Tags

Main Content

Top Content

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

Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitorView Articles

Volume 17, Number 2Review Articles

Penile Rehabilitation Strategies Among Prostate Cancer Survivors

Treatment Update

Fouad AounAlexandre PeltierRoland van Velthoven

Despite advances in technical and surgical approaches, erectile dysfunction (ED) remains the most common complication among prostate cancer survivors, adversely impacting quality of life. This article analyzes the concept and rationale of ED rehabilitation programs in prostate cancer patients. Emphasis is placed on the pathophysiology of ED after diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer to understand the efficacy of rehabilitation programs in clinical practice. Available evidence shows that ED is a transient complication following prostate biopsy and cancer diagnosis, with no evidence to support rehabilitation programs in these patients. A small increase in ED and in the use of phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors was reported in patients under active surveillance. Patients should be advised that active surveillance is unlikely to severely affect erectile function, but clinically significant changes in sexual function are possible. Focal therapy could be an intermediate option for patients demanding treatment/refusing active surveillance and invested in maintaining sexual activity. Unlike radical prostatectomy, there is no support for PDE5 inhibitor use to prevent ED after highly conformal external radiotherapy or low-dose rate brachytherapy. Despite progress in the understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms responsible for ED in prostate cancer patients, the success rates of rehabilitation programs remain low in clinical practice. Alternative strategies to prevent ED appear warranted, with attention toward neuromodulation, nerve grafting, nerve preservation, stem cell therapy, investigation of neuroprotective interventions, and further refinements of radiotherapy dosing and delivery methods. [Rev Urol. 2015;17(2):58-68 doi: 10.3909/riu0652] © 2015 MedReviews®, LLC

Prostate cancerErectile dysfunctionPenile rehabilitationPhosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitorProstaglandin E

Photodynamic therapyView Articles

Volume 10, Number 4Review Articles

Vascular Targeted Photodynamic Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

Treatment Update

Herbert Lepor

Survival for men diagnosed with prostate cancer directly depends on the stage and grade of the disease at diagnosis. Prostate cancer screening has greatly increased the ability to diagnose small and low-grade cancers that are amenable to cure. However, widespread prostate-specific antigen screening exposes many men with low-risk cancers to unnecessary complications associated with treatment for localized disease without any survival advantage. One challenge for urological surgeons is to develop effective treatment options for low-risk disease that are associated with fewer complications. Minimally invasive ablative treatments for localized prostate cancer are under development and may represent a preferred option for men with low-risk disease who want to balance the risks and benefits of treatment. Vascular targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP) is a novel technique that is being developed for treating prostate cancer. Recent advances in photodynamic therapy have led to the development of photosynthesizers that are retained by the vascular system, which provides the opportunity to selectively ablate the prostate with minimal collateral damage to other structures. The rapid clearance of these new agents negates the need to avoid exposure to sunlight for long periods. Presented herein are the rationale and preliminary data for VTP for localized prostate cancer. [Rev Urol. 2008;10(4):254-261]

Vascular targeted photodynamic therapyPhotodynamic therapyProstate cancer, localizedMinimally invasive ablative treatment for prostate cancerWST-09WST-11PadoporfinPalladium bacteriopheophorbide

Physician assistantsView 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