Tags

Main Content

Top Content

Directory of Key words from the Journal and the latest article from it.

grade migrationView Articles

Volume 20, Number 3Original Research

Histologic Changes in Prostate Cancer Detected Subsequent to the 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Prostate Cancer Screening Recommendation

Ann E AndersonCarl A OlssonHugh J LaveryDeepak Kapoor

We report changes in the histopathology of prostate cancer diagnosed in a large urology group practice after the final United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grade D recommendation against prostate-specific antigen screening. All prostate biopsies performed from 2011 through 2015 in a large urology group practice were retrospectively reviewed; 2012 was excluded as a transition year. The changes in biopsy data in years following the USPSTF decision (2013-2015) were then compared with baseline (2011). A total of 10,944 biopsies were evaluated during the study period. Positive biopsy rates rose from 39.1% at baseline to 45.2% in 2015 (P < 0.01) with a marked shift toward more aggressive cancer throughout the study period. The absolute number of patients presenting with Gleason Grade Group 4 or 5 increased from 155/year at baseline to 231, 297, and 285 in 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively (P < 0.05), unrelated to age or racial changes over time. Black men represented 16% of the cohort. Since the USPSTF recommendation against prostate cancer screening, trends toward a substantial upward grade migration and increased volume of cancers were noted in a cohort of nearly 11,000 patients in a real- world clinical practice. Additionally, continuing reductions in cancer detection in the United States may exacerbate these trends. [Rev Urol. 2018;20(3):125–130 doi: 10.3909/riu0815] © 2018 MedReviews®, LLC

Prostate cancerProstate cancer screeningHistopathologygrade migration

GynecomastiaView Articles

Volume 9, Number 4Review Articles

Estrogenic Side Effects of Androgen Deprivation Therapy

Treatment Update

Michael S CooksonJames A EasthamTheresa A GuiseMichael G OefeleinMatthew R SmithCelestia Higano

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is part of standard therapy for locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer and is frequently used in men with a rising prostate-specific antigen following radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. In some men, ADT may be administered for years or even decades. The intended therapeutic effect of ADT is testosterone deficiency. Because estrogen is a normal metabolite of testosterone, ADT also results in estrogen deficiency. ADT has a variety of adverse effects, many of which are primarily related to estrogen deficiency. Bone mineral density may decrease by 4% to 13% per year in men receiving ADT. The fracture rate for patients on ADT averages 5% to 8% per year of therapy. Hot flashes, gynecomastia, and breast tenderness are common side effects associated with ADT. In the clinic, minimum baseline testing should include weight measurement, blood pressure reading, and fasting lipid panel and serum glucose tests. Currently, there are no large outcome trials in men on ADT testing the available therapies for adverse effects. No therapies are specifically approved for treatment of adverse effects in men on ADT. Although some therapies can be used for a single indication (based upon small studies), there is currently no agent to treat the multiple estrogenic side effects of ADT. [Rev Urol. 2007;9(4):163-180]

Androgen deprivation therapyCardiovascular diseaseGynecomastiaOsteoporosis fractureMale hot flashes

Health economicsView Articles
health workforceView Articles

Volume 23, Number 2Editorial

Advanced Practice Providers, Urology Workforce Challenges, and Reviews in Urology

Kenneth A. Mitchell

In 2015, the American Urological Association published the Consensus Statement on Advanced Practice Providers (APPs) with the goal of providing up-to-date information on the training of APPs, the scope of practice legislation, and examples of APPs in urologic practices.1 This statement was co-written by an experienced team of physicians and APPs whose purpose was to provide a unique and collaborative perspective on urology APPs. The paper was inspired by a report from an American Urological Association ad hoc committee assembled in 2008, which concluded that there were substantial workforce shortages in urology and that physician assistants and advanced practice registered nurses would provide the “best solution” for the declining urology workforce.2 In 2009, reports estimated that there were 3.1 urologists per 100 000 people in the United States and that urology was the second-oldest surgical subspecialty, with a workforce median age of 52.5 years.2 A published update in 2021, which used data from 2018, revealed that there were 3.89 urologists per 100 000 people in the United States, with 65% of urologists reporting that they were “interested” in the integration and use of APPs; 72.5% of urologists reported already incorporating an APP into their practice, accounting for nearly 41% of a physician (ie, MD or DO) full-time equivalent.2 More recent data showed the use of APPs was lowest in practices with the youngest and oldest subgroups of urologists and was highest in urban urology practices, which represent groups most likely to be affected initially due to the disproportionate geographical urology patient population density.

Physician assistantsnurse practitionershealth workforce