2014 Top Stories in Urology: AUA Urotrauma Guidelines


Practicing urologists have always played an integral role in the evaluation and treatment of acute genitourinary organ injury. Well-established criteria for imaging of blunt trauma, originally pioneered by McAninch and colleagues, have been incorporated in most trauma center protocols. Although trauma surgeons may manage life-threatening renal hemorrhage with nephrectomy, urologist input remains critical when deciding appropriate intervention for all other urinary tract and genital injuries.

The field of genitourinary trauma and reconstruction received a major push toward dissemination of evidence-based best practices with the introduction of the AUA Guideline on Urotrauma.1 Guidelines drive education, policy, and changes in practice patterns that may be adopted worldwide. In addition, gaps in knowledge identified by the evidence review define opportunities for future research.

Urologists can expect two diverging outcomes of the introduction of guidelines. Trauma systems will look to the guidelines to ensure adherence with evidence-based recommendations. This will likely create greater demand for urological consultation and involvement during and after hospitalization. Conversely, if urologists are not willing to provide prompt engagement and collaboration with trauma teams, it is possible that other practitioners will take over decision-making and care of patients with genitourinary injuries.

Key takeaways from the AUA Urotrauma Guidelines include the following:

  1. The surgical team must perform immediate surgery (or angioembolization in selected situations) in hemodynamically unstable patients with no or transient response to resuscitation.
  2. Follow-up imaging is necessary for high-grade renal injuries, although the particular lesions and how to follow them remains unknown.
  3. Ureteral injury should be explored and repaired immediately; if diagnosis is delayed, use a drain-and-wait approach.
  4. Intraperitoneal bladder rupture should always be repaired after blunt trauma.
  5. Extraperitoneal bladder rupture can be classified into complicated and uncomplicated. Complicated injuries require exploration and repair, whereas uncomplicated injuries can be managed with catheter drainage.
  6. Suprapubic tubes may be used in the face of orthopedic hardware as determined by expert opinion; it must be acknowledged that there is little evidence to support the guideline recommendation.
  7. Primary urethral realignment is an option for pelvic fracture urethral injury. Suprapubic cystostomy is almost always the best initial choice for urinary drainage in the acute setting of a pelvic fracture urethral injury. Primary realignment will reduce stricture rates, but prolonged efforts at realignment should be avoided.
  8. Genital injuries require early exploration using correct approaches at the local hospital level based on the mechanism and severity of injury. An exception to this is penile replantation, which should be referred to centers of excellence for microvascular repair.

18-Year Study Finds Drug Cut Prostate Cancer Risk.


A drug used to treat enlarged prostateand male pattern baldness also reduces a man’s risk of prostate cancer by nearly a third, according to a large new study.

The findings on nearly 19,000 men also overturn earlier concerns that treatment withfinasteride – the agent in the prostate drugProscar and the hair-loss drug Propecia – might promote the development of more virulent prostate cancers in men who contract the disease, researchers said.

Finasteride did not affect overall survival rates or survival rates after diagnosis with prostate cancer for men who did and did not receive the drug, said study lead author Dr. Ian Thompson, a urologist and professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center.

“If indeed the more high-grade cancers in the men taking finasteride were real, we would expect to find a higher death rate,” Thompson said. “The survival of these men was exactly the same.”

Published in the Aug. 15 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, the study is an 18-year follow-up on the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, which took place in the late 1990s. Back then, the trial found that finasteride could reduce overall risk of prostate cancer by 25 percent – but that it increased by 27 percent the risk of high-grade prostate cancer in those men who did wind up with the disease.

The concern over the high-grade cancer findings led officials back then to decline recommending finasteride as a prostate cancer prevention tool. “Basically, this potential home-run prostate cancer intervention never happened,” Thompson said.

When checking back with the men involved in the earlier trial, researchers behind the new study found that the drug actually worked better than earlier reported in reducing prostate cancer risk.

They also found that detection of high-grade cancers occurred in 3.5 percent of prostate cancer patients who took finasteride and 3 percent of patients given a placebo. There was no difference between the finasteride and placebo groups regarding overall long-term survival or survival following a prostate cancer diagnosis.

“It shows that the higher proportion of high-grade disease doesn’t really matter, because it doesn’t affect the risk of death,” said Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society.

Brawley said the increased diagnosis of high-grade prostate cancer likely occurs due to finasteride’s effectiveness in shrinking enlarged prostates.

“You take Proscar for six months to a year and it halves the size of your prostate, but the cancer inside your prostate does not shrink,” Brawley said. “If I’m performing a biopsy on a smaller prostate, I’m more likely to hit that cancer than if I am sticking into a larger prostate. This drug wasn’t causing more prostate cancer. It’s causing more prostate cancer to be diagnosed.”

Since finasteride does not affect survival rates, its true value may lie in reducing the diagnosis of minor prostate cancers that should not be treated, Thompson and Brawley said.

Prostate cancer is the most commonly detected form of cancer in men, found in one in six men during their lifetimes, Thompson said. Prostate cancer kills only 3 percent to 5 percent of men, however.

Most men “will get away with it, dying of causes other than prostate cancer,” Thompson said.

Because of this, prostate cancer has become an overtreated disease, with men suffering side effects such as impotence and incontinence because they received treatment for a cancer that wasn’t likely to lead to their deaths, Brawley said.

“It does not affect a man’s risk of death at all to take finasteride, but if he takes finasteride it will lower his risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer,” Brawley said. “Half to 60 percent of men who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, if it was never diagnosed, it would never have bothered them in their lifetimes. We cure some people who never need to be cured.”

Source: Drugs.com

Use of Advanced Technologies in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer on the Rise.


The use of advanced treatment technologies for prostate cancer has nearly doubled among men who are least likely to benefit, a JAMA study finds.

Researchers examined Medicare data to compare the use of different prostate cancer treatments between 2004 and 2009. Some 56,000 men with new prostate cancer diagnoses were included; advanced treatment technologies were defined as intensity-modulated radiotherapy and robotic prostatectomy.

The use of advanced technologies for men with low-risk disease rose from 32% in 2004 to 44% in 2009; among men at high risk for death from other causes within 10 years, the use of these treatments increased from 36% to 57%. Overall, advanced technologies among men unlikely to die from prostate cancer rose from 13% to 24%.

The researchers conclude: “Continued efforts to differentiate indolent from aggressive disease and to improve the prediction of patient life expectancy may help reduce the use of advanced treatment technologies in this patient population.”

Source: JAMA

 

Aspirin Linked to Reduced Mortality in Prostate Cancer.


In men who’ve undergone treatment for localized prostate cancer with radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy, aspirin use is associated with reduced prostate cancer mortality, researchers report in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Nearly 6000 men treated for localized prostate cancer were identified from a U.S. cancer registry. About one third took anticoagulants (aspirin, clopidogrel, enoxaparin, or warfarin) at some point during roughly 6 years’ follow-up, with aspirin being most commonly used.

Overall, prostate cancer mortality was significantly lower among anticoagulant users than nonusers (actuarial 10-year risk estimate, 3% vs. 8%). Patients with high-risk disease derived the greatest benefit. In subanalyses according to anticoagulant type, a significant risk reduction was seen only with aspirin (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.43).

The researchers note that coagulation plays a role in metastasis. They hypothesize, then, that aspirin’s effects on platelet aggregation may offer protection against metastasis.

Source: Journal of Clinical Oncology

 

Dietary cadmium exposure and prostate cancer incidence: a population-based prospective cohort study.


Experimental data convincingly propose the toxic metal cadmium as a prostate carcinogen. Cadmium is widely dispersed into the environment and, consequently, food is contaminated.

Methods:

A population-based cohort of 41 089 Swedish men aged 45–79 years was followed prospectively from 1998 through 2009 to assess the association between food frequency questionnaire-based estimates of dietary cadmium exposure (at baseline, 1998) and incidence of prostate cancer (3085 cases, of which 894 were localised and 794 advanced) and through 2008 for prostate cancer mortality (326 fatal cases).

Results:

Mean dietary cadmium exposure was 19 μg per day±s.d. 3.7. Multivariable-adjusted dietary cadmium exposure was positively associated with overall prostate cancer, comparing extreme tertiles; rate ratio (RR) 1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03–1.24). For subtypes of prostate cancer, the RR was 1.29 (95% CI: 1.08–1.53) for localised, 1.05 (95% CI: 0.87–1.25) for advanced, and 1.14 (95% CI: 0.86–1.51) for fatal cases. No statistically significant difference was observed in the multivariable-adjusted risk estimates between tumour subtypes (Pheterogeneity=0.27). For localised prostate cancer, RR was 1.55 (1.16–2.08) among men with a small waist circumference and RR 1.45 (1.15, 1.83) among ever smokers.

Conclusion:

Our findings provide support that dietary cadmium exposure may have a role in prostate cancer development.

Source: British journal of oncology

 

Keywords:

dietary cadmium; epidemiology; prospective cohort; prostate cancer; subtypes