Lifestyle and sociodemographic factors associated with treatment choice of clinically localized prostate cancer in an equal access healthcare system

Sexual outcomes in men who have sex with men who underwent radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Sexual difficulties are a recognized consequence of prostate cancer (PCa) treatments. An estimated one in three men who have sex with men (MSM) receive PCa a diagnosis during their lifetime. MSM may experience all types of sexual dysfunction as reported in men who have sex with women (MSW), along with a number of more specific bothersome problems. This systematic literature review aims to evaluate sexual outcomes in MSM who have undergone radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The searches were made using relevant keywords in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, thus including the whole literature from January 2000 to November 2023. Studies which did not allow to retrieve data on sexual outcomes on MSM treated with RP for PCa were excluded. Data on sexual outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were retrieved, mostly including changes in libido, erectile function, ejaculatory disorders, orgasm, climacturia, changes in role-in-sex identity, changes in sexual partnerships, and the presence of painful receptive anal intercourses (AI).

PROSPERO ID

CRD42024502592.

RESULTS

Six articles met the inclusion criteria. In total, data of 260 patients were analyzed. Three main themes emerged: (a) MSM may experience specific sexual dysfunctions due to the different dynamics of their intimacy; (b) the lack of tool validated on gay and bisexual population to assess sexual outcomes (c) the need for a tailored approach that also takes into account sexual orientation throughout the oncological journey.

CONCLUSIONS

MSM undergoing RP may experience similar sexual problems as MSW. Painful AI should be considered a potential post-operative adverse outcome in MSM. Future studies should prioritize validating a questionnaire that explores AI. Healthcare providers should adopt a tailored approach that takes into account sexual orientation throughout the cancer journey.

Residents and Consultants Have Equal Outcomes When Performing Transrectal Fusion Biopsies: A Randomized Clinical Trial

The aim of our study was to compare the performance of residents vs. consultants in transrectal fusion prostate biopsies (FUS-PBs), as well as patient-reported comfort. Between January 2021 and October 2022, a consecutive series of patients undergoing FUS-PBs were randomized into two groups: (A) FUS-PBs performed by a consultant; (B) FUS-PBs performed by trained residents (>50 procedures). All patients underwent FUS-PBs with 12 systematic cores and 3/6 target cores. The detection rate and number of positive cores in the target lesion were compared between groups, and the patient's discomfort after the procedure was evaluated using the VAS scale. Overall, 140 patients with a median age of 72 years were enrolled. Overall, 69/140 (49.3%) presented prostate cancer and 53/69 (76.8%) presented a clinically significant cancer (Grade Group ≥ 2). Consultants presented a detection rate of 37/70 (52.9%) and residents a detection rate of 32/70 (45.7%) (p > 0.2); the mean number of positive cores in the index lesion was similar in both groups (1.5 vs. 1.1; p > 0.10). In terms of the patients' experiences, the procedure was well tolerated, with a median VAS score of 2 in both groups, with no statistically significant differences. Residents showed satisfactory outcomes in terms of detection rate, procedural time, and patient comfort when performing prostate biopsies. Residents, after adequate training, can safely perform prostate biopsies.

The influence of the "cancer" label on perceptions and management decisions for low-grade prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer should be managed with active surveillance (AS). Global uptake of AS remains disappointingly slow and heterogeneous. Removal of cancer labels has been proposed to reduce GG1 overtreatment. We sought to determine the impact of GG1 disease terminology on individual's perceptions and decision making.

METHODS

Discrete choice experiments were conducted on 3 cohorts: healthy men, canonical partners (partners), and patients with GG1 (patients). Participants reported preferences in a series of vignettes with 2 scenarios each, permuting key opinion leader-endorsed descriptors: biopsy (adenocarcinoma, acinar neoplasm, prostatic acinar neoplasm of low malignant potential [PAN-LMP], prostatic acinar neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential), disease (cancer, neoplasm, tumor, growth), management decision (treatment, AS), and recurrence risk (6%, 3%, 1%, <1%). Influence on scenario selection were estimated by conditional logit models and marginal rates of substitution. Two additional validation vignettes with scenarios portraying identical descriptors except the management options were embedded into the discrete choice experiments.

RESULTS

Across cohorts (194 healthy men, 159 partners, and 159 patients), noncancer labels PAN-LMP or prostatic acinar neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential and neoplasm, tumor, or growth were favored over adenocarcinoma and cancer (P < .01), respectively. Switching adenocarcinoma and cancer labels to PAN-LMP and growth, respectively, increased AS choice by up to 17%: healthy men (15%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10% to 20%, from 76% to 91%, P < .001), partners (17%, 95% CI = 12% to 24%, from 65% to 82%, P < .001), and patients (7%, 95% CI = 4% to 12%, from 75% to 82%, P = .063). The main limitation is the theoretical nature of questions perhaps leading to less realistic choices.

CONCLUSIONS

"Cancer" labels negatively affect perceptions and decision making regarding GG1. Relabeling (ie, avoiding word "cancer") increases proclivity for AS and would likely improve public health.