Presentations at the AUA annual meeting (on May 4 to 8): Part V


Here is information about a fifth batch of abstracts of presentations to be given at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA). You can search these yourself if you go to this link. The meeting will be taking place in San Diego this year.

For many presentations (as previously mentioned) we shall simply be providing the abstract number, the name of the first author, the title of the paper, and any key point that the study may make. Unfortunately, you will then need to find the actual abstract yourself if you want to read it because the AUA web site does not permit us to give links directly to individual abstracts.

  • Evans B., et al. Variation in over-treatment of prostate cancer in Florida (abstract no. 414). Key point: This study shows that between 2004 and 2007, 75.3 percent of males in Florida diagnosed with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer and ≥ 76 years of age at diagnosis received some form of immediate first-line treatment and that the propensity for over-treatment varied considerably according to healthcare market and demographic factors.
  • Schroek F., et al. Regional variation in the quality of prostate cancer care (abstract no. 424). Key point: Based on an analysis of SEER-Medicare data from 2001 to 2009, there was wide variation in regional adherence to established measures of prostate cancer quality, ranging from 2 percent for treatment by a high-volume provider to 96 percent for avoiding over-use of bone scans in low-risk cancer. The authors note that “aspects of effective and patient-centered care are the most important targets for future quality improvement efforts” (and The “New” Prostate Cancer InfoLink wholeheartedly agrees!).
  • Kopp R., et al. The burden of urinary incontinence and urinary bother among elderly prostate cancer survivors (abstract no. 435). Key point: Compared to their peers without prostate cancer, prostate cancer survivors of age ≥ 65 years had a two- to fivefold greater prevalence of urinary incontinence, which rose with increasing duration of survivorship; in addition, watchful waiting, surgery, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were each associated with increased urinary bother.
  • Stensland K., et al. Prostate cancer on YouTube: accurate and unbiased information is hard to find (abstract no. 451). Key point: The authors report that “Existent information on YouTube about prostate cancer is often incomplete, misleading, and biased” and that “Guidelines are needed to help patients identify information from credible and not credible sources.”
  • Herrel L., et al. Factors affecting decision making for treatment options in African American men with prostate cancer (abstract no. 545). Key point: Strikingly, in this study of decision-making among African American patients, convenience was found to be very important in influencing  selection of a specific treatment for prostate cancer, while other factors (such as age, income, education, and insurance) were not as important.
  • Schroek F., et al. Technology and prostate cancer quality of care (abstract no. 546). Key point: Based on this analysis of data from 61,000 records in the SEER-Medicare database, patients treated in “high-tech” markets do not receive substantively better care than those treated in “low-tech” markets, and the public perception that “newer is better” may not necessarily be true for prostate cancer care.
  • Kim S., et al. A national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer (abstract no. 546). Key point: Please see this link; we have already commented on this report.
  • Shaw G., et al. D’Amico risk stratification outperforms published active surveillance selection criteria from the USA as a way to identify patients with indolent prostate cancer in a relatively unscreened UK population (abstract no. 551). Key point: In a study of 848 patients all treated by radical prostatectomy between 2007 and 2011, the D’Amico criteria outperformed five other methods for predicting insignificant or Gleason 6 organ-confined prostate cancer; however, this cohort of UK-based patients included only two classically defined cases with insignificant tumors of < 0.5 cm3, rendering further analysis impossible, and this reflects differences between this UK cohort and screened USA and European cohorts.
  • Leibovici D., et al. Complications of salvage cryosurgery after primary radiation therapy for prostate cancer: pooled multicenter analysis of 798 patients (abstract no. 552). Key point: Although salvage prostate cryotherapy is associated with substantial complications (such as a 15.6 percent occurrence of severe urinary incontinence) a substantial number of complications have become less frequent in recent years — but this does not appear to include severe urinary incontinence.
  • Dickinson L., et al. Five year oncological outcomes following whole-gland primary HIFU from the UK Independent HIFU registry (abstract no. 553). Key point: Please see this link; we have already commented on this paper.
  • Lindner U., et al. Initial results of MR-guided laser focal therapy for prostate cancer (abstract no. 554). Key point: Early data from 40 patients suggests that MRgFLA is a safe procedure with minimal morbidity; initial responses(based on  4-month biopsy data) indicate that the targeted tumor can be completely ablated in 75 percent of cases including men with Gleason 6 and 7 disease.
  • Tilki D., et al. Surgeon’s learning curve for open radical prostatectomy (abstract no. 556). Key point: Surgical experience has a strong positive impact on pathologic and functional outcomes as well as on operation time; this study shows that the learning effect is detectable up to a threshold of almost 1,000 radical prostatectomies and is therefore relevant even for high-volume surgeons (although this is not exactly “new” information).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: