The visual prostate symptom score is a simple tool to identify and follow up in general practice patients with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (a study with 1359 patients).

Introduction: The IPSS (International Prostate Symptom Score), a structured self-administered questionnaire is the reference test for evaluation of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). A 5-pictogram score entitled Score Visuel Prostatique en Images (SVPI) was proposed in France and evaluated by urologists. We assessed the interest of the SVPI for the identification and monitoring of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)-related LUTS in general practice, and compared it with the IPSS.

Methods: A prospective observational survey was carried out with general practitioners (GPs) throughout France. The first 4consecutive patients aged over 60years, with BPH-related LUTS (IPSS score greater than 8) for whom the GP freely intended to prescribe an alpha-blocker, were enrolled. Two self-administered questionnaires were used at baseline and at follow-up visit (between 1 and 3months): French language version of the IPSS (8questions) and the SVPI. The 5pictograms of the SVPI were: How many times do you urinate during the day (score of 0 to 5)? How many times do you urinate during the night (score of 0 to 5)? Do you experience an urgent need to urinate (score of 0 to 4)? How strong is the stream (response from 0 to 4)? Do you urinate in a satisfactory manner (score of 0 to 6)? The primary objective was to assess and validate the sensitivity to change of the SVPI at baseline and follow-up visit by the study of the correlation of its changes according to the changes of LUTS evaluated with the IPSS.

Results: Five hundred and forty seven GPs enrolled at least one patient and returned information. 2261patients completed the inclusion questionnaire, and 1359 were included in the statistical analysis. Under treatment with alpha-blocker, the IPSS average decreased from 17.7±4.9 to 10.5±4.4 (P<0.0001) with an average diminution of 7.2±4.0, which corresponded to an improvement of 40.7%. This significant decrease of the IPSS involved all its components. The total SVPI was evaluated to 13.8±3.1, the irritative sub-score to 7.4±2.0, and the obstructive sub-score to 2.4±0.8. The internal consistency of the SVPI was good with a value of the Cronbach Alpha coefficient of 0.74. Under treatment with alpha-blocker, the value of the total SVPI decreased from 13.8±3.1 to 8.2±3.0 (P<0.0001) between enrolment and the follow-up visit. The Pearson coefficients assessing the correlations in 1359 patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy were statistically significant at enrolment, and at the follow-up visit. Their variations were all significant. The correlations were weak for the obstructive subscores. Four hundred and fifty-one GPs gave their opinion on the SVPI compared to IPSS: for 36.8% of them, the SVPI was completed a little more rapidly than the IPSS, for 34.6% more rapidly, and for 22.8% of them the SVPI was completed much more rapidly. For 5.8% of them, there was no difference. With regard to ease of understanding for the patient, the 451 GPs responded: much easier for 27.3%, easier for 37.3%, a little easier for 27.1%, and 8.4% had no opinion.

Conclusion: This study showed the SVPI to be a simple and useful tool for identifying and monitoring BPH-related LUTS. Total SVPI was correlated with total IPSS, even if the obstructive subscore correlation was weaker. The good sensitivity of the SVPI to change showed its potential interest for monitoring LUTS. Given the underuse of the IPSS and the interest expressed by GPs and urologists, the SVPI might be used alone to analyse patient complaints.