Clinical considerations for sexual and gender minorities with prostate cancer.

At every stage of the cancer continuum, the management of sexual and gender minorities with prostate cancer requires a thoughtful and multidisciplinary approach. For example, it is important to recognize that receptive anal intercourse, common among sexual minority men-i.e. gay and bisexual men-can potentially elevate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Additionally, it is important to understand that sexual minority men with prostate cancer might engage in insertive and/or receptive anal intercourse, as opposed to insertive vaginal intercourse, requiring a treatment conversation that expands beyond the usual discussion of sexual health in prostate cancer patients. For gender minorities-i.e. transgender women or trans feminine individuals (those recorded male at birth with feminine gender identities)-it is important to consider gender affirming hormones and pelvic surgeries as they can cause diagnostic and treatment challenges, including PSA suppression, more aggressive disease, and anatomical changes. Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that gender minorities are a diverse cohort and may or may not be on gender affirming hormone therapy and may or may not have received or intend to receive pelvic affirming surgery. In this seminar article, we highlight considerations for personalized management of prostate cancer in sexual and gender minorities to improve care for this understudied cohort and enhance health equity.

Heteronormative biases and distinctive experiences with prostate cancer among men who have sex with men: a qualitative focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Men who have sex with men (MSM) face many challenges and biases in healthcare. Within urology there is a need to better understand how prostate cancer impacts MSM given the unique ways in which side effects that accompany treatment may affect this population. The goal of this study is to explore the experience of MSM with prostate cancer to advance the existing literature in this area and inform implementation and delivery of clinical practice and policy guidelines. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted with a semi-structured interview guide. Using a phenomenological qualitative approach consistent with grounded theory [1] and naturalistic inquiry principles we sought to better understand the direct experiences of MSM with prostate cancer. Audio transcriptions were thematically analyzed to identify themes that impact MSM throughout their prostate cancer journey. An iterative, team-wide classification process was used to identify, organize, and group common codes into higher-order categories and themes. RESULTS: Patient's choice of provider and their interactions with the healthcare system were strongly impacted by their sexual identities. Participants commented on navigating the heteronormative healthcare environment and the impact of assumptions they encountered. MSM experienced the sexual side effects of prostate cancer treatment in unique ways. Issues with erectile dysfunction and ejaculatory dysfunction had significant impacts on patient's sexual experience, with some describing being forced to explore new modes of sexual expression. Anejaculation was a theme that was distressing for many participants. The emotional impact of a prostate cancer diagnosis was significant in the men interviewed. Common themes included loss of identity and fear for future relationships. CONCLUSIONS: MSM have unique concerns after prostate cancer treatment that differ from men who don't identify as MSM. It is critical that providers familiarize themselves with the concerns of this patient population regarding prostate cancer treatment. An important step toward reducing heteronormative bias in prostate cancer care is to better understand the goals, identity, and sexual practices of MSM and to provide informed anticipatory guidance.

Urologists and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Queer Patients: A Survey-based Study of the Practice Patterns, Attitudes, and Knowledge Base of Urologists Toward Their Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Queer Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess urologists' attitudes toward treating lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBT) patients and counseling practices during diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. METHODS: A 35-question survey was sent to program directors of U.S. urology residency programs. RESULTS: 154 responses met the inclusion criteria. Respondents were primarily male, heterosexual, in academia, representing a range of ages and geography. 54.2% of respondents don't assume patients are heterosexual. While 88% of providers feel comfortable discussing sexual health with LGBTQ patients, 42.9% disagree that knowing sexual orientation is necessary to providing optimal care. 57.8% of respondents don't provide intake forms to indicate sexual orientation and 60.4% don't inquire about sexual orientation during history-taking. A majority (32.7%) reported 1-5 hours of LGBTQ health training. 74.3% believe more training is needed. 74.5% agreed to being listed as an LGBTQ-Friendly Provider currently, 65.8% felt they needed additional training. 63.6% agreed the prostate is a source of sexual pleasure. 55.9% believed it important to assess sexual satisfaction in patients who engage in receptive anal intercourse after prostate cancer treatment. Responses were mixed regarding the timing of resuming receptive anal intercourse after treatment and whether patients are counseled to refrain from anal stimulation before PSA testing. Answers to knowledge questions regarding anal cancer and communication were primarily correct; answers to questions regarding anejaculation and differences in health concerns were mixed. CONCLUSION: Ongoing education is necessary on specific differences between heterosexual and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) patient concerns and how to apply this knowledge in order to address the needs of a rapidly aging LGBTQ population.

"Ultimately, You Realize You're on Your Own": The Impact of Prostate Cancer on Gay and Bisexual Men Couples.

An estimated one in three gay and bisexual (GB) male couples receive a prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis over their life course with limited understanding of the impacts on their relationships. Psychological distress related to PCa diagnosis and treatment-related side effects have been shown to disrupt established GB partnership dynamics. Communication barriers often develop within GB relationships affected by PCa, further exacerbating couple tensions, isolating partners, and lowering quality of life for both patients and partners. In order to elaborate on these phenomena following a PCa diagnosis, we conducted focus group discussions with GB men in relationships. Men were recruited nationally through PCa support groups, and after completing consent procedures, they were invited to one of two focus group discussions conducted through video conference. Topics discussed included the diagnosis and medical decision making pertaining to PCa; healthcare provider experiences; the emotional, physical, and sexual impact of PCa diagnosis and treatment; sources of support and appraisal of resources; and partner involvement and communication. There were twelve GB men who participated in focus group discussions that were audio-recorded and transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic approach. GB couple experiences with PCa during and after treatment choice and recovery identified common patient-provider communication barriers. In particular, GB men reported difficulties in disclosing their sexuality and relationship to their providers, limiting conversations about treatment choice and partner engagement in care. Both patients and partners experienced times of being alone after treatment, either by choice or to give space to their partner. However, partners often did not explicitly discuss their preferences for being alone or together, which resulted in partners' disengagement in their relationship and the prostate cancer healthcare process. This disengagement could blunt the notable PCa survival benefits of partnership for GB men.

Subcoronal inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: indications and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: While implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is commonly performed via infrapubic or penoscrotal approaches, the subcoronal (SC) approach for IPP implantation may safely and reliably allow for additional reconstructive procedures through a single incision. AIM: The aim of this study is to report outcomes, including complications, of the SC approach and to determine common characteristics of patients undergoing the SC approach. METHODS: A retrospective chart review from May 11, 2012, to January 31, 2022, was performed at a single, tertiary care institution to identify patients with IPP implantation via the SC approach. OUTCOMES: Postoperative information was reviewed and extracted from all clinic notes available following the date of IPP implantation in the electronic medical record, detailing any complications including wound complications, need for revision or removal, device malfunction, and infections. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients had IPP implantation via the SC approach. Median follow-up duration was 29.4 (interquartile range 14.9-50.1) months. One (1.8%) patient had a simple wound complication. Two (3.6%) experienced postoperative infection of the prosthesis, which resulted in explantation of the device. One of these infected prostheses later experienced partial glans necrosis. Revision for mechanical failure or unsatisfactory cosmetic result was performed in 3 (7.3%) IPPs placed via a SC incision. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The SC approach for implantation of IPP is safe and feasible with low complication and revision rates. It offers urologists an alternative to the classic infrapubic and penoscrotal approaches, both of which would require a second incision for additional reconstructive procedures required to adequately address deformities associated with severe Peyronie's disease. Therefore, urologists who treat these specialized populations of men may benefit from having the SC approach in their array of techniques for IPP implantation. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this study include its retrospective nature, risk of selection bias, lack of comparison groups, and sample size. This study reports on early experience with the SC approach performed by a single high-volume reconstructive surgeon, who treats a specialized population of patients requiring complex repair during implantation of an IPP, particularly those with Peyronie's disease. CONCLUSION: The SC incision for IPP implantation has low rates of complications and remains our approach of choice for IPP implantation in patients with severe Peyronie's disease, including curvatures >60°, severe indentation with hinge, and grade 3 calcification, which are unlikely to respond adequately to manual modeling alone.

Peyronie's disease: pharmacological treatments and limitations.

Introduction: Peyronie's disease (PD) is a disorder of the tunica albuginea from disordered and excessive deposition of collagen resulting in a palpable scar, pain, erect penile deformity and erectile dysfunction that significantly impacts patients both physically and emotionally.Areas Covered: Several treatment options have been described for PD, including shockwave therapy, traction therapy, both oral and intralesional pharmacological options, and surgery. This review seeks to examine the data for different types of non-surgical treatments for PD. We review how various treatment modalities impact several relevant clinical endpoints for Peyronie's disease, including effects on pain, penile curvature, plaque formation, and erectile function. We performed a literature search using PubMed and SCOPUS while referencing AUA, EAU, and CUA guidelines for management of Peyronie's Disease for studies published 1980-2020.Expert opinion: Intralesional collagenase injections have the strongest evidence and are the only FDA approved intralesional treatment for PD. Penile traction therapy (PTT) is low risk and may be beneficial in patients willing to invest significant time using the devices. Furthermore, oral combination therapy with other modalities may provide some benefit. Further investigation is required to better understand pathophysiology of PD and clarify the therapeutic utility of existing treatments, potentially with a multimodal strategy.

A Pilot Study Assessing Aspects of Sexual Function Predicted to Be Important After Treatment for Prostate Cancer in Gay Men: An Underserved Domain Highlighted.

Purpose: Existing questionnaires assessing sexual function after prostate cancer (PCa) were developed in predominantly heterosexual male cohorts and may measure function incompletely in gay men. We sought to determine if there are sexual function domains relevant to gay men that are not captured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) sexual function assessment. Methods: Fifty-three gay men with PCa responded to an online survey regarding the applicability of the sexual function domain in the validated EPIC questionnaire. They were then queried about whether the prostate is a source of sexual pleasure and the importance of measuring sexual satisfaction as it relates to receptive anal intercourse. Results: A majority of gay men with PCa found the EPIC sexual function tool to be applicable when measuring erectile function (76.5%). Of the men queried, 64.2% felt that the prostate is a source of sexual pleasure and 52.8% felt it important to measure sexual satisfaction associated with receptive anal intercourse. A larger proportion of gay men who engaged in receptive anal intercourse, compared with those who did not engage in receptive anal intercourse, felt that the prostate is a source of sexual pleasure (100% vs. 57.1%), and thought it important to measure sexual satisfaction as it relates to receptive anal intercourse after PCa treatment (90.0% vs. 45.2%). Conclusions: Our findings highlight the need to create a validated questionnaire to measure sexual satisfaction from receptive anal intercourse to help care for men engaging in receptive anal intercourse after PCa treatment.

Antibiotic prophylaxis after urethroplasty may offer no benefit.

PURPOSE: Patients often receive antibiotic prophylaxis after urethroplasty to minimize the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI). The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of UTIs after urethroplasty and its impact on urethral and incisional healing. METHODS: Patients undergoing urethroplasty by a single surgeon from 2000 to 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients received preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis and postoperative prophylaxis for 30 days or until catheter removal. We reviewed urine cultures obtained within 30 days after urethroplasty in symptomatic patients, and rates of stricture recurrence and wound complications. A positive culture was defined as > 1000 cfu/mL of an organism. RESULTS: 398 patients were included with a mean age of 43.5 years at time of surgery. We identified 102 positive urine cultures (25.6%) within 30 days of urethroplasty. 78 stricture recurrences (19.6%) occurred at an average of 3 years after surgery and 18 (4.5%) experienced a wound complication, with a 52 month mean follow-up. There were no significant differences in stricture recurrence (p = 0.36) or wound complications (p = 0.42) between patients who had a positive and negative urine culture. On multivariate analysis, positive urine cultures (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.6-1.8, p = 0.88) were not associated with stricture recurrence, while lichen sclerosis (HR 3.2, 95% CI 1.1-9.2, p = 0.03) and previous urethroplasty (HR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1-4.6, p = 0.03) were. CONCLUSION: Bacterial colonization and UTIs despite antimicrobial prophylaxis are common in urethroplasty patients. This, however, does not appear to impair urethral healing or influence wound healing, suggesting that postoperative prophylaxis may in fact offer no benefit.

Prostate cancer in sexual minorities and the influence of HIV status.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death in men in the USA, but the effect of prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment on men in a sexual minority group, including men who have sex with men and transgender women, is poorly understood. Efforts to study this population are complicated, as cancer registries do not routinely collect information on sexual orientation. As a result, epidemiological data regarding this population have come from small studies that have included disparate rates of prostate cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment. Qualitative studies indicate that prostate cancer is experienced differently by sexual minorities, with distinct health-care needs that arise owing to differences in sexual practices, social support systems and relationships with the medical community. Notably, sexual minorities have been reported to experience poorer health-related quality of life outcomes than heterosexual men, and tend to have less robust social support systems, experience increased psychological distress caused by sexual dysfunction (areas of which are unmeasured after treatment), experience isolation within the health-care system and express increased levels of dissatisfaction with treatment. The incidence of prostate cancer actually seems to be decreased in men from sexual minorities living with HIV, despite there being no differences in screening and treatment, with poor cancer-specific mortality. Although the literature on patients with prostate cancer in men from sexual minority groups has historically been sparse, peer-reviewed research in this area has grown considerably during the past decade and has become an important field of study.

Testicular toxoplasmosis in a 26-year-old immunocompetent man.

Testicular toxoplasmosis is a very rare presentation of Toxoplasma gondii A 26-year-old immunocompetent man presented to us with right testicular pain and a right epididymal mass. Ultrasound was concerning for malignancy and a radical orchiectomy was performed. Surgical pathology revealed chronic granulomatous inflammation which stained positive for T. gondii.

Influence of surgeon and hospital volume on radical prostatectomy costs.

PURPOSE: While higher radical prostatectomy hospital and surgeon volume are associated with better outcomes, the effect of provider volume on health care costs remains unclear. We performed a population based study to characterize the effect of surgeon and hospital volume on radical prostatectomy costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare linked data to identify 11,048 men who underwent radical prostatectomy from 2003 to 2009. We categorized hospital and surgeon radical prostatectomy volume into tertiles (low, intermediate, high) and assessed costs from radical prostatectomy until 90 days postoperatively using propensity adjusted analyses. RESULTS: Higher surgeon volume at intermediate volume hospitals (surgeon volume low $9,915; intermediate $10,068; high $9,451; p = 0.021) and high volume hospitals (surgeon volume low $11,271; intermediate $10,638; high $9,529; p = 0.002) was associated with lower radical prostatectomy costs. Extrapolating nationally, selective referral to high volume radical prostatectomy surgeons at high and intermediate volume hospitals netted more than $28.7 million in cost savings. Conversely, higher hospital volume was associated with greater radical prostatectomy costs for low volume surgeons (hospital volume low $9,685; intermediate $9,915; high $11,271; p = 0.010) and intermediate volume surgeons (hospital volume low $9,605; intermediate $10,068; high $10,638; p = 0.029). High volume radical prostatectomy surgeon costs were not affected by varying hospital volume, and among low volume hospitals radical prostatectomy costs did not differ by surgeon volume. CONCLUSIONS: Selective referral to high volume radical prostatectomy surgeons operating at intermediate and high volume hospitals nets significant cost savings. However, higher radical prostatectomy hospital volume was associated with greater costs for low and intermediate volume radical prostatectomy surgeons.

The impact of prostate size, median lobe, and prior benign prostatic hyperplasia intervention on robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: technique and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Large prostate size, median lobes, and prior benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) surgery may pose technical challenges during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). OBJECTIVE: To describe technical modifications to overcome BPH sequelae and associated outcomes. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective study of prospective data on 951 RALP procedures performed from September 2005 to November 2010 was conducted. Outcomes were analyzed by prostate weight, prior BPH surgical intervention (n=59), and median lobes >1 cm (n=42). SURGICAL PROCEDURE: RALP. MEASUREMENTS: Estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusions, operative time, positive surgical margin (PSM), and urinary and sexual function were measured. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In unadjusted analysis, men with larger prostates and median lobes experienced higher EBL (213.5 vs 176.5 ml; p<0.001 and 236.4 vs 193.3 ml; p=0.002), and larger prostates were associated with more transfusions (4 vs 1; p=0.037). Operative times were longer for men with larger prostates (164.2 vs 149.1 min; p=0.002), median lobes (185.8 vs 155.0 min; p=0.004), and prior BPH surgical interventions (170.2 vs 155.4 min; p=0.004). Men with prior BPH interventions experienced more prostate base PSM (5.1% vs 1.2%; p=0.018) but similar overall PSM. In adjusted analyses, the presence of median lobes increased both EBL (p=0.006) and operative times (p<0.001), while prior BPH interventions also prolonged operative times (p=0.014). However, prostate size did not affect EBL, PSM, or recovery of urinary or sexual function. CONCLUSIONS: Although BPH characteristics prolonged RALP procedure times and increased EBL, prostate size did not affect PSM or urinary and sexual function.

Athermal division and selective suture ligation of the dorsal vein complex during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Apical dissection and control of the dorsal vein complex (DVC) affects blood loss, apical positive margins, and urinary control during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). OBJECTIVE: To describe technique and outcomes for athermal DVC division followed by selective suture ligation (DVC-SSL) compared with DVC suture ligation followed by athermal division (SL-DVC). DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective study of prospectively collected data from February 2008 to July 2010 for 303 SL-DVC and 240 DVC-SSL procedures. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: RALP with comparison of DVC-SSL prior to anastomosis versus early SL-DVC prior to bladder-neck dissection. MEASUREMENTS: Blood loss, transfusions, operative time, apical and overall positive margins, urine leaks, catheterization duration, and urinary control at 5 and 12 mo evaluated using 1) the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index (EPIC) urinary function scale and 2) continence defined as zero pads per day. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Men who underwent DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC were older (mean: 59.9 vs 57.8 yr, p<0.001), and relatively fewer white men underwent DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC (87.5% vs 96.7%, p<0.001). Operative times were also shorter for DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC (mean: 132 vs 147 min, p<0.001). Men undergoing DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC experienced greater blood loss (mean: 184.3 vs 175.6 ml, p=0.033), and one DVC-SSL versus zero SL-DVC were transfused (p=0.442). Overall (12.2% vs 12.0%, p=1.0) and apical (1.3% vs 2.7%, p=0.361) positive surgical margins were similar for DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC. Although 5-mo postoperative urinary function (mean: 72.9 vs 55.4, p<0.001) and continence (61.4% vs 39.6%, p<0.001) were better for DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC, 12-mo urinary outcomes were similar. In adjusted analyses, DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC was associated with shorter operative times (parameter estimate [PE]±standard error [SE]: 16.84±2.56, p<0.001), and better 5-mo urinary function (PE±SE: 19.93±3.09, p<0.001) and continence (odds ratio 3.39, 95% confidence interval 2.07-5.57, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC improves early urinary control and shortens operative times due to fewer instrument changes with late versus early DVC control.