Tags

Main Content

Top Content

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

Urothelial cell carcinomaView Articles

Volume 15, Number 4Review Articles

Intracavitary Immunotherapy and Chemotherapy for Upper Urinary Tract Cancer: Current Evidence

Systematic Review

Luca CarmignaniRoberto BianchiGabriele CozziNicola MacchioneCarlo MarenghiSara MelegariMarco RossoElena TondelliAugusto MaggioniAngelica Grasso

A review of the literature was performed to summarize current evidence regarding the efficacy of topical immunotherapy and chemotherapy for upper urinary tract urothelial cell carcinoma (UUT-UCC) in terms of post-treatment recurrence rates. A Medline database literature search was performed in March 2012 using the terms upper urinary tract, urothelial cancer, bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), and mitomycin C. A total of 22 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 19 studies reporting the outcomes of patients who underwent immunotherapy or chemotherapy with curative or adjuvant intent for UUT-UCC were chosen for quantitative analysis. Overall, the role of immunotherapy and chemotherapy for UUT-UCC is not firmly established. The most established practice is the treatment of carcinoma in situ (CIS) with BCG, even if a significant advantage has not yet been proven. The use of BCG as adjuvant therapy after complete resection of papillary UUT-UCC has been studied less extensively, even if recurrence rates are not significantly different than after the treatment of CIS. Only a few reports describe the use of mitomycin C, making it difficult to obtain significant evidence. [Rev Urol. 2013;15(4):145-153 doi: 10.3909/riu0579] © 2014 MedReviews®, LLC

ImmunotherapyChemotherapyBacillus Calmette-GuérinUpper urinary tractUrothelial cell carcinomaMitomycin C

Utilization trendsView Articles

Volume 15, Number 4Original Research

Utilization Trends and Positive Biopsy Rates for Prostate Biopsies in the United States: 2005 to 2011

Deepak A KapoorAnn E AndersonCarl A OlssonSavvas E MendrinosDavid G Bostwick

This article assesses the positive biopsy rate and core sampling pattern in patients undergoing needle biopsy of the prostate in the United States at a national reference laboratory (NRL) and anatomic pathology laboratories integrated into urology group practices, and analyzes the relationship between positive biopsy rates and the number of specimen vials per biopsy. For the years 2005 to 2011 we collected pathology data from an NRL, including number of urologists and urology practices referring samples, total specimen vials submitted for prostate biopsies, and final pathologic diagnosis for each case. The diagnoses were categorized as benign, malignant, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, or atypical small acinar proliferation. Over the same period, similar data were gathered from urology practices with in-house laboratories performing global pathology services (urology practice laboratories; UPLs) as identified by a survey of members of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. For each year studied, positive biopsy rate and number of specimen vials per biopsy were calculated in aggregate and separately for each site of service. From 2005 to 2011, 437,937 biopsies were submitted in . 4.23 million vials (9.4 specimen vials/biopsy); overall positive biopsy rate was 40.3%—this was identical at both the NRL and UPL (P 5 .97). Nationally, the number of specimen vials per biopsy increased sharply from a mean of 8.8 during 2005 to 2008 to a mean of 10.3 from 2009 to 2011 (difference, 1.5 specimen vials/biopsy; P 5 .03). For the most recent 3-year period (2009-2011), the difference of 0.6 specimen vials per biopsy between the NRL (10.0) and UPL (10.6) was not significant (P 5 0.08). Positive biopsy rate correlated strongly (P , .01) with number of specimen vials per biopsy. The positive prostate biopsy rate is 40.3% and is identical across sites of service. Although there was a national trend toward increased specimen vials per biopsy from 2005 to 2011, from 2009 to 2011 there was no significant difference in specimen vials per biopsy across sites of service. Increased cancer detection rate correlated significantly with increased number of specimens examined. Segregation of prostate biopsy cores into 10 to 12 unique specimen vials has been widely adopted by urologists across sites of service. [Rev Urol. 2013;15(4):137-144 doi: 10.3909/riu0600] © 2014 MedReviews®, LLC

Prostate cancerProstate biopsyUtilization trendsNational reference laboratory

Vacuum constriction deviceView Articles

Volume 8, Number 4Review Articles

Penile Rehabilitation After Radical Prostatectomy: Important Therapy or Wishful Thinking?

Management Update

Jesse N MillsRandall B MeachamJoseph E Dall'EraHari K Koul

On the basis of data accumulated thus far, it is reasonable to discuss the implementation of a “penile rehabilitation” program with patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Central to discussions of penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy is evidence demonstrating significant fibrotic changes in the corpus cavernosum that occur postoperatively. Several studies have been published evaluating the efficacy of various pro-erectogenic agents. The limited data regarding intracavernous injections and vacuum constriction devices suggest that an increased percentage of treated patients experienced a return of natural erections compared with patients who received no treatment. Longer, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled studies will be needed to confirm the utility of these treatments. Data from contemporary studies evaluating the chronic use of oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors suggest a beneficial effect on endothelial cell function among men suffering from erectile dysfunction due to a variety of causes. Limited data suggest that this effect might be seen among post-prostatectomy patients, implying a possible role for these agents in enhancing the return of sexual function in such individuals. [Rev Urol. 2006;8(4):209-215]

Radical prostatectomyErectile dysfunctionPenile rehabilitationPDE-5 inhibitorsHypoxiaIntracorporeal injectionVacuum constriction device

Value-based careView Articles

Volume 18, Number 3Review Articles

Urology Group Compensation and Ancillary Service Models in an Era of Value-based Care

Health Care Economics

Neal D ShoreDana Jacoby

Changes involving the health care economic landscape have affected physicians’ workflow, productivity, compensation structures, and culture. Ongoing Federal legislation regarding regulatory documentation and imminent payment-changing methodologies have encouraged physician consolidation into larger practices, creating affiliations with hospitals, multidisciplinary medical specialties, and integrated delivery networks. As subspecialization and evolution of care models have accelerated, independent medical groups have broadened ancillary service lines by investing in enterprises that compete with hospital-based (academic and nonacademic) entities, as well as non–physician-owned multispecialty enterprises, for both outpatient and inpatient services. The looming and dramatic shift from volume- to value-based health care compensation will assuredly affect urology group compensation arrangements and productivity formulae. For groups that can implement change rapidly, efficiently, and harmoniously, there will be opportunities to achieve the Triple Aim goals of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, while maintaining a successful medical-financial practice. In summary, implementing new payment algorithms alongside comprehensive care coordination will assist urology groups in addressing the health economic cost and quality challenges that have been historically encountered with fee-for-service systems. Urology group leadership and stakeholders will need to adjust internal processes, methods of care coordination, cultural dependency, and organizational structures in order to create better systems of care and management. In response, ancillary services and patient throughput will need to evolve in order to adequately align quality measurement and reporting systems across provider footprints and patient populations. [Rev Urol. 2016;18(3):143-150 doi: 10.3909/riu0726] © 2016 MedReviews®, LLC

Independent practiceCollaborationValue-based careSpecializationCompensation