Page 16 - CUA 2020_Endourology

2020 CUA Abstracts

UP-1.20. Table 1. Performance of base model (pre-prostatectomy PSA, primary Gleason >3, secondary Gleason >3) with
1
quantitative, quartile, or decile % 4/5 in predicting adverse pathological outcomes and biochemical recurrence in pre-
prostatectomy patients
Outcome Accuracy Misclassification Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV AUC (95% CI) p-value 2
error
EPE (incidence = 43.8%)
MSKCC 0.62 0.38 0.80 0.47 0.56 0.73 0.697 (0.648–0.746) Reference
Base 0.61 0.39 0.80 0.47 0.55 0.72 0.695 (0.646–0.743) 0.28
Base + quantitative % 4/5 0.63 0.37 0.80 0.49 0.56 0.75 0.697 (0.649–0.746) 0.87
Base + quartile % 4/5 0.64 0.36 0.80 0.51 0.57 0.75 0.700 (0.651–0.748) 0.73
Base + decile % 4/5 0.65 0.35 0.80 0.52 0.58 0.76 0.719 (0.672–0.767) 0.08
RLNI (incidence = 2.3%)
MSKCC 0.52 0.48 0.93 0.51 0.05 1.00 0.781 (0.720–0.842) Reference
Base 0.50 0.50 0.93 0.48 0.05 1.00 0.775 (0.709–0.841) 0.30
Base + quantitative % 4/5 0.56 0.44 0.86 0.55 0.06 0.99 0.790 (0.729–0.850) 0.24
Base + quartile % 4/5 0.64 0.36 0.93 0.63 0.08 1.00 0.793 (0.732–0.855) 0.46
Base + decile % 4/5 0.18 0.82 1.00 0.16 0.04 1.00 0.703 (0.611–0.796) 0.08
SVI (incidence = 11.5%)
MSKCC 0.59 0.41 0.80 0.56 0.22 0.95 0.779 (0.718–0.840) Reference
Base 0.57 0.43 0.80 0.53 0.21 0.95 0.778 (0.714–0.842) 0.82
Base + quantitative % 4/5 0.68 0.32 0.80 0.66 0.27 0.96 0.798 (0.740–0.857) 0.14
Base + quartile % 4/5 0.70 0.30 0.80 0.69 0.28 0.96 0.811 (0.754–0.868) 0.05
Base + decile % 4/5 0.68 0.32 0.80 0.66 0.26 0.96 0.829 (0.776–0.882) 0.01
LVI (incidence = 11.8%)
Base 0.49 0.51 0.80 0.44 0.18 0.94 0.689 (0.613–0.766) Reference
Base + quantitative % 4/5 0.55 0.45 0.80 0.52 0.18 0.95 0.713 (0.636–0.789) 0.21
Base + quartile % 4/5 0.55 0.45 0.80 0.51 0.18 0.95 0.710 (0.636–0.784) 0.27
Base + decile % 4/5 0.56 0.44 0.80 0.53 0.18 0.95 0.728 (0.653–0.802) 0.10
PSM (incidence = 33.6%)
Base 0.48 0.52 0.80 0.31 0.39 0.75 0.642 (0.587–0.696) Reference
Base + quantitative % 4/5 0.51 0.49 0.80 0.35 0.40 0.77 0.644 (0.589–0.698) 0.54
Base + quartile % 4/5 0.51 0.49 0.80 0.36 0.40 0.77 0.656 (0.602–0.711) 0.18
Base + decile % 4/5 0.50 0.50 0.80 0.34 0.39 0.77 0.659 (0.604–0.713) 0.12
BCR (incidence = 14.6%)
Base 0.48 0.52 0.80 0.41 0.22 0.91 0.711 (0.644–0.778) Reference
Base + quantitative % 4/5 0.56 0.44 0.80 0.52 0.25 0.93 0.734 (0.670–0.798) 0.15
Base + quartile % 4/5 0.56 0.44 0.80 0.51 0.24 0.93 0.730 (0.666–0.794) 0.14
Base + decile % 4/5 0.58 0.42 0.80 0.53 0.25 0.93 0.744 (0.680–0.808) 0.04
Sensitivity of all models was set to a minimum of 0.80. 1 Clinical staging was not included due to insufficient data; 2 Null hypothesis: no difference in AUC between chosen and reference model.

on prostate cancer biological outcomes at RP as primary outcomes. The UP-1.23
LCΩ3 intervention (3 g/day of monoacylglyceride-conjugated eicosap- Determinants of the perceived financial burden associated with
entaenoic acid [MAG-EPA]) or placebo was given 4–10 weeks prior to prostate cancer: A remote region patient perspective
RP. Patients taking dietary supplements were excluded. Patients’ charts Abir El-Haouly , Anaïs Lacasse , Hares El-Rami , Frédéric Liandier , Alice
2
2
1
1
were reviewed for data extraction. Variables were normalized to preferen- Dragomir 3
tially use parametric models (linear regression); otherwise, non-parametric 1 Sciences de la santé, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue,
quantile regression models were fitted. All models were adjusted for seven Rouyn-Noranda, QC, Canada; Chirurgie, Centre intégré de santé et
2
confounding variables judged clinically relevant (surgical approach, body de services sociaux de l’Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Rouyn-Noranda, QC,
mass index [BMI], waist size, NCCN risk, and preoperative intake of Canada; Université du Québec en Abitbi-Témiscamingue; Surgery,
3
aspirin, vitamin-K-agonists, or direct oral anticoagulants). McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
Results: We found no effect of LCΩ3 vs. placebo on perioperative esti- Introduction: In publicly funded healthcare systems, patients do not pay
mated blood loss (EBL) (adjusted EBL difference of 30.0 mL; p=0.75), lab for medical visits but can experience costs stemming from travel or over-
tests (adjusted hemoglobin difference of 2.6; p=0.48) or postoperative the-counter drugs. 1,2 We lack information about the extent of this bur-
complications (adjusted difference of 0.1; p=0.4). In contrast, as expected, den in Canadian remote regions. This study aimed to describe perceived
we found a significant increase in perioperative EBL in open retropubic RP financial burden and identify factors associated with such a perceived
compared to robot-assisted RP (adjusted difference of 115.8 mL; p=0.04). burden among prostate cancer patients living in a remote region of the
Conclusions: Our results suggest that Ω3 supplements can be safely taken province of Quebec (Canada).
before RP intervention without increasing the risk of surgical bleeding. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 171 prostate
These findings are particularly relevant since Ω3 are thought to decrease cancer patients who consulted at the outpatient clinic of the Centre hos-
prostate cancer recurrence after RP. pitalier de Rouyn-Noranda.
Results: A total of 22.3% of patients reported a moderate, considerable,
or unsustainable burden. Multivariable analysis revealed that having
S54 CUAJ • June 2020 • Volume 14, Issue 6(Suppl2)