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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 ...
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
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".