RESUMEN
Background: Structured curricula are demanded to improve training programs of future urologists. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptance of the newly implemented residency rotation program at the University Hospital Frankfurt. Primary endpoint was resident's satisfaction with the current residency rotation program. Secondary endpoint was the fulfilment of the objectives and expectations by residents. Methods: A standardized 15-item, online-based survey was sent to every urologic resident of the University Hospital Frankfurt, completing their rotation between August 2020 and August 2022. In addition to baseline characteristics, training and working conditions were assessed. Descriptive statistics were applied. Results: In total 15 rotations of the Residency Rotation Program at the University Hospital Frankfurt were evaluated, including urologic practice (5/15), Intermediate Care Unit (4/15), urooncology (4/15) and clinical exchange to St. Gallen (2/15). Overall, the majority were very (67%) or rather satisfied (2%) with their rotation. Of the pre-rotation defined objectives, 71% were fulfilled, 18% partially fulfilled and 8% not fulfilled. With respect to the expectations, 67% were fulfilled, 19% partly fulfilled and 4% were not fulfilled. All residents would recommend their respective rotations. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that the residency rotation program at the University Hospital Frankfurt enjoys a high level of acceptance as well as a positive impact on urologic training. Satisfaction with the completed rotation was convincing, most of the expectations and objectives for the respective rotation could be fulfilled. These results help to ensure the quality of urologic curricula and to improve the structure of training programs for future urologists.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a routine protocol for combined MR and spectroscopic imaging of the prostate for staging accuracy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty patients with biopsy-proven prostate carcinoma were examined with our sequence protocol, which consisted of T2-weighted fast spin-echo sequences and a pelvic T1-weighted spin-echo sequence. For spectroscopy, we used a 3D chemical shift imaging (CSI) spin-echo sequence. Image interpretation was performed by two radiologists. The total number of tumor voxels and tumor voxels per slice were counted to estimate the tumor volume in every patient. The potential of MR spectroscopy to differentiate between T2 and T3 tumors, based on the estimated tumor volumes, was compared with the staging performance of MRI. RESULTS: The MR measurement time was 19.01 minutes, and the total procedure time averaged 35 minutes. Seventy-six percent of the spectroscopic examinations were successful. Statistically significant differences in the number of tumor voxels per slice and tumor volumes were found between T2 and T3 tumors. The descriptive parameters of MRI and MR spectroscopy did not differ significantly; sensitivity and specificity were 75% and 87%, respectively, for MRI and 88% and 70%, respectively, for MR spectroscopy. The combination of both methods resulted in only a slight improvement in staging performance and was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Combined MRI and MR spectroscopy of the prostate has no diagnostic advantage in staging performance over MRI alone. The mean tumor volumes, estimated by MR spectroscopy, differ statistically significantly between T2 and T3 tumors.