Continued 5α-Reductase Inhibitor Use after Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and the Risk of Reclassification and Adverse Pathological Outcomes in the PASS.

PURPOSE: Outcomes in patients who enroll in active surveillance programs for prostate cancer while receiving 5α-reductase inhibitors have not been well defined. We sought to determine the association of 5α-reductase inhibitor use with the risk of reclassification in the PASS (Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants in the multicenter PASS were enrolled between 2008 and 2016. Study inclusion criteria were current or never 5α-reductase inhibitors use, Gleason score 3 + 4 or less prostate cancer at diagnosis, less than a 34% core involvement ratio at diagnosis and 1 or more surveillance biopsies. Included in study were 1,009 men, including 107 on 5α-reductase inhibitors and 902 who had never received 5α-reductase inhibitors. Reclassification was defined as increase in the Gleason score and/or an increase to 34% or greater in the ratio of biopsy cores positive for cancer. Adverse pathology at prostatectomy was defined as Gleason 4 + 3 or greater and/or nonorgan confined disease (pT3 or N1). RESULTS: On multivariable analysis there was no difference in reclassification between men who had received and those who had never received 5α-reductase inhibitors (HR 0.81, p = 0.31). Patients who had received 5α-reductase inhibitors were less likely to undergo radical prostatectomy (8% vs 18%, p = 0.01) or any definitive treatment (19% vs 24%, p = 0.04). In the 167 participants who underwent radical prostatectomy there was no suggestion of a difference in the rate of adverse pathology findings at prostatectomy between 5α-reductase inhibitor users and nonusers. CONCLUSIONS: Continued 5α-reductase inhibitor use after an initial diagnosis of prostate cancer was not associated with the risk of reclassification on active surveillance in men in the PASS cohort.

Inter-Rater Reliability of Provider Interpretations of Irritable Bowel Syndrome Food and Symptom Journals.

There are currently no standardized methods for identifying trigger food(s) from irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) food and symptom journals. The primary aim of this study was to assess the inter-rater reliability of providers' interpretations of IBS journals. A second aim was to describe whether these interpretations varied for each patient. Eight providers reviewed 17 IBS journals and rated how likely key food groups (fermentable oligo-di-monosaccharides and polyols, high-calorie, gluten, caffeine, high-fiber) were to trigger IBS symptoms for each patient. Agreement of trigger food ratings was calculated using Krippendorff's α-reliability estimate. Providers were also asked to write down recommendations they would give to each patient. Estimates of agreement of trigger food likelihood ratings were poor (average α = 0.07). Most providers gave similar trigger food likelihood ratings for over half the food groups. Four providers gave the exact same written recommendation(s) (range 3-7) to over half the patients. Inter-rater reliability of provider interpretations of IBS food and symptom journals was poor. Providers favored certain trigger food likelihood ratings and written recommendations. This supports the need for a more standardized method for interpreting these journals and/or more rigorous techniques to accurately identify personalized IBS food triggers.