Search

Introduction Current non-invasive treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED) include oral medications, intracavernosal injections, and vacuum-assisted devices. Though these therapies work well for many, a subset of patients have contraindications or are unsatisfied with these options. Restorative therapies for ED are a new frontier of treatments focused on regenerating diseased tissue and providing a potential “cure” for ED. Aim The aim of this position statement is to examine existing clinical trial data for restorative therapies and identify elements that require further research before widespread adoption. Methods A literature review was performed to identify all clinical trials performed with regenerative therapy for ED. This includes treatments such as stem cell therapy (SCT), platelet rich plasma (PRP), and restorative related technologies like low-intensity shockwave therapy (LiSWT). Main Outcome Measures Most clinical trials in restorative therapies were assessed for safety, feasibility, or efficacy. This included recording adverse events, changes in sexual function and erectile function questionnaires, and diagnostics measures. Results To date there is an absence of robust clinical data supporting the efficacy of restorative therapies regarding ED, though technologies such as LiSWT have established relative safety. Conclusions Restorative therapies are a promising technology that represents a new frontier of treatment geared towards reversing disease pathology rather than just treating symptoms. However, current published clinical studies are limited. Future work needs to be adequately powered, multi-center, randomized, sham/placebo-controlled trials in well-characterized patient populations to ensure safety and demonstrate efficacy. Until these studies are done, restorative therapies should be reserved for clinical trials and not offered in routine clinical practice.

Background: Pelvic pain is a common complaint, and management of it is often difficult. We sought to evaluate the utility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of male pelvic pain. Though MRIs are commonly ordered to evaluate pelvic pain, there are very few studies obtaining the efficacy of pelvic MRI in determining a definitive diagnosis. The primary aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical utility of pelvic MRI for a diagnosis code that included pain. Methods: After receiving institutional review board approval, a retrospective study was performed of all pelvic MRIs completed at our institution from January 2, 2010 to December 31, 2014. These were further delineated into ordering providers by specialty and urology-specific International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) code diagnoses (male pelvic pain, prostatitis, groin pain, scrotal pain, testicular pain, and penile pain). Clinical utility was defined as positive if MRI findings resulted in a change in management. Subanalysis was performed on patients with an ICD-9 co-diagnosis of previous oncologic concern. Results: A total of 2,643 pelvic MRIs were ordered at our institution over a 5-year period. Of these, 597 pelvic MRIs (23%) were ordered for a diagnosis code that included pain (hip pain, rectal pain, joint pain, penile pain, scrotal pain, male pelvic pain and orchitis). Total utility for MRIs to find anatomic abnormalities potentially responsible for the present pain was 34% (205/597). When ordered by urologic providers, utility was 23%. Oncologists represented the highest positivity rate at 57%. Conclusions: Chronic pelvic pain is a multispecialty complaint that is difficult to treat. We were surprised to find the large number of both specialists and generalists invested in the management of pelvic pain. The increasing availability of MRI technology makes it a likely candidate to test for a clinically significant anatomic reason for pain. Though MRI is a test with minimal adverse effect and no increased risk of radiation exposure, the cost on the healthcare system should be offset by a clear clinical utility. We found total utility to be 34% across all ordering providers and an increase in positivity with concern of oncologic disease. Therefore, we would recommend pelvic MRIs in the evaluation of patients with refractory pelvic pain.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for common physical and psychosocial consequences of cancer and cancer treatment to help healthcare professionals who work with survivors of adult-onset cancer in the posttreatment period. This portion of the guidelines describes recommendations regarding the management of anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity and lymphedema. In addition, recommendations regarding immunizations and the prevention of infections in cancer survivors are included.

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy of men in the United States. Small-cell carcinoma (SCC), which typically presents as an aggressive lung malignancy, is a rare diagnosis within the setting of prostate cancer pathology. Due to its limited prevalence, little information regarding the treatment and prognosis of this disease in large populations is available. To date our current knowledge base is largely limited to case reports and retrospective case reviews. The mainstay of treatment for this particular histology most often involves a multimodality approach utilizing chemotherapy in conjunction with radiation therapy, androgen deprivation therapy, or prostatectomy. Here we present the case of an elderly 89-year-old Caucasian male who was diagnosed with SCC of the prostate. Despite proceeding with a course of definitive radiotherapy, the patient experienced rapid progression of disease and ultimately elected to discontinue radiation therapy and receive hospice care.

Background We sought to examine differences in response rates to quality of life (QoL) surveys in patients treated surgically for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and prostate cancer (PCa) and to analyze factors associated with non-response of the surveys. Methods Patients who underwent surgery for RCC or PCa between 2006 and 2012 were offered enrollment in respective prospective cancer registries that included baseline and annual QoL assessments. We identified 201 RCC patients and 616 PCa patients who completed a baseline QoL survey and were mailed annual QoL surveys [RCC: SF-36, FACT–G (73 questions), PCa: EPIC, IIEF, Max-PC (80 questions)]. We compared patient characteristics between responders and non-responders using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables and a Fisher’s Exact test for categorical variables. Results The overall response rates for the PCa and RCC groups were 63 and 48 % (p