BackgroundSurgeons play a pivotal role in combating the opioid crisis that currently grips the United States. Changing surgeon behavior is difficult, and the degree to which behavioral science can steer surgeons toward decreased opioid prescribing is unclear.MethodsThis was a single‐institution, single‐arm, pre‐ and postintervention study examining the prescribing of opioids by urologists for adult patients undergoing prostatectomy or nephrectomy. The primary outcome was the quantity of opioids prescribed in oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) after hospital discharge. The primary exposure was a multipronged behavioral intervention designed to decrease opioid prescribing. The intervention had 3 components: 1) formal education, 2) individual audit feedback, and 3) peer comparison performance feedback. There were 3 phases to the study: a pre‐intervention phase, an intervention phase, and a washout phase.ResultsThree hundred eighty‐two patients underwent prostatectomy, and 306 patients underwent nephrectomy. The median OMEs decreased from 195 to 19 in the prostatectomy patients and from 200 to 0 in the nephrectomy patients (P < .05 for both). The median OMEs prescribed did not increase during the washout phase. Prostatectomy patients discharged with opioids had higher levels of anxiety than patients discharged without opioids (P < .05). Otherwise, prostatectomy and nephrectomy patients discharged with and without opioids did not differ in their perception of postoperative pain management, activity levels, psychiatric symptoms, or somatic symptoms (P > .05 for all).ConclusionsImplementing a multipronged behavioral intervention significantly reduced opioid prescribing for patients undergoing prostatectomy or nephrectomy without compromising patient‐reported outcomes.

Autophagy is a complex process involved in several cell activities, including tissue growth, differentiation, metabolic modulation, and cancer development. In prostate cancer, autophagy has a pivotal role in the regulation of apoptosis and disease progression. Several molecular pathways are involved, including PI3K/AKT/mTOR. However, depending on the cellular context, autophagy may play either a detrimental or a protective role in prostate cancer. For this purpose, current evidence has investigated how autophagy interacts within these complex interactions. In this article, we discuss novel findings about autophagic machinery in order to better understand the therapeutic response and the chemotherapy resistance of prostate cancer. Autophagic-modulation drugs have been employed in clinical trials to regulate autophagy, aiming to improve the response to chemotherapy or to anti-cancer treatments. Furthermore, the genetic signature of autophagy has been found to have a potential means to stratify prostate cancer aggressiveness. Unfortunately, stronger evidence is needed to better understand this field, and the application of these findings in clinical practice still remains poorly feasible.

Barrett et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

No abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate both device and functional outcomes of men who underwent initial artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement after pelvic radiation using the transcorporal versus the standard approach. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent first-time AUS placement after pelvic irradiation for prostate cancer was conducted between January 2008 and June 2020. Patients were grouped by transcorporal versus standard device placement. The primary outcomes of interest included major complications (revision or explant surgery) and functional outcomes (pads per day, International Prostate Symptom Score {IPSS}, quality of life {QOL} score). Results: We identified 45 patients who underwent first-time AUS with a history of prior pelvic irradiation for prostate cancer, 27 underwent transcorporal placement and 18 underwent standard placement. Transcorporal AUS placement resulted in a significantly lower number of major complications (p=0.01), explants (p=0.02), and revisions (p=0.04) The transcorporal artificial urinary sphincter group had better postoperative pads per day (p=0.04), IPSS (p<0.01), and IPSS QOL score (p<0.01). Conclusions: Initial transcorporal artificial urinary sphincter placement is a promising technique with lower rates of major complications in patients with a history of prior pelvic radiation and had better functional urinary outcomes.