You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction/Andrology: Surgical Therapy I1 Apr 2015PD26-07 RACIAL AND AGE DIFFERENCES IN IMPLANTATION OF INFLATABLE PENILE PROSTHESIS FOR ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION (ED) IN THE PROSTATE CANCER SURVIVOR Divya Ajay, Shubham Gupta, John Selph, Michael Belsante, Ngoc-Bich Le, and Andrew Peterson Divya AjayDivya Ajay More articles by this author , Shubham GuptaShubham Gupta More articles by this author , John SelphJohn Selph More articles by this author , Michael BelsanteMichael Belsante More articles by this author , Ngoc-Bich LeNgoc-Bich Le More articles by this author , and Andrew PetersonAndrew Peterson More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.1083AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Previous studies in Medicare beneficiaries suggest higher rates of inflatable penile prothesis (IPP) placement in African−American (AA) men. This study was limited to men older than 65 years. We evaluated prostate cancer survivors undergoing IPP surgery at our institution to establish if these observations hold true for a younger cohort. METHODS We conducted an IRB−approved retrospective review of patients undergoing treatment for prostate cancer at a single institution. Our patient data portal (DEDUCE) was used to query for prostate cancer survivors who underwent a radical prostatectomy (RP) or primary radiation therapy (external beam or brachytherapy) from 2004 to 2012. Demographic data and surgical therapy for ED were reviewed. Patients of all ages and payer statuses were included. Student's T-test was performed. RESULTS 4693 men underwent RP and 1540 had primary radiation. Mean age at treatment was 61.7 years (±7.9). 74.3% of men undergoing RP were Caucasian (mean age 62.7 yrs), 21.8% AA (mean age 60 yrs), 0.9% American Indian, 0.6% Asian and 2.3% classified themselves as other or declined. Among men treated with radiation, 62.6% were Caucasian (mean age 67.8 yrs), 33.8% AA (mean age 65.3 yrs), 0.5% American Indian, 0.6% Asian and 2.5% were other or declined. The IPP utilization for the entire cohort was 1.5%. RP cohort had a higher penile implantation rate compared to men who received radiation (1.8% versus 0.6%, p<0.01). In men treated with primary radiation, higher implantation rates were seen in AA men as compared to Caucasian men (1.1 versus 0.2%, p<0.01). In patients who had a RP, there was a trend toward higher implantation rates in AA men as compared to Caucasians (2.3% versus 1.7%, p= 0.2). Men who received an IPP were younger at the time of primary therapy as compared to men who did not. For the RP cohort, average age was 61.8 ±7.9 versus 60.2 ±7.3 years (p<0.01) and for primary radiation therapy average age was 61.2 ±5.7 versus 67.0 ±9.8 years (p<0.01). There was no difference in IPP utilization based on ethnicity, marital status, or religion. CONCLUSIONS We analyzed IPP utilization rates in a younger patient population than those previously reported and find that the overall use of IPP in prostate cancer survivors remains low. IPP utilizers are younger than others. Men after an RP are more likely to receive an IPP when compared to primary radiation. While not statistically significant, those of African−American race appear to receive IPPs at higher rates. © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e568-e569 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Divya Ajay More articles by this author Shubham Gupta More articles by this author John Selph More articles by this author Michael Belsante More articles by this author Ngoc-Bich Le More articles by this author Andrew Peterson More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...