https://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/issue/feedCanadian Urological Association Journal2024-04-15T07:49:34-07:00Adriana Modicaadriana.modica@cua.orgOpen Journal Systems<p>Welcome to CUAJ — Canada's journal for urologists and related specialists!</p> <p>CUAJ is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal devoted to promoting the highest standard of urological patient care through the publication of timely, relevant, evidence-based research and advocacy information.</p>https://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/8813Université de Lausanne2024-04-15T07:49:34-07:00Editor CUAJjournal@cua.org2024-04-15T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2024 https://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/8537Addressing controversial areas in the management of advanced prostate cancer in Canada 2023-09-29T09:23:11-07:00Fred Saadfredsaad@videotron.caSebastien J. Hottehotte@hhsc.caKrista Noonanknoonan2@bccancer.bc.caShawn MaloneSMalone@toh.caChristopher Morashcmorash@toh.caTamim NiaziMOHAMMAD.TAMIM.NIAZI.med@ssss.gouv.qc.caRicardo A. RendonRicardo.Rendon@Dal.CaBobby Shayeganshayeb@mcmaster.caNaveen S. Basappanaveen.basappa@albertahealthservices.caIlias Cagiannosicagiannos@toh.caBrita DanielsonBrita.danielson@albertahealthservices.caGuila Delouyaguila.delouya.chum@ssss.gouv.qc.caRicardo Fernandesricardo.fernandes@lhsc.on.caCristiano Ferrariocristiano.ferrario@mcgill.caAntonio Finelliantonio.finelli@uhn.caGeoffrey T. Gottodrgotto@gmail.comRobert J. Hamiltonrob.hamilton@uhn.caJason P. Izardjason.izard@kingstonhsc.caAnil Kapoorkapoor4@mcmaster.caAly-Khan Lalanilalania@hhsc.caLuke T. Lavalléelulavallee@toh.caMichael Ongmong@toh.caFrédéric Pouliotpouliotfrederic@icloud.comAlan I. Sodralanso@mail.ubc.caSteven YipSteven.Yip@albertahealthservices.caKim N. Chikchi@bccancer.bc.ca<p><strong>INTRODUCTION:</strong> The management of prostate cancer (PCa) is rapidly evolving. Treatment and diagnostic options grow annually, however, high-level evidence for the use of new therapeutics and diagnostics is lacking. In November 2022, the Genitourinary Research Consortium held its 3rd Canadian Consensus Forum (CCF3) to provide guidance on key controversial areas for management of PCa.</p> <p><strong>METHODS:</strong> A steering committee of eight multidisciplinary physicians identified topics for discussion and adapted questions from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022 for CCF3. Questions focused on management of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC); use of novel imaging, germline testing, and genomic profiling; and areas of non-consensus from CCF2. Fifty-eight questions were voted on during a live forum, with threshold for “consensus agreement” set at 75%.</p> <p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> The voting panel consisted of 26 physicians: 13 urologists/uro-oncologists, nine medical oncologists, and four radiation oncologists. Consensus was reached for 32 of 58 questions (one ad-hoc). Consensus was seen in the use of local treatment, to not use metastasis-directed therapy for low-volume mCSPC, and to use triplet therapy for synchronous high-volume mCSPC (low prostate-specific antigen). Consensus was also reached on sufficiency of conventional imaging to manage disease, use of germline testing and genomic profiling for metastatic disease, and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for BRCA-positive prostate cancer.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSIONS:</strong> CCF3 identified consensus agreement and provides guidance on >30 practice scenarios related to management of PCa and nine areas of controversy, which represent opportunities for research and education to improve patient care. Consensus initiatives provide valuable guidance on areas of controversy as clinicians await high-level evidence.</p>2023-12-21T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2023 Canadian Urological Associationhttps://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/87512024 Canadian Urological Association guideline: Female stress urinary incontinence2024-02-13T11:05:00-08:00Kevin Carlsonjournal@cua.orgMatthew Andrewsjournal@cua.orgAlexandra Bascomjournal@cua.orgRichard Baverstockjournal@cua.orgLysanne Campeaujournal@cua.orgChantale Dumoulinjournal@cua.orgJoe Labossierejournal@cua.orgJennifer A. Lockejournal@cua.orgGenevieve Nadeaujournal@cua.orgBlayne Welkjournal@cua.org2024-03-26T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2023 Canadian Urological Associationhttps://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/8530Development of a synchronous motion-tracking and video capture tool for flexible ureteroscopy2023-08-27T12:52:11-07:00Jessica Tracjessica.trac@mail.utoronto.caJonguk Leejournal@cua.orgKai-Ho Fokjournal@cua.orgBrian Carrillojournal@cua.orgMonica Farcasjournal@cua.org<p><strong>INTRODUCTION:</strong> Hand/instrument motion-tracking in surgical simulation provides valuable data to improve psychomotor skills and can serve as a formative evaluation tool. Motion analysis has been well-studied in laparoscopic surgery; however, there are essentially no studies looking at motion-tracking for flexible ureteroscopy (fURS), a common surgical procedure requiring hand dexterity and 3D spatial awareness. We aimed to design a synchronized motion-tracking and video capture system for fURS capable of collecting objective metrics for use in surgical skills training.</p> <p><strong>METHODS:</strong> Motion tracking of the ureteroscope was performed using a motion-tracking platform, inertial measurement units (IMUs), and an optical sensor. Position (x, y, z) and orientation (roll, pitch, yaw) of the ureteroscope handle, lever deflection, and translation of the scope insertion point were collected. Video capture of the operator’s hands was collected with a Raspberry Pi camera. All peripherals were controlled on a Raspberry Pi 4 and synchronized to its system clock.</p> <p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> Our system demonstrated good accuracy in detecting translation of the ureteroscope in the x- and y-axes, and yaw, pitch and roll of the ureteroscope at discrete orientations of 0, ±30, ±60, and ±90 degrees. Unique to fURS, deflection of the lever was captured by the difference in IMU static accelerations with good accuracy. The optical sensor detected translation of the ureteroscope at the insertion point with good precision and an average error of 5.51%.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSIONS:</strong> We successfully developed a motion-tracking and video-capture system capable of collecting motion-analysis parameters unique to fURS. Future studies will focus on establishing the construct validity of this tool.</p>2023-12-21T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2023 Canadian Urological Associationhttps://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/8531Point-of-care-ultrasound for the assessment of post-renal transplant recipients2023-07-31T10:21:46-07:00Michael Uymichael.uy@medportal.caCameron Lamcameron.lam@medportal.caYanbo Guoyanbo.guo@medportal.caRahul Bansalbansalrk@mcmaster.caRichard Haerichard.hae@medportal.caAzim Gangjiagangji@stjosham.on.caChristine Ribicchristine.ribic@medportal.caShahid Lambelambesa@mcmaster.ca<p><strong>INTRODUCTION:</strong> Postoperative imaging for deceased donor renal transplants is often delayed, as these surgeries occur after-hours. These delays can be critical in identifying immediate complications. To our knowledge, there are no formal training programs for point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in this setting; therefore, we aimed to develop and evaluate a feasible and practical POCUS curriculum for the assessment of a renal transplant graft.</p> <p><strong>METHODS:</strong> Urology and nephrology transplant physicians completed a three-hour online course, followed by a five-hour hands-on seminar for sonographic scanning. Simulated patients with transplanted kidneys were used. Course material was developed with licensed ultrasound technologists based on Sonography Canada national competency profiles. Pre- and post-course surveys focused on user confidence, while pre- and post-course multiple-choice questionnaires assessed theoretical knowledge.</p> <p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> Twelve participants were included, six of whom were urologists. Theoretical knowledge in POCUS improved significantly (p<0.001). Confidence in manipulation of ultrasound controls, Doppler imaging, and POCUS of the transplant kidney also improved (all p<0.001, d>2.0). Participants indicated an increased likelihood of POCUS use in clinical practice and that training should be integrated into a transplant fellowship.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSIONS:</strong> We introduced a novel and guideline-based POCUS curriculum that leveraged local ultrasound educators and found improved theoretical knowledge and skill confidence in our cohort of transplant physicians. This course will serve as the first step toward a validated competency-based training system for POCUS use in the immediate post-renal transplant setting, and likely will be incorporated into the training of the modern transplant physician.</p>2023-12-21T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2023 Canadian Urological Associationhttps://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/8571Inter-observer variance of examiner scoring in urology Objective Structured Clinical Examinations 2023-09-22T09:53:51-07:00Naji J. Toumanjtouma@gmail.comCharles A. Pacojournal@cua.orgIain MacIntyrejournal@cua.org<p><strong>INTRODUCTION:</strong> The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is an attractive tool of competency assessment in a high-stakes summative exam. An advantage of the OSCE is the ability to assess more realistic context, content, and procedures. Each year, the Queen’s Urology Exam Skills Training (QUEST) is attended by graduating Canadian urology residents to simulate their upcoming board exams. The exam consists of a written component and an OSCE. The aim of this study was to determine the inter-observer consistency of scoring between two examiners of an OSCE for a given candidate.</p> <p><strong>METHODS:</strong> Thirty-nine participants in 2020 and 37 participants in 2021 completed four stations of OSCEs virtually over the Zoom platform. Each candidate was examined and scored independently by two different faculty urologists in a blinded fashion at each station. The OSCE scoring consisted of a checklist rating scale for each question. An intra-class correlation (ICC) analysis was conducted to determine the inter-rater reliability of the two examiners for each of the four OSCE stations in both the 2020 and 2021 OSCEs.</p> <p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> For the 2020 data, the prostate cancer station scores were most strongly correlated (ICC 0.746, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.556–0.862, p<0.001). This was followed by the general urology station (ICC 0.688, 95% CI 0.464–0.829, p<0.001), the urinary incontinence station (ICC 0.638, 95% CI 0.403–0.794, p<0.001), and finally the nephrolithiasis station (ICC 0.472, 95% CI 0.183–0.686, p<0.001). For the 2021 data, the renal cancer station had the highest ICC at 0.866 (95% CI 0.754–0.930, p<0.001). This was followed by the nephrolithiasis station (ICC 0.817, 95% CI 0.673–0.901, p<0.001), the pediatric station (ICC 0.809, 95% CI 0.660–0.897, p<0.001), and finally the andrology station (ICC 0.804, 95% CI 0.649–0.895, p<0.001). A Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for all stations, and all show a positive correlation with global exam scores. It is noteworthy that some stations were more predictive of overall performance, but this did not necessarily mean better ICC scores for these stations.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSIONS:</strong> Given a specific clinical scenario in an OSCE exam, inter-rater reliability of scoring can be compromised on occasion. Care should be taken when high-stakes decisions about promotion are made based on OSCEs with limited standardization.</p>2023-12-21T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2023 Canadian Urological Associationhttps://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/8508Incidence and survival of secondary malignancies after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer in the SEER database2023-08-21T08:58:42-07:00Melissa J. Huynhmjhuynh9@gmail.comLawson Englawson.eng@gmail.comLong H. Ngolngo@bidmc.harvard.eduNicholas E. Powernicholas.power@lhsc.on.caSophia C. Kamranskamran@mgh.harvard.eduTheodore T. PierceTTPIERCE@mgh.harvard.eduAndrea C. LoAndrea.Lo@bccancer.bc.ca<p><strong>INTRODUCTION:</strong> We investigated the incidence of secondary bladder (BCa) and rectal cancers (RCa) after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa) compared to radical prostatectomy (RP) alone, and compared cancer-specific survival (CSS) of these secondary neoplasms to their primary counterparts.</p> <p><strong>METHODS:</strong> This retrospective cohort study included men in the SEER cancer registry with a diagnosis of non-metastatic, clinically node-negative PCa treated with either RP or EBRT from 1995–2011 and allowed a minimum five-year lag period for the development of secondary BCa or RCa. Patients were divided into two eras, 1995–2002 and 2003–2011, to examine differences in incidence of secondary malignancies over time. Univariable and multivariable competing risk analyses with Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard and cause-specific hazard models were used to examine the risk of developing a secondary BCa or RCa. Competing risks analyses were used to compare CSS of primary vs. secondary BCa and RCa.</p> <p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> A total of 198 184 men underwent RP and 190 536 underwent EBRT for PCa. The cumulative incidence of secondary BCa at 10 years was 1.71% for RP, and 3.7% for EBRT (p<0.001), while that of RCa was 0.52% for RP and 0.99% for EBRT (p<0.001). EBRT was associated with almost twice the risk of developing a secondary BCa and RCa compared to RP. The hazard of secondary BCa following EBRT delivered during 2003–2011 was 20% less than from 1995–2002 (p<0.09, Fine-Gray model), while that of secondary RCa was 31% less (p<0.001) (hazard ratio 0.78, p<0.001) for Fine-Gray and cause-specific hazard models. In the Fine-Gray model, the risk of death from BCa was 27% lower for secondary BCa after RP compared to primary BCa, while the risk of death was 9% lower for secondary BCa after EBRT compared to primary BCa. There was no difference in RCa-specific survival between primary or secondary RCa after RP or EBRT.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSIONS:</strong> The risk of BCa and RCa is almost twice as high for men undergoing EBRT for localized PCa vs. RP, but that risk is declining, likely reflecting advances in radiation delivery. The development of secondary RCa or BCa does not confer elevated risk of death compared to their primary counterparts.</p>2023-12-21T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2023 Canadian Urological Associationhttps://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/8486Do you want to be a urologist?2023-08-21T07:33:56-07:00David Chungchungt3@myumanitoba.caSuvig Duaduas1@myumanitoba.caMichael Morramorram@myumanitoba.caKarim Sidhomsidhomk@myumanitoba.caKunal Jainjaink2@myumanitoba.caGregory Hosierghosier@hsc.mb.ca<p><strong>INTRODUCTION:</strong> Gender inequality has been prevalent in the history of medicine, specifically within surgical specialties. Though there have been advances, urology has remained overwhelmingly male-dominant, with slow growth in female recruitment. This survey study evaluated whether gender-related differences in the perception of urology are present among future applicants that could account for gender disparity seen in recruitment.</p> <p><strong>METHODS:</strong> An anonymized, online survey was distributed to medical students enrolled at the Max Rady College of Medicine during the 2022–2023 semester. Attracting and deterring survey statements were created using current literature to guide topics of interest. Participants rated each statement using a five-point Likert scale with optional supplemental qualitative responses. Likert ratings were compared using a Mann-U-Whitney calculation between self-identifying male and female participants.</p> <p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> We received 90 responses over six weeks, achieving a response rate of 23%. Female students, compared to their male peers, were deterred by factors such as working in a male-dominated specialty (p<0.001) and working with primarily male patients (p<0.001). There were no significant gender-related differences for statements pertaining to interest in surgery, work-life balance, or exposure to urology.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSIONS:</strong> In this survey study, the biggest deterrents reported by female medical students to entering urology were working in a male-dominated profession and seeing primarily male patients. There were no significant gender-related differences for questions relating to interest in surgery, work-life balance, and exposure to urology.</p>2024-01-30T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2023 Canadian Urological Associationhttps://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/8518A career exploration didactic and simulation-based session increases student knowledge in and exposure to urology2023-07-21T11:09:30-07:00S. Mohammad Mohagheghjournal@cua.orgColin Kleinguetljournal@cua.orgTyler Sheetzjournal@cua.orgJohn Patrick Mershonjournal@cua.orgMatthew Murthajournal@cua.orgSteven Goldenthaljournal@cua.orgEric Riedingerjournal@cua.orgCheryl T. Leejournal@cua.orgCourtenay K. Moorejournal@cua.orgAliza Khuhrojournal@cua.orgHafsa Asifjournal@cua.orgChase Arnoldjournal@cua.orgTasha PosidTasha.Posid@osumc.edu<p><strong>INTRODUCTION:</strong> Though urology attracts well-qualified applicants, students are not typically provided exposure to this smaller specialty until later in their medical education. While simulation-based training continues to supplement medical education, there is a lack of programming to teach specialty-specific procedural skills to medical students and those outside the specialty. We report a half-day simulation and didactic-based approach to increase exposure to urology to interested second-year medical students.</p> <p><strong>METHODS:</strong> A half-day didactic- and simulation-based session was offered to second-year medical students (N=57). After a didactic-based overview of the specialty performed by urology providers and a surgical educator, the students participated in small-group simulations, including hands-on simulations. The students completed a post-curriculum survey measuring knowledge gains and soliciting feedback on the session.</p> <p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> Students were 57.1% Caucasian, 66.7% female, with a mean age of 24.2 years; 80% stated they were potentially interested in pursuing a surgical specialty such as urology prior to the start of the session. Students reported pre- to post-curriculum gains in knowledge (mean=37%) about a career in urology and basic urologic procedures (p<0.001). Participants were also likely to recommend the curriculum to their peers (p<0.001).</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSIONS:</strong> Given that exposure to urology in medical school is usually limited and offered later in training, a half-day didactic- and simulation-based experience for second-year students provides an early introduction and experience within the specialty and its common bedside procedures.</p>2023-11-20T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2023 Canadian Urological Associationhttps://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/8519Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma and disease stage at presentation2023-09-22T08:27:12-07:00W.C. Ian Janeswcij85@mun.caMitchell G. Faganmgfagan@mun.caJ. Matthew Andrewsmatthewandrews@munmed.caDavid R. Harveydr_dr_harvey@hotmail.comGeoff M. Wardengmw326@mun.caPaul H. Johnstonphjohnston@hotmail.comMichael K. Organorgan0516@hotmail.com<p><strong>INTRODUCTION:</strong> Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is often associated with significant morbidity and mortality, with overall survival contingent on multiple factors — most importantly, disease stage at diagnosis. Disruptions in healthcare delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in various reported diagnostic and treatment delays, which have had detrimental impacts on malignancies such as RCC.</p> <p><strong>METHODS:</strong> Surgically managed cases of RCC at our center were identified using a retrospective chart review of all nephrectomies conducted from March 1, 2018, to February 28, 2023. Examination of disease characteristics in three time period cohorts (before, during, and following the COVID-19 pandemic) was undertaken. Timeframes were consistent with implementation and abolition of public health restrictions in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.</p> <p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> A total of 483 surgically managed RCC cases were identified during the study period. The median age was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR] 56–71), and 62.3% of patients were male. Demographics did not vary across timeframes. Before and during the pandemic, pathologic stage 3 (pT3) disease was reported in 38.9% and 35.4% of cases, respectively, whereas the post-pandemic period saw this presentation in 50.0% of patients. Surgical wait times increased significantly across study timeframes (p=0.003).</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSIONS:</strong> The first year following the COVID-19 pandemic saw an 11.1% increase in patients presenting with pT3 RCC. These findings are suggestive of a clinically significant stage migration, which paired with prolonged wait times for surgery, provide critical consideration in the urgency of diagnostic and treatment decisions for RCC in the immediate future.</p>2023-12-21T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2023 Canadian Urological Associationhttps://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/8556Efficacy of GreenLight laser prostatectomy in urinary retention2023-09-01T09:58:10-07:00Anastasia MacDonaldanamacdonald@nosm.caMoustafa Fathymoustafa.mf9@gmail.comParsa Nikoufar parsa.nikoofar@gmail.comAmr Hodhodamrwuk@yahoo.co.ukRuba Abdul Hadiruba.ahadi@gmail.comSaud Alhelaldrsalhelal@gmail.comHusain Alaradihusainisaalaradi@gmail.comAhmed S. Zakariaaszakaria81@yahoo.comWalid Shahrourwalid.shahrour@gmail.comHazem Elmansyhazem.mansy@rocketmail.com<p><strong>INTRODUCTION:</strong> The objective of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and durability of GreenLight laser prostatectomy for the management of acute urinary retention (AUR) and chronic urinary retention (CUR) and to determine outcomes compared to patients without preoperative urinary retention (UR).</p> <p><strong>METHODS:</strong> We conducted a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from individuals who underwent GreenLight laser prostatectomy at our institution from May 2018 to July 2022. Patient demographics and outcome measures were recorded, including indications for the procedure, median urinary volume drained, or median postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) before catheterization or GreenLight laser prostatectomy. CUR was defined as PVR >300 mL in males able to void and initial catheter drainage >1000 mL in males unable to void in the absence of pain. All patients had postoperative followup visits at one, three, six, and 12 months. Our evaluation included the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality-of-life (QoL) assessment, maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), PVR, and catheter-free status.</p> <p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> One hundred sixty-eight males who underwent GreenLight laser prostatectomy were included in our study. The UR group consisted of 88 patients (50 AUR and 38 CUR), and the lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) group was comprised of 80 individuals. There were no statistically significant differences between the AUR and CUR subgroups regarding demographics. The UR group had a significantly higher age and a significantly higher postoperative catheterization time compared to the LUTS cohort. The CUR subgroup had a significantly higher PVR at one, three, and six months compared to the AUR subgroup, although other outcome measures were similar between the two cohorts. During three- and six-month followup visits, the UR group had a significantly higher PVR than the LUTS cohort. At 12 months postoperative, the LUTS group had a higher catheter-free rate than the UR group (p=0.001). The successful first trial of void (TOV) rate for the UR and LUTS groups were 83% and 80%, respectively. At 12-month followup, the catheter-free rate for the UR and LUTS cohorts was 87.5% and 100%, respectively.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSIONS:</strong> GreenLight laser prostatectomy is an effective and durable treatment for UR, with a high catheter-free rate and comparable outcomes when performed to manage LUTS.</p>2023-12-21T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2023 Canadian Urological Associationhttps://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/8766Patient information resources: Bridging the communication gaps2024-02-25T08:28:32-08:00Jason Izardjournal@cua.orgD. Robert Siemensjournal@cua.org2024-03-26T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2023 Canadian Urological Associationhttps://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/8539Using active surveillance for Gleason 7 (3+4) prostate cancer2023-08-21T10:33:23-07:00Rui Bernardinoruimmbernardino@gmail.comRashid K. Sayyidrashid.sayyid@uhn.caRicardo Leãoromaoleao@gmail.comAlexandre R. Zlottaalexandre.zlotta@sinaihealth.caTheodorus van der Kwasttheodorus.vanderkwast@uhn.caLaurence KlotzLaurence.klotz@sunnybrook.caNeil E. Fleshnerneil.fleshner@uhn.ca<p>The interest in broadening the application of active surveillance (AS) has been increasing, encompassing patients who may not strictly adhere to the conventional criteria for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), particularly those diagnosed with small-volume Gleason grade group 2 disease. Nonetheless, accurately identifying individuals with low intermediate-risk PCa who can safely undergo AS without facing disease progression remains a challenge.</p> <p>This review aims to delve into the progression of this evolving trend specifically within this cohort of men, while also examining strategies aimed at minimizing irreversible disease advancement. Additionally, we address the criteria for patient selection, recommended followup schedules, and the indicators prompting intervention.</p>2023-12-21T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2023 Canadian Urological Associationhttps://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/8758Making strides in POCUS training in urology2024-02-19T07:02:56-08:00Nicholas R. Patersonnickrpaterson@gmail.com2024-03-26T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2023 Canadian Urological Associationhttps://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/8747Hawks and doves, differing content, scoring systems, and delivery platforms: No wonder there’s variability in grades2024-02-05T14:08:06-08:00Andrew MacNeilyamacneily@cw.bc.ca2024-03-26T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2023 Canadian Urological Associationhttps://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/8760Second primary cancers following radiotherapy for prostate cancer: How many are actually due to the radiotherapy?2024-02-20T07:04:47-08:00Scott C. Morgansmorgan@toh.caMark T. Corkumjournal@cua.org2024-03-26T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2023 Canadian Urological Associationhttps://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/8767Leaving the room: A method of patient-centered care?2024-02-25T08:31:15-08:00Michael LeveridgeMichael.Leveridge@kingstonhsc.ca2024-03-26T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2023 Canadian Urological Association