality information. A greater number of views and thumbs up on YouTube does not mean that the information is trustworthy.

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.

Purpose It is clinically challenging to integrate genomic-classifier results that report a numeric risk of recurrence into treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer, which are founded in the framework of risk groups. We aimed to develop a novel clinical-genomic risk grouping system that can readily be incorporated into treatment guidelines for localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Two multicenter cohorts (n = 991) were used for training and validation of the clinical-genomic risk groups, and two additional cohorts (n = 5,937) were used for reclassification analyses. Competing risks analysis was used to estimate the risk of distant metastasis. Time-dependent c-indices were constructed to compare clinicopathologic risk models with the clinical-genomic risk groups. Results With a median follow-up of 8 years for patients in the training cohort, 10-year distant metastasis rates for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low, favorable-intermediate, unfavorable-intermediate, and high-risk were 7.3%, 9.2%, 38.0%, and 39.5%, respectively. In contrast, the three-tier clinical-genomic risk groups had 10-year distant metastasis rates of 3.5%, 29.4%, and 54.6%, for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, respectively, which were consistent in the validation cohort (0%, 25.9%, and 55.2%, respectively). C-indices for the clinical-genomic risk grouping system (0.84; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93) were improved over NCCN (0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.84), and 30% of patients using NCCN low/intermediate/high would be reclassified by the new three-tier system and 67% of patients would be reclassified from NCCN six-tier (very-low- to very-high-risk) by the new six-tier system. Conclusion A commercially available genomic classifier in combination with standard clinicopathologic variables can generate a simple-to-use clinical-genomic risk grouping that more accurately identifies patients at low, intermediate, and high risk for metastasis and can be easily incorporated into current guidelines to better risk-stratify patients.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Social media (SoMe) has transformed communication among health care professionals by enabling rapid and global information exchange. Yet, the novelty of SoMe and concerns about potential risks continue to be barriers to adoption. OBJECTIVE:To encourage appropriate professional use of SoMe by physicians in concordance with best practices and to update practical guidelines for effective and professional use of these communication technologies. EVIDENCE AQUISITION/UNASSIGNED:The European Association of Urology (EAU; @Uroweb) brought together a committee of SoMe stakeholders in the urology field. PubMed and the grey literature were searched to identify SoMe position papers by other medical societies and organizations. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS/RESULTS:Updated practical guidelines for effective and professional use of SoMe communication technologies. A core of 10 practical recommendations for the responsible, ethical, and constructive use of SoMe communication technologies was articulated. The guidelines are limited by their inherent subjective nature and lack of robust evidence supporting their utility. CONCLUSIONS:SoMe is reshaping the way the urological care providers communicate; however, appropriate engagement requires courtesy, professionalism, and honesty. Adherence to guidelines will help users harness the benefits of SoMe in a safe and effective manner. PATIENT SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:Social media has transformed communication among health care professionals. This narrative review article provides an update of practical guidelines for effective and professional use of these communication technologies.

The use of social media is increasing globally and is employed in a variety of ways in the prostate cancer community. In addition to their use in research, advocacy, and awareness campaigns, social media offer vast opportunities for education and networking for patients with prostate cancer and health-care professionals, and many educational resources and support networks are available to patients with prostate cancer and their caregivers. Despite the considerable potential for social media to be employed in the field of prostate cancer, concerns remain - particularly regarding the maintenance of patient confidentiality, variable information quality, and possible financial conflicts of interest. A number of professional societies have, therefore, issued guidance regarding social media use in medicine. Social media are used extensively in other cancer communities, particularly among patients with breast cancer, and both the quantity and type of information available are expected to grow in the future.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Active surveillance (AS) is the most rapidly expanding management option for favorable-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Early studies suggested substantial decrements in utility (quality of life weights) from disease-related anxiety. Our objective was to determine utilities for contemporary AS patients using different instruments. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We performed a systematic review of PubMed, PMC and OVID for utility measurements in modern AS patients. We then examined utilities among 37 men on AS participating in focus groups between 2015-2016 using the generic EurQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and Patient Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS), a PCa-specific instrument. Results/UNASSIGNED:The systematic review found previous studies with utilities for PCa treatment and historical watchful waiting populations, but none specifically in contemporary AS. In our AS population, the mean EQ-5D-3L score was 0.90±0.16 (median, 1.00; range, 0.21-1.00) and PORPUS was 0.98±0.03 (median, 0.99; range, 0.84-1.00). The Spearman correlation between the EQ-5D-3L and PORPUS was 0.87 (P<0.0001), and 38% of patients had a difference >0.1 between instruments. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Most contemporary AS patients had high utility scores suggesting that they perceive themselves in good health without a major decrement in quality of life from the disease. However, some patients had substantial differences in utility measured with generic versus disease-specific instruments. Further study is warranted into the optimal instrument for utility assessment in contemporary AS patients.