MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4394835909 · doi:10.1097/01.ju.0001009448.41537.64.04

PD19-04 IMPACT OF NOVEL PATIENT-CENTERED PATHOLOGY REPORTS ON MEN UNDERGOING PROSTATE BIOPSY: THE PAPR RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

2024· article· en· W4394835909 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ravi Kumar, Katherine Lajkosz, A. Silberman, Antonio Finelli, Neil Fleshner, Robert J. Hamilton, Girish S. Kulkarni, Alexandre R. Zlotta, Alejandro Berlín, Janet Papadakos, Sangeet Ghai, Dominik Deniffel, David Wiljer, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai, Joseph A Cafazzo, Masoom A. Haider, Odelia Lee, Lauren Calicchia, Isabella Janusonis, Mike Lovas, Jayson Kreidstein, Jenna Hiemstra, Nathan Perlis

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Urology · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineRandomized controlled trialProstate biopsyProstateBiopsyUrologyGeneral surgeryRadiologyPathologyInternal medicineCancer

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Detection & Screening II (PD19)1 May 2024PD19-04 IMPACT OF NOVEL PATIENT-CENTERED PATHOLOGY REPORTS ON MEN UNDERGOING PROSTATE BIOPSY: THE PAPR RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL Ravi M Kumar, Katherine Lajkosz, Amalia Silberman, Antonio Finelli, Neil Fleshner, Robert Hamilton, Girish Kulkarni, Alexandre Zlotta, Alejandro Berlin, Janet Papadakos, Sangeet Ghai, Dominik Deniffel, David Wiljer, Shabbir Alibhai, Joseph Cafazzo, Masoom Haider, Odelia Lee, Lauren Calicchia, Isabella Janusonis, Mike Lovas, Jayson Kreidstein, Jenna Hiemstra, and Nathan Perlis Ravi M KumarRavi M Kumar , Katherine LajkoszKatherine Lajkosz , Amalia SilbermanAmalia Silberman , Antonio FinelliAntonio Finelli , Neil FleshnerNeil Fleshner , Robert HamiltonRobert Hamilton , Girish KulkarniGirish Kulkarni , Alexandre ZlottaAlexandre Zlotta , Alejandro BerlinAlejandro Berlin , Janet PapadakosJanet Papadakos , Sangeet GhaiSangeet Ghai , Dominik DeniffelDominik Deniffel , David WiljerDavid Wiljer , Shabbir AlibhaiShabbir Alibhai , Joseph CafazzoJoseph Cafazzo , Masoom HaiderMasoom Haider , Odelia LeeOdelia Lee , Lauren CalicchiaLauren Calicchia , Isabella JanusonisIsabella Janusonis , Mike LovasMike Lovas , Jayson KreidsteinJayson Kreidstein , Jenna HiemstraJenna Hiemstra , and Nathan PerlisNathan Perlis View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001009448.41537.64.04AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Increasingly, patients can access their medical results in real-time through online portals. In prostate cancer care, clinical decisions hinge on biopsy reports. Standard pathology reports (SPRs) use language that can be difficult for patients to understand. In collaboration with patients and experts (surgeons, radiation oncologists, pathologists, health educators, healthcare design engineers and plain language specialists), our group developed patient-centered pathology reports (PAPR) for prostate biopsy. This study assesses whether prostate biopsy PAPRs improves patient experience, understanding, and shared decision-making. METHODS: 63 patients undergoing prostate biopsy were randomized 1:1 to SPR or SPR+PAPR. Individualized PAPRs were sent to patients within 48 hours of the SPR becoming available. Patients completed an investigator designed questionnaire prior to their follow-up encounter, and a validated shared decision-making (SDM-Q-9) and anxiety (STAI-5) questionnaire after the encounter. Differences in continuous variables were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test; differences in categorical variables were assessed using Fisher's Exact test or Chi-squared test. RESULTS: There were no significant demographic differences at baseline between groups. Most patients were 60-69 years old (55%), had undergraduate education (66%), and were undergoing their first prostate biopsy (45%). More patients receiving SPR+PAPR vs. SPR agreed that their reports were patient friendly (75 vs. 18%, p=0.01), made them feel in control (71 vs. 12%, p=0.01), lowered their anxiety about their prostate condition (86 vs. 9%, p<0.001), and was useful for communicating results to family and friends (82 vs. 45%, p=0.01). Patients in the SPR+PAPR group displayed a greater understanding of their condition (mean of 3.9 vs. 3.2 correct answers; p=0.02) and available treatment options (61% vs. 16%, p<0.001). Mean SDM-Q-9 and STAIS-5 scores were similar between groups; however, more patients receiving PAPRs agreed that their doctor and them reached an agreement on how to proceed after the first follow-up visit (100% vs. 73%, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Receiving individualized, patient-centred pathology reports can improve knowledge and experience for men undergoing prostate biopsy. Download PPT Source of Funding: Dr. Kumar was awarded $50,000 through the Hold'em for life oncology fellowship at the University of Toronto's Temerty Faculty of Medicine and partner hospitals. This value has been matched by the study investigator for the purposes of this study © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e440 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Ravi M Kumar More articles by this author Katherine Lajkosz More articles by this author Amalia Silberman More articles by this author Antonio Finelli More articles by this author Neil Fleshner More articles by this author Robert Hamilton More articles by this author Girish Kulkarni More articles by this author Alexandre Zlotta More articles by this author Alejandro Berlin More articles by this author Janet Papadakos More articles by this author Sangeet Ghai More articles by this author Dominik Deniffel More articles by this author David Wiljer More articles by this author Shabbir Alibhai More articles by this author Joseph Cafazzo More articles by this author Masoom Haider More articles by this author Odelia Lee More articles by this author Lauren Calicchia More articles by this author Isabella Janusonis More articles by this author Mike Lovas More articles by this author Jayson Kreidstein More articles by this author Jenna Hiemstra More articles by this author Nathan Perlis 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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,050

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,004
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0150,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,303
Écart entre enseignants0,284 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of UrologyMême sujetProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207