Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES: Despite previous retrospective reports that the number of lymph nodes resected at curative intent surgery for lung cancer correlates with overall survival (OS), no consensus exists regarding the minimal nor optimal number of lymph nodes to resect at curative lung cancer surgery. METHODS: We studied subjects in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Database (SEER) diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer between 2000 and 2011 who underwent either lobectomy or pneumonectomy and had pathologic negative nodal evaluation. We excluded patients with sublobar resection and/or no lymph node evaluation. We examined associations between number of lymph nodes evaluated and OS/lung cancer-specific survival by multivariable Cox regression; and predictors of evaluation of more lymph nodes. RESULTS: Among the 33,463 patients in our sample, a median of 7 lymph nodes were evaluated. We found that lung cancer-specific survival and OS improved with increasing lymph node evaluation up to 16 to 18 lymph nodes (hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.85] and 0.78 [95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.86], respectively). There was little additional improvement in outcomes with evaluation of >16 to 18 lymph nodes. Blacks, Hispanics, females, and patients from distinct geographical regions were less likely to have 16 or more lymph nodes evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: There was a consistently increasing survival benefit associated with a more extensive lymph node evaluation at lung cancer resection, up to 16 to 18 lymph nodes removed. The median number of nodes evaluated was, however, only 7, suggesting that setting a goal of >/=16 examined lymph nodes may lead to improved survival outcomes, and reduce disparities in care.

Among US men, most new prostate cancer cases are clinically localized and do not require imaging as part of staging workup according to guidelines. Two leading specialty societies promote stewardship of health resources by encouraging guideline-concordant care, thereby limiting inappropriate and obsolete imaging. However, imaging to stage low-risk prostate cancer remains high, as almost half of men with localized prostate cancer undergo wasteful imaging following diagnosis. We employed a theory-based approach, based on current evidence and data on existing practice patterns revealing that providers are the drivers to imaging decisions, to design an intervention to improve guideline -concordant prostate cancer staging imaging across populations. We conceptualized preliminary results using the theoretical domains framework and the behavior change wheel, frameworks used concurrently to investigate physicians' behaviors and intervention design in various clinical settings. Through these 2 frameworks, we designed a theory-based, physician-focused intervention to efficiently encourage guideline-concordant prostate cancer imaging, prostate cancer imaging stewardship (PCIS). Prostate cancer imaging stewardship consists of interventions (clinical order check, academic detailing, and audit and feedback) implemented at the individual, facility, and system level to enact provider behavior change by enabling facilitators and appealing to physician motivation.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity. Please refer to Part I for discussion of specific care options and outcome expectations and management. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/). RESULTS:The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS:This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.

OBJECTIVES: To assess bone density testing (BDT) use among prostate cancer survivors receiving ADT, and downstream implications for osteoporosis and fracture diagnoses as well as pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment in a national integrated delivery system. METHODS: We identified 17,017 men with prostate cancer who received any ADT between 2005 and 2014 using Veterans Health Administration cancer registry and administrative data. We identified claims for BDT within a 3-year period of ADT initiation. We then used multivariable regression to examine the association between BDT use and incident osteoporosis, fracture, and use of pharmacologic treatment. RESULTS: We found a minority of patients received BDT (n=2,502, 15%), however the rate of testing increased to over 20% by the end of the study period. Men receiving BDT were older at diagnosis and had higher-risk prostate cancer (both p<0.001). Osteoporosis and fracture diagnoses, use of vitamin D +/- calcium, and bisphosphonates were all more common in men who received BDT. After adjustment, BDT, and to a lesser degree, 2 or more years of ADT, were both independently associated with incident osteoporosis, fracture, and osteoporosis treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Bone density testing is rare among prostate cancer patients treated with ADT in this integrated delivery system. However, BDT was associated with substantially increased treatment of osteoporosis indicating an underappreciated burden of osteoporosis among prostate cancer survivors initiating ADT. Optimizing BDT use and osteoporosis management in this at-risk population appears warranted.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The summary presented represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/). RESULTS:The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS:This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a multi-institutional analysis of clinical factors predicting unplanned hospital readmission after major inpatient urologic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) is a risk-adjusted data collection mechanism for analyzing clinical outcomes data including 30-day perioperative readmissions and complications. We identified 23,108 patients who underwent major inpatient urologic surgery from 2011 to 2012. Readmission rates were determined and stratified by procedure type. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine independent risk factors for 30-day unplanned hospital readmissions. RESULTS: Of 23,108 total patients undergoing urologic surgery, 1329 patients (5.8%) had unplanned readmissions. Upper tract reconstruction and urinary diversion without cystectomy (21/102) and cystectomy (291/1,662) had the highest rates of readmission of all procedures analyzed. Readmitted patients had a 64.2% (853/1329) and 64.4% (855/1329 patients) rate of major and minor complications, respectively, compared to 6.7% (1459/21779) and 15.9% (3462/21779) for patients not readmitted (p<0.02). Organ space infection (OR 15.23), pulmonary embolism (OR 12.14), deep venous thrombosis (OR 10.96), and return to the operating room (OR 8.46) were the most substantial predictors of readmission. Laparoscopic/robotic procedures had significantly lower readmission rates compared to open procedures for prostatectomy, partial nephrectomy, and nephrectomy (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Readmission after inpatient urological surgery occurs at a rate of 5.8%, with cystectomy and urinary diversion demonstrating the highest rates. Major and minor postoperative complications were the most substantial predictors of readmission. These results may guide risk reduction initiatives to prevent readmissions after major urologic surgery.