MP85-10 PROSTATE CANCER REHABILITATION: OUTCOMES OF A SEXUAL HEALTH CLINIC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Medical, Hormonal & Non-surgical Therapy II1 Apr 2018MP85-10 PROSTATE CANCER REHABILITATION: OUTCOMES OF A SEXUAL HEALTH CLINIC Andrew Matthew, Leah Jamnicky, Kristen Currie, Anika Gentile, John Trachtenberg, Shabbir Alibhai, Antonio Finelli, Neil Fleshner, Gideon Yang, Lisa Osqui, Joyce Davison, and Dean Elterman Andrew MatthewAndrew Matthew More articles by this author , Leah JamnickyLeah Jamnicky More articles by this author , Kristen CurrieKristen Currie More articles by this author , Anika GentileAnika Gentile More articles by this author , John TrachtenbergJohn Trachtenberg More articles by this author , Shabbir AlibhaiShabbir Alibhai More articles by this author , Antonio FinelliAntonio Finelli More articles by this author , Neil FleshnerNeil Fleshner More articles by this author , Gideon YangGideon Yang More articles by this author , Lisa OsquiLisa Osqui More articles by this author , Joyce DavisonJoyce Davison More articles by this author , and Dean EltermanDean Elterman More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.2870AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Radical prostatectomy (RP) leaves 45-75% of patients with long-term sexual dysfunction (SD). Approximately 60% of patients report significant emotional distress related to their SD that may progress to maladjustment in their relationships with partners. Despite high levels of effectiveness, 30-50% of patients who turn to sexually assistive aids after RP discontinue use of the aids within one year. The available research exploring this gap between effectiveness and ongoing use supports a broader perspective of SD that includes psychological, behavioural, social and interpersonal factors. In addressing this need we have developed the Prostate Cancer Rehabilitation Clinic (PCRC), at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada. The aim of the PCRC is to assist patients and couples in achieving optimal sexual health and maintaining intimacy. METHODS The PCRC emphasizes multidisciplinary intervention teams, the active participation of the partner, and a broad-spectrum bio-psychosocial intervention approach. The program includes seven clinic visits across two years and provides both biomedical and psychological support for SD. We conducted a retrospective study comparing Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) patient-reported outcomes from patients who had RP in 2006 (prior to PCRC, n=304) and 2012 (after PCRC, n=342). RESULTS Patients who had a RP in the year of 2012 were 1.9 times more likely to have sexual function 2 years post-surgery compared to patients who had RP in 2006 (35.8% vs 19.2%, P < 0.001). Patients who attended the PCRC were more likely to take pro-erectile medications 2 year post-surgery (86.2% vs 38%) and had a stable level of intimacy and anxiety over the 2 year course. These results were maintained when potential confounders across comparison years were controlled for, including introduction of robotic-RP, changes in surgical staff, and disease characteristics. Patients and partners who attended the PCRC also reported a very high rate of satisfaction (95.8% for patients and 99.6% for partners) with the care they received at the clinic. CONCLUSIONS The PCRC has proved beneficial to RP patients and their partners in achieving better sexual health, continued use of pro-erectile medications, and maintenance of intimacy and low anxiety. © 2018FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 199Issue 4SApril 2018Page: e1173 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018MetricsAuthor Information Andrew Matthew More articles by this author Leah Jamnicky More articles by this author Kristen Currie More articles by this author Anika Gentile More articles by this author John Trachtenberg More articles by this author Shabbir Alibhai More articles by this author Antonio Finelli More articles by this author Neil Fleshner More articles by this author Gideon Yang More articles by this author Lisa Osqui More articles by this author Joyce Davison More articles by this author Dean Elterman More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".