Patients who are diagnosed with localized prostate cancer need to make critical treatment decisions that are sensitive to their values and preferences. The role of decision aids in facilitating these decisions is unknown. The authors conducted a systematic review of randomized trials of decision aids for localized prostate cancer. Teams of 2 reviewers independently identified, selected, and abstracted data from 14 eligible trials (n = 3377 men), of which 10 were conducted in North America. Of these, 11 trials compared decision aids with usual care, and 3 trials compared decision aids with other decision aids. Two trials suggested a modest positive impact on decisional regret. Results across studies varied widely for decisional conflict (4 studies), satisfaction with decision (2 studies), and knowledge (2 studies). No impact on treatment choices was observed (6 studies). In conclusion, scant evidence at high risk of bias suggests the variable impact of existing decision aids on a limited set of decisional processes and outcomes. Because current decision aids provide information but do not directly facilitate shared decision making, subsequent efforts would benefit from user-centered design of decision aids that promote shared decision making.

Purpose: Nocturia (waking from sleep at night to void) is a common cause of sleep disruption associated with increased comorbidity and impaired quality of life. However, its impact on mortality remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association of nocturia with mortality as a prognostic factor and a causal risk factor. Materials and Methods: We searched PubMedÒ, ScopusÒ, CINAHLÒ (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and major conference abstracts up to December 31, 2018. Random effects meta-analyses were done to address the adjusted RR of mortality in people with nocturia. Metaregression was performed to explore potential determinants of heterogeneity, including the risk of bias. We applied the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework to rate the

Background: It remains unclear whether patients with positive surgical margins or extracapsular extension benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy. Design, setting, and participants: This was a randomised, open-label, parallel-group trial. A total of 250 patients were enrolled between April 2004 and October 2012 in eight Finnish hospitals, with pT2 with positive margins or pT3a, pN0, M0 cancer without seminal vesicle invasion. Intervention: A total of 126 patients received adjuvant radiotherapy at 66.6 Gy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary endpoint was biochemical recurrence-free survival, which we analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard regression. Overall survival, cancer-specific survival, local recurrence, and adverse events were secondary endpoints. Results and limitations: The median follow-up time for patients who were alive when the follow-up ended was 9.3 yr in the adjuvant group and 8.6 yr in the observation group. The 10-yr survival for biochemical recurrence was 82% in the adjuvant group and

No abstract

AEP)Purpose: Although nocturia is associated with various comorbidities, its impact on falls and fractures remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between nocturia and falls and fractures as a prognostic and as a causal risk factor. Materials and Methods: We searched PubMedÒ, ScopusÒ, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and abstracts of major urological meetings up to December 31, 2018. We conducted random effects meta-analyses of adjusted relative risks of falls and fractures. We applied the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to rate the quality of evidence for nocturia as a prognostic and causal factor of falls and fractures. Results: Among 5,230 potential reports 9 observational longitudinal studies provided data on the association between nocturia and falls or fractures (1 for both, 4 for falls, 4 for fractures). Pooled estimates demonstrated a risk ratio of 1.20 (95% CI The corresponding author certifies that, when applicable, a statement(s) has been included in the manuscript documenting institutional review board, ethics committee or ethical review board study approval; principles of Helsinki Declaration were followed in lieu of formal ethics committee approval; institutional animal care and use committee approval; all human subjects provided written informed consent with guarantees of confidentiality; IRB approved protocol number; animal approved project number.

Background Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) combined with targeted biopsy (TB) is increasingly used in men with clinically suspected prostate cancer (PCa), but the long acquisition times, high costs, and inter-center/reader variability of routine multiparametric prostate MRI limit its wider adoption. Methods and findings The aim was to validate a previously developed unique MRI acquisition and reporting protocol, IMPROD biparametric MRI (bpMRI) (NCT01864135), in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa in a multi-institutional trial (NCT02241122). IMPROD bpMRI has average acquisition time of 15 minutes (no endorectal coil, no intravenous contrast use) and consists of T2-weighted imaging and 3 separate diffusion-weighed imaging acquisitions. Between February 1, 2015, and March 31, 2017, 364 men with a clinical suspicion of PCa were enrolled at 4 institutions in Finland. Men with an equivocal to high suspicion (IMPROD bpMRI Likert score 3–5) of PCa had 2 TBs of up to 2 lesions followed by a systematic biopsy (SB). Men with a low to very low suspicion (IMPROD bpMRI Likert score 1–2) had only SB. All data and protocols are freely available. The primary outcome of the trial was diagnostic accuracy—including overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value—of IMPROD bpMRI for clinically significant PCa (SPCa), which was defined as a Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4 (Gleason grade group 2 or higher). In total, 338 (338/364, 93%) prospectively enrolled men completed the trial. The accuracy and NPV of IMPROD bpMRI for SPCa were 70% (113/161) and 95% (71/75) (95% CI 87%–98%), respectively. Restricting the biopsy to men with equivocal to highly suspicious IMPROD bpMRI findings would have resulted in a 22% (75/338) reduction in the number of men undergoing biopsy while missing 4 (3%, 4/146) men with SPCa. The main limitation is uncertainty about the true PCa prevalence in the study cohort, since some of the men may have PCa despite having negative biopsy findings. Conclusions IMPROD bpMRI demonstrated a high NPV for SPCa in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa in this prospective multi-institutional clinical trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02241122 .

Key Points Question What is the association of decision aids vs usual care with shared decision-making in men deciding whether to undergo prostate cancer screening? Findings This systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 randomized clinical trials comparing decision aids for prostate cancer screening (12 781 men) found that decision aids are probably associated with a small reduction in decisional conflict and are possibly associated with an increase in knowledge. Decision aids are possibly not associated with whether physicians and patients discuss prostate cancer screening and are possibly not associated with actual screening decisions. Meaning Randomized clinical trials have failed to provide compelling evidence for the use of decision aids for men contemplating prostate cancer screening that have, up to now, undergone rigorous testing to determine their outcome.

IMPORTANCE US guidelines recommend that physicians engage in shared decision-making with men considering prostate cancer screening. OBJECTIVE To estimate the association of decision aids with decisional outcomes in prostate cancer screening.