Five-year Follow-up of the Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial; Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods-A Noninferiority Randomised Controlled Trial of Urodynamics.

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Madeleine Clout, Amanda L Lewis, Madeleine Cochrane, Grace J Young, Paul Abrams, Peter S Blair, Christopher Chapple, Gordon T Taylor, Sian Noble, Tom Steuart-Feilding, Jodi Taylor, J Athene Lane, Marcus J Drake
{"title":"Five-year Follow-up of the Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial; Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods-A Noninferiority Randomised Controlled Trial of Urodynamics.","authors":"Madeleine Clout, Amanda L Lewis, Madeleine Cochrane, Grace J Young, Paul Abrams, Peter S Blair, Christopher Chapple, Gordon T Taylor, Sian Noble, Tom Steuart-Feilding, Jodi Taylor, J Athene Lane, Marcus J Drake","doi":"10.1016/j.euf.2025.02.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are a key indication for surgery in older men. The Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial; Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods (UPSTREAM) study evaluated the diagnostic pathway for men considering surgery to treat LUTS and reported the outcomes at 18 mo. This long-term follow-up study reports the symptoms and rates of prostate surgery at 5 yr.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>UPSTREAM participants who had consented to long-term follow-up received postal questionnaires at 5 yr after randomisation (October 2019-December 2021). The primary outcome was the patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS, scale 0-35). Rates of surgery, derived from the National Health Service (NHS) England routine data, were a key secondary outcome. An intention-to-treat analytic approach was utilised.</p><p><strong>Key findings and limitations: </strong>At 5 yr, 211/427 (49.4%) participants in the intervention group and 204/393 (51.9%) in the routine care group completed the questionnaires, with routine data obtained for 801/820 (97.7%). The mean IPSS at 5 yr did not differ between randomised groups (adjusted difference 0.41, 95% confidence interval -1.10, 1.93), nor did the rates of surgery (0.96 [0.71, 1.28]). Urinary and sexual symptoms also showed no differences between the randomised groups. The main limitation is the reduced numbers of men in follow-up. In UPSTREAM, men were randomised to routine care diagnostic tests plus invasive urodynamics (intervention) or routine care only for LUTS. Treatment choice was made by the participants, advised by their clinicians.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and clinical implications: </strong>Five-year follow-up does not support the routine use of invasive urodynamics in reducing LUTS or rates of prostate surgery. Urodynamics should be used selectively in the evaluation of uncomplicated LUTS.</p>","PeriodicalId":12160,"journal":{"name":"European urology focus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European urology focus","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2025.02.004","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objective: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are a key indication for surgery in older men. The Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial; Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods (UPSTREAM) study evaluated the diagnostic pathway for men considering surgery to treat LUTS and reported the outcomes at 18 mo. This long-term follow-up study reports the symptoms and rates of prostate surgery at 5 yr.

Methods: UPSTREAM participants who had consented to long-term follow-up received postal questionnaires at 5 yr after randomisation (October 2019-December 2021). The primary outcome was the patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS, scale 0-35). Rates of surgery, derived from the National Health Service (NHS) England routine data, were a key secondary outcome. An intention-to-treat analytic approach was utilised.

Key findings and limitations: At 5 yr, 211/427 (49.4%) participants in the intervention group and 204/393 (51.9%) in the routine care group completed the questionnaires, with routine data obtained for 801/820 (97.7%). The mean IPSS at 5 yr did not differ between randomised groups (adjusted difference 0.41, 95% confidence interval -1.10, 1.93), nor did the rates of surgery (0.96 [0.71, 1.28]). Urinary and sexual symptoms also showed no differences between the randomised groups. The main limitation is the reduced numbers of men in follow-up. In UPSTREAM, men were randomised to routine care diagnostic tests plus invasive urodynamics (intervention) or routine care only for LUTS. Treatment choice was made by the participants, advised by their clinicians.

Conclusions and clinical implications: Five-year follow-up does not support the routine use of invasive urodynamics in reducing LUTS or rates of prostate surgery. Urodynamics should be used selectively in the evaluation of uncomplicated LUTS.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European urology focus
European urology focus Medicine-Urology
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
3.70%
发文量
274
审稿时长
23 days
期刊介绍: European Urology Focus is a new sister journal to European Urology and an official publication of the European Association of Urology (EAU). EU Focus will publish original articles, opinion piece editorials and topical reviews on a wide range of urological issues such as oncology, functional urology, reconstructive urology, laparoscopy, robotic surgery, endourology, female urology, andrology, paediatric urology and sexual medicine. The editorial team welcome basic and translational research articles in the field of urological diseases. Authors may be solicited by the Editor directly. All submitted manuscripts will be peer-reviewed by a panel of experts before being considered for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信