The effect of office based flexible and rigid cystoscopy on pain experience in female patients

Purpose: Rigid and flexible cystoscopies are both routinely used in female patients. Literature is conflicting whether flexible cystoscopy is less painful compared to rigid cystoscopy. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate whether using flexible cystoscopy leads to less discomfort and pain compared to rigid cystoscopy in female patients who underwent first time cystoscopy. Materials and Methods: One hundred eighty-nine female patients, who never had undergone cystoscopy, were randomized into 2 groups: 92 patients underwent rigid cystoscopy and 97 patients flexible cystoscopy. Directly after the cystoscopy procedure all patients were asked to fill out their pain experience on a 100-mm visual analogue pain scale (VAS). Results: Median VAS score was significantly lower for women undergoing flexible cystoscopy (0 [0–20]) compared to rigid cystoscopy (15 [0–38], p<0.001). In addition, age was inversely associated with VAS score, indicating that younger females experienced more pain (R=−0.30, p=0.001). The use of flexible cystoscopy was associated with a decrease in VAS score and remained significant after adjustment for age, sex of urologist, performing urologist and indication (standardized β =−0.17, p=0.048). Conclusions: The use of flexible cystoscopy resulted in a significantly lower pain experience compared to rigid cystoscopy. Based on patient’s pain experience during cystoscopy, this study implicates to use flexible cystoscopy in female patients who undergo first time cystoscopy

Validation of Claims Data for Absorbing Pads as a Measure for Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy, a National Cross-Sectional Analysis

The use of healthcare insurance claims data for urinary incontinence (UI) pads has the potential to serve as an objective measure for assessing post-radical prostatectomy UI rates, but its validity for this purpose has not been established. The aim of this study is to correlate claims data with Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for UI pad use. Patients who underwent RP in the Netherlands between September 2019 and February 2020 were included. Incontinence was defined as the daily use of ≥1 pad(s). Claims data for UI pads at 12-15 months after RP were extracted from a nationwide healthcare insurance database in the Netherlands. Participating hospitals provided PROMS data. In total, 1624 patients underwent RP. Corresponding data of 845 patients was provided by nine participating hospitals, of which 416 patients were matched with complete PROMs data. Claims data and PROMs showed 31% and 45% post-RP UI (≥1 pads). UI according to claims data compared with PROMs had a sensitivity of 62%, specificity of 96%, PPV of 92%, NPV of 75% and accuracy of 81%. The agreement between both methods was moderate (κ = 0.60). Claims data for pads moderately align with PROMs in assessing post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence and could be considered as a conservative quality indicator.</p

Development and External Validation of a Novel Nomogram to Predict Side-specific Extraprostatic Extension in Patients with Prostate Cancer Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND: Prediction of side-specific extraprostatic extension (EPE) is crucial in selecting patients for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP). OBJECTIVE: To develop and externally validate nomograms including multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) information to predict side-specific EPE. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis of 1870 consecutive prostate cancer patients who underwent robot-assisted RP from 2014 to 2018 at three institutions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Four multivariable logistic regression models were established, including combinations of patient-based and side-specific variables: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density, highest ipsilateral International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) biopsy grade, ipsilateral percentage of positive cores on systematic biopsy, and side-specific clinical stage assessed by both digital rectal examination and mpMRI. Discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]), calibration, and net benefit of these models were assessed in the development cohort and two external validation cohorts. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: On external validation, AUCs of the four models ranged from 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.88) to 0.83 (95% CI 0.72-0.90) in cohort 1 and from 0.77 (95% CI 0.62-0.87) to 0.78 (95% CI 0.64-0.88) in cohort 2. The three models including mpMRI staging information resulted in relatively higher AUCs compared with the model without mpMRI information. No major differences between the four models regarding net benefit were established. The model based on PSA density, ISUP grade, and mpMRI T stage was superior in terms of calibration. Using this model with a cut-off of 20%, 1980/2908 (68%) prostatic lobes without EPE would be found eligible for nerve sparing, whereas non-nerve sparing would be advised in 642/832 (77%) lobes with EPE. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis resulted in a simple and robust nomogram for the prediction of side-specific EPE, which should be used to select patients for nerve-sparing RP. PATIENT SUMMARY: We developed a prediction model that can be used to assess accurately the likelihood of tumour extension outside the prostate. This tool can guide patient selection for safe nerve-sparing surgery

External validation of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre and Briganti nomograms for the prediction of lymph node involvement of prostate cancer using clinical stage assessed by magnetic resonance imaging

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of using clinical stage assessed by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) on the performance of two established nomograms for the prediction of pelvic lymph node involvement (LNI) in patients with prostate cancer. Patients and Methods: Patients undergoing robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) from 2015 to 2019 at three teaching hospitals were retrospectively evaluated. Risk of LNI was calculated four times for each patient, using clinical tumour stage (T-stage) assessed by digital rectal examination (DRE) and by mpMRI, in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC; 2018) and Briganti (2012) nomograms. Discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]), calibration, and the net benefit of these four strategies were assessed and compared. Results: A total of 1062 patients were included, of whom 301 (28%) had histologically proven LNI. Using DRE T-stage resulted in AUCs of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70–0.72) for the MSKCC and 0.73 (95% CI 0.72–0.74) for the Briganti nomogram. Using mpMRI T-stage, the AUCs were 0.72 (95% CI 0.71–0.73) for the MSKCC and 0.75 (95% CI 0.74–0.76) for the Briganti nomogram. mpMRI T-stage resulted in equivalent calibration compared with DRE T-stage. Combined use of mpMRI T-stage and the Briganti 2012 nomogram was shown to be superior in terms of AUC, calibration, and net benefit. Use of mpMRI T-stage led to increased sensitivity for the detection of LNI for all risk thresholds in both models, countered by a decreased specificity, compared with DRE T-stage. Conclusion: T-stage as assessed by mpMRI is an appropriate alternative for T-stage assessed by DRE to determine nomogram-based risk of LNI in patients with prostate cancer, and was associated with improved model performance of both the MSKCC 2018 and Briganti 2012 nomograms

External validation of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre and Briganti nomograms for the prediction of lymph node involvement of prostate cancer using clinical stage assessed by magnetic resonance imaging

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of using clinical stage assessed by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) on the performance of two established nomograms for the prediction of pelvic lymph node involvement (LNI) in patients with prostate cancer. Patients and Methods: Patients undergoing robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) from 2015 to 2019 at three teaching hospitals were retrospectively evaluated. Risk of LNI was calculated four times for each patient, using clinical tumour stage (T-stage) assessed by digital rectal examination (DRE) and by mpMRI, in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC; 2018) and Briganti (2012) nomograms. Discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]), calibration, and the net benefit of these four strategies were assessed and compared. Results: A total of 1062 patients were included, of whom 301 (28%) had histologically proven LNI. Using DRE T-stage resulted in AUCs of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70–0.72) for the MSKCC and 0.73 (95% CI 0.72–0.74) for the Briganti nomogram. Using mpMRI T-stage, the AUCs were 0.72 (95% CI 0.71–0.73) for the MSKCC and 0.75 (95% CI 0.74–0.76) for the Briganti nomogram. mpMRI T-stage resulted in equivalent calibration compared with DRE T-stage. Combined use of mpMRI T-stage and the Briganti 2012 nomogram was shown to be superior in terms of AUC, calibration, and net benefit. Use of mpMRI T-stage led to increased sensitivity for the detection of LNI for all risk thresholds in both models, countered by a decreased specificity, compared with DRE T-stage. Conclusion: T-stage as assessed by mpMRI is an appropriate alternative for T-stage assessed by DRE to determine nomogram-based risk of LNI in patients with prostate cancer, and was associated with improved model performance of both the MSKCC 2018 and Briganti 2012 nomograms

Validation of Claims Data for Absorbing Pads as a Measure for Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy, a National Cross-Sectional Analysis

The use of healthcare insurance claims data for urinary incontinence (UI) pads has the potential to serve as an objective measure for assessing post-radical prostatectomy UI rates, but its validity for this purpose has not been established. The aim of this study is to correlate claims data with Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for UI pad use. Patients who underwent RP in the Netherlands between September 2019 and February 2020 were included. Incontinence was defined as the daily use of ≥1 pad(s). Claims data for UI pads at 12-15 months after RP were extracted from a nationwide healthcare insurance database in the Netherlands. Participating hospitals provided PROMS data. In total, 1624 patients underwent RP. Corresponding data of 845 patients was provided by nine participating hospitals, of which 416 patients were matched with complete PROMs data. Claims data and PROMs showed 31% and 45% post-RP UI (≥1 pads). UI according to claims data compared with PROMs had a sensitivity of 62%, specificity of 96%, PPV of 92%, NPV of 75% and accuracy of 81%. The agreement between both methods was moderate (κ = 0.60). Claims data for pads moderately align with PROMs in assessing post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence and could be considered as a conservative quality indicator.</p

Validation of Claims Data for Absorbing Pads as a Measure for Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy, a National Cross-Sectional Analysis

The use of healthcare insurance claims data for urinary incontinence (UI) pads has the potential to serve as an objective measure for assessing post-radical prostatectomy UI rates, but its validity for this purpose has not been established. The aim of this study is to correlate claims data with Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for UI pad use. Patients who underwent RP in the Netherlands between September 2019 and February 2020 were included. Incontinence was defined as the daily use of ≥1 pad(s). Claims data for UI pads at 12-15 months after RP were extracted from a nationwide healthcare insurance database in the Netherlands. Participating hospitals provided PROMS data. In total, 1624 patients underwent RP. Corresponding data of 845 patients was provided by nine participating hospitals, of which 416 patients were matched with complete PROMs data. Claims data and PROMs showed 31% and 45% post-RP UI (≥1 pads). UI according to claims data compared with PROMs had a sensitivity of 62%, specificity of 96%, PPV of 92%, NPV of 75% and accuracy of 81%. The agreement between both methods was moderate (κ = 0.60). Claims data for pads moderately align with PROMs in assessing post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence and could be considered as a conservative quality indicator.</p