Impact of bariatric surgery, lifestyle change, and pharmacotherapy on fertility in men with obesity: a systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This review will determine whether various health interventions designed to reduce weight (lifestyle change, bariatric surgery, pharmacotherapy) in men with obesity are associated with improved fertility markers. The review will also establish whether the degree of weight loss achieved through these methods is associated with improvement. INTRODUCTION: Current preconception guidelines provide limited information for men with obesity. Small studies implementing lifestyle changes in men are associated with improvement in sperm quality, whereas bariatric surgery has not been associated with improvements in sperm quality. Determining the benefit of different interventions and the relationship to weight lost is necessary to optimize male fertility. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The population will be men younger than 50 years with overweight (BMI >25 kg/m 2 ) or obesity (BMI >30 kg/m 2 ). The exposure of interest will be an intervention undertaken to improve health or reduce weight, categorized as lifestyle change, bariatric surgery, or pharmacotherapy. Outcomes will include time to conception, fecundity rate, assisted reproduction outcomes, and semen quality measures. Secondary analysis will determine whether degree of weight loss achieved is associated with degree of improvement. METHODS: This review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of etiology and risk. Databases to be searched will include PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus. Articles not published or translated into English will be excluded. Methodological quality will be assessed using the JBI critical appraisal tools. Data will be extracted using a tool developed by the reviewers. Statistical meta-analysis will be performed where possible to synthesize outcomes of similar methods. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022349665.

External validation of predictive models of sexual, urinary, bowel and hormonal function after surgery in prostate cancer subjects.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, a research group published five linear longitudinal models, predict Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26) scores post-treatment for radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy and active surveillance collectively in US patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Our study externally validates the five prediction models for patient reported outcomes post-surgery for localised prostate cancer. The models' calibration, fit, variance explained and discrimination (concordance-indices) were assessed. Two Australian validation cohorts 1 and 2 years post-prostatectomy were constructed, consisting of 669 and 439 subjects, respectively (750 in total). Patient reported function in five domains post-prostatectomy: sexual, bowel, hormonal, urinary incontinence and other urinary dysfunction (irritation/obstruction). Domain function was assessed using the EPIC-26 questionnaire. RESULTS: 1 year post-surgery, R2 was highest for the sexual domain (35%, SD = 0.02), lower for the bowel (21%, SD = 0.03) and hormone (15%, SD = 0.03) domains, and close to zero for urinary incontinence (1%, SD = 0.01) and irritation/obstruction (- 5%, SD = 0.04). Calibration slopes for these five models were 1.04 (SD = 0.04), 0.84 (SD = 0.06), 0.85 (SD = 0.06), 1.16 (SD = 0.13) and 0.45 (SD = 0.04), respectively. Calibration-in-the-large values were - 2.2 (SD = 0.6), 2.1 (SD = 0.01), 5.1 (SD = 0.1), 9.6 (SD = 0.9) and 4.0 (SD = 0.2), respectively. Concordance-indices were 0.73, 0.70, 0.70, 0.58 and 0.62, respectively (all had SD = 0.01). Mean absolute error and root mean square error were similar across the validation and development cohorts. The validation measures were largely similar at 2 years post-surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The sexual, bowel and hormone domain models validated well and show promise for accurately predicting patient reported outcomes in a non-US surgical population. The urinary domain models validated poorly and may require recalibration or revision.