Does the Identification of a Minimum Number of Cases Correlate With Better Adherence to International Guidelines Regarding the Treatment of Penile Cancer? Survey Results of the European PROspective Penile Cancer Study (E-PROPS)

Background: Penile cancer represents a rare malignant disease, whereby a small caseload is associated with the risk of inadequate treatment expertise. Thus, we hypothesized that strict guideline adherence might be considered a potential surrogate for treatment quality. This study investigated the influence of the annual hospital caseload on guideline adherence regarding treatment recommendations for penile cancer. Methods: In a 2018 survey study, 681 urologists from 45 hospitals in four European countries were queried about six hypothetical case scenarios (CS): local treatment of the primary tumor pTis (CS1) and pT1b (CS2); lymph node surgery inguinal (CS3) and pelvic (CS4); and chemotherapy neoadjuvant (CS5) and adjuvant (CS6). Only the responses from 206 head and senior physicians, as decision makers, were evaluated. The answers were assessed based on the applicable European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines regarding their correctness. The real hospital caseload was analyzed based on multivariate logistic regression models regarding its effect on guideline adherence. Results: The median annual hospital caseload was 6 (interquartile range (IQR) 3–9). Recommendations for CS1–6 were correct in 79%, 66%, 39%, 27%, 28%, and 28%, respectively. The probability of a guideline-adherent recommendation increased with each patient treated per year in a clinic for CS1, CS2, CS3, and CS6 by 16%, 7.8%, 7.2%, and 9.5%, respectively (each p < 0.05); CS4 and CS5 were not influenced by caseload. A caseload threshold with a higher guideline adherence for all endpoints could not be perceived. The type of hospital care (academic vs. non-academic) did not affect guideline adherence in any scenario. Conclusions: Guideline adherence for most treatment recommendations increases with growing annual penile cancer caseload. Thus, the results of our study call for a stronger centralization of diagnosis and treatment strategies regarding penile cancer

Evaluating the use of prostate-specific antigen as an instrument for early detection of prostate cancer beyond urologists: Results of a representative cross-sectional questionnaire study of general practitioners and internal specialists

OBJECTIVES The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the value of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing as a tool for early detection of prostate cancer (PCa) applied by general practitioners (GPs) and internal specialists (ISs) as well as to assess criteria leading to the application of PSA-based early PCa detection. METHODS Between May and December 2012, a questionnaire containing 16 items was sent to 600 GPs and ISs in the federal state Brandenburg and in Berlin (Germany). The independent influence of several criteria on the decision of GPs and ISs to apply PSA-based early PCa detection was assessed by multivariate logistic regression analysis (MLRA). RESULTS 392 evaluable questionnaires were collected (return rate 65%). 81% of the physicians declared that they apply PSA testing for early PCa detection; of these, 58 and 15% would screen patients until the age of 80 and 90 years, respectively. In case of a pathological PSA level, 77% would immediately refer the patient to a urologist, while 13% would re-assess elevated PSA levels after 3-12 months. Based on MLRA, the following criteria were independently associated with a positive attitude towards PSA-based early PCa detection: specialisation (application of early detection more frequent for GPs and hospital-based ISs) (OR 3.12; p < 0.001), physicians who use exclusively GP or IS education (OR 3.95; p = 0.002), and physicians who recommend yearly PSA assessment after the age of 50 (OR 6.85; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS GPs and ISs frequently apply PSA-based early PCa detection. In doing so, 13% would initiate specific referral to a urologist in case of pathological PSA values too late. Improvement of this situation could possibly result from specific educational activities for non-urological physicians active in fields of urological core capabilities, which should be guided by joint boards of the national associations of urology and general medicine

Awareness and perception of multidrug-resistant organisms and antimicrobial therapy among internists vs. surgeons of different specialties: Results from the German MR2 Survey

Background: Recently, antibiotic resistance rates have risen substantially and care for patients infected with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) has become a common problem in most in &#8211; and outpatient settings. The objectives of the study were to compare the awareness, perception, and knowledge of MDRO and rational antibiotic use between physicians from different medical specialties in German hospitals. Methods: A 35-item questionnaire was sent to specialists in internal medicine (internists), gynecologists, urologists, and general surgeons (non-internists) in 18 German hospitals. Likert-scales were used to evaluate awareness and perception of personal performance regarding care for patients infected with MDRO and rational use of antibiotics. Additionally, two items assessing specific knowledge in antibiotic therapy were included. The impact of medical specialty on four predetermined endpoints was assessed by multivariate logistic regression. Results: 43.0 (456/1061) of recipients responded. Both internists and non-internists had low rates of training in antibiotic stewardship. 50.8 of internists and 58.6 of non-internists had attended special training in rational antibiotic use or care for patients infected with MDRO in the 12 months prior to the study. Internists deemed themselves more confidently to choose the indications for screening patients for colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (P=0.004) and to initiate adequate infection control measures (P=0.002) than other specialties. However, there was no significant difference between internists and other specialists regarding the two items assessing specific knowledge in antibiotic therapy and infection control. Conclusion: Among the study participants, a considerable need for advanced training in the study subjects was seen, regardless of the medical specialty

Does the Identification of a Minimum Number of Cases Correlate With Better Adherence to International Guidelines Regarding the Treatment of Penile Cancer? Survey Results of the European PROspective Penile Cancer Study (E-PROPS)

Background: Penile cancer represents a rare malignant disease, whereby a small caseload is associated with the risk of inadequate treatment expertise. Thus, we hypothesized that strict guideline adherence might be considered a potential surrogate for treatment quality. This study investigated the influence of the annual hospital caseload on guideline adherence regarding treatment recommendations for penile cancer. Methods: In a 2018 survey study, 681 urologists from 45 hospitals in four European countries were queried about six hypothetical case scenarios (CS): local treatment of the primary tumor pTis (CS1) and pT1b (CS2); lymph node surgery inguinal (CS3) and pelvic (CS4); and chemotherapy neoadjuvant (CS5) and adjuvant (CS6). Only the responses from 206 head and senior physicians, as decision makers, were evaluated. The answers were assessed based on the applicable European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines regarding their correctness. The real hospital caseload was analyzed based on multivariate logistic regression models regarding its effect on guideline adherence. Results: The median annual hospital caseload was 6 (interquartile range (IQR) 3–9). Recommendations for CS1–6 were correct in 79%, 66%, 39%, 27%, 28%, and 28%, respectively. The probability of a guideline-adherent recommendation increased with each patient treated per year in a clinic for CS1, CS2, CS3, and CS6 by 16%, 7.8%, 7.2%, and 9.5%, respectively (each p < 0.05); CS4 and CS5 were not influenced by caseload. A caseload threshold with a higher guideline adherence for all endpoints could not be perceived. The type of hospital care (academic vs. non-academic) did not affect guideline adherence in any scenario. Conclusions: Guideline adherence for most treatment recommendations increases with growing annual penile cancer caseload. Thus, the results of our study call for a stronger centralization of diagnosis and treatment strategies regarding penile cancer