ArticleBJUI compass2025
Optimising prostate cancer pathways: Improving post-biopsy waiting times in a tertiary centre.
Article in BJUI compass, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation and Outcomes of a Standardized Multidisciplinary Treatment Outpatient Model in Two Pediatric Tertiary Hospitals.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Optimising prostate cancer pathways: Improving post-biopsy waiting times in a tertiary centre.BJUI compass · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of a streamlined Prostate Cancer Care Pathway (PCCP) in reducing post-biopsy waiting times and improving patient satisfaction in a high-volume tertiary centre. Patients and Methods: Patients undergoing prostate biopsies were prospectively followed through PCCP for one year and were retrospectively compared to 150 patients who were treated at our centre either immediately prior to PCCP implementation (2022) or during Covid-19 lockdowns (2020). Waiting times were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis H-test. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the modified PCa Questionnaire for Patients (PCQ-P). Results: A total of 398 patients were included. 248 patients went through PCCP, compared with 75 patients pre-PCCP implementation (2022) and 75 patients during the 2020 pandemic. The median time from biopsy to results post-PCCP was 15.0 days (IQR 13.0-19.0). This was significantly shorter than pre-PCCP introduction of 21.0 days (17.0-28.0) and during 2020 lockdowns, 18.0 days (14.0-21.0, p < 0.001). A total of 131 patients (52.8%) requiring treatment under PCCP were streamlined for multidisciplinary discussion following imaging at a median time of 38.0 (29.8-42.0) days and seen at Urology or Radiation Oncology Consultant clinic for treatment discussion at a median of 38.0 days (31.0-49.0), compared to 63.0 days (45.0-84.0) pre-PCCP (2022) and 52.0 days in 2020 (38.0-75.0, p < 0.001). A total of 176 PCCP patients (70.1%) participated in PCQ-P with 93.2% of participants reporting satisfaction with waiting time durations (n = 176). Conclusion: PCCP implementation reduced waiting times in all post-biopsy care measures following significant Covid-19 delays in PCa care delivery. Streamlining resources using similar pathways can reduce waiting times in cancer care and other conditions to alleviate anxiety during healthcare system strain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.