Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

The Sense of Self: Reflected Self-Appraisal and Social Comparison02:57

The Sense of Self: Reflected Self-Appraisal and Social Comparison

55.4K
According to Charles Cooley, we base our image on what we think other people see (Cooley 1902). We imagine how we must appear to others, then react to this speculation. We don certain clothes, prepare our hair in a particular manner, wear makeup, use cologne, and the like—all with the notion that our presentation of ourselves is going to affect how others perceive us. We expect a certain reaction, and, if lucky, we get the one we desire and feel good about it. But more than that, Cooley...
55.4K
Radical Reactivity: Nucleophilic Radicals01:16

Radical Reactivity: Nucleophilic Radicals

2.6K
Radicals adjacent to electron-donating groups are called nucleophilic radicals. These radicals readily react with electrophilic alkenes. The SOMO–LUMO interactions are the driving force for the reaction, where the high-energy SOMO of the electron-rich, nucleophilic radicals interacts with the low-energy LUMO of the electron-deficient, electrophilic alkenes. Such SOMO–LUMO interactions are the basis of reactive radical traps, affecting the selectivity in radical reactions. For...
2.6K
Renal Drug Clearance: Comparison Between Renal Excretion Methods01:08

Renal Drug Clearance: Comparison Between Renal Excretion Methods

571
Renal clearance is a critical parameter encompassing kidney filtration, secretion, and reabsorption processes. It is calculated using a specific equation to determine the rate at which the kidneys clear a drug.
Renal clearance is often associated with the renal glomerular filtration rate (GFR), which represents the rate at which plasma is filtered through the glomeruli in the kidney. When drug reabsorption is minimal and there is no active secretion, renal clearance is closely related to the...
571
Radical Reactivity: Electrophilic Radicals01:02

Radical Reactivity: Electrophilic Radicals

2.4K
Radicals adjacent to electron‐withdrawing groups are called electrophilic radicals. These radicals readily react with nucleophilic alkenes. For example, the malonate radical, in which the radical center is flanked by two electron‐withdrawing groups, reacts readily with butyl vinyl ether, which consists of an electron‐donating oxygen substituent. The reaction between electrophilic malonate radical and nucleophilic vinyl ether is favored because the radical has a...
2.4K
Radical Autoxidation01:20

Radical Autoxidation

3.1K
The oxidation of an organic compound in the presence of air or oxygen is called autoxidation. For example, cumene reacts with oxygen to form hydroperoxide. Autoxidation involves initiation, propagation, and termination steps. Many organic compounds are susceptible to autoxidation—especially ethers in the presence of oxygen, which form hydroperoxides. Even though this reaction is slow, old ether bottles contain small amounts of peroxide, which leads to laboratory explosions during ether...
3.1K
Multiple Comparison Tests01:13

Multiple Comparison Tests

4.4K
Multiple comparison test, abbreviated as MCT, is a post hoc analysis generally performed after comparing multiple samples with one or more tests. An MCT will help identify a significantly different sample among multiple samples or a factor among multiple factors.
It would be easy to compare two samples using a significance alpha level of 0.05. In other words, there is only one sample pair to be compared. However, it would be difficult to identify a significantly different sample if the number...
4.4K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Obesity is associated with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: A multi-institutional extended validation study.

Urologic oncology·2017
Same author

Diagnostic Accuracy of <sup>64</sup>Copper Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for Primary Lymph Node Staging of Intermediate- to High-risk Prostate Cancer: Our Preliminary Experience.

Urology·2017
Same author

The Microbiome of the Prostate Tumor Microenvironment.

European urology·2017
Same author

Is transurethral resection alone enough for the diagnosis of histological variants? A single-center study.

Urologic oncology·2017
Same author

Prognostic Role of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Primary Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer.

Clinical genitourinary cancer·2017
Same author

Development and Internal Validation of a Novel Model to Identify the Candidates for Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Prostate Cancer.

European urology·2017

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jan 20, 2026

Isolation of Adipose Derived Regenerative Cells for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction Following Radical Prostatectomy
09:49

Isolation of Adipose Derived Regenerative Cells for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction Following Radical Prostatectomy

Published on: December 28, 2021

3.9K

Comparison of Two Methods for Assessing Erectile Function Before Radical Prostatectomy.

Carlo Andrea Bravi1, Amy Tin2, Nicole Benfante2

  • 1Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.

European Urology Oncology
|August 15, 2019
PubMed
Summary

Assessing erectile function in prostate cancer patients using a 4-week recall underestimates their typical sexual health. A 6-month recall period provides a more accurate baseline for evaluating erectile function in these men.

Keywords:
Erectile dysfunctionIIEF questionnairePatient-reported outcomesRadical prostatectomy

More Related Videos

Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
12:10

Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Published on: May 19, 2022

9.0K
Intracavernosal Pressure Recording to Evaluate Erectile Function in Rodents
08:03

Intracavernosal Pressure Recording to Evaluate Erectile Function in Rodents

Published on: June 6, 2018

15.1K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jan 20, 2026

Isolation of Adipose Derived Regenerative Cells for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction Following Radical Prostatectomy
09:49

Isolation of Adipose Derived Regenerative Cells for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction Following Radical Prostatectomy

Published on: December 28, 2021

3.9K
Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
12:10

Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Published on: May 19, 2022

9.0K
Intracavernosal Pressure Recording to Evaluate Erectile Function in Rodents
08:03

Intracavernosal Pressure Recording to Evaluate Erectile Function in Rodents

Published on: June 6, 2018

15.1K

Area of Science:

  • Urology
  • Oncology
  • Sexual Medicine

Background:

  • Patient-reported outcome instruments for erectile function commonly assess the previous 4 weeks.
  • This timeframe is problematic for baseline assessment in new prostate cancer (PC) patients due to recent procedures and diagnostic anxiety.
  • Previous 4-week recall may inaccurately represent typical erectile function before treatment.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare erectile function recall over 4 weeks versus 6 months in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients.
  • To determine the optimal timeframe for baseline erectile function assessment in men with PC.
  • To identify potential underestimation of erectile function using short-term recall.

Main Methods:

  • The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-6) was administered to new PC patients at San Raffaele Hospital, querying function over the previous 4 weeks and 6 months.
  • Responses from the two timeframes were compared.
  • A validation cohort of 5395 newly diagnosed PC patients from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center was used for comparison.

Main Results:

  • IIEF-6 scores were significantly lower for the 4-week period (median 24) compared to the 6-month period (median 26; p<0.0001).
  • Approximately 1 in 6 patients reported good erectile function over 6 months but very poor function in the preceding 4 weeks.
  • Adequate erectile function was reported by 60% over 6 months versus 51% over 4 weeks, an absolute difference of 9%.

Conclusions:

  • Erectile function evaluation for men presenting with prostate cancer should utilize a 6-month recall period.
  • A 4-week recall period may underestimate baseline erectile function in men with newly diagnosed PC.
  • Longer recall periods provide a more reliable assessment of typical erectile function in this population.