Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a correlation exists between newsworthiness (Altmetric score) and scientific impact markers, such as citation analysis, impact factors, and levels of evidence. METHODS: The top five most cited articles for the year 2014 and 2015 from the top 10 ranking urology journals (Scientific Impact Group) were identified. The top 50 articles each in 2014 and 2015 were identified from Altmetric support based on media activity (Media Impact Group). We determined the number of citations that these articles received in the scientific literature, and calculated correlations between citations with Altmetric scores. RESULTS: In the Scientific Impact Group, the mean number of citations per article was 37.6, and the most highly cited articles were oncology guidelines. The mean Altmetric score in these articles was 14.8. There was a weak positive correlation between citations and Altmetric score (rs = 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.52, P < 0.001). In the Media Impact Group, the mean Altmetric score was 121.1 and most widely shared articles all related to sexual medicine. In this group, the mean number of citations was 9.7 and there was a weak negative correlation between Altmetric score and citations (rs = -0.20, P = 0.046). CONCLUSION: The top articles based on Altmetric scores were not highly cited, suggesting that publications receiving the most media attention may not be the most scientifically rigorous, or that this audience places greater value on different subjects than the scientific community.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goal of this article is to discuss current genomic testing options in localized prostate cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: There are multiple genomic tests currently available for men with localized prostate cancer. Prolaris, OncotypeDx, and Decipher can all be tested using biopsy tissue. Prolaris and Decipher are also available for men undergoing radical prostatectomy to predict subsequent disease progression. SUMMARY: The Prolaris cell cycle progression score measured on biopsy predicts the risk of prostate cancer death in 10 years with conservative management, whereas, the primary endpoint for the OncotypeDx genomic prostate score is the risk of adverse disease at radical prostatectomy. Decipher measures genome-wide RNA expression, and its Genomic Classifier signature was initially designed to predict the risk of metastasis for men with adverse disease at radical prostatectomy, and more recently, a biopsy version was released. Recently, Decipher signatures predicting prostate cancer cell lineage and postoperative radiation sensitivity have also been described. Any of these tests can be used by men with localized prostate cancer to provide additional prognostic risk stratification to aid in treatment decisions.

The US Food and Drug Administration recently announced the need to evaluate the association between PDE5is and melanoma. We performed a meta-analysis on the association between PDE5i and melanoma using random effects models and examined whether it met Hill's criteria for causality. A systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 1998 to 2016 identified three case-control studies and two cohort studies, including a total of 866 049 men, of whom 41 874 were diagnosed with melanoma. We found a summary estimate indicating an increased risk of melanoma in PDE5i users (relative risk = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.02 to 1.22). However, the association was only statistically significant among men with low PDE5i exposure (not high exposure) and with low-stage melanoma (not high stage), indicating a lack of dose response and biological gradient. PDE5i use was also associated with basal cell cancer, suggesting a lack of specificity and likely confounding by ultraviolet exposure. Thus, although this meta-analysis found a statistically significant association between PDE5i and melanoma, it did not satisfy Hill's criteria for causality.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:In this white paper update we identify and discuss the prevalence and prevention of common complications of prostate needle biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:A literature review was performed on prostate biopsy complications via queries of PubMed and EMBASE® databases for prostate biopsy complications from January 1, 2010 until June 1, 2015. We focused on infection, bleeding, urinary retention, needle tract seeding and erectile dysfunction. A total of 346 articles were identified for full text review and 119 are included in the final data synthesis. RESULTS:Infection is the most common complication of prostate biopsy with fluoroquinolone resistant Escherichia coli having a prominent role. Reported rates of infectious complications range from 0.1% to 7.0%, and sepsis rates range from 0.3% to 3.1% depending on antibiotic prophylaxis regimens. Mild, self-limiting and transient bleeding is also a common complication. Other complications are extremely rare. CONCLUSIONS:This white paper provides a concise reference document for the more common prostate biopsy complications and prevention strategies. Risk assessment should be performed for all patients to identify known risk factors for harboring fluoroquinolone resistance. If infection incidence increases check the local antibiogram, current equipment and cleaning practices, and consider alternate approaches to antibiotic prevention such as needle cleaning, risk basked augmentation, rectal culture with targeted prophylaxis and transperineal biopsy. If infection occurs, actively re-situate the patient and start empiric intravenous treatment with carbapenems, amikacin or second and third generation cephalosporins.

Introduction: Many new markers are now available as an aid for decisions about prostate biopsy for men without prostate cancer, and/or to improve risk stratification for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Methods: A literature review was performed on currently available markers for use in decisions about prostate biopsy and initial prostate cancer treatment. Results: Although total prostate-specific antigen cutoffs were traditionally used for biopsy decisions, PSA elevations are not specific. Repeating the PSA test, and adjusting for factors like age, prostate volume and changes over time can increase specificity for biopsy decisions. The Prostate Health Index (phi) and 4K Score are new PSA-based markers that can be offered as second-line tests to decide on initial or repeat prostate biopsy. The PCA3 urine test and ConfirmMDx tissue test are additional options for repeat biopsy decisions. For men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, genomic tests are available to refine risk classification and may influence treatment decisions. Conclusions: Numerous secondary testing options are now available that can be offered to patients deciding whether to undergo prostate biopsy and those with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of the Prostate Health Index (phi)* as a continuous variable in multivariable risk assessment for aggressive prostate cancer in a large multicenter US study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population included 728 men with PSA levels of 2-10 ng/mL and negative digital rectal examination enrolled in a prospective, multi-site early detection trial. The primary endpoint was aggressive prostate cancer, defined as biopsy Gleason score >/=7. First, we evaluated whether the addition of phi improves the performance of currently available risk calculators (PCPT and ERSPC). We also designed and internally validated a new phi-based multivariable predictive model, and created a nomogram. RESULTS: Of 728 men undergoing biopsy, 118 (16.2%) had aggressive prostate cancer. Phi predicted the risk of aggressive prostate cancer across the spectrum of values. Adding phi significantly improved the predictive accuracy of the PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators for aggressive disease. A new model was created using age, prior biopsy, prostate volume, PSA, and phi with an AUC of 0.746. The bootstrap-corrected model showed good calibration with observed risk for aggressive prostate cancer and had net benefit on decision curve analysis. CONCLUSION: Using phi as part of multivariable risk assessment leads to a significant improvement in the detection of aggressive prostate cancer, potentially reducing harms from unnecessary prostate biopsy and overdiagnosis

OBJECTIVE: To explore and identify factors that influence physicians' decisions while monitoring patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A purposive sampling strategy was used to identify physicians treating prostate cancer from diverse clinical backgrounds and geographic areas across the USA. We conducted 24 in-depth interviews from July to December 2015, until thematic saturation was reached. The Applied Thematic Analysis framework was used to guide data collection and analysis. Interview transcripts were reviewed and coded independently by two researchers. Matrix analysis and NVivo software were used for organization and further analysis. RESULTS: Eight key themes emerged to explain variation in AS monitoring: (i) physician comfort with AS; (ii) protocol selection; (iii) beliefs about the utility and quality of testing; (iv) years of experience and exposure to AS during training; (v) concerns about inflicting 'harm'; (vi) patient characteristics; (vii) patient preferences; and (viii) financial incentives. CONCLUSION: These qualitative data reveal which factors influence physicians who manage patients on AS. There is tension between providing standardized care while also considering individual patients' needs and health status. Additional education on AS is needed during urology training and continuing medical education. Future research is needed to empirically understand whether any specific protocol is superior to tailored, individualized care.