Study protocol for ELIXIR: an evaluation of learning and exposure to the undergraduate Interventional Radiology curriculum

Background: Despite the initiation of a suggested undergraduate curriculum for Interventional Radiology (IR) by the British Society of Interventional Radiology, there is still a lack of exposure to IR amongst medical students and junior doctors. It is unclear how much of the proposed curriculum is implemented in the undergraduate curricula of the respective medical schools in the UK. Methods and Materials: This is a cross-sectional study that aims to evaluate the level of awareness of IR as a subspecialty amongst medical students in the UK. All final year students from the 34 UK medical universities that award primary medical qualifications are eligible for the study. A student representative from each university will be recruited through a social media drive to distribute a survey. The online questionnaire is divided into five different sections; (i) Particulars, (ii) Basic knowledge on IR, (iii) Medical School Curriculum and Exposure, (iv) Career Prospects and (v) Satisfaction with Medical School Curriculum, with the intent of gauging their exposure and understanding of IR throughout the years of medical school and assessing their perceptions of IR as a potential career choice

Global Variation in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Quality of the Prostate

BACKGROUND: High variability in prostate MRI quality might reduce accuracy in prostate cancer detection. PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the quality of MRI scanners taking part in the quality control phase of the global PRIME (Prostate Imaging Using MRI ± Contrast Enhancement) trial using the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) standardized scoring system, give recommendations on how to improve the MRI protocols, and establish whether MRI quality could be improved by these recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the prospective clinical trial (PRIME), for each scanner, centers performing prostate MRI submitted five consecutive studies and the MRI protocols (phase I). Submitted data were evaluated in consensus by two expert genitourinary radiologists using the PI-QUAL scoring system that evaluates MRI diagnostic quality using five points (1 and 2 = nondiagnostic; 3 = sufficient; 4 = adequate, 5 = optimal) between September 2021 and August 2022. Feedback was provided for scanners not achieving a PI-QUAL 5 score, and centers were invited to resubmit new imaging data using the modified protocol (phase II). Descriptive comparison of outcomes was made between the MRI scanners, feedback provided, and overall PI-QUAL scores. RESULTS: In phase I, 41 centers from 18 countries submitted a total of 355 multiparametric MRI studies from 71 scanners, with nine (13%) scanners achieving a PI-QUAL score of 3, 39 (55%) achieving a score of 4, and 23 (32%) achieving a score of 5. Of the 48 (n = 71 [68%]) scanners that received feedback to improve, the dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences were those that least adhered to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2.1, criteria (44 of 48 [92%]), followed by diffusion-weighted imaging (20 of 48 [42%]) and T2-weighted imaging (19 of 48 [40%]). In phase II, 36 centers from 17 countries resubmitted revised studies, resulting in a total of 62 (n = 64 [97%]) scanners with a final PI-QUAL score of 5. CONCLUSION: Substantial variation in global prostate MRI acquisition parameters as a measure of quality was observed, particularly with DCE sequences. Basic evaluation and modifications to MRI protocols using PI-QUAL can lead to substantial improvements in quality. Clinical trial registration no. NCT0457184

Comparing biparametric to multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men (PRIME): a prospective, international, multicentre, non-inferiority within-patient, diagnostic yield trial protocol

INTRODUCTION: Prostate MRI is a well-established tool for the diagnostic work-up for men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). Current recommendations advocate the use of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), which is composed of three sequences: T2-weighted sequence (T2W), diffusion-weighted sequence (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequence (DCE). Prior studies suggest that a biparametric MRI (bpMRI) approach, omitting the DCE sequences, may not compromise clinically significant cancer detection, though there are limitations to these studies, and it is not known how this may affect treatment eligibility. A bpMRI approach will reduce scanning time, may be more cost-effective and, at a population level, will allow more men to gain access to an MRI than an mpMRI approach. METHODS: Prostate Imaging Using MRI±Contrast Enhancement (PRIME) is a prospective, international, multicentre, within-patient diagnostic yield trial assessing whether bpMRI is non-inferior to mpMRI in the diagnosis of clinically significant PCa. Patients will undergo the full mpMRI scan. Radiologists will be blinded to the DCE and will initially report the MRI using only the bpMRI (T2W and DWI) sequences. They will then be unblinded to the DCE sequence and will then re-report the MRI using the mpMRI sequences (T2W, DWI and DCE). Men with suspicious lesions on either bpMRI or mpMRI will undergo prostate biopsy. The main inclusion criteria are men with suspected PCa, with a serum PSA of ≤20 ng/mL and without prior prostate biopsy. The primary outcome is the proportion of men with clinically significant PCa detected (Gleason score ≥3+4 or Gleason grade group ≥2). A sample size of at least 500 patients is required. Key secondary outcomes include the proportion of clinically insignificant PCa detected and treatment decision. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Committee West Midlands, Nottingham (21/WM/0091). Results of this trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. Participants and relevant patient support groups will be informed about the results of the trial

An International Collaborative Consensus Statement on En Bloc Resection of Bladder Tumour Incorporating Two Systematic Reviews, a Two-round Delphi Survey and a Consensus Meeting

Funding/Support and role of the sponsor: This study was supported by the General Research Fund/Early Career Scheme of the Research Grants Council, Hong Kong, China (reference no. 24116518).Peer reviewedPostprin

Complications and outcomes of tubeless versus nephrostomy tube in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

We aimed to perform a systematic review of randomized trials to summarize the evidence on the safety and stone-free rate after Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) (ureteral stent/catheter, no nephrostomy) compared to Standard PCNL (nephrostomy, with/without ureteral stent/catheter) to evaluate if the tubeless approach is better. The inverse variance of the mean difference with a random effect, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), and p values was used for continuous variables. Categorical variables were assessed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with the random effect model, and reported as Risk Ratio (RR), 95% CI, and p values. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and a 95% CI. 26 studies were included. Mean operative time was significantly shorter in the Tubeless group (MD-5.18 min, 95% CI - 6.56, - 3.80, p < 0.00001). Mean postoperative length of stay was also significantly shorter in the Tubeless group (MD-1.10 day, 95% CI - 1.48, - 0.71, p < 0.00001). Incidence of blood transfusion, angioembolization for bleeding control, pain score at the first postoperative day, the number of patients requiring postoperative pain medication, fever, urinary infections, sepsis, perirenal fluid collection, pleural breach, hospital readmission, and SFR did not differ between the two groups. Incidence of postoperative urinary fistula was significantly lower in the Tubeless group (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07, 0.47, p = 0.0005). This systematic review shows that tubeless PCNL can be safely performed and the standout benefits are shorter operative time and hospital stay, and a lower rate of postoperative urinary fistula.Universita Politecnica delle Marche within the CRUI-CARE Agreemen

A systematic review and meta-analysis on delaying surgery for urothelial carcinoma of bladder and upper tract urothelial carcinoma: Implications for the COVID19 pandemic and beyond

© 2022 Leow, Tan, Tan, Tan, Chan, Tikkinen, Kamat, Sengupta, Meng, Shariat, Roupret, Decaestecker, Vasdev, Chong, Enikeev, Giannarini, Ficarra and Teoh. This is an openaccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to competing strains on hospital resources and healthcare personnel. Patients with newly diagnosed invasive urothelial carcinomas of bladder (UCB) upper tract (UTUC) may experience delays to definitive radical cystectomy (RC) or radical nephro-ureterectomy (RNU) respectively. We evaluate the impact of delaying definitive surgery on survival outcomes for invasive UCB and UTUC. Methods: We searched for all studies investigating delayed urologic cancer surgery in Medline and Embase up to June 2020. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Results: We identified a total of 30 studies with 32,591 patients. Across 13 studies (n = 12,201), a delay from diagnosis of bladder cancer/TURBT to RC was associated with poorer overall survival (HR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.09–1.45, p = 0.002). For patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before RC, across the 5 studies (n = 4,316 patients), a delay between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical cystectomy was not found to be significantly associated with overall survival (pooled HR 1.37, 95% CI: 0.96–1.94, p = 0.08). For UTUC, 6 studies (n = 4,629) found that delay between diagnosis of UTUC to RNU was associated with poorer overall survival (pooled HR 1.55, 95% CI: 1.19–2.02, p = 0.001) and cancer-specific survival (pooled HR of 2.56, 95% CI: 1.50–4.37, p = 0.001). Limitations included between-study heterogeneity, particularly in the definitions of delay cut-off periods between diagnosis to surgery. Conclusions: A delay from diagnosis of UCB or UTUC to definitive RC or RNU was associated with poorer survival outcomes. This was not the case for patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Peer reviewe

A BURST-BAUS consensus document for best practice in the conduct of scrotal exploration for suspected testicular torsion : the Finding consensus for orchIdopeXy In Torsion (FIX-IT) study

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Jacqueline Emkes and Rachel Jury for their contribution to our protocol development with respect to patient and public involvement. Similarly, the authors would like to thank Dr Matthew Coward, Department of Urology, University of North Carolina, and Dr Selcuk Sarikaya, Department of Urology, University of Ankara, for their international perspectives and input to our study protocol. We would like to acknowledge the BAUS Trustees for allowing this collaboration. Unrelated to this work, The BURST Research Collaborative would like to acknowledge funding from the BJUI, the Urology Foundation, Ferring Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Rosetrees Trust and Action Bladder Cancer UK. Veeru Kasivisvanathan is an Academic Clinical Lecturer funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. PubMed Indexed Collaborative Authors: Matthew Coward, Selcuk Sarikaya, Jacqueline Emkes, Rachel Jury. Research Funding Department of Health National Institute for Health Research National Institute for Health Research Rosetrees Trust Ferring Pharmaceuticals Urology Foundation University of North CarolinaPeer reviewedPublisher PD

LEARN: a multicentre, cross‐sectional evaluation of Urology teaching in UK medical schools

Objective: To evaluate the status of UK undergraduate urology teaching against the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Undergraduate Syllabus for Urology. Secondary objectives included evaluating the type and quantity of teaching provided, the reported performance rate of General Medical Council (GMC)‐mandated urological procedures, and the proportion of undergraduates considering urology as a career. Subjects and Methods: The uroLogical tEAching in bRitish medical schools Nationally (LEARN) study was a national multicentre cross‐sectional evaluation. Year 2 to Year 5 medical students and Foundation Year (FY) 1 doctors were invited to complete a survey between 3 October and 20 December 2020, retrospectively assessing the urology teaching received to date. Results are reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E‐Surveys (CHERRIES). Results: In all, 7063/8346 (84.6%) responses from all 39 UK medical schools were included; 1127/7063 (16.0%) were from FY1 doctors who reported that the most frequently taught topics in undergraduate training were on urinary tract infection (96.5%), acute kidney injury (95.9%) and haematuria (94.4%). The most infrequently taught topics were male urinary incontinence (59.4%), male infertility (52.4%) and erectile dysfunction (43.8%). Male and female catheterisation on patients as undergraduates was performed by 92.1% and 73.0% of FY1 doctors respectively, and 16.9% had considered a career in urology. Theory‐based teaching was mainly prevalent in the early years of medical school, with clinical skills teaching, and clinical placements in the later years of medical school. In all, 20.1% of FY1 doctors reported no undergraduate clinical attachment in urology. Conclusion: The LEARN Study is the largest ever evaluation of undergraduate urology teaching. In the UK, teaching seemed satisfactory as evaluated against the BAUS undergraduate syllabus. However, many students report having no clinical attachments in Urology and some newly qualified doctors report never having inserted a catheter, which is a GMC mandated requirement. We recommend a greater emphasis on undergraduate clinical exposure to urology and stricter adherence to GMC mandated procedures

LEARN: A multi-centre, cross-sectional evaluation of Urology teaching in UK medical schools

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the status of UK undergraduate urology teaching against the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Undergraduate Syllabus for Urology. Secondary objectives included evaluating the type and quantity of teaching provided, the reported performance rate of General Medical Council (GMC)-mandated urological procedures, and the proportion of undergraduates considering urology as a career. MATERIALS AND METHODS: LEARN was a national multicentre cross-sectional study. Year 2 to Year 5 medical students and FY1 doctors were invited to complete a survey between 3rd October and 20th December 2020, retrospectively assessing the urology teaching received to date. Results are reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). RESULTS: 7,063/8,346 (84.6%) responses from all 39 UK medical schools were included; 1,127/7,063 (16.0%) were from Foundation Year (FY) 1 doctors, who reported that the most frequently taught topics in undergraduate training were on urinary tract infection (96.5%), acute kidney injury (95.9%) and haematuria (94.4%). The most infrequently taught topics were male urinary incontinence (59.4%), male infertility (52.4%) and erectile dysfunction (43.8%). Male and female catheterisation on patients as undergraduates was performed by 92.1% and 73.0% of FY1 doctors respectively, and 16.9% had considered a career in urology. Theory based teaching was mainly prevalent in the early years of medical school, with clinical skills teaching, and clinical placements in the later years of medical school. 20.1% of FY1 doctors reported no undergraduate clinical attachment in urology. CONCLUSION: LEARN is the largest ever evaluation of undergraduate urology teaching. In the UK, teaching seemed satisfactory as evaluated by the BAUS undergraduate syllabus. However, many students report having no clinical attachments in Urology and some newly qualified doctors report never having inserted a catheter, which is a GMC mandated requirement. We recommend a greater emphasis on undergraduate clinical exposure to urology and stricter adherence to GMC mandated procedures