Search

Purpose To assess long-term quality of life (QoL) impact of treatments in localized prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy. Material and methods Observational, prospective cohort study with pre-treatment QoL evaluation and follow-up until five years after treatment. 704 patients with low or intermediate risk localized prostate cancer were consecutively recruited in 2003–2005. QoL was measured by the EPIC questionnaire, with urinary irritative–obstructive, incontinence, bowel, sexual, and hormonal scores (ranging 0–100). Results Brachytherapy's QoL impact was restricted to the urinary domain, Generalized Estimating Equation models showed score changes at five years of −12.0 (95% CI=−15.0, −9.0) in incontinence and −5.3 (95% CI=−7.5, −3.1) in irritative–obstructive scales. Compared to brachytherapy, radical prostatectomy fared +3.3 (95% CI=+0.0, +6.5) points better in irritative–obstructive but −17.1 (95% CI=−22.7, −11.5) worse in incontinence. Sexual deterioration was observed in radical prostatectomy (−19.1; 95% CI=−25.1, −13.1) and external radiotherapy groups (−7.5; 95% CI=−12.5, −2.5). Conclusions Brachytherapy is the treatment causing the least impact on QoL except for moderate urinary irritative–obstructive symptoms. Our study provides novel long-term valuable information for clinical decision making, supporting brachytherapy as a possible alternative to radical prostatectomy for patients seeking an attempted curative treatment, while limiting the risk for urinary incontinence and sexual impact on QoL.

Purpose Earlier studies evaluating the effect on quality of life (QoL) of localized prostate cancer interventions included patients receiving adjuvant hormone therapy, which could have affected their outcomes. Our objective was to compare the QoL impact of the three most common primary treatments on patients who were not receiving adjuvant hormonal treatment. Patients and Methods This was a prospective study of 435 patients treated with radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiotherapy, or brachytherapy. QoL was assessed before and after treatment with the Short Form-36 and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite. Differences between groups were tested by analysis of variance. Distribution of outcome at 3 years was examined by stratifying according to baseline status. Generalized estimating equation models were constructed to assess the effect of treatment over time. Results Compared with the brachytherapy group, the prostatectomy group showed greater deterioration on urinary incontinence and sexual scores but better urinary irritative-obstructive results (−18.22, −13.19, and +6.38, respectively, at 3 years; P < .001). In patients with urinary irritative-obstructive symptoms at baseline, improvement was observed in 64% of those treated with nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Higher bowel worsening (−2.87, P = .04) was observed in the external radiotherapy group, with 20% of patients reporting bowel symptoms. Conclusion Radical prostatectomy caused urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction but improved pre-existing urinary irritative-obstructive symptoms. External radiotherapy and brachytherapy caused urinary irritative-obstructive adverse effects and some sexual dysfunction. External radiotherapy also caused bowel adverse effects. Relevant differences between treatment groups persisted for up to 3 years of follow-up, although the difference in sexual adverse effects between brachytherapy and prostatectomy tended to decline over long-term follow-up. These results provide valuable information for clinical decision making.

The objective was to compare the short- and long-term impact of 3 different treatment modalities on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients treated for localised prostate cancer at a single centre in Catalonia, Spain.This was a longitudinal, prospective study of 304 patients from a single centre in Catalonia, Spain. Patients underwent 1 of 3 treatment procedures: radical prostatectomy (114 patients), external beam radiation (134) or interstitial brachytherapy (56). HRQOL was assessed by both general and specific questionnaires, including the SF-36 health survey and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC). Interviews were administered prior to treatment and at months 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24. One-way analysis of variance and generalised estimating equations models were constructed to assess between group differences in HRQOL.After initial deterioration, HRQOL scores partially recovered, although significant differences between treatment groups persisted at two years. Worsening of urinary incontinence was especially marked for the radical prostatectomy group (11.45, p=0.005), while deterioration in the urinary irritative/obstructive domain was worse following brachytherapy treatment (4.76, p=0.025). Decline in sexual function was significantly greater for the radical prostatectomy group than for the brachytherapy group (18.74, p0.001). No significant between-group differences were observed in bowel domain scores.Quality of life 2 years after treatment for prostate cancer shows wide variability. Radical prostatectomy had the largest negative impact on the sexual and urinary incontinence domains. Differences between external radiation and brachytherapy were relatively small. Brachytherapy led to a moderate increase in urinary irritation compared to the other 2 groups.

Background and purpose Five European centres (France, Finland, Italy, Spain and the UK) have pooled data to generate a large patient series involving 1175 patients treated with prostate brachytherapy. This paper reports preliminary data on PSA outcome up to 4 years. Patients and methods Out of 1175 in the database, 1050 patients with localised prostate cancer who had received transperineal seed implantation as monotherapy between May 1998 and August 2003 were stage T1–T2. A total of 668 (63.6%) patients met the low-risk group definition, 297 (28.3%) as intermediate-risk definition and 66 (6.3%) the high-risk group definition. The majority of patients were Gleason score 6 or less ( n =951) and disease stage was T1c in 557 patients. Results Of the 1050 patients, PSA data up to 4 years were available for 210 patients, while 364 patients with PSA values up to 36 months were evaluable by the Kaplan–Meier method for freedom from biochemical failure. The biochemical progression-free rate at 3 years was estimated to be 91%, with a 93% and 88% rate for low- and intermediate-risk groups, respectively, versus 80% for the high-risk group. PSA kinetics provide encouraging evidence of treatment efficacy. Conclusion These data on 4-year PSA follow-up on patients treated with prostate brachytherapy reflect those previously reported in the literature. This patient series will be followed to provide long-term outcome in the future.

Altres ajuts: AATM/086/24/2000 Objetivo: comparar los costes de los tratamientos más establecidos para el cáncer de próstata localizado según grupos de riesgo, edad y comorbilidad, desde la perspectiva del proveedor asistencial. Métodos: comparación de costes en pacientes reclutados consecutivamente entre 2003 y 2005 en una unidad funcional de tratamiento del cáncer de próstata. La utilización de servicios hasta 6 meses después del inicio del tratamiento se obtuvo de las bases de datos hospitalarias, y los costes directos se estimaron mediante cálculo microcoste. La información sobre las características clínicas de los pacientes y los tratamientos recogió prospectivamente. Los costes se compararon mediante tests no paramétricos de comparación de medianas (Kruskall-Wallis) y un modelo semilogarítmico de regresión múltiple. Resultados: la diferencia de costes fue estadísticamente significativa: medianas de 3229.10D, 5369.00Dy 6265.60D para los pacientes tratados con radioterapia conformacional externa 3D, braquiterapia, y prostatectomía radical retro pública, respectivamente (p

To compare the initial costs of the three most established treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer according to risk, age and comorbidity groups, from the healthcare provider's perspective.We carried out a cost comparison study in a sample of patients consecutively recruited between 2003 and 2005 from a functional unit for prostate cancer treatment in Catalonia (Spain). The use of services up to 6 months after the treatment start date was obtained from hospital databases and direct costs were estimated by micro-cost calculation. Information on the clinical characteristics of patients and treatments was collected prospectively. Costs were compared by using nonparametric tests comparing medians (Kruskall-Wallis) and a semi-logarithmic multiple regression model.Among the 398 patients included, the cost difference among treatments was statistically significant: medians were € 3,229.10, € 5,369.00 and € 6,265.60, respectively, for the groups of patients treated with external 3D conformal radiotherapy, brachytherapy and radical retropublic prostatectomy, (p0.001). In the multivariate analysis (adjusted R(2)=0.8), the average costs of brachytherapy and external radiotherapy were significantly lower than that of prostatectomy (coefficient -0.212 and -0.729, respectively).Radical prostatectomy proved to be the most expensive treatment option. Overall, the estimated costs in our study were lower than those published elsewhere. Most of the costs were explained by the therapeutic option and neither comorbidity nor risk groups showed an effect on total costs independent of treatment.

To compare treatment impact on health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with localized prostate cancer, from before treatment to 2 years after the intervention.This was a longitudinal, prospective study of 614 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy (134), three-dimensional external conformal radiotherapy (205), and brachytherapy (275). The HRQL questionnaires administered before and after treatment (months 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24) were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (General and Prostate Specific), the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), and the American Urological Association Symptom Index. Differences between groups were tested by analysis of variance and within-group changes by univariate repeated-measures analysis of variance. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) models were constructed to assess between-group differences in HRQL at 2 years of follow-up after adjusting for clinical variables.In each treatment group, HRQL initially deteriorated after treatment with subsequent partial recovery. However, some dimension scores were still significantly lower after 2 years of treatment. The GEE models showed that, compared with the brachytherapy group, radical prostatectomy patients had worse EPIC sexual summary and urinary incontinence scores (-20.4 and -14.1; p0.001), and external radiotherapy patients had worse EPIC bowel, sexual, and hormonal summary scores (-3.55, -5.24, and -1.94; p0.05). Prostatectomy patients had significantly better EPIC urinary irritation scores than brachytherapy patients (+4.16; p0.001).Relevant differences between treatment groups persisted after 2 years of follow-up. Radical prostatectomy had a considerable negative effect on sexual functioning and urinary continence. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy had a moderate negative impact on bowel functioning, and brachytherapy caused moderate urinary irritation. These results provide relevant information for clinical decision making.

Objective: To establish a multi-centre database of a large number of patients treated with brachytherapy across Europe. Methods: A total of 1175 patient files were registered in the database and the completeness of the data on these patients resulted in the majority being included in the analysis. Results: The database of patients treated with brachytherapy across Europe indicates that optimal patient selection for this procedure has been made, both in terms of outcome and side-effects, which will be subject of future analyses. This should enable refinement of the treatment choice and administration as well as provide useful guidance to other centres that want to establish this procedure for their patients. It will also set the ground for prospective studies. Conclusions: The established database indicates that brachytherapy as a treatment option for prostate cancer is well established in many centres. # 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

aggressive tumor. After 13y /4 of all men will need definitive treatment and only /2 will continue AS. Lost to FU rate is considerable. When AS is commenced the problem of malcompliance is often scotomized. Stable disease leads to protocol violation and even complete lost to FU in some men. However, our responsibility remains. Our 13y experience reveals that malcompliance is a major concern: This needs to be taken in consideration for future AS protocols and whenever AS is offered as a treatment option.