In our first month live, JU Open Plus is pleased to present a variety of new papers from the varied categories in our methods-themed table of contents—5 in total. Crawford et al1 present a narrative review from a multidisciplinary panel of experts in prostate cancer who have a long track record of working together to focus on specific unmet needs in clinical care guidance. This paper from the “RADAR VI” group focuses on clinical guidance for clinicians using targeted precision imaging (TPI) in prostate cancer. The group reviews the limitations of conventional imaging and the unmet needs TPI may improve. They review the pros/cons of multiple nuclear medicine tracers with a focus on the multiple available and in-development variants of PSMA radiotracers. They dive into recommendations for the key spaces for TPI including newly diagnosed prostate cancer, biochemical relapse, M0 and M1 castrate-resistant prostate cancer. They also present guidance on how to think about discordant findings, that is, conventional imaging-negative/TPI-positive disease and how to think about following such patients (an imaging-induced stage migration) moving forward. The final table reviews limitations of PSMA-based imaging—a key topic that includes non–PSMA-expressing tumors, equivocal findings, and other PSMA expressing tissues. Overall, this is an excellent start to our review section, and the peer-review/revision process from the new JUOP team went very smoothly. Mao et al2 present our first health services research methods paper. They examined the National Cancer Database with a focus on treatment patterns of low-risk prostate cancer between 2004 and 2015. This is a timely article, as PSA screening has recently returned to the national spotlight with the updated cancer statistics article and press releases from the American Cancer Society that highlighted increased prostate cancer advanced-stage diagnoses since the 2012 USPSTF guidance against PSA screening.3 PSA screening for prostate cancer carries risks of biopsy and treatment-related morbidity that must be balanced against the survival benefits and other end points such as progression-free/metastases-free/palliative hormone-free survival. Overtreatment of low-risk disease must also factor into potential harms of screening, and this paper shows an increase in utilization from 11.3% to 53.5%. These are significant gains, but certainly demonstrate the need to continue improvement. Indeed, in part I of the updated AUA guidelines for localized prostate cancer, statement 10 reads “For patients with low-risk prostate cancer, clinicians should recommend active surveillance as the preferred management option (Strong Recommendation; Evidence Level: Grade A).”4 We have other table-of-contents priority areas that are not yet represented, and we encourage author groups to help us get these started, including clinical trials–related content (including secondary end points, null-hypotheses trials), retrospective study, and videos (the software platform for videos will come online very shortly). JUOP has a unique section in the AUA family of journals called “Rare Conditions.” We have 3 entries. Cunha et al5 write about a series of 36 non–germ cell intrascrotal tumors in adults. They review histologies, treatments, and outcomes—most metastatic cases occurring with paratesticular sarcomas and mesotheliomas. Figure 1 shows a nice flow diagram of the series, and Table 1 reviews retrospective studies on the topic. This is a great kick-off article for the section. Many areas of rare urology are challenged by sample size constraints, lack of definitive study, and heterogeneous treatment methods. If you are a clinician taking care of such a patient, I have no doubt you will appreciate the easy and open access to these authors' experiences.FIGURE 1.: People. A, David Crawford (left) and Philip Koo (right) led the authorship group for our first review article from the RADAR VI group on PSMA PET imaging. Photograph from the 33rd International Prostate Cancer Update, Vail, CO. B, The late Christopher Wood from MD Anderson Cancer Center ran a legendary case discussion panel at the MDACC Steamboat Oncology Conference—always fun when the Patriots were in the playoffs. C, The late Nick Vogelzang was a common presenter and discussant at the International Prostate Cancer Update meetings. He was a renowned medical oncologist who loved to collaborate with urology. D, Panel discussions are very popular—especially for tired skiers. From the International Prostate Cancer Update 2019 (left to right): Neal Shore, Karim Kader, and Sigrid Carlsson. Table 1. - 2023 Winter Sports-Themed Continuing Medical Education Events Meeting title Location Host Contents 48th Annual Winter Urologic Forum Snowmass Village, CO Columbia/UC Davis/Vanderbilt Urology—multispecialty 33rd International Prostate Cancer Update Vail, CO Grand Rounds in Urology/David Crawford Prostate Cancer, lectures, panels, trial updates, multispecialty 42nd Jackson Hole Seminars Teton Village, WY Grand Rounds in Urology/Fernando Kim Urology—multispecialty—lectures and critique panels Aspen Urological Conference Aspen, CO Jeff Norris, Scott Eggener Urology—multispecialty MOGULS—Mountain Outdoor Genitourinary Lecture Series Park City, UT Univ Utah, Intermountain Healthcare Urology—multispecialty 19th Oncology Update: Advances and Controversies Steamboat Springs, CO MD Anderson Cancer Center Oncology/Solid Tumors/Multi specialty Royal Society of Medicine Urology Winter meeting Andermatt, Switzerland Royal Society of Medicine Urology—multispecialty Two more short format papers are of interest. Smith et al6 demonstrate a single-port robotic technique in a pediatric case of nephrouroeterectomy. Yang et al7 focus on a unique father-son case of hereditary bilateral synchronous pheochromocytomas with a linked germ line missense mutation of the APC gene. Both of these papers go beyond simple case reporting and go the extra mile to develop surgical techniques and biomarker development. January 2023: People, Places, and Things One of my favorite learning environments is the “ski” meeting or perhaps the more formal nomenclature “winter sports-themed continuing medical education event.” My first dose was back in 2007 as faculty on the famous Ralph Hopkins Urology Seminars series, which is now over 30 years old. David Crawford just ran his 33rd International Prostate Cancer Update in Vail Colorado. My institution just ran its 19th Oncology Update series—a cutting-edge review on all solid tumors and their multidisciplinary care. I know there are many more out there, and the common themes would be: (1) smaller size meeting with more faculty engagement, (2) relaxed format—mostly casual/“winter resort” attire, (3) extended discussion times, (4) more personal time available with industry partners, and (5) lots of healthy exercise options. Table 1 summarizes some of the offerings I could find online. For our pictorial themed “People, Places, and Things” (Figures 1-3), we share some highlights from these types of meetings and thank the many organizers and sponsors that make them happen.FIGURE 2.: Places. A, Vail Colorado—home to the 33rd International Prostate Cancer Update. B, Yellowstone National Park—a “must-see” tour during the Ralph Hopkins Urology Seminars in Jackson, WY. After many years of leadership from the late Ralph Hopkins, the meeting continues under the leadership of our Associate Editor Fernando Kim.FIGURE 3.: Things. A, At the MD Anderson Cancer Center Oncology Update—the Steamboat Mountain Village displays a series of hot-air balloons for the crowd to visit. B, An impressive set of icicles outside my room at the 33rd International Prostate Cancer Update.