Reduced Penile Size and Treatment Regret in Men With Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Surgery, Radiotherapy Plus Androgen Deprivation, or Radiotherapy Alone REPLY
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States Urology
(Impact Factor: 2.19).
01/2013; 81(1):130-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.08.068
To report the relative incidence of the perceived reduction in penile size across prostate cancer treatment modalities and to describe its effect on quality of life and treatment regret.
The incidence of patient complaints about reduced penile size was calculated for 948 men in the Comprehensive, Observational, Multicenter, Prostate Adenocarcinoma (COMPARE) registry who experienced biochemical failure (per registry definition) and were assessed a median of 5.53 years after prostatectomy or radiotherapy (RT) consisting of either external beam RT or brachytherapy, with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the factors associated with treatment regret and interference with emotional relationships.
Of 948 men, 25 (2.63%) complained of a reduced penile size. The incidence of reduced penile size stratified by treatment was 3.73% for surgery (19 of 510), 2.67% for RT plus ADT (6 of 225), and 0% for RT without ADT (0 of 213). The surgery (P = .004) and RT plus ADT (P = .016) groups had significantly more shortened penis complaints than the RT alone group. The rate of a shortened penis after surgery and after RT plus ADT was similar (P = .47). On multivariate analysis adjusting for age, treatment type, and baseline comorbidity, a perceived reduction in penile size was associated with interference with close emotional relationships (odds ratio 2.36, 95% confidence interval 1.02-8.26; P = .04) and increased treatment regret (odds ratio 3.37, 95% confidence interval 1.37-8.26; P = .0079).
Complaints about a reduced penile size were more common with RT plus ADT or surgery than RT alone and were associated with greater interference with close emotional relationships and increased treatment regret. Physicians should discuss the possibility of this rarely mentioned side effect with their patients to help them make more informed treatment choices.
Available from: Michela Tinelli
- "to sue her doctor for not informing her that radiation to the breast area can cause tissue to shrink. A man using the community forum was distressed because he had not been informed prior to prostate surgery that his penis would decrease in size, now a recognised complication of treatment for prostate cancer . Neither of these complications was mentioned in the literature, and while potentially not clinically significant, they may seriously impact a person's quality of life, self-image, and ability to cope. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
To evaluate commonly-used cancer websites’ information provision, we developed and applied an Information Comprehensiveness Tool to breast and prostate cancer websites.
We first collated questions from a systematic literature review on patient information needs. We then classified the questions in terms of spectrum of care, theme, and nature of question. “Breast cancer” and “prostate cancer” were typed into Google, and websites listed on the first page of results were selected. Two researchers, blind to each others’ scores, assessed the same websites using the coding system. Each question was scored on a 3-point scale as not (0%), partially (50%) and fully (100%) answered by two researchers. Average scores were calculated across all questions. Inter-rater reliability was assessed.
We identified 79 general, 5 breast, and 5 prostate cancer questions. Inter-rater reliability was good, with an intraclass coefficient of 0.756 (95% CIs 0.729-0.781). 17 questions were not answered thoroughly by any website. Questions about “future planning”, “monitoring”, and “decision-making” were discussed least. Biomedical questions scored highest.
More comprehensive information needs to be provided on breast and prostate cancer websites.
Practice Implications: This ICT can improve cancer information online and enable patients to engage more actively regarding their information needs.
Patient Education and Counseling 01/2013; 95(1). DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2013.12.013 · 2.20 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is a key component of treatment for aggressive and advanced prostate cancer, but it has also been associated with adverse effects on bone, metabolic, cardiovascular, sexual, and cognitive health as well as body composition.
To review the current literature on the adverse effects of ADT and strategies for ameliorating harm from ADT.
The Medline database (through PubMed) was searched from inception to August 1, 2013, for studies documenting the side effects of ADT and for randomized and prospective trials of interventions to mitigate those side effects.
Adverse effects of ADT include decreases in bone mineral density; metabolic changes such as weight gain, decreased muscle mass, and increased insulin resistance; decreased libido and sexual dysfunction; hot flashes; gynecomastia; reduced testicle size; anemia; and fatigue. Several observational studies suggest an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular events, although most published studies report that ADT is not linked to greater cardiovascular mortality. Randomized trials have found value in treatments for some adverse effects including bone loss (bisphosphonates, denosumab, selective estrogen receptor modulators), markers of metabolic syndrome (exercise, diet, metformin), gynecomastia (tamoxifen, prophylactic radiation), muscle loss (resistance and aerobic exercise), and hot flashes (venlafaxine, medroxyprogesterone, cyproterone acetate, gabapentin).
ADT is often a necessary component of the treatment of aggressive prostate cancer, yet it has known harms that can impair health and quality of life. Clinicians should be aware of interventions that can help mitigate these adverse effects.
Androgen deprivation therapy is a critical component of the management of aggressive and advanced prostate cancer, but it causes adverse effects including bone loss, metabolic changes, gynecomastia, muscle loss, hot flashes, and possibly increased cardiovascular events. Clinicians should be aware of interventions that can help mitigate these adverse effects.
European Urology 08/2014; 67(5). DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.010 · 13.94 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
To examine the impact of advanced prostate cancer (PC) and its treatments on patients’ perceptions of their health; and to better understand concerns not captured by currently available health-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments.
Patients and Methods
Open ended one-on-one interviews were conducted with PC patients who had biochemical failure or metastatic cancer to understand the impacts of disease and treatments on patients’ perceptions of their lives. Interviews with 25 patients (7 biochemical failure and 18 metastatic) and 6 clinicians were conducted. Patient responses were analyzed to assess whether information saturation (i.e., point at which no new information is collected) was attained and compared with currently available HRQL instruments. The data informed the development of a comprehensive conceptual model illustrating the impacts of advanced disease and treatments. Clinical expert interviews also informed the conceptual model.
PC patients reported many of the key symptoms already captured by current measures such as bone pain, urinary functioning, bowel functioning, and fatigue. However, a number of impacts reported as bothersome by patients were identified that are not fully captured by existing HRQL measures. Specific examples include genital atrophy, muscle atrophy, stamina, body image, and emotional well-being.
The conceptual model identified herein describes the impacts of PC and its treatments from the patient’s perspective. The model can be useful in identifying key concepts important to patients that should be measured in trials to capture treatment benefits. The model also can help inform the selection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to assess these benefits.
Clinical Genitourinary Cancer 08/2014; 13(2). DOI:10.1016/j.clgc.2014.08.001 · 2.32 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.