ASCO 2019 ANNUAL MEETING

ASCO 2019 ANNUAL MEETING

INTERVIEW WITH EVAN YU
Management of mCRPC using Sipuleucel-T

VIEW ALL mCRPC VIDEOS

ASCO 2019 ANNUAL MEETING

ASCO 2019 ANNUAL MEETING

INTERVIEW WITH JACOB BERCHUCK & MARY-ELLEN TAPLIN
Genetic Risk in Prostate Cancer

VIEW ALL PROSTATE CANCER VIDEOS

ASCO 2019 ANNUAL MEETING

ASCO 2019 ANNUAL MEETING

INTERVIEW WITH KARIM FIZAZI
ARAMIS Trial in Prostate Cancer: Impact of Darolutamide on Pain and Quality of Life

VIEW ALL nmCRPC VIDEOS

EAU 2019 ANNUAL MEETING

EAU 2019 ANNUAL MEETING

INTERVIEW WITH THOMAS POWLES
Immunotherapy in the Peri-Operative Setting for Bladder Cancer

VIEW ALL BLADDER CANCER VIDEOS

Featured Videos

Impact of Camera Deviation on Penile Curvature Assessment Using 2D Pictures - Beyond the Abstract

This project idea came from a true clinical question faced by many urologists - How reliable is a picture to assess penile deformity? It is not uncommon to see reports from urologist saying they were surprised in the operating room (OR) by a very different curvature than they would expect based on a previously seen picture. 

Among the possible confounders from penile photographies that can affect its reliability, the optical effect that happens when you represent a 3D curved structure in 2D has never been directly studied. Again, most urologists have seen pictures in clinical practice where the angle was not exactly the one they would like it to be. How can this impact the measurements? It was a "common sense" heard across urological meetings that this could underestimate the curvature. Is this really true? And to what extent?

Our aim with this project was to better understand those points. Using an experiment and a mathematical model we were able to exclude other known confounders and have a detailed appreciation of this phenomenon.

Our results showed that this is a complex phenomenon that can either under or overestimate the readings depending on the axis of the camera deviation and the penile curvature degree itself. This error can be significant and get up to almost 100% but is always less than 5% for a camera deviation smaller than 20 degrees. 

Therefore, in clinical practice, we recommend urologist to ask for an extra picture perpendicular to the curvature plane, knowing that a small error (<5%) is expected if he stays below a 20-degree deviation. 

It must be said, however, that there are other sources of possible errors that can impact the reliability of this method not accounted for in our study, notably the erectile rigidity. In addition to that, complex deformities with a biplanar curve or volume-loss deformities may never be correctly evaluated with a single 2D picture. 

Therefore, in office curvature assessment using a goniometer following a pharmacologically induced rigid erection is still the gold standard method to avoid OR surprises in clinical practice. 

Written by: Bruno Nascimento and Jose Cury, Sexual Medicine Service, Division of Urology, Hospital das Clinicas, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil

Read the Abstract
Conference Coverage
 
Recent data from conferences worldwide
Journals
Publications focusing on urologic cancer treatments through original manuscripts
Everyday Urology Volume 4 Issue 1

Everyday Urology™ - Oncology Insights

PCAN cover

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases

From the Editor

E-Newsletters

Newsletter subscription

Free Daily and Weekly newsletters offered by content of interest

The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are rapidly advancing. Sign up today for articles, videos, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.

Subscribe