THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGYâ e1002 Vol. 199, No. 4S, Supplement, Monday, May 21, 2018 chronic pain conditions. Assessment and treatment of sexual function is likely to improve overall symptoms and quality of life in patients with UCPPS. Source of Funding: none MP74-06 DIFFERENCES IN SEXUAL FUNCTION IN PATIENTS WITH UROLOGIC CHRONIC PELVIC PAIN SYNDROMES (UCPPS) AND INDIVIDUALS WITH OTHER CHRONIC PAIN CONDITIONS AND HEALTHY CONTROLS IN THE MAPP RESEARCH NETWORK Renee Rolston*, Los Angeles, CA; Alisa Stephens-Shields, Philadelphia , PA; J. Quentin Clemens, Ann Arbor, MI; John Krieger, Seattle , WA; Craig Newcomb, Philadelphia , PA; Jennifer Anger, Los Angeles , CA; Catherine S Bradley, Bradley A. Erickson, Karl Kreder, Iowa City, IA; H. Henry Lai, St. Louis, MO; Larissa Rodriguez, Los Angeles, CA INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Sexual dysfunction is an important predictor of diminished quality of life in patients with UCPPS. Our goals were to compare the prevalence and characteristics of sexual dysfunction among males and females with UCPPS as compared to individuals reporting other chronic pain conditions (positive controls, PC) and healthy individuals (healthy controls, HC). METHODS: A cross sectional analysis was performed on subjects with UCPPS, PC (irritable bowel syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia) and HC enrolled in the MAPP Research Network Epidemiology and Phenotyping Study, a multi-center one-year prospective cohort study. Sexual function was assessed with the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), Self-Esteem and Relationship Questionnaire (SEAR), Washington Male Sexual Function Scale (MSFS), the International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function Domain (IIEF-EF), and Ejaculatory Function Scale (EFS). Female sexual dysfunction was defined as an FSFI score <26 and male sexual dysfunction was defined as an IIEF-EF score <21. Data were compared among UCPPS, PC and HC by ANOVA for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables. RESULTS: The population included 233 females and 191 males with UCPPS; 156 female and 44 male PC; 233 female and 182 male HC (Table). Females with UCPPS reported lower mean FSFI scores than HC and PC (p¼<0.001). The proportion of females with sexual dysfunction was higher in the UCPPS group (65%) compared to PC (35.7%) and HC (14.7%) (p <0.001). Males with UCPPS were 5 times more likely to have sexual dysfunction than HC (20.4% UCPPS, 4.2% HC). This remained valid after adjusting for age. Both females and males with UCPPS reported overall lower quality of sexual relationships and lower self-esteem in relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Sexual function is impaired in females and males with UCPPS even when compared to individuals with other Source of Funding: Funding for the MAPP Research Network was obtained under a cooperative agreement from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health MP74-07 THE PENILE SENSITIVITY RATIO: OPTIMIZATION OF A BIOTHESIOMETRY PARAMETER TO ASSESS CHANGES IN PENILE SENSITIVITY Peter Tsambarlis*, Adam Wiggins, M. Ryan Farrell, Laurence Levine, Chicago, IL INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Penile sensitivity ratio (PSR) was previously developed at our institution to standardize biothesiometry data and reduce variability. Significant associations with PSR were reported diminished sensation, age, and Peyronie’s disease (PD). We sought to optimize the input variables comprising the PSR. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all men who underwent biothesiometry at a single urology practice specializing in men’s health from 7/2013-5/2017. PSR was initially defined as the mean biothesiometry threshold for sensation of the dorsal and ventral glans divided by the mean sensation threshold of the left and right index finger. Thus, a higher PSR indicates diminished penile sensation. We compared this ratio to models which included biothesiometry data from the penile shaft and anterior thigh. Univariate and multiple regression analyses were performed for each iteration of the ratio. Patient factors included: age, diabetes mellitus (DM), PD, erectile dysfunction (ED), ejaculatory dysfunction (premature vs. delayed vs. normal function), and subjective diminished sensation. RESULTS: Our analysis included 1239 men with mean age of 53.2 years (SD¼14.0 years). The original PSR was significantly higher in men who reported diminished sensitivity compared to men who reported normal penile sensation, 2.09 and 1.94 respectively (p ¼0.01). Adding mean left and right shaft to the numerator and mean left and right thigh data to the denominator of the previously described PSR lead to a model in which diminished sensitivity did not affect the ratio (p ¼ 0.20). Alternatively, when glans and shaft data were included against the index fingers only, reported diminished sensitivity increased the ratio (p¼0.03). On multiple regression analysis using the ratio of the mean glans and shaft values divided by the mean index finger values, the ratio was significantly affected by age, DM, and PD, but not reported diminished sensation. CONCLUSIONS: The current analysis does not support the inclusion of data from the shaft or thigh, as reported diminished sensation did not affect these ratios, suggesting a lack of internal validity. The original PSR using data from the glans and index fingers appears to most accurately represent clinically significant changes in penile sensitivity. Further prospective data collection including other internal controls such as the cheek may further optimize the PSR.