The ProCaSP study: Quality of life outcomes of prostate cancer patients after radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy in a cohort study - Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study describes and compares health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of prostate cancer patients who received either radical prostatectomy (nerve-sparing, nsRP, or non-nerve-sparing, nnsRP) or radiotherapy (external RT, brachytherapy, or both combined) for treatment of localised prostate cancer.

METHODS: The prospective, multicenter cohort study included 529 patients. Questionnaires included the IIEF, QLQ-C30, and PORPUS-P. Data were collected before (baseline), three, six, twelve, and twenty-four months after treatment. Differences between groups' baseline characteristics were assessed; changes over time were analysed with generalised estimating equations (GEE). Missing values were treated with multiple imputation. Further, scores at baseline and end of follow-up were compared to German reference data.

RESULTS: The typical time trend was a decrease of average HRQOL three months after treatment followed by (partial) recovery. RP patients experienced considerable impairment in sexual functioning. The covariate-adjusted GEE identified a significant - but not clinically relevant - treatment effect for diarrhoea (b = 7.0 for RT, p = 0.006) and PORPUS-P (b = 2.3 for nsRP, b = 2.2 for RT, p = 0.045) compared to the reference nnsRP. Most of the HRQOL scores were comparable to German norm values.

CONCLUSIONS: Findings from previous research were reproduced in a specific setting of a patient cohort in the German health care system. According to the principle of evidence-based medicine, this strengthens the messages regarding treatment in prostate cancer and its impacts on patients' health-related quality of life. After adjustment for baseline HRQOL and other covariates, RT patients reported increased symptoms of diarrhoea, and nnsRP patients decreased prostate-specific HRQOL. RP patients experienced considerable impairment in sexual functioning. These differences should be taken into account by physicians when choosing the best therapy for a patient.

Written by:
Eisemann N, Nolte S, Schnoor M, Katalinic A, Rohde V, Waldmann A.   Are you the author?
Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, University of Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23562, Luebeck, Germany; Medical Clinic, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany; Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia; Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23562, Luebeck, Germany; Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23562, Luebeck, Germany; Medical Practice of Urology, Auguststr. 4, 23611, Bad Schwartau, Germany; Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Justus Liebig University of Giessen, Rudolf-Buchheim-Str. 7, 35392, Giessen, Germany. ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

Reference: BMC Urol. 2015 Apr 10;15(1):28.
doi: 10.1186/s12894-015-0025-6


PubMed Abstract
PMID: 25885890

UroToday.com Prostate Cancer Section

E-Newsletters

Newsletter subscription

Free Daily and Weekly newsletters offered by content of interest

The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are rapidly advancing. Sign up today for articles, videos, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.

Subscribe