Prostate cancer treatment modality among factors influencing penile prosthesis satisfaction.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Khooblall P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10406539 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Prostate cancer treatment modality among factors influencing penile prosthesis satisfaction.
Khooblall Prajit P Bole Raevti R Bajic Petar P
Translational andrology and urology 20230721 7
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPenile prosthesis surgery (PPS) is a commonly used treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED), either as first-line therapy or in cases refractory to other treatment options. In patients with a urologic malignancy such as prostate cancer, surgical interventions like radical prostatectomy (RP) as well as non-surgical treatments such as radiation therapy can all induce ED. PPS as a treatment for ED has high satisfaction rates in the general population. Our aim was to compare sexual satisfaction in patients with prosthesis implantation for ED following RP versus ED following radiation therapy for prostate cancer.MethodsA retrospective chart review from our institutional database was conducted to identify patients who underwent PPS at our institution from 2011 to 2021. Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) questionnaire data at least 6 months from implant operative date available was required for inclusion. Eligible patients were placed in one of two groups depending on etiology of ED-following RP or prostate cancer radiation therapy. To prevent crossover confounding; patients with history of pelvic radiation were excluded from the RP group and patients with history of RP were excluded from the radiation group. Data were obtained from 51 patients in the RP group and 32 patients in the radiation therapy group. Mean EDITS scores and additional survey questions were compared between the radiation and RP groups.ResultsThere was a significant difference in mean survey responses for 8 of the 11 questions in the EDITS questionnaire between the RP group and the radiation group. Additional survey questions administered also found RP patients reported significantly higher rate of satisfaction with size of penis post-operatively versus the radiation group.ConclusionsThese preliminary findings, while requiring large-scale follow-up, suggest that there is greater sexual satisfaction and penile prosthesis device satisfaction in patients undergoing IPP placement following RP versus radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Use of validated questionnaires should continue to be utilized in quantifying device and sexual satisfaction following PPS.
| S-EPMC10251085 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED) and the utilization of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) among prostate cancer patients are understudied. The aim of the study was to examine the relationships between ED, prostate cancer treatment type and IPP implantation in a national cohort.Materials and methodsWe identified a retrospective cohort of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare patients diagnosed with locoregional prostate cancer between 2006 and 2011 and treated with surgery or radiation. Chi-square tests were used to detect significant differences in ED rates as well as use of IPP among the subset with ED. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with the use of IPP.ResultsAmong 31,233 patients in our cohort, 10,334 (33.1%) received prostatectomy and 20,899 (66.9%) received radiation. ED within 5 years was significantly more common in the prostatectomy group relative to those the radiation group (65.3% vs. 33.8%, p<0.001). In the subset of 13,812 patients with ED, the radiation group had greater median time to ED diagnosis compared to the prostatectomy group (346 vs. 133 days, p<0.001). IPP implantation was more frequent for prostatectomy patients than for radiation patients (3.6% vs. 1.4%, p<0.001). Cancer treatment type, race, and marital status were significantly associated with IPP utilization.ConclusionsED is highly prevalent among prostate cancer patients, and IPP implantation is be underutilized. ED rates, time to ED diagnosis and utilization of IPP differed significantly by prostate cancer treatment type.
| S-EPMC9091830 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10406547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A common complaint after inflatable penile prosthesis surgery is reduced penile length. We previously reported how using the Coloplast Titan inflatable penile prosthesis with aggressive new length measurement technique (NLMT) coupled with postoperative IPP rehabilitation of the implant for 1-year helped to improve patient satisfaction and erectile penile measurements. This is a 2 years follow-up of a prospective, three-center, study of 40 patients who underwent Titan prosthesis placement, with new length measurement technique for erectile dysfunction. Patient instructions were to inflate daily for 6 months and then inflate maximally for 1-2 h daily for 6-24 months. Fifteen penile measurements were taken before and immediately after surgery and at follow-up visits. Measurement changes were improved at 24 months as compared to immediately postoperative and at 12 months. 67.8% of subjects were satisfied with their length at 2 years, and 77% had perceived penile length that was longer (30.8%) or the same (46.2%) as prior to the surgery. 64.3% and 17.9% of subjects had increased and unchanged satisfaction, respectively, with penile length as compared to prior to penile implant surgery. All but one subject (96.5%) was satisfied with the overall function of his implant. This study suggests using the Coloplast Titan with aggressive cylinder sizing, and a postoperative penile rehabilitation inflation protocol can optimize patient satisfaction and erectile penile measurements at 2 years postimplant.
| S-EPMC5000799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTreatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) differ in toxicity, administration, and evidence. In this study, clinical and nonclinical factors associated with the first-line treatment for CRPC in a national delivery system were evaluated.MethodsNational electronic laboratory and clinical data from the Veterans Health Administration were used to identify patients with CRPC (ie, rising prostate-specific antigen [PSA] on androgen deprivation) who received abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, or ketoconazole from 2010 through 2017. It was determined whether clinical (eg, PSA) and nonclinical factors (eg, race, facility) were associated with the first-line treatment selection using multilevel, multinomial logistic regression. The average marginal effects (AMEs) were calculated of patient, disease, and facility characteristics on ketoconazole versus more appropriate CRPC therapy.ResultsThere were 4998 patients identified with CRPC who received first-line ketoconazole, docetaxel, abiraterone, or enzalutamide. After adjustment, increasing age was associated with receipt of abiraterone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.07; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.06-1.09) or enzalutamide (aOR, 1.10; 95% CrI, 1.08-1.11) versus docetaxel. Greater preexisting comorbidity was associated with enzalutamide versus abiraterone (aOR, 1.53; 95% CrI, 1.23-1.91). Patients with higher PSA values at the start of treatment were more likely to receive docetaxel than oral agents and less likely to receive ketoconazole than other oral agents. African American men were more likely to receive ketoconazole than abiraterone, enzalutamide, or docetaxel (AME, 2.8%; 95% CI, 0.7%-4.9%). This effect was attenuated when adjusting for facility characteristics (AME, 1.9%; 95% CI, -0.4% to 4.1%).ConclusionsClinical factors had an expected effect on the first-line treatment selection. Race may be associated with the receipt of a guideline-discordant first-line treatment.
| S-EPMC8195818 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAccess to various kidney replacement therapy (KRT) modalities for patients with end-stage kidney disease differs substantially within Europe.MethodsEuropean adults on KRT filled out an online or paper-based survey about factors influencing and experiences with modality choice (e.g. information provision, decision-making and reasons for choice) between November 2017 and January 2019. We compared countries with low, middle and high gross domestic product (GDP).ResultsIn total, 7820 patients [mean age 59 years, 56% male, 63% on centre haemodialysis (CHD)] from 38 countries participated. Twenty-five percent had received no information on the different modalities, and only 23% received information >12 months before KRT initiation. Patients were not informed about home haemodialysis (HHD) (42%) and comprehensive conservative management (33%). Besides nephrologists, nurses more frequently provided information in high-GDP countries, whereas physicians other than nephrologists did so in low-GDP countries. Patients from low-GDP countries reported later information provision, less information about other modalities than CHD and lower satisfaction with information. The majority of modality decisions were made involving both patient and nephrologist. Patients reported subjective (e.g. quality of life and fears) and objective reasons (e.g. costs and availability of treatments) for modality choice. Patients had good experiences with all modalities, but experiences were better for HHD and kidney transplantation and in middle- and high-GDP countries.ConclusionOur results suggest European differences in patient-reported factors influencing KRT modality choice, possibly caused by disparities in availability of KRT modalities, different healthcare systems and varying patient preferences. Availability of home dialysis and kidney transplantation should be optimized.
| S-EPMC8875472 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProstate cancer racial disparities in mortality outcomes are the largest in all of oncology, and less aggressive treatment received by African American (AA) patients versus white patients is likely a contributing factor. However, the reasons underlying the differences in treatment are unclear.MethodsThis study examined a prospective, population-based cohort of 1170 men with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic prostate cancer enrolled from 2011 to 2013 before treatment throughout North Carolina. By phone survey, each participant was asked to rate the aggressiveness of his cancer, and his response was compared to the actual diagnosis based on a medical record review. Participants were also asked to rate the importance of 10 factors for their treatment decision-making process.ResultsAmong AA and white patients with low-risk cancer (according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines), 78% to 80% perceived their cancers to be "not very aggressive." However, among high-risk patients, 54% of AA patients considered their cancers to be "not very aggressive," whereas 24% of white patients did (P < .001). Although both AA and white patients indicated that a cure was a very important decision-making factor, AAs were significantly more likely to consider cost, treatment time, and recovery time as very important. In a multivariable analysis, perceived cancer aggressiveness and cure as the most important factor were significantly associated with receiving any aggressive treatment and were associated with surgery (vs radiation). After adjustments for these factors and sociodemographic factors, race was not significantly associated with the treatment received.ConclusionsRacial differences in perceived cancer aggressiveness and factors important in treatment decision making provide novel insights into reasons for the known racial disparities in prostate cancer as well as potential targets for interventions to reduce these disparities.
| S-EPMC6604809 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSurgical management via penile prosthesis is an option for patients who have failed medical management. There is a paucity of literature surrounding factors contributing to patient satisfaction after implant surgery. The objective of this study was to characterize patients' and surgeons' attitudes toward factors affecting satisfaction with this procedure.MethodsTwo patient cohorts were identified and contacted via email: a medical management of erectile dysfunction (ED) cohort and a penile implant patient cohort. A third cohort, Canadian urologists who perform penile implant surgeries, was also contacted. The surveys consisted of 5-7 questions, including a rating question regarding the importance of various penile implant factors.ResultsForty-six ED patients, 45 post-implant patients, and 12 urologists completed the survey. The mean overall satisfaction on a 10-point scale was 6.49 (standard deviation [SD] 2.92). Most (67%) urologists selected patient satisfaction as one of their least favorite aspects of penile implant surgery. Compared to postimplant patients, ED patients reported greater importance in the areas of appearance (p=0.035), soft glans (p=0.040), and concealment of implant (p=0.007). Urologists ranked natural feel (p=0.019) and generating a discrete erection (p=0.022) as less important than patients.ConclusionsThis is the first study that examines which specific variables of penile implant surgery are associated with satisfaction while comparing surgeons' understanding of what patients desire from this surgery. This study identifies several factors deemed important by patients but under-recognized by urologists. This knowledge can aid urologists in optimizing preoperative counselling and improving patient satisfaction.
| S-EPMC9343162 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10929667 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10719777 | biostudies-literature