Due to copyright issues, an electronic copy of the thesis must be ordered from the faculty. For the faculty to have time to process the order, the order must be received by the faculty at the latest 2 days before the public defence. Orders received later than 2 days before the defence will not be processed. After the public defence, please address any inquiries regarding the thesis to the candidate.
Trial Lecture – time and place
See Trial Lecture.
- First opponent: Clinical Professor Michael Borre, Aarhus University
- Second opponent: Associate Professor Karin Margrethe Hjelle, University of Bergen
- Third member and chair of the evaluation committee: Associate Professor Mads Holten Andersen, University of Oslo
Chair of the Defence
Associate Professor Øistein Hovde, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo
Professor Emeritus Marit Slaaen, Sykehuset Innlandet
Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer among Norwegian men. Surgical removement of the prostate gland (radical prostatectomy) is an established treatment for localized or locally advanced disease. This thesis concerns quality assurance of men treated with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). The datasource was a local database, integrated in the electronic medical record. Both Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) were included in the database.
The aim of the first paper was to describe the construction and functionality of the database. Adherence both at baseline and at follow-up were good from clinicians and patients. The system showed good capture rates of clinical and patient-reported data.
In the second paper we tested the PREM questionnaire Quality from the Patients Perspective (QPP). We did not find the QQP in its present form suitable for RARP patients. The originally described dimensions and structure of the questionnaire were not reproduced.
Third, we wanted to assess the association between patient-reported symptoms at follow-up after RARP and how information about adverse effects and help to cope with adverse effects were rated. The majority rated the information given before treatment as good, but a substantial share did not. Men who reported more symptoms at follow-up rated the information poorer, and this association was present after adjustment for education level and age.
In the last paper we explored if information from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could contribute to predict upgrading at prostatectomy in men with low-grade prostate cancer. The reason for doing this was to identify men that potentially harbor a cancer with higher grade and different prognosis than presumed. Our conclusion was that men with findings on MRI are at high risk of having their cancer upgraded. This should be taken into account when treatment decision is made.
Contact the research support staff.