RESUMO
CONTEXT: Treatment choice for localised prostate cancer remains a significant challenge for patients and clinicians, with uncertainty over decisions potentially leading to conflict and regret. There is a need to further understand the prevalence and prognostic factors of decision regret to improve patient quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To generate the best estimates for the prevalence of significant decision regret localised prostate cancer patients, and to investigate prognostic patient, oncological, and treatment factors associated with regret. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and PsychINFO databases including studies evaluating the prevalence or patient, treatment, or oncological prognostic factors in localised prostate cancer patients. A pooled prevalence of significant regret was calculated with the formal prognostic factor evaluation conducted per factor identified. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Significant decision regret was present in a pooled 20% (95% confidence interval 16-23) of patients across 14 studies and 17883 patients. This was lower in active surveillance (13%), with little difference between those who underwent radiotherapy (19%) and those who underwent prostatectomy (18%). Evaluation of individual prognostic factors demonstrated higher regret in those with poorer post-treatment bowel, sexual, and urinary function; decreased involvement in the decision-making process; and Black ethnicity. However, evidence remains conflicting, with low or moderate certainty of findings. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of men experience decision regret after a localised prostate cancer diagnosis. Monitoring those with increased functional symptoms and improving patient involvement in the decision-making process through education and decision aids may reduce regret. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at how common regret in treatment decisions is after treatment for early-stage prostate cancer and factors linked with this. We found that one in five regret their decision, with those who had experienced side effects or were less involved in the decision-making process more likely to have regret. By addressing these, clinicians could reduce regret and improve quality of life.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the status of UK undergraduate urology teaching against the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Undergraduate Syllabus for Urology. Secondary objectives included evaluating the type and quantity of teaching provided, the reported performance rate of General Medical Council (GMC)-mandated urological procedures, and the proportion of undergraduates considering urology as a career. MATERIALS AND METHODS: LEARN was a national multicentre cross-sectional study. Year 2 to Year 5 medical students and FY1 doctors were invited to complete a survey between 3rd October and 20th December 2020, retrospectively assessing the urology teaching received to date. Results are reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). RESULTS: 7,063/8,346 (84.6%) responses from all 39 UK medical schools were included; 1,127/7,063 (16.0%) were from Foundation Year (FY) 1 doctors, who reported that the most frequently taught topics in undergraduate training were on urinary tract infection (96.5%), acute kidney injury (95.9%) and haematuria (94.4%). The most infrequently taught topics were male urinary incontinence (59.4%), male infertility (52.4%) and erectile dysfunction (43.8%). Male and female catheterisation on patients as undergraduates was performed by 92.1% and 73.0% of FY1 doctors respectively, and 16.9% had considered a career in urology. Theory based teaching was mainly prevalent in the early years of medical school, with clinical skills teaching, and clinical placements in the later years of medical school. 20.1% of FY1 doctors reported no undergraduate clinical attachment in urology. CONCLUSION: LEARN is the largest ever evaluation of undergraduate urology teaching. In the UK, teaching seemed satisfactory as evaluated by the BAUS undergraduate syllabus. However, many students report having no clinical attachments in Urology and some newly qualified doctors report never having inserted a catheter, which is a GMC mandated requirement. We recommend a greater emphasis on undergraduate clinical exposure to urology and stricter adherence to GMC mandated procedures.