PD61-07 THE COMPREHENSIVE 6-MONTH PROSTATE CANCER-PATIENT EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (PC-PEP) IMPROVES URINARY FUNCTION AMONG MEN WITH PROSTATE CANCER: PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF a PHASE 4 PAN-CANADIAN AND INTERNATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION TRIAL
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized: Surgical Therapy IV (PD61)1 May 2024PD61-07 THE COMPREHENSIVE 6-MONTH PROSTATE CANCER-PATIENT EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM (PC-PEP) IMPROVES URINARY FUNCTION AMONG MEN WITH PROSTATE CANCER: PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF a PHASE 4 PAN-CANADIAN AND INTERNATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION TRIAL Charlie Gillis, Gabriela Ilie, Cody MacDonald, Ross Mason, Ricardo Rendon, Nikhilesh Patel, David Bowes, Greg Bailly, David Bell, Derek Wilke, and Robert Rutledge Charlie GillisCharlie Gillis , Gabriela IlieGabriela Ilie , Cody MacDonaldCody MacDonald , Ross MasonRoss Mason , Ricardo RendonRicardo Rendon , Nikhilesh PatelNikhilesh Patel , David BowesDavid Bowes , Greg BaillyGreg Bailly , David BellDavid Bell , Derek WilkeDerek Wilke , and Robert RutledgeRobert Rutledge View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001009352.31737.3d.07AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The Prostate Cancer-Patient Empowerment Program was found to be effective in improving urinary symptoms for patients undergoing primary treatment for localized prostate cancer. This implementation trial seeks to determine the effects of the PC-PEP intervention in patients who are at various stages in their prostate cancer management. METHODS: 186 men with a variety of treatments for localized and metastatic prostate cancer were enrolled in PC-PEP, an online, comprehensive patient resource comprising physical, mental, and social support. Daily emails or texts reminded men to follow the program's PFMT videos 3 times per day. Videos included relaxation, quick-twitch and endurance exercises. Patients then completed weekly online compliance surveys and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaire at baseline and six months. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1. On average, the PC-PEP group reported performing PFMT 3.5 times per day (3 times a day was prescribed). Overall, men who received the PC-PEP intervention had significantly improved IPSS sum score when compared to baseline (mean IPSS difference 1.56 (95% CI 0.52–2.60, p=0.003). Urinary function was better than baseline among the 107 patients who had received radical prostatectomy (mean IPSS difference 1.94 (95% CI 0.40–3.50, p=0.014), and the 73 patients who were treated with radiation (either beam or brachy), mean IPSS difference 1.7 (95% CI 0.31–3.09, p=0.017. Men on active surveillance or hormone therapy only, showed comparable urinary function from pre- to post-intervention (p=0.19 and p=0.11, respectively). Patients who received salvage radiation had improved urinary function, mean IPSS difference 4.46 (95% CI 1.80–7.13, p<0.002). CONCLUSIONS: PC-PEP appears to significantly improve urinary tract symptoms in prostate cancer patients who are in various stages of disease treatment. Patients who underwent salvage radiotherapy may derive the most benefit. These findings add to our previous RCT results showing that PC-PEP significantly improves urinary function among men with curative disease. Source of Funding: Dalhousie Medical Research Foundation © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e1282 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Charlie Gillis More articles by this author Gabriela Ilie More articles by this author Cody MacDonald More articles by this author Ross Mason More articles by this author Ricardo Rendon More articles by this author Nikhilesh Patel More articles by this author David Bowes More articles by this author Greg Bailly More articles by this author David Bell More articles by this author Derek Wilke More articles by this author Robert Rutledge More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».