Preparing for responsive management versus preparing for renal dialysis in multimorbid older people with advanced chronic kidney disease (Prepare for Kidney Care): Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) prevalence is steadily increasing, in part due to increased multimorbidity in our aging global population. When progression to kidney failure cannot be avoided, people need unbiased information to inform decisions about whether to start dialysis, if or when indicated, or continue with holistic person-centred care without dialysis (conservative kidney management). Comparisons suggest that while there may be some survival benefit from dialysis over conservative kidney management, in people aged 80 years and over, or with multiple health problems or frailty, this may be at the expense of quality of life, hospitalisations, symptom burden and preferred place of death. Prepare for Kidney Care aims to compare preparation for a renal dialysis pathway with preparation for a conservative kidney management pathway, in relation to quantity and quality of life in multimorbid, frail, older people with advanced CKD. METHODS: This is a two-arm, superiority, parallel group, non-blinded, individual-level, multi-centre, pragmatic trial, set in United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) kidney units. Patients with advanced CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 15 mL/min/1.73 m2, not due to acute kidney injury) who are (a) 80 years of age and over regardless of frailty or multimorbidity, or (b) 65-79 years of age if they are frail or multimorbid, are randomised 1:1 to 'prepare for responsive management', a protocolised form of conservative kidney management, or 'prepare for renal dialysis'. An integrated QuinteT Recruitment Intervention is included. The primary outcome is mean total number of quality-adjusted life years during an average follow-up of 3 years. The primary analysis is a modified intention-to-treat including all participants contributing at least one quality of life measurement. Secondary outcomes include survival, patient-reported outcomes, physical functioning, relative/carer reported outcomes and qualitative assessments of treatment arm acceptability. Cost-effectiveness is estimated from (i) NHS and personal social services and (ii) societal perspectives. DISCUSSION: This randomised study is designed to provide high-quality evidence for frail, multimorbid, older patients with advanced CKD choosing between preparing for dialysis or conservative kidney management, and healthcare professionals and policy makers planning the related services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN17133653 ( https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17133653 ). Registered 31 May 2017.

Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening and 15-Year Prostate Cancer Mortality: A Secondary Analysis of the CAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP) reported no effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening on prostate cancer mortality at a median 10-year follow-up (primary outcome), but the long-term effects of PSA screening on prostate cancer mortality remain unclear. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a single invitation for PSA screening on prostate cancer-specific mortality at a median 15-year follow-up compared with no invitation for screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of the CAP randomized clinical trial included men aged 50 to 69 years identified at 573 primary care practices in England and Wales. Primary care practices were randomized between September 25, 2001, and August 24, 2007, and men were enrolled between January 8, 2002, and January 20, 2009. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2021. Intervention: Men received a single invitation for a PSA screening test with subsequent diagnostic tests if the PSA level was 3.0 ng/mL or higher. The control group received standard practice (no invitation). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was reported previously. Of 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, results of 4 were reported previously. The 4 remaining prespecified secondary outcomes at 15-year follow-up were prostate cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and prostate cancer stage and Gleason grade at diagnosis. Results: Of 415 357 eligible men (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.6] years), 98% were included in these analyses. Overall, 12 013 and 12 958 men with a prostate cancer diagnosis were in the intervention and control groups, respectively (15-year cumulative risk, 7.08% [95% CI, 6.95%-7.21%] and 6.94% [95% CI, 6.82%-7.06%], respectively). At a median 15-year follow-up, 1199 men in the intervention group (0.69% [95% CI, 0.65%-0.73%]) and 1451 men in the control group (0.78% [95% CI, 0.73%-0.82%]) died of prostate cancer (rate ratio [RR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99]; P = .03). Compared with the control, the PSA screening intervention increased detection of low-grade (Gleason score [GS] ≤6: 2.2% vs 1.6%; P < .001) and localized (T1/T2: 3.6% vs 3.1%; P < .001) disease but not intermediate (GS of 7), high-grade (GS ≥8), locally advanced (T3), or distally advanced (T4/N1/M1) tumors. There were 45 084 all-cause deaths in the intervention group (23.2% [95% CI, 23.0%-23.4%]) and 50 336 deaths in the control group (23.3% [95% CI, 23.1%-23.5%]) (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-1.01]; P = .11). Eight of the prostate cancer deaths in the intervention group (0.7%) and 7 deaths in the control group (0.5%) were related to a diagnostic biopsy or prostate cancer treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, a single invitation for PSA screening compared with standard practice without routine screening reduced prostate cancer deaths at a median follow-up of 15 years. However, the absolute reduction in deaths was small. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN92187251.

Predicting Prostate Surgery Outcomes from Standard Clinical Assessments of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms To Derive Prognostic Symptom and Flowmetry Criteria.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) needs to identify predictors of symptom outcomes when interventional treatment is planned. OBJECTIVE: To develop a novel prediction model for prostate surgery outcomes and validate it using a separate patient cohort and derive thresholds for key clinical parameters. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From the UPSTREAM trial of 820 men seeking treatment for LUTS, analysis of bladder diary (BD), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS-quality of life, and uroflowmetry data was performed for 176 participants who underwent prostate surgery and provided complete data. For external validation, data from a retrospective database of surgery outcomes in a Japanese urology department (n = 227) were used. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Symptom improvement was defined as a reduction in total IPSS of ≥3 points. Multiple logistic regression, classification tree analysis, and random forest models were generated, including versions with and without BD data. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Multiple logistic regression without BD data identified age (p = 0.029), total IPSS (p = 0.0016), and maximum flow rate (Qmax; p = 0.066) as predictors of outcomes, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 77.1%. Classification tree analysis without BD data gave thresholds of IPSS <16 and Qmax ≥13 ml/s (AUC 75.0%). The random forest model, which included all clinical parameters except BD data, had an AUC of 94.7%. Internal validation using the bootstrap method showed reasonable AUCs (69.6-85.8%). Analyses using BD data marginally improved the model fits. External validation gave comparable AUCs for logistic regression, classification tree analysis, and random forest models (all without BD; 70.9%, 67.3%, and 68.5%, respectively). Limitations include the significant number of men with incomplete baseline data and limited assessments in the external validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of prostate surgery can be predicted preoperatively using age, total IPSS, and uroflowmetry data, with prognostic thresholds of 16 for IPSS and 13 ml/s for Qmax. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study identified key preoperative factors that can predict outcomes of prostate surgery for bothersome urinary symptoms, including which patients are at risk of a poor outcome.

How surgical Trainee Research Collaboratives achieve success: a mixed methods study to develop trainee engagement strategies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand the role of surgical Trainee Research Collaboratives (TRCs) in conducting randomised controlled trials and identify strategies to enhance trainee engagement in trials. DESIGN: This is a mixed methods study. We used observation of TRC meetings, semi-structured interviews and an online survey to explore trainees' motivations for engagement in trials and TRCs, including barriers and facilitators. Interviews were analysed thematically, alongside observation field notes. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. Strategies to enhance TRCs were developed at a workshop by 13 trial methodologists, surgical trainees, consultants and research nurses. SETTING: This study was conducted within a secondary care setting in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was sent to registered UK surgical trainees. TRC members and linked stakeholders across surgical specialties and UK regions were purposefully sampled for interviews. RESULTS: We observed 5 TRC meetings, conducted 32 semi-structured interviews and analysed 73 survey responses. TRCs can mobilise trainees thus gaining wider access to patients. Trainees engaged with TRCs to improve patient care, surgical evidence and to help progress their careers. Trainees valued the TRC infrastructure, research expertise and mentoring. Challenges for trainees included clinical and other priorities, limited time and confidence, and recognition, especially by authorship. Key TRC strategies were consultant support, initial simple rapid studies, transparency of involvement and recognition for trainees (including authorship policies) and working with Clinical Trials Units and research nurses. A 6 min digital story on YouTube disseminated these strategies. CONCLUSION: Trainee surgeons are mostly motivated to engage with trials and TRCs. Trainee engagement in TRCs can be enhanced through building relationships with key stakeholders, maximising multi-disciplinary working and offering training and career development opportunities.

Associations of CTCF and FOXA1 with androgen and IGF pathways in men with localized prostate cancer.

AIMS: To examine associations between the transcription factors CCCTC-binding factor (CTCF) and forkhead box protein A1 (FOXA1) and the androgen receptor (AR) and their association with components of the insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-pathway in a cohort of men with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Using prostate tissue samples collected during the Prostate cancer: Evidence of Exercise and Nutrition Trial (PrEvENT) trial (N = 70 to 92, depending on section availability), we assessed the abundance of CTCF, FOXA1, AR, IGFIR, p-mTOR, PTEN and IGFBP-2 proteins using a modified version of the Allred scoring system. Validation studies were performed using large, publicly available datasets (TCGA) (N = 489). RESULTS: We identified a strong correlation between CTCF and AR staining with benign prostate tissue. CTCF also strongly associated with the IGFIR, with PTEN and with phospho-mTOR. FOXA1 was also correlated with staining for the IGF-IR, with IGFBP-2 and with staining for activated phosphor-mTOR. The staining for the IGF-IR was strongly correlated with the AR. CONCLUSION: Our findings emphasise the close and complex links between the endocrine controls, well known to play an important role in prostate cancer, and the transcription factors implicated by the recent genetic evidence.

Fifteen-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Between 1999 and 2009 in the United Kingdom, 82,429 men between 50 and 69 years of age received a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. Localized prostate cancer was diagnosed in 2664 men. Of these men, 1643 were enrolled in a trial to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, with 545 randomly assigned to receive active monitoring, 553 to undergo prostatectomy, and 545 to undergo radiotherapy. METHODS: At a median follow-up of 15 years (range, 11 to 21), we compared the results in this population with respect to death from prostate cancer (the primary outcome) and death from any cause, metastases, disease progression, and initiation of long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: Follow-up was complete for 1610 patients (98%). A risk-stratification analysis showed that more than one third of the men had intermediate or high-risk disease at diagnosis. Death from prostate cancer occurred in 45 men (2.7%): 17 (3.1%) in the active-monitoring group, 12 (2.2%) in the prostatectomy group, and 16 (2.9%) in the radiotherapy group (P = 0.53 for the overall comparison). Death from any cause occurred in 356 men (21.7%), with similar numbers in all three groups. Metastases developed in 51 men (9.4%) in the active-monitoring group, in 26 (4.7%) in the prostatectomy group, and in 27 (5.0%) in the radiotherapy group. Long-term androgen-deprivation therapy was initiated in 69 men (12.7%), 40 (7.2%), and 42 (7.7%), respectively; clinical progression occurred in 141 men (25.9%), 58 (10.5%), and 60 (11.0%), respectively. In the active-monitoring group, 133 men (24.4%) were alive without any prostate cancer treatment at the end of follow-up. No differential effects on cancer-specific mortality were noted in relation to the baseline PSA level, tumor stage or grade, or risk-stratification score. No treatment complications were reported after the 10-year analysis. CONCLUSIONS: After 15 years of follow-up, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low regardless of the treatment assigned. Thus, the choice of therapy involves weighing trade-offs between benefits and harms associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research; ProtecT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172.).

Patient-Reported Outcomes 12 Years after Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Long-term patient-reported outcomes are needed to inform treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Patient-reported outcomes of 1643 randomly assigned participants in the ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial were evaluated to assess the functional and quality-of-life impacts of prostatectomy, radiotherapy with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation, and active monitoring. This article focuses on the outcomes of the randomly assigned participants from 7 to 12 years using mixed effects linear and logistic models. RESULTS: Response rates exceeded 80% for most measures. Among the randomized groups over 7 to 12 years, generic quality-of-life scores were similar. Among those in the prostatectomy group, urinary leakage requiring pads occurred in 18 to 24% of patients over 7 to 12 years, compared with 9 to 11% in the active monitoring group and 3 to 8% in the radiotherapy group. In the prostatectomy group, 18% reported erections sufficient for intercourse at 7 years, compared with 30% in the active monitoring and 27% in the radiotherapy groups; all converged to low levels of potency by year 12. Nocturia (voiding at least twice per night) occurred in 34% in the prostatectomy group compared with 48% in the radiotherapy group and 47% in the active monitoring group at 12 years. Fecal leakage affected 12% in the radiotherapy group compared with 6% in the other groups by year 12. The active monitoring group experienced gradual age-related declines in sexual and urinary function, avoiding radical treatment effects unless they changed management. CONCLUSIONS: ProtecT provides robust evidence about continued impacts of treatments in the long term. These data allow patients newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their clinicians to assess the trade-offs between treatment harms and benefits and enable better informed and prudent treatment decisions. (Funded by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme projects 96/20/06 and 96/20/99; ISRCTN number, ISRCTN20141297; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172.)

Clinical and cost effectiveness of single stage compared with two stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM): pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patient reported outcomes improve after single stage versus two stage revision surgery for prosthetic joint infection of the hip, and to determine the cost effectiveness of these procedures. DESIGN: Pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: High volume tertiary referral centres or orthopaedic units in the UK (n=12) and in Sweden (n=3), recruiting from 1 March 2015 to 19 December 2018. PARTICIPANTS: 140 adults (aged ≥18 years) with a prosthetic joint infection of the hip who required revision (65 randomly assigned to single stage and 75 to two stage revision). INTERVENTIONS: A computer generated 1:1 randomisation list stratified by hospital was used to allocate participants with prosthetic joint infection of the hip to a single stage or a two stage revision procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary intention-to-treat outcome was pain, stiffness, and functional limitations 18 months after randomisation, measured by the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. Secondary outcomes included surgical complications and joint infection. The economic evaluation (only assessed in UK participants) compared quality adjusted life years and costs between the randomised groups. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 71 years (standard deviation 9) and 51 (36%) were women. WOMAC scores did not differ between groups at 18 months (mean difference 0.13 (95% confidence interval -8.20 to 8.46), P=0.98); however, the single stage procedure was better at three months (11.53 (3.89 to 19.17), P=0.003), but not from six months onwards. Intraoperative events occurred in five (8%) participants in the single stage group and 20 (27%) in the two stage group (P=0.01). At 18 months, nine (14%) participants in the single stage group and eight (11%) in the two stage group had at least one marker of possible ongoing infection (P=0.62). From the perspective of healthcare providers and personal social services, single stage revision was cost effective with an incremental net monetary benefit of £11 167 (95% confidence interval £638 to £21 696) at a £20 000 per quality adjusted life years threshold (£1.0; $1.1; €1.4). CONCLUSIONS: At 18 months, single stage revision compared with two stage revision for prosthetic joint infection of the hip showed no superiority by patient reported outcome. Single stage revision had a better outcome at three months, fewer intraoperative complications, and was cost effective. Patients prefer early restoration of function, therefore, when deciding treatment, surgeons should consider patient preferences and the cost effectiveness of single stage surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN10956306.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prostate Cancer Screening in the UK: A Decision Model Analysis Based on the CAP Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Most guidelines in the UK, Europe and North America do not recommend organised population-wide screening for prostate cancer. Prostate-specific antigen-based screening can reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality, but there are concerns about overdiagnosis, overtreatment and economic value. The aim was therefore to assess the cost effectiveness of eight potential screening strategies in the UK. METHODS: We used a cost-utility analysis with an individual-based simulation model. The model was calibrated to data from the 10-year follow-up of the Cluster Randomised Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP). Treatment effects were modelled using data from the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial. The participants were a hypothetical population of 10 million men in the UK followed from age 30 years to death. The strategies were: no screening; five age-based screening strategies; adaptive screening, where men with an initial prostate-specific antigen level of < 1.5 ng/mL are screened every 6 years and those above this level are screened every 4 years; and two polygenic risk-stratified screening strategies. We assumed the use of pre-biopsy multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for men with prostate-specific antigen ≥ 3 ng/mL and combined transrectal ultrasound-guided and targeted biopsies. The main outcome measures were projected lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years from a National Health Service perspective. RESULTS: All screening strategies increased costs compared with no screening, with the majority also increasing quality-adjusted life-years. At willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20,000 or £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, a once-off screening at age 50 years was optimal, although this was sensitive to the utility estimates used. Although the polygenic risk-stratified screening strategies were not on the cost-effectiveness frontier, there was evidence to suggest that they were less cost ineffective than the alternative age-based strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Of the prostate-specific antigen-based strategies compared, only a once-off screening at age 50 years was potentially cost effective at current UK willingness-to-pay thresholds. An additional follow-up of CAP to 15 years may reduce uncertainty about the cost effectiveness of the screening strategies.

Prostate cancer-Exercise and Metformin Trial (Pre-EMpT): study protocol for a feasibility factorial randomized controlled trial in men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from observational studies have shown that moderate intensity physical activity can reduce risk of progression and cancer-specific mortality in participants with prostate cancer. Epidemiological studies have also shown participants taking metformin to have a reduced risk of prostate cancer. However, data from randomised controlled trials supporting the use of these interventions are limited. The Prostate cancer-Exercise and Metformin Trial examines that feasibility of randomising participants diagnosed with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer to interventions that modify physical activity and blood glucose levels. The primary outcomes are randomisation rates and adherence to the interventions over 6 months. The secondary outcomes include intervention tolerability and retention rates, measures of insulin-like growth factor I, prostate-specific antigen, physical activity, symptom-reporting, and quality of life. METHODS: Participants are randomised in a 2 × 2 factorial design to both a physical activity (brisk walking or control) and a pharmacological (metformin or control) intervention. Participants perform the interventions for 6 months with final measures collected at 12 months follow-up. DISCUSSION: Our trial will determine whether participants diagnosed with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer, who are scheduled for radical treatments or being monitored for signs of cancer progression, can be randomised to a 6 months physical activity and metformin intervention. The findings from our trial will inform a larger trial powered to examine the clinical benefits of these interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prostate Cancer Exercise and Metformin Trial (Pre-EMpT) is registered on the ISRCTN registry, reference number ISRCTN13543667 . Date of registration 2nd August 2018-retrospectively registered. First participant was recruited on 11th September 2018.

Attitudes and adherence to changes in nutrition and physical activity following surgery for prostate cancer: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Interventions designed to improve men's diet and physical activity (PA) have been recommended as methods of cancer prevention. However, little is known about specific factors that support men's adherence to these health behaviour changes, which could inform theory-led diet and PA interventions. We aimed to explore these factors in men following prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A qualitative study using semistructured interviews with men, who made changes to their diet and/or PA as part of a factorial randomised controlled trial conducted at a single hospital in South West England. Participants were 17 men aged 66 years, diagnosed with localised PCa and underwent prostatectomy. Interview transcripts underwent thematic analysis. RESULTS: Men were ambivalent about the relationship of nutrition and PA with PCa risk. They believed their diet and level of PA were reasonable before being randomised to their interventions. Men identified several barriers and facilitators to performing these new behaviours. Barriers included tolerance to dietary changes, PA limitations and external obstacles. Facilitators included partner involvement in diet, habit formation and brisk walking as an individual activity. Men discussed positive effects associated with brisk walking, such as feeling healthier, but not with nutrition interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The facilitators to behaviour change suggest that adherence to trial interventions can be supported using well-established behaviour change models. Future studies may benefit from theory-based interventions to support adherence to diet and PA behaviour changes in men diagnosed with PCa.

The high-volume haemodiafiltration vs high-flux haemodialysis registry trial (H4RT): a multi-centre, unblinded, randomised, parallel-group, superiority study to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of high-volume haemodiafiltration and high-flux haemodialysis in people with kidney failure on maintenance dialysis using linkage to routine healthcare databases for outcomes.

BACKGROUND: More than a third of the 65,000 people living with kidney failure in the UK attend a dialysis unit 2-5 times a week to have their blood cleaned for 3-5 h. In haemodialysis (HD), toxins are removed by diffusion, which can be enhanced using a high-flux dialyser. This can be augmented with convection, as occurs in haemodiafiltration (HDF), and improved outcomes have been reported in people who are able to achieve high volumes of convection. This study compares the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of high-volume HDF compared with high-flux HD in the treatment of kidney failure. METHODS: This is a UK-based, multi-centre, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Adult patients already receiving HD or HDF will be randomised 1:1 to high-volume HDF (aiming for 21+ L of substitution fluid adjusted for body surface area) or high-flux HD. Exclusion criteria include lack of capacity to consent, life expectancy less than 3 months, on HD/HDF for less than 4 weeks, planned living kidney donor transplant or home dialysis scheduled within 3 months, prior intolerance of HDF and not suitable for high-volume HDF for other clinical reasons. The primary outcome is a composite of non-cancer mortality or hospital admission with a cardiovascular event or infection during follow-up (minimum 32 months, maximum 91 months) determined from routine data. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, cardiovascular- and infection-related morbidity and mortality, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness and environmental impact. Baseline data will be collected by research personnel on-site. Follow-up data will be collected by linkage to routine healthcare databases - Hospital Episode Statistics, Civil Registration, Public Health England and the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) in England, and equivalent databases in Scotland and Wales, as necessary - and centrally administered patient-completed questionnaires. In addition, research personnel on-site will monitor for adverse events and collect data on adherence to the protocol (monthly during recruitment and quarterly during follow-up). DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HD as compared to HDF for adults with kidney failure in-centre HD or HDF. It will inform management for this patient group in the UK and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10997319 . Registered on 10 October 2017.

Use of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaires Bladder Diary in Men Seeking therapy for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Completion rates and correspondence to other measures need to be established for the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ) bladder diary (ICIQ-BD) in the assessment of male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate ICIQ-BD completion rates, frequency, volume, and sensation reporting for men. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Baseline data from the Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial; Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods (UPSTREAM) randomised controlled trial evaluating 820 men at 26 UK hospitals, looking at the ICIQ-BD, uroflowmetry, International Prostate Symptom Score, and ICIQ symptom score for male LUTS (ICIQ-MLUTS), were assessed. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The ICIQ-BD, IPSS, ICIQ-MLUTS, and uroflowmetry data at baseline obtained from UPSTREAM were assessed. Correlations were analysed by Pearson's correlation coefficient, and comparison between groups were performed using paired or unpaired t tests or Tukey's test. All statistical tests were two sided and the strength of evidence was presented using p values. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the participants, 25.0% (205/820) provided complete voiding and bedtime information for 3 d, 41.2% (338/820) omitted bedtime information, and the remainder omitted some or all voiding information. Median values (minimum - maximum) of 24-h, daytime, and night-time frequencies were 9.7 (3.3-24.0), 7.7 (3.3-22.7), and 1.7 (0.0-5.7), respectively. The mean voided volume per micturition for day and night times were 175.8 ± 74.2 and 264.4 ± 150.7 ml (p < 0.001), respectively. For fully completed diaries, day- and night-time frequency showed a weak-to-moderate correlation with symptom score questionnaires. More severe nocturia was generally reported in symptom scores than in the ICIQ-BD. In patients with high bother for increased daytime frequency (symptom), the mean daytime frequency (ICIQ-BD) was 9.6 ± 3.2 versus 7.6 ± 2.2 for low bother (p < 0.001). High bother for nocturia showed night-time frequency of 2.3 ± 1.2 versus 1.5 ± 1.1 for low bother (p < 0.001). For fully and partially completed diaries, ICIQ-BD sensation scores correlated weakly with symptom scores. Voided volumes from the bladder diary and uroflowmetry correlated weakly. CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of men (543/820) fully completed voiding information in the ICIQ-BD, but many omitted bedtime information, limiting the ability to quantify nocturia and diagnose nocturnal polyuria. PATIENT SUMMARY: Most men with urinary symptoms complete a bladder diary fully but may fail to indicate bedtimes. Extra information from a diary helps support symptom questionnaires to explain a patient's urinary habits.

Prostate Surgery for Men with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms: Do We Need Urodynamics to Find the Right Candidates? Exploratory Findings from the UPSTREAM Trial.

BACKGROUND: Identifying men whose lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) may benefit from surgery is challenging. OBJECTIVE: To identify routine diagnostic and urodynamic measures associated with treatment decision-making, and outcome, in exploratory analyses of the UPSTREAM trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomised controlled trial was conducted including 820 men, considering surgery for LUTS, across 26 hospitals in England (ISCTRN56164274). INTERVENTION: Men were randomised to a routine care (RC) diagnostic pathway (n = 393) or a pathway that included urodynamics (UDS) in addition to RC (n = 427). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Men underwent uroflowmetry and completed symptom questionnaires, at baseline and 18 mo after randomisation. Regression models identified baseline clinical and symptom measures that predicted recommendation for surgery and/or surgical outcome (measured by the International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS]). We explored the association between UDS and surgical outcome in subgroups defined by routine measures. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The recommendation for surgery could be predicted successfully in the RC and UDS groups (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.78), with maximum flow rate (Qmax) and age predictors in both groups. Surgery was more beneficial in those with higher symptom scores (eg, IPSS >16), age <74 yr, Qmax <9.8 ml/s, bladder outlet obstruction index >47.6, and bladder contractility index >123.0. In the UDS group, urodynamic measures were more strongly predictive of surgical outcome for those with Qmax >15, although patient-reported outcomes were also more predictive in this subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment decisions were informed with UDS, when available, but without evidence of change in the decisions reached. Despite the small group sizes, exploratory analyses suggest that selective use of UDS could detect obstructive pathology, missed by routine measures, in certain subgroups. PATIENT SUMMARY: Baseline clinical and symptom measurements were able to predict treatment decisions. The addition of urodynamic test results, while useful, did not generally lead to better surgical decisions and outcomes over routine tests alone.

Alteration of Metabolic Conditions Impacts the Regulation of IGF-II/H19 Imprinting Status in Prostate Cancer.

Prostate cancer is the second major cause of male cancer deaths. Obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cancer risk are linked. Insulin-like growth factor II (IGF-II) is involved in numerous cellular events, including proliferation and survival. The IGF-II gene shares its locus with the lncRNA, H19. IGF-II/H19 was the first gene to be identified as being "imprinted"-where the paternal copy is not transcribed-a silencing phenomenon lost in many cancer types. We disrupted imprinting behaviour in vitro by altering metabolic conditions and quantified it using RFLP, qPCR and pyrosequencing; changes to peptide were measured using RIA. Prostate tissue samples were analysed using ddPCR, pyrosequencing and IHC. We compared with in silico data, provided by TGCA on the cBIO Portal. We observed disruption of imprinting behaviour, in vitro, with a significant increase in IGF-II and a reciprocal decrease in H19 mRNA; the increased mRNA was not translated into peptides. In vivo, most specimens retained imprinting status apart from a small subset which showed reduced imprinting. A positive correlation was seen between IGF-II and H19 mRNA expression, which concurred with findings of larger Cancer Genome Atlas (TGCA) cohorts. This positive correlation did not affect IGF-II peptide. Our findings show that type 2 diabetes and/or obesity, can directly affect regulation growth factors involved in carcinogenesis, indirectly suggesting a modification of lifestyle habits may reduce cancer risk.

Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic obstruction: the UNBLOCS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the standard operation for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) vaporises and resects the prostate using a technique similar to TURP. The small amount of existing literature suggests that there may be potential advantages of ThuVARP over TURP. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not the outcomes from ThuVARP are equivalent to the outcomes from TURP in men with BPO treated in the NHS. DESIGN: A multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled parallel-group trial, with an embedded qualitative study and economic evaluation. SETTING: Seven UK centres - four university teaching hospitals and three district general hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Men aged ≥ 18 years who were suitable to undergo TURP, presenting with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) or urinary retention secondary to BPO. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised 1 : 1 to receive TURP or ThuVARP and remained blinded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Two co-primary outcomes - patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and clinical measure of maximum urine flow rate (Qmax) at 12 months post surgery. RESULTS: In total, 410 men were randomised, 205 to each arm. The two procedures were equivalent in terms of IPSS [adjusted mean difference 0.28 points higher for ThuVARP (favouring TURP), 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to 1.49 points]. The two procedures were not equivalent in terms of Qmax (adjusted mean difference 3.12 ml/second in favour of TURP, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.79 ml/second), with TURP deemed superior. Surgical outcomes, such as complications and blood transfusion rates, and hospital stay were similar for both procedures. Patient-reported urinary and sexual symptoms were also similar between the arms. Qualitative interviews indicated similar patient experiences with both procedures. However, 25% of participants in the ThuVARP arm did not undergo their randomised allocation, compared with 2% of participants in the TURP arm. Prostate cancer was also detected less frequently from routine histology after ThuVARP (65% lower odds of detection) in an exploratory analysis. The adjusted mean differences between the arms were similar for secondary care NHS costs (£9 higher for ThuVARP, 95% CI -£359 to £376) and quality-adjusted life-years (0.01 favouring TURP, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Complications were recorded in prespecified categories; those not prespecified were excluded owing to variable reporting. Preoperative Qmax and IPSS data could not be collected for participants with indwelling catheters, making adjustment for baseline status difficult. CONCLUSIONS: TURP was superior to ThuVARP in terms of Qmax, although both operations resulted in a Qmax considered clinically successful. ThuVARP also potentially resulted in lower detection rates of prostate cancer as a result of the smaller volume of tissue available for histology. Length of hospital stay after ThuVARP, anticipated to be a key benefit, was equal to that after TURP in this trial. Overall, both ThuVARP and TURP were effective procedures for BPO, with minor benefits in favour of TURP. Therefore, the results suggest that it may be appropriate that new treatment alternatives continue to be compared with TURP. FUTURE WORK: Longer-term follow-up to assess reoperation rates over time, and research into the comparative effectiveness of ThuVARP and TURP in large prostates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN00788389. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

An enlarged prostate can make it difficult, or even impossible, for a man to pass urine by blocking the urine flow from the bladder. This can cause significant problems, and 25,000 men in the UK each year are treated with an operation to relieve their symptoms. The standard operation [transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)], which uses electricity to shave off the enlarged prostate, is successful, but it can have some complications. There is some evidence to suggest that laser surgery can lead to less blood loss and a shorter stay in hospital, but laser operations can be difficult for surgeons to carry out. This trial has looked at a procedure using a new type of laser called thulium, which uses a very similar surgical technique to TURP and has shown promising results so far. A total of 410 men needing a prostate operation received either TURP or a laser operation. Participants were unaware of which operation they received until the end of the study to ensure a fair comparison. Seven hospitals across the UK were involved over 4 years. The trial mainly assessed the benefits of the operations using a urinary symptom questionnaire completed by participants, and by measuring the speed of passing urine after surgery. Overall, both procedures achieved positive results, and participants expressed high levels of satisfaction with the outcomes. Participants who had either operation reported a similar improvement in urinary symptoms in their questionnaires. However, although both operations did a good job of improving the speed of passing urine, TURP was better. Participants experienced few complications, and the complications that did occur were similar after both operations, including levels of bleeding and time spent in hospital. The cost of the two operations to the NHS was also similar. Overall, we concluded that both operations are suitable for patients with prostate enlargement, with TURP showing some minor additional benefits.

Urodynamics tests for the diagnosis and management of bladder outlet obstruction in men: the UPSTREAM non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men may indicate bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) or weakness, known as detrusor underactivity (DU). Severe bothersome LUTS are a common indication for surgery. The diagnostic tests may include urodynamics (UDS) to confirm whether BOO or DU is the cause, potentially reducing the number of people receiving (inappropriate) surgery. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to determine whether a care pathway including UDS is no worse for symptom outcome than one in which it is omitted, at 18 months after randomisation. Rates of surgery was the key secondary outcome. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm (unblinded) randomised controlled trial, incorporating a health economic analysis and qualitative research. SETTING: Urology departments of 26 NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men (aged ≥ 18 years) seeking further treatment, potentially including surgery, for bothersome LUTS. Exclusion criteria were as follows: unable to pass urine without a catheter, having a relevant neurological disease, currently undergoing treatment for prostate or bladder cancer, previously had prostate surgery, not medically fit for surgery and/or unwilling to be randomised. INTERVENTIONS: Men were randomised to a care pathway based on non-invasive routine tests (control) or routine care plus invasive UDS (intervention arm). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 18 months after randomisation and the key secondary outcome was rates of surgery. Additional secondary outcomes included adverse events (AEs), quality of life, urinary and sexual symptoms, UDS satisfaction, maximum urinary flow rate and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 820 men were randomised (UDS, 427; routine care, 393). Sixty-seven men withdrew before 18 months and 11 died (unrelated to trial procedures). UDS was non-inferior to routine care for IPSS 18 months after randomisation, with a confidence interval (CI) within the margin of 1 point (-0.33, 95% CI -1.47 to 0.80). A lower surgery rate in the UDS arm was not found (38% and 36% for UDS and routine care, respectively), with overall rates lower than expected. AEs were similar between the arms at 43-44%. There were more cases of acute urinary retention in the routine care arm. Patient-reported outcomes for LUTS improved in both arms and satisfaction with UDS was high in men who received it. UDS was more expensive than routine care. From a secondary care perspective, UDS cost an additional £216 over an 18-month time horizon. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were similar, with a QALY difference of 0.006 in favour of UDS over 18 months. It was established that UDS was acceptable to patients, and valued by both patients and clinicians for its perceived additional insight into the cause and probable best treatment of LUTS. LIMITATIONS: The trial met its predefined recruitment target, but surgery rates were lower than anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of UDS in the diagnostic tests results in a symptom outcome that is non-inferior to a routine care pathway, but does not affect surgical rates for treating BOO. Results do not support the routine use of UDS in men undergoing investigation of LUTS. FUTURE WORK: Focus should be placed on indications for selective utilisation of UDS in individual cases and long-term outcomes of diagnosis and therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56164274. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

After hospital referral, men with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are assessed with standard tests. These include measurement of urine flow rate, bladder diaries and questionnaires, including the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). UPSTREAM (Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial; Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods) researched whether or not including an extra test, urodynamics (UDS), helps when considering treatment options. UDS is a more invasive test and measures pressure in the bladder to check whether or not the prostate is causing obstruction. It was presumed that, if there is no obstruction, surgery would not be offered, so that using UDS would reduce the number of prostate operations. Each man participating (820 in total) was assessed with the standard tests. Around half of them had no extra tests (the 'routine care' arm of the trial); the rest had the UDS tests (the 'UDS' arm). Men then went on to have treatment, which they chose having discussed their test results with a urologist. IPSS and other symptom scores were examined for each man 18 months after joining the trial. At 18 months, surgery outcomes were known for 792 men and IPSS was known for 669 men. We investigated if the two trial arms showed similar changes in the IPSS and if there were fewer operations done in the UDS arm. We identified similar reductions in the IPSS in both arms. However, UDS tests did not reduce the number of operations. Analysing all the costs, it was found that a pathway including UDS costs more than routine care. Interviews were conducted that showed that men found UDS acceptable, and that the additional information helped both the men and their doctors consider which treatment would be most appropriate. These results do not support the routine use of UDS in the assessment of every man considering prostate surgery for LUTS. Further exploration of the data may identify circumstances in which UDS could be helpful.

Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the UK. Prostate-specific antigen testing followed by biopsy leads to overdetection, overtreatment as well as undertreatment of the disease. Evidence of treatment effectiveness has lacked because of the paucity of randomised controlled trials comparing conventional treatments. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional treatments for localised prostate cancer (active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy) in men aged 50-69 years. DESIGN: A prospective, multicentre prostate-specific antigen testing programme followed by a randomised trial of treatment, with a comprehensive cohort follow-up. SETTING: Prostate-specific antigen testing in primary care and treatment in nine urology departments in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Between 2001 and 2009, 228,966 men aged 50-69 years received an invitation to attend an appointment for information about the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study and a prostate-specific antigen test; 82,429 men were tested, 2664 were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer, 1643 agreed to randomisation to active monitoring (n = 545), radical prostatectomy (n = 553) or radical radiotherapy (n = 545) and 997 chose a treatment. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions were active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy. TRIAL PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Definite or probable disease-specific mortality at the 10-year median follow-up in randomised participants. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall mortality, metastases, disease progression, treatment complications, resource utilisation and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for 17 prostate cancer-specific (p = 0.48) and 169 all-cause (p = 0.87) deaths. Eight men died of prostate cancer in the active monitoring group (1.5 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.0); five died of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy group (0.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.2 per 1000 person years) and four died of prostate cancer in the radical radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.0 per 1000 person years). More men developed metastases in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring, n = 33 (6.3 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 4.5 to 8.8); radical prostatectomy, n = 13 (2.4 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.2 per 1000 person years); and radical radiotherapy, n = 16 (3.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 4.9 per 1000 person-years; p = 0.004). There were higher rates of disease progression in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring (n = 112; 22.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 19.0 to 27.5 per 1000 person years); radical prostatectomy (n = 46; 8.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 11.9 per 1000 person-years); and radical radiotherapy (n = 46; 9.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 12.0 per 1000 person years; p < 0.001). Radical prostatectomy had the greatest impact on sexual function/urinary continence and remained worse than radical radiotherapy and active monitoring. Radical radiotherapy's impact on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but recovered somewhat in the majority of participants. Sexual and urinary function gradually declined in the active monitoring group. Bowel function was worse with radical radiotherapy at 6 months, but it recovered with the exception of bloody stools. Urinary voiding and nocturia worsened in the radical radiotherapy group at 6 months but recovered. Condition-specific quality-of-life effects mirrored functional changes. No differences in anxiety/depression or generic or cancer-related quality of life were found. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that each arm was the most cost-effective option were 58% (radical radiotherapy), 32% (active monitoring) and 10% (radical prostatectomy). LIMITATIONS: A single prostate-specific antigen test and transrectal ultrasound biopsies were used. There were very few non-white men in the trial. The majority of men had low- and intermediate-risk disease. Longer follow-up is needed. CONCLUSIONS: At a median follow-up point of 10 years, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low, irrespective of the assigned treatment. Radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy reduced disease progression and metastases, but with side effects. Further work is needed to follow up participants at a median of 15 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 37. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and is often found through a blood test called a prostate-specific antigen test and through biopsies of the prostate. Over the years, these tests led to the detection of many small cancers that do not cause harm. Some prostate cancers are harmful, but it is difficult to recognise them early. When cancer is still inside the prostate, the conventional treatments are surgery or radiotherapy, which carry side effects including leaking urine and difficulty getting an erection, so another option is repeat investigations at regular intervals (active monitoring), with treatments given if the cancer progresses. These options needed to be compared in a study called a 'randomised trial' in which men agree to be allocated to one of the three treatments. In the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study, 200,000 men aged 50­69 years were invited to have a prostate-specific antigen test. Of the 82,849 men who agreed to be tested, 1643 of whom had prostate cancer that was still contained in the prostate agreed to be allocated to one of the three treatments. After an average of 10 years of follow-up, 99% of men were alive in each of the treatment groups. However, when compared with active monitoring, surgery and radiotherapy reduced the risk of disease spreading outside the prostate by half. Patients reported that urinary leakage and sexual function were worst with surgery, and sexual and bowel functions were affected by radiotherapy. Men on active monitoring had a gradual decline in their urinary and sexual function, particularly as around half of them later had surgery or radiotherapy. Radiotherapy was the treatment that seemed to be the best value for money. The findings from the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study can help men make decisions about being tested and which treatment to have if they are found to have cancer within the prostate. We now need to find out the longer-term effects of these treatments on how long men live and their quality of life.

Diagnostic Assessment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Men Considering Prostate Surgery: A Noninferiority Randomised Controlled Trial of Urodynamics in 26 Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Prostate surgery can improve lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) by relieving bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). However, surgery is less effective without BOO, or if detrusor underactivity is present. Urodynamics (UDS) can identify BOO and measure detrusor activity, but evidence in clinical practice is lacking. OBJECTIVE: Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial: Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods (UPSTREAM) aimed to evaluate whether a care pathway including UDS would reduce surgery without increasing urinary symptoms. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: UPSTREAM is a pragmatic, noninferiority, randomised controlled trial in men with bothersome LUTS, in whom surgery was an option, in 26 hospitals in England (ISRCTN56164274). INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised (1:1) to routine care (RC) diagnostic tests, or RC plus UDS. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS; patient-reported outcome scale from 0 to 35 points) 18 mo after randomisation, with a noninferiority margin of 1 point. Urological surgery rates were a key secondary outcome. The primary outcome was compared between the arms using linear regression, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Between October 2014 and December 2016, 820 men (median age 68 yr) were randomised (393 and 427 in the RC and UDS arms, respectively). The UDS arm showed noninferiority of the mean IPSSs (UDS 12.6; RC 13.1; adjusted difference at 18 mo -0.33 [95% confidence interval {CI} -1.47, +0.80]). In the UDS arm, 153/408 (38%) received surgery compared with 138/384 (36%) in the RC arm (adjusted odds ratio 1.05; 95% CI 0.77, 1.43). A total of 428 adverse events (UDS 234; RC 194) were recorded, with related events similar in both arms and 11 unrelated deaths. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, the UDS randomised group was noninferior to RC for the IPSS but did not reduce surgical rates. This study shows that routine use of UDS in the evaluation of uncomplicated LUTS has a limited role and should be used selectively. PATIENT SUMMARY: For men with uncomplicated lower urinary tract symptoms, symptom improvements after treatment and the number of operations performed are similar, irrespective of whether or not urodynamic tests are conducted in addition to routine tests. Accordingly, routine use of urodynamics has a limited role in this population group.