Machine Learning and External Validation of the IDENTIFY Risk Calculator for Patients with Haematuria Referred to Secondary Care for Suspected Urinary Tract Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The IDENTIFY study developed a model to predict urinary tract cancer using patient characteristics from a large multicentre, international cohort of patients referred with haematuria. In addition to calculating an individual's cancer risk, it proposes thresholds to stratify them into very-low-risk (<1%), low-risk (1-<5%), intermediate-risk (5-<20%), and high-risk (≥20%) groups. OBJECTIVE: To externally validate the IDENTIFY haematuria risk calculator and compare traditional regression with machine learning algorithms. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective data were collected on patients referred to secondary care with new haematuria. Data were collected for patient variables included in the IDENTIFY risk calculator, cancer outcome, and TNM staging. Machine learning methods were used to evaluate whether better models than those developed with traditional regression methods existed. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the detection of urinary tract cancer, calibration coefficient, calibration in the large (CITL), and Brier score were determined. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There were 3582 patients in the validation cohort. The development and validation cohorts were well matched. The AUC of the IDENTIFY risk calculator on the validation cohort was 0.78. This improved to 0.80 on a subanalysis of urothelial cancer prevalent countries alone, with a calibration slope of 1.04, CITL of 0.24, and Brier score of 0.14. The best machine learning model was Random Forest, which achieved an AUC of 0.76 on the validation cohort. There were no cancers stratified to the very-low-risk group in the validation cohort. Most cancers were stratified to the intermediate- and high-risk groups, with more aggressive cancers in higher-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: The IDENTIFY risk calculator performed well at predicting cancer in patients referred with haematuria on external validation. This tool can be used by urologists to better counsel patients on their cancer risks, to prioritise diagnostic resources on appropriate patients, and to avoid unnecessary invasive procedures in those with a very low risk of cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: We previously developed a calculator that predicts patients' risk of cancer when they have blood in their urine, based on their personal characteristics. We have validated this risk calculator, by testing it on a separate group of patients to ensure that it works as expected. Most patients found to have cancer tended to be in the higher-risk groups and had more aggressive types of cancer with a higher risk. This tool can be used by clinicians to fast-track high-risk patients based on the calculator and investigate them more thoroughly.

Radical Prostatectomy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Recipients: Outcomes for a Large Contemporary Cohort and a Matched Comparison to Patients Without a Transplant.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: It is unknown whether renal transplant receipt (RTR) status can affect perioperative and oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP). Our aim was to evaluate oncological and functional outcomes of RTR patients treated with RP for cN0M0 prostate cancer (PCa) via comparison with a no-RTR cohort. METHODS: RTR patients who had undergone RP at seven European institutions during 2001-2022 were identified. A multi-institutional cohort of no-RTR patients treated with RP during 2004-2022 served as the comparator group. Propensity score matching (PSM) at a ratio of 1:4 was used to match no-RTR patients to the RTR cohort according to age, prostate-specific antigen, and final pathology features. We used Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox, logistic, and Poisson log-linear regression models to test the outcomes of interest. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: After PSM, we analyzed data for 102 RTR and 408 no-RTR patients. RTR patients experienced higher estimated blood loss (EBL), longer length of hospital stay (LOS) and time to catheter removal, higher postoperative complication rates, and a lower continence recovery rate (all p < 0.001). On multivariable analyses, RTR independently predicted unfavorable operative time (odds ratio [OR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-1.25), LOS (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.32-1.86), EBL (OR 2.24, 95% CI 2.18-2.30), and time to catheter removal (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.68-2.21), but not complications or continence recovery. There were no significant differences for any oncological outcomes (biochemical recurrence, local or systemic progression) between the RTR and no-RTR groups. While no PCa deaths were recorded, the overall mortality rate was significantly higher in the RTR group (17% vs 0.5%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Although RP is feasible for RTR patients, the procedure poses non-negligible surgical challenges, with longer operative time and LOS and higher EBL, but no major differences in terms of complications and continence recovery. The RTR group had similar oncological outcomes to the no-RTR group but significantly higher overall mortality related to causes other than PCa. Therefore, careful selection for RP is required among candidates with previous RTR. PATIENT SUMMARY: Removal of the prostate for prostate cancer is possible in patients who have had a kidney transplant, and cancer control outcomes are comparable to those for the general population. However, transplant patients have a higher risk of death from causes other than prostate cancer and the prostate surgery is likely to be more challenging.

Audit, Feedback, and Education to Improve Quality and Outcomes in Transurethral Resection and Single-Instillation Intravesical Chemotherapy for Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Treatment: Protocol for a Multicenter International Observational Study With an Embedded Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) accounts for 75% of bladder cancers. It is common and costly. Cost and detriment to patient outcomes and quality of life are driven by high recurrence rates and the need for regular invasive surveillance and repeat treatments. There is evidence that the quality of the initial surgical procedure (transurethral resection of bladder tumor [TURBT]) and administration of postoperative bladder chemotherapy significantly reduce cancer recurrence rates and improve outcomes (cancer progression and mortality). There is surgeon-reported evidence that TURBT practice varies significantly across surgeons and sites. There is limited evidence from clinical trials of intravesical chemotherapy that NMIBC recurrence rate varies significantly between sites and that this cannot be accounted for by differences in patient, tumor, or adjuvant treatment factors, suggesting that how the surgery is performed may be a reason for the variation. OBJECTIVE: This study primarily aims to determine if feedback on and education about surgical quality indicators can improve performance and secondarily if this can reduce cancer recurrence rates. Planned secondary analyses aim to determine what surgeon, operative, perioperative, institutional, and patient factors are associated with better achievement of TURBT quality indicators and NMIBC recurrence rates. METHODS: This is an observational, international, multicenter study with an embedded cluster randomized trial of audit, feedback, and education. Sites will be included if they perform TURBT for NMIBC. The study has four phases: (1) site registration and usual practice survey; (2) retrospective audit; (3) randomization to audit, feedback, and education intervention or to no intervention; and (4) prospective audit. Local and national ethical and institutional approvals or exemptions will be obtained at each participating site. RESULTS: The study has 4 coprimary outcomes, which are 4 evidence-based TURBT quality indicators: a surgical performance factor (detrusor muscle resection); an adjuvant treatment factor (intravesical chemotherapy administration); and 2 documentation factors (resection completeness and tumor features). A key secondary outcome is the early cancer recurrence rate. The intervention is a web-based surgical performance feedback dashboard with educational and practical resources for TURBT quality improvement. It will include anonymous site and surgeon-level peer comparison, a performance summary, and targets. The coprimary outcomes will be analyzed at the site level while recurrence rate will be analyzed at the patient level. The study was funded in October 2020 and began data collection in April 2021. As of January 2023, there were 220 hospitals participating and over 15,000 patient records. Projected data collection end date is June 30, 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This study aims to use a distributed collaborative model to deliver a site-level web-based performance feedback intervention to improve the quality of endoscopic bladder cancer surgery. The study is funded and projects to complete data collection in June 2023. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.org NCT05154084; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05154084. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/42254.

Active surveillance in renal transplant patients with prostate cancer: a multicentre analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Due to medical improvements leading to increased life expectancy after renal transplantation and widened eligibility criteria allowing older patients to be transplanted, incidence of (low-risk) prostate cancer (PCa) is increasing among renal transplant recipients (RTR). It remains to be established whether active surveillance (AS) for PCa represents a safe treatment option in this setting. Therefore, we aim to compare AS discontinuation and oncological outcomes of AS for PCa of RTR vs. non-transplant patients. METHODS: Multicentre study including RTR diagnosed with PCa between 2008 and 2018 in whom AS was initiated. A subgroup of non-RTR from the St. Antonius hospital AS cohort was used as a control group. Comparison of RTR vs. non-RTR was performed by 2:1 propensity score matched survival analysis. Outcome measures included tumour progression-free survival, treatment-free survival, metastasis rates, biochemical recurrence rates and overall survival. Patients were matched based on age, year of diagnosis, PSA, biopsy ISUP grade group, relative number of positive biopsy cores and clinical stage. RESULTS: A total of 628 patients under AS were evaluated, including 17 RTRs and 611 non-RTRs. A total of 13 RTR cases were matched with 24 non-RTR cases. Median overall follow-up for the RTR and non-RTR matched cases was, respectively, 5.1 (IQR 3.2-8.7) years and 5.7 (IQR 4.8-8.1) years. There were no events of metastasis and biochemical recurrence among matched cases. The matched-pair analysis results in a 1-year and 5-year survival of the RTR and non-RTR patients were, respectively, 100 vs. 92%, and 39 vs. 76% for tumour progression, 100 vs. 91% and 59 vs. 76% for treatment-free survival and, respectively, 100 vs. 100% and 88 vs. 100% for overall survival. No significant differences in tumour progression-free survival (p = 0.07) and treatment-free survival were observed (p = 0.3). However, there was a significant difference in overall survival comparing both groups (p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: AS may be carefully considered in RTR with low-risk PCa. In our preliminary analysis, no major differences were present in AS outcomes between RTR and non-RTR. Overall mortality was significantly higher in the RTR subgroup.

Robotic Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Recipients: Results from a Multicenter Series.

BACKGROUND: Despite an expected increase in prostate cancer (PCa) incidence in the renal transplant recipient (RTR) population in the near future, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in these patients has been poorly detailed. It is not well understood whether results are comparable to RARP in the non-RTR setting. OBJECTIVE: To describe the surgical technique for RARP in RTR and report results from our multi-institutional experience. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective review of the experience of four referral centers. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: Transperitoneal RARP with pelvic lymph node dissection in selected patients. MEASUREMENTS: We measured patient, PCa, and graft baseline features; intraoperative and postoperative parameters; complications, (Clavien classification); and oncological and functional outcomes. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We included 41 men. The median age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, preoperative renal function, and prostate-specific antigen were 60 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 57-64), 2 points (IQR 2-3), 45 ml/min (IQR 30-62), and 6.5 ng/ml (IQR 5.2-10.2), respectively. Four men (9.8%) had a biopsy Gleason score >7. The majority of the patients (70.7%) did not undergo lymphadenectomy. The median operating time, hospital stay, and catheterization time were 201 min (IQR 170-250), 4 d (IQR 2-6), and 10 d (IQR 7-13), respectively. At final pathology, 11 men had extraprostatic extension and seven had positive surgical margins. At median follow-up of 42 mo (IQR 24-65), four men had biochemical recurrence, including one case of local PCa persistence and one local recurrence. No metastases were recorded while two patients died from non-PCa-related causes. Continence was preserved in 86.1% (p not applicable) and erections in 64.7% (p = 0.0633) of those who were continent/potent before the procedure. Renal function remained unchanged (p = 0.08). No intraoperative complications and one major (Clavien 3a) complication were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: RARP in RTR is safe and feasible. Overall, operative, oncological, and functional outcomes are comparable to those described for the non-RTR setting, with graft injury remaining undescribed. Further research is needed to confirm our findings. PATIENT SUMMARY: Robot-assisted removal of the prostate is safe and feasible in patients who have a kidney transplant. Cancer control, urinary and sexual function results, and surgical complications seem to be similar to those for patients without a transplant, but further research is needed.

LEARN: A multi-centre, cross-sectional evaluation of Urology teaching in UK medical schools.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the status of UK undergraduate urology teaching against the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Undergraduate Syllabus for Urology. Secondary objectives included evaluating the type and quantity of teaching provided, the reported performance rate of General Medical Council (GMC)-mandated urological procedures, and the proportion of undergraduates considering urology as a career. MATERIALS AND METHODS: LEARN was a national multicentre cross-sectional study. Year 2 to Year 5 medical students and FY1 doctors were invited to complete a survey between 3rd October and 20th December 2020, retrospectively assessing the urology teaching received to date. Results are reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). RESULTS: 7,063/8,346 (84.6%) responses from all 39 UK medical schools were included; 1,127/7,063 (16.0%) were from Foundation Year (FY) 1 doctors, who reported that the most frequently taught topics in undergraduate training were on urinary tract infection (96.5%), acute kidney injury (95.9%) and haematuria (94.4%). The most infrequently taught topics were male urinary incontinence (59.4%), male infertility (52.4%) and erectile dysfunction (43.8%). Male and female catheterisation on patients as undergraduates was performed by 92.1% and 73.0% of FY1 doctors respectively, and 16.9% had considered a career in urology. Theory based teaching was mainly prevalent in the early years of medical school, with clinical skills teaching, and clinical placements in the later years of medical school. 20.1% of FY1 doctors reported no undergraduate clinical attachment in urology. CONCLUSION: LEARN is the largest ever evaluation of undergraduate urology teaching. In the UK, teaching seemed satisfactory as evaluated by the BAUS undergraduate syllabus. However, many students report having no clinical attachments in Urology and some newly qualified doctors report never having inserted a catheter, which is a GMC mandated requirement. We recommend a greater emphasis on undergraduate clinical exposure to urology and stricter adherence to GMC mandated procedures.

Discovery of a Potent and Selective ATAD2 Bromodomain Inhibitor with Antiproliferative Activity in Breast Cancer Models.

ATAD2 is an epigenetic bromodomain-containing target which is overexpressed in many cancers and has been suggested as a potential oncology target. While several small molecule inhibitors have been described in the literature, their cellular activity has proved to be underwhelming. In this work, we describe the identification of a novel series of ATAD2 inhibitors by high throughput screening, confirmation of the bromodomain region as the site of action, and the optimization campaign undertaken to improve the potency, selectivity, and permeability of the initial hit. The result is compound 5 (AZ13824374), a highly potent and selective ATAD2 inhibitor which shows cellular target engagement and antiproliferative activity in a range of breast cancer models.

HoLEPs: A Comparative Study of Men With Massive Prostate Volumes ≥150 mL and <150 mL.

OBJECTIVE: To assess outcomes following Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate (HoLEP) in men with prostate volumes ≥150cc and compare this to men with prostate volumes ≤150 cc. PATIENTS & METHODS: We analyzed our prospective database of consecutive patients undergoing HoLEP in a single tertiary public hospital between October 2016 and January 2019. We excluded patients with clinically significant prostate cancer or neurogenic bladders. Preoperative prostate volume was measured on MRI or ultrasonography. Perioperative variables and functional outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Of 304 HoLEPs performed, we included 97 patients with prostate volume of ≥150 cc and 186 patients with prostate volume <150 cc. Comparing both cohorts (≥150 cc vs <150 cc): mean age was 71.5 vs 68.3 years, prostate volume 195 cc vs 93 cc, preoperative Qmax 9.6mL/s vs 10mL/s, American Urology Association Symptom Score (IPSS) 21 points vs 20.5 points; mean PSA 13.2µg/L vs 8.8µg/L; laser duration 86 vs 59 minutes; morcellation duration 29 vs 14 minutes; enucleated weight was 124 g vs 60 g. One patient (1%) from the ≥150 cc cohort required a surgical procedure for stress urinary incontinence, and none from the <150 cc cohort, but this did not achieve statistical significance (P = .12). There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative Qmax (32.3 vs 26.4 mL/s; P = .12), IPSS (5.9 points vs 7.3points; P = .23), mean PSA (3.9 µg/L vs 2.2 µg/L; P = .60), stricture incidence (1% vs 2.7%; P = .63), or significant stress urinary incontinence (4.1% vs 0.5%; P = .08). CONCLUSION: Our large series demonstrates that HoLEP is safe and effective in patients with massive prostates (≥150 cc), with similar outcomes compared to patients with prostates <150 cc.

Community perceptions of the impact of war on unintended pregnancy and induced abortion in Protection of Civilian sites in Juba, South Sudan.

Conflict and mass displacement into Protection of Civilian (POCs) sites in South Sudan led to the breakdown of community and family structures, increasing women and girls' vulnerability to gender-based violence and exacerbating already poor sexual and reproductive health outcomes. As one component of a study on post-abortion care, this study explores community perceptions of unintended pregnancy and abortion in a POC in Juba. Four focus group discussions were conducted with 36 women and married men aged 18-45 living in the POC. Although initial reactions to induced abortion were generally negative, participants discussed that unintended pregnancy and induced abortion appeared to have increased during the current conflict. Their discussion of abortion became less condemnatory as they described changes in people's situation due to war, including instability and poverty, transactional sex, disruption of marital norms, rape, and low contraceptive use. This is one of the first studies to investigate community perceptions and practices related to unintended pregnancy and abortion in South Sudan. Despite the beliefs that these are taboo topics, the discussions provide an opening to reduce abortion stigma. To ensure lasting stigma reduction, investment in women and girls to improve gender equity is needed.

Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Recipients: Results from a Large Contemporary Cohort.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the natural history of prostate cancer (PCa) in renal transplant recipients (RTRs) and to clarify the controversy over whether RTRs have a higher risk of PCa and poorer outcomes than non-RTRs, due to factors such as immunosuppression. Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective multicenter study of RTRs diagnosed with cM0 PCa between 2001 and 2019. Primary outcomes were overall (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Secondary outcomes included biochemical recurrence and/or progression after active surveillance (AS) and evaluation of variables possibly influencing PCa aggressiveness and outcomes. Management modalities included surgery, radiation, cryotherapy, HIFU, AS, and watchful waiting. Results: We included 166 men from nine institutions. Median age and eGFR at diagnosis were 67 (IQR 60−73) and 45.9 mL/min (IQR 31.5−63.4). ASA score was >2 in 58.4% of cases. Median time from transplant to PCa diagnosis was 117 months (IQR 48−191.5), and median PSA at diagnosis was 6.5 ng/mL (IQR 5.02−10). The biopsy Gleason score was ≥8 in 12.8%; 11.6% and 6.1% patients had suspicion of ≥cT3 > cT2 and cN+ disease. The most frequent management method was radical prostatectomy (65.6%), followed by radiation therapy (16.9%) and AS (10.2%). At a median follow-up of 60.5 months (IQR 31−106) 22.9% of men (n = 38) died, with only n = 4 (2.4%) deaths due to PCa. Local and systemic progression rates were 4.2% and 3.0%. On univariable analysis, no major influence of immunosuppression type was noted, with the exception of a protective effect of antiproliferative agents (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16−0.97, p = 0.04) associated with a decreased risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) or progression after AS. Conclusion: PCa diagnosed in RTRs is mainly of low to intermediate risk and organ-confined at diagnosis, with good cancer control and low PCa death at intermediate follow-up. RTRs have a non-negligible risk of death from causes other than PCa. Aggressive upfront management of the majority of RTRs with PCa may, therefore, be avoided.

Barriers to seeking post-abortion care in Paktika Province, Afghanistan: a qualitative study of clients and community members.

BACKGROUND: Unsafe abortion is a leading cause of maternal mortality. In Afghanistan, which has experienced decades of armed conflict and where abortion is highly restricted, maternal mortality is high at 638 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. Post-abortion care (PAC) is a lifesaving package of interventions to reduce morbidity and mortality related to induced or spontaneous abortion, but is rarely provided and often of poor quality, particularly in humanitarian settings. In July 2018, we conducted a study to identify the factors that influence access to and use of PAC services at Sharana Provincial Hospital. METHODS: In-depth interviews (IDIs) were conducted with ten women who had received PAC services at Sharana Hospital, and eight focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with 40 married women and 40 married men aged 18-45 from four villages surrounding Sharana Hospital. RESULTS: PAC clients and community participants discussed similar barriers to seeking PAC, including cost, distance to the health facility, the need for male accompaniment to seek care, perceived and actual quality of care, stigma and shame. Despite the mentioned stigma around abortion, community members expressed willingness to help women to receive PAC. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that while some barriers are not unique to PAC, others, especially those related to stigma around abortion, may be specific to PAC. It is important for the Ministry of Public Health and its partners to prioritize addressing these barriers to ensure that women have access to this critical life-saving care.

Safety of "hot" and "cold" site admissions within a high-volume urology department in the United Kingdom at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety of urological admissions and procedures during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic using "hot" and "cold" sites. The secondary objective is to determine risk factors of contracting COVID-19 within our cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients admitted from March 1 to May 31, 2020 at a high-volume tertiary urology department in London, United Kingdom. Elective surgery was carried out at a "cold" site requiring a negative COVID-19 swab 72-hours prior to admission and patients were required to self-isolate for 14-days preoperatively, while all acute admissions were admitted to the "hot" site.Complications related to COVID-19 were presented as percentages. Risk factors for developing COVID-19 infection were determined using multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 611 patients, 451 (73.8%) male and 160 (26.2%) female, with a median age of 57 (interquartile range 44-70) were admitted under the urology team; 101 (16.5%) on the "cold" site and 510 (83.5%) on the "hot" site. Procedures were performed in 495 patients of which eight (1.6%) contracted COVID-19 postoperatively with one (0.2%) postoperative mortality due to COVID-19. Overall, COVID-19 was detected in 20 (3.3%) patients with two (0.3%) deaths. Length of stay was associated with contracting COVID-19 in our cohort (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13-1.39). CONCLUSIONS: Continuation of urological procedures using "hot" and "cold" sites throughout the COVID-19 pandemic was safe practice, although the risk of COVID-19 remained and is underlined by a postoperative mortality.

Survey on ureTEric draiNage post uncomplicaTed ureteroscopy (STENT).

Objectives: To assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess whether avoiding ureteric drainage is superior to performing ureteric drainage after Uncomplicated Ureteroscopy and/or Flexible Ureterorenoscopy (URS/FURS) treatment of a urinary tract stone in improving patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 30-day unplanned readmission rates. A secondary objective was to understand current practice of urologists regarding ureteric drainage after uncomplicated URS/FURS (UU). Material and methods: We undertook an online survey of urologists, circulated amongst members of international urological societies and through social media platforms. Uncomplicated URS/FURS was defined as completion of URS/FURS treatment for a urinary tract stone, with the absence of: ureteral trauma, residual fragments requiring further lithotripsy procedures, significant bleeding, perforation, prior urinary tract infection or pregnancy. The ureteric drainage options considered included an indwelling stent, stent on a string or a ureteric catheter. The primary outcome was to determine the proportion of urologists willing to take part in a RCT, randomising patients after UU to a "no ureteric drainage" arm or ureteric drainage arm. Secondary outcomes included determining in their current practice, the proportion of clinicians performing routine ureteric drainage after UU, the reasons for performing ureteric drainage following UU and their preferred optimal duration for ureteric drainage if it is used. The study was reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). Results: Total of 468 respondents from 45 countries took part in the survey, of whom 303 completed the entire survey (65%). The majority agreed that they would be willing to randomise patients (244/303, 81%) in the proposed RCT. Perceived lack of equipoise to randomise was the most common reason for not being willing to participate (59/303, 19%).92% (308/335) reported that they use ureteric drainage after UU. This was most often due to wanting to prevent possible complications from post-operative ureteric oedema (77%) or to aid passage of small fragments (43%). Complexity of the case (i.e. impacted stone 90%) and length of the procedure (46%) were the most important intraoperative factors influencing the decision to use ureteric drainage post procedure. If required, the median stated ideal duration of ureteric drainage was 5 days (IQR: 3-7 days) after UU. If having UU personally, 30% would want no stent postoperatively and over half would prefer a stent on a string. Conclusion: We have highlighted wide variation in practice regarding ureteric drainage after UU. Our results support the feasibility of an RCT evaluating if no ureteric drainage is superior to ureteric drainage in improving PROMs and 30-day unplanned readmission rates following UU.