No abstract

Purpose Magnetic resonance imaging is playing an ever‐bigger role in the management of prostate cancer. This study investigated barriers to obtaining multi‐parametric MRI (mpMRI) in African‐American men on active surveillance for prostate cancer in comparison to white men affected by the same type of cancer. Materials and Methods Retrospective review of prostate mpMRI orders from August 2015 to October 2017 at a single health organization treating a diverse population was performed. Data was extracted from the electronic medical records and cancellations were examined based on the documented reason for mpMRI cancellation, race, median zip code household income, and distance from healthcare facility. Results Out of 793 prostate mpMRI orders, 201 (25%) went unscanned. Access to care issues accounted for 46% of unscanned orders. Patient cancellations were the most common, followed by difficulty contacting patients, and insurance denials. African‐American patients disproportionately went unscanned because institution staff were unable to contact patients (29% vs 10% in white men, P = 0.0015). Median zip code household income was significantly different between racial groups but did not vary between indication for cancellation. Conclusions African‐American prostate cancer patients' access to mpMRI is hindered more by barriers to care than White patients. Urology providers must consider these issues before using prostate mpMRI within their active surveillance pathways.

Background Collagenase Clostridium histolyticum (CCH), which was approved by the FDA for the treatment of Peyronie's disease (PD) in 2013, may obviate the need for surgery but its historically high cost must be considered when offering CCH vs surgical intervention to affected patients. Aim To compare trends of intralesional injections vs surgical treatment for PD and assess the contemporary cost of treatment with CCH vs surgical intervention. Methods We reviewed 2009–2019 MarketScan Commercial Claims data to identify all men 18 years and older with PD. CPT and HCPCS codes were used to identify PD treatments for each patient. Associated insurance claims in USD were summed for each treatment type. Outcomes Total and out-of-pocket costs, as well as frequencies, for treatments were calculated on a yearly basis and the Cochran-Armitage test was used to compare frequencies before and after FDA approval of CCH. Results Of 89,205 men diagnosed with PD, 21,605 (24.2%) underwent treatment; most required only intralesional injections, however 1,519 (7.0%) received only surgical therapy and 1,951 (9.0%) required medical and surgical therapy. Intralesional CCH use sharply increased after its FDA-approval in 2013 with a concomitant fall of intralesional verapamil use. The use of both surgical plication and plaque grafting decreased steadily from 2009 to 2019. The median cost per patient for all 3 treatments increased over the study time-period: $1,856 to $3,196 for plication, $2,233 to $3,631 for plaque grafting, and $6,940 to $8,895 per cycle for CCH. Out-of-pocket median patient contribution for plication, plaque grafting, and per cycle intralesional CCH injection were similar over the study period and never exceeded $300. Clinical Implications CCH is significantly more expensive than any surgical treatment option, however, the out-of-pocket patient contribution for surgery and CCH are similar. Strengths & Limitations This study incorporated all procedure costs and is the most contemporary, comprehensive, and accurate reflection of overall and out-of-pocket costs to patients for surgical and intralesional PD therapies. We anticipate these data to allow for a more complete discussion between patients and providers regarding their care. The use of a commercial claims database prohibited assessment of post-procedural costs and treatment outcomes. Conclusion CCH use has increased significantly since its FDA approval in 2013 with out-of-pocket patient contribution comparable to surgical therapy despite significantly higher total treatment costs.

CONTEXT CONTEXT Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a major oncologic urological surgery that can have high morbidity if complications arise. Bladder-urethral urine anastomotic leaks (AL) are one of the most common complications and can greatly increase morbidity. To date, there are few resources to manage AL. One management technique is using a Foley catheter with an additional auxiliary drainage port, also known as a fenestrated catheter. This type of auxiliary drainage port allows a low-pressure drainage source that is located near the anastomosis to increase urine drainage from catheter rather than from the AL site. The optimal size and location of this additional drainage port is currently unknown. This experiment evaluated the optimal auxiliary drainage port size and an inexpensive technique to easily construct such a catheter. METHODS METHODS Utilizing different size punch biopsies, auxiliary drainage ports were placed in different size Foley catheters and drainage rates and the structural integrity of the catheter was assessed. RESULTS RESULTS A 3.0 mm punch biopsy located 1.0 cm proximal to the Foley balloon in an 18 French (Fr) catheter was determined to be the optimal size. A 2.0 mm punch biopsy provided significantly less drainage. The 4.0 mm punch biopsy compromised the structural integrity of the catheter. CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS Based on these experimental results, we recommend using a 3.0 mm punch biopsy in an 18 Fr catheter 1.0 cm. proximal to the balloon for an auxiliary drain site in Foley catheter when the anastomosis is not watertight or the surgeon has reason to believe the patient is at higher risk for an AL Factors such as history of pelvic radiation, abnormal anatomy, large prostate, post-surgical hematoma formation, obesity, previous prostatic surgery, difficult anastomosis, blood loss and postoperative urinary tract infection may make use of this type of device more attractive.