Mental Health in Urologic Oncology.

This article is a systematic review of mental health in urologic oncology patients with prostate cancer (PCa), bladder cancer (BC), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), testicular cancer (TC), or penile cancer (PeCa). For all pathologies, a focus on increasing quality of life post-treatment demonstrated a positive impact in reducing Mental Health Illness (MHI) prevalence. Cancer specific mental health care may be given to patients to reduce suicide risk in BC patients and sexual identify and masculinity counseling may improve mental health for TC or PeCa patients. In order to better accommodate patient's mental health needs when undergoing GU cancer treatment, we recommend incorporation of mental health metrics such as questionnaires to assess early treatment of MHI, a greater emphasis on psychosocial support with the patient's loved ones, peers, and healthcare team, alongside advising healthy habits such as exercise which has been shown to drastically reduce MHI incidence across all pathologies. We hope that these measures conducted by urologists and oncologists, alongside possible coordination with psychiatrists and psychologists for psychotherapy, psychopharmacology, and neuro-stimulation treatment modems may be helpful in the long term to reduce MHI incidence in urology oncology patients. Given the higher incidence of MHI in oncology patients and in the patient population after the Covid-19 pandemic, MHI awareness in the sphere of urologic oncologic treatment continues to be crucial when creating a collaborative treatment platform for patients.

Applicant perceptions of virtual interviews for society of urologic oncology fellowships during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 public health emergency forced the conversion of in-person SUO fellowship interviews into virtual interviews. We sought to understand applicant perspectives and preferences related to virtual interviews and whether programs should consider virtual interviews in the future. We distributed a survey to 2020 SUO Fellowship interview participants at 4 SUO urologic oncology fellowship programs. Response items were on a Likert scale scored 1-5 with higher scores indicating greater agreement with the survey item construct. Survey responses were collated and thematic mapping used to describe open text responses. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis of survey and open text results. Fifty-eight SUO fellowship applicants completed the survey. Virtual interviews successfully promoted interaction with SUO fellowship program faculty (mean 4.6, SD 0.6), outlined program research opportunities (mean 4.5, SD 0.7), and proffered opportunities to ask questions about the fellowship (mean 4.7, SD 0.5). Applicants exhibited weakly positive orientation to the adequacy of the virtual format (mean 3.5, SD 1.1). 63% of applicants would prefer a virtual format in the future. Qualitative feedback noted the benefits of virtual interviews were lower cost and reduced time away from residency. SUO fellowship applicants exhibited mixed preferences for virtual and in-person interviews. Although virtual fellowship interviews have benefits such as cost savings and time efficiency, notable weaknesses included challenges observing the culture of the programs. Following the pandemic, SUO fellowship programs may consider virtual interviews but should consider incorporating opportunities for informal interactions between faculty, fellows, and fellow applicants.

Association between COVID-19 Burden, Population Vaccination Status, and Urologic Oncology Surgery Volume: A National Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.

Initial deleterious effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on urologic oncology surgeries are well described, but the possible influence of vaccination efforts and those of pandemic conditions on surgical volumes is unclear. Our aim was to examine the association between changing vaccination status and COVID-19 burden throughout the pandemic and the volume of urologic oncology surgeries in Israel. This multi-center cross-sectional study included data collected from five tertiary centers between January 2019 and December 2021. All 7327 urologic oncology surgeries were included. Epidemiological data were obtained from the Israeli Ministry of Health database. A rising trend in total urologic oncology surgery volumes was observed with ensuing COVID-19 wave peaks over time (X2 = 13.184, df = 3, p = 0.004). Total monthly surgical volumes correlated with total monthly hospitalizations due to COVID-19 (R = -0.36, p = 0.015), as well as with the monthly average Oxford Stringency Index (R = -0.31, p = 0.035). The cumulative percent of vaccinations and of new COVID-19 cases per month did not correlate with total monthly urologic surgery volumes. Our study demonstrates the gradual acclimation of the Israeli healthcare system to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, hospitalizations due to COVID-19, as well as restriction stringency, correlate with lower volumes of urologic oncological surgeries, regardless of the population's vaccination status.

Impact of COVID-19 on Society of Urologic Oncology fellowship operative volumes.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted all aspects of healthcare including surgical training. Our objective was to assess the impact of the pandemic on surgical case volumes of graduating Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO) fellows during the academic years 2019 to 2020 and 2020 to 2021. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Deidentified case logs for graduating SUO fellows from 2017 to 2021 were obtained from the SUO Education Committee. Cases are stratified by category and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or open approach. Graduates of 2017, 2018, and 2019 were combined into a pre-COVID cohort and compared to COVID-affected 2020 and 2021 cohorts. Total case volumes, case category volumes, and surgical approach type were compared with Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: A total of 173 graduating SUO fellow case logs were analyzed with 100, 38, and 35 in the pre-COVID and COVID-affected 2020 and 2021 cohorts, respectively. All fellow logs were obtained for 2017 to 2020 graduates while 5 of 40 were missing for the 2021 cohort. There was no statistical difference in median total cases across cohorts (P = 0.52). For the first COVID-affected cohort of 2020, they reported significantly fewer total MIS cases in 2020 compared to pre-COVID fellows (median 92.5 vs. 135 pre-COVID, P = 0.002). However, there were no significant differences among the tracked oncologic MIS categories except a statistically significant increase in MIS retroperitoneal lymph node dissection between 2020 and 2021 COVID-affected cohorts (0 vs. 2, P = 0.033) CONCLUSIONS: The oncologic case volumes of the initial SUO fellows graduating during COVID pandemic were minimally affected. This national deidentified data is reassuring that oncologic training has not been impacted by widespread decreases in case volume. However, impacts on individuals, programs or geographic regions may have varied.

How Does the COVID-19 Pandemic Influence Histopathological Outcomes for Urologic Cancers?

OBJECTIVE:  The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted all routine health care services and resulted in a significant reconfiguration of urologic cancer services and care pathways across the globe. This study aimed to retrospectively determine the pandemic's impact on the urologic oncological surgery outcomes at a high-volume referral center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared the number and histopathological outcomes of urologic oncological procedures in a referral center coded during the pandemic and data of the period before the pandemic as control. Data were extracted from patient files and hospital records. The pathological examination included a complete histopathological staging according to TNM stage. RESULTS: A total of 683 patients were included in the study, 424 (62%) of which were operated in the pre-pandemic period. There was a 39% decline in urologic oncological surgical activity in the pandemic, mostly in renal and prostate cancer. The mean tumor size was larger in renal cancer patients who underwent surgery during the pandemic (5.6 cm vs 4.5 cm, p=0.002). During the pandemic, more lymph node involvement was seen after radical cystectomy and prostatectomy (50% vs 27.8%, p=0.024 and 12.5% vs 4.5%, p=0.026, respectively). No differences in terms of main pathologic features were observed in patients undergoing radical orchiectomy. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 appeared to adversely effect oncologic outcomes in patiens undergone surgery for prostate and bladder cancer. Tumor development induced by a delay in diagnosis may cause severe consequences for patients. Reprioritizion of non-deferrable urologic oncological seems crucial.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Urologic Oncology Surgery: Implications for Moving Forward.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused the destruction of routine hospital services globally, leading to an increase in the backlog of elective surgery cases. The aim of the study was to retrospectively investigate the pandemic's impact on the urologic oncology surgical activity of a high-volume center located in Milan, Italy. The number and type of procedures performed in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic was evaluated using 2019 data as control. Waiting times for each surgical procedure were compared, on a bimonthly basis, between the two different years. Overall, a 26.7% reduction in the number of urologic oncology surgeries between 2019 and 2020 was observed (2019: 720, 2020: 528). Both the main indication for surgery and the type of procedure performed significantly differed between 2019 and 2020 (all p < 0.0001), with a decrease in the number of radical prostatectomies and an increase in the number of radical cystectomies and radical nephrectomies/nephroureterectomies performed in 2020. Waiting time decreased by 20% between 2019 and 2020, with the most significant reduction seen after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (July-October 2020), in particular for partial nephrectomy and radical prostatectomy, possibly due to the underdiagnosis of cases. In conclusion, in accordance with recommendations by international urological societies on prioritization strategies for oncological procedures, a higher proportion of surgeries for high-risk tumors was performed in 2020 at our center at the expense of procedures for lower risk diseases; however, future implications for patients' prognosis still need to be determined.

Trends in urologic oncology clinical practice and medical education under COVID-19 pandemic: An international survey of senior clinical and academic urologists.

OBJECTIVE: Ad-hoc guidelines for managing the COVID-19 pandemic are published worldwide. We investigated international applications of such policies in the urologic-oncology community. METHODS: A 20-item survey was e-mailed via SurveyMonkey to 100 international senior urologic-oncology surgeons. Leaders' policies regarding clinical/surgical management and medical education were surveyed probing demographics, affiliations, urologic-oncologic areas of interest, and current transportation restrictions. Data on COVID-19 burden were retrieved from the ECDC. Statistical analyses employed non-parametric tests (SPSS v.25.0, IBM). RESULTS: Of 100 leaders from 17 countries, 63 responded to our survey, with 58 (92%) reporting university and/or cancer-center affiliations. Policies on new-patient visits remained mostly unchanged, while follow-up visits for low-risk diseases were mostly postponed, for example, 83.3% for small renal mass (SRM). Radical prostatectomy was delayed in 76.2% of cases, while maintaining scheduled timing for radical cystectomy (71.7%). Delays were longer in Europe than in the Americas for kidney cancer (SRM follow-up, P = 0.014), prostate cancer (new visits, P = 0.003), and intravesical therapy for intermediate-risk bladder cancer (P = 0.043). In Europe, COVID-19 burden correlated with policy adaptation, for example, nephrectomy delays for T2 disease (r = 0.5, P =0.005). Regarding education policies, trainees' medical education was mainly unchanged, whereas senior urologists' planned attendance at professional meetings dropped from 6 (IQR 1-11) to 2 (IQR 0-5) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Under COVID-19, senior urologic-oncology surgeons worldwide apply risk-stratified approaches to timing of clinical and surgical schedules. Policies regarding trainee education were not significantly affected. We suggest establishment of an international consortium to create a directive for coping with such future challenges to global healthcare.

Impact of CoVID-19 on resident and fellow education: Current guidance and future opportunities for urologic oncology training programs.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 has impacted all aspects of urologic training. Didactics have shifted to a virtual platform and new approaches to surgical training have been undertaken. There has been a shift in research away from the laboratory space, with an increased focus on clinical outcomes and multi-institutional collaborations. Finally, there have been impacts on home life, questions about time away from work, case logs and case minimums, as well as how to manage resident and fellow reassignment. Herein, we review the current state of urologic education in the United States, focusing specifically on urologic oncology and highlight opportunities for the future.

Clinical trials in urological oncology: COVID-19 and the potential need for a new perspective.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the suspension, termination or alteration of thousands of clinical trials as the health emergency escalated globally. Whilst the rapid suspension of certain clinical trials was necessary to ensure the safety of high-risk or vulnerable trial participants as well as healthcare workers, the long-term ramifications that this delay will have on the field of urologic oncology is unknown. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to plan for and implement new strategies to advance our understanding of unmet areas of need in urologic oncology. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the suspension, termination or alteration of thousands of clinical trials as the health emergency escalated globally. Whilst the rapid suspension of certain clinical trials was necessary to ensure the safety of high-risk or vulnerable trial participants as well as healthcare workers, the long-term ramifications that this delay will have on the field of urologic oncology is unknown. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to plan for and implement new strategies to advance our understanding of unmet areas of need in urologic oncology.

A Decision Aide for the Risk Stratification of GU Cancer Patients at Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection, COVID-19 Related Hospitalization, Intubation, and Mortality.

Treatment decisions for both early and advanced genitourinary (GU) malignancies take into account the risk of dying from the malignancy as well as the risk of death due to other causes such as other co-morbidities. COVID-19 is a new additional and immediate risk to a patient's morbidity and mortality and there is a need for an accurate assessment as to the potential impact on of this syndrome on GU cancer patients. The aim of this work was to develop a risk tool to identify GU cancer patients at risk of diagnosis, hospitalization, intubation, and mortality from COVID-19. A retrospective case showed a series of GU cancer patients screened for COVID-19 across the Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS). Four hundred eighty-four had a GU malignancy and 149 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Demographic and clinical variables of >38,000 patients were available in the institutional database and were utilized to develop decision aides to predict a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, as well as COVID-19-related hospitalization, intubation, and death. A risk tool was developed using a combination of machine learning methods and utilized BMI, temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation. The risk tool for predicting a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 had an AUC of 0.83, predicting hospitalization for management of COVID-19 had an AUC of 0.95, predicting patients requiring intubation had an AUC of 0.97, and for predicting COVID-19-related death, the risk tool had an AUC of 0.79. The models had an acceptable calibration and provided a superior net benefit over other common strategies across the entire range of threshold probabilities.

Urologic oncology practice during COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review on what can be deferrable vs. nondeferrable.

PURPOSE: To provide a review of high-risk urologic cancers and the feasibility of delaying surgery without impacting oncologic or mortality outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A thorough literature review was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar to identify articles pertaining to surgical delay and genitourinary oncology. We reviewed all relevant articles pertaining to kidney, upper tract urothelial cell, bladder, prostate, penile, and testicular cancer in regard to diagnostic, surgical, or treatment delay. RESULTS: The majority of urologic cancers rely on surgery as primary treatment. Treatment of unfavorable intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer, can likely be delayed for 3 to 6 months without affecting oncologic outcomes. Muscle-invasive bladder cancer and testicular cancer can be treated initially with chemotherapy. Surgical management of T3 renal masses, high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma, and penile cancer should not be delayed. CONCLUSION: The majority of urologic oncologic surgeries can be safely deferred without impacting long-term cancer specific or overall survival. Notable exceptions are muscle-invasive bladder cancer, high-grade upper tract urothelial cell, large renal masses, testicular and penile cancer. Joint decision making among providers and patients should be encouraged. Clinicians must manage emotional anxiety and stress when decisions around treatment delays are necessary as a result of a pandemic.