Faculty Bibliography

Despite innovations in surgical technology and advancements in radiation therapy, radical treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer are associated with significant patient morbidity, including both urinary and sexual dysfunction. This has created a vital need for therapies and management strategies that provide an acceptable degree of oncologic efficacy while mitigating these undesirable side effects. Successful developments in screening approaches and advances in prostate imaging have allowed clinicians to identify, localize, and more precisely target early cancers. This has afforded urologists with an important opportunity to develop and employ focal ablation techniques that selectively destroy tumors while preserving the remainder of the gland, thus avoiding detrimental treatment effects to surrounding sensitive structures. A lack of high-level evidence supporting such an approach had previously hindered widespread adoption of focal treatments, but there are now numerous published clinical trials which have sought to establish benchmarks for safety and efficacy. As the clinical evidence supporting a potential role in prostate cancer treatment begins to accumulate, there has been a growing acceptance of focal therapy in the urologic oncology community. In this narrative review article, we describe the techniques, advantages, and side effect profiles of the most commonly utilized focal ablative techniques and analyze published clinical trial data supporting their evolving role in the prostate cancer treatment paradigm.

PURPOSE:Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has profoundly impacted residency training and education. To date, there has not been any broad assessment of urological surgery residency changes and concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS:The Society of Academic Urologists distributed a questionnaire to urology residency program directors on March 30, 2020 exploring residency program changes related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive statistics are presented. A qualitative analysis of free response questions was undertaken. A post hoc analysis of differences related to local COVID-19 incidence is described. RESULTS:The survey was distributed to 144 residency programs with 65 responses for a 45% response rate. Reserve staffing had started in 80% of programs. Patient contact time had decreased significantly from 4.7 to 2.1 days per week (p <0.001). Redeployment was reported by 26% of programs. Sixty percent of programs reported concern that residents will not meet case minimums due to COVID-19. Wellness activities centered on increased communication. All programs had begun to use videoconferencing and the majority planned to continue. Programs in states with a higher incidence of COVID-19 were more likely to report resident redeployment (48% vs 11%, p=0.002) and exposure to COVID-19 positive patients (70% vs 40%, p=0.03), and were less likely to report concerns regarding exposure (78% vs 97%, p=0.02) and personal protective equipment availability (62% vs 89%, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS:As of April 1, 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic had resulted in significant changes in urology residency programs. These findings inform a rapidly changing landscape and aid in the development of best practices.