The Canadian Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Audit Study (CanBas)

Authors

  • J. Curtis Nickel Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.
  • Joe Downey Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.
  • Francois Bénard University of Montréal, Montréal, Que.
  • Michael Chetner University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
  • John Grantmyre Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
  • Alan So UBC
  • Paul Whelan McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.629

Abstract

Objective: To determine the prevalence, diagnostic patterns and management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in Canadian urology outpatient practice.

Methods: Representative urologists were randomly selected from lists provided by the Canadian and Quebec Urological Associations. Each patient identified with a BPH diagnosis during a typical 2-consecutive-week period during April, May or June 2007 was asked to complete a corresponding International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaire. Each day, the participant urologist completed an outpatient log and a detailed programmed chart review to transcribe demographics, investigations and treatments associated with each BPH patient.

Results: Eighty-six urologists were invited to participate. Thirty-eight (44.2%) agreed, and 27 of those (71.1%) submitted evaluable data for the audit. Of the 5616 patients seen in outpatient practice (average 208 per urologist), 4324 (77%) were male. A BPH diagnosis was identified in 19.6% of the men (n = 849; mean age 69.5, standard deviation [SD] 10, yr; age range 40–100 yr; mean duration of symptoms 4.8, SD 4.2, yr; mean IPSS score 12.3, SD 7.4; mean prostate specific antigen [PSA] 3.9, SD 3.9, ng/mL). Twenty-four percent of patients had prostates that were rated as large, 50% as medium and 26% as small. PSA level correlated positively with prostate volume. Twenty-two percent were initial consultations for LUTS and 78% were repeat visits. Diagnostic evaluation tended to follow those examinations and tests recommended by the Canadian BPH guidelines. Treatment choices tended to follow an evidence-based algorithm with respect to treatment choices for men in the various prostate-volume and PSA groups.

Conclusion: This prospective audit indicates that BPH remains a common condition managed by urologists in outpatient practice. Investigations and treatments confirm that Canadian urologists appear to be following Canadian BPH guidelines as well as the most recent evidence from the literature.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

How to Cite

Nickel, J. C., Downey, J., Bénard, F., Chetner, M., Grantmyre, J., So, A., & Whelan, P. (2013). The Canadian Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Audit Study (CanBas). Canadian Urological Association Journal, 2(4), 367–73. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.629

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 4 (2008): CUAJ August

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.