Sepsis Order Set Use Associated with Increased Care Value.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is common and expensive and there is evidence that sepsis order sets may help improve care. There is very incomplete evidence of the effects of sepsis order sets on the value of care produced by hospitals or the societal costs of sepsis care. RESEARCH QUESTION: In patients hospitalized for sepsis, is the receipt a of a sepsis order set vs. no order set associated with improved value of care, defined as decreased hospital mortality, decreased hospital direct variable costs and decreased societal spending on hospitalizations? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients discharged with sepsis ICD-10 codes over two years from a large integrated delivery system. Using a propensity score, sepsis order set users were matched to non-users to study the association between sepsis order set use and the value of care from the hospital and societal perspective. The association between order set receipt and hospital mortality, direct variable cost, and hospital revenue were also examined in a priori defined subgroups of sepsis severity and hospital mortality. RESULTS: 97,249 patients were included in the study with 52,793 (54%) receiving the sepsis order set. 55,542 patients were included in the propensity score match analysis, 27,771 in each group. Recipients of the sepsis order set had a 3.3% lower hospital mortality rate, a $1487 lower median direct variable total cost (P < 0.01 for both). Median payer neutral reimbursement (PNR), a proxy for hospital revenue and thus societal costs, was $465 lower for sepsis order set users (P < 0.01). Receipt of the sepsis order set was associated with an $1022 increase in contribution margin, the difference between direct variable costs and PNR per patient. INTERPRETATION: Receipt of the sepsis order set was associated with improved value of care, from both a hospital and societal perspective.

Whole microbe arrays accurately predict interactions and overall antimicrobial activity of galectin-8 toward distinct strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae.

Microbial glycan microarrays (MGMs) populated with purified microbial glycans have been used to define the specificity of host immune factors toward microbes in a high throughput manner. However, a limitation of such arrays is that glycan presentation may not fully recapitulate the natural presentation that exists on microbes. This raises the possibility that interactions observed on the array, while often helpful in predicting actual interactions with intact microbes, may not always accurately ascertain the overall affinity of a host immune factor for a given microbe. Using galectin-8 (Gal-8) as a probe, we compared the specificity and overall affinity observed using a MGM populated with glycans harvested from various strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae to an intact microbe microarray (MMA). Our results demonstrate that while similarities in binding specificity between the MGM and MMA are apparent, Gal-8 binding toward the MMA more accurately predicted interactions with strains of S. pneumoniae, including the overall specificity of Gal-8 antimicrobial activity. Taken together, these results not only demonstrate that Gal-8 possesses antimicrobial activity against distinct strains of S. pneumoniae that utilize molecular mimicry, but that microarray platforms populated with intact microbes present an advantageous strategy when exploring host interactions with microbes.

Evaluating Therapeutic Activity of Galectin-1 in Sarcolemma Repair of Skeletal Muscle.

Galectin-1 is a small (14.5 kDa) multifunctional protein with cell-cell and cell-ECM adhesion due to interactions with the carbohydrate recognition domain (CRD). In two types of muscular dystrophies, this lectin protein has shown therapeutic properties, including positive regulation of skeletal muscle differentiation and regeneration. Both Duchenne and limb-girdle muscular dystrophy 2B (LGMD2B) are subtypes of muscular dystrophies characterized by deficient membrane repair, muscle weakness, and eventual loss of ambulation. This chapter explains confocal techniques such as laser injury, calcium imaging, and galectin-1 localization to examine the effects of galectin-1 on membrane repair in injured LGMD2B models.

A Standard Set of Value-Based Patient-Centered Outcomes and Measures of Overall Health in Adults.

BACKGROUND: The definition of population-specific outcomes is an essential precondition for the implementation of value-based health care. We developed a minimum standard outcome set for overall adult health (OAH) to facilitate the implementation of value-based health care in tracking, comparing, and improving overall health care outcomes of adults across multiple conditions, which would be of particular relevance for primary care and public health populations. METHODS: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international panel (patients, clinicians, and topic experts). Following the development of a conceptual framework, a modified Delphi method (supported by public consultations) was implemented to identify, in sequence, the relevant domains, the best instruments for measuring them, the timing of measurement, and the relevant adjustment variables. FINDINGS: Outcomes were identified in relation to overall health status and the domains of physical, mental, and social health. Three instruments covering these domains were identified: PROMIS Scale v1.2-Global Health (10 items), WHO Wellbeing Index (5 items), and the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (12 items). Case-mix variables included a range of sociodemographic and biometric measures. Yearly measurement was proposed for all outcomes and most case-mix variables. INTERPRETATION: The ICHOM OAH Standard Set has been developed through consensus-based methods based on predefined criteria following high standards for the identification and selection of high-quality measures The involvements of a wide range of stakeholders supports the acceptability of the set, which is readily available for use and feasibility testing in clinical settings.

Treatment with galectin-1 improves myogenic potential and membrane repair in dysferlin-deficient models.

Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy type 2B (LGMD2B) is caused by mutations in the dysferlin gene, resulting in non-functional dysferlin, a key protein found in muscle membrane. Treatment options available for patients are chiefly palliative in nature and focus on maintaining ambulation. Our hypothesis is that galectin-1 (Gal-1), a soluble carbohydrate binding protein, increases membrane repair capacity and myogenic potential of dysferlin-deficient muscle cells and muscle fibers. To test this hypothesis, we used recombinant human galectin-1 (rHsGal-1) to treat dysferlin-deficient models. We show that rHsGal-1 treatments of 48 h-72 h promotes myogenic maturation as indicated through improvements in size, myotube alignment, myoblast migration, and membrane repair capacity in dysferlin-deficient myotubes and myofibers. Furthermore, increased membrane repair capacity of dysferlin-deficient myotubes, independent of increased myogenic maturation is apparent and co-localizes on the membrane of myotubes after a brief 10min treatment with labeled rHsGal-1. We show the carbohydrate recognition domain of Gal-1 is necessary for observed membrane repair. Improvements in membrane repair after only a 10 min rHsGal-1treatment suggest mechanical stabilization of the membrane due to interaction with glycosylated membrane bound, ECM or yet to be identified ligands through the CDR domain of Gal-1. rHsGal-1 shows calcium-independent membrane repair in dysferlin-deficient and wild-type myotubes and myofibers. Together our novel results reveal Gal-1 mediates disease pathologies through both changes in integral myogenic protein expression and mechanical membrane stabilization.

The Sweet-Side of Leukocytes: Galectins as Master Regulators of Neutrophil Function.

Among responders to microbial invasion, neutrophils represent one of the earliest and perhaps most important factors that contribute to initial host defense. Effective neutrophil immunity requires their rapid mobilization to the site of infection, which requires efficient extravasation, activation, chemotaxis, phagocytosis, and eventual killing of potential microbial pathogens. Following pathogen elimination, neutrophils must be eliminated to prevent additional host injury and subsequent exacerbation of the inflammatory response. Galectins, expressed in nearly every tissue and regulated by unique sensitivity to oxidative and proteolytic inactivation, appear to influence nearly every aspect of neutrophil function. In this review, we will examine the impact of galectins on neutrophils, with a particular focus on the unique biochemical traits that allow galectin family members to spatially and temporally regulate neutrophil function.

Standardized outcome measures for pregnancy and childbirth, an ICHOM proposal.

BACKGROUND: Value-based health care aims to optimize the balance of patient outcomes and health care costs. To improve value in perinatal care using this strategy, standard outcomes must first be defined. The objective of this work was to define a minimum, internationally appropriate set of outcome measures for evaluating and improving perinatal care with a focus on outcomes that matter to women and their families. METHODS: An interdisciplinary and international Working Group was assembled. Existing literature and current measurement initiatives were reviewed. Serial guided discussions and validation surveys provided consumer input. A series of nine teleconferences, incorporating a modified Delphi process, were held to reach consensus on the proposed Standard Set. RESULTS: The Working Group selected 24 outcome measures to evaluate care during pregnancy and up to 6 months postpartum. These include clinical outcomes such as maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, stillbirth, preterm birth, birth injury and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mental health, mother-infant bonding, confidence and success with breastfeeding, incontinence, and satisfaction with care and birth experience. To support analysis of these outcome measures, pertinent baseline characteristics and risk factor metrics were also defined. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a set of outcome measures for evaluating the care that women and infants receive during pregnancy and the postpartum period. While validation and refinement via pilot implementation projects are needed, we view this as an important initial step towards value-based improvements in care.

Development of a core set of outcome measures for OAB treatment.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Standardized measures enable the comparison of outcomes across providers and treatments giving valuable information for improving care quality and efficacy. The aim of this project was to define a minimum standard set of outcome measures and case-mix factors for evaluating the care of patients with overactive bladder (OAB). METHODS: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international working group (WG) of leading clinicians and patients to engage in a structured method for developing a core outcome set. Consensus was determined by a modified Delphi process, and discussions were supported by both literature review and patient input. RESULTS: The standard set measures outcomes of care for adults seeking treatment for OAB, excluding residents of long-term care facilities. The WG focused on treatment outcomes identified as most important key outcome domains to patients: symptom burden and bother, physical functioning, emotional health, impact of symptoms and treatment on quality of life, and success of treatment. Demographic information and case-mix factors that may affect these outcomes were also included. CONCLUSIONS: The standardized outcome set for evaluating clinical care is appropriate for use by all health providers caring for patients with OAB, regardless of specialty or geographic location, and provides key data for quality improvement activities and research.

Standardization of health outcomes assessment for depression and anxiety: recommendations from the ICHOM Depression and Anxiety Working Group.

PURPOSE: National initiatives, such as the UK Improving Access to Psychological Therapies program (IAPT), demonstrate the feasibility of conducting empirical mental health assessments on a large scale, and similar initiatives exist in other countries. However, there is a lack of international consensus on which outcome domains are most salient to monitor treatment progress and how they should be measured. The aim of this project was to propose (1) an essential set of outcome domains relevant across countries and cultures, (2) a set of easily accessible patient-reported instruments, and (3) a psychometric approach to make scores from different instruments comparable. METHODS: Twenty-four experts, including ten health outcomes researchers, ten clinical experts from all continents, two patient advocates, and two ICHOM coordinators worked for seven months in a consensus building exercise to develop recommendations based on existing evidence using a structured consensus-driven modified Delphi technique. RESULTS: The group proposes to combine an assessment of potential outcome predictors at baseline (47 items: demographics, functional, clinical status, etc.), with repeated assessments of disease-specific symptoms during the treatment process (19 items: symptoms, side effects, etc.), and a comprehensive annual assessment of broader treatment outcomes (45 items: remission, absenteeism, etc.). Further, it is suggested reporting disease-specific symptoms for depression and anxiety on a standardized metric to increase comparability with other legacy instruments. All recommended instruments are provided online ( www.ichom.org ). CONCLUSION: An international standard of health outcomes assessment has the potential to improve clinical decision making, enhance health care for the benefit of patients, and facilitate scientific knowledge.

An International Collaborative Standardizing a Comprehensive Patient-Centered Outcomes Measurement Set for Colorectal Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Global health systems are shifting toward value-based care in an effort to drive better outcomes in the setting of rising health care costs. This shift requires a common definition of value, starting with the outcomes that matter most to patients. OBJECTIVE: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), a nonprofit initiative, was formed to define standard sets of outcomes by medical condition. In this article, we report the efforts of ICHOM's working group in colorectal cancer. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The working group was composed of multidisciplinary oncology specialists in medicine, surgery, radiation therapy, palliative care, nursing, and pathology, along with patient representatives. Through a modified Delphi process during 8 months (July 8, 2015 to February 29, 2016), ICHOM led the working group to a consensus on a final recommended standard set. The process was supported by a systematic PubMed literature review (1042 randomized clinical trials and guidelines from June 3, 2005, to June 3, 2015), a patient focus group (11 patients with early and metastatic colorectal cancer convened during a teleconference in August 2015), and a patient validation survey (among 276 patients with and survivors of colorectal cancer between October 15, 2015, and November 4, 2015). FINDINGS: After consolidating findings of the literature review and focus group meeting, a list of 40 outcomes was presented to the WG and underwent voting. The final recommendation includes outcomes in the following categories: survival and disease control, disutility of care, degree of health, and quality of death. Selected case-mix factors were recommended to be collected at baseline to facilitate comparison of results across treatments and health care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized set of patient-centered outcome measures to inform value-based health care in colorectal cancer was developed. Pilot efforts are under way to measure the standard set among members of the working group.

A Standard Set of Value-Based Patient-Centered Outcomes for Breast Cancer: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Initiative.

A major challenge in value-based health care is the lack of standardized health outcomes measurements, hindering optimal monitoring and comparison of the quality of health care across different settings globally. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a multidisciplinary international working group, comprised of 26 health care providers and patient advocates, to develop a standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer (BC). The working group convened via 8 teleconferences and completed a follow-up survey after each meeting. A modified 2-round Delphi method was used to achieve consensus on the outcomes and case-mix variables to be included. Patient focus group meetings (8 early or metastatic BC patients) and online anonymized surveys of 1225 multinational BC patients and survivors were also conducted to obtain patients' input. The standard set encompasses survival and cancer control, and disutility of care (eg, acute treatment complications) outcomes, to be collected through administrative data and/or clinical records. A combination of multiple patient-reported outcomes measurement (PROM) tools is recommended to capture long-term degree of health outcomes. Selected case-mix factors were recommended to be collected at baseline. The ICHOM will endeavor to achieve wide buy-in of this set and facilitate its implementation in routine clinical practice in various settings and institutions worldwide.

Defining a standard set of patient-centred outcomes for lung cancer.

In lung cancer, outcome measurement has been mostly limited to survival. Proper assessment of the value of lung cancer treatments, and the performance of institutions delivering care, requires more comprehensive measurement of standardised outcomes.The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement convened an international, multidisciplinary working group of patient representatives, medical oncologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists, pulmonologists, palliative care specialists, registry experts and specialist nurses to review existing data and practices. Using a modified Delphi method, the group developed a consensus recommendation ("the set") on the outcomes most essential to track for patients with lung cancer, along with baseline demographic, clinical and tumour characteristics (case-mix variables) for risk adjustment.The set applies to patients diagnosed with nonsmall cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer. Our working group recommends the collection of the following outcomes: survival, complications during or within 6 months of treatment and patient-reported domains of health-related quality of life including pain, fatigue, cough and dyspnoea. Case-mix variables were defined to improve interpretation of comparisons.We defined an international consensus recommendation of the most important outcomes for lung cancer patients, along with relevant case-mix variables, and are working to support adoption and reporting of these measures globally.

Defining an International Standard Set of Outcome Measures for Patients With Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis: Consensus of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis Working Group.

OBJECTIVE: To define a minimum Standard Set of outcome measures and case-mix factors for monitoring, comparing, and improving health care for patients with clinically diagnosed hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA), with a focus on defining the outcomes that matter most to patients. METHODS: An international working group of patients, arthroplasty register experts, orthopedic surgeons, primary care physicians, rheumatologists, and physiotherapists representing 10 countries was assembled to review existing literature and practices for assessing outcomes of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic OA therapies, including surgery. A series of 8 teleconferences, incorporating a modified Delphi process, were held to reach consensus. RESULTS: The working group reached consensus on a concise set of outcome measures to evaluate patients' joint pain, physical functioning, health-related quality of life, work status, mortality, reoperations, readmissions, and overall satisfaction with treatment result. To support analysis of these outcome measures, pertinent baseline characteristics and risk factor metrics were defined. Annual outcome measurement is recommended for all patients. CONCLUSION: We have defined a Standard Set of outcome measures for monitoring the care of people with clinically diagnosed hip or knee OA that is appropriate for use across all treatment and care settings. We believe this Standard Set provides meaningful, comparable, and easy to interpret measures ready to implement in clinics and/or registries globally. We view this set as an initial step that, when combined with cost data, will facilitate value-based health care improvements in the treatment of hip and knee OA.

A Proposed Minimum Standard Set of Outcome Measures for Cataract Surgery.

IMPORTANCE: Aligning outcome measures for cataract surgery, one of the most frequently performed procedures globally, may facilitate international comparisons that can drive improvements in the outcomes most meaningful to patients. OBJECTIVE: To propose a minimum standard set of outcome measures for cataract surgery that enables global comparisons. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A working group of international experts in cataract outcomes and registries was convened, along with a patient advocate, to agree on a consensus of outcome measures for cataract surgery. In a modified Delphi process, the group met regularly between November 10, 2012, and November 21, 2013, to discuss which outcomes to include in a standard set. Included factors were based on extant literature, existing registries, and the experience of group members. Similarly, a series of consensus discussions were held to determine a set of risk factors to be gathered for each patient. The final shortlist was compiled into a standard set. Analysis was performed from November 22, 2013, to April 5, 2014. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Development of a recommended standard set encompassing preoperative metrics including patient risk factors, intraoperative factors including surgical complications, and postoperative cataract surgery outcomes. RESULTS: The recommended standard set encompasses all patients treated for cataracts by 1 of 4 surgical approaches (phacoemulsification, sutured manual extracapsular cataract extraction, sutureless manual extracapsular cataract extraction, or intracapsular cataract extraction). The recommended metrics to be recorded preoperatively include demographics, ocular history and comorbidities, preoperative visual acuity, and patient-reported visual function. The recommended outcomes were split into intraoperative and postoperative metrics. Intraoperative outcomes include capsule-related problems, dislocation of lens nucleus fragments into the vitreous, and other complications. Postoperative outcomes include visual acuity, refractive error, patient-reported visual function, and early and late complications of surgery. The suggested follow-up for collection of postoperative outcomes is up to 3 months. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A minimum standard set of outcome measures for cataract surgery is important for meaningful comparison across contexts. The proposed data set is a compromise between all useful data and the practicalities of data collection.

Development of a Standardized Set of Patient-centered Outcomes for Advanced Prostate Cancer: An International Effort for a Unified Approach.

BACKGROUND: There are no universally monitored outcomes relevant to men with advanced prostate cancer, making it challenging to compare health outcomes between populations. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop a standard set of outcomes relevant to men with advanced prostate cancer to follow during routine clinical care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement assembled a multidisciplinary working group to develop the set. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We used a modified Delphi method to achieve consensus regarding the outcomes, measures, and case mix factors included. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The 25 members of the multidisciplinary international working group represented academic and nonacademic centers, registries, and patients. Recognizing the heterogeneity of men with advanced prostate cancer, the group defined the scope as men with all stages of incurable prostate cancer (metastatic and biochemical recurrence ineligible for further curative therapy). We defined outcomes important to all men, such as overall survival, and measures specific to subgroups, such as time to metastasis. Measures gathered from clinical data include measures of disease control. We also identified patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), such as degree of urinary, bowel, and erectile dysfunction, mood symptoms, and pain control. CONCLUSIONS: The international multidisciplinary group identified clinical data and PROMs that serve as a basis for international health outcome comparisons and quality-of-care assessments. The set will be revised annually. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our international group has recommended a standardized set of patient-centered outcomes to be followed during routine care for all men with advanced prostate cancer.

Standardized Outcome Measurement for Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Consensus From the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM).

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) outcomes consistently improve when they are routinely measured and provided back to physicians and hospitals. However, few centers around the world systematically track outcomes, and no global standards exist. Furthermore, patient-centered outcomes and longitudinal outcomes are under-represented in current assessments. METHODS AND RESULTS: The nonprofit International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international Working Group to define a consensus standard set of outcome measures and risk factors for tracking, comparing, and improving the outcomes of CAD care. Members were drawn from 4 continents and 6 countries. Using a modified Delphi method, the ICHOM Working Group defined who should be tracked, what should be measured, and when such measurements should be performed. The ICHOM CAD consensus measures were designed to be relevant for all patients diagnosed with CAD, including those with acute myocardial infarction, angina, and asymptomatic CAD. Thirteen specific outcomes were chosen, including acute complications occurring within 30 days of acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting surgery, or percutaneous coronary intervention; and longitudinal outcomes for up to 5 years for patient-reported health status (Seattle Angina Questionnaire [SAQ-7], elements of Rose Dyspnea Score, and Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-2]), cardiovascular hospital admissions, cardiovascular procedures, renal failure, and mortality. Baseline demographic, cardiovascular disease, and comorbidity information is included to improve the interpretability of comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: ICHOM recommends that this set of outcomes and other patient information be measured for all patients with CAD.

A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Outcome measurement has been shown to improve performance in several fields of healthcare. This understanding has driven a growing interest in value-based healthcare, where value is defined as outcomes achieved per money spent. While low back pain (LBP) constitutes an enormous burden of disease, no universal set of metrics has yet been accepted to measure and compare outcomes. Here, we aim to define such a set. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An international group of 22 specialists in several disciplines of spine care was assembled to review literature and select LBP outcome metrics through a 6-round modified Delphi process. The scope of the outcome set was degenerative lumbar conditions. RESULTS: Patient-reported metrics include numerical pain scales, lumbar-related function using the Oswestry disability index, health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, and questions assessing work status and analgesic use. Specific common and serious complications are included. Recommended follow-up intervals include 6, 12, and 24 months after initiating treatment, with optional follow-up at 3 months and 5 years. Metrics for risk stratification are selected based on pre-existing tools. INTERPRETATION: The outcome measures recommended here are structured around specific etiologies of LBP, span a patient's entire cycle of care, and allow for risk adjustment. Thus, when implemented, this set can be expected to facilitate meaningful comparisons and ultimately provide a continuous feedback loop, enabling ongoing improvements in quality of care. Much work lies ahead in implementation, revision, and validation of this set, but it is an essential first step toward establishing a community of LBP providers focused on maximizing the value of the care we deliver.

Defining a standard set of patient-centered outcomes for men with localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Value-based health care has been proposed as a unifying force to drive improved outcomes and cost containment. OBJECTIVE: To develop a standard set of multidimensional patient-centered health outcomes for tracking, comparing, and improving localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment value. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We convened an international working group of patients, registry experts, urologists, and radiation oncologists to review existing data and practices. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The group defined a recommended standard set representing who should be tracked, what should be measured and at what time points, and what data are necessary to make meaningful comparisons. Using a modified Delphi method over a series of teleconferences, the group reached consensus for the Standard Set. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We recommend that the Standard Set apply to men with newly diagnosed localized PCa treated with active surveillance, surgery, radiation, or other methods. The Standard Set includes acute toxicities occurring within 6 mo of treatment as well as patient-reported outcomes tracked regularly out to 10 yr. Patient-reported domains of urinary incontinence and irritation, bowel symptoms, sexual symptoms, and hormonal symptoms are included, and the recommended measurement tool is the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form. Disease control outcomes include overall, cause-specific, metastasis-free, and biochemical relapse-free survival. Baseline clinical, pathologic, and comorbidity information is included to improve the interpretability of comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: We have defined a simple, easily implemented set of outcomes that we believe should be measured in all men with localized PCa as a crucial first step in improving the value of care. PATIENT SUMMARY: Measuring, reporting, and comparing identical outcomes across treatments and treatment centers will provide patients and providers with information to make informed treatment decisions. We defined a set of outcomes that we recommend being tracked for every man being treated for localized prostate cancer.