Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Reducing low-value clinical care is an important strategy to mitigate environmental pollution caused by health care. OBJECTIVE:To estimate the environmental impacts associated with prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate biopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:We performed a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of prostate biopsy. Data included materials and energy inventory, patient and staff travel contributed by prostate MRI, transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy, and pathology analysis. We compared environmental emissions across five clinical scenarios: multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate with targeted and systematic biopsies (baseline), mpMRI with targeted biopsy cores only, systematic biopsy without MRI, mpMRI with systematic biopsy, and biparametric MRI (bpMRI) with targeted and systematic biopsies. We estimated the environmental impacts associated with reducing the overall number and varying the approach of a prostate biopsy by using MRI as a triage strategy or by omitting MRI. The study involved academic medical centers in the USA, outpatient urology clinics, health care facilities, medical staff, and patients. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS/METHODS:e), and equivalents of coal and gasoline burned were measured. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:emissions, the equivalent of 700 000 l of gasoline consumed. This analysis was limited to prostate MRI and biopsy, and does not account for downstream clinical management. CONCLUSIONS:A prostate biopsy contributes a calculable environmental footprint. Modifying or reducing the number of biopsies performed through existing evidence-based approaches would decrease health care pollution from the procedure. PATIENT SUMMARY/RESULTS:We estimated that prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a prostate biopsy procedure emits the equivalent of 80.7 kg of carbon dioxide. Performing fewer unnecessary prostate biopsies or using prostate MRI as a tool to decide which patients should have a prostate biopsy would reduce procedural greenhouse gas emissions and health care pollution.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:It is unknown whether compliance with recommended monitoring tests during observation of localized prostate cancer has changed over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer in 2004-2016 who were initially managed with observation for a minimum of 12 months. The primary objective was to examine rates of PSA testing, prostate biopsy, and prostate MRI. We used multivariable mixed effects Poisson regression to determine whether rates of PSA testing and prostate biopsy increased over time. In addition, we identified clinical, sociodemographic, and provider factors associated with the frequency of monitoring tests during observation. RESULTS:We identified 10,639 patients diagnosed at a median age of 73 (IQR 69-77) years. The median follow-up time was 4.3 (IQR 2.7-6.6) years after diagnosis. Among patients managed without treatment for 5 years, 98% received at ≥1 PSA test, 48.0% ≥1 additional prostate biopsy, and 31.0% ≥1 prostate MRI. Among patients managed with observation for ≥12 months, mixed effects Poisson regression revealed that rates of PSA testing and biopsy increased over time (per calendar year: RR 1.02, 95% CI: 1.02-1.03 and RR 1.10, 95% CI: 1.08-1.11, respectively). Clinical and sociodemographic factors including age, clinical risk, race/ethnicity, census tract poverty, and region were associated with rates of biopsy and PSA testing. CONCLUSIONS:Use of recommended monitoring tests including repeat prostate biopsy remains low among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing observation for low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND:The prevalence of sleep disturbances among prostate cancer (PCa) survivors, and extent of urologist involvement in sleep care are not well-studied. METHODS:PCa survivors (n = 167) and urologists (n = 145) were surveyed about sleep disturbances and survivorship care practices. RESULTS:Most PCa survivors had sleep disturbances, including 50.9% with poor sleep quality, 18.0% with clinical/severe insomnia, and 36.5% at high-risk for sleep apnea. Few urologists routinely screened for sleep disturbances, as recommended in national cancer survivorship guidelines. CONCLUSIONS:Optimal PCa survivorship care should incorporate screening for sleep disturbances, addressing comorbid factors affecting sleep and referring to sleep medicine when appropriate.

BACKGROUND:Social media use in medicine has exploded, with uptake by most physicians and patients. There is a risk of dissemination of inaccurate information about urological conditions on social media. Physicians, as key opinion leaders, must play a role in sharing evidence-based information through social media. OBJECTIVE:To identify and describe the top 100 urology influencers on the Twitter social media platform and to correlate Twitter influence with academic impact in urology. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Twitter influence scores for the search topic "urology" were collected in April 2022 using published methodology. The top 100 personal accounts with the highest computed scores were linked to individuals' names, all-time h index, geographic location, specialty, attributed sex, and board certification status in this cross-sectional study. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS/METHODS:We examined the correlation between influence rank and h index. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Of the top 100 Twitter influencers on the topic of urology, the majority are from the USA (64%), male (85%), and practicing urologists (91%). Some 93% of US urology influencers are board-certified. Only 22 of the 50 US states are represented. The second most frequent country is the UK, with ten urology influencers. The median all-time h index is 42 (interquartile range 28.25-58). There is a weak positive correlation between influence rank and h index (r = 0.23; p = 0.02). Limitations of the study include the inability to validate the accuracy of the proprietary ranking algorithm and investigation of just one social media platform. CONCLUSIONS:The top Twitter influencers in urology are mostly board-certified US urologists. Collectively, influencers have a relatively greater academic impact in comparison to the average urologist, although there is a weak positive correlation between Twitter influence and h index among top Twitter influencers. PATIENT SUMMARY/RESULTS:Given the explosion of medical information on Twitter, we report the personal accounts with the greatest impact for the topic of "urology". We found that most urology influencers on Twitter are US board-certified urologists with a strong research history.

BACKGROUND:Prostate cancer (PCa) and its treatment can have significant and pervasive sexual side effects for patients and their partners; however, partner needs are not well understood, and most resources do not incorporate partner priorities. AIM:Our objective was to perform a qualitative study to identify unmet sexual needs of patients and female partners after PCa diagnosis. METHODS:We conducted a qualitative study of posts to the Inspire Us TOO Prostate Cancer Online Support and Discussion Community. Overall, 6,193 posts were identified in the Sexual Health & Intimacy forum of the community, of which 661 posts were from female authors. A random sample of 10% (n = 66) of posts from female partners and an equal number of randomly selected posts from male patients were analyzed. OUTCOMES:We assessed sexual health themes among patients and female partners. RESULTS:Multiple themes emerged that were unique to female partners of PCa survivors. These included expanding the sexual repertoire, feeling invisible, contextualizing sexual intimacy within the broader picture of survival, and addressing relationship concerns. Patients and their partners also shared common sexual health themes, including coming to terms with changes in sexual function and frustration with clinicians. Both patients and their partners use online health communities to get support and share their experiences with sexual recovery and use of sexual aids. Psychosocial treatments were infrequently mentioned, and may be particularly helpful to address partner concerns. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:A common concern for couples was not receiving sufficient information from healthcare providers regarding sexual side effects from PCa and its treatment. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS:Strengths of the study include leveraging a unique data source to address an understudied topic of sexual health concerns among partners after PCa diagnosis. However, members of an online community may not be representative of all couples facing PCa. Also, this analysis is limited to female partners of patients with PCa, and further study is underway to examine the sexual health needs among gay and bisexual couples. CONCLUSION:Both patients and female partners have many unmet sexual health needs during PCa survivorship, and designing interventions to incorporate partner perspectives may improve the management of sexual side effects of PCa for couples. Li R, Wittmann D, Nelson CJ, et al. Unmet Sexual Health Needs of Patients and Female Partners Following Diagnosis and Treatment for Prostate Cancer. J Sex Med 2022;19:1797-1803.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The dramatic reduction of clinical and research activities within medical and surgical departments during COVID-19, coupled with the inability of medical students to engage in research, away rotations and academic meetings, have all posed important implications on residency match. METHODS:Using Twitter application programming interface available data, 83,000 program-specific and 28,500 candidate-specific tweets were extracted for the analysis. Applicants to urology residency were identified as matched vs unmatched based on 3-level identification and verification. All elements of microblogging were captured through Anaconda Navigator. The primary endpoint was residency match, assessed as correlation to Twitter analytics (ie retweets, tweets). The final list of matched/unmatched applicants through this process was cross-referenced with internal validation of information obtained from the American Urological Association. RESULTS:A total of 28,500 English language posts from 250 matched and 45 unmatched applicants were included in the analysis. Matched applicants generally showed higher number of followers (median 171 [IQR 88-317.5] vs 83 [42-192], p=0.001), tweet likes (2.57 [1.53-4.52] vs 1.5 [0.35-3.03], p=0.048), and recent and total manuscripts (1 [0-2] vs 0 [0-1], p=0.006); 1 [0-3] vs 0 [0-1], p=0.016) in comparison to the unmatched cohort. On multivariable analysis, after adjusting for location, total number of citations and manuscripts, being a female (OR 4.95), having more followers (OR 1.01), individual tweet likes (OR 1.011) and total number of tweets (OR 1.02) increased overall odds of matching into a urology residency. CONCLUSIONS:Our study of the 2021 urology residency application cycle and use of Twitter highlighted distinct differences among matched and unmatched applicants and their respective Twitter analytics, highlighting a potential professional development opportunity offered by social media in underscoring applicants' profiles.

CONTEXT:Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly selected among patients with localized, intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa). However, the safety and optimal candidate selection for those with IR PCa remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate treatment-free survival and oncologic outcomes in patients with IR PCa managed with AS and to compare with AS outcomes in low-risk (LR) PCa patients. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION:A literature search was conducted through February 2022 using PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies. The coprimary outcomes were treatment-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival. A subgroup analysis was planned a priori to explore AS outcomes when limiting inclusion to IR patients with a Gleason grade (GG) of ≤2. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS:A total of 25 studies including 29 673 unselected IR patients met our inclusion criteria. The 10-yr treatment-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival ranged from 19.4% to 69%, 80.8% to 99%, 88.2% to 99%, and 59.4% to 83.9%, respectively. IR patients had similar treatment-free survival to LR patients (risk ratio [RR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.99-1.36, p = 0.07), but significantly higher risks of metastasis (RR 5.79, 95% CI, 4.61-7.29, p < 0.001), death from PCa (RR 3.93, 95% CI, 2.93-5.27, p < 0.001), and all-cause death (RR 1.44, 95% CI, 1.11-1.86, p = 0.005). In a subgroup analysis of studies including patients with GG ≤2 only (n = 4), treatment-free survival (RR 1.03, 95% CI, 0.62-1.71, p = 0.91) and metastasis-free survival (RR 2.09, 95% CI, 0.75-5.82, p = 0.16) were similar between LR and IR patients. Treatment-free survival was significantly reduced in subgroups of patients with unfavorable IR disease and increased cancer length on biopsy. CONCLUSIONS:The present systematic review and meta-analysis highlight the need to optimize patient selection for those with IR features. Our findings support limiting the inclusion of IR patients in AS to those with low-volume GG 2 tumor. PATIENT SUMMARY:Active surveillance is increasingly used in patients with localized, intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer. In this population, we have reported higher risks of metastasis and cancer mortality in unselected patients than in patients with low-risk features, underscoring the need to optimize the selection of patients with IR features.

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been hypothesized to protect against COVID-19, but previous observational studies of men with prostate cancer on ADT have been inconsistent regarding mortality risk from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Using data from the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe), we identified a cohort of 114 547 men with prevalent prostate cancer on the start of follow-up in February 2020, and followed them until 16 December 2020 to evaluate the association between ADT and time to test positive for COVID-19. Among men testing positive for COVID-19, we used regression analyses to estimate the association between ADT and risk of COVID-19-related hospital admission/death from any cause within 30 days of the positive test. In total, 1695 men with prostate cancer tested positive for COVID-19. In crude analyses, exposure to ADT was associated with a 3-fold increased risk of both testing positive for COVID-19 infection and subsequent hospital admission/death. Adjustment for age, comorbidity and prostate cancer risk category substantially attenuated the associations: HR 1.3 (95% CI: 1.1-1.5) for testing positive for COVID-19, and OR 1.4 (95% CI: 1.0-1.9) for risk of subsequent hospital admission/death. In conclusion, although these results suggest increased risks of a positive COVID-19 test, and COVID-19-related hospital admission/death in men on ADT, these findings are likely explained by confounding by old age, cancer-associated morbidity and other comorbidities being more prevalent in men on ADT, rather than a direct effect of the therapy.