Randomized Trial of Transverse vs Vertical Extraction Site Incision After Robotic Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Incisional hernias are a frequent complication following robotic radical prostatectomy. Observational data in men undergoing robotic prostatectomy suggest that transverse closure resulted in lower hernia rates than vertical closure. We sought to compare the incidence of incisional hernia after robotic radical prostatectomy after vertical and transverse extraction site closure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a clinically integrated, crossover, cluster randomized trial at a single tertiary referral center (January 2016-September 2021) comparing the rate of hernia after transverse vs vertical extraction site excision in 1356 patients treated with minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. The primary outcome was between-group incidence of incisional hernia within 15 months of prostatectomy defined by physical examination and self-reported patient surveys. RESULTS: Overall, 197 (20%) patients developed an incisional hernia within 15 months, 797 did not have an incisional hernia within this period, and 362 had missing outcome data regarding incisional hernia. We found no significant difference in hernia rates between the 2 incision types (absolute between-group difference 1.8%; 95% CI -3.4%, 6.6%; P = .5) in the primary analysis or in the 3 sensitivity analyses. Notably, because of the inclusive definition of hernia used, these data cannot be used as an estimate of the true prevalence of incisional hernia. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons should choose the incision and closure approach they are most comfortable with when extracting specimens. Studies of modifications to the surgical technique are best conducted as randomized comparisons, and the clinically integrated, crossover, cluster randomized trial allows large trials to be completed at a single center and at low cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01407263.

Randomized trials of PSA screening.

BACKGROUND: The role of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in prostate cancer (PCa) screening has evolved over recent decades with multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) spurring guideline changes. At present, controversy exists due to the indolent nature of many prostate cancers and associated risks of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. This review examines major RCTs evaluating PSA screening to inform clinical practices. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We summarize findings from primary RCTs investigating PSA screening's impact on PCa mortality and incidence: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), and the Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP). RESULTS: The PLCO Trial randomized men to annual PSA and DRE screening or usual care, reporting no significant difference in PCa mortality between groups at 17 years (RR 0.93, [95% CI: 0.81-1.08]), yet significantly increased detection and concomitant decreased detection in Gleason 6 (RR 1.17, [95% CI: 1.11-1.23]) and 8-10 disease (RR 0.89, [95% CI: 0.80-0.99]) in the screening group, respectively. The ESPRC Trial randomized men across seven European countries to PSA screening every 2-4 years or usual care, noting a 20% reduction in PCa mortality at 9 years (RR 0.81, [95% CI: 0.65-0.98]) and significant decrease in metastatic disease at 12 years (RR 0.70, [95% CI: 0.60-0.82]). The CAP Trial assessed a single PSA screening test's impact on PCa mortality yielding no significant difference in PCa mortality at 10 years (RR 0.96, [95% CI: 0.85-1.08]). Limitations amongst studies included high contamination between study arms and low compliance with study protocols. CONCLUSIONS: While the CAP and initial PLCO trials showed no significant reduction in PCa mortality, the ERSPC demonstrated a 21% reduction at 13 years, with further benefits at extended follow-up. Differences in outcomes are attributed to variations in trial design, contamination, adherence rates, and PSA thresholds. Future studies are needed focus on optimizing screening intervals, targeting high-risk populations, and incorporating non-invasive diagnostic tools to improve screening efficacy and reduce associated harms.

Gabapentin and Rapidity of Recovery Among Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Ambulatory Uro-Oncologic Surgeries.

INTRODUCTION: Gabapentin has been used in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways for pain control for patients undergoing ambulatory uro-oncologic surgery; however, it may cause undesirable side effects. We studied the causal association between gabapentin and rapidity of recovery and perioperative pain management after minimally invasive uro-oncologic surgery. METHODS: We identified 2397 patients ≤ 65 years undergoing prostatectomies or nephrectomies between 2018 and 2022; 131 (5.5%) did not receive gabapentin. We tested the effect of gabapentin use on time of discharge and perioperative opioid consumption, respectively, using multivariable linear regression adjusting for potential confounders including age, gender, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and surgery type. RESULTS: On adjusted analysis, we found no evidence of a difference in discharge time among those who did vs did not receive gabapentin (adjusted difference 0.07 hours shorter on gabapentin; 95% CI -0.17, 0.31; P = .6). There was no evidence of a difference in intraoperative opioid consumption by gabapentin receipt (adjusted difference -1.5 morphine milligram equivalents; 95% CI -4.2, 1.1; P = .3) or probability of being in the top quartile of postoperative opioid consumption within 24 hours (adjusted difference 4.2%; 95% CI -4.8%, 13%; P = .4). We saw no important differences in confounders by gabapentin receipt suggesting causal conclusions are justified. CONCLUSIONS: Our confidence intervals did not include clinically meaningful benefits from gabapentin, when used with an ERAS protocol, in terms of length of stay or perioperative opioid use. These results support the omission of gabapentin from ERAS protocols for minimally invasive uro-oncologic surgeries.

Performance of 4Kscore as a Reflex Test to Prostate-specific Antigen in the GÖTEBORG-2 Prostate Cancer Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether adding 4Kscore as a reflex test to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) could improve the screening algorithm for prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: In the GÖTEBORG-2 PC screening trial, 38 000men (50-60 yr) were invited to PSA testing and, if elevated, followed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). For 571 men with PSA ≥3.0 ng/ml and evaluable outcomes, 4Kscore was calculated. The performance using a prespecified 4Kscore cutoff of 7.5% was evaluated. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: The area under the curve for 4Kscore to identify intermediate- and high-risk PC was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.79-0.89), and the positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 15% (0.12-0.20) and 99% (97-100%), respectively. Of the 54 men diagnosed with intermediate- or high-grade PC, two had a 4Kscore cutoff below 7.5%, both with organ-confined intermediate-risk PC. Per 1000 men with elevated PSA, adding 4Kscore would have resulted in avoidance of MRI for 408 (41%) men, biopsies for 95 (28% reduction) men, and diagnosis of 23 low-grade cancers (23% reduction) while delaying the diagnosis of four men with intermediate-grade cancers (4%). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Including 4Kscore as a reflex test for men with elevated PSA reduces the need for MRI and biopsy markedly, and results in less overdiagnosis of low-grade PC at the cost of delaying the diagnosis of intermediate-grade PC in a few men. These results add further evidence for including new blood-based biomarkers in addition to PSA to improve the harm and benefit ratio of PC screening and reduce the need for resource-demanding MRI and biopsies. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, 4Kscore, a blood-based biomarker, as a reflex test for men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA), reduces the need for magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy. These results support the inclusion of new blood-based biomarkers in addition to PSA.

Prostate Cancer Foundation Screening Guidelines for Black Men in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, Black men are at highest risk for being diagnosed with and dying from prostate cancer. Given this disparity, we examined relevant data to establish clinical prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening guidelines for Black men in the United States. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search identified 1848 unique publications for screening. Of those screened, 287 studies were selected for full-text review, and 264 were considered relevant and form the basis for these guidelines. The numbers were reported according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. RESULTS: Three randomized controlled trials provided Level 1 evidence that regular PSA screening of men 50 to 74 years of age of average risk reduced metastasis and prostate cancer death at 16 to 22 years of follow-up. The best available evidence specifically for Black men comes from observational and modeling studies that consider age to obtain a baseline PSA, frequency of testing, and age when screening should end. Cohort studies suggest that discussions about baseline PSA testing between Black men and their clinicians should begin in the early 40s, and data from modeling studies indicate prostate cancer develops 3 to 9 years earlier in Black men compared with non-Black men. Lowering the age for baseline PSA testing to 40 to 45 years of age from 50 to 55 years of age, followed by regular screening until 70 years of age (informed by PSA values and health factors), could reduce prostate cancer mortality in Black men (approximately 30% relative risk reduction) without substantially increasing overdiagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines recommend that Black men should obtain information about PSA screening for prostate cancer. Among Black men who elect screening, baseline PSA testing should occur between ages 40 and 45. Depending on PSA value and health status, annual screening should be strongly considered. (Supported by the Prostate Cancer Foundation.).

Incorporating the Distress Thermometer into preoperative vital signs in patients undergoing ambulatory oncology surgery: a pilot feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the extensive literature supporting distress screening at relevant transitions of care, the implementation of distress screening remains limited in ambulatory surgery settings. Our multidisciplinary team completed a pilot study to assess the feasibility and acceptability of including a standardized psychosocial assessment, the Distress Thermometer (DT), with the collection of admission vital signs by Patient Care Technicians (PCTs) in patients undergoing oncology surgery. METHODS: We assessed feasibility by the response rate and acceptability through discussions with the PCTs. RESULTS: Of the 189 men who underwent radical prostatectomy at our center, 71 were approached with the DT scale, and all patients who were approached completed the DT with no missing data. The staff reported no issues with data collection. A total of 21/71 (30%; 95% CI 19%, 42%) reported a clinically relevant distress DT ≥ 4. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated that incorporating the DT into vital sign collection was feasible, acceptable, and provided a valuable assessment.

Provider Perceptions of an Electronic Health Record Prostate Cancer Screening Tool.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a focus group to assess the attitudes of primary care physicians (PCPs) toward prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-screening algorithms, perceptions of using decision support tools, and features that would make such tools feasible to implement. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team (primary care, urology, behavioral sciences, bioinformatics) developed the decision support tool that was presented to a focus group of 10 PCPs who also filled out a survey. Notes and audio-recorded transcripts were analyzed using Thematic Content Analysis. RESULTS: The survey showed that PCPs followed different guidelines. In total, 7/10 PCPs agreed that engaging in shared decision-making about PSA screening was burdensome. The majority (9/10) had never used a decision aid for PSA screening. Although 70% of PCPs felt confident about their ability to discuss PSA screening, 90% still felt a need for a provider-facing platform to assist in these discussions. Three major themes emerged: (1) confirmatory reactions regarding the importance, innovation, and unmet need for a decision support tool embedded in the electronic health record; (2) issues around implementation and application of the tool in clinic workflow and PCPs' own clinical bias; and (3) attitudes/reflections regarding discrepant recommendations from various guideline groups that cause confusion. CONCLUSION: There was overwhelmingly positive support for the need for a provider-facing decision support tool to assist with PSA-screening decisions in the primary care setting. PCPs appreciated that the tool would allow flexibility for clinical judgment and documentation of shared decision-making. Incorporation of suggestions from this focus group into a second version of the tool will be used in subsequent pilot testing.

A Provider-Facing Decision Support Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to pilot test an electronic health record-embedded decision support tool to facilitate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening discussions in the primary care setting. METHODS: We pilot-tested a novel decision support tool that was used by 10 primary care physicians (PCPs) for 6 months, followed by a survey. The tool comprised (1) a risk-stratified algorithm, (2) a tool for facilitating shared decision-making (Simple Schema), (3) three best practice advisories (BPAs: <45, 45-75, and >75 years), and (4) a health maintenance module for scheduling automated reminders about PSA rescreening. RESULTS: All PCPs found the tool feasible, acceptable, and clear to use. Eight out of ten PCPs reported that the tool made PSA screening conversations somewhat or much easier. Before using the tool, 70% of PCPs felt confident in their ability to discuss PSA screening with their patient, and this improved to 100% after the tool was used by PCPs for 6 months. PCPs found the BPAs for eligible (45-75 years) and older men (>75 years) more useful than the BPA for younger men (<45 years). Among the 10 PCPs, 60% found the Simple Schema to be very useful, and 50% found the health maintenance module to be extremely or very useful. Most PCPs reported the components of the tool to be at least somewhat useful, with 10% finding them to be very burdensome. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the tool, which is notable given the marked low acceptance of existing tools. All PCPs reported that they would consider continuing to use the tool in their clinic and were likely or very likely to recommend the tool to a colleague.

Electronic Patient-Reported Symptoms After Ambulatory Cancer Surgery.

Importance: Complex cancer procedures are now performed in the ambulatory surgery setting. Remote symptom monitoring (RSM) with electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) can identify patients at risk for acute hospital encounters. Defining normal recovery is needed to set patient expectations and optimize clinical team responses to manage evolving problems in real time. Objective: To describe the patterns of postoperative recovery among patients undergoing ambulatory cancer surgery with RSM using an ePRO platform-the Recovery Tracker. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study, patients who underwent 1 of 5 of the most common procedures (prostatectomy, nephrectomy, mastectomy, hysterectomy, or thyroidectomy) at the Josie Robertson Surgery Center at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from September 2016 to June 2022. Patients completed the Recovery Tracker, a brief ePRO platform assessing symptoms for 10 days after surgery. Data were analyzed from September 2022 to May 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Symptom severity and interference were estimated by postoperative day and procedure. Results: A total of 12 433 patients were assigned 110 936 surveys. Of these patients, 7874 (63%) were female, and the median (IQR) age at surgery was 57 (47-65) years. The survey response rate was 87% (10 814 patients responding to at least 1 of 10 daily surveys). Among patients who submitted at least 1 survey, the median (IQR) number of surveys submitted was 7 (4-8), and each assessment took a median (IQR) of 1.7 (1.2-2.5) minutes to complete. Symptom burden was modest in this population, with the highest severity on postoperative days 1 to 3. Pain was moderate initially and steadily improved. Fatigue was reported by 6120 patients (57%) but was rarely severe. Maximum pain and fatigue responses (very severe) were reported by 324 of 10 814 patients (3%) and 106 of 10 814 patients (1%), respectively. The maximum pain severity (severe or very severe) was highest after nephrectomy (92 of 332 [28%]), followed by mastectomy with reconstruction (817 of 3322 [25%]) and prostatectomy (744 of 3543 [21%]). Nausea (occasionally, frequently, or almost constantly) was common and experienced on multiple days by 1485 of 9300 patients (16%), but vomiting was less common (139 of 10 812 [1%]). Temperature higher than 38 °C was reported by 740 of 10 812 (7%). Severe or very severe shortness of breath was reported by 125 of 10 813 (1%). Conclusions and Relevance: Defining detailed postoperative symptom burden through this analysis provides valuable data to inform further implementation and maintenance of RSM programs in surgical oncology patients. These data can enhance patient education, set expectations, and support research to allow iterative improvement of clinical care based on the patient-reported experience after discharge.

Shared decision-making before prostate cancer screening decisions.

Decisions around prostate-specific antigen screening require a patient-centred approach, considering the benefits and risks of potential harm. Using shared decision-making (SDM) can improve men's knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. SDM is supported by evidence, but can be difficult to implement in clinical settings. An inclusive definition of SDM was used in order to determine the prevalence of SDM in prostate cancer screening decisions. Despite consensus among guidelines endorsing SDM practice, the prevalence of SDM occurring before the decision to undergo or forgo prostate-specific antigen testing varied between 11% and 98%, and was higher in studies in which SDM was self-reported by physicians than in patient-reported recollections and observed practices. The influence of trust and continuity in physician-patient relationships were identified as facilitators of SDM, whereas common barriers included limited appointment times and poor health literacy. Decision aids, which can help physicians to convey health information within a limited time frame and give patients increased autonomy over decisions, are underused and were not shown to clearly influence whether SDM occurs. Future studies should focus on methods to facilitate the use of SDM in clinical settings.

Patient-reported Side Effects 1 Year After Radical Prostatectomy or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A Register-based Nationwide Study.

BACKGROUND: Data on functional and psychological side effects following curative treatment for prostate cancer are lacking from large, contemporary, unselected, population-based cohorts. OBJECTIVE: To assess urinary symptoms, bowel disturbances, erectile dysfunction (ED), and quality of life (QoL) 12 mo after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and radiotherapy (RT) using patient-reported outcome measures in the Swedish prostate cancer database. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a nationwide, population-based, cohort study in Sweden of men who underwent primary RARP or RT between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Absolute proportions and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using multivariable logistic regression, with adjustment for clinical characteristics. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 2557 men underwent RARP and 1741 received RT. Men who underwent RT were older (69 vs 65 yr) and had more comorbidities at baseline. After RARP, 13% of men experienced incontinence, compared to 6% after RT. The frequency of urinary bother was similar, at 18% after RARP and 18% after RT. Urgency to defecate was reported by 14% of men after RARP and 34% after RT. At 1 yr, 73% of men had ED after RARP, and 77% after RT. High QoL was reported by 85% of men after RARP and 78% of men after RT. On multivariable regression analysis, RT was associated with lower risks of urinary incontinence (OR 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.33), urinary bother (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.95), and ED (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46-0.65), but higher risk of bowel symptoms (OR 2.86, 95% CI 2.42-3.39). QoL was higher after RARP than after RT (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.12-1.61). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term specific side effects after curative treatment for prostate cancer significantly differed between RARP and RT in this large and unselected cohort. Nevertheless, the risk of urinary bother was lower after RT, while higher QoL was common after RARP. PATIENT SUMMARY: In our study of patients treated for prostate cancer, urinary bother and overall quality of life are comparable at 1 year after surgical removal of the prostate in comparison to radiotherapy, despite substantial differences in other side effects.

Opportunistic prostate-specific antigen testing in Norwegian men: a public health challenge.

OBJECTIVE: To describe age-specific prostate-specific antigen (PSA) distributions and resulting prostate cancer diagnoses that arise from population-wide opportunistic PSA testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Over 8 million PSA tests were performed on >1.4 million Norwegian men from 2000 to 2020. During this period 43 486 men were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer. Most of the PSA testing reflected opportunistic testing. Age-specific PSA value distributions were constructed for men aged 45-75 years with and without prostate cancer. RESULTS: The distributions of PSA values in men with and without prostate cancer widened with age and overlapped extensively from 3 to 7 ng/mL. Localised prostate cancer diagnoses increased 10-fold from the age of 45 to 75 years. PSA testing identified intermediate- or high-grade cancers in 21% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19-23%) of men aged 50-54 years and 42% (95% CI 41-43%) of men aged 70-74 years. Grade group (GG)1, GG2, GG3 and ≥GG4 constituted 49%, 31%, 10% and 10% of cancers identified at age 50-54 years and 26%, 26%, 18%, and 30% of cancers identified at age 70-74 years. CONCLUSION: Opportunistic PSA testing increases with ageing and often generates values that cannot discriminate benign prostate enlargement from prostate cancer. A clinical cascade using additional imaging or serum tests is necessary to avoid negative biopsies and the overdiagnosis of indolent disease. The declining specificity of PSA testing with ageing poses a significant public health challenge especially among older men aged ≥70 years.

Implementation of Physical Therapist Services for Men Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy: An Administrative Case Report.

OBJECTIVE: Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among men in the USA, and radical prostatectomy (RP) is the primary surgical treatment option. With an increasing number of men undergoing RP and surviving prostate cancer, clinical management strategies have broadened to improve the preoperative and postoperative patient experience and minimize treatment-related functional consequences. Urinary incontinence is a predictable functional consequence of RP. Recent reviews recommend preoperative and postoperative physical therapist services as the standard of care for men undergoing RP to decrease the severity of urinary incontinence and improve patients' quality of life. Despite compelling evidence, the routine provision of physical therapist services preoperatively and postoperatively for men undergoing RP is limited. The purpose of this case report is to describe the implementation of preoperative and postoperative physical therapist services for men undergoing RP in a US health care system using the knowledge-to-action process and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research frameworks. CASE DESCRIPTION: The implementation process included 4 steps: (1) development of a preoperative and postoperative physical therapist services program; (2) identification of barriers and enablers for implementation; (3) implementation of the program; and (4) evaluation of the effectiveness of the implemented program. RESULTS: Outcomes from the implementation of a physical therapist services program for men undergoing RP included lower urinary incontinence rates, improved patient satisfaction, and increased physical therapist utilization. CONCLUSION: This case report documents the implementation of physical therapist services for men undergoing RP. The use of implementation frameworks enabled the identification of unique enablers, barriers, and strategies for the implementation of physical therapist services for men undergoing RP. IMPACT: Implementing preoperative and postoperative physical therapist services for men undergoing RP improves patient outcomes. The implementation process and outcomes can be considered by other health care systems when developing preoperative and postoperative physical therapist services for men undergoing RP.

Pain as bad as you can imagine or extremely severe pain? A randomized controlled trial comparing two pain scale anchors.

BACKGROUND: A common method of pain assessment is the numerical rating scale, where patients are asked to rate their pain on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is "no pain" and 10 is "pain as bad as you can imagine". We hypothesize such language is suboptimal as it involves a test of a cognitive skill, imagination, in the assessment of symptom severity. METHODS: We used a large-scale online research registry, ResearchMatch, to conduct a randomized controlled trial to compare the distributions of pain scores of two different pain scale anchors. We recruited adults located in the United States who reported a chronic pain problem (> 3 months) and were currently in pain. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive pain assessment based on a modified Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), where the anchor for a score of 10 was either "extremely severe pain", or the original BPI, with the anchor "pain as bad as you can imagine". Participants in both groups also answered additional questions about pain, other symptomatology and creativity. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 405 participants for the modified and 424 for the original BPI. Distribution of responses to pain questions were similar between groups (all p-values ≥ 0.12). We did not see evidence that the relationship between pain score and the anchor text differed based on self-perceived creativity (all interaction p-values ≥ 0.2). However, in the key analysis, correlations between current pain assessments and known correlates (fatigue, anxiety, depression, current pain compared to a typical day, pain compared to other people) were stronger for "extreme" vs. "imaginable" anchor text (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Pain rating scales should utilize the modified anchor text "extremely severe pain" instead of "pain as bad as you can imagine". Further research should explore the effects of anchors for other symptoms.

A brief mind-body intervention to reduce pain and anxiety during prostate needle biopsy: a clinically integrated randomized controlled trial with 2-staged consent.

OBJECTIVES: Many patients experience pain, anxiety, and discomfort with prostate biopsy, which may discourage enrollment in active surveillance programs or follow-up biopsy. Guided meditation can significantly reduce pain and anxiety during percutaneous biopsy. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a brief mind-body intervention on patient-reported outcomes after prostate biopsy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a clinically-integrated randomized controlled trial of a brief mind-body intervention during biopsy compared to usual care at a single tertiary care center from 2018 to 2022. All patients offered transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in the clinic with local anesthesia were eligible for enrollment. This clinically integrated trial was conducted simultaneously with a randomized controlled trial of 1-stage and 2-stage consent. The primary outcome was patient-reported pain, anxiety, discomfort, and tolerability on a visual-analog scale (0-10). A 15% improvement was prespecified as clinically relevant. We compared the proportion of men in each arm reporting a severe score (7-10) on any of the 4 scales using Fisher's exact test and then compared means for each scale separately using ANCOVA with randomization stratum (first vs. prior biopsy) as a covariate. RESULTS: Of 263 eligible patients, 238 enrolled (119 per arm). One hundred seventy-two (72%) enrolled with 2-stage consent. A total of 37/94 (39%) and 38/102 (37%) patients randomized to usual care and intervention, respectively, reported severe scores in any of the 4 domains, a difference of 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] -13, 17%, P = 0.8). There was no evidence of a difference in mean postbiopsy anxiety (P = 0.3), discomfort (P = 0.09), pain (P = 0.4) or tolerability scores (P = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: A clinically meaningful benefit for this brief mind-body intervention during prostate biopsy is unlikely. Robust patient enrollment is feasible using 2-stage consent.

Active surveillance should be considered for select men with Grade Group 2 prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer must balance patient preferences, oncologic risk, and preservation of sexual, urinary and bowel function. While Active Surveillance (AS) is the recommended option for men with Grade Group 1 (Gleason Score 3 + 3 = 6) prostate cancer without other intermediate-risk features, men with Grade Group 2 (Gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7) are typically recommended active treatment. For select patients, AS can be a possible initial management strategy for men with Grade Group 2. Herein, we review current urology guidelines and the urologic literature regarding recommendations and evidence for AS for this patient group. MAIN BODY: AS benefits men with prostate cancer by maintaining their current quality of life and avoiding treatment side effects. AS protocols with close follow up always allow for an option to change course and pursue curative treatment. All the major guideline organizations now include Grade Group 2 disease with slightly differing definitions of eligibility based on risk using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score, clinical stage, and other factors. Selected men with Grade Group 2 on AS have similar rates of deferred treatment and metastasis to men with Grade Group 1 on AS. There is a growing body of evidence from randomized controlled trials, large observational (prospective and retrospective) cohorts that confirm the oncologic safety of AS for these men. While some men will inevitably conclude AS at some point due to clinical reclassification with biopsy or imaging, some men may be able to stay on AS until transition to watchful waiting (WW). Magnetic resonance imaging is an important tool to confirm AS eligibility, to monitor progression and guide prostate biopsy. CONCLUSION: AS is a viable initial management option for well-informed and select men with Grade Group 2 prostate cancer, low volume of pattern 4, and no other adverse clinicopathologic findings following a well-defined monitoring protocol. In the modern era of AS, urologists have tools at their disposal to better stage patients at initial diagnosis, risk stratify patients, and gain information on the biologic potential of a patient's prostate cancer.

A comparison of brief versus explicit descriptors for verbal rating scales: interrupted time series design.

BACKGROUND: Verbal rating scales (VRS) are widely used in patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. At our institution, patients complete an online instrument using VRSs with a five-point brief response scale to assess symptoms as part of routine follow-up after ambulatory cancer surgery. We received feedback from patients that the brief VRS descriptors such as "mild" or "somewhat" were vague. We added explicit descriptors to our VRSs, for instance, "Mild: I can generally ignore my pain" for pain severity or "Somewhat: I can do some things okay, but most of my daily activities are harder because of fatigue" for fatigue interference. We then compared responses before and after this change was made. METHODS: The symptoms investigated were pain, fatigue and nausea. Our hypothesis was that the explicit descriptors would reduce overall variance. We therefore compared the coefficient of variation of scores and tested the association between symptoms scores and known predictors thereof. We also compared time to completion between questionnaires with and without the additional descriptors. RESULTS: A total of 17,500 patients undergoing 21,497 operations were assigned questionnaires in the period before the descriptors were added; allowing for a short transition period, 1,417 patients having 1436 operations were assigned questionnaires with the additional descriptors. Symptom scores were about 10% lower with the additional descriptors but the coefficient of variation was slightly higher. Moreover, the only statistically significant difference between groups for association with a known predictor favored the item without the additional language for nausea severity (p = 0.004). Total completion time was longer when the instrument included the additional descriptors, particularly the first and second time that the questionnaire was completed. CONCLUSIONS: Adding descriptors to a VRS of post-operative symptoms did not improve scale properties in patients undergoing ambulatory cancer surgery. We have removed the additional descriptors from our tool. We recommend further comparative psychometric research using data from PROs collected as part of routine clinical care.

A randomized comparison of two-stage versus traditional one-stage consent for a low-stakes randomized trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: It has been proposed that informed consent for randomized trials should be split into two stages, with the purported advantage of decreased information overload and patient anxiety. We compared patient understanding, anxiety and decisional quality between two-stage and traditional one-stage consent. METHODS: We approached patients at an academic cancer center for a low-stakes trial of a mind-body intervention for procedural distress during prostate biopsy. Patients were randomized to hear about the trial by either one- or two-stage consent (n = 66 vs n = 59). Patient-reported outcomes included Quality of Informed Consent (0-100); general and consent-specific anxiety and decisional conflict, burden, and regret. RESULTS: Quality of Informed Consent scores were non-significantly superior for two-stage consent, by 0.9 points (95% confidence interval = -2.3, 4.2, p = 0.6) for objective and 1.1 points (95% CI = -4.8, 7.0, p = 0.7) for subjective understanding. Differences between groups for anxiety and decisional outcomes were similarly small. In a post hoc analysis, consent-related anxiety was lower among two-stage control patients, likely because scores were measured close to the time of biopsy in the two-stage patients receiving the experimental intervention. CONCLUSION: Two-stage consent maintains patient understanding of randomized trials, with some evidence of lowered patient anxiety. Further research is warranted on two-stage consent in higher-stakes settings.