e17056 Background: Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) has been increasingly utilized in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis and staging. While there is Level 1 data supporting MRI utility in identifying clinically significant PCa and guiding PCa diagnosis, there is little data on its ability to predict surgical outcomes and its utility as a staging study. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of mpMRI in predicting common surgical pathology outcomes in patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods: Men who underwent either open radical prostatectomy (ORP) or robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) for prostate adenocarcinoma from January-December 2021 at a single tertiary level care academic medical center were identified. Chart review for relevant patient demographics, mpMRI related variables and final surgical pathology was completed. In patients who had pre-operative mpMRI, we evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI in predicting relevant surgical outcomes, including presence of pT2N0 organ confined disease (OCD), extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), lymph node involvement (LNI), and bladder neck invasion (BNI). Results: 168 eligible patients were identified in a 12-month period. The mean age was 63.5±6.24 years and mean Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) was 11.4±23.7, with 166 (98.8%) patients undergoing RALP and 115 (68.5%) having pre-operative mpMRI. Median GGG was 2 in both MRI and CT subsets (p = 0.580), and patients who had pre-op MRI were more likely to have higher PSA (12.7 ±28.1 vs 8.38± 6.32, p = 0.073) and clinically node positive disease (p < 0.001) than those with CT. However, there was no significant difference in final surgical pathology or positive surgical margin rates between these two groups. On subset analysis of the MRI subset, Table summarizes the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of pre-op MRI to predict OCD, ECE, SVI, LNI, and BNI. While specificity of pre-op MRI was adequate for all outcomes (89.1-100%), sensitivity (2.9-49.2%), PPV (40-100%), and NPV (56.3-94.3%) were poor. Conclusions: At present, pre-op MRI of the prostate does not appear to be accurate in its ability to predict important pathologic outcomes at the time of radical prostatectomy and should be used cautiously as a local staging tool. More work is needed before MRI can be used as a reliable staging tool for PCa.[Table: see text]

258 Background: Active Surveillance (AS) of prostate cancers lowers morbidity and mortality with conservative management but requires vigilance to prevent disease progression. Understanding of disease aggression through genomic analysis has enhanced AS. About one third of prostatectomies reveal a Gleason upgrade to stage T3 or node positivity, and increased risk on a single genomic analysis increases the risk of progression and Gleason upgrade. More information is needed to compare these tests and determine their roles in academic and private practice settings. Methods: The Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative (PURC), funded by participating urology practices and the Partnership for Patient Care, a quality improvement initiative supported by the Health Care Improvement Foundation, Independence Blue Cross, and southeastern PA hospitals and health systems, database was analyzed with permission to find patients who received both AS and prostatectomy for treatment of prostate cancer. Patients were then selected who had genomic analysis performed on biopsy samples using analysis from Decipher Biopsy, Oncotype Dx, or Prolaris. Patients were sorted into genomic risk categories and biopsy pathology, prostatectomy pathology, and time to surgery was compared. Results: Thirty-nine patients met criteria for the study. Nineteen were considered to be very low risk based on genomic analysis, 11 were low risk, and nine were intermediate risk. Average time of progression from AS to prostatectomy was shorter with increased genomic risk: from 1.7 years for very low genomic risk individuals, to 1.3 for low risk, to 0.8 years for intermediate risk. All three groups had a significant decrease in Gleason Grade Group from biopsy to final pathology (p < 0.05). Five of the 19 patients (26%) in the very low risk group were upgraded to pT3 after prostatectomy, one (9%) of the low risk group was upgraded, and four of the 9 (44%) in the intermediate risk group were upgraded. Regardless of genomic risk, 14% of patients who had analysis performed with Oncotype Dx received a Gleason upgrade, compared to 67% of patients with Decipher Biopsy analysis and 43% of patients with Prolaris genomic analysis. Conclusions: Our pilot study indicates that while higher genomic risk categorization led to a more rapid progression to treatment, Gleason Grade Group decreased from biopsy to final pathology in each risk group, suggesting more time before progression to treatment may be warranted. Very low and low risk patients had less risk of Gleason upgrade compared to intermediate risk patients. While our numbers are low, the difference in Gleason upgrade based on genomic analysis provides an interesting exploratory analysis that requires further investigation. More analysis comparing the intricacies of the reporting methods is needed to elucidate the benefits and drawbacks for each genomic test available.

363 Background: 3D printing is a growing tool in surgical education due to the ability to visualize organs, tissue, and masses from multiple angles before operating on a patient. Previous studies using highly detailed and expensive 3D models costing between $1,000-250 per model have been shown to enhance patient and trainee comprehension of tumor characteristics, goals of surgery, and planned surgical procedure for partial nephrectomies. In our study we aim to use simpler and less expensive models in a greater range of patients receiving partial nephrectomies to determine the use of 3D models in patient, resident, and fellow education. Methods: 3D models of the effected kidney, mass, renal artery, and renal vein were created using preoperative imaging of undergoing partial nephrectomies at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (TJUH) costing $35 per model. Residents and fellows filled out 3 surveys assessing their surgical plan and their confidence in the chosen plan at 3 time points: 1) Before seeing the model, 2) After seeing the model before surgery, and 3) After surgery. Ten patients filled out 2 surveys about their understanding of the kidney, their disease, the surgery they will undergo, and the risks involved with surgery before and after seeing the model. Results: Based on surveys to assess for surgical plan and confidence given to resident and fellow surgeons before and after seeing the 3D model, confidence significantly increased. Surveys given after surgery assessing anatomic and surgical comprehension found that resident and fellow surgeons rated the helpfulness of the models on their anatomical comprehension 7.6 out of 10 and the help of the models on their surgical confidence 7 out of 10. Patient understanding of their kidney, disease, and surgery significantly increased after seeing the 3D model, but the risks associated with surgery did not significantly increase. The extent that the model helped the patients learn about the kidney, their disease, the surgery, and the risks related to surgery were rated an average of 8.33, 9.67, 9.5, and 8.83 out of 10, respectively. Conclusions: Patient-specific 3D models for partial nephrectomies increase resident and fellow confidence in surgical approach and helped patients learn about their disease and feel comfortable going into surgery. Thus, it is important to continue to explore 3D models as an educational tool for both trainees and patients and potentially include 3D models as part of the standard of care. Further research could continue to explore the utility of 3D models as a pre-operative educational tool for both patients and trainees in other surgical fields.

475 Background: As urologic oncology becomes increasingly complex, the coordination of optimal and efficient care to patients can be challenging. Within our institution, we initiated a multidisciplinary center (MDC) comprised of urology, oncology and radiation oncology in 1996 to help meet these needs. The positive benefits of this approach have been demonstrated in other settings, but outcomes related to bladder cancer remain unclear, especially in the era of neoadjuvant (NA) therapy. Methods: Patients with localized or node positive muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) without prior treatment were obtained from available multidisciplinary appointment records, dating from 7/5/17 to 9/25/19. Charts were then retrospectively reviewed to gather demographic data, treatment data, and pathological outcomes. Results: 66 patients fitting study criteria were identified. Average age was 71.3 years. 45 (68%) patients from this cohort were deemed to be radical cystectomy (RC) candidates, with 37 RC operations completed at time of record review. Of RC-eligible patients, 35/45 (77%) had received NA therapy, either in the form of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and/or immunotherapy (NAI). 3 patients declined RC after receiving NAC. 15 patients underwent chemoradiation treatment (23%), while 7 (11%) underwent supportive care without definitive treatment. Downstaging at RC from MIBC (<=T1) was seen in 12/37 patients (32%), with a pT0 rate of 10% (4/37). Conclusions: The coordination of care in bladder cancer remains a challenge for patients and physicians alike. We believe by utilizing a multidisciplinary approach, efficiency and quality of care increases. National database studies have reported overall utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy over the past 10 years, with most recent rates ranging from 14.8-20.9%. Our utilization of neoadjuvant therapy is notably higher at 77%, which also includes early adaptation of NAI in patients deemed ineligible for neoadjuvant NAC. Further studies are needed to examine a contemporary control population outside the multidisciplinary setting, however the above outcomes provide a basis for the integration of care and its positive outcomes in quality improvement.