Six-Month Prostate Cancer Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) Improves Urinary Function: A Randomized Trial.

Purpose: This is a secondary analysis examining a six-month home-based Prostate Cancer-Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) on patient-reported urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal function in men with curative prostate cancer (PC) against standard of care. Methods: In a crossover clinical trial, 128 men scheduled for PC surgery (n = 62) or radiotherapy with/without hormones (n = 66) were randomized to PC-PEP (n = 66) or waitlist-control and received the standard of care for 6 months, and then PC-PEP to the end of the year. PC-PEP included daily emails with video instructions, aerobic and strength training, dietary guidance, stress management, and social support, with an initial PFMT nurse consultation. Over 6 months, participants in the PC-PEP received optional text alerts (up to three times daily) reminding them to follow the PFMT video program, encompassing relaxation, quick-twitch, and endurance exercises; compliance was assessed weekly. Participants completed baseline, 6, and 12-month International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaires. Results: At 6 months, men in the PC-PEP reported improved urinary bother (IPSS, p = 0.004), continence (EPIC, p < 0.001), and irritation/obstruction function (p = 0.008) compared to controls, with sustained urinary continence benefits at 12 months (p = 0.002). Surgery patients in the waitlist-control group had 3.5 (95% CI: 1.2, 10, p = 0.024) times and 2.3 (95% CI: 0.82, 6.7, p = 0.11) times higher odds of moderate to severe urinary problems compared to PC-PEP at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Conclusions: PC-PEP significantly improves lower urinary tract symptoms, affirming its suitability for clinical integration alongside established mental health benefits in men with curative prostate cancer.

PC-PEP, a Comprehensive Daily Six-Month Home-Based Patient Empowerment Program Leads to Weight Loss in Men with Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of a Clinical Trial.

Background: The Prostate Cancer-Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) is a six-month daily home-based program shown to improve mental health and urinary function. This secondary analysis explores weight loss in male PC-PEP participants. Methods: In a randomized clinical trial with 128 men undergoing curative prostate cancer (PC) treatment, 66 received 'early' PC-PEP, while 62 were assigned to the 'late' waitlist-control group, receiving 6 months of standard-of-care treatment followed by 6 months of PC-PEP. PC-PEP comprised 182 daily emails with video-based exercise and dietary (predominantly plant-based) education, live online events, and 30 min strength training routines (using body weight and elastic bands). Weight and height data were collected via online surveys (baseline, 6 months, and 12 months) including medical chart reviews. Adherence was tracked weekly. Results: No attrition or adverse events were reported. At 6 months, the early PC-PEP group experienced significant weight loss, averaging 2.7 kg (p < 0.001) compared to the waitlist-control group. Weight loss was noted in the late intervention group of PC-PEP, albeit less pronounced than in the early group. Early PC-PEP surgery patients lost on average 1.4 kg (SE = 0.65) from the trial's start to surgery day. High adherence to exercise and dietary recommendations was noted. Conclusions: PC-PEP led to significant weight loss in men undergoing curative prostate cancer treatment compared to standard-of-care.

Septic and febrile kidney stone presentations during the COVID-19 pandemic What is the effect of reduced access to care during pandemic restrictions?

INTRODUCTION: During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals shifted their resources and focus toward COVID-19 care and non-deferrable conditions. Renal colic is one of the most common urologic presentations to the emergency department (ED ). In our study, we examined whether there was an increase in septic/febrile stone presentations to the ED requiring ureteral stent insertion after the public health restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective cohort study and reviewed charts of septic/febrile stone patients requiring ureteral stent insertion from January 1, 2019, to March 16, 2020 (pre-COVID) and July 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 (intra-COVID) at the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, NS. The incidence of septic/febrile stone presentation, baseline characteristics, and perioperative outcomes were captured. RESULTS: There were 54 patients in the pre-COVID group and 74 patients in the intra- COVID group. There were no statistically significant differences found in baseline or stone characteristics between the two groups (p>0.05). Patients in the intra-COVID group were found to have a longer presentation to operating room time when compared to the pre- COVID cohort (U=961.00, p=0.04). The intra-COVID group had 20 more cases of septic stone presentations compared to the pre-COVID group at the 15-month mark (pre-COVID, n=54; intra-COVID, n=74). CONCLUSIONS: We found increased time to operative intervention in the intra-COVID cohort compared to the pre-COVID cohort. The overall number of urgent and/or critically ill ureteric stone patients increased between cohorts but was not statistically significant.

Impact of virtual education on urology education during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus pandemic changed the way urology education was delivered. At Dalhousie University, third-year medical students (clinical clerks) undergoing a two-week urology elective had the historic in-person seminars changed to virtual seminars with pre-recorded lectures by staff. The academic abilities of the clerks were measured via a standardized written exam and clinical score assigned by a staff preceptor. This study aimed to measure the impact of virtual education on student performance. METHODS: Clerk clinical and exam scores have been recorded since 2014. The in-person seminar (pre-COVID) cohort included students from January 2014 to March 2020 (n=109), while the virtual seminar (post-COVID) cohort was recorded from April 2020 to August 2022 (n=60). Independent t-test was used to compare clinical, exam, and total scores between the pre-COVID student groups after ensuring normality. RESULTS: Students in the virtual seminar group (mean ± standard deviation 88.69±6.50%) performed better than the in-person seminar student groups (86.32±6.33%) in terms of clinical performance gradings (p=0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in written exam scores between the in-person seminar and virtual seminar cohorts (77.34±10.94% vs. 78.75±11.37%, p=0.43). Cumulative scores were higher for virtual seminar student groups vs. in-person seminar cohort (86.70±5.40% vs. 84.52±5.44%, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical clerks undergoing virtual education during a two-week urology elective had improved clinical and cumulative score performances when compared to the in-personal seminar cohort; virtual seminars did not statistically negatively impact exam scores.

Therapeutic Approaches to Penile Cancer: Standards of Care and Recent Developments.

Penile cancer is a rare malignancy, most commonly diagnosed in older men, associated with poor outcomes, dramatic decline in quality of life and sexual function. Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common histopathology of penile cancer, accounting for 95% of all cases. Localized, early-stage penile cancer can be effectively managed through penile-sparing techniques in many cases, though advanced stages of penile cancer carry a poor prognosis. Current innovative treatments are exploring the role of targeted therapy, HPV-directed therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors and adoptive T-cell therapies in treatment and prevention of relapse of penile cancer. Clinical trials are investigating the potential of targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced penile cancer. This review examines the current management of penile cancer and highlights future directions in research and treatment.

Triaging urological surgeries to cope with the coronavirus-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to strains on hospital resources and difficulties in safely and effectively triaging surgical procedures. In this article, we discuss the important considerations for triaging urologic surgeries during a global pandemic, mitigating factors on how to perform surgeries safely, and general guidelines for specific surgeries. RECENT FINDINGS: Many urological procedures have been cut back due to the pandemic, with benign disease states being most affected whereas oncology cases affected least. Current recommendations in urology triage life-threatening conditions, or conditions that may lead to life-threatening ailments as a priority for treatment during the pandemic. Additionally, published recommendations have been put forth recommending all surgical patients be screened for COVID-19 to protect staff, prevent disease dissemination, and to educate patients on worse outcomes that can occur if infected with COVID-19 in the postoperative period. SUMMARY: COVID-19 has caused worldwide shortages of healthcare resources and increased the need to ethically triage resources to adequately treat the urologic community. These resource limitations have led to increased wait times and cancellations of many urology surgeries that are considered 'elective'.

The times they are a-changin': The evolution of prostate cancer screening practices and beliefs among primary care physicians in Victoria, British Columbia.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer screening practices remain controversial among primary care practitioners (PCPs). Inconsistent guidelines and publication of large prostate cancer screening trials have failed to provide definitive guidance. This study investigates the evolution of prostate cancer screening practices and beliefs over 12 years, in Victoria, British Columbia. METHODS: Questionnaires were delivered to 119 randomly selected PCPs in 2019. Descriptive analysis together with exploratory graphs and Pearson Chi-squared test for independence was calculated. The 2008 data was compared by determining if their value fell within the 2019 data's 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Response rate was 69.8% (83/119); 30.1% of PCPs reported regularly screening asymptomatic men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and 37.3% reported regularly performing digital rectal exam (DRE). The combination of PSA and DRE was the most used (48.2 %) screening modality. Most (73.5%) reported that guidelines influence their screening practices, with the most popular choice being those published by The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTF) (32.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate a movement away from prostate cancer screening among PCPs when compared to 2008. PCPs believe that DRE and PSA are less valuable as screening tools and that there is insufficient evidence to support their use. The most used initial screening modality was the combination of PSA/DRE, however, we found a decrease in their use between the two study periods. Clinical guidelines continue to influence PCPs screening practices, but the shift of more PCPs following the CTF guidelines since 2008 has likely led to the reciprocal decrease in prostate cancer screening.