Utilization and Timing of Cystoscopy for Hematuria Evaluation by Advanced Practice Providers and Urologists.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize differences between urologists and advanced practice providers (APPs) in the utilization of cystoscopy for hematuria. METHODS: We identified patients initially evaluated for hematuria by a urologist or urology APP between 2015 and 2020 in the MarketScan Research Databases. We determined whether they received a cystoscopy within 6 months of their urology visit and the number of days until cystoscopy. We used multivariable regression to analyze the association between these outcomes and whether the urology clinician was an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN), physician assistant (PA), or urologist. RESULTS: We identified 34,470 patients with microscopic hematuria and 17,328 patients with gross hematuria. Patients evaluated by urologists more often received a same-day cystoscopy than those evaluated by APPs (13% vs 5.8%). The odds that patients evaluated for microscopic and gross hematuria received a cystoscopy were 46.2% and 26.2% lower, respectively, if they were evaluated by an APRN vs a urologist. Patients seeing an APRN for microscopic and gross hematuria also waited approximately 7 and 14 days longer for their cystoscopy, respectively. No differences were observed for patients evaluated by PAs vs urologists. CONCLUSION: Patients evaluated for hematuria by an APRN were less likely to receive a cystoscopy and had a longer wait until the procedure compared to those evaluated by a urologist; however, no differences were observed between PAs and urologists. Better understanding APP integration into urology clinics is warranted.

Exploring the Demands of Urology: On-Call Compensation, Frequency, and Variability.

INTRODUCTION: We investigate and analyze the available information regarding on-call patterns among urologists in the US. METHODS: The AUA Workforce Workgroup collaborated with the AUA Data Team to analyze information from the 2022 AUA Census. Extracted data were analyzed to identify variability across gender, subspecialty, hours worked per week, AUA section, salary, and practice setting. We used χ2 tests to compare the groups with respect to each factor and defined statistical significance as a P value less than .05. RESULTS: There were significant differences by gender and several other on-call factors including being required to take call to maintain hospital privileges (reported by 76% of female urologists vs 67% of male urologists; P = .026), getting paid for weekend call (28% of females vs 38% of males; P = .030), and making over $500 per day when taking weekend call (18% of females vs 32% of males; P < .001). Other differences existed between AUA sections in percentage of physicians receiving over $500 for weekday or weekend calls (P < .001). Lastly, practice setting differed in likelihood of being paid over $500 for weekday call (44% reported by private practice urologists, 7% reported by academic urologists, 14% reported by institutional urologists; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: These results underscore the substantial variability in on-call responsibilities and structure within the AUA workforce. Further research and regular participation in future censuses are recommended to continue to characterize these trends.

A Case Report of Primary Melanoma of the Urethra.

We illustrate a notable case of an 83-year-old male who presents to a community hospital with abdominal pain and hematuria. A few days after admission, an ulcerated lesion was found to be visible toward the ventral aspect of the penis, as well as bright red blood at the urethral meatus. An excisional biopsy of the urethral meatus, mid-urethra, and urethral tissue was done, and immunohistochemistry helped support the diagnosis of primary melanoma of the urethra. The pathophysiology and guidelines for treatment are discussed. Our purpose in putting forward this case is to present a rare diagnosis of primary melanoma of the male urethra and to emphasize the importance of early recognition to reduce the occurrence of invasive malignancy.

Osteoporotic Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty Have a Similar 5-Year Cumulative Incidence Rate of Periprosthetic Fracture Regardless of Cemented Versus Cementless Femoral Stem Fixation.

BACKGROUND: In osteoporotic patients, surgeons may utilize cemented femoral fixation to minimize risk of fracture. The purpose of this study was to compare 5-year implant survivability in patients who have osteoporosis who underwent elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) with cementless versus cemented fixation. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who have osteoporosis undergoing THA with either cemented or cementless femoral fixation was conducted using a national administrative claims database. Of the 18,431 identified THA patients who have osteoporosis, 15,867 (86.1%) underwent cementless fixation. The primary outcome was a comparison of the 5-year cumulative incidences of aseptic revision, mechanical loosening, and periprosthetic fracture (PPF). Kaplan-Meier and Multivariable Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio analyses were used, controlling for femoral fixation method, age, sex, a comorbidity scale, use of osteoporosis medication, and important comorbidity. RESULTS: There was no difference in aseptic revision (Hazard's Ratio (HR): 1.13; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.79 to 1.62; P value: .500) and PPF (HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.44; P value: .858) within 5 years of THA between fixation cohorts. However, patients who had cemented fixation were more likely to suffer mechanical loosening with 5 years post-THA (HR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.17 to 2.71; P-value: .007). CONCLUSIONS: We found a similar 5-year rate of PPF when comparing patients who underwent cementless versus cemented femoral fixation for elective THA regardless of preoperative diagnosis of osteoporosis. While existing registry data support the use of cemented fixation in elderly patients, a more thorough understanding of the interplay between age, osteoporosis, and implant design is needed to delineate in whom cemented fixation is most warranted for PPF prevention.

Growth in Newborn Circumcisions Performed by Pediatric Urologists and Advanced Practice Providers Between 2010 and 2021 in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize changes in the proportion of newborn circumcisions performed by pediatric urologists and advanced practiced providers (APPs) in the United States over the last decade. METHODS: The Merative MarketScan Commercial Database was queried for newborn circumcision private health insurance claims (Common Procedural Terminology 54150) between 2010 and 2021. Setting (inpatient/outpatient), US Census Bureau region, clinician specialty, and patient age (days) were determined for the full study time period, and by study year. Simple linear regression assessed growth in proportion of newborn circumcisions performed by pediatric urologists and APPs (nurse practitioner/physician assistant/midwife), over time. RESULTS: In total, 1,006,748 newborn circumcisions (59% inpatient) were identified; while most were performed by obstetricians (45%) or pediatricians (33%); APPs performed 0.9%, and pediatric urologists performed 0.7%. From 2010-2021, the proportion of newborn circumcisions performed by pediatric urologists increased from 0.3% to 2.0% and by APPs in from 0.5% to 2.9% (P < .001 for both). Growth for both pediatric urologists and APPs occurred APPs predominantly from 2016 to 2021. Trends in proportion of newborn circumcision performed by pediatricians was stable [31.5% (2010) and 32.5% (2021)], but decreased for obstetricians [48.8% (2014) and 38.1% (2021)]. CONCLUSION: The proportion of newborn circumcisions performed by pediatric urologists and APPs increased more than 6-fold between 2010 and 2021, though both specialties still perform a minority of newborn circumcisions. These data provide important baseline information for newborn circumcision workforce planning, including evaluating collaborative care models where pediatric urologists train APPs to perform circumcision.

Industry Payments for Vibegron and Prescribing Patterns Among Urologic Clinicians.

This cross-sectional study compares the prescribing practices among urologists and advanced practice clinicians who received vs did not receive payment from drug manufacturers.

Mitochondrial evolution: Gene shuffling, endosymbiosis, and signaling.

Genes for cardiolipin and ceramide synthesis occur in some alphaproteobacterial genomes. They shed light on mitochondrial origin and signaling in the first eukaryotic cells.

Industry Payments to Urologists and Urologic Advanced Practice Providers in 2021.

OBJECTIVE: To compare industry payments from drug and medical device companies to urologists and urologic advanced practice providers (APPs) in 2021. METHODS: We used the 2020 Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty file to identify single-specialty urology practices, defined as those where the majority of physicians were urologists. We then used the Open Payments Program Year 2021 data to summarize the value and number of industry payments to urologists and APPs, including nurse practitioners and physician assistants, in these practices. We calculated the total value and number of payments and median total value and number of payments per provider for urologists and urologic APPs. RESULTS: We identified 4418 urologists and 1099 APPs working in single-specialty urology practices in 2021 (Table 1). Of these, 3646 (87%) urologists received at least one industry payment, totaling $14,755,003 from 116,039 payments, and 954 urologic APPs (87%) received at least one industry payment, including 463 nurse practitioners (85%), totaling $401,283 from 13,035 payments, and 491 physician assistants (89%), totaling $543,429 from 14,626 payments. We observed significantly greater median total value and number of payments per provider for urologists ($620 and 24 payments) compared to urologic APPs ($473 and 21 payments; P < .001 and P = .017, respectively). CONCLUSION: A similar percentage of urologists and urologic APPs received industry payments in 2021. While urologists received a higher total number and total value of payments in 2021, urologic APPs were a common target of industry marketing payments.

Increasing Role of the Advanced Practice Provider in Men's Health Clinics: An Analysis of Medicare and Commercial Claims in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: As urological care delivery in the U.S. continues to evolve to meet patient needs, we aim to clarify the role of advanced practice providers for publicly and privately insured patients in the treatment of male urological conditions commonly encountered in men's health clinics. METHODS: Medicare and commercial insurance claims from the Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary and Merative MarketScan Commercial Database were queried for procedures submitted by advanced practice providers between 2010 and 2021. Common urological conditions were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes and grouped into 4 categories: testicular hypofunction, erectile dysfunction and Peyronie's disease, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and scrotal pain. The proportion of procedures submitted by advanced practice providers was calculated for each year and category. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2021, the proportion of advanced practice provider-submitted service counts for each condition within the MarketScan group increased up to 5-fold, with benign prostatic hyperplasia representing the greatest growth. The proportion of advanced practice provider-submitted service counts within the Medicare group increased up to 8-fold, with erectile dysfunction/Peyronie's disease representing the greatest fold change. The proportion of claims submitted by advanced practice providers treating all 4 conditions was higher in 2021 than 2010 in both publicly and privately insured groups. CONCLUSIONS: The role of advanced practice providers in men's urological health is increasing for both privately and publicly insured patient populations. Advanced practice providers play a critical role in urological care and can help to improve access to men's health.

Outcomes of Hematuria Evaluation by Advanced Practice Providers and Urologists.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the quality and costs of care for patients evaluated for hematuria by urologic advanced practice providers (APPs) and urologists. The roles of APPs in urology are growing, but their clinical and financial outcomes compared to urologists are not well understood. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured patients using data from 2014 to 2020. We included adult beneficiaries with a diagnosis code for hematuria and an initial outpatient evaluation and management visit with a urologic APP or urologist. We assessed receipt of cystoscopy procedure, imaging study, bladder biopsy procedure, and bladder cancer diagnosis within 6 months of the initial visit. Secondary outcomes included the time until each of these outcomes occurred and the out-of-pocket spending and total payments. RESULTS: We identified 59,923 patients who were initially evaluated for hematuria. Visits with urologic nurse practitioners rather than urologists were associated with significantly lower odds of receiving cystoscopy procedures (odds ratio [OR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.54-0.72, P < .001), imaging studies (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.91, P < .001), and bladder biopsy procedures (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41-0.92, P = .02). Visits with urologic physician assistants were associated with 11% greater out-of-pocket payments (incident risk ratio 1.11, CI 1.01-1.22, P = .02) and 14% greater total payments (incident risk ratio 1.14, CI 1.04-1.25, P = .004). CONCLUSION: There are clinical and financial differences in hematuria care delivered by urologic APPs and urologists. The incorporation of APPs into urologic care warrants further study, and specialty-specific training for APPs should be considered.

Characteristics of prostate cancer patients captured by facility-based versus geography-based cancer registries.

PURPOSE: We determined differences in demographics, tumor factors, and treatment patterns of prostate cancer patients in a geographic-based cancer registry based on eligibility for a facility-based cancer registry system. METHODS: We identified prostate cancer patients captured by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2018 to 2019. Our exposure was receipt of cancer care at a facility accredited by the American College of Surgeons' Commission on Cancer (CoC) providing eligibility for inclusion in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Outcomes included patient demographics, tumor factors (e.g., biopsy grade), and treatment with radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: We identified 113,733 prostate cancer patients of whom 65,708 (57%) were NCDB-eligible with an analytic abstract, and 11,010 (10%) were NCDB-eligible without an analytic abstract. NCDB-eligible men were younger (67.0 vs. 68.1 years, P < 0.001), less likely to be Hispanic/Latino (8.7% vs. 13.2%, P < 0.001), and more likely in a county with median income over $75,000 (40.9% vs. 30.0%, P < 0.001). NCDB eligibility varied widely by registry, from 95.9% in Connecticut to 42.6% in Utah. NCDB-ineligible patients were more likely to have unknown stage (17.2% vs. 2.9% NCDB-eligible) and missing PSA (22.9% vs 9.3% NCDB-eligible). NCDB-eligible men were less likely to have Grade Group 1 cancer on biopsy (28.2% vs. 39.2%, P < 0.001). Treatment with prostatectomy was more common among NCDB-eligible patients for low-risk (19.6% vs. 8.8%, adjusted OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.72-6.66) and high-risk tumors (43.5% vs. 26.0%, adjusted OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.33-2.86). CONCLUSION: Compared NCDB-ineligible patients, those eligible for inclusion in the NCDB have important differences in demographics, eligibility for active surveillance, and treatment patterns. Generalizations related to epidemiologic trends, practice patterns, and outcomes for this select population should be interpreted with caution.

The layered costs and benefits of translational redundancy.

The rate and accuracy of translation hinges upon multiple components - including transfer RNA (tRNA) pools, tRNA modifying enzymes, and rRNA molecules - many of which are redundant in terms of gene copy number or function. It has been hypothesized that the redundancy evolves under selection, driven by its impacts on growth rate. However, we lack empirical measurements of the fitness costs and benefits of redundancy, and we have poor a understanding of how this redundancy is organized across components. We manipulated redundancy in multiple translation components of Escherichia coli by deleting 28 tRNA genes, 3 tRNA modifying systems, and 4 rRNA operons in various combinations. We find that redundancy in tRNA pools is beneficial when nutrients are plentiful and costly under nutrient limitation. This nutrient-dependent cost of redundant tRNA genes stems from upper limits to translation capacity and growth rate, and therefore varies as a function of the maximum growth rate attainable in a given nutrient niche. The loss of redundancy in rRNA genes and tRNA modifying enzymes had similar nutrient-dependent fitness consequences. Importantly, these effects are also contingent upon interactions across translation components, indicating a layered hierarchy from copy number of tRNA and rRNA genes to their expression and downstream processing. Overall, our results indicate both positive and negative selection on redundancy in translation components, depending on a species' evolutionary history with feasts and famines.

Translation is the process by which cellular machines called ribosomes use the information encoded in genes to make proteins . Every organism requires two types of RNA molecules to make new proteins: ribosomal RNAs (rRNAs, which form part of the ribosome) and transfer RNAs (tRNAs, which transport the amino acid molecules that form proteins to the ribosomes). These RNA molecules are coded in the genome, but different organisms have different 'copy numbers': some genomes contain just a few copies of each of these genes, while others have thousands. This apparent redundancy ­ the presence of several copies of the same gene ­ is puzzling because it is costly to make and maintain DNA and RNA. This leads to an important question: how does redundancy in these important genes (coding for tRNAs and rRNAs) evolve? The answer is key to understanding how one of the most fundamental cellular processes, the making of proteins from DNA, has evolved. A possible reason for organisms to have many copies of the genes required to make proteins is to allow rapid translation, which allows cells to divide faster, and populations of cells to grow more quickly. However, this would likely mean that, when nutrients are scarce, carrying and translating many copies of the same gene would become a burden on the cell. Raval et al. set out to test this idea by measuring the costs and benefits of seemingly redundant translation components. To do this, Raval et al. deleted some of the redundant gene copies in the bacterium Escherichia coli and asked if that changed bacterial growth. The experiments showed that when nutrients were plentiful, cells with more copies of the genes (high redundancy) were better able to use the nutrients and divide rapidly. However, when nutrients were limited, bacteria with extra gene copies divided more slowly, showing that the extra genes are indeed a big burden on the cell. Raval et al. propose that nutrients available in the environment ultimately determine whether redundancy of the translation machinery is a blessing or a curse. This suggests that the redundancy and underlying growth strategies of different organisms are forged by their experiences of feast and famine during their evolutionary past. Importantly, by testing the joint effect of many different molecules involved in translation, Raval et al. uncovered several strategies that may maximize bacterial growth and protein production. Their results could thus be useful for optimizing the synthesis of important products that use growing cells as factories ­ from beer to insulin ­ where the rate of growth is critical.

Health Care Avoidance Among Canadian Pilots Due to Fear of Medical Certificate Loss: A National Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

OBJECTIVE: Canadian pilots may avoid health care and report inaccurate medical information due to fear of medical invalidation. We sought to determine if health care avoidance due to fear of certificate loss exists. METHODS: We conducted an anonymous 24-item Internet survey of 1405 Canadian pilots between March and May 2021. Responses were collected using REDCap, and the survey was advertised through aviation magazines and social media groups. RESULTS: Seventy-two percent of respondents (n = 1007) have felt worried about seeking medical care because it may impact their career or hobby. Respondents participated in various health care avoidance behaviors with the most common being having actually avoided or delayed medical care for a symptom (46%, n = 647). CONCLUSION: Canadian pilots fear medical invalidation and consequently, avoid health care. This may be severely impacting aeromedical screening effectiveness.