Molly E DeWitt-Foy1, Eric A Klein2, Ahmed ElShafei2, W Melissa Coronado2, Steven Campbell2, Michael Gong2, Ryan Berglund2, James Ulchaker2, Khaled Fareed2, Robert Abouassaly2. 1. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland, OH; Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Education Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: dewittm@ccf.org. 2. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland, OH; Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Education Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between urologic oncology fellowship training (UOFT) and diagnostic yield of prostate biopsy. METHODS: Retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent prostate biopsy across the Cleveland Clinic between 2000 and 2018. Biopsies done by urologists with and without UOFT were detailed via descriptive statistics and appropriate (chi-square, Student t, Wilcoxon rank-sum) tests. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the association between UOFT and positive prostate biopsy, adjusting for relevant covariates. RESULTS: A total of 11,241 biopsies by 129 urologists had complete information available for review. Sixteen urologists (12.4%) had UOFT; 113 either completed a different fellowship or no fellowship. Those with UOFT were more likely to use MRI-guided biopsy (7.80% vs 3.05%, P <.0001), more likely to get a positive biopsy (41.25% vs 32.72%, P <.0001), and more likely to obtain an adequate number (by ≥12) of cores (90.25% vs 74.53%, P <.0001). UOFT remained a significant predictor of positivity when adjusting for patient age and race, PSA, 5-alpha-reductase-inhibitor use, year of biopsy, years in practice, and type of biopsy (MRI or transrectal ultrasound guided). UOFT also predicted higher-risk biopsy (Gleason sum ≥7), adjusting for the same variables, though this association lost significance when adjusting for adequacy of biopsy. The learning curve to achieve a higher percentage of positive biopsies was steeper for nonurologic oncology fellowship trained than for UOFT urologists. CONCLUSION: UOFT is associated with higher diagnostic yield on prostate biopsy, higher uptake of MRI-guided biopsy, and less steep learning curve. This may be due to patient selection, technique, or, as we demonstrate here, adherence to guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between urologic oncology fellowship training (UOFT) and diagnostic yield of prostate biopsy. METHODS: Retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent prostate biopsy across the Cleveland Clinic between 2000 and 2018. Biopsies done by urologists with and without UOFT were detailed via descriptive statistics and appropriate (chi-square, Student t, Wilcoxon rank-sum) tests. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the association between UOFT and positive prostate biopsy, adjusting for relevant covariates. RESULTS: A total of 11,241 biopsies by 129 urologists had complete information available for review. Sixteen urologists (12.4%) had UOFT; 113 either completed a different fellowship or no fellowship. Those with UOFT were more likely to use MRI-guided biopsy (7.80% vs 3.05%, P <.0001), more likely to get a positive biopsy (41.25% vs 32.72%, P <.0001), and more likely to obtain an adequate number (by ≥12) of cores (90.25% vs 74.53%, P <.0001). UOFT remained a significant predictor of positivity when adjusting for patient age and race, PSA, 5-alpha-reductase-inhibitor use, year of biopsy, years in practice, and type of biopsy (MRI or transrectal ultrasound guided). UOFT also predicted higher-risk biopsy (Gleason sum ≥7), adjusting for the same variables, though this association lost significance when adjusting for adequacy of biopsy. The learning curve to achieve a higher percentage of positive biopsies was steeper for nonurologic oncology fellowship trained than for UOFT urologists. CONCLUSION: UOFT is associated with higher diagnostic yield on prostate biopsy, higher uptake of MRI-guided biopsy, and less steep learning curve. This may be due to patient selection, technique, or, as we demonstrate here, adherence to guidelines.