Patient Satisfaction and Regret After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Decision Regret Analysis

A systematic review of patient regret after surgery- A common phenomenon in many specialties but rare within gender-affirmation surgery

Regret after gender-affirming surgery (GAS) is a complex issue. Comparing regret after GAS to regret after plastic surgery operations and other major life decisions is a novel approach that can provide insight into the magnitude of this issue. A systematic review of three databases was conducted to investigate regret after common plastic surgery operations. Three separate literature reviews on regret after GAS, regret after elective operations, and regret after major life decisions were performed. A total of 55 articles examining regret after plastic surgery were included. The percentage of patients reporting regret ranged from 0 to 47.1 ​% in breast reconstruction, 5.1-9.1 ​% in breast augmentation, and 10.82-33.3 ​% in body contouring. In other surgical subspecialties, 30 ​% of patients experience regret following prostatectomy and up to 19.5 ​% following bariatric surgery. Rate of regret after GAS is approximately 1 ​%. Other life decisions, such as having children and getting a tattoo have regret rates of 7 ​% and 16.2 ​%, respectively. When comparing regret after GAS to regret after other surgeries and major life decisions, the percentage of patients experiencing regret is extremely low.

Clinical characteristics and predictors of long-term postoperative urinary incontinence in patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A propensity-matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to elucidate the clinical characteristics and predictors of long-term postoperative urinary incontinence (PUI) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

METHODS

This study included patients who underwent RARP at our institution and were stratified into PUI (≥1 pad/day) and continence (0 pad/day) groups at 60 months after RARP. A propensity score-matched analysis with multiple preoperative urinary status (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary subdomains, total International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and IPSS-quality of life scores) was performed to match preoperative urinary status in these groups. Serial changes in urinary status and treatment satisfaction preoperatively and until 60 months after RARP were compared, and predictors of long-term PUI were assessed using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 228 patients were included in the PUI and continence groups (114 patients each). Although no significant difference in preoperative urinary status was observed between the two groups, the postoperative urinary status significantly worsened overall in the PUI group than in the continence group. Treatment satisfaction was also significantly lower in the PUI group than in the continence group from 12 to 60 months postoperatively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that age (≥70 years) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) were significant predictors of the long-term PUI group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with long-term PUI had poor overall postoperative urinary status and lower treatment satisfaction than the continence group. Considering the age and risk of BCR is important for predicting long-term PUI when performing RARP.

Patients' Preferences for Cytoreductive Treatments in Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Prostate Cancer: The IP5-MATTER Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Cytoreductive treatments for patients diagnosed with de novo synchronous metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) confer incremental survival benefits over systemic therapy, but these may lead to added toxicity and morbidity. Our objective was to determine patients' preferences for, and trade-offs between, additional cytoreductive prostate and metastasis-directed interventions.

METHODS

A prospective multicentre discrete choice experiment trial was conducted at 30 hospitals in the UK between December 3, 2020 and January 25, 2023 (NCT04590976). The individuals were eligible for inclusion if they were diagnosed with de novo synchronous mHSPC within 4 mo of commencing androgen deprivation therapy and had performance status 0-2. A discrete choice experiment instrument was developed to elicit patients' preferences for cytoreductive prostate radiotherapy, prostatectomy, prostate ablation, and stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy to metastasis. Patients chose their preferred treatment based on seven attributes. An error-component conditional logit model was used to estimate the preferences for and trade-offs between treatment attributes.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 352 patients were enrolled, of whom 303 completed the study. The median age was 70 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 64-76) and prostate-specific antigen was 94 ng/ml (IQR 28-370). Metastatic stages were M1a 10.9% (33/303), M1b 79.9% (242/303), and M1c 7.6% (23/303). Patients preferred treatments with longer survival and progression-free periods. Patients were less likely to favour cytoreductive prostatectomy with systemic therapy (Coef. -0.448; [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.60 to -0.29]; p < 0.001), unless combined with metastasis-directed therapy. Cytoreductive prostate radiotherapy or ablation with systemic therapy, number of hospital visits, use of a "day-case" procedure, or addition of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy did not impact treatment choice. Patients were willing to accept an additional cytoreductive treatment with 10 percentage point increases in the risk of urinary incontinence and fatigue to gain 3.4 mo (95% CI 2.8-4.3) and 2.7 mo (95% CI 2.3-3.1) of overall survival, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Patients are accepting of additional cytoreductive treatments for survival benefit in mHSPC, prioritising preservation of urinary function and avoidance of fatigue.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We performed a large study to ascertain how patients diagnosed with advanced (metastatic) prostate cancer at their first diagnosis made decisions regarding additional available treatments for their prostate and cancer deposits (metastases). Treatments would not provide cure but may reduce cancer burden (cytoreduction), prolong life, and extend time without cancer progression. We reported that most patients were willing to accept additional treatments for survival benefits, in particular treatments that preserved urinary function and reduced fatigue.

Patient-related decisional regret: An evolutionary concept analysis

BACKGROUND

Health-related decision-making is a complex process given the variability of treatment options, conflicting treatment plans, time constraints and variable outcomes. This complexity may result in patients experiencing decisional regret following decision-making. Nonetheless, literature on decisional regret in the healthcare context indicates inconsistent characterization and operationalization of this concept.

AIM(S)

To conceptually define the phenomenon of decisional regret and synthesize the state of science on patients' experiences with decisional regret.

DESIGN

A concept analysis.

METHODS

Rodgers' evolutionary method guided the conceptualization of this review. An interdisciplinary literature search was conducted from 2003 until 2023 using five databases, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science. The search informed how the concept manifested across health-related literature. We used PRISMA-ScR checklist to guide the reporting of this review.

RESULTS

Based on the analysis of 25 included articles, a conceptual definition of decisional regret was proposed. Three defining attributes underscored the negative cognitive-emotional nature of this concept, post-decisional experience relating to the decision-making process, treatment option and/or treatment outcome and an immediate or delayed occurrence. Antecedents preceding decisional regret comprised initial psychological or emotional status, sociodemographic determinants, impaired decision-making process, role regret, conflicting treatment plans and adverse treatment outcomes. Consequences of this concept included positive and negative outcomes influencing quality of life, health expectations, patient-provider relationship and healthcare experience appraisal. A conceptual model was developed to summarize the concept's characteristics.

CONCLUSION

The current knowledge on decisional regret is expected to evolve with further exploration of this concept, particularly for the temporal dimension of regret experience. This review identified research, clinical and policy gaps informing our nursing recommendations for the concept's evolution.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This concept analysis examines existing literature and does not require patient-related data collection. The methodological approach does not necessitate collaboration with the public.

Influential Factors Impacting Treatment Decision-making and Decision Regret in Patients with Localized or Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review

CONTEXT

Treatment decision-making (TDM) for patients with localized (LPC) or locally advanced (LAPC) prostate cancer is complex, and post-treatment decision regret (DR) is common. The factors driving TDM or predicting DR remain understudied.

OBJECTIVE

Two systematic literature reviews were conducted to explore the factors associated with TDM and DR.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Three online databases, select congress proceedings, and gray literature were searched (September 2022). Publications on TDM and DR in LPC/LAPC were prioritized based on the following: 2012 onward, ≥100 patients, journal article, and quantitative data. The Preferred Reporting Items Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed. Influential factors were those with p < 0.05; for TDM, factors described as "a decision driver", "associated", "influential", or "significant" were also included. The key factors were determined by number of studies, consistency of evidence, and study quality.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seventy-five publications (68 studies) reported TDM. Patient participation in TDM was reported in 34 publications; overall, patients preferred an active/shared role. Of 39 influential TDM factors, age, ethnicity, external factors (physician recommendation most common), and treatment characteristics/toxicity were key. Forty-nine publications reported DR. The proportion of patients experiencing DR varied by treatment type: 7-43% (active surveillance), 12-57% (radical prostatectomy), 1-49% (radiotherapy), 28-49% (androgen-deprivation therapy), and 21-47% (combination therapy). Of 42 significant DR factors, treatment toxicity (sexual/urinary/bowel dysfunction), patient role in TDM, and treatment type were key.

CONCLUSIONS

The key factors impacting TDM were physician recommendation, age, ethnicity, and treatment characteristics. Treatment toxicity and TDM approach were the key factors influencing DR. To help patients navigate factors influencing TDM and to limit DR, a shared, consensual TDM approach between patients, caregivers, and physicians is needed.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at factors influencing treatment decision-making (TDM) and decision regret (DR) in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer. The key factors influencing TDM were doctor's recommendation, patient age/ethnicity, and treatment side effects. A shared, consensual TDM approach between patients and doctors was found to limit DR.

Assessing Decision Regret in Patients with Same-Day Discharge Pathway After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Introduction: After the introduction of same-day discharge (SDD) pathways for various surgeries, these pathways have demonstrated comparable complication rates and a reduced overall cost of care. Outpatient robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is introduced in high-volume centers; however, patients' perspectives on the SDD RARP protocol are not well understood. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire consisting of 24 questions, including the Likert Decisional Regret Scale, was distributed to patients who underwent RARP at our center. The overall decision regret score was calculated as described in the literature. We used 15 as a cutoff point for differentiating between high- and low-regret rates. Median and interquartile range were determined for non-normally distributed variables, while mean ± standard deviation was calculated for continuous data. Results: Of the 72 patients who completed the questionnaire, 65.7% (n = 44) of patients felt no regret about their decision of choosing the SDD RARP protocol and 90.3% (n = 65) of men stated that they would have made the same decision. At the same time, 97.1% (n = 68) of patients would also recommend this procedure to others. The median decisional regret score of the cohort (n = 67) was 0 (0-10). Fifty-four of 67 (80.6%) patients were in the low-regret score group, while 13 (19.4%) were in the high-regret group. Patients in the high-regret group were more likely to have low household income (<$30,000 a year) and they experienced postoperative pain more frequently compared with patients in the lower regret group (7.7% vs 1.9%, p = 0.626, and 61.5% vs 38.9%, p = 0.212, respectively). Conclusions: Most patients expressed low regret about choosing the SDD pathway for RARP, underscoring the importance of thorough explanation of the procedure and discharge process to enhance patient experience. However, a subset of patients did express regret, possibly due to an interplay of patient- and procedure-related factors.

Decisional regret, symptom burden, and quality of life following transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal cancer

BACKGROUND

Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) has equivalent oncologic control to radiotherapy with potential for improved quality of life (QOL) and lower patient-reported decisional regret.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study between 2016 and 2021 of TORS patients with early-stage oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma who completed the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), M. D. Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI), and University of Washington Quality of Life (UW-QOL). The median time from treatment to questionnaire completion was 1.8 years (IQR 1.4-3.3, range 1.0-5.6).

RESULTS

Of 65 patients, 84.6% expressed no or mild decisional regret. Regret was not associated with clinical parameters or adjuvant treatment but was correlated with MDADI (τavg = -0.23, p < 0.001) and UW-QOL (τavg = -0.27, p < 0.001). Worse MDADI was associated with older age and worse UW-QOL was associated with multi-site operation and shorter time to survey.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the TORS cohort expressed very limited decisional regret. DRS scores were unaffected by clinicodemographics or additional adjuvant therapies, but decision regret was correlated with worse QOL and worse swallowing.

Decision Regret in Patients with Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Treatment choice for localised prostate cancer remains a significant challenge for patients and clinicians, with uncertainty over decisions potentially leading to conflict and regret. There is a need to further understand the prevalence and prognostic factors of decision regret to improve patient quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

To generate the best estimates for the prevalence of significant decision regret localised prostate cancer patients, and to investigate prognostic patient, oncological, and treatment factors associated with regret.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and PsychINFO databases including studies evaluating the prevalence or patient, treatment, or oncological prognostic factors in localised prostate cancer patients. A pooled prevalence of significant regret was calculated with the formal prognostic factor evaluation conducted per factor identified.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Significant decision regret was present in a pooled 20% (95% confidence interval 16-23) of patients across 14 studies and 17883 patients. This was lower in active surveillance (13%), with little difference between those who underwent radiotherapy (19%) and those who underwent prostatectomy (18%). Evaluation of individual prognostic factors demonstrated higher regret in those with poorer post-treatment bowel, sexual, and urinary function; decreased involvement in the decision-making process; and Black ethnicity. However, evidence remains conflicting, with low or moderate certainty of findings.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of men experience decision regret after a localised prostate cancer diagnosis. Monitoring those with increased functional symptoms and improving patient involvement in the decision-making process through education and decision aids may reduce regret.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at how common regret in treatment decisions is after treatment for early-stage prostate cancer and factors linked with this. We found that one in five regret their decision, with those who had experienced side effects or were less involved in the decision-making process more likely to have regret. By addressing these, clinicians could reduce regret and improve quality of life.

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.

Single-port Robotic Transvesical Partial Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Initial Series and Description of Technique

BACKGROUND

Partial prostatectomy has been described as an alternative to focal therapy for the management of localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To describe early outcomes and technique for single-port (SP) transvesical partial prostatectomy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective analysis was performed for nine patients with low-volume, localized, low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer (Gleason ≤7) undergoing SP transvesical partial prostatectomy replicating the inclusion criteria for focal therapy by a single surgeon from November 2020 to March 2022.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

The daVinci SP access port was inserted percutaneously into the bladder and pnuemovesicum was achieved. The camera, robotic instruments, assistant port, and flexible suction tubing were introduced through the access port. The Koelis transrectal ultrasound with preoperative prostate magnetic resonance imaging fusion was used for intraoperative guidance.

MEASUREMENTS

Demographic information, intraoperative variables, and postoperative outcomes were collected in an institutional review board-approved database, and a descriptive statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

All cases were completed without requiring extra ports or conversion. No intraoperative complications were noted, and all patients were discharged on the day of surgery. Pathology showed Gleason scores of 3 + 3 = 6 in one case, 3 + 4 = 7 in seven cases, and 4 + 3 = 7 in one case, all with negative intraoperative margin assessment. At 6 wk, the median prostate-specific antigen was 0.5 and the median Sexual Health Inventory for Men score was 17.5 from 23 preoperatively. All patients were continent at 6 wk. The limitations include a small number of patients, short follow-up, and single-surgeon experience.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated the feasibility of the SP robotic transvesical partial prostatectomy. Early functional outcomes show impressive time to continence and erectile function. Continued follow-up will evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We performed partial prostatectomies in selected patients as an alternative to focal therapy using a novel transvesical single-port approach. Our approach was safe and feasible, with fewer complications and promising initial return to continence and erectile function.

The "Natural History" of Evidence on Radical Prostatectomy: What Have 20 Years of Robots Given Us?

Diverse pressures and influences have determined these two decades of radical prostatectomy history. Our novel methodology, reverse systematic review, has revealed that robotic technology was able to smother the pure laparoscopic and open techniques and transform the evidence landscape, despite the lack of robust genuine advantages beyond those brought by the laparoscopic technique.

Patients Regret Their Choice of Therapy Significantly Less Frequently after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy as Opposed to Open Radical Prostatectomy: Patient-Reported Results of the Multicenter Cross-Sectional IMPROVE Study

Patient’s regret (PatR) concerning the choice of therapy represents a crucial endpoint for treatment evaluation after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCA). This study aims to compare PatR following robot-assisted (RARP) and open surgical approach (ORP). A survey comprising perioperative-functional criteria was sent to 1000 patients in 20 German centers at a median of 15 months after RP. Surgery-related items were collected from participating centers. To calculate PatR differences between approaches, a multivariate regressive base model (MVBM) was established incorporating surgical approach and demographic, center-specific, and tumor-specific criteria not primarily affected by surgical approach. An extended model (MVEM) was further adjusted by variables potentially affected by surgical approach. PatR was based on five validated questions ranging 0−100 (cutoff >15 defined as critical PatR). The response rate was 75.0%. After exclusion of patients with laparoscopic RP or stage M1b/c, the study cohort comprised 277/365 ORP/RARP patients. ORP/RARP patients had a median PatR of 15/10 (p < 0.001) and 46.2%/28.1% had a PatR >15, respectively (p < 0.001). Based on the MVBM, RARP patients showed PatR >15 relative 46.8% less frequently (p < 0.001). Consensual decision making regarding surgical approach independently reduced PatR. With the MVEM, the independent impact of both surgical approach and of consensual decision making was confirmed. This study involving centers of different care levels showed significantly lower PatR following RARP.

The Association Between Financial Toxicity and Treatment Regret in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Financial toxicity is emerging as an important patient-centered outcome and is understudied in prostate cancer patients. We sought to understand the association between financial burden and treatment regret in men with localized prostate cancer to better evaluate the role of financial discussions in patient counseling.

METHODS

Utilizing the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation dataset, we identified all men accrued between 2011 and 2012 who underwent surgery, radiation, or active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Financial burden and treatment regret were assessed at 3- and 5-year follow-up. The association between financial burden and regret was assessed using multivariable longitudinal logistic regression controlling for demographic and disease characteristics, treatment, functional outcomes, and patient expectations.

RESULTS

Of the 2924 eligible patients, regret and financial burden assessments for 3- and/or 5-year follow-up were available for 81% (n = 2359). After adjustment for relevant covariates, financial burden from "finances in general" was associated with treatment regret at 3 years (odds ratio [OR] = 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33 to 4.57; P = .004); however, this association was no longer statistically significant at 5-year follow-up (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.56 to 2.54; P = .7).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based sample of men with localized prostate cancer, we observed associations between financial burden and treatment regret. Our findings suggest indirect treatment costs, especially during the first 3 years after diagnosis, may impact patients more profoundly than direct costs and are important for inclusion in shared decision making.

Limited impact of erectile function on health-related quality of life in Japanese men undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of erectile function on health-related quality of life in Japanese prostate cancer patients following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

Time-dependent changes in erectile function and health-related quality of life were assessed using the erection hardness score and Medical Outcomes Study 8-Item Short Form Health Survey, respectively, in 229 consecutive Japanese patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. In this series, patients with erection hardness score ≥2 were considered to those having a certain erectile function.

RESULTS

Among the 229 patients examined, erection hardness score ≥2 was observed in 134 (58.5%) and 34 (14.9%) before and 12 months after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, respectively. Prior to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, all eight scale scores of 8-Item Short Form Health Survey were significantly superior in patients with erection hardness score ≥2 than in those with erection hardness score = 0 or 1. However, significant differences were observed in two scale scores between patients with erection hardness score ≥2 and those with erection hardness score = 0 or 1 at 12 months after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Furthermore, among patients with erection hardness score ≥2 before robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, no significant differences were noted in any of the eight scale scores between patients with erection hardness score ≥2 and erection hardness score = 0 or 1 at 12 months after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest the limited impact of erectile function on postoperative health-related quality of life in Japanese patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Association of Treatment Modality, Functional Outcomes, and Baseline Characteristics With Treatment-Related Regret Among Men With Localized Prostate Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Treatment-related regret is an integrative, patient-centered measure that accounts for morbidity, oncologic outcomes, and anxiety associated with prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between treatment approach, functional outcomes, and patient expectations and treatment-related regret among patients with localized prostate cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This population-based, prospective cohort study used 5 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-based registries in the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation cohort. Participants included men with clinically localized prostate cancer from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012. Data were analyzed from August 2, 2020, to March 1, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Prostate cancer treatments included surgery, radiotherapy, and active surveillance.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Patient-reported treatment-related regret using validated metrics. Regression models were adjusted for demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics, treatment approach, and patient-reported functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Among the 2072 men included in the analysis (median age, 64 [IQR, 59-69] years), treatment-related regret at 5 years after diagnosis was reported in 183 patients (16%) undergoing surgery, 76 (11%) undergoing radiotherapy, and 20 (7%) undergoing active surveillance. Compared with active surveillance and adjusting for baseline differences, active treatment was associated with an increased likelihood of regret for those undergoing surgery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.40 [95% CI, 1.44-4.01]) but not radiotherapy (aOR, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.88-2.66]). When mediation by patient-reported functional outcomes was considered, treatment modality was not independently associated with regret. Sexual dysfunction, but not other patient-reported functional outcomes, was significantly associated with regret (aOR for change in sexual function from baseline, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.52-0.81]). Subjective patient-perceived treatment efficacy (aOR, 5.40 [95% CI, 2.15-13.56]) and adverse effects (aOR, 5.83 [95% CI, 3.97-8.58]), compared with patient expectations before treatment, were associated with treatment-related regret. Other patient characteristics at the time of treatment decision-making, including participatory decision-making tool scores (aOR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.69-0.92]), social support (aOR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.90]), and age (aOR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.62-0.97]), were significantly associated with regret. Results were comparable when assessing regret at 3 years rather than 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this cohort study suggest that more than 1 in 10 patients with localized prostate cancer experience treatment-related regret. The rates of regret appear to differ between treatment approaches in a manner that is mediated by functional outcomes and patient expectations. Treatment preparedness that focuses on expectations and treatment toxicity and is delivered in the context of shared decision-making should be the subject of future research to examine whether it can reduce regret.

A Systematic Review of Patients' Values, Preferences, and Expectations for the Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT

Advances in systemic agents have increased overall survival for men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer. Additional cytoreductive prostate treatments and metastasis-directed therapies are under evaluation. These confer toxicity but may offer incremental survival benefits. Thus, an understanding of patients' values and treatment preferences is important for counselling, decision-making, and guideline development.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of patients' values, preferences, and expectations regarding treatment of metastatic prostate cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched for qualitative and preference elucidation studies reporting on patients' preferences for treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) or GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO as CRD42020201420.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 1491 participants from 15 studies met the prespecified eligibility for inclusion. The study designs included were discrete choice experiments (n = 5), mixed methods (n = 3), and qualitative methods (n = 7). Disease states reported per study were: metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in nine studies (60.0%), metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in two studies (13.3%), and a mixed cohort in four studies (26.6%). In quantitative preference elicitation studies, patients consistently valued treatment effectiveness and delay in time to symptoms as the two top-ranked treatment attributes (low or very low certainty). Patients were willing to trade off treatment-related toxicity for potential oncological benefits (low certainty). In qualitative studies, thematic analysis revealed cancer progression and/or survival, pain, and fatigue as key components in treatment decisions (low or very low certainty). Patients continue to value oncological benefits in making decisions on treatments under qualitative assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited understanding of how patients make treatment and trade-off decisions following a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer. For appropriate investment in emerging cytoreductive local tumour and metastasis-directed therapies, we should seek to better understand how this cohort weighs the oncological benefits against the risks.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at how men with advanced (metastatic) prostate cancer make treatment decisions. We found that little is known about patients' preferences for current and proposed new treatments. Further studies are required to understand how patients make decisions to help guide the integration of new treatments into the standard of care.

Patient- and Surgeon-Level Variation in Patient-Reported Sexual Function Outcomes Following Radical Prostatectomy Over 2 Years: Results From a Statewide Surgical Improvement Collaborativep

Importance

Of patient-reported outcomes for individuals undergoing radical prostatectomy, sexual function outcomes are among the most reported and the most detrimental to quality of life. Understanding variations at the patient and surgeon level may inform collaborative quality improvement.

Objective

To describe patient- and surgeon-level sexual function outcomes for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) and to examine the correlation between surgeon case volume and sexual function outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a prospective cohort study using the MUSIC registry and patient-reported sexual function outcome data. Patient- and surgeon-level variation in sexual function outcomes were examined among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy from May 2014 to August 2019. Sexual function outcome data were collected using validated questionnaires, which were completed before surgery and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months' follow-up following surgery. All participants were male. Race and ethnicity data were self-reported and were included to examine potential variation in outcomes by race and/or ethnicity. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to March 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

There were 4 outcomes in this study, including the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) sexual function scores at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months' follow-up; patient-level sexual function recovery at 12- and 24-month follow-up; surgeon-level variation in sexual function outcomes at 12- and 24-month follow-up; and correlation between surgeon case volume and sexual function outcomes.

Results

A total of 1426 male patients met inclusion criteria for this study. The median (IQR) age was 64 (58-68) years. A total of 115 participants (8%) were Black, 1197 (84%) were White, 25 (2%) were of another race or ethnicity (consolidated owing to low numbers), and 89 (6%) were of unknown race or ethnicity. Among patients undergoing bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy, mean (SD) EPIC-26 sexual function scores at 12- and 24-month follow-up (12 months, 39 [28]; 24 months, 63 [29]) did not return to baseline levels. There was wide variation in EPIC-26 sexual function scores at both 12-month follow-up (range, 23-69; P < .001) and 24-month follow-up (range, 27-64; P < .001). Similar variations were found in EPIC-26 sexual function scores and recovery of sexual function by surgeon. Recovery rates ranged from 0% to 40% of patients at 12-month follow-up (18 surgeons; P < .001) and 3% to 44% of patients at 24-month follow-up (12 surgeons; P < .001). Surgeon case volume and sexual function outcomes were not significantly correlated. On multivariable analysis, the following variables were associated with better recovery at 24-month follow-up: younger age (P < .001), lower baseline EPIC-26 sexual function score (P < .001), lower Gleason score (P = .05), and nonobesity (P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, there was significant patient- and surgeon-level variation in sexual function recovery over 2 years following radical prostatectomy. Variation in surgeon-level sexual function outcomes presents an opportunity and model for surgical collaborative quality improvement.

Measuring Quality of Life Following Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) represents the most common solid organ malignancy in men. Fortunately, at the time of diagnosis, the majority of cases are staged as localized or regional disease, conferring excellent 5- and 10-year cure rates. There are several first line treatment options including surgical approaches such as robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and radiation therapy (RT) available to patients with localized disease that offer similar PCa oncologic outcomes but are associated with potentially significant side effects which may impact health-related quality of life (HRQOL) domains. Recently, clinicians and investigators have sought to better understand these changes in HRQOL metrics with the utilization of patient-reported outcomes (PRO). Given that RARP represents the most common surgical treatment for PCa in the United States, there has been a particular interest in assessing these outcomes derived by patient perspectives to more fully appreciate treatment-related impact on quality of life following RARP.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review sought to explore the instruments available to measure quality of life after RARP, a review of the PRO data after RARP, and future directions for assessing and improving quality of life outcomes following this surgery.

CLINICAL USE

There are several treatment options for men diagnosed with local and regional prostate cancer with similar oncologic outcomes but differing patterns of side effects affecting post-treatment quality of life. Understanding data reported directly by patients following RARP about their side effects and quality of life gives providers additional information for appropriate preoperative counseling for patients choosing between treatment options for their prostate cancer.

Patient surgical satisfaction after da Vinci® single-port and multi-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: propensity score-matched analysis

The da Vinci^® single-port (SP) and multiport (Xi) approaches to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) are described by different authors in the literature, primarily comparing short-term outcomes of both modalities. To our knowledge, this is the first article comparing the surgical perspective and satisfaction of patients who underwent RARP with the SP and Xi platforms. To determine the patient surgical perspective and satisfaction in terms of pain control, return to normal activity, and overall results of surgery for two groups who underwent SP and Xi radical prostatectomy. The data from 71 consecutive patients who underwent SP RARP in a single center from June 2019 to April 2020 was compared to 875 patients who underwent Xi RARP in the same period. A single surgeon performed all procedures with a transperitoneal technique. After a propensity score match, two groups of 71 patients (SP and Xi) were selected and compared in the study. Patients were contacted by phone by two interviewers and a questionnaire was administered in English or Spanish. Patients were instructed not to disclose the type of robotic surgery they underwent, as interviewers were blinded to that information. A validated Surgical Satisfaction Questionnaire (SSQ-8) was used, along with an additional question from our institution asking about the satisfaction with the number of incision sites (GRI-1). Data were analyzed as continuous and discrete variables to compare the differences between the Xi and SP cohorts. A response rate of 85.9% (n = 61) in the Xi group and 73.2% (n = 52) in the SP group was captured. Overall satisfaction with surgical results was 80% and 88% in the Xi and SP cohorts, respectively. No statistical difference in responses was found between the Xi and SP cohorts for SSQ-8. However, GRI-1 demonstrated a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001) in terms of number of scars that favors the SP approach. Limitations of this study are the small sample size and recall bias. We found no statistical difference between the groups regarding the answers for SSQ-8 questionnaire; both groups were very satisfied. When assessing the number of incision sites with the GRI-1 question, patients who underwent MP had lower satisfaction rates compared to SP. These patients perceived the number of scars and their appearance as reason for lower satisfaction. We believe that future studies should consider patient’s postoperative perspective when adopting new platforms in order to combine adequate treatment with patient expectations. We performed a study assessing the postoperative satisfaction and perspectives of two groups of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy with two different robots (SP and Xi). There was no difference in patient satisfaction with the results of either the da Vinci^® SP or Xi RARP except for the patients’ perception on their number of scars, which favored the SP group.

Radical Prostatectomy: Sequelae in the Course of Time

Objective: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a frequent treatment for men suffering from localized prostate cancer (PCa). Whilst offering a high chance for cure, it does not come without a significant impact on health-related quality of life. Herein we review the common adverse effects RP may have over the course of time. Methods: A collaborative narrative review was performed with the identification of the principal studies on the topic. The search was executed by a relevant term search on PubMed from 2010 to February 2021. Results: Rates of major complications in patients undergoing RP are generally low. The main adverse effects are erectile dysfunction varying from 11 to 87% and urinary incontinence varying from 0 to 87% with a peak in functional decline shortly after surgery, and dependent on definitions. Different less frequent side effects also need to be taken into account. The highest rate of recovery is seen within the first year after RP, but even long-term improvements are possible. Nevertheless, for some men these adverse effects are long lasting and different, less frequent side effects also need to be taken into account. Despite many technical advances over the last two decades no surgical approach can be clearly favored when looking at long-term outcome, as surgical volume and experience as well as individual patient characteristics are still the most influential variables. Conclusions: The frequency of erectile function and urinary continence side effects after RP, and the trajectory of recovery, need to be taken into account when counseling patients about their treatment options for prostate cancer.