ABSTRACT
Purpose: Absence of tumor in the final histopathology after radical cystectomy (RC) is a rare but potentially favorable outcome. Therefore, we aimed to analyze outcomes and prognostic factors of patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC) undergoing RC and T0 in the final histology without neoadjuvant chemotherapy at a high-volume academic center. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients undergoing RC for pure UC between 2004 and 2020. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and group comparison by Log rank test. Potential prognostic factors were analyzed using univariate Cox regression models. Results: A total of 1051 patients with UC underwent RC. 72 patients (6.7%) showed pT0 in the final histology. Across all T-stages, 5-year CSS was significantly different with 88% for pT0, 80% for pTa/pTis, 78% for pT1, 76% for pT2, 51% for pT3 and 27% for pT4 in our cohort (p=0.001). Neither instillation therapy (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.07-1.43), number of TURB prior RC (HR 1.47, 95% CI 0.25-6.18), use of photodynamic diagnostics (PDD) (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.14-3.02), performing a second resection (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.27-2.86), muscle-invasive disease prior RC at any TURB (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.2-2.39) or muscle-invasive disease in the TURB prior RC (HR 1.0, 0.31-3.29) were associated with CSS in univariate analysis. Conclusion: pT0 reveals a survival benefit in patients undergoing RC for UC and therefore presents a distinctive tumor entity. As clinical and cystoscopic characteristics do not improve patient stratification, further research is warranted to define risk groups in this specific tumor entity.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the use and concern of telemedicine among German urologists, and thus, there are no established guidelines for telemedical diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of urological indications. METHODS: An anonymized survey was conducted among German private practice urologists during the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The χ2 test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Kruskal-Wallis test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: 257 urologists were included in the final analysis. Thirty-five (14.0%) of urologists had used telemedicine as part of their consultation, and 221 (86.0%) had not used telemedicine. There was no difference between telemedicine adoption rates between rural and urban settings. Telemedicine users were significantly more satisfied with the information they had received regarding telemedicine issues. Users saw the greatest barrier to telemedicine that patients do not take up the offer of telemedicine. Nonusers were most concerned with unclear indications for telemedicine followed by lesser reimbursements during telemedicine than in-person visitations. Users were significantly more likely to use telemedicine beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Urologists, who wanted to use the service in the future, wanted an active support by the German society of urology and guidelines for telemedicine. Last, users and nonusers preferred telemedicine for non-acute chronic diseases and follow-up visitations. CONCLUSION: Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine remains a rarely used service among German private practice urologists. Ultimately, to overcome the current challenges, urologists require an active support for the service through the German Society of Urology and telemedical guidelines.