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.

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.

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.