Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Evading immune surveillance is a hallmark for the development of multiple cancer types. Whether immune evasion contributes to the pathogenesis of high-grade prostate cancer (HGPCa) remains an area of active inquiry. METHODS:Through single-cell RNA sequencing and multicolor flow cytometry of freshly isolated prostatectomy specimens and matched peripheral blood, we aimed to characterize the tumor immune microenvironment (TME) of localized prostate cancer (PCa), including HGPCa and low-grade prostate cancer (LGPCa). RESULTS: TILs. The PCa TME was infiltrated by macrophages but these did not clearly cluster by M1 and M2 markers. CONCLUSIONS:T cell exhaustion in localized PCa, a finding enriched in HGPCa relative to LGPCa. These studies suggest a possible link between the clinical-pathologic risk of PCa and the associated TME. Our results have implications for our understanding of the immunologic mechanisms of PCa pathogenesis and the implementation of immunotherapy for localized PCa.

The Internet is a common source of sleep information, but may be subject to commercial bias and misinformation. We compared the understandability, information quality, and presence of misinformation of popular YouTube videos on sleep to videos with credible experts. We identified the most popular YouTube videos on sleep/insomnia and 5 videos from experts. Videos were assessed for understanding and clarity using validated instruments. Misinformation and commercial bias were identified by consensus of sleep medicine experts. The most popular videos received on average 8.2 (±2.2) million views; the expert-led videos received on average 0.3 (±0.2) million views. Commercial bias was identified in 66.7% of popular videos and 0% of expert videos (p<0.012). The popular videos featured more misinformation than expert videos (p<0.001). The popular videos about sleep/insomnia on YouTube featured misinformation and commercial bias. Future research may explore methods for disseminating evidence-based sleep information.

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.

BACKGROUND:Active surveillance (AS) is recommended for low-risk and some intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Uptake and practice of AS vary significantly across different settings, as does the experience of surveillance-from which tests are offered, and to the levels of psychological support. OBJECTIVE:To explore the current best practice and determine the most important research priorities in AS for prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:A formal consensus process was followed, with an international expert panel of purposively sampled participants across a range of health care professionals and researchers, and those with lived experience of prostate cancer. Statements regarding the practice of AS and potential research priorities spanning the patient journey from surveillance to initiating treatment were developed. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS/METHODS:Panel members scored each statement on a Likert scale. The group median score and measure of consensus were presented to participants prior to discussion and rescoring at panel meetings. Current best practice and future research priorities were identified, agreed upon, and finally ranked by panel members. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:There was consensus agreement that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which allows digital rectal examination (DRE) to be omitted, that repeat standard biopsy can be omitted when MRI and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics are stable, and that changes in PSA or DRE should prompt MRI ± biopsy rather than immediate active treatment. The highest ranked research priority was a dynamic, risk-adjusted AS approach, reducing testing for those at the least risk of progression. Improving the tests used in surveillance, ensuring equity of access and experience across different patients and settings, and improving information and communication between and within clinicians and patients were also high priorities. Limitations include the use of a limited number of panel members for practical reasons. CONCLUSIONS:The current best practice in AS includes the use of high-quality MRI to avoid DRE and as the first assessment for changes in PSA, with omission of repeat standard biopsy when PSA and MRI are stable. Development of a robust, dynamic, risk-adapted approach to surveillance is the highest research priority in AS for prostate cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY/RESULTS:A diverse group of experts in active surveillance, including a broad range of health care professionals and researchers and those with lived experience of prostate cancer, agreed that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging, which can allow digital rectal examination and some biopsies to be omitted. The highest research priority in active surveillance research was identified as the development of a dynamic, risk-adjusted approach.

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: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.

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.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Differences in public awareness and uptake of genetic testing among patients with inheritable cancers are not well understood. The purpose of this study is to examine self-reported rates of undergoing cancer-specific genetic testing in patients with breast/ovarian cancer vs prostate cancer from a nationally representative sample of U.S. PATIENTS/METHODS:Secondary objectives include examining sources of genetic testing information and perceptions of genetic testing for both patient populations as well as the general public. METHODS:testing was used to compare differences among categorical variables. RESULTS:= .003). Health care professionals were the most common source of genetic testing information for patients with breast/ovarian cancer whereas the Internet was the most common source for patients with prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS:Our results suggest a lack of awareness and limited utilization of genetic testing among patients with prostate cancer relative to breast/ovarian cancer. Patients with prostate cancer cite the Internet and social media as sources of information, which may be an avenue for more optimal dissemination of evidence-based information.

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.