[Does the delay from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy influence the risk of biochemical recurrence?]

The COVID-19 pandemic and Urology - reflecting on successful initiatives and lessons in Australia

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on urological practice globally with a focus on Australian initiatives, as the pandemic resulted in radical changes in healthcare infrastructure and policies.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review of the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) and Web of Science medical databases. The key terms used to conduct our search algorithm comprised of 'COVID', 'wait list or wait time or delay', 'urology', 'surgery' and 'outcomes', and generated 231 articles. Abstracts were reviewed for relevance and 40 studies selected for full-text review. Society position statements and government level press release statements were identified through citation tracking and additionally included.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION

The halt on elective surgical services during the pandemic was deemed necessary to curb infection rates and conserve healthcare resources. However, it resulted in extended wait times and large surgical backlogs with major downstream effects. Australia fared favourably with regards to infection rates compared to international populations consequent upon strict border control, vaccine mandates, and stringent lockdowns. However, similar trends were noted in both oncological and non-oncological urology service reduction, resulting in significant concerns regarding the long-term sequelae of delayed surgery and missed appointments upon patient clinical outcome. Initiatives including collaborative partnerships between public and private hospital sectors, government-funded programmes and adoption of telehealth were successfully established as part of Australia's efforts to stabilise our healthcare system in response to the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

Australia's pandemic efforts have highlighted the escalating imbalance between increasing demand from a growing and ageing population on an already over-burdened system with finite resources. The additional strain of managing post-COVID-19 pandemic fallout in this context provides further challenges for clinicians and healthcare administrators alike. Collaboration by all stakeholders must continue in order to seek innovative solutions to maximise efficiency of healthcare service utilisation, so that quality universal healthcare provision may continue in the future.

Predictor Variables Associated With Dermatology Referral Completion and the Impact on Surgical Treatment: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Delays or failure to complete a dermatologic referral may affect health care outcomes. Factors associated with these delays remain understudied.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated socioeconomic and demographic factors associated with delays or failure to complete dermatology referrals and potential impact on surgical outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed for 400 patients internally referred to an academic dermatology center from 19 primary-care clinics from July 2018 to June 2019. Only patients referred after an in-person primary-care visit in which the provider documented a specific concerning lesion were included. Multivariate analyses were performed to explore variables associated with delays or failure to complete dermatology referrals.

RESULTS

Patients were more likely to complete their referral if they had a personal history (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 7.843, 95% CI 1.383-14.304) or family history (aOR = 11.307, 95% CI 2.344-20.27) of skin cancer. Patients were more likely to delay referral completion past 30 days if they were ages 18 to 34 (aOR = 6.665, 95% CI 1.285-12.044) and less likely to delay referral past 30 days if they had a previous history of skin cancer (aOR = 0.531, 95% CI 0.181-0.882).

LIMITATIONS

Single institution, retrospective study, limited surgical patients.

CONCLUSION

Understanding factors associated with delays in dermatology referral completion can help identify at-risk patient populations.

Prostate biopsy and prostate cancer management in patients with haemophilia: The experience of French Haemophilia Treatment Centres

BACKGROUND

Data are limited on prostate cancer (PC) management in patients with haemophilia (PWH).

AIM

To describe PC screening and diagnosis, treatment modalities and bleeding complications in a group of unselected PWH followed at French Haemophilia Treatment Centres (HTCs) PATIENTS AND METHODS: PC screening, management and bleeding complications were retrospectively investigated at 14 French HTCs between 2003 and 2018.

RESULTS

Among> 1549 > 50-year-old PWHs, 73 (4.7%) underwent PC screening (median age 71.1 years; 67/6 HA/HB, 17/56 severe-moderate/mild). At diagnosis, haematuria was infrequent. Prophylaxis was administered during 76/86 (88%) prostate biopsies (PB) (n = 67 clotting factor concentrates, CFC; n = 9 desmopressin; n = 17 associated with tranexamic acid, TA). Bleeding (11/86, 12.8%) occurred mainly post-prophylaxis (median delay: 7 days): haematuria (9/11, 81.8%), and rectal bleeding (2/11, 18.2%) including one major (1.2%). PC was confirmed in 50/86 PB and in two prostatectomy specimens (total n = 50 patients, n = 6 with only active surveillance). Surgery (n = 28/44 patients) was managed with CFC. Fifteen patients had radiotherapy/brachytherapy, 10 had hormone therapy; CFC-based prophylaxis was only prescribed for brachytherapy (n = 2). Major bleedings occurred in 3/28 (10.7%) and 2/15 (13.3%) patients who underwent surgery and radio/brachytherapy, respectively. No bleeding risk factor was found.

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that PB requires prophylaxis for atleast 7 days, using CFC, desmopressin or TA in function of haemophilia severity. PC surgery should be considered at high bleeding risk. Long-term post-procedural CFC or oral TA could be discussed. Radiotherapy/brachytherapy also should be managed with prophylaxis (CFC or TA).

Changes in the ambulatory care of prostate cancer patients during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Literature review and contribution of our group in telematic care

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about changes in the management of urology patients, especially those with prostate cancer. The aim of this work is to show the changes in the ambulatory care practices by individualized telematic care for each patient profile.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Articles published from March 2020 to January 2021 were reviewed. We selected those that provided the highest levels of evidence regarding risk in different aspects: screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of prostate cancer.

RESULTS

We developed a classification system based on priorities, at different stages of the disease (screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up) to which the type of care given, in-person or telephone visits, was adapted. We established 4 options, as follows: in priority A or low, care will be given by telephone in all cases; in priority B or intermediate, if patients are considered subsidiary of an in-person visit after telephone consultation, they will be scheduled within 3 months; in priority C or high, patients will be seen in person within a margin from 1 to 3 months and in priority D or very high, patients must always be seen in person within a margin of up to 48 h and considered very preferential.

CONCLUSIONS

Telematic care in prostate cancer offers an opportunity to develop new performance and follow-up protocols, which should be thoroughly analyzed in future studies, in order to create a safe environment and guarantee oncologic outcomes for patients.

[Changes in the ambulatory care of prostate cancer patients during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Literature review and contribution of our group in telematic care]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about changes in the management of urology patients, especially those with prostate cancer.The aim of this work is to show the changes in the ambulatory care practices by individualized telematic care for each patient profile.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Articles published from March 2020 to January 2021 were reviewed. We selected those that provided the highest levels of evidence regarding risk in different aspects: screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of prostate cancer.

RESULTS

We developed a classification system based on priorities, at different stages of the disease (screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up) to which the type of care given, in-person or telephone visits, was adapted. We established 4 options, as follows: in priority A or low, care will be given by telephone in all cases; in priority B or intermediate, if patients are considered subsidiary of an in-person visit after telephone consultation, they will be scheduled within 3 months; in priority C or high, patients will be seen in person within a margin from 1 to 3 months and in priority D or very high, patients must always be seen in person within a margin of up to 48 hours and considered very preferential.

CONCLUSIONS

Telematic care in prostate cancer offers an opportunity to develop new performance and follow-up protocols, which should be thoroughly analyzed in future studies, in order to create a safe environment and guarantee oncologic outcomes for patients.

Preoperative exercise interventions to optimize continence outcomes following radical prostatectomy

Urinary incontinence is a common and predictable consequence among men with localized prostate cancer who have undergone radical prostatectomy. Despite advances in the surgical technique, urinary continence recovery time remains variable. A range of surgical and patient-related risk factors contributing to urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy have been described, including age, BMI, membranous urethral length and urethral sphincter insufficiency. Physical activity interventions incorporating aerobic exercise, resistance training and pelvic floor muscle training programmes can positively influence the return to continence in men after radical prostatectomy. Traditional approaches to improving urinary continence after radical prostatectomy have typically focused on interventions delivered during the postoperative period (rehabilitation). However, the limited efficacy of these postoperative approaches has led to a shift from the traditional reactive model of care to more comprehensive interventions incorporating exercise-based programmes that begin in the preoperative period (prehabilitation) and continue after surgery. Comprehensive prehabilitation interventions include appropriately prescribed aerobic exercise, resistance training and specific pelvic floor muscle instruction and exercise training programmes. Transperineal ultrasonography is a non-invasive and validated method for the visualization of the action of the pelvic floor musculature, providing real-time visual biofeedback to the patient during specific pelvic floor muscle instruction and training. Importantly, the waiting time before surgery can be used for the delivery of comprehensive prehabilitation exercise-based interventions to increase patient preparedness in the lead-up to surgery and optimize continence and health-related quality-of-life outcomes following radical prostatectomy.

Impact of surgical wait times during summer months on the oncological outcomes following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: 10 years' experience from a large Canadian academic center

PURPOSE

Most Canadian hospitals face significant reductions in operating room access during the summer. We sought to assess the impact of longer wait times on the oncological outcomes of localized prostate cancer patients following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained RARP database in two high-volume academic centers, between 2010 and 2019. Assessed outcomes included the difference between post-biopsy UCSF-CAPRA and post-surgical CAPRA-S scores, Gleason score upgrade and biochemical recurrence rates (BCR). Multivariable regression analyses (MVA) were used to evaluate the effect of wait times.

RESULTS

A total of 1057 men were included for analysis. Consistent over a 10 year period, summer months had the lowest surgical volumes despite above average booking volumes. The lowest surgical volume occurred during the month of July (7.1 cases on average), which was 35% less than the cohort average. The longest average wait times occurred for patients booked in June (93 ± 69 days, p < 0.001). On MVA, patients booked in June had significantly more chance of having an increase in CAPRA score [HR (95% CI) 1.64 (1.02-2.63); p = 0.04] and in CAPRA risk group [HR (95% CI) 1.82 (1.04-3.19); p = 0.03]. Cohort analysis showed fair correlation between CAPRA-score difference and wait time (Pearson correlation: r =  - 0.062; p = 0.044).

CONCLUSION

Our cohort results demonstrate that conventional RARP wait times are significantly and consistently prolonged during summer months over the past 10 years, with worse post-RARP oncological outcomes in terms of CAPRA scores. Other compensatory mechanisms to sustain consistent yearly operative output should be considered.

Timing and delay of radical prostatectomy do not lead to adverse oncologic outcomes: results from a large European cohort at the times of COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

The current COVID-19 pandemic is transforming our urologic practice and most urologic societies recommend to defer any surgical treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) patients. It is unclear whether a delay between diagnosis and surgical management (i.e., surgical delay) may have a detrimental effect on oncologic outcomes of PCa patients. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of surgical delay on oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Data of 926 men undergoing radical prostatectomy across Europe for intermediate and high-risk PCa according to EAU classification were identified. Multivariable analysis using binary logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard model tested association between surgical delay and upgrading on final pathology, lymph-node invasion (LNI), pathological locally advanced disease (pT3-4 and/or pN1), need for adjuvant therapy, and biochemical recurrence. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate BCR-free survival after surgery as a function of surgical delay using a 3 month cut-off.

RESULTS

Median follow-up and surgical delay were 26 months (IQR 10-40) and 3 months (IQR 2-5), respectively. We did not find any significant association between surgical delay and oncologic outcomes when adjusted to pre- and post-operative variables. The lack of such association was observed across EAU risk categories.

CONCLUSION

Delay of several months did not appear to adversely impact oncologic results for intermediate and high-risk PCa, and support an attitude of deferring surgery in line with the current recommendation of urologic societies.

Concordance Between Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Scores: Evaluation of Determinants in a Large-Scale Study of Patients Undergoing RARP in Belgium

To determine whether Gleason scores were concordant between prostate biopsies (bGS) and the definitive resection specimen (pGS) excised with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP); to identify clinical and pathological factors that might predict upgrading; and to evaluate how upgrading affected outcome. Between 2009 and 2016, 25 Belgian centers participated in collecting prospective data for patients that underwent RARP. We analyzed the concordance rate between the bGS and the pGS in 8021 patients with kappa statistics, and we compared concordance rates from different centers. We assessed the effect of several clinical and pathological factors on the concordance rate with logistic regression analysis. The concordance rate for the entire population was 62.9%. Upgrading from bGS to pGS occurred in 27.3% of patients. The number of biopsies was significantly associated with concordance. Older age (>60 y), a higher clinical T stage (≥cT2), a higher PSA value at the time of biopsy (>10 ng/ml), and more time between the biopsy and the radical prostatectomy were significantly associated with a higher risk of upgrading. Positive margins and PSA relapse occurred more frequently in upgraded patients. Center size did not significantly affect the concordance rate (p = 0.40).This prospective, nationwide analysis demonstrated a Gleason score concordance rate of 62.9%. Upgrading was most frequently observed in the non-concordant group. We identified clinical and pathological factors associated with (non)-concordance. Upgrading was associated with a worse oncological outcome. Center volume was not associated with pathological accuracy.

Risks from Deferring Treatment for Genitourinary Cancers: A Collaborative Review to Aid Triage and Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Context

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is leading to delays in the treatment of many urologic cancers.

Objective

To provide a contemporary picture of the risks from delayed treatment for urologic cancers to assist with triage.

Evidence acquisition

A collaborative review using literature published as of April 2, 2020.

Evidence synthesis

Patients with low-grade non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer are unlikely to suffer from a 3–6-month delay. Patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer are at risk of disease progression, with radical cystectomy delays beyond 12 wk from diagnosis or completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Prioritization of these patients for surgery or management with radiochemotherapy is encouraged. Active surveillance should be used for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Treatment of most patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa can be deferred 3–6 mo without change in outcomes. The same may be true for cancers with the highest risk of progression. With radiotherapy, neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the standard of care. For surgery, although the added value of neoadjuvant ADT is questionable, it may be considered if a patient is interested in such an approach. Intervention may be safely deferred for T1/T2 renal masses, while locally advanced renal tumors (≥T3) should be treated expeditiously. Patients with metastatic renal cancer may consider vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy over immunotherapy. Risks for delay in the treatment of upper tract urothelial cancer depend on grade and stage. For patients with high-grade disease, delays of 12 wk in nephroureterectomy are not associated with adverse survival outcomes. Expert guidance recommends expedient local treatment of testis cancer. In penile cancer, adverse outcomes have been observed with delays of ≥3 mo before inguinal lymphadenectomy. Limitations include a paucity of data and methodologic variations for many cancers.

Conclusions

Patients and clinicians should consider the oncologic risk of delayed cancer intervention versus the risks of COVID-19 to the patient, treating health care professionals, and the health care system.

Patient summary

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to delays in the treatment of patients with urologic malignancies. Based on a review of the literature, patients with high-grade urothelial carcinoma, advanced kidney cancer, testicular cancer, and penile cancer should be prioritized for treatment during these challenging times.