Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
Add filters

Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Journal of Urology ; 209(Supplement 4):e1105, 2023.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2318362

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: In 2018, The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) changed its recommendations for prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening from "non-recommended" to "shared decision-making among men aged 55-69". Thereafter, COVID-19 Pandemic disrupted cancer care with evidence suggesting overall reduced access to and utilization of health care services including preventive screening. We aim to examine the impacts of both events on PSA screening for men aged 55-69. METHOD(S): We analyzed 2013, 2015, 2018, 2019, and 2021 National Health Interview Survey data. Men >54 who reported PSA testing within 12 months preceding survey were considered to have undergone screening. Adjusted difference in differences (DID) analyses were performed to compare changes in screening in men aged 55-69 with reference to men >70 between 2015 and 2019 (pre- and post- 2018 USPSTF recommendation) and between 2019 and 2021 (pre- and post-Pandemic). RESULT(S): A total of 24,308 men were included. PSA screening prevalence was 35.4% (95%CI: 33.7%, 37.1%), 32.1% (95%CI: 30.3%, 33.9%), 33.3% (95%CI: 31.6%, 34.9%), 37.2% (95%CI: 35.7%, 38.8%), and 34.9% (95%CI: 33.3%, 36.5%) respectively for included years. From 2015 to 2019, PSA screening increased 4.6% among men aged 55-69 (95%CI: 1.7, 7.5%) and increased 6.5% among men >70 (95% CI: 2.7, 10.4%). From 2019 to 2021, PSA screening decreased 3.1% among men aged 55-69 (95%CI: 0.58%, 5.8%);PSA screening also decreased 0.8% among older men but did not reach significance (95% CI: -2.6%, 4.2%). DID analysis did not show difference in changes between men aged 55-69 in reference to men >70 from both 2015 to 2019 (DID=-1.9%, 95%CI, -6.7%, 2.9%) and 2019 to 2021 (DID =-2.3%, 95%CI, -6.5%, 1.9%). CONCLUSION(S): We saw an increase in PSA screening after 2018 USPSTF recommendations among its target population e men aged 55-69 and also among older men >70. In contrast, the period from 2019 to 2021 saw a significant decrease in PSA screening in those aged 55-69. The lack of significant DID between groups as well as the downward trend of PSA screening in men >70 together suggest an overall trend of decrease in PSA screening post-Pandemic.

2.
Journal of Urology ; 209(Supplement 4):e1110, 2023.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2312938

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic placed a significant burden on the US healthcare system. Moreover, many healthcare systems triaged cases based on the severity of disease. Therefore, we assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on prostate cancer management according to the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade groups. METHOD(S): We retrospectively analyzed the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for patients with prostate cancer between 2018- 2020. We divided our cohort into "Pre-Pandemic" (2018/2019) and "Pandemic" (2020) periods. Men were classified according to their ISUP grade group at diagnosis. Hospital characteristics and patient-level clinical and sociodemographic variables were extracted. Our primary outcome was the utilization of definitive treatment (surgery or radiation) versus expectant management (active surveillance, watchful waiting, or no treatment). We performed multivariable logistic regressions to predict the type of management for each ISUP grade group across the two periods adjusting for clinical and socioeconomic covariates. RESULT(S): A total of 398,719 men with a diagnosis of prostate cancer were reported during the "Pre-Pandemic" (70.6%) and "Pandemic" (29.4%) periods. Overall, 24.5% had an ISUP 1, 30.6% an ISUP 2, 18.2% an ISUP 3, 13% ISUP 4, and 13.8% ISUP 5 disease (Table 1). Treatment was less likely during the "Pandemic" compared to the "Pre-Pandemic" period for ISUP grade group 1 (aOR 0.80;95% CI 0.77 - 0.83;p-value <0.001), for ISUP grade group 2 (aOR 0.85;95% CI 0.81 - 0.89;p-value <0.001) and for ISUP grade group 3 (aOR 0.87;95% CI 0.80 - 0.96;p-value <0.003). However, no differences in treatment trends were found for ISUP grade groups 4 and 5 across the two time periods. CONCLUSION(S): During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with prostate cancers ISUP grade groups 1, 2, and 3 were more likely to receive expectant management than definitive treatment;however, this was not true for patients with more aggressive diseases. This finding suggests a high capacity of facilities to appropriately risk stratify and prioritize higher-risk cases during a public health emergency. A limitation of our study is the inability to assess the treatment trends of men diagnosed in the last 2020 quarter due to the lack of follow-up.

3.
Journal of Urology ; 209(Supplement 4):e1105, 2023.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2312937

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic likely affected the healthcare system's ability to deliver prostate cancer care services. Herein, we sought to evaluate prostate cancer's stage and grade migration resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD(S): We retrospectively analyzed the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for men with prostate cancer between 2018-2020. We divided our cohort into the "Pre-Pandemic" (2018/2019) and "Pandemic" (2020) periods. Stage and grade of prostate cancer were stratified according to the severity of disease: PSA value (<=20 vs. >20), clinical T stage (cT1-T2 vs. cT3-T4), clinical M stage (cM0 vs. cM1), International Society of Uropathology (ISUP) grade group (ISUP 1-2-3 vs. ISUP 4-5), and D'Amico risk classification (low risk vs. intermediate & high risk). Pearson's chi-square test was used to assess differences in the distribution of stage and grade across the two periods. We performed multivariable logistic regressions to estimate the effect of the "Pandemic" period on stage and grade distribution adjusting for clinical and socioeconomic covariates. RESULT(S): A total of 398,719 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer during the "Pre-pandemic" (70.6%) and "Pandemic" (29.4%) periods (Table 1). On univariable comparisons, an increase in stage/ grade across the two periods was demonstrated (all p<0.001). After adjusting for covariates, compared to the "Pre-pandemic", the "Pandemic" period was associated with increased odds of PSA >20 levels (aOR 1.06;95% CI 1.03 - 1.08;p-value <0.001), cT3-4 stages (aOR 1.12;95% CI 1.08 - 1.16;p<0.001), cM1 stage (aOR 1.15;95% CI 1.12 - 1.18;p<0.001), ISUP grade group 4 or 5 (aOR 1.03;95% CI 1.01 - 1.05;p=0.003) and D'Amico Intermediate & High risk groups (aOR 1.15;95% CI 1.13 - 1.18;p<0.001). CONCLUSION(S): The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with significant changes in the distribution of both stage and grade of prostate cancer. Possible explanations for this migration include a better selection of patients for prostate biopsy during the pandemic or changes in prostate cancer screening patterns.

5.
European Urology ; 83:S199-S200, 2023.
Article in English | Academic Search Complete | ID: covidwho-2221508
6.
Journal of Urology ; 206(SUPPL 3):e1064-e1065, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1483653

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to be a global health crisis despite the recent worldwide vaccine distribution. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is most commonly believed to cause severe disease manifestations secondary to a cytokine storm. Low testosterone is associated with a proinflammatory environment and it is thought that a eugonadal testosterone level may be protective of increased cytokine activity. Objective: In this study, we explore the association between baseline testosterone level and COVID-19 clinical outcomes. METHODS: Through a retrospective chart review, we identified 188 males from an academic health system in a metropolitan area diagnosed with COVID-19 with measured baseline testosterone levels who were not on testosterone replacement therapy. The 188 males were divided into eugonadal (n=90, >300 ng/dL) and hypogonadal (n=98, ≤300 ng/dL) testosterone groups. Data regarding comorbidities and endpoints such as hospital admission, intensive care unit admission, ventilator utilization, and thromboembolic events were extracted. Chi-square and Fisher's Exact tests examined differences in categorical variables. Logistic regression analysis tested the relationship between testosterone level and endpoints. RESULTS: There were 188 men identified who met our inclusion criteria. There were 90 men in the eugonadal group and 98 men in the hypogonadal group. Median age (IQR) was 55 (43-67) for the eugonadal group and 55 (40-63) for the hypogonadal group, median BMI was 30.6 (27.7-35.4) and 31.3 (26.4-35.6), and median testosterone level was 396 (357-476.3 ng/dL) and 217 (141.3 - 255 ng/dL) for the two groups respectively. Hypogonadism was significantly related to hospital admission (p=0.027). While not statistically significant, there were more ICU admissions (p=0.75), ventilator use (p=0.75), and DVTs seen in the hypogonadal group. On logistic regression analysis, hypogonadism was predictive of hospital admission (p=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Eugonadal testosterone level may be protective of more severe clinical outcomes in COVID-19. Hypogonadism is associated with increased hospital admission. Further research with a larger sample size needs to be conducted to fully understand the relationship between testosterone and clinical outcomes in COVID-19.

7.
Journal of Urology ; 206(SUPPL 3):e991, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1483649

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Continued vigilance of operative outcomes of COVID-19 patients is important given the relative novelty of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. We here sought to evaluate the 30-day mortality and cardiopulmonary adverse event rates in patients undergoing emergency surgery with perioperative COVID-19 infection, in comparison to a control group of medically managed COVID-19 patients that did not require surgical intervention. METHODS: A retrospective review of electronic medical data from a single tertiary-care center in Michigan was undertaken. Patients who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection either 7 days before or within 30 days after surgery during March-May 2020 were included in the study (n=52). Propensity score matched (1:6) patients who had been positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during this time-period but did not undergo surgery were used as controls (n=314, Figure 1). The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included cardiac and pulmonary complications. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were utilized to account for baseline differences. A pvalue <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality (17.3% vs 13.1%, p=0.408) and cardiac (28.9% vs 19.1%, p=0.107) and pulmonary complication (55.8% vs 49.4%, p=0.392) rates were similar in patients in the surgical versus non-surgical group, respectively. Multivariable analyses confirmed that an emergency surgical intervention was not associated with increased odds for any of the studied adverse events (p >0.10 for all 3 endpoints). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing emergency surgery with a co-diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the perioperative period do not have an increased risk for short-term mortality or cardiopulmonary complications compared to the medically treated COVID-19 patients.

8.
Open Forum Infectious Diseases ; 7(SUPPL 1):S298, 2020.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1185824

ABSTRACT

Background: Guidelines recommend testing for SARS-COV-2 in asymptomatic individuals who are undergoing time-sensitive major surgery or aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) to guide infection prevention practices, including PPE use, and minimize risk of potential poor outcomes associated with COVID-19 infection by delaying the procedure in positive patients. However, evidence to support these recommendations are limited. We describe the outcome of asymptomatic patients with SARS-COV-2 undergoing surgery or AGPs. Methods: We implemented a system-wide policy to test all patients requiring intubation or other AGPs at Henry Ford Health System (HFHS), a 5-hospital system in southeast Michigan. This was a retrospective review of asymptomatic surgical patients with COVID-19 infection between 5/1/2020-5/31/2020. All patients with positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of upper respiratory tract were included. Demographics, comorbidities, procedural/surgical categories, symptoms and outcomes were evaluated. Results: 4381 COVID-19 PCR tests were performed pre-procedurally during the study period, of which 18 (0.4%) were positive. Summary of characteristics is presented in Table 1. Mean age was 49.7 years, and the majority were female (61%) and black (67%). Six (33%) of 18 surgeries were performed despite positive COVID-19 PCR as shown in Table 2. Of those who had the procedure performed, none developed symptoms within 14 days. Two (11%) patients developed symptoms within 14 days of positive PCR after their procedures were canceled. None of those who had their procedure delayed developed any symptoms. Of the total patients, none required hospitalization or died. Conclusion: The prevalence of COVID-19 infection was very low in our asymptomatic patient population. Decisions around SARS-CoV-2 testing in asymptomatic patients undergoing procedures should be based on exposure history and prevalence of disease in the community to avoid unnecessary testing and diversion of resources away from symptomatic patients. (Table Presented).

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL