[Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer-data from 17,149 patients from 125 certified centers]. / Harninkontinenz nach radikaler Prostatektomie beim Prostatakarzinom ­ aktuelle Daten von 17.149 Patienten aus 125 zertifizierten Zentren.

BACKGROUND: In addition to erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence is the most common functional limitation after radical prostatectomy (RPE) for prostate cancer (PCa). The German S3 guideline recommends informing patients about possible effects of the therapy options, including incontinence. However, only little data on continence from routine care in German-speaking countries after RPE are currently available, which makes it difficult to inform patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work is to present data on the frequency and severity of urinary incontinence after RPE from routine care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information from the PCO (Prostate Cancer Outcomes) study is used, which was collected between 2016 and 2022 in 125 German Cancer Society (DKG)-certified prostate cancer centers in 17,149 patients using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26). Changes in the "incontinence" score before (T0) and 12 months after RPE (T1) and the proportion of patients who used pads, stratified by age and risk group, are reported. RESULTS: The average score for urinary incontinence (value range: 0-worst possible to 100-best possible) was 93 points at T0 and 73 points 12 months later. At T0, 97% of the patients did not use a pad, compared to 56% at T1. 43% of the patients who did not use a pad before surgery used at least one pad a day 12 months later, while 13% use two or more. The proportion of patients using pads differs by age and risk classification. CONCLUSION: The results provide a comprehensive insight into functional outcome 12 months after RPE and can be taken into account when informing patients.

A multicenter paper-based and web-based system for collecting patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing local treatment for prostate cancer: first experiences.

PURPOSE: To give an overview of the multicenter Prostate Cancer Outcomes (PCO) study, involving paper-based and web-based collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) in patients undergoing local treatment for prostate cancer in certified centers in Germany. The PCO study is part of the larger Movember-funded TrueNTH Global Registry. The article reports on the study's design and provides a brief progress report after the first 2 years of data collection. METHODS: Prostate cancer centers (PCCs) certified according to German Cancer Society requirements were invited to participate in collecting patient-reported information on symptoms and function before and at least once (at 12 months) after treatment. The data were matched with disease and treatment information. This report describes progress in patient inclusion, response rate, and variations between centers relative to online/paper use, and also data quality, including recruitment variations relative to treatment in the first participating PCCs. RESULTS: PCC participation increased over time; 44 centers had transferred data for 3094 patients at the time of this report. Patient recruitment varied widely across centers. Recruitment was highest among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. The completeness of the data was good, except for comorbidity information. CONCLUSIONS: The PCO study benefits from a quality improvement system first established over 10 years ago, requiring collection and harmonization of a predefined clinical dataset across centers. Nevertheless, establishing a PROM routine requires substantial effort on the part of providers and constant monitoring in order to achieve high-quality data. The findings reported here may be useful for guiding implementation in similar initiatives.

Use of psycho-oncological services by prostate cancer patients: A multilevel analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients often suffer from psychological distress. Psycho-oncological services (POS) have been established in some health care systems in order to address such issues. This study aims to identify patient and center characteristics that elucidate the use of POS by patients in prostate cancer centers (PCCs). METHODS: Center-reported certification and patient survey data from 3094 patients in 44 certified PCCs in Germany were gathered in the observational study (Prostate Cancer Outcomes). A multilevel analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Model 1 showed that utilization of POS in PCCs is associated with patients' age (OR = 0.98; 95%-CI = 0.96-0.99; P < .001), number of comorbidities (1-2 vs 0, OR = 1.27; 95%-CI = 1.00-1.60; P=.048), disease staging (localized high-risk vs localized intermediate risk, OR = 1.41; 95%-CI = 1.14-1.74; P < .001), receiving androgen deprivation therapy before study inclusion (OR = 0.19; 95%-CI = 0.10-0.34; P < .001), and hospital teaching status (university vs academic, OR = 0.09; 95%-CI = 0.02-0.55; P = .009). Model 2 additionally includes information on treatment after study inclusion and shows that after inclusion, patients who receive primary radiotherapy (OR = 0.05; 95%-CI = 0.03-0.10; P < .001) or undergo active surveillance/watchful waiting (OR = 0.06; 95%-CI = 0.02-0.15; P < .001) are less likely to utilize POS than patients who undergo radical prostatectomy. Disease staging (localized high-risk vs localized intermediate risk, OR = 1.31; 95%-CI = 1.05-1.62; P = .02) and teaching status (university vs academic, OR = 0.08; 95%-CI = 0.01-0.65; P = .02) are also significant predictors for POS use. The second model did not identify any other significant patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should explore the role of institutional teaching status and whether associations with therapy after study inclusion are due to treatment effects - for example, less need following radiotherapy - or because access to POS is more difficult for those receiving radiotherapy.