Evaluating the use of prostate-specific antigen as an instrument for early detection of prostate cancer beyond urologists: Results of a representative cross-sectional questionnaire study of general practitioners and internal specialists

OBJECTIVES The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the value of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing as a tool for early detection of prostate cancer (PCa) applied by general practitioners (GPs) and internal specialists (ISs) as well as to assess criteria leading to the application of PSA-based early PCa detection. METHODS Between May and December 2012, a questionnaire containing 16 items was sent to 600 GPs and ISs in the federal state Brandenburg and in Berlin (Germany). The independent influence of several criteria on the decision of GPs and ISs to apply PSA-based early PCa detection was assessed by multivariate logistic regression analysis (MLRA). RESULTS 392 evaluable questionnaires were collected (return rate 65%). 81% of the physicians declared that they apply PSA testing for early PCa detection; of these, 58 and 15% would screen patients until the age of 80 and 90 years, respectively. In case of a pathological PSA level, 77% would immediately refer the patient to a urologist, while 13% would re-assess elevated PSA levels after 3-12 months. Based on MLRA, the following criteria were independently associated with a positive attitude towards PSA-based early PCa detection: specialisation (application of early detection more frequent for GPs and hospital-based ISs) (OR 3.12; p < 0.001), physicians who use exclusively GP or IS education (OR 3.95; p = 0.002), and physicians who recommend yearly PSA assessment after the age of 50 (OR 6.85; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS GPs and ISs frequently apply PSA-based early PCa detection. In doing so, 13% would initiate specific referral to a urologist in case of pathological PSA values too late. Improvement of this situation could possibly result from specific educational activities for non-urological physicians active in fields of urological core capabilities, which should be guided by joint boards of the national associations of urology and general medicine

Patient’s Desire and Real Availability Concerning Supportive Measures Accompanying Radical Prostatectomy: Differences between Certified Prostate Cancer Centers and Non-Certified Centers Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes within the Cross-Sectional Study Improve

Simple Summary This German multicenter study investigated the importance of different supportive measures offered to patients with prostate cancer who undergo surgery (radical prostatectomy). A number of these supportive measures are required during the certification of a urologic hospital as prostate cancer center. However, a broad scientific basis evaluating these measures from the patient’s perspective is still lacking. In this study, patients were asked to rate the relevance of several supportive measures and to estimate the effective availability of these different supportive measures at their urologic clinic about 15 months after surgery. Our study highlights that only six of fifteen different supportive measures were rated as very relevant by patients. None of these six supportive measures were offered more intensively at the certified clinics compared to the non-certified clinics according to the patients. Our study helps to identify those supportive measures with the highest subjective impact on patients in this setting. Abstract Certification as a prostate cancer center requires the offer of several supportive measures to patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). However, it remains unclear how patients estimate the relevance of these measures and whether the availability of these measures differs between certified prostate cancer centers (CERTs) and non-certified centers (NCERTs). In 20 German urologic centers, a survey comprising questions on the relevance of 15 supportive measures was sent to 1000 patients at a median of 15 months after RP. Additionally, patients were asked to rate the availability of these measures using a four-item Likert scale. The aim of this study was to compare these ratings between CERTs and NCERTs. The response rate was 75.0%. In total, 480 patients underwent surgery in CERTs, and 270 in NCERTs. Patients rated 6/15 supportive measures as very relevant: preoperative medical counselling concerning treatment options, a preoperative briefing answering last questions, preoperative pelvic floor exercises (PFEs), postoperative PFEs, postoperative social support, and postoperative rehabilitation addressing physical fitness recovery. These ratings showed no significant difference between CERTs and NCERTs (p = 0.133–0.676). In addition, 4/9 of the remaining criteria were rated as more detailed by patients in CERTs. IMPROVE represents the first study worldwide to evaluate a patient-reported assessment of the supportive measures accompanying RP. Pertinent offers vary marginally between CERTs and NCERTs

Patients Regret Their Choice of Therapy Significantly Less Frequently after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy as Opposed to Open Radical Prostatectomy: Patient-Reported Results of the Multicenter Cross-Sectional IMPROVE Study

Patient’s regret (PatR) concerning the choice of therapy represents a crucial endpoint for treatment evaluation after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCA). This study aims to compare PatR following robot-assisted (RARP) and open surgical approach (ORP). A survey comprising perioperative-functional criteria was sent to 1000 patients in 20 German centers at a median of 15 months after RP. Surgery-related items were collected from participating centers. To calculate PatR differences between approaches, a multivariate regressive base model (MVBM) was established incorporating surgical approach and demographic, center-specific, and tumor-specific criteria not primarily affected by surgical approach. An extended model (MVEM) was further adjusted by variables potentially affected by surgical approach. PatR was based on five validated questions ranging 0–100 (cutoff >15 defined as critical PatR). The response rate was 75.0%. After exclusion of patients with laparoscopic RP or stage M1b/c, the study cohort comprised 277/365 ORP/RARP patients. ORP/RARP patients had a median PatR of 15/10 (p 15, respectively (p 15 relative 46.8% less frequently (p < 0.001). Consensual decision making regarding surgical approach independently reduced PatR. With the MVEM, the independent impact of both surgical approach and of consensual decision making was confirmed. This study involving centers of different care levels showed significantly lower PatR following RARP

Do young patients with renal cell carcinoma feature a distinct outcome after surgery? A comparative analysis of patients age 40 years or less versus patients in the seventh decade of life based on the multinational CORONA database

PURPOSE: We analyzed the distinct clinicopathological features and prognosis of patients with renal cell carcinoma age 40 years or less compared to a reference group of patients 60 to 70 years old. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall 2,572 patients retrieved from a multicenter international database comprised of 6,234 patients with surgically treated renal cell carcinoma were included in this retrospective study. Clinical and histopathological features of 297 patients 40 years old or younger (4.8%) were compared to those of 2,275 patients (36.5%) 60 to 70 years old, who served as the reference group. Median followup was 59 months. The impact of young age and further parameters on disease specific mortality and all cause mortality was evaluated by multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. RESULTS: Young patients more frequently underwent nephron sparing surgery (27% vs 20%, p = 0.008) and regional lymph node dissection compared to older patients (38% vs 32%, p = 0.025). Organ confined tumor stage (81% vs 70%, p <0.001), smaller tumor diameter (4.5 vs 4.7 cm, p = 0.014) and chromophobe subtype (10% vs 4%, p <0.001) were significantly more frequent in young patients. On multivariate analysis older patients had a higher disease specific (HR 2.21, p <0.001) and all cause mortality (HR 3.05, p <0.001). The c indices for the Cox models were 0.87 and 0.78, respectively. However, integration of the variable age group did not significantly increase the predictive accuracy of the disease specific and all cause mortality models. CONCLUSIONS: Young patients with renal cell carcinoma (40 years old or younger) have significantly different frequencies of clinical and histopathological features, and a significantly lower all cause and disease specific mortality compared to patients 60 to 70 years old

Patients Regret Their Choice of Therapy Significantly Less Frequently after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy as Opposed to Open Radical Prostatectomy: Patient-Reported Results of the Multicenter Cross-Sectional IMPROVE Study

Simple Summary This multicenter study investigated the extent of patient's decision regret (PatR) in patients with prostate cancer comparing different surgical modalities. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has replaced open radical prostatectomy as the surgical standard of care in many countries worldwide. However, a broad scientific basis evaluating the difference in patient-relevant outcomes between both approaches is still lacking. In this context, PatR is increasingly moving into the scientific focus. Our study shows a critical PatR in slightly more than one third of patients about 15 months after surgery. Patients who underwent robot-assisted surgery, and also patients without postoperative urinary stress incontinence, report significantly lower PatR. Likewise, this difference was also demonstrated for patients who decided together with their treating physician on the specific surgical procedure (consensual decision making). Our study helps to further establish PatR as an important endpoint in the setting of radical prostatectomy and identifies criteria which may be addressed to reduce PatR. Patient's regret (PatR) concerning the choice of therapy represents a crucial endpoint for treatment evaluation after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCA). This study aims to compare PatR following robot-assisted (RARP) and open surgical approach (ORP). A survey comprising perioperative-functional criteria was sent to 1000 patients in 20 German centers at a median of 15 months after RP. Surgery-related items were collected from participating centers. To calculate PatR differences between approaches, a multivariate regressive base model (MVBM) was established incorporating surgical approach and demographic, center-specific, and tumor-specific criteria not primarily affected by surgical approach. An extended model (MVEM) was further adjusted by variables potentially affected by surgical approach. PatR was based on five validated questions ranging 0-100 (cutoff >15 defined as critical PatR). The response rate was 75.0%. After exclusion of patients with laparoscopic RP or stage M1b/c, the study cohort comprised 277/365 ORP/RARP patients. ORP/RARP patients had a median PatR of 15/10 (p 15, respectively (p 15 relative 46.8% less frequently (p < 0.001). Consensual decision making regarding surgical approach independently reduced PatR. With the MVEM, the independent impact of both surgical approach and of consensual decision making was confirmed. This study involving centers of different care levels showed significantly lower PatR following RARP