App-based Therapy of Erectile Dysfunction Using a Digital Health Application (EDDIG Study): A Randomized, Single-blind, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: While international guidelines advocate for a multifaceted approach to treating erectile dysfunction (ED) involving physical activities, psychological support, and education, structured programs are infrequent. To address this gap, an app-based therapy was developed, offering a systematic approach. This randomized, single-blind controlled trial aimed to assess the effectiveness of an app-based therapeutic in improving ED. METHODS: A total of 241 patients (49.74, standard deviation 12.73 yr) with ED (International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF]-5 <22) were randomized to the 12-wk app-based therapy (treatment group [TG], n = 122) or a waiting list for the app with continuation of their current management protocol (control group [CG], n = 119). Patients on long-term medication for ED were included, but subsequent exclusion occurred for those starting new medication. Coprimary endpoints were improvements from baseline to 12 wk in erectile function (IIEF-5), disease-related quality of life (QOL-Med-15), and patient activation (Patient Activation Measure [PAM-13]). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Erectile function (IIEF-5) improved by 4.5 points in the TG versus 0.2 points in the CG (p < 0.0001, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.4-5.0) group. Quality of life (QOL-Med) improved by 20.5 points in the TG versus -0.0 points in the CG (p < 0.0001, 95% CI 19.2-26.0) group. Patient activation (PAM-13) improved by 11.2 points in the TG versus 0.6 points in the CG (p < 0.0001, 95% CI 9.1-13.6) group. Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor intake had no influence on all observed treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: App-based therapy of patients with ED provided a significant, clinically meaningful improvement. Quality of life and patient activation were also enhanced significantly. This program has the potential to change clinical practice in the treatment of ED. PATIENT SUMMARY: A therapy app improved sexual function and overall well-being for men experiencing erectile dysfunction, leading to better quality of life.

Interdisciplinary Comparison of PADUA and R.E.N.A.L. Scoring Systems for Prediction of Conversion to Nephrectomy in Patients with Renal Mass Scheduled for Nephron Sparing Surgery.

PURPOSE: We examined interdisciplinary variability using 2 established preoperative nephrometry scores to predict conversion to nephrectomy in patients with a renal mass who were scheduled for partial nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 229 consecutive candidates for partial nephrectomy were included in this study at a single institution between January 2013 and May 2017. Patient, tumor and treatment characteristics were assessed. The PADUA (preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical) score and the R.E.N.A.L. (radius, exophytic/endophytic, nearness of tumor to collecting system or sinus, anterior/posterior, location relative to polar lines) score were independently calculated by board certified radiologists and urological residents using computerized tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Statistical analyses were done with the κ statistic, ROC curves, and univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Partial nephrectomy was performed in 198 of the 229 cases (86.5%) while 31 (13.5%) were converted to nephrectomy. The prevalent tumor stage was pT1a, noted in 94 of the 229 cases (41.1%), and the predominant histological entity was clear cell carcinoma, found in 128 (55.9%). Radiologist and urologist interdisciplinary comparison of the PADUA and R.E.N.A.L. scores revealed a κ of 0.40 and 0.56, respectively. ROC curve analyses demonstrated a higher AUC predicting conversion to nephrectomy using the PADUA score by the urologist and the radiologist (0.79 and 0.782) compared to that of the R.E.N.A.L. score (0.731 and 0.766, respectively). Using a cutoff of 10 or greater the PADUA score determined by the urologist had 81% sensitivity and 71% specificity, and it was independently associated with conversion to nephrectomy (OR 10.98, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate higher prediction of conversion to nephrectomy when using the PADUA score compared to the R.E.N.A.L. score. Calculation of the PADUA and the R.E.N.A.L. score by physicians without specialized radiological training is feasible and might achieve comparable results to predict conversion to nephrectomy compared to the gold standard provided by board certified radiologists. This information is helpful if nephrometry scores are not regularly included in the radiology report.

Sextant-Specific Analysis of Detection and Tumor Volume by HistoScanning™.

INTRODUCTION: Published results of HistoScanning™ (HS) for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics are inconsistent and their value remains unclear. We prospectively analyzed the detection rate and tumor volume concordance in PCa patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two hundred and eighty-two patients with biopsy-proven PCa scheduled for radical prostatectomy (RP) were included. All patients underwent ultrasonographical examination by HS prior to surgery. HS was evaluated compared to RP specimen as to (1) the prediction of overall tumor volume and (2) accuracy of HS in detection of PCa lesions larger than 0.2/0.5 ml, separated for each sextant. For each sextant, receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-analysis and area under the curve were determined. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated and visualized in ROC-curves. RESULTS: HS tends to underestimate volume of cancerous lesions, particularly larger lesions >8 ml. Using a 0.2 ml detection threshold, specificity and sensitivity of HS were between 29-68% and 46-78%. For a 0.5 ml detection threshold, sextant-specific specificity increased to 59-92% and sensitivity decreased to 16-54%. Stratification according to pre-operational PSA values did not improve performance characteristics of HS. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not support a significant contribution of HS to PCa diagnostics.

Differential effects of ibandronate, docetaxel and farnesol treatment alone and in combination on the growth of prostate cancer cell lines.

Ibandronate, one of the most potent bisphosphonates, has been shown to inhibit growth of various cancer cell lines. In contrast, little is known about the effects of ibandronate on prostate cancer cells. Therefore the aim of our study was to characterize the effects of ibandronate alone and in combination with docetaxel on the growth of prostate cancer cell lines and to identify the underlying signalling pathways. Material and methods. The prostate cancer cell lines LNCaP and PC-3 were treated with increasing concentrations of ibandronate and docetaxel alone and in combination. Viable cell number was measured after five days using a hemocytometer and the MTT-method. The effects of ibandronate were tentatively antagonized by addition of farnesyl-pyrophosphate (FPP) or farnesol (FOH). Results. Ibandronate inhibits growth of both prostate cancer cell lines in a dose dependent manner. In combination with docetaxel, synergistic effects are found as evidenced by a combination index (CI) of <1. Addition of FOH and FPP completely antagonized the growth inhibitory effects of ibandronate on both cell lines. Surprisingly, in combination with ibandronate and docetaxel, FOH further increased growth inhibition instead of antagonizing the growth inhibitory effects of ibandronate. Furthermore, FOH alone appeared to be a potent inhibitor of tumor cell growth. Discussion. Ibandronate effectively inhibits growth of prostate cancer cell lines via inhibition of the farnesyl-IPP-synthase and exhibits synergistic effects with docetaxel. In addition, FOH is a potent inhibitor of prostate cancer cell lines and may display an interesting treatment option for patients with CRPC.

Do alpha-reductase inhibitors prevent prostate cancer? 2008 practice guideline from the American society of clinical oncology and American urological association.

As new guidelines on the use of 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) for prostate cancer chemoprevention produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and American Urological Association (AUA) have recently been published, the use of 5-ARIs is becoming of increasing interest. We analyzed the current evidence to support the use of 5-ARIs in the prevention of prostate cancer. We therefore compared the new guidelines of the ASCO and AUA with the current data concerning the use of 5-ARIs in the prevention of prostate cancer. At present, there is still an open debate going on whether or not it is advisable to incorporate the use of 5-ARIs as chemopreventive agents in daily practice.