Search

PurposeThe COVID-19 outbreak has substantially altered residents' training activities. While several new virtual learning programs have been recently implemented, the perspective of urology trainees regarding their usefulness still needs to be investigated.MethodsA cross-sectional, 30-item, web-based Survey was conducted through Twitter from April 4th, 2020 to April 18th, 2020, aiming to evaluate the urology residents' perspective on smart learning (SL) modalities (pre-recorded videos, webinars, podcasts, and social media [SoMe]), and contents (frontal lessons, clinical case discussions, updates on Guidelines and on clinical trials, surgical videos, Journal Clubs, and seminars on leadership and non-technical skills).ResultsOverall, 501 urology residents from 58 countries completed the survey. Of these, 78.4, 78.2, 56.9 and 51.9% of them considered pre-recorded videos, interactive webinars, podcasts and SoMe highly useful modalities of smart learning, respectively. The contents considered as highly useful by the greatest proportion of residents were updates on guidelines (84.8%) and surgical videos (81.0%). In addition, 58.9 and 56.5% of responders deemed seminars on leadership and on non-technical skills highly useful smart learning contents. The three preferred combinations of smart learning modality and content were: pre-recorded surgical videos, interactive webinars on clinical cases, and pre-recorded videos on guidelines.ConclusionOur study provides the first global «big picture» of the smart learning modalities and contents that should be prioritized to optimize virtual Urology education. While this survey was conducted during the COVID-19 outbreak, our findings might have even more impact in the future.

PurposeThe COVID-19 outbreak has substantially altered residents' training activities. While several new virtual learning programs have been recently implemented, the perspective of urology trainees regarding their usefulness still needs to be investigated.MethodsA cross-sectional, 30-item, web-based Survey was conducted through Twitter from April 4th, 2020 to April 18th, 2020, aiming to evaluate the urology residents' perspective on smart learning (SL) modalities (pre-recorded videos, webinars, podcasts, and social media [SoMe]), and contents (frontal lessons, clinical case discussions, updates on Guidelines and on clinical trials, surgical videos, Journal Clubs, and seminars on leadership and non-technical skills).ResultsOverall, 501 urology residents from 58 countries completed the survey. Of these, 78.4, 78.2, 56.9 and 51.9% of them considered pre-recorded videos, interactive webinars, podcasts and SoMe highly useful modalities of smart learning, respectively. The contents considered as highly useful by the greatest proportion of residents were updates on guidelines (84.8%) and surgical videos (81.0%). In addition, 58.9 and 56.5% of responders deemed seminars on leadership and on non-technical skills highly useful smart learning contents. The three preferred combinations of smart learning modality and content were: pre-recorded surgical videos, interactive webinars on clinical cases, and pre-recorded videos on guidelines.ConclusionOur study provides the first global «big picture» of the smart learning modalities and contents that should be prioritized to optimize virtual Urology education. While this survey was conducted during the COVID-19 outbreak, our findings might have even more impact in the future.

PurposeTo define the role of focal laser ablation (FLA) as clinical treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) using the Delphi consensus method.MethodsA panel of international experts in the field of focal therapy (FT) in PCa conducted a collaborative consensus project using the Delphi method. Experts were invited to online questionnaires focusing on patient selection and treatment of PCa with FLA during four subsequent rounds. After each round, outcomes were displayed, and questionnaires were modified based on the comments provided by panelists. Results were finalized and discussed during face-to-face meetings.ResultsThirty-seven experts agreed to participate, and consensus was achieved on 39/43 topics. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as any volume Grade Group 2 [Gleason score (GS) 3+4]. Focal therapy was specified as treatment of all csPCa and can be considered primary treatment as an alternative to radical treatment in carefully selected patients. In patients with intermediate-risk PCa (GS 3+4) as well as patients with MRI-visible and biopsy-confirmed local recurrence, FLA is optimal for targeted ablation of a specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-visible focus. However, FLA should not be applied to candidates for active surveillance and close follow-up is required. Suitability for FLA is based on tumor volume, location to vital structures, GS, MRI-visibility, and biopsy confirmation.ConclusionFocal laser ablation is a promising technique for treatment of clinically localized PCa and should ideally be performed within approved clinical trials. So far, only few studies have reported on FLA and further validation with longer follow-up is mandatory before widespread clinical implementation is justified.

© 2015 European Association of Urology. Context Given the highly variable behavior and clinical course of prostate cancer (PCA) and the multiple available treatment options, a personalized approach to oncologic risk stratification is important. Novel genetic approaches offer additional information to improve clinical decision making. Objective To review the use of genomic biomarkers in the prognostication of PCA outcome and prediction of therapeutic response. Evidence acquisition Systematic literature review focused on human clinical studies reporting outcome measures with external validation. The literature search included all Medline, Embase, and Scopus articles from inception through July 2014. Evidence synthesis An improved understanding of the genetic basis of prostate carcinogenesis has produced an increasing number of potential prognostic and predictive tools, such as transmembrane protease, serine2:v-ets avian erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (TMPRSS2:ERG) gene fusion status, loss of the phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) gene, and gene expression signatures utilizing messenger RNA from tumor tissue. Several commercially available gene panels with external validation are now available, although most have yet to be widely used. The most studied commercially available gene panels, Prolaris, Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score, and Decipher, may be used to estimate disease outcome in addition to clinical parameters or clinical nomograms. ConfirmMDx is an epigenetic test used to predict the results of repeat prostate biopsy after an initial negative biopsy. Additional future strategies include using genetic information from circulating tumor cells in the peripheral blood to guide treatment decisions at the initial diagnosis and at subsequent decision points. Conclusions Major advances have been made in our understanding of PCA biology in recent years. Our field is currently exploring the early stages of a personalized approach to augment traditional clinical decision making using commercially available genomic tools. A more comprehensive appreciation of value, limitations, and cost is important. Patient summary We summarized current advances in genomic testing in prostate cancer with a special focus on the estimation of disease outcome. Several commercial tests are currently available, but further understanding is needed to appreciate the potential benefits and limitations of these novel tests.

The effects of center-based care on early development, outside of carefully controlled demonstration programs, appear to be positive yet often modest for children from low-income families. But little is known about variation in the quality of centers and preschools found among low-income neighborhoods. Evidence also remains scarce on the observed quality of home-based care, the settings that most children attend and into which large infusions of federal dollars are now directed. This paper reports on the observed quality of 166 centers and 187 nonparental home settings (including family child care homes and kith or kin providers) serving children in five cities situated in California, Connecticut, or Florida. Centers displayed higher mean quality as gauged by provider education and the intensity of structured learning activities, compared to home-based settings, but did not consistently display more positive child-provider interactions. Great variability among centers and home-based settings was observed, including between-city differences. Second, we found that contextual neighborhood attributes accounted for the quality of providers selected more strongly than family-level selection factors. Mothers with stronger verbal abilities (PPVT scores) did select higher quality centers; those employed longer hours each week relied on kith and kin providers with lower education levels. Interrelationships among different quality measures are detailed. The policy implications of such wide disparities in center and home-based care quality are discussed, including how states could more carefully strengthen regulatory or quality improvement efforts.