Eliciting men's preferences for decision-making relative to treatments of localized prostate cancer with a good or moderate prognosis.

PURPOSE: In diseases where there is no real consensus regarding treatment modalities, promoting shared decision-making can contribute to improving safety and quality of care. This is the case in low- or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer (PC) treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate the preferences guiding men's decisions regarding the characteristics of the treatment strategies for PC to help physicians adopt a more patient-centered approach. METHODS: This prospective multicenter study used a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The attributes and the modalities were identified from a qualitative study and a literature review. Relative preferences were estimated using a logistic regression model. Interaction terms (demographic, clinical and socio-economic characteristics) were added to the model to assess heterogeneity in preferences. RESULTS: 652 men were enrolled in the study and completed a questionnaire with 12 pairs of hypothetical therapeutic alternatives between which they had to choose. Men's choices were significantly negatively influenced by the risk of impotence and urinary incontinence, death, and the length and frequency of care. They preferred treatments with a rescue possibility in case of deterioration or recurrence and the use of innovative technology. Surprisingly, the possibility of undergoing prostate ablation negatively influenced their choice. The results also highlighted differences in trade-offs according to socio-economic level. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed the importance of considering patients' preferences in the decision-making process. It appears essential to better understand these preferences to allow physicians to improve communication and promote case-by-case decision-making.

Impact of virtual reality on pain management in transrectal MRI-guided prostate biopsy.

Background: The beneficial effect of virtual reality (VR) on pain management in the context of transrectal MRI-guided prostate biopsy is not well established. However, it remains unclear whether an adjunctive of VR also improves pain management. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of VR as adjunctive in pain management in transrectal MRI-guided prostate biopsy (PB). Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the pain intensity incidence in the 153 patients with PB indication (of which 102 were naïve of PB) who were admitted to our hospital since the acquisition of the Healthy Mind virtual reality headset on 19 January 2021. Results: Baseline characteristics of patients who received local anesthesia with 1% lidocaine periprostatic nerve block (PPNB) (Group SOC, N = 78) and patients who received VR associated with PPNB (Group VR, N = 75) were largely similar. One PB with general anesthesia was excluded. The mean pain score at day zero was respectively 3.4 (±2.5) and 2.9 (±2.3) for SOC and VR (p = 0.203). However, the mean pain score at day zero was significantly lower in naïve PB patients with VR [2.7 (±2.0)] than in naïve PB patients with SOC [3.8 (±2.5), p = 0.012] when patients were stratified in PB status. Similar results were found on day 3 for the analysis including naïve-PB patients with SOC vs. with VR [0.4 (±2.5) vs. 0.2 (±2.0); p = 0.023)]. Conclusions: The pain intensity was significantly lower in naïve PB patients with VR than in naïve PB patients with SOC. There were no side effects from VR and tolerability was excellent.