No abstract

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Screening for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing can lead to problems of underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis. Short, noncontrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or transrectal ultrasonography might overcome these limitations. OBJECTIVE To compare the performance of PSA testing, MRI, and ultrasonography as screening tests for prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This prospective, population-based, blinded cohort study was conducted at 7 primary care practices and 2 imaging centers in the United Kingdom. Men 50 to 69 years of age were invited for prostate cancer screening from October 10, 2018, to May 15, 2019. INTERVENTIONS All participants underwent screening with a PSA test, MRI (T2 weighted and diffusion), and ultrasonography (B-mode and shear wave elastography). The tests were independently interpreted without knowledge of other results. Both imaging tests were reported on a validated 5-point scale of suspicion. If any test result was positive, a systematic 12-core biopsy was performed. Additional image fusion-targeted biopsies were performed if the MRI or ultrasonography results were positive. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The main outcome was the proportion of men with positive MRI or ultrasonography (defined as a score of 3-5 or 4-5) or PSA test (defined as PSA Ն3 μg/L) results. Key secondary outcomes were the number of clinically significant and clinically insignificant cancers detected if each test was used exclusively. Clinically significant cancer was defined as any Gleason score of 3+4 or higher. RESULTS A total of 2034 men were invited to participate; of 411 who attended screening, 408 consented to receive all screening tests. The proportion with positive MRI results (score, 3-5) was higher than the proportion with positive PSA test results (72 [17.7%; 95% CI, 14.3%-21.8%] vs 40 [9.9%; 95% CI, 7.3%-13.2%]; P < .001). The proportion with positive ultrasonography results (score, 3-5) was also higher than the proportion of those with positive PSA test results (96 [23.7%; 95% CI, 19.8%-28.1%]; P < .001). For an imaging threshold of score 4 to 5, the proportion with positive MRI results was similar to the proportion with positive PSA test results (43 [10.6%; 95% CI, 7.9%-14.0%]; P = .71), as was the proportion with positive ultrasonography results (52 [12.8%; 95% CI, 9.9%-16.5%]; P = .15). The PSA test (Ն3 ng/mL) detected 7 clinically significant cancers, an MRI score of 3 to 5 detected 14 cancers, an MRI score of 4 to 5 detected 11 cancers, an ultrasonography score of 3 to 5 detected 9 cancer, and an ultrasonography score of 4 to 5 detected 4 cancers. Clinically insignificant cancers were diagnosed by PSA testing in 6 cases, by an MRI score of 3 to 5 in 7 cases, an MRI score of 4 to 5 in 5 cases, an ultrasonography score of 3 to 5 in 13 cases, and an ultrasonography score of 4 to 5 in 7 cases. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this cohort study, when screening the general population for prostate cancer, MRI using a score of 4 or 5 to define a positive test result ...

Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy causes a high urinary retention rate and a detrimental impact on genitourinary functional outcomes, including deterioration in urinary flow and sexual function. Our findings can be used to ensure adequate counseling about transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies. The results point to a need for strategies such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsies to minimize the harms of transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction A virtual clinic is a form of telemedicine where contact between clinical teams and patients occur without face-to-face consultation. Our study aims to quantify the clinical, financial and environmental benefits of our virtual urology clinic. Material and methods We collected data prospectively from our weekly follow-up virtual clinic over a continuous four-month period between July and September 2017. Results In total, we reviewed 409 patients. Following virtual clinic consultation, 68.5% of our patients were discharged from further follow-up. The majority of our patients (male 57.7%, female 55.5%) were of working age. The satisfaction scores were high, at 90.1%, and there were no reported adverse events as a result of using the virtual clinic. Our calculated cost savings were £18,744, with a predicted 12-month cost saving of £56,232. The creation of additional face-to-face clinic capacity has created an estimated 12-month increase in tariff generation for our unit of £72,072. In total, 4623 travel miles were avoided by patients using the virtual clinic, with an estimated avoided carbon footprint of 0.35–1.45 metric tonnes of CO2e, depending on mode of transport. Our predicted 12-month avoided carbon footprint is 1.04–4.04 metric tonnes of CO2e. Conclusions Our virtual clinic model has demonstrated a trifecta of positive outcomes, namely, clinical, financial and environmental benefits. The environmental importance and benefits of a virtual clinic should be promoted as a social enterprise value when engaging stakeholders in setting up such a urological service. We propose the adoption of our virtual clinic model in those urological units considering this method of telemedicine.