Citations

Abstract Skeletal muscle is a major determinant of functional status. The impact of advanced prostate cancer (aPC) systemic therapies on body composition is unknown. We identified aPC patients with serial PET-CTs receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI), chemotherapy, and/or Lutetium-177. An artificial intelligence algorithm quantified body composition changes from PET-CT images. Linear mixed effects models examined body composition changes over time by treatment type. The algorithm examined 2,342 PET-CTs from 468 patients. On multivariable analysis, ADT was associated with a 9% reduction in muscle density (-1.91 Hounsfield units), ARPIs an additional 6% (-1.4 Hounsfield units), and Lutetium-177 a subsequent 6% (-1.3 Hounsfield units), demonstrating progressive reduction in muscle density across later stages of systemic therapy. This large longitudinal analysis of body composition in aPC patients supports the use of an automated PET-CT algorithm to identify aPC patients on systemic therapy at risk for muscle wasting.

ABSTRACT Background Prior studies in the pre‐MRI era suggest that patients with NCCN Intermediate and High Risk Grade Group 1 prostate cancer (GG1 PCa) on biopsy have increased risk for adverse oncologic outcomes. However, prostate MRI has altered patient selection for biopsy and improved prostate sampling. Herein, we examined factors associated with adverse pathologic features (APF) at radical prostatectomy (RP) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) among patients with GG1 in the MRI era. Methods A prospectively maintained institutional prostate cancer registry identified patients with GG1 PCa on biopsy who underwent RP from 2000 to 2023, stratified by MRI use. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression identified factors associated with APF at RP (GG3‐5, ≥ pT3a, or pN1) and BCR free survival (two consecutive PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL), respectively. Results Among patients without MRI ( n = 6732), NCCN risk group was associated with APF, BCR, and distant metastasis. Among 302 patients with GG1 and pre‐operative MRI, NCCN risk group was associated with neither APF nor BCR. Age (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01–1.14, p = 0.01), PIRADS ( p = 0.01), and % core positivity (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00–1.03, p = 0.04) were associated with APF. Age (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01–1.13, p = 0.03), APF (HR 4.36, 95% CI 2.14–8.86, p < 0.001), and positive margins (HR 4.88, 95% CI 2.39–9.98, p < 0.001) were associated with BCR. Conclusions Prior to prostate MRI, NCCN risk groups offered meaningful prognostication among patients with GG1 PCa. However, the utility of NCCN risk groups for GG1 in the MRI era appears limited. Contemporary risk stratification for GG1 should focus on biopsy and MRI characteristics rather than NCCN criteria.

ABSTRACT Background While guidelines state that patients with NCCN favorable intermediate risk (FIR) prostate cancer (PCa) may consider active surveillance (AS), there is a relative lack of longer term follow up data informing AS inclusion criteria of patients with Grade Group (GG) 2 prostate cancer in the MRI era. Here we evaluate patient outcomes from a MRI‐screened AS‐eligible cohort of FIR GG2 PCa receiving radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods Patients with prostate MRI, NCCN FIR GG2 PCa (PSA < 10 ng/mL, ≤ cT2a, < 50% core positivity), and no prior treatments who underwent RP from 2015 to 2023 were included from a prospectively maintained prostatectomy registry. Primary outcomes were adverse pathologic features (APF) at RP (GG3‐5, ≥ pT3a, or pN1) and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Logistic regression and Cox regression identified factors associated with APF at RP and time to BCR, respectively. Results Of 522 patients, 110 (21%) had APF at RP and 45 (9%) developed BCR with median follow up 2.4 years (IQR 1.3–2.8). On multivariable logistic regression, % Gleason pattern 4 (%GP4, %GP4 > 25% OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.28–3.58, p = 0.004) was independently associated with APF. On multivariable Cox regression for time to BCR, PSAD (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04–1.09, p < 0.001) and positive surgical margins (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.09–3.78, p = 0.03) were independently associated with BCR. PIRADS, % core positivity, and specimen involvement were associated with neither APF nor BCR. Conclusions % Gleason pattern 4 > 25% and PSAD are the primary factors associated with adverse outcomes and should be considered for patients with FIR GG2 PCa considering active surveillance. PIRADS and measures of biopsy cancer volume were not associated with APF or BCR. These results may inform patient selection for active surveillance among patients with FIR GG2 PCa.

Background The optimal management of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) remains controversial, particularly in the absence of clinical or radiographic evidence of disease. Salvage radiotherapy (SRT) remains standard of care, but it is unclear whether SRT benefits patients when modern imaging with a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and prostate‐specific membrane antigen‐positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA‐PET/CT) are negative for local recurrence. Retrospective data comparing SRT to observation for such patients is fraught with selection bias, underscoring the need for a prospective randomised controlled trial. Study Design and Methods The Biochemical Recurrence Irradiation or Observation (BRIO) is a randomised study under the DIVINE trial framework (NCT06378866) enrolling men with BCR (prostate‐specific antigen [PSA] level ≥0.2, up to 1.5 ng/mL) after RP with no radiographic evidence of recurrence on mpMRI and PSMA‐PET/CT. Major inclusion criteria include age ≥18 years, biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after RP with a PSA level between 0.2 and 1.5 ng/mL, and no local or metastatic recurrence on imaging. A total of 312 patients will be enrolled. Participants are randomised 1:1 to standard‐of‐care SRT followed by surveillance (Group A), or initial observation with subsequent image‐guided therapy at radiographic progression (Group B). Based on historical analysis, a total of 30 metastasis events provides 80% power to detect a significant improvement (hazard ratio 0.5 corresponding to a 5‐year metastasis‐free proportion of 80.7% in the control group and 89.8% in the experimental group with one‐sided type I error rate of 0.15). All participants undergo baseline blood collection to measure prostate cancer‐extracellular vesicles and cell‐free DNA for biomarker development. Participants are followed in a 16‐week cycle with serial PSA measurements, repeat imaging if PSA doubles, safety assessment, and patient‐reported outcomes. Endpoints The primary endpoint is distant recurrence‐free survival at 5‐years using a 12‐month landmark to mitigate bias arising from differing assessment schedules for patients receiving optional 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy. Key secondary outcomes include time to hormone therapy, quality of life measures, adverse effects, and novel blood and urine biomarkers. Conclusion The BRIO study will clarify the clinical benefit of immediate SRT vs observation with image‐guided intervention in mpMRI and PET‐negative BCR after RP.

Introduction: Despite ongoing diversity initiatives, Otolaryngology – Head and Neck surgery continues to face a widening representation gap as the Latinx population in the United States grows. To address this disparity, novel strategies for recruiting Latinx medical students into the specialty must be explored. Methods: A descriptive, cross-sectional survey was distributed to Latinx medical students in the United States via social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) and Latino Medical Student Association (LMSA) chapters. Results: Most respondents were unfamiliar with Otolaryngology-specific health disparities affecting Latinx communities and indicated an interest in learning more about these disparities. Most respondents indicated that early exposure to Otolaryngology disparities affecting Latinx communities could increase interest in exploring the specialty. Additionally, most participants deemed a department's commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion and opportunities to serve Latinx patients to be necessary residency program attributes when deciding between programs (69.2% and 66.7%, respectively). Conclusion: Integrating community outreach and education on Otolaryngology-related health disparities into undergraduate medical education may serve as a promising strategy to enhance Latinx recruitment and representation in the specialty.

ABSTRACT Purpose The natural history of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) remains understudied, with limited long‐term data from large cohorts inclusive of both salvage radiotherapy (SRT)‐treated and untreated patients. Herein, we sought to evaluate the outcomes of patients with BCR and the impact of SRT on disease progression. Materials and Methods Patients undergoing RP who developed BCR (PSA ≥ 0.20 ng/mL) were included. Patients with BCR treated with SRT were compared to untreated patients using risk‐set matching with time‐dependent propensity scores. The primary outcome was metastases, analyzed using Kaplan–Meier and Cox models. The number needed to treat (NNT) with SRT to prevent progression was derived at 5 and 15 years. Results Among 6881 patients with BCR, 2109 received SRT. At a median follow‐up of 10.2 years, 1147 patients developed metastases. The median PSA at the time of SRT was 0.50 ng/mL. After 1:1 propensity score matching (2109 patients per cohort), SRT significantly reduced the risk of metastases at 5 (12.7% vs. 19.3%, p < 0.0001) and 15 years (28.6% vs. 31.5%, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, SRT independently reduced metastasis risk (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63–0.90, p = 0.002), translating to NNT of 23 and 15 at 5 and 15 years, respectively. Interaction analyses between SRT and nodal status ( p = 0.04) showed greater metastasis risk reduction in pN+ (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22–0.77, p = 0.005) compared to pN− disease (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67–0.97, p = 0.02). Conclusions Most patients with BCR post‐RP do not progress to metastasis. For those who do progress, SRT inarguably improves the oncologic outcomes in the BCR setting. However, careful patient selection and shared decision making should be encouraged in order to limit overtreatment and side effects.

Objective: To assess the impact of extent of parotidectomy on surgical and oncologic outcomes in low grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma (LGMEC). Methods: A retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing primary surgical treatment for LGMEC from 2000 to 2022 was conducted. Clinical features collected included demographics, facial nerve function, operative techniques, postoperative complications/facial nerve function, and recurrence. Results: 58 patients were included; 10 patients underwent partial parotidectomy (PP), 38 underwent superficial parotidectomy (SP), and 10 underwent near-total/total parotidectomy. PP and SP patients had smaller tumors and more superficial tumors compared to near-total/total parotidectomy group ( P = .03). PP and SP were more likely to have negative margins and less locoregional disease compared to near-total/total parotidectomy patients ( P < .01). Near-total/total parotidectomy were more likely to undergo facial nerve resection (20% vs 0% for PP & SP respectively) ( P = .05). Immediate postoperative facial nerve function was significantly better among PP patients (73% HB I) compared to SP (44% HB I) and near-total/total parotidectomy patients (0% HB I) ( P < .01). Most patients regained their facial nerve function although only 40% of the near-total/total parotidectomy patients had a HB I at the time of last follow up ( P < .01). Patients were followed for a median of 6.2 years, during which only 1 patient (total parotidectomy) had a recurrence. Conclusions: PP offers a safe and effective approach for small LGMEC tumors, ensuring better facial nerve function postoperatively with minimal complications compared to more extensive surgery.

ABSTRACTIntroductionArtificial Urinary Sphincter (AUS) placement is the preferred treatment for moderate to severe incontinence following prostate cancer treatment. While device related outcomes related to device survival are well reported, literature on quality‐of‐life outcomes, including the use of validated measures is limited.MethodsWe queried a prospectively maintained database of male patients undergoing primary AUS implantation from 2015 to 2023 at our institution. All patients completed a preoperative Michigan Incontinence Symptom Index (M‐ISI) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI‐I). Postoperative quality of life data was obtained by mailed correspondence. Surveys obtained following AUS reoperation/revision were excluded. Pairwise comparisons were performed between preoperative functional status and the Postoperative responses. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify preoperative variables associated with a favorable PGI‐I score defined as “very much better or much better,” or a decrease in pad usage from > 1 pad per day to ≤ 1 pad per day.ResultsDuring the study timeframe, 383 patients underwent primary AUS placement, of which 163 patients (42%) completed a postoperative survey and were included in the study. Median age was 69.0 (IQR: 64–74) and 54.6% of patients had a history of pelvic radiation. The median time from surgery to the postoperative survey was 2.2 years (IQR: 0.9, 4.3). Compared to baseline, following AUS placement there was a significant improvement in the total M‐ISI score (10 [6, 16) vs 26 [22, 30]; p < 0.0001) (Minimally Important Difference = 4). This included improvements in the SUI subscore [4 (IQR 2, 6) vs 10 (IQR: 9, 12); p < 0.0001] and bother score [1 (IQR: 0, 3) vs 6 (IQR: 5, 7); p < 0.001)]. Pad usage significantly decreased following device placement (p < 0.0001). The vast majority of patients (90.7%) would “definitely or probably recommend to a friend/family member.” On univariable analysis, active smoking (ref. never) was associated with adverse pad use outcomes (OR: 0.1, 95% CI: 0–0.8; p = 0.03) and older age was associated with adverse PGI‐I outcome (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.87–0.99; p = 0.02).ConclusionsFollowing AUS implantation, most patients have significant improvement in validated quality of life outcomes and low pad usage. These findings persist despite multiple preoperative comorbidities and should be considered when counseling patients before AUS placement.

AbstractPurposeThe small and complex space of the intranasal cavity poses a challenge to teaching and learning sinonasal anatomy in undergraduate medical education. Evidence suggests that utilizing 3D‐printed (3DP) models is an effective means to comprehend anatomical structures and their spatial relationships. In this study, we introduce and evaluate the educational value of rigid nasal endoscopy on realistic 3DP and silicone‐cast sinus models as a method to teach medical students intranasal anatomy.MethodsTwelve first‐year medical students participated in an educational rigid‐nasal endoscopy workshop led by Otolaryngology PGY‐2 residents and rhinology consultants. The workshop consisted of (1) an introductory PowerPoint on rigid nasal endoscopy and basic intranasal anatomy, (2) timed trials that tested students' ability to locate intranasal anatomical structures while scoping with a rigid endoscope, and (3) pre‐ and post‐surveys.ResultsParticipants improved in their ability to locate each intranasal anatomical structure during the timed trials. Participants felt that rigid endoscopy of 3DP models was an effective method to learn intranasal anatomy compared to their traditional medical school anatomy course.ConclusionThe results of this study suggest that rigid nasal endoscopy of 3DP sinus models is a potentially high‐value educational method for teaching intranasal anatomy to first‐year medical students. Students enjoyed the opportunity to learn intranasal anatomy while practicing a clinically relevant procedure ‐ rigid nasal endoscopy.

382 Background: The natural history of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) is heterogeneous, with most patients not progressing to metastasis. Determining the impact and optimal timing of salvage radiation therapy (SRT) remains challenging, particularly in the absence of prospective randomized trials with a surveillance control arm. Our objective isto quantify the oncologic benefit of SRT among men with BCR after RP. Methods: Patients who underwent RP at Mayo Clinic between 1990 and 2017 and developed BCR (PSA≥0.20ng/mL) were included. Patients treated with SRT were compared to those managed with surveillance using risk-set matching with time-dependent propensity scores, accounting for covariates at BCR and post-BCR. The primary outcome was metastases, analyzed via Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models. The number needed to treat (NNT) with SRT to prevent progression was calculated using regression outputs at 5 and 15 years post-BCR. Interaction analyses identified factors modifying SRT’s effect on metastasis. Results: Of 6,881 patients with BCR, 2,109 received SRT. At a median follow-up of 10.2 years, 1,147 patients with BCR developed metastases. After 1:1 matching, SRT was associated with lower metastasis risk than surveillance at 5 years (12.7% vs 19.3%, p<0.0001) and 15 years (28.6% vs. 31.5%, p<0.001). SRT was independently associated with decreased metastasis risk (HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63–0.90, p=0.002) on multivariable analysis, translating to NNT of 23 and 15 at 5 and 15 years, respectively (Table). Additionally, we noted a significant interaction between PSA at SRT and the association of SRT with metastasis (p-interaction=0.02), such that the reduction in metastatic progression with SRT vs. surveillance was restricted to the cohort of patients who received SRT for PSA>0.40ng/mL (HR 0.66, 95%CI 0.54–0.80, p<0.001). Conclusions: Most patients with BCR post-RP do not develop metastases. Indeed, the NNT with SRT to reduce metastasis versus surveillance indicates a generally indolent disease course. Further, the lack of a significant association of SRT with reduction of metastases in patients with a PSA≤0.40ng/mL underscores the importance of careful patient selection when considering early SRT. Our data establish the rationale for a randomized trial comparing early SRT versus surveillance for appropriately selected patients with BCR after RP. Hazard ratios of SRT after matching by propensity scores, and number needed to treat for systemic progression, prostate cancer specific mortality and overall mortality. DiseaseOutcome Hazard Ratio(95% CI) P value Number Needed to Treat* (95% CI) 5 years 15 years Systemic progression 0.75(0.63 – 0.90) 0.002 23(17 – 41) 15(11 – 27) Prostate cancer mortality 0.81 (0.64 – 1.03) 0.086 103(62 – 494) 26(15 – 124) Overall mortality 0.79 (0.70 – 0.89) 0.0001 38(29 – 62) 12(9 – 20) *Number needed to treat (NNT) calculated using regression based absolute differences in event free survival between salvage radiation therapy (SRT) and observation.