Multicentre international experience of 532-nm laser photoselective vaporization with GreenLight XPS in men with very large prostates.

OBJECTIVES: To describe peri-operative results, functional outcomes and complications of laser photoselective vaporization, using the GreenLight system, of prostate glands ≥200 mL in volume. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained multicentre database was performed to select a subgroup of patients with very large prostates (volume ≥200 mL) treated with the GreenLight XPS laser. A subgroup of patients with prostate volumes 100-200 mL was used for comparison. International Prostate Symptom Score, maximum urinary flow rate, postvoid residual urine volume and prostate-specific antigen levels were measured at 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 months. Durability was evaluated using benign prostatic hyperplasia re-treatment rate at 12, 24 and 36 months. Additionally, complications were recorded using Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: A total of 33 patients (38%) had prostates ≥200 mL. Baseline characteristics were similar between patients with prostates ≥200 mL and those with prostates 100-200 mL. Patients with very large prostates (≥200 mL) had longer operating times (129 vs 93 min), less energy delivered, a greater number of fibres used (3 vs 2) and a higher conversion rate to transurethral resection of the prostate (16% vs 4%). In terms of complications and functional outcomes, we did not find any differences between the groups. Retreatment rate was also comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that PVP GreenLight XPS-180W is an acceptable technique for very large prostates (≥200 mL); however, operating times, energy delivery, fibres used and conversion to TURP are a concern in this particular subgroup. This should be used for patient counselling and surgery planning.

Electronic-Based Patient-Reported Outcomes: Willingness, Needs, and Barriers in Adjuvant and Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) play an increasingly important role as an adjunct to clinical outcome parameters in measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In fact, PROs are already the accepted gold standard for collecting data about patients' subjective perception of their own state of health. Currently, paper-based surveys of PRO still predominate; however, knowledge regarding the feasibility of and barriers to electronic-based PRO (ePRO) acceptance remains limited. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this trial was to analyze the willingness, specific needs, and barriers of adjuvant breast cancer (aBC) and metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients in nonexposed (no exposure to electronic assessment) and exposed (after exposure to electronic assessment decision, whether a tablet-based questionnaire is favored) settings before implementing digital ePRO assessment in relation to health status. We also investigated whether providing support can increase the patients' willingness to participate in such programs. METHODS: The nonexposed patients only answered a paper-based questionnaire, whereas the exposed patients filled out both paper- and tablet-based questionnaires. The assessment comprised socioeconomic variables, HRQoL, preexisting technical skills, general attitude toward electronic-based surveys, and potential barriers in relation to health status. Furthermore, nonexposed patients were asked about the existing need for technological support structures. In the course of data evaluation, we performed a frequency analysis as well as chi-square tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Subsequently, relative risks analysis, univariate categorical regression (CATREG), and mediation analyses (Hayes' bias-corrected bootstrap) were performed. RESULTS: A total of 202 female breast cancer patients completed the PRO assessment (nonexposed group: n=96 patients; exposed group: n=106 patients). Self-reported technical skills were higher in exposed patients (2.79 vs 2.33, P ≤.001). Significant differences were found in relation to willingness to use ePRO (92.3% in the exposed group vs 59% in the nonexposed group; P=.001). Multiple barriers were identified, and most of them showed statistically significant differences in favor of the exposed patients (ie, data security [13% in the exposed patients vs 30% in the nonexposed patients; P=.003] and no prior technology usage [5% in the exposed group vs 15% in the nonexposed group; P=.02]), whereas the differences in disease burden (somatic dimension: 4% in the exposed group vs 9% in the nonexposed group; P=.13) showed no significance. In nonexposed patients, requests for support services were identified, which could increase their ePRO willingness. CONCLUSIONS: Significant barriers in relation to HRQoL, cancer-related restrictions, and especially the setting of the survey were identified in this trial. Thus, it is necessary to address and eliminate these barriers to ensure data accuracy and reliability for future ePRO assessments. Exposure seems to be a potential option to increase willingness to use ePRO and to reduce barriers.