BACKGROUND: Wearable technology is used to monitor and motivate physical activity (PA) and provides continuous, objective PA and sleep data outside the clinical setting. We reviewed the literature to understand how wearables are integrated into prostate cancer (PC) investigations in order to identify current practices, gaps, and research opportunities.
METHODS: We conducted a literature search for articles using wearables, among PC survivors published between 2012 and 2022. We extracted study details, interventions and outcomes, participant baseline characteristics, and device characteristics and grouped them by study type: randomized control trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies.
RESULTS: Of 354 articles screened, 44 met eligibility criteria (23 RCTs, and 21 non-randomized). 89% used wearables to monitor PA metrics, 11%, sleep metrics, and 6.8%, both. Most studies involved exercise (70% RCTs, 9% non-randomized studies) or lifestyle interventions (30% RCTs, 9% non-randomized studies). Intervention delivery methods included personalized computer-based (48%), in-person (e.g., trainer) (20%), and education web or print-based (20%). Interventions occurred at the participant\'s home (48%) or at a gym (20%). 57% of the studies evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of the wearable as an activity-measuring device or as part of a remotely delivered computer-based intervention. Studies used wearables to monitor adherence to PA interventions, motivate behavior change, to assess patient outcomes (e.g., patient function, quality of life, mood), or as data collection tools.
CONCLUSIONS: Wearables are primarily being used to assess daily activity and monitor adherence to exercise interventions in clinical studies involving PC survivors. Findings suggest that they are feasible for use in this population. More research is needed to understand how to integrate wearables into routine clinical care, expand their use to predict clinical outcomes, or to deliver tailored interventions for PC survivors.

BACKGROUND: Men who have sex with men (MSM) face many challenges and biases in healthcare. Within urology there is a need to better understand how prostate cancer impacts MSM given the unique ways in which side effects that accompany treatment may affect this population. The goal of this study is to explore the experience of MSM with prostate cancer to advance the existing literature in this area and inform implementation and delivery of clinical practice and policy guidelines.
METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted with a semi-structured interview guide. Using a phenomenological qualitative approach consistent with grounded theory [1] and naturalistic inquiry principles we sought to better understand the direct experiences of MSM with prostate cancer. Audio transcriptions were thematically analyzed to identify themes that impact MSM throughout their prostate cancer journey. An iterative, team-wide classification process was used to identify, organize, and group common codes into higher-order categories and themes.
RESULTS: Patient\'s choice of provider and their interactions with the healthcare system were strongly impacted by their sexual identities. Participants commented on navigating the heteronormative healthcare environment and the impact of assumptions they encountered. MSM experienced the sexual side effects of prostate cancer treatment in unique ways. Issues with erectile dysfunction and ejaculatory dysfunction had significant impacts on patient\'s sexual experience, with some describing being forced to explore new modes of sexual expression. Anejaculation was a theme that was distressing for many participants. The emotional impact of a prostate cancer diagnosis was significant in the men interviewed. Common themes included loss of identity and fear for future relationships.
CONCLUSIONS: MSM have unique concerns after prostate cancer treatment that differ from men who don\'t identify as MSM. It is critical that providers familiarize themselves with the concerns of this patient population regarding prostate cancer treatment. An important step toward reducing heteronormative bias in prostate cancer care is to better understand the goals, identity, and sexual practices of MSM and to provide informed anticipatory guidance.

Prostate cancer (PCa) survivors often experience post-treatment challenges that impact their well-being and mental health. The Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) aims to address these issues through a comprehensive intervention, involving daily meditation/breathing exercises, physical activity, pelvic floor exercises, emotional connection strategies, and peer support. This study presents a secondary analysis of a Phase 2 feasibility study that evaluated the effects of a 28-day PC-PEP intervention on stress reduction. Thirty patients with PCa from the Maritimes, Canada, underwent pre- and post-intervention assessments to measure brainwave activity (delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma) using the Muse™ headband, and heart rate variability (HRV) using the HeartMath® Inner Balance™ as indicators of stress reduction. A statistically significant Time × Sensor Scalp Assessment Time interaction emerged for all brain waves. Amplitudes were generally higher during the first half of the meditation assessment time but became comparable afterward. A statistically significant Time × Sensor Scalp Location × Sensor Scalp Assessment Time interaction also emerged for alpha waves, indicating higher prefrontal lobe amplitudes than temporal lobe amplitudes from pre- to post-assessment. There were no statistically significant differences in HRV metrics from pre- to post-intervention, except for a marginally significant achievement score, indicating increased HRV coherence post-intervention. The findings suggest that the stress reduction component of PC-PEP successfully improved outcomes related to decreased stress. These results have implications for the development of future iterations of PC-PEP interventions, aiming to optimize participant benefits.

BACKGROUND: Although survival rates are highest among prostate cancer survivors compared to any other forms of cancer, nearly 60% suffer from mental distress. Here we examine urinary function and psychosocial stressors and their association with poor mental health in a younger group of prostate cancer survivors who have undergone curative treatment.
METHODS: The study includes 128 men (47 to 70 years old) who received active treatment for prostate cancer, and completed a survivorship online survey between 2017 and 2018. Psychological distress was assessed with Kessler Psychological Distress Scale. International Prostate Symptom Score subscales (incomplete urinary emptying, frequency, intermittency, urgency, weak stream, straining and nocturia) and number of current prostate cancer survivorship stressors were predictors. Multivariate logistic regression was used to fit the model while controlling for months of survivorship since diagnosis, the presence or absence of surgery, radiation or hormone therapy treatment, current medication for depression and demographics.
RESULTS: A total of 19.5% of men scored positive for current mental health issues. Prostate cancer survivors who reported increased number of current survivorship stressors (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.09-2.01), had higher frequency of urination (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.15-3.64), history of radiation treatment (OR 7.15, 95% CI 1.02-50.35) and were currently on prescribed medication for depression (OR 33.47, 95% CI 3.80-294.87) had higher odds for screening positive for psychological distress compared with their counterparts.
CONCLUSIONS: These results corroborate recent findings showing an intersection between urological oncology and poor mental health during survivorship, and warrant the development of multidisciplinary teams in addressing survivorship issues in this population.

Survivorship care is an essential component of quality cancer care. Although nurses are uniquely positioned to deliver effective and efficient nurse-led survivorship care, they report that their experiences of survivorship care provision are fragmented, under-resourced, and often distressing for the patient.
Here we report the culmination of a 4-year program of research and more than a decade of nurse-led work, to improve the survivorship care experience for men with prostate cancer comprising of: (1) the evolution of a national specialist prostate cancer nursing service; (2) a nursing Delphi study to determine prostate cancer survivorship care experiences and priorities; (3) the development of the Prostate Cancer Survivorship Essentials Framework, which provides a road map for improving quality prostate cancer survivorship care across a variety of settings; and (4) the translation of the framework into nursing practice through the development of My Personal Plan, a person-centered, evidence-informed survivorship care plan.
Through the leadership of a national prostate cancer specialist nursing service, the provision of a coordinated, evidence-informed person-centered survivorship care service is now achievable. This program of work has demonstrated that irrespective of the setting or mode of delivery, specialist nurses involved in the care of men with prostate cancer and their families are leading best practice through the translation of evidence into everyday clinical practice.
There is an urgent need to address the significant challenges that a prostate cancer diagnosis can bring, and nurses are at the forefront and lead survivorship care delivery, which includes: (1) routine distress screening and referral to tailored evidence-based psychological care; (2) the provision of person-centered care that connects to effective symptom management; (3) self-management support; and (4) signposting to additional services which extend beyond the acute care setting.

Rectourethral fistula (RUF) and puboprostatic fistula (PPF) are potentially devastating complications that can develop after various pelvic insults, most notable treatment of prostate cancer. Both entities represent surgical challenges given the complex anatomy, risk of injury to adjacent structures, and poor tissue quality and wound healing. While extirpative surgery may be necessary for some patients, meticulous surgical dissection and interposition of healthy muscle allow for fistula repair in a high proportion of appropriately selected patients, especially in RUF. Herein the authors describe the nature, management, and outcomes of RUF and PPF with a full review of the literature.

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for Prostate Cancer (PCa) is associated with side effects that could lead to negative body image and low masculine self-esteem of survivors. We compared a group of PCa survivors following ADT with ADT-naïve patients, expecting the ADT group to show lower masculine self-esteem. We also expected patients with hegemonic masculinity ideals to show poorer masculine self-esteem and we hypothesized that ADT would moderate this relationship, expecting PCa patients on ADT with stronger hegemonic ideals to show the worst masculine self-esteem scores among study participants.
We compared 57 PCa survivors on ADT (Mage  = 64.16 (7.11)) to 59 ADT-naïve patients (Mage  = 65.25 (5.50)), on the Masculine Self-Esteem Scale (MSES), Body Image Scale (BIS), and Hegemonic Masculinity Ideals Scale (HMIS).
While the two groups did not significantly differ on masculine self-esteem (F [1, 115] = 3.46, p = 0.065, ηp 2  = 0.029) and body image (F [1, 115] = 3.46, p = 0.065, ηp 2  = 0.029), younger age was significantly associated with higher body image issues (F [1, 115] = 8.63, p < 0.01, ηp 2  = 0.071, β = -0.30). Hegemonic masculinity significantly predicted more masculine self-esteem related issues (t (2, 114) = 2.31, β = 0.375, p < 0.05). ADT did not moderate this relationship.
The results suggest that endorsing hegemonic masculinity could represent a risk factor for low masculine self-esteem regardless of ADT status and that younger age is associated with negative body image among PCa survivors.
These results suggest the importance of inclusion of topics related to hegemonic masculinity when providing support to PCa survivors, both when discussing treatment side effects, as well as in the later phases of survivorship. This pilot also suggests that younger PCa survivors might benefit from body-image focused support regardless of treatment plan.

暂无摘要。

To assess: (a) cancer treatment in prostate cancer survivors (PCS) by age at diagnosis (ADx) and prostate cancer (PC) aggressiveness; (b) potential impact on PC mortality; and (c) these results in the context of environmental/behavioral risk factors on PCS in Pennsylvania.
Prostate cancer survivors ages ≥40 years were identified from the 2004-2014 Pennsylvania Cancer Registry (PCR). Demographic/clinical descriptors and PC treatment were extracted from PCR. Prostate cancer aggressiveness was defined by clinical/pathologic Gleason score and tumor stage. Logistic and Cox regression analyses tested associations between treatment received and PC-specific mortality. County-level data from the Pennsylvania BRFSS were used to estimate cancer-related behavioral risk factors (eg, smoking, physical inactivity, fruit/vegetable consumption [FV], alcohol use) and used as covariates.
There were 90 694 PCS ages 40-105 years (mean age = 66.19 years, SD = 9.25) included. Most were non-Hispanic white men (83%). Prostate cancer survivors ≥75 years were least likely to receive any treatment but men ages 65-74 were more likely to receive combined therapies (OR = 1.47; 95% CI 1.28, 1.69) vs PCS ages 40-54 years, controlling for covariates. Prostate cancer survivors 55-75+ with aggressive PC who received any treatment vs no definitive treatment had significantly reduced mortality. Men from counties with high obesity and smoking rates were significantly less likely to receive any treatment than men living in counties with lower rates of these risk factors. Prostate cancer survivors who lived in counties with high rates of physical inactivity and had high rates of sufficient FV consumption were slightly more likely to receive cancer treatment vs no definitive treatment compared to men who lived in counties with high rates of physical activity and lower FV consumption.
We observed a general age-related decline in receipt of treatment. Prostate cancer survivors ages ≥75 years were significantly less likely to get any cancer treatment compared to younger PCS. However, most men with more aggressive disease who received any treatment had greatly reduced PC mortality, regardless of age. Considering environmental/behavioral risk factors may attenuate PC risk and inform treatment options.

Survivorship care for patients with prostate cancer requires careful consideration of unique disease-specific factors, including the prolonged natural disease history, the potential for competing health risks, and the consequences of long-term androgen deprivation therapy. However, current prostate cancer survivorship research is unfortunately limited by the lack of a robust supportive evidence base, variability in the definitions and measurement of survivorship outcomes, and a heavy reliance on expert opinion. As a result, the conduct of quality prostate cancer survivorship research is of increasing importance for patients, medical providers, and other key stakeholders. This manuscript harmonizes a path forward for improving prostate cancer survivorship by defining prostate cancer survivorship and survivorship research, as well as by highlighting key research priorities and cooperative mechanisms for survivorship studies within prostate cancer, with a particular focus on men with advanced disease.